Wheel Horse Identification Project

[Racinbob 10,281]

At least through 62 they referred to Suburbans. Note in the 62 brochure they had "Three New Suburban Tractors".
The numbering system back then was as you mentioned with exceptions through the years. The 701 was electric start. Typically a 5 as the second digit indicated electric while a 0 was recoil. Of course the 701 was the first with the engine mounted at the front of the frame and used a double starter/gen pulley.

[DennisThornton 4,769]

At least through 62 they referred to Suburbans. Note in the 62 brochure they had "Three New Suburban Tractors".
The numbering system back then was as you mentioned with exceptions through the years. The 701 was electric start. Typically a 5 as the second digit indicated electric while a 0 was recoil. Of course the 701 was the first with the engine mounted at the front of the frame and used a double starter/gen pulley.

Yes, I have what was labeled online as a 1961 WH brochure (but not actually dated anywhere on that brochure!) and maybe I saw somewhere an even a later WH brochure that referred to "Suburbans" but I can't prove it now without a dated brochure, manual,  IPL or something.  All I have as "proof" is a "Dealer Parts Manual" covering from 1959 through 1964 that refers to only the 1960s as "Suburbans".  Would love to have more from WH that refers to later Suburbans to add to our collection!  Well, I'd like most anything and everything right now that deals with RJs and Suburbans!  What I think I'm seeing is many/most refer to the 1960 and 1961 with mid-engines as "Suburbans".  Maybe some refer to all those early 60s round hoods that look like Suburbans as "Suburbans", I don't know.

Also, my collection of tidbits about the early 60's nomenclature needs review and lots of confirmation!:
Also, my collection of tidbits about the early 60's nomenclature needs review and lots of confirmation!:
First digit is for the HP with 3 digit numbers and the first 2 digits is for HP with 4 digit model numbers
Last digit is for the year, 1960 through 1967
2nd, or third in the 4 digit model numbers:
"3" refers to  ???  633? 
"4" refers to ???  1045?
"5" is for Electric Start only if it was optional on that engine.  Except if that engine, all Kohlers I believe appeared only as an electric start then "0" could still be an electric start.  ex:  701. 702  The 704 was a recoil.  Note: 552 had both recoil and electric starter
"6" is for 8 speed trans of course!  <grin>  I suppose 6 forward speeds?
"7" is for Hydro
Model 604 would be a 6 hp recoil from 1964
Model 1076 would be an 10 hp hydrostatic from 1966

I'm guessing I've still overlooked some exception so please jump in folks so I can correct it!

Dennis Thornton

[wallfish 15,924]

So how do we distinguish between the 1958 and 1959 RJs?

I highly doubt you will ever see an ORIGINAL sticker on a tractor that reads RJ-59 but there has been some distinguishing modifications that can help with an educated guess.
A solid seat pan was used on tractors in 1960 and some RJs which seem to be completely original also had a solid seat pan which could indicate a 1959
Some will have a height selector for the lift arm which was used on the 1960 tractors.
Transmission casting code could also indicate 1959

Then there are early 1958 RJs too.

Round rear wheel hubs with only 3 holes which came from the Walk Aways.
Leather shifter boot
RJ-35 style front rims
Rear hitch had separate welded flat pieces vs. the newer style one piece which was bent into shape
Some of the foot pedal and lift arm pieces looked more crude the way they were cut and welded.
The seat pan was a little bit deeper

[AMC RULES 36,945]

Isn't the term/model Suburban...     
simply an evolution of earlier WH marketing such as this 1959 Ride-Away Jr. ad? 

[stevasaurus 22,230]

Not sure how many hairs we are going to end up splitting here...ie...maybe a suburban is 60 only, but all the mid-engines are nut-roasters. 

Now the RJ-58 / RJ-59...I know some guys that will tell you, "If you do not have the sticker that says it's a 59...then it is a 58".  Like John said, the seat from the 1960's...or the casting dates on the trans would signal 1959.  That is the rub...anyone could change this out and call it a 1959 (more rare), but it turns out it is a 1958 with a 60's seat or you found a casting with a 1959 date code.  I tend to agree with some of the purists here...if you do not have the sticker...it is a 1958.  Does anyone have a sticker that shows 1959???  I do not think so.  Do you have the original paper work??    I'd like to see what Stevebo has to say about this...he said he did a lot of research. 

I think everyone should just relax a little here until we see how we want to try to do this.  We all know about the exceptions to the rule, but we may not know about all the exceptions.  That is the point.  I think we want to have posts in here that we can move into the Wheel-Horseapedia with pictures so we can put this together.  It should be helpful, it should be about a particular horse...we are trying to show what this horse has and (maybe) has not.  We want some pictures taken from all sides of a correct horse...not just the right side.  We would like the pictures put in here from a computer.(direct)..not from a link like Photobucket...so we do not lose them again.  We are looking to move these posts of text and/or pictures into a format that is easy to search and see what is correct...for instance...400 suburbans (early) came from the factory with Clinton engines.  It will be hard for us to move a post into the right spot if it is talking about 4 or 5 different horses...it will be easier if it is 5 posts talking about a horse by it self.    We may end up getting some pictures that are correct, say "except for a belt guard"...that is OK as long as we know what is not correct and maybe what is should look like.

This is going to be huge and will make Red Square interesting for quite some time.  If you have any pictures (of all sides) of a certain horse and an explanation of what is correct...any brochures...documents...etc.  Feel free to post it here...we do not have to start with round Hoods...short frame square hoods...black hoods...etc.  We should be able to section this out and work with the information that we are receiving.    I'm thinking that once we set up what we want to do here, any posts we can use, we will move into what we are building.  We want to keep the integrity of the author of the post in-tact.  Dennis and I are still talking about how this may work, waiting for Karl's input.....and anyone else's input for that matter.  Looking more for ideas here, rather then horse knowledge at this point....but the last 2 pages does show why this needs to happen.   

Edited July 25, 2015 by stevasaurus

[DennisThornton 4,769]

 

So how do we distinguish between the 1958 and 1959 RJs?
.....

Thanks!  Your notes have been added to my notes and eventually somehow shared here on site.

Thanks again!

Edited July 25, 2015 by DennisThornton
clipped quote

[DennisThornton 4,769]

en

Isn't the term/model Suburban...     
simply an evolution of earlier WH marketing such as this 1959 Ride-Away Jr. ad? 

From what I've gathered there's not only a specific Wheel Horse "Suburban" as noted in actual WH manuals referring specifically to the 1960s but also a sort of general term "Suburban Tractors" used by Wheel Horse to refer to their small, suburban usage, tractors.  Obviously the top picture has a straight axle indicating it is definitely NOT a 1960 "Suburban" but rather a prior model RJ so I'm thinking this is from 1958 or 59 and just shows how the "Suburban" named did evolve!   While I doubt this is an example of a wrong picture, and I don't even know what year it's from, I have been warned that the "Official Wheel Horse" brochures, ads and flyers were NOT always accurate and I'm pretty sure I've seen examples of the wrong pictures being used.    Would love to see any examples of  Wheel Horse prints with "wrong model" pictures that anyone out there has and even more references to "Suburban" in either manuals, brochures or IPLs. 

Thanks so much for this example!
Dennis Thornton

[DennisThornton 4,769]

The RJ info seems pretty easy until the RJ-58s and 59s! <grin>  I've tried to summarized what I have and I'm also hoping someone will also chime in on the earlier models.  The info comes from all over and I take no credit for any of it!  Thanks to ALL and sorry if I didn't credit everyone since I did quote some folks and not others.  My intent is to eventually present simple facts of what is known but also what is suspected in a very concise format and hopefully be able to copy all the data in a still meaningful way to the already existing spreadsheet.  If all goes as hoped, the  "Gallery" could also support this project with pictures with captions, brochures and anything and everything that helps.

Please review and help me add anything missing and correct anything wrong!  I encourage "nit picking"!  And what I have for 1955 through 57 info is pretty slim!

1950s RJs,    The garden tractors of the 50s are referred to as RJs, Ride-Away Jr.s. with mid engine and straight axles.  
Note:The 1960-61 models were also mid-engine but with cast axles though the 701 axle was yet a different style.  The pre-1958 models have the Pond transaxle with the chain case on one side. The 3-piece UniDrive was introduced with the RJ-58, and the last model to use it was the 401. 
  1955 RJ-25, Briggs 2.5 HP engine, Single-piece channel frames, and a belt-drive system with "POND" stamped on the rear axle. Simple grill, with no name or extra designs added.
  1955 RJ-35, Kohler k-90 or Clinton B-1200, Single-piece channel frames, and a belt-drive system with "POND" stamped on the rear axle. Simple grill, with no name or extra designs added.
  1956 RJ-25, Briggs 2.5 HP engine, Single-piece channel frames, and a belt-drive system with "POND" stamped on the rear axle. Simple grill, with no name or extra designs added.
  1956 RJ-35, Kohler k-90 or Clinton B-1200, Single-piece channel frames, and a belt-drive system with "POND" stamped on the rear axle. Simple grill, with no name or extra designs added.
  1957 RJ-35, Kohler k-90 or Clinton B-1200  No RJ-25?  No Briggs? Wheel Horse name was added to the grill.  5 lug rear wheels
  1958 and 1959 RJS.   Now enters the controversy...  Was there even a 59JR? 
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MikesRJ Jul 04, 2011
This is a personal opinion, and is sure to create a firestorm of controversy but, I seriously doubt there ever was an "official" RJ-59 ever built by Wheel Horse. No one has ever produced a serial number tag reading "RJ-59". In the years I have been seeking information on the RJ058/59 (which is extensive), it is my opinion that WH manufactured RJ-58's for two years. The final stages of production, roughly 2500 machines or less, used some additional parts derived from the upcoming 1960 400 machine, and hence had some minor differences to their predecessors. Other than that I don't believe there really is an RJ-59, period.

RJ-58/59: That said, the model/serial tag is located on the top side of the left-front frame, immediately behind the hood where the hood mounts to the frame. See image below. The only way to get an idea of date of manufacture, short of the tag, is to look at the casting date on the transmission center section. The date code is cast immediately to the right of the hole in which the shifter passes. That date code is the letter and numbers indicating month and year of casting. Let me know what the cast date is and I can tell you roughly when the transmission was manufactured. Not a conclusive method if the trans was replaced but ballpark if it is original.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
And Stevasaurus:  Some will say.."If you do not have the sticker that says it's a 59...then it is a 58".  "I tend to agree with some of the purists here...if you do not have the sticker...it is a 1958."  ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Anyways, continuing...

1958 RJ-58
  The 1958 Rj-58 model introduced a new three-speed transmission.,the Uni-Drive, Model 5003 that Elmer Pond designed and came with the Clinton B-1290 and the Kohler k-90.  The RJ-58 and RJ-59 used a "new" welded angle-iron frame. 

Early 1958 RJs:
Round rear wheel hubs with only 3 holes which came from the Walk Aways.
Leather shifter boot
RJ-35 style front rims  (Not sure what that means?)
Rear hitch had separate welded flat pieces vs. the newer style one piece which was bent into shape
Some of the foot pedal and lift arm pieces looked more crude the way they were cut and welded.
The seat pan was a little bit deeper
RJ-58/59 - welded steel clutch pedal, no contour stiffening lines in the hood, single throttle control, no choke cable. 
RJ 58/59 - 5003 transmission, if you look how the brake band mounts, the screws that hold the brake band are vertical mounted on the trans..

1959 RJ-59
A solid seat pan was used on tractors in 1960 and some RJs which seem to be completely original also had a solid seat pan which could indicate a 1959
Some will have a height selector for the lift arm which was used on the 1960 tractors.
Transmission casting code could also indicate 1959
1958/1959 --RJ-58 and RJ-59 used a "new" 3-piece uni-drive transaxle [Model 5003], as well as a "new" welded angle-iron frame. The Clinton model engine changed to the model B-1290 --which was still a 3.6hp engine.

Corrections?  Additions?  Bound to be something I've mis-typed at least!

Thanks for all the help so far!

Dennis Thornton  

Edited July 27, 2015 by DennisThornton
Inadvertently left out data for the early 50s!

[MikesRJ 552]

I love it when I'm quoted! LOL
 

[DennisThornton 4,769]

I love it when I'm quoted! LOL
 

Keep posting then!    

And please review what I posted.  I'm hoping for the info to be as complete as possible and but I certainly want it to be as correct as possible!  I've got so little on the older RJs.  I expect to come back and add more and update but I'd still love to have more now before moving on the the Suburbans.  Would love to have as many supporting photos and documents as well!

Thanks Mike!
Dennis Thornton

[MikesRJ 552]

My opinion remains the same as it's always been. No one has come up with any evidence to the contrary, and I don't believe the Pond's would have ever let anything go to waste. My opinion is that RJ-58's were made for two years with four, or perhaps seven (depending if you count engine differences or not as a variant), distinct variants. The last three mechanical variants were during the final year (1959) of production, maybe only consisted of about 1200 or so machines out of a total run of approximately 22,000 - 24,000, and were so because some components were running out, could no longer be had, or were new to the 1960 model year and they wanted to see how the consumer reacted to the changes. The Ponds were designing the Suburban tractor, they didn't have many people working for them at the time, and simply didn't have the manpower to really think a lot into the RJ-58 platform. They had to fill the ever-expanding orders, and this was a common sense, business minded way to get the production numbers they required, and still design a new model for 1960. My opinion in a nutshell: You either have an RJ-58 assembled in 1958, or you have an RJ-58 assembled in 1959. But at the end of the day ... you have an RJ-58.

 

Edited July 28, 2015 by MikesRJ

[DennisThornton 4,769]

From what I've read in the "Straight from the Hor..." I certainly have no reasons to doubt you.  Seems that Elmer Pond was quite frugal!  Plus I also think I see other signs of more "transitional" models that appear to be either introducing new parts or using up old parts which makes perfectly good business sense to me.  It's just that those models don't fall neatly into my \1958\, 1959, \1960. etc. folders or lend themselves to crisp divisions of identifying characteristics.  The 603, 701, 854, 1045 and I'm sure others indicate that there was little concern for making complete changes across all models for each of the years.  I think they used up what parts they had and changed to new parts as the could, without a great deal of concern about what year it was.  That's what I see at least...

Thanks Mike!

Dennis Thornton

[meadowfield 2,545]

Just loving this thread already - shame I can't chip in much on the round hoods, rare as hens teeth here...  I'm guessing it will be a few months before we get into the late 60's where I can step in

This might feed neatly into my wheel horse family tree thread too....

[DennisThornton 4,769]

Need a little help with the RJ-35s.  I found this:
"These RJ35's are are very hard to drive as they are slow and way too light in the front so on any sort of incline you cannot steer. If you do not have the "optional" brake kit it will freewheel on hills and you cannot stop."  and I'm sorry, I have no idea where I gleaned this comment, but I've got to know more about the "optional brake kit".

And I'm curious if RJ-35 users would tend to agree with, and again, I don't know who said this (sorry...):
"If you are looking to do any kind of work I agree you will need at least the 700 series like the 701/702 753 or larger front engine mounted machines. The RJ's and suburbans are great but do not have the power to do any work. Good luck-"

Not sure why the 6XXs were skipped...  I have driven a mid-engine and it did have a front weight box and I was told that without that box it wouldn't pull anything other than a wheelie!

So anyone know about the "brake kit" or want to comment about the usability of the RJs?

Thanks!
Dennis Thornton

[AMC RULES 36,945]

Nonsense...   
my little RJ still earns it keep.

 

Edited July 30, 2015 by AMC RULES

[Racinbob 10,281]

Great video Craig. I remember my Dad pushing snow with the new Suburban 400. I did some on it a couple years later but I was still a bit little to go at it unsupervised.  They do a great job. Now....pulling a trailer.....that's a different story. Dad would pull the family through the trails and more than once the thing did a wheelie that went too far.  

Edited July 29, 2015 by Racinbob

[AMC RULES 36,945]

For the wheelie prevention...  
that's what my tombstone's for. 






 

[DennisThornton 4,769]

I was in a bad reception area with my cell phone and I read AMC's post, "that's what my tombstone's for. ".  I OK'ed to display pictures and I thought, "tombstone"?  "tombstone"?  Slowly the photo came in and displayed from the top down.  "tombstone"?  Oh!  TOMBSTONE!  <chuckle!>  Sorry, just hadn't heard that phrase...  Appropriate though!

Seriously, what I'm gathering is that the RJs were light in the front end (for some reason! <grin>)  I think that explains the comments about their pulling issues, wheelies and the weight boxes and "Tombstones"!  And  perhaps why the engines got moved to the front, along with some comments about testicular discomfort...
And man!  That's a nice looking machine!  I've read that fenders were optional.  I should add a note about the "Tombstone" weights!  And what about that red steering wheel?
Thanks AMC!  


Dennis Thornton

[DennisThornton 4,769]

I was in a bad reception area with my cell phone and I read AMC's post, "that's what my tombstone's for. ".  I OK'ed to display pictures and I thought, "tombstone"?  "tombstone"?  Slowly the photo came in and displayed from the top down.  "tombstone"?  Oh!  TOMBSTONE!  <chuckle!>  Sorry, just hadn't heard that phrase...  Appropriate though!

Seriously, what I'm gathering is that the RJs were light in the front end (for some reason! <grin>)  I think that explains the comments about their pulling issues, wheelies and the weight boxes and "Tombstones"!  And  perhaps why the engines got moved to the front, along with some comments about testicular discomfort...
And man!  That's a nice looking machine!  I've read that fenders were optional.  I should ad a note about the "Tombstone" weights!  And what about that red steering wheel?
Thanks AMC!  


Dennis Thornton

Man!  Something went haywire with my post!  Maybe me, I don't know.  My post to AMC just now was not supposed to include pictures.  They were instead to be with this post.  Maybe someone can move them for me?  Or I'll try to edit both and reupload...

The last 3 pictures should be connected to this message:
This is an example of why I would love to know more!  A year ago I'm not sure I would even have known that the first was a Wheel Horse!  Two weeks ago I only knew that it was an old WH, a Round Hood (which I thought was pretty good for me since there was no hood there at the time! <grin>) and that it was a 4 spd.  A couple days later I knew model and year and a day later confirmed I was right, the owner found the belt cover.  But of course it is possible the belt cover did not come off this tractor, but much evidence suggests that it did.

So what is it?  And how do you know?  By the way, it's this darned thing that really got me hooked to learn more about the 1950s, 60s and 70s!  For me, for years, Wheel Horse may have well started in the mid 1970s!  Just didn't care about the older ones!  Got the bug pretty bad now though... Oh, and a close up of the round hood's serial tag.  Now this tag still means nothing to me for ID purposes so can someone help me out please?  Looks like an 8641 to me but so what?

Sitting right next to it was the next pic.  Hey!  953 nut?  You out there?  

Now I have more pictures, as well as the actual round hood tractor itself, but the first day this is all I had to go by.  So what round hood is it?  Pretty rough, but at least my first round hood is mostly there minus the engine, but I know where a similar Tec is.  Wrong year I think but right model engine.

And what is the square hood worth?  It's available.  Pretty rough but got some pluses.  Engine still spins over.  Left axle bearing is shot.  I'll have more pics of it soon.

Dennis Thornton

[gwest_ca-(File Mod) 10,499]

8641 looks like a 1964 serial number so my guess is a model 654.

Garry

[DennisThornton 4,769]

8641 looks like a 1964 serial number so my guess is a model 654.

Garry

Would you care to share your serial number info?  I have some odds and ends like this quote:
"Have seen 953 serials from 62-137 to 62-928 and 32508 to 42159
 1054 serials from 42105 to 49725
 1054A serials from 49065 to 101637"

but I have no sheet listing serials or how they apply

[953 nut 51,720]

   That 953/1054 looks pretty complete but it is a little bit geographically undesirable for me. If it was close by I would be hooking up the trailer right now.

[DennisThornton 4,769]

  

That 953/1054 looks pretty complete but it is a little bit geographically undesirable for me. If it was close by I would be hooking up the trailer right now.

Oh now everyone is going to know what it is!    Kidding.  Well, almost!
Pretty sure it's a 953 but only because I read someone saying that the early 953's had Ross steering.  Not sure that's visible from the pic but I poked my head in there to see it.  But I have no idea how you can tell from there that it's not a 1054A.  

Have seen 953 serials from 62-137 to 62-928 and 32508 to 42159,  1054 serials from 42105 to 49725 and 1054A serials from 49065 to 101637.  

The 953 and 1054 serials overlap but I don't know how WH used their serials.  Certainly a Kohler K241 but I didn't get the model or spec#...  I at least read there were differences in the headlamp and/or perhaps bezels and thought I had a note right here, and I'm not sure if the headlamps were the same for the entire years??

She has the Ross box, the hydro pump but the cylinder looks bent from my picture, lots of rust under the seat but I do think it is mostly all there.  Left axle bearing is shot, gen/starter robbed, seat gone and at least one headlamp lens busted.  I would love to know for sure which model, how to tell and a rough idea of what she's worth.  1963 and 64 models are close in line for the ID project anyway...

Thanks for any info and tips!  I'll add them all to the ID project.

Dennis Thornton

Edited July 29, 2015 by DennisThornton
correction

[953 nut 51,720]

Dennis, if the 953 has the Ross steering gear it is one of the very early units (serial number (001 to 1000). If you can get these at a reasonable price and don't feel the 953 is reasonable to restore you could help a lot of members with parts, I may even need a few myself. If there is enough left of it to restore I would rather it not be parted out. 

[DennisThornton 4,769]

Here's some more pics from the 953:
I'd still like to know more of the distinguishing characteristics between it and the 1054 and 1054A...
I know the hydraulics are of some value and I own a couple PK/Economys so I guess the Ross box is worth something too but the whole thing is pretty rough.  What's she worth as is?  And maybe fixed up?  Or as parts?

Thanks!