Bar Nuthin 1,375 #1 Posted yesterday at 12:35 AM (edited) I was addressing an oil leak around the breather and adjusting the valves on Frankenhorse, today. I looked down and noticed the right side of the engine hangs over the outside of the frame. Note; It's a '73 16-Auto with a newer K321S engine. I'm not experienced with the different variations on K Series engines, so what gives here? And what are recommendations on the best resolution. Edited yesterday at 12:36 AM by Bar Nuthin Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oliver2-44 10,938 #2 Posted yesterday at 12:42 AM There's nothing wrong with it hanging over, that the factory design. Look under the frame angle on that side and you will see 2 bolts that go up into the bottom of the oil pan. 1 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sqrlgtr 867 #3 Posted yesterday at 12:43 AM look up under frame and you will see the motor bolts that hold engine on that side perfectly normal. I dont know what all Wheel Horse tractors are this way but this series is for sure. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sqrlgtr 867 #4 Posted yesterday at 12:44 AM oily beat me to it 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bar Nuthin 1,375 #5 Posted yesterday at 01:18 AM (edited) 40 minutes ago, oliver2-44 said: There's nothing wrong with it hanging over, that the factory design. Look under the frame angle on that side and you will see 2 bolts that go up into the bottom of the oil pan. Thanks! I have enough issues to address on this thing already! Never noticed it on my C-120 - but yep - same. Edited yesterday at 01:23 AM by Bar Nuthin 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MainelyWheelhorse 1,978 #6 Posted yesterday at 01:36 AM @Bar Nuthin My C-141, 312-8 and 308-8 are all like that too. The 312 is box stock factory, the 308 had a motor swap staying with an M8, in the factory location. The C as you know was built by me with the same engine as factory, and in factory spot, as advised on here and looking at the others. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bar Nuthin 1,375 #7 Posted yesterday at 01:48 AM 10 minutes ago, MainelyWheelhorse said: @Bar Nuthin My C-141, 312-8 and 308-8 are all like that too. My recently acquired C-141 is mounted on a plate with rubber dampeners. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oliver2-44 10,938 #8 Posted yesterday at 03:03 AM 1 hour ago, Bar Nuthin said: My recently acquired C-141 is mounted on a plate with rubber dampeners. Yes, the engine mounting design changed on the C1x1 models to the rubber shaker plate design. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MainelyWheelhorse 1,978 #9 Posted yesterday at 03:06 AM 1 hour ago, Bar Nuthin said: My recently acquired C-141 is mounted on a plate with rubber dampeners. Ok, that must be factory. The C-141 started off with that and the C-85 has it too. I took it off the C to simplify the engine mounting, especially if there was a problem during the motor install. I’m used to the 3/4/500 series and I didn’t notice any major vibration issues with it off so I left it. The later tractors don’t have that mount. It’s probably a cost cutting reason but there doesn’t seem to be major vibration on those either. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bar Nuthin 1,375 #10 Posted yesterday at 03:51 AM 42 minutes ago, MainelyWheelhorse said: there doesn’t seem to be major vibration on those either To be honest, the only difference I notice is the engine shaking around. In fact, it shook the muffler loose the other day - not that it was tight to begin with. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ebinmaine 74,245 #11 Posted 19 hours ago 5 hours ago, MainelyWheelhorse said: Ok, that must be factory. The C-141 started off with that and the C-85 has it too. I took it off the C to simplify the engine mounting, especially if there was a problem during the motor install. I’m used to the 3/4/500 series and I didn’t notice any major vibration issues with it off so I left it. The later tractors don’t have that mount. It’s probably a cost cutting reason but there doesn’t seem to be major vibration on those either. 4 hours ago, Bar Nuthin said: To be honest, the only difference I notice is the engine shaking around. In fact, it shook the muffler loose the other day - not that it was tight to begin with. Those rubber mounts are WELL known to dry rot and disintegrate. Go to a solid metal type. 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ri702bill 9,923 #12 Posted 18 hours ago 49 minutes ago, ebinmaine said: Those rubber mounts are WELL known to dry rot and disintegrate. Go to a solid metal type. I added the solid mounts on my C81, as the entine engine / shaker plate would torque twist to the rear when I engaged the PTO. No movement at all now. 3 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Racinbob 12,175 #13 Posted 17 hours ago If a wobble mount it removed the engine needs to be mounted so the shaft is at the same height. Another consideration is the lower bracket for the PTO loop. It's part of the wobble mount. Maybe the easiest way is to install the solid mounts in place of the rubbers like Bill did. I modified the base on Dino. If you choose to eliminate the entire mount and plan on using the PTO you'll need to come up with a way to support the bottom of the loop. There are several good ideas the guys have posted. If you're thinking just swap the oil pan, forget it. I don't think cost had much to do with the addition of the mount. Obviously it cost more. But the fact that it didn't last long before they went back to a direct bolt pretty much tells you that it was a bad idea. I've had a couple and they only made the engine shake worse. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
953 nut 61,750 #14 Posted 16 hours ago 10 hours ago, Bar Nuthin said: 10 hours ago, oliver2-44 said: There's nothing wrong with it hanging over, that the factory design. Look under the frame angle on that side and you will see 2 bolts that go up into the bottom of the oil pan. Thanks! I have enough issues to address on this thing already! Never noticed it on my C-120 - but yep - same. Here is a picture of the oil sump from the bottom. If a person were to buy a non-Wheel Horse engine without the holes for frame mounting a pair of "J" Bolts would do the trick. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoeM 8,731 #15 Posted 16 hours ago 1 minute ago, 953 nut said: frame mounting a pair of "J" Bolts would do the trick I had one with the hooks. It had a replacement k (one of the dark green ones). it worked fine. 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peter lena 9,402 #16 Posted 15 hours ago @Bar Nuthin side engine picture , opportunity to enhance / quiet down the sloppy PTO LEVER SET UP ? hitch pin clip at bottom of pto swing arm , see the hole at end of upper corner clip ? add a medium extension spring , connect the 2 clips n no more noise , rattling . also a great time to remove the rattling upper TRUNION on pto lever end adjustment area , thats a 3/8x 16 thread , get a 3/8x24 DIE NUT , rethread right over those threads screw on a HEIM JOINT , , also like to pull off the , pto cone , clean out the inner needle bearing , like lucas green chassis grease , very light ammount ? excess flings to clutch face . very smooth / easy improvement , you can also washer up the start of the PTO LEVER ROD , coming from battery tray area , makes for solid smooth engagement , gold mine for simple improvements , pete 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pfrederi 18,877 #17 Posted 15 hours ago (edited) Or get 4 spacers some washers ...depending on the model/year you may have to drill two holes in the frame. Short piece of angle iron with a a couple holes drilled in it makes the base for the PTO hoop....A lot cheaper than the fancy machined piece isolation replacement... Edited 15 hours ago by pfrederi 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bar Nuthin 1,375 #18 Posted 14 hours ago 30 minutes ago, pfrederi said: .A lot cheaper than the fancy machined piece isolation replacement... And eliminates a lot of the clutter and places to trap dirt and grime. Seems like the way to go. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pullstart 67,918 #19 Posted 13 hours ago 2 hours ago, 953 nut said: Here is a picture of the oil sump from the bottom. If a person were to buy a non-Wheel Horse engine without the holes for frame mounting a pair of "J" Bolts would do the trick. I’ve used J bolts on a couple. They work great! https://www.wheelhorseforum.com/topic/109081-roadapples-legacy-raider-12-tiller-machine-for-my-brother-inlaw/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-1243978 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MainelyWheelhorse 1,978 #20 Posted 12 hours ago (edited) 10 hours ago, Racinbob said: I don't think cost had much to do with the addition of the mount. Obviously it cost more. But the fact that it didn't last long before they went back to a direct bolt pretty much tells you that it was a bad idea. I've had a couple and they only made the engine shake worse. That was my other thought about the mount. My 83 C-85 has it, by the time my 87 308-8 came around it was gone. I figured at least some of it was that Toro is a large company and some of the simplified design was cost cutting, simplifying to produce them faster and probably recouping costs after buying Wheel Horse in 86. Edited 6 hours ago by MainelyWheelhorse 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites