At the request of customers, the Euclid 82-40 was developed to fill a gap between the company’s existing 82-30 and TC-12 dozers. By Richard Campbell.
While these two machines were quite adequate, a D8/TD25-sized dozer was needed to fill the size gap and the 82-40 fitted this category nicely.
Added to the (then) Euclid range of track-type tractors in 1966, the model 82-40 had been several years in development with design work starting in 1964 when the machine was known as the model C260.
It joined the already established model 82-30 (originally called the C-6, introduced in 1958) and model TC-12/82-80 (introduced in 1954).
More than just a scaled-up version of the existing, smaller 82-30, the model 82-40 had Euclid engineers breaking in quite a bit of new technology for the time in order to produce a workable and reliable product.
The first test prototype machines went to Euclid’s Milford, Michigan proving grounds in 1965 and some were sent to selected contractors’ jobs where they could be monitored carefully under actual working conditions to see how they performed.
All these trials proved successful and very few modifications were deemed necessary before the type was put into quantity production as the Euclid model 82-40AA.
Powering the initial 82-40AA was a naturally aspirated General Motors 8V-71 V8 diesel engine conservatively rated at 275 flywheel horsepower and connected to an Allison three-speed CRT6030 powershift transmission.
Euclid built the entire final drive system, chassis, track frames, steering clutches, and brakes.
The 82-40 was a 78 inch gauge machine with a seven-roller track frame and, bare, the tractor weighed approximately 24 tons.
Fully equipped with hydraulic control, S-blade and ripper, the 82-40 weighed around 37 tons.
Unlike its biggest competitor Caterpillar, Euclid used a pinned pivot shaft and equaliser bar to allow track frame oscillation and keep the track frames in positive alignment.
This arrangement was very strong and allowed some 15 inches of vertical oscillation to always ensure good ground contact.
As was customary with other Euclid track type tractors, the radiator was located at the rear of the machine with the fan driven by an extension shaft and V-belts.
This feature allowed an unobstructed mounting for the hydraulic controls and blade cylinder in the nose, and kept the radiator out of harm’s way; a big plus in logging and land clearing operations and particularly so in a landfill application.
The 82-40AA was in production at Euclid’s Hudson, Ohio plant for just over a year during which over 400 were manufactured.
It was replaced in 1967 by an upgraded version, the 82-40BA series, that featured an improved Allison transmission, the model CRT6031, and a redesigned operator’s station.
Euclid (Great Britain), based in Lanarkshire, Scotland, also began manufacture of the 82-40 in 1967, mainly exporting to commonwealth countries such as South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand.
The 82-40BA model had a short manufacturing run (just over 100 machines) when production switched to the 82-40CA model during late 1967.
The 82-40CA’s had quite a few improvements installed, mostly relating to component reliability and longevity.
Like the previous 82-40AA and 82-40BA, the 82-40CA had a short production life with only 100 units being manufactured between 1968 and May 1969 – when the next version of the machine was introduced.
During this period, General Motors changed the company’s name from the Euclid Division to Terex because of an anti-trust suit.
The next iteration of the 82-40 to appear was the Terex 82-40DA variant, which was introduced in May 1969.
Built at both the US and British plants, the 82-40DA had the same engine and transmission package as the previous 82-40CA, but had strengthened undercarriage components and a longer track frame which gave the machine more traction and improved stability.
Due to requests from customers for more power, a turbocharged engine version of the machine was also made available in late 1969, known as the 82-40DAT.
This featured a GM 8V-71T V8 diesel rated at 290 flywheel horsepower.
The 82-40DA and 82-40DAT remained in production in both the US and the UK until 1973 when the type was withdrawn in favour of the new model Terex 82-50.
Attachments
A wide range of work tools were available for the 82-40.
Blades and rippers were, initially, mainly supplied by Garwood until GM absorbed part of that company, rebranding these items as Euclid (later Terex).
Types of dozer blades that could be installed included straight, angle and universal (U-dozer).
All of these blades were powered by a Hydreco 4000 series hydraulic control with a single, centrally placed, double acting lift cylinder.
As well as Garwood rippers, Ateco (the American Tractor Equipment Corp) also supplied both radial arc and parallelogram types. Logging winches from either Hyster or Carco could be fitted at customer request.
For those customers whose work involved towing cable controlled scrapers, a Garwood 241 double drum PCU was available for factory installation.
At work in good old New Zealand
From the late 1960s until 1973, when the type was discontinued, New Zealand Terex franchise holder Clyde Engineering imported 23 Terex 82-40s; a mixture of US and UK manufactured machines, all but two of which were 82-40DA models.
These were put to work from one end of the country to the other for such users as the Golden Bay Cement Company, Philp Contractors, J.S. Burrows, W.G. Evans, Feast Contractors, N.Z.Forest Products, H. Allen Mills, Fenton Bros, Bruce Miller, Matt Henderson & Son, Carson Contracting and Taylor & Culley to name but a few.
One or two are probably still operational with new owners.
For the model collector
Regrettably, for collectors the Euclid/Terex 82-40 is another one of those machines that the model manufacturing community seems to have overlooked completely.
I have only ever seen one model of an 82-40; a rather crude cast bronze paperweight to approximately 1:40 scale, produced by one of GM’s marketing subsidiaries as a give-away.
It is probably best regarded today as something of a curio rather than a model.
It is to be hoped that some enterprising model company will produce one in the future.
Parting words from Jeremy Sole- a final column