Jump to content
mikeeyre74

520H equivalent in JD?

Recommended Posts

Ya I'd just maintenance regularly and not sweat it. I love mine. Now the blown engine it came with still ran on 1 cyl. Piston stayed in the top of the jug, and the two pieces of ALUMINUM ROD! Sat in the bottom of the block. Still ran!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Goldann520 said:

Ya I'd just maintenance regularly and not sweat it. I love mine. Now the blown engine it came with still ran on 1 cyl. Piston stayed in the top of the jug, and the two pieces of ALUMINUM ROD! Sat in the bottom of the block. Still ran!

 

 

You were fortunate.  The first one i picked up with a blown Series  One the rod busted the crankcase open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 a couple of years ago I talked to Ed Cole, The Toro rep that always came to the WHCC SHOW, about the 78, 79 C165 twin. Ed told me that wheel horse tried the early KT17's and they failed the durability and reliability testing that wheel horse did on them. So for ****'s and grins more or less they threw the 16 hp twin briggs in the same test and it surprisingly held up forcing them to come up with a tractor to install it in, hence the C165 twin. He also told me that John Deere and wheel horse used different specifications on the motor. John Deere apparently went cheaper on the motors then wheel horse did and that's why the motors held up better in Horses. Going with the briggs for a few years gave Kohler time to improve the KT17's. He also said something about the way John Deere did their warranties caused problems between Kohler and Deere. I think if I remember correctly and don't quote me on this, that Kohler wanted Deere to change the spec's on the motor to make it hold up better but Deere refused and that's why Kohler didn't want to stand behind them. 

 

this has been some interesting reading on here about comparing wheel horse and other brands. I have said before on here that dad always used Case farm tractors but liked wheel horses better then the case garden tractors

 

 

 

 

 

 

eric j    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ericj said:

 a couple of years ago I talked to Ed Cole, The Toro rep that always came to the WHCC SHOW, about the 78, 79 C165 twin. Ed told me that wheel horse tried the early KT17's and they failed the durability and reliability testing that wheel horse did on them. So for ****'s and grins more or less they threw the 16 hp twin briggs in the same test and it surprisingly held up forcing them to come up with a tractor to install it in, hence the C165 twin. He also told me that John Deere and wheel horse used different specifications on the motor. John Deere apparently went cheaper on the motors then wheel horse did and that's why the motors held up better in Horses. Going with the briggs for a few years gave Kohler time to improve the KT17's. He also said something about the way John Deere did their warranties caused problems between Kohler and Deere. I think if I remember correctly and don't quote me on this, that Kohler wanted Deere to change the spec's on the motor to make it hold up better but Deere refused and that's why Kohler didn't want to stand behind them. 

 

this has been some interesting reading on here about comparing wheel horse and other brands. I have said before on here that dad always used Case farm tractors but liked wheel horses better then the case garden tractors

 

 

 

 

 

 

eric j    

The internals are the same - the different specs has to do with crank size, and not related to oil starvation problems.  The internals on the Kohler KT17 Series I would be the same across the board, regardless of what manufacturer was going to use them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing by crank size, you mean for the different pto set-ups among manufacturers. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crank lengths, keyway sizes, size of tapped hole in the end etc.  However one big difference was WH specified a ball bearing on the crank shaft item 11 and 47..  JD did not  (sleeve #9 ).  Thus I had to use an Electric PTO when i put a JD KT 17 on my C-175.  30 variant number on Series 1 used sleeve bearings only 4 used ball bearings

 

In the series 2 ball bearings were not offered but a roller thrust bearing was used on only 1 variant

crankcase.JPG

crank2.JPG

Edited by pfrederi
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my Lord...@PeacemakerJack done posted a picture of one.The end is near. And it wasn't even an accidental background foo foo.:text-lol:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naw seriously...I like Red Square because of the great expanse of WH knowledge I gain here and the fact that you guys are  so willing to help and take the time to do so. I like all stuff old, and actually enjoy seeing an old tractor, truck, auto, sitting in the background. When the weather warms a little and I make room in my shop I'll have plenty of questions about my 520h.

  • Like 1
  • Excellent 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Horse Newbie you’d better not scroll down to the bottom of the main page and enter the other brands section, you’re liable to get hives, a rash, and loss of sleep if you see what’s in there:teasing-poke::ychain:

 

In all seriousness, I like to be informed and I also appreciate the designs from the various GT suppliers of the 50-80’s.  It makes me sick that most of the LT’s today are only made by a couple of different manufacturers painted and stickered to look like different machines—RIGHT!

  • Like 1
  • Excellent 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allis Chalmers also must have specified the big ball bearings in their engines as well, because the 14hp in my c120 has an AC heart (from a model 314 I believe) in it as we speak, and I know that it has the same huge ball bearings that wheel horse specified. Had to change the oil pan but otherwise it’s swapped right over. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, PeacemakerJack said:

@Horse Newbie you’d better not scroll down to the bottom of the main page and enter the other brands section, you’re liable to get hives, a rash, and loss of sleep if you see what’s in there:teasing-poke::ychain:

 

In all seriousness, I like to be informed and I also appreciate the designs from the various GT suppliers of the 50-80’s.  It makes me sick that most of the LT’s today are only made by a couple of different manufacturers painted and stickered to look like different machines—RIGHT!

I have two models of those other brands, but they're newer. Yellow and white...if I needed too I certainly would go to " other brands" and seek help. After all that's what it's there for. Buuut, I was referred to Red Square, I respect Red Square, and am humbled by the willingness of participants to share and help...there fore while I am in the WH part I will try my best to stick to WH...and try to stay on topic, but I may slip a little there.

 

  • Excellent 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s the way to think right there:clap:  

 

 

Comparison (apparently the topic of this thread:D) of the GT’s in the 60-90’s was made possible by the fact that there were companies concerned about making a durable, long lasting product and that people would be willing to pay good money for that product knowing that it would last. My uncle Ken bought a brand new 1969 GTO Judge for $3600 out the door.  That same year a Cub 147 sold for about $1200. I’m not sure what a new GT-14 sold for at the same time but I’d be willing to say close to a grand if not more. People  were willing to pay it though. Today it seems like people want “good enough” products.  Products that last just long enough to make them FEEL like they got their money’s worth. Are they actually getting their money’s worth? Hard to say!  Notice that very few people are buying the new commercial line JD tractors because they don’t want to spend $12K or more for a GT. They settle for a loss leader line or go to a different brand altogether.

 

All I know is that WH built some amazing tractors, from Elmer And Cecil’s garage through the ultra beefy xi series, that continue to endure use, abuse, and keep on plodding away!

  • Excellent 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikeeyre74 said:

Allis Chalmers also must have specified the big ball bearings in their engines as well, because the 14hp in my c120 has an AC heart (from a model 314 I believe) in it as we speak, and I know that it has the same huge ball bearings that wheel horse specified. Had to change the oil pan but otherwise it’s swapped right over. 

 

 

All the K-series single specs  had ball bearings.  it was when Kohler went to the twins that things changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/28/2017 at 4:36 PM, PeacemakerJack said:

That’s the way to think right there:clap:  

 

 

Comparison (apparently the topic of this thread:D) of the GT’s in the 60-90’s was made possible by the fact that there were companies concerned about making a durable, long lasting product and that people would be willing to pay good money for that product knowing that it would last. My uncle Ken bought a brand new 1969 GTO Judge for $3600 out the door.  That same year a Cub 147 sold for about $1200. I’m not sure what a new GT-14 sold for at the same time but I’d be willing to say close to a grand if not more. People  were willing to pay it though. Today it seems like people want “good enough” products.  Products that last just long enough to make them FEEL like they got their money’s worth. Are they actually getting their money’s worth? Hard to say!  Notice that very few people are buying the new commercial line JD tractors because they don’t want to spend $12K or more for a GT. They settle for a loss leader line or go to a different brand altogether.

 

All I know is that WH built some amazing tractors, from Elmer And Cecil’s garage through the ultra beefy xi series, that continue to endure use, abuse, and keep on plodding away!

I concur. I think people also don't want to work on stuff...or don't know how, or don't have the time. The manufacturer's probably build stuff now the way most American consumers want it...CHEAP ! Buy it cheap, use it, throw away, buy another. That's not what I like. I try to get the most out of something that I can. 98 Chevy Z-71 4x4, 253,000 miles; 94 WH 520h, ? hrs; 1981 Toyota Hi-Lux 4x4 Pick up, 330,000 miles. Course it could be because I don't have the $$$ for new stuff. I love tinkering...got to always be doing something. By the way, my wife's uncle has 2 GTO's of that era sitting in his garage. I think one is a "Judge." He bought them new and absolutely loves them. Says they would fly. Plus he KNOWS you can't buy nothing today that compares with the quality. Maybe faster, but not better. I'd rather do it with "class", than do it "fast."

Edited by Horse Newbie
Bad grammar
  • Like 4
  • Excellent 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can keep the rust at bay - you'd be lucky to live long enough to wear out that Toyota , especially an '81 mini truck . I own an old Land Cruiser for the same reason - and it's even far more durable than the pickups were as it was their top line vehicle at the time - they spared no expense and kept it simple but seriously overbuilt . The '77s axles weigh more than your engine in the Hilux...lol .

 

People have accepted the throw away society - it's why our old tractors if polished up and rebuilt are worth so much coin in today's world - there is nothing built as simple nor as strong in comparison for the money . To get something comparable with a good power to weight ratio would require a very high dollar Kubota or something - and be ready if anything breaks for a repair cost that is staggering . Stuff one of the higher powered diesel engines from Yanmar , Kubota or Daihatsu into one of our older WH tractors and you'd have a combination that would be tough to beat - and extremely reliable . The factors that are killing the old engines is a lack of parts , oils that aren't directly compatible and fuel that destroys them - if those factors are addressed (expensive) they will live on for a very long time .

 

Sarge

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, yes, the throw away society.  My oldest tractor is my newest one, a 1947 Farmall Cub.  Speculation on www.farmallcub.com on what a Farmall Cub would look and be like if Case/IH decided to bring it back like New Holland did the 8N a few years back.  Right now, my '47 Cub literally has no plastic on it, except maybe knobs, etc.  With tractors being produced today with sheet metal parts being replaced by plastic, I don't I would buy a present day Cub.  I'm sure 9 hp wouldn't be enough, so it would probably have mid 20s hp rating, but it just wouldn't be as heavily built as the older ones.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For years I owned 2 tractors...a mighty Ford 860 and a Scotts ( john deere) 2046. The Ford was Monster. WAY more tractor than I needed. I decided to sell her off and look for something smaller. The Scotts was ALWAYS breaking down. One day I was looking through Craigslist and started to be drawn towards Wheel Horse Tractors. They were simple. They were tough. About a year ago I bought my first WH tractor , a B-80 for $100 and I was hooked. I LOVE SIMPLE. I run old 1950's Johnson outboard motors and I just love something simple to fix and built to last. A month ago I sold that stupid Scotts tractor and bought my second Wheel horse ( a 310-8  for $250...and then a snow plow. I will never spend another dime on anything but Wheel Horse when it comes to Garden tractors. IF I need something bigger I will pick up an 8n ford..But I don't see the need to. I haul all my firewood for the year with my B-80. Throw on a set of chains and I can go anywhere in the woods with a small trailer. Although John Deere may have some good tractors....I'll never own one. Simple is king and Wheel Horse Is SIMPLE. If I had to pick an equivalent of a 520-H it would be an old ford tractor like a 9n.....Tough! Small for the power it has. Everything out in the open to work on. Genius Simple design. 

  • Like 1
  • Excellent 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:text-goodpost: another member @ebinmaine would definitely agree with you on the toughness of the B80–you’ll have to check out his if you haven’t already!!!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bushradical said:

For years I owned 2 tractors...a mighty Ford 860 and a Scotts ( john deere) 2046. The Ford was Monster. WAY more tractor than I needed. I decided to sell her off and look for something smaller. The Scotts was ALWAYS breaking down. One day I was looking through Craigslist and started to be drawn towards Wheel Horse Tractors. They were simple. They were tough. About a year ago I bought my first WH tractor , a B-80 for $100 and I was hooked. I LOVE SIMPLE. I run old 1950's Johnson outboard motors and I just love something simple to fix and built to last. A month ago I sold that stupid Scotts tractor and bought my second Wheel horse ( a 310-8  for $250...and then a snow plow. I will never spend another dime on anything but Wheel Horse when it comes to Garden tractors. IF I need something bigger I will pick up an 8n ford..But I don't see the need to. I haul all my firewood for the year with my B-80. Throw on a set of chains and I can go anywhere in the woods with a small trailer. Although John Deere may have some good tractors....I'll never own one. Simple is king and Wheel Horse Is SIMPLE. If I had to pick an equivalent of a 520-H it would be an old ford tractor like a 9n.....Tough! Small for the power it has. Everything out in the open to work on. Genius Simple design. 

:text-yeahthat:

11 minutes ago, PeacemakerJack said:

:text-goodpost: another member @ebinmaine would definitely agree with you on the toughness of the B80–you’ll have to check out his if you haven’t already!!!

 

Thanks Josh.

Yeah, Bushrad' I've been VERY impressed with the power to weight ratio on my "little" B80. You'll see the mods I've done in my signature below this post.

We've latched on to trees I had No expectation to do anything but square off a bit and dragged 'em right out.

I built a wooden trailer from old 4x4pt posts and trailer hubs and rear WH wheels. Works awesome.

Like you, I love my B80 enough I went and bought a C160.... Really lookin' forward to getting that monster working around here.

 

  • Excellent 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between a B-80 and C-160 is huge - that extra torque of the big block is staggering , be prepared for a ride you won't forget . Keep an eye on your frame - with that engine the only limit is axle parts and the frame breaking , and that engine can/will break parts . Mine snapped a good quality deck belt when I stalled the deck in some wet junk in a ditch - engine never cared and it also destroyed the clutch facing with it . When the governor snaps open it just keeps pulling and doesn't care what's attached to it , the thing will not hardly drop off it's rpm band no matter what the load is - that's why so many love and seek that model .

 

I wish the bigger cast iron twin would fit into more models but it would require a lot of stretch work to fit that monster - the K482/532 is an animal that is like having two K-341's coupled together - that's how much torque it has .

 

I took measurements off a very large/heavy compactor I used at work a few years ago - it was a Yanmar twin cylinder V type diesel , it would be a stuff job but that motor would almost fit into a D with some hood work . It would take a better rear axle and pump setup or gear drive to remove the weak components - but it would be an ultimate tractor given the D's frame strength .

 

Simple design and reliability is what made WH so great - too bad the other brands didn't catch on and drive them even further but back in the day they used the best of what was available . Funny how those components have held up compared to what is available now - no way none of the new stuff will have a 50yr lifespan or even close . If the modern manufacturers used that same formula today with the metals and such available imagine what they could do - hence the price tag of a good heavy series Kubota . Look at one of those closely - nothing is cheap on them and they have a price tag to match .

 

Sarge

  • Excellent 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sarge said:

The difference between a B-80 and C-160 is huge - that extra torque of the big block is staggering , be prepared for a ride you won't forget . Keep an eye on your frame - with that engine the only limit is axle parts and the frame breaking , and that engine can/will break parts . Mine snapped a good quality deck belt when I stalled the deck in some wet junk in a ditch - engine never cared and it also destroyed the clutch facing with it . When the governor snaps open it just keeps pulling and doesn't care what's attached to it , the thing will not hardly drop off it's rpm band no matter what the load is - that's why so many love and seek that model .

 

I wish the bigger cast iron twin would fit into more models but it would require a lot of stretch work to fit that monster - the K482/532 is an animal that is like having two K-341's coupled together - that's how much torque it has .

 

I took measurements off a very large/heavy compactor I used at work a few years ago - it was a Yanmar twin cylinder V type diesel , it would be a stuff job but that motor would almost fit into a D with some hood work . It would take a better rear axle and pump setup or gear drive to remove the weak components - but it would be an ultimate tractor given the D's frame strength .

 

Simple design and reliability is what made WH so great - too bad the other brands didn't catch on and drive them even further but back in the day they used the best of what was available . Funny how those components have held up compared to what is available now - no way none of the new stuff will have a 50yr lifespan or even close . If the modern manufacturers used that same formula today with the metals and such available imagine what they could do - hence the price tag of a good heavy series Kubota . Look at one of those closely - nothing is cheap on them and they have a price tag to match .

 

Sarge

I agree with you whole-heartly @Sarge, but if you build something that lasts forever, you'll have no repeat customers. And if they don't break a little, no revenue from parts and service. Now ALL of your friends and neighbors may go buy one, but that still wouldn't keep the assembly line going. I WOULD STILL RATHER HAVE A PRODUCT MADE TO LAST.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Horse Newbie said:

WOULD STILL RATHER HAVE A PRODUCT MADE TO LAST.

Yup.

 

:wh:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 16 HP is definitely powerful but it sucks gas...Put one on an Electro now Electro 16 to run the blower in winter.  Does a great job but eh dinky little under hood metal gas tank provably only holds a gallon and half and it don't last long when she is working...but that means more breaks for a hot toddy:P

Edited by pfrederi
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pfrederi said:

Electro now Electro 16 to run the blower in winter.  Does a great job but eh dinky little under hood metal gas tank

Paul, one of the issues I had to solve with my B80 was a leaky plastic tank. I wasn't super fond of the look of the plastic so instead of trying to fix the leak I replaced it with a small metal tank from a late 60's briggs.

My C160 has the same plastic tank I still don't like so I got looking around and found this thread:

 

 

 

The bottom pic shows you have a metal tank...

Any thoughts on where I could get one of those ?

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×