-
Thank you for visiting HeavyEquipmentForums.com! Our objective is to provide industry professionals a place to gather to exchange questions, answers and ideas. We welcome you to register using the "Register" icon at the top of the page. We'd appreciate any help you can offer in spreading the word of our new site. The more members that join, the bigger resource for all to enjoy. Thank you!
Michigan loaders
- Thread starter mackman
- Start date
bluebarn
Member
bluebarn
Member
D_Young_747
Active Member
Hello everyone I'm in the market for a loader and have been looking at the 475's I'd love to hear more about them, things to look for when purchasing, do's and dont's, how easy it is to get them shipped (parts disassembly), everything. Thank you in advance for your time!
surfer-joe
Senior Member
If it is truly 475 Michigan loaders you are interested in, than I would warn you to stay far, far away from them, unless you are truly gifted with more money than the Canadian national treasury.
The last of these machines were produced in the mid-eighties, and there were never a lot of them. They came with either Detroit or Cummins engines, hooked to a Clark transmission. The Detroits pulled their engine mounts out of the frame and had other problems. When these units ran however, they were quick and strong for a very large loader. The Cummins equipped machines had problems all their own with normal Cummins problems. Neither engine is in current production by the way, though I suppose some parts are still available.
The biggest problems I had with them were the transmissions, particularly the forward-reverse and speed clutches. Once the machines get some hours on them, the clutches don't seem to hold very well. Other pains in older machines like these, are worn out and loose pins and bushings in the main frame and boom. Not cheap to repair. Transmission parts are probably very hard to find these days at a decent price.
Takes at least two truck loads to move, depending on weight laws and restrictions. Bucket and tires/wheels, cab, and miscellanous stuff on one trailer, the chassis on the other. 475's don't weigh quite as much as a 992C Cat. The tires may be loaded with calcium though. It takes a 15T hydracrane to help assemble and disassemble. A minimum crew of two mechanics.
The machines are relatively simple in design and engineering. Not much fancy electronics on these old hulks. Parts may be a big problem. The machines I looked after near Gary, Indiana, were close to the main Clark-Michigan distribution center in Chicago. The other was in southeastern Kentucky and wasn't close to anything. I believe Volvo bought out the Michigan line, but don't think they got much or learned anything valuable. They produced at least one loader roughly based on the 375, but so far as I know, it's no longer in production either. They may still continue some parts availability however.
The only Michigan loaders I would consider, would be the 275 models on down. Big enough to do some decent production, small enough as to not break your piggy bank.
Good Luck!
The last of these machines were produced in the mid-eighties, and there were never a lot of them. They came with either Detroit or Cummins engines, hooked to a Clark transmission. The Detroits pulled their engine mounts out of the frame and had other problems. When these units ran however, they were quick and strong for a very large loader. The Cummins equipped machines had problems all their own with normal Cummins problems. Neither engine is in current production by the way, though I suppose some parts are still available.
The biggest problems I had with them were the transmissions, particularly the forward-reverse and speed clutches. Once the machines get some hours on them, the clutches don't seem to hold very well. Other pains in older machines like these, are worn out and loose pins and bushings in the main frame and boom. Not cheap to repair. Transmission parts are probably very hard to find these days at a decent price.
Takes at least two truck loads to move, depending on weight laws and restrictions. Bucket and tires/wheels, cab, and miscellanous stuff on one trailer, the chassis on the other. 475's don't weigh quite as much as a 992C Cat. The tires may be loaded with calcium though. It takes a 15T hydracrane to help assemble and disassemble. A minimum crew of two mechanics.
The machines are relatively simple in design and engineering. Not much fancy electronics on these old hulks. Parts may be a big problem. The machines I looked after near Gary, Indiana, were close to the main Clark-Michigan distribution center in Chicago. The other was in southeastern Kentucky and wasn't close to anything. I believe Volvo bought out the Michigan line, but don't think they got much or learned anything valuable. They produced at least one loader roughly based on the 375, but so far as I know, it's no longer in production either. They may still continue some parts availability however.
The only Michigan loaders I would consider, would be the 275 models on down. Big enough to do some decent production, small enough as to not break your piggy bank.
Good Luck!
D_Young_747
Active Member
Well I need at least a 7 yard but would really like as big as I can get, what would you suggest in this price range for a large dependable loader?
D_Young_747
Active Member
You there joe? ha
OzDozer
Senior Member
What a load of crap! The Michigan 475 was an excellent machine, and as reliable as any Cat of the same size. I owned 6 of them, and purchased them all used, and they made me a lot of money, and they provided superb service.
To say that few were produced is also crap. Several thousand of them were produced over 22 years of production between 1966 and 1987.
We had sizeable contractors here in Oz in the early 1970's who had a small fleet of them running in a remote gold mine, and those 475's racked up 50,000-60,000 hrs each, in extreme working conditions.
They were used in the huge salt production operations of Dampier Salt in the NW of Western Australia for nearly 2 decades, and provided sterling service in conditions that would kill any machine (heat, salt, long hours).
The transmissions in the 475's were as simple as they come. A spur gear transmission with clutch packs on the ends of the shafts that were readily and easily accessible any time.
Try comparing a quick and simple 475 clutch repair, with a Cat transmission, with its mega-$$ clutch packs, and inaccessible transmission.
The VTA-1710 Cummins in my 475's was a superb piece of engineering - quiet, reliable as the day is long, and totally fuel efficient.
Working one of my 475's against a 992B on the same job, saw my 475 continuously using less than 70l/hr, as against the 90l/hr of the 992. Both were 700HP.
The brakes were the 475's biggest failing, and failure to upgrade the braking system was the reason the Michigans fell out of favour.
Numerous corporate reshuffles that involved multiple ownership changes, and a myriad of other corporate c*ck-ups were the main reason why the Michigan loader line fell out of favour. It wasn't anything to do with the basic design.
Remember, that Clark and Michigan had huge loaders out and working, long before Cat even sat down at the drawing board, to design 988's and 992's - and you then begin to understand that these machines were leaders in the big loader market long before Cat even produced a single large loader.
The problem was that no-one in the Clark/Michigan/Volvo/Euclid mish-mash of corporate share-shuffling and chicanery, ever gave a dollar towards updating a design that was initiated in the early 1960's.
As a result, the Michigan loaders fell behind, because no effort was ever made to update them to match the competition. The head honchos in Clark/Michigan were more interested in share-shuffling than improving their product line.
Volvo made an basic attempt to upgrade the Michigans after they took over the company - but it was very obvious that Volvos upgrade was a "quick-fix" that involved minimal money, and that they had no interest in spending the required money to update what they obviously saw as an obsolete design.
Last edited:
D_Young_747
Active Member
Thanks so much for the info, anything else? What am i in for moving one of these things? Does the 1710 have top end, and head issues like the horror stories i keep hearing?
OzDozer
Senior Member
I dunno what the "horror stories" are that you're hearing. The VTA-1710 is two 855 cu. in. Cummins mounted in V-formation to make 1710 cubes.
The 855 is one of America's finest engines ever built, so the 1710 doesn't have too many problems that aren't due to abuse, poor maintenance or just plain worn out.
The only problem they do have is occasional cam follower breakage - which was common on the early 855's, and which was the reason for the modifications that produced the "Big Cam" 855 Cummins.
The Clark/Michigan 475 is a HUGE loader. 86 tonnes (190,000lbs), with a 9.2M³ (12yd³) standard bucket - and they need to be broken down substantially for transport.
In most places in Australia, we can move them around by simply taking off the cab, and leaving the loader intact otherwise.
In Canada, you may have to remove more components, such as wheels and bucket to meet your local transport regulations.
The 855 is one of America's finest engines ever built, so the 1710 doesn't have too many problems that aren't due to abuse, poor maintenance or just plain worn out.
The only problem they do have is occasional cam follower breakage - which was common on the early 855's, and which was the reason for the modifications that produced the "Big Cam" 855 Cummins.
The Clark/Michigan 475 is a HUGE loader. 86 tonnes (190,000lbs), with a 9.2M³ (12yd³) standard bucket - and they need to be broken down substantially for transport.
In most places in Australia, we can move them around by simply taking off the cab, and leaving the loader intact otherwise.
In Canada, you may have to remove more components, such as wheels and bucket to meet your local transport regulations.
Last edited:
terex
Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2009
- Messages
- 19
- Location
- North Yorkshire England
- Occupation
- Curent job:fitter maintaining railway locomotives
As I have written earlier I maintained two 475's in the 1980's and would like to add to the debate, based on MY experiences.
First of all these are still big machines to maintain and jobs that can be carried out using muscle power and a fork lift truck on a smaller machine like a 275 will need a good crane on a 475. As for spares they are probably getting thin on the ground.
Transmission wise I always found the Clark box in the 475 quite a tough unit. I only had to change one because of a collapsed bearing and the resulting damage spread bits all around the box. The clutch packs, 6 in total (speed and direction) were easy to get at and a clutch pack could be changed by one man in about 6 hours including draining the trans. sump, cleaning the strainer screen and changing the filters, unlike some other makes of trans. where the whole lot would have to come out. One weak point I found was that the weld on the back of the clutch drums somtimes cracked allowing the fluid to leak and pres. to drop leading to the inevitable clutch slip.
The Cummins VTA 1710 in my experience was OK but as I stated earlier on two seperate occassions we had valve seats collapse and fall into the engine creating havoc at around 10,000 hrs. (not a problem I have ever come across on the 855 engine) so we always changed the heads on our 1710's at around 8000 hrs. Then at around 14,000 hrs. the engines would become 'short of breath' and overhauled. We had trouble for a time with oil leaks from the turbos but we traced this to the new type cummins paper filters in the rocker cover breathers blocking, once the old mesh types were put back in again most of the turbo leaks stopped.
As for the rest of the machine it was very solidly built and although well maintained took a lot of punishment. As with any machine pins and bushes if left ungreased will wear very rapidly so particulaly check for wear in centre pivot as with the size and weight of the 475 its a big job !
The brakes on the B were drum brakes and needed regular adjustment but the brakes on the C were huge discs and were very good however the the brake pump on it was small, gave problems and never lasted very long.
So there you have it, in my experience it was a very good machine in its day but they are getting on a bit now. 'The bigger they are the harder they fall' !
Good luck.
First of all these are still big machines to maintain and jobs that can be carried out using muscle power and a fork lift truck on a smaller machine like a 275 will need a good crane on a 475. As for spares they are probably getting thin on the ground.
Transmission wise I always found the Clark box in the 475 quite a tough unit. I only had to change one because of a collapsed bearing and the resulting damage spread bits all around the box. The clutch packs, 6 in total (speed and direction) were easy to get at and a clutch pack could be changed by one man in about 6 hours including draining the trans. sump, cleaning the strainer screen and changing the filters, unlike some other makes of trans. where the whole lot would have to come out. One weak point I found was that the weld on the back of the clutch drums somtimes cracked allowing the fluid to leak and pres. to drop leading to the inevitable clutch slip.
The Cummins VTA 1710 in my experience was OK but as I stated earlier on two seperate occassions we had valve seats collapse and fall into the engine creating havoc at around 10,000 hrs. (not a problem I have ever come across on the 855 engine) so we always changed the heads on our 1710's at around 8000 hrs. Then at around 14,000 hrs. the engines would become 'short of breath' and overhauled. We had trouble for a time with oil leaks from the turbos but we traced this to the new type cummins paper filters in the rocker cover breathers blocking, once the old mesh types were put back in again most of the turbo leaks stopped.
As for the rest of the machine it was very solidly built and although well maintained took a lot of punishment. As with any machine pins and bushes if left ungreased will wear very rapidly so particulaly check for wear in centre pivot as with the size and weight of the 475 its a big job !
The brakes on the B were drum brakes and needed regular adjustment but the brakes on the C were huge discs and were very good however the the brake pump on it was small, gave problems and never lasted very long.
So there you have it, in my experience it was a very good machine in its day but they are getting on a bit now. 'The bigger they are the harder they fall' !
Good luck.
D_Young_747
Active Member
Thanks for the info Terex, the more i can hear about the the clark loaders before i purchase the better. My next big question to you guru's is are the C models that much better than the B models? On the 275 and 475, what are the changes they made throughout those model years? Did they go backwards between any years of the loaders in terms of reliability and design?
oldseabee
Senior Member
The early 475 B machines had 8 speed transmissions, after S/N 421F-101 went to 4 speed trans. Eng. rated at 635 HP.
475C eng. rated 700 HP. Transmission was modulated. Early machines had air brakes. After S/N 487B101CAC Cummins, S/N 488B101CAC GM went to full hydraulic disc brakes.
475C eng. rated 700 HP. Transmission was modulated. Early machines had air brakes. After S/N 487B101CAC Cummins, S/N 488B101CAC GM went to full hydraulic disc brakes.
D_Young_747
Active Member
So in your guys recommnedation is the 275C a way better machine than the B? What improvement did they make specifically in that model change? What were the problems they did or did not fix?
Thanks again for everybodys input, so nice to have a place to actually get answers from people who have been there.
Thanks again for everybodys input, so nice to have a place to actually get answers from people who have been there.
oldseabee
Senior Member
275B had either a NTA 855-C-360 or C-380 or KTA-1150 or GM 8V92. 275 C had KT-1150C (Big cam)
275B had non modulated trans. 275 C had modulated trans.
275 B had air brakes. 275 C after S/N 492B101CAC had full hydraulic disc brakes.
Several other minor changes from B to C.
275B had non modulated trans. 275 C had modulated trans.
275 B had air brakes. 275 C after S/N 492B101CAC had full hydraulic disc brakes.
Several other minor changes from B to C.
D_Young_747
Active Member
Alright Guru's lets do a comparison between the 275C and the newer L320, as well as the 475C and the L480. Is the price you pay for the newer unit money well spent? Updates?
D_Young_747
Active Member
Anybody?
surfer-joe
Senior Member
A newer machine with lower hours is almost always better. One hopes that there are fewer problems with the newer model, and that lower operating hours means less wear and tear. This isn't always the case.
Downtime for repairs will likely be less as better parts availability and easier access to the damaged component is assumed. With any Clark-Michigan machine now, parts availability has to be extremely limited. One can always have certain parts made, but that ads up to more downtime and more expense.
Frankly, given the age and other factors with the Clarks, I believe you would be better off paying a bit more for a Cat 992C or newer. Service and parts availability is the best. Less downtime. It's not so much that the parts are more expensive. It's the fact that they ARE available for older models.
Production either way will be about the same, providing either machine keeps running steadily. Two of the 475's I maintained were in a steel mill loading out hot slag. Very difficult work for them, as I've mentioned in earlier posts to this thread. Scheduled maintenance was intensive, but as they aged, the decision to go to the 992C's was understandable from an availability and cost standpoint.
That is not to say that the Cats were stronger. We brought in a brand new 992 from the dealer in Michigan that had been modified and refitted to our needs. First night out as I watched this machine work, I several times observed the operator having the rear wheels high enough off the ground to walk under with one arm straight overhead. The production super and I both spoke with him several times that he could not continue to try breaking out the slag that way. He did, and about three in the morning I had to go over to the slag pits to see how to get a broken in half 992 out of the way.
The operator was fired straight away. My team finally got the 992 drug up near the shops about two in the afternoon. The dealer (and Caterpillar) refused to believe that a 992 had busted in half, particularly a new one. Neither one wanted to warranty the repair. The company had four more 992's sitting at the dealer in Michigan, and one of those was dispatched down. The company also reminded Caterpillar that it owned several million dollars of Cat equipment, but that Cat was not the only maker of large wheel loaders in the world. Cat saw the light, and had a come to Jesus meeting with the dealer, after which repairs were commenced, and the new articulation mounts were modifed much larger and stronger.
The company had used Hough H400's for a very long time. These were slightly larger than the 992B Cats, which had been tried but were returned as the 400's ran circle around them. I haven't seen one of these working in a long time, but suppose there are still some plugging away.
I hope you find a decent machine to work with.
Good Luck!
Downtime for repairs will likely be less as better parts availability and easier access to the damaged component is assumed. With any Clark-Michigan machine now, parts availability has to be extremely limited. One can always have certain parts made, but that ads up to more downtime and more expense.
Frankly, given the age and other factors with the Clarks, I believe you would be better off paying a bit more for a Cat 992C or newer. Service and parts availability is the best. Less downtime. It's not so much that the parts are more expensive. It's the fact that they ARE available for older models.
Production either way will be about the same, providing either machine keeps running steadily. Two of the 475's I maintained were in a steel mill loading out hot slag. Very difficult work for them, as I've mentioned in earlier posts to this thread. Scheduled maintenance was intensive, but as they aged, the decision to go to the 992C's was understandable from an availability and cost standpoint.
That is not to say that the Cats were stronger. We brought in a brand new 992 from the dealer in Michigan that had been modified and refitted to our needs. First night out as I watched this machine work, I several times observed the operator having the rear wheels high enough off the ground to walk under with one arm straight overhead. The production super and I both spoke with him several times that he could not continue to try breaking out the slag that way. He did, and about three in the morning I had to go over to the slag pits to see how to get a broken in half 992 out of the way.
The operator was fired straight away. My team finally got the 992 drug up near the shops about two in the afternoon. The dealer (and Caterpillar) refused to believe that a 992 had busted in half, particularly a new one. Neither one wanted to warranty the repair. The company had four more 992's sitting at the dealer in Michigan, and one of those was dispatched down. The company also reminded Caterpillar that it owned several million dollars of Cat equipment, but that Cat was not the only maker of large wheel loaders in the world. Cat saw the light, and had a come to Jesus meeting with the dealer, after which repairs were commenced, and the new articulation mounts were modifed much larger and stronger.
The company had used Hough H400's for a very long time. These were slightly larger than the 992B Cats, which had been tried but were returned as the 400's ran circle around them. I haven't seen one of these working in a long time, but suppose there are still some plugging away.
I hope you find a decent machine to work with.
Good Luck!
kangela
New Member
Does any one know what price I could ask for a 1980 Clark 475 C Wheel Loader with 1,500hrs. It is in working condition.
Thanks
Thanks
D_Young_747
Active Member
5 grand to me 