Buying a 520 - Quick question for the experts

[elmo_4_vt 0]

Hi all... Thanks for helping me out.  I'm new to the Wheelhorse tractors but I've had a few different Gravely's in the past and can work on things myself.  I need something that I can mow with and also tow trailers around my yard and driveway.  Started looking for a nice Garden Tractor, and here I am, hooked.  Love the fact that they are so heavy-duty and that there is a following like Gravely.  And they're not a Deere... Not that their is anything wrong with that, but want something not everyone has.

 

So my problem.  There are two units I'm looking at, both 520's.  One is a 1989, 520-HC, 20hp Onan with about 1100hrs.  The other is a 1996, 520, 20hp Onan with about 1150hrs.  Both have a lot of hours, but I'm hoping that isn't a problem for the Onan engines.  They both look to be in good shape, but I'm not sure if there is much of a difference between the two.  Should I go newer or older?  Everything else being equal, I'd think the newer one is the better option, but will I be sacrificing quality in any way?  Are the accessories interchangable between the '89 and '96?  I don't need a snow blower, but would like to get a plow and wheel weights.

 

Which unit would you suggest?  Or should I keep looking for something with lower hours.  I want the tractor to look good, but it will certainly be used, and I'd like to have it last a long time if I'm going to spend more money on it (compared to a sears or something).

 

Thanks for your input.

 

Don

 

-

[dw753 208]

Newer one has forward swept axle and heavier front end.  Along with Gear Reduction Steering.  The driver levers are in different spots also.  all things equal go newer

[Jake Kuhn 1,547]

Welcome to red square. Both. Look very nice, wish I could give you some advice but I haven't owned anything newer that a c series.

[elmo_4_vt 0]

Thanks for the quick reply... What about accessories?  Are the plows and wheel weights interchangeable?  Should I be worried about the number of hours on the engine(s)?

 

Don

 

-

[WH nut 553]

<p>Everything is interchangable, keep her clean and cool you should be ok. Blow out under engine tins on a regular basis. Mine has 1000 hours and no problem yet</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

[JackC 616]

They both have the swept front axle.

The 520 HC is the father of the swept front axle 520H.  "C" is for commercial.

 

The 520HC is geared to go faster (7.5 mph vs 5.6 mph).

The 520HC has the older single hydro stick on the floor versus the stick on the column (I prefer the older).

The 520HC has the older non emission carburetor which is easier to clean which will be necessary if you use fuel with ethanol in it.

 

The 520H has the gear reduction steering (not needed for my mowing applications).

The 520H has a few more bells and whistles to have problems with.

 

I own both a 1989 520HC and a 1997 520H.  

If push came to shove I would keep the 1989 520HC and let the 1997 520H go  (I like 7.5 versus 5.6).

 

If one was dealer serviced and had the valve and carbon service that would be a plus.

 

The only way to resolve it is to own one of each.

[Callen 64]

The older HC goes about 2 mph faster than the newer one. Jack beat me to it,LOL

Edited May 6, 2013 by Callen

[TheReDStAnG 4]

All things being equal, go for the one that has the best maintenance record.  Both are capable machine's.  I would take a 3 year old car with 100,000 miles over a 10 year old car with the same if the price were the same.  Seal's and gasket's only last so long, plus heat/cool cycles really play in to the longevity of an engine. 

[546cowboy 301]

I would go with the '96 myself just because of the steering but it does depend on the prices and how well they were cared for. I am assuming that the '89 has a deck. I see it has wheel weights. They both look well cared for so it looks like it comes down to price.

[elmo_4_vt 0]

Thanks for all the help and opinions everyone.  I'm going to go look at the '96 tomorrow and hopefully come home with it.  We'll see when I get there, but he certainly answered all of the questions well, knew where all of the filters and maintenance items are, and said that everything was just gone over this winter.  The '89 is REALLY nice for it's age, but comes with a blower, plow, and the wheel weights and the price to match.  I do want the plow and weights, but if you take the price of the 48" blower off, they are about the same price, same hours, so I'm putting the bias towards the newer one per the majority of the comments above.  I'd like the faster speed, but with my small-ish lawn, I don't need it.  I just want the strength and power to move my toys driveway and yard around without having to try and use my truck every time.  I think this will serve me well.

 

I'll upload pictures tomorrow if everything goes well.  Or respond back if it doesn't.

 

Oh, the first thing I'll need to build for it is a 2" receiver... Any good recommendations for how to secure it to the frame?  Any examples of what people have done in the past?   I know I'll bolt it around the axle, but would like the third point of attachment (maybe the stock ball mount bar) to help with the tongue weight of one of my trailers, which has about 500lbs of tongue weight, and 3,000lbs total weight.

 

Don

 

-

[cheesegrader 433]

You can save yourself the hassle of building a 2" receiver, and contact smorneau.

He has a great design, and a couple of production runs under his belt.

I've had his receiver on for a year, and stand my #200 on it with no concerns.

Better than the drawbar for towing boats, log splitter, chipper/shredder, utility trailer.

 

I have a 96 520H, very low hours , with a FEL.  The gear reduction steering is a real plus.  Great machine.

A  newer machine is generally a better idea,  but I don't like the quality of the rubber on the steering wheel and the levers on the 96.

I know it is a strange complaint, but it is a little too soft and tacky compared to the older models.

The cowling over the PTO is silly, and should be thrown away as fast as possible.

It blocks air flow across the cooling fins of both cylinders.  

I don't like the hydro lever on the column , but between the legs is even worse.  Foot pedal is best.

Wheel weights will come in handy, and are stupidly expensive--worth 150-200 bucks.  You will appreciate them if you plow.

On a small yard, the speed of the HC is wasted.

Both look like very well maintained machines.  I don't think you can go wrong.

[leeave96 487]

My first vote is buy both!

 

I think were it my $$$'s, I'd go with the 520HC - reason being - 

 

1.  Faster ground speed

 

2.  Much simpler dash/gauge arrangement

 

3.  Wheelhorse red paint and decals vs later Toro/Wheelhorse paint/decal scheme.

 

However, either should serve you well.

 

Good luck,

Bill

[Forest Road 594]

The HC is on CL near me. It looks to be in great shape. As does the newer H. Welcome to the wonderful world of WH!

Personally I doubt you'll be disappointed with either machine. Has either one had a motor rebuild? The Onans are not known for their longevity. You should consider a rebuild or a repower regardless of which one you buy.

Good luck

[elmo_4_vt 0]

Well... Drove down 1.5 hrs to buy the newer '96 last night.  Started a little hard in the shed, but sounded great once it was running.  Drove around and things were good.  All guages worked.  Only problem at that point (forshadowing) is that the hydro drive wouldn't stay at full speed.  It would work its way back down to about half speed.  Is that normal?  Anyway, I turned things off, agreed to a price, then exchanged money and a bill of sale.  Went to start it back up, and it start even harder this time.   Got it going, drove it up onto the trailer nice and slow.  Got it to the front and was inching forward and the idle started going up and down, then shut off.  It wouldn't start again.  Tried for a good 20 minutes, first me, then the owner, then his neighbor (the mechanic).  Nothing.  Pushed the tractor back off without being able to release the hydro drive, got the money back and drove the 1.5hrs back home.  Majorly bummed.  Good looking tractor, and the motor sound great when it was running.  Deck looked good too.  I'll keep looking though.  Definitely liked the tractor as a whole.

 

Don

 

-

[JackC 616]

Sorry to hear.  Sounds like the maintenance was not what it should have been and now we know the reason the owner was trying to sell it.

 

The issues you ran into are all fixable especially with the help of all the member here.

 

The issues sound fuel delivery related including dirty carburetor (idle up and down) and weak fuel pump which are common problems.

 

The hydro can be adjusted to not slip.

 

Some would have negotiated an even lower price and taken it anyway especially if it was otherwise in good condition with good sheet metal, paint, seat, and tires.

 

The problems you ran into will occur at some point in the future anyway.

 

Maybe checkout the 520HC if it is still available, and for comparison, if you are looking for a 520 class tractor.

[Forest Road 594]

Sorry about that 520. I found one with 100 hours in very good shape. I traded it to a friend for a 314h with 175hours. The 520 would've been nice but the single 14 hp Kohler does just about everything I need. The hydro is the exact same unit that's in the 520. Based mostly on what I've learned here I have a strong distrust for the Onans.

Do you really need 20hp? What do you intend to do with it? 48" deck and single stage snowblower, and tiller all run with no problems on my 14.

[elmo_4_vt 0]

I agree that the issues probably wouldn't have been that hard to fix, but since I'm new to the WH world, I didn't want to buy something that i didn't know anything about and have to fix it just yet.  It was running great up until it died.  Great sound, great idle, everything.  Then just nothing.  I kind of thought it was something electrical.  Almost like if you got off of the seat and the safety kicked in.  While we were trying it on the trailer, it only even kicked once.  It kept going back and forth between smelling gas and then nothing.  Choke was working, seemed like gas was flowing, lights were on.

 

As far as the size of the tractor... No, I probably don't NEED 20hp.  I had a '76 12hp Gravely that did everything I ever wanted it to do, and I LOVED the Kohler in that thing.  I was mainly looking at the size of the tractor.  I want something with a bigger physical frame.  Does the 314 have the same size frame and wheels?  Mainly, I will be useing mine to mow grass and pull trailers around, some of trailers will be around 4000 lbs and 500 lbs tounge weight.  I don't have to pull them far or fast however, and the heavy ones will just be on paved surfaces.  Just moving things around a driveway.

 

I was just assuming that the 500 series have more robust frames.  Though I have to admit I like the larger tires of the 500 series.

 

Don

 

-

[leeave96 487]

I would definitely check out the 520HC if it's still available.

 

I've wrestled with sellers on tractors who IMHO were asking more than I wanted to pay - but I still wanted the tractor and what I tell them is - if the tractor will drive under it's own power onto the trailer with ZERO problems, I'll pay.  Once I say that, then they usually start telling me what's wrong with the tractor are want to listen to a lower price - LOL.  It's good you got your $$$'s back without a hassle.

 

Good luck!

Bill

[elmo_4_vt 0]

He seemed like a nice guy and there was no chance I wasn't getting the money back.  He genuinely seemed like it was the first time he's had that much of a problem.  Though he did admit it was harder to start at times, but would always start eventually.

 

Don

 

-

[Forest Road 594]

Well Don as for the frames they're identical on the C, 300/400/500 series from about 1960s throught 2007. The transmissions in the 314h and the two machines you looked at are identical. The front axle on the 520s are swept forward for use with a 60" deck. you could argue the 1" spindles are heavier duty but the tires are near identical. However the front axles on all WHs are interchangable. Therefor i dont see much of an advantage in that forward swept. now the 520h had gear reduction steering which requires more turns of the steering wheel to turn the wheels, its like having power steering! This is a great feature for the added weight of the two stage snow blower, which i run on my 314. Except that the 520hc is geard to go 2mph faster than the 520h and 314. The rear tires on the 520s are 12x23-10.50 wide my 314 came with 12x23-9.50.

Speaking from personal experience I wouldn't tow that kind of weigt with a hydro Wheel Horse. If you're dead set on doing so I'd only do it with an 8 speed tractor. The 8 speeds gear reduction will control your speed with the added weight of a loaded trailer. a 12 horse kohler would easily do the job.

If you really want a hydro horse look for a 500 xi series tractor, made from 1997 - 2007. They weigh around 1200 lbs have hi/low hydro and most had power steering. I have one w a loader and 1000 hours there's just no comparison to the older style tractors.

Hope this helped.

Kevin

[leeave96 487]

In addition, the early 520H tractors had the straight front axle like the 300/400 series.  The swept forward axle will give you a tighter turning radius.

[MalMac 1,328]

This is just my personnel thoughts, the 520's are nice I own 2 of them. I think you would be better served by getting something like a 314 8 speed. They are just a  very reliable tractor and a whole lot less headaches than a 520 with all it's inherit ant problems. The 520's are a beefy machine but prone to more maintenance. The 300, 400 series with Kohler's in them are hard workers just like the C-series.They were the backbone of Wheel Horse for many years. Other than run a 60 inch deck and the 2 stage snowblower the 300,400 will do just about everything the 520 can  do and use a whole lot less gas doing it. At the end of the day they all are wonderful machines some just take more maintenance than others and cost more to run.

[Red-Bovine 289]

On my 520H the ignition trigger under the flywheel went bad causing it to intermittantly die and then finally quit all together. Not a terrible job to replace it. Just need to undo the cowling and pull the flywheel, then snake the wiring through. The valve maintenance is the big turn off for me regarding the Onan engine. Other than that I really like the 520H. I will be converting mine to a Honda GX630 starting next week.

 

Red

[Challenger 27]

Counter to some opinions above, my experience with Onan engines has been positive.  I've had 520h machines on their way toward 2000 hours without some of the problems I read here.  Good luck?  Maybe.  Or perhaps it's because I'm pretty good with maintenance.  I keep the engines clean,  the machines greased, and I change the oil and all filters frequently.  I let the engine cool for a few minutes before shutdown after a heavy run.

 

I believe that a properly owned and maintained Onan will last a VERY long time and is VERY trustworthy.

[Craig Arndt 6]

1000 hours on an Onan is nothing if its cared for.  They are Industrial motors.  Too bad you didn't get it.  If it ran onto the trailer and then it died, it probably flooded.  Nothing a carb cleaning couldn't fix.  Hydro lever  is one bolt to tighten it so it doesn't creep down.  The one sore spot on the new 520's is the fuse block.  They are trouble.  I prefer mine on the 1989 520.  Anyway, good luck.