C series history

[C100guy94 30]

Ok so I'm formilur with the 400 series and hell I cleared and leved out prob 3 acres of land filled with rock and brush you name it in the heart of the poconos of pa was an old buddy's property. I guess my question is. 

Can someone help me better understand the c series like were each model sized and such for specific tasks granted they can all do a lot of the same that I understand but today's tractors you have dif size tires and motors and that's based off your land size and such. Does it go the same here? 

 

Maybe I'm just not wrapping my head around things. 

Having my 410-8 some years ago I looked at it as the next best thing was a 416-8 then the 500 series for the size and hydro set up. 

What was the the c series "cats meow" so to speak

Where would my c 100 fall into that category 

 

And also maybe whats the value on my tractor. I'll post a picture of the deck I got with it. Rear discharge in what I think it almost mint shape and most likely a newer model 

 

Paid $400 cash for it. Started right up all functional did do the rear end fluid change leared that the hard way with my 400 series 

Could still use a kero bath but that's next months budget bucket list 

Edited 7 hours ago by C100guy94

[ebinmaine 78,554]

There may be a lineage of sorts here on the site if someone knew how to find it. I'm not the best at searching. 

@gwest_ca  ?

 

 

The "Letter tractors" started in 1974. 

There were 4. 

A. Series. 

B. Series. 

C. Series. 

D. Series. 

 

 

For 1974 and 5 only, the B was a Mid length frame and had less expensive options than the Long frame C series.  

For 1976 and 77, the frames were the same but the options remained similar. 

B series generally had smaller tires, different steering wheel, and smaller engines. Headlamps were options. 6, 8 or 10 HP only.  1974 and 75 had a 4 speed, 4 pinion manual transmission with a 6 or 8 HP or the 10 HP engine could be a hydro.  

The C series had an 8 speed HD transmission with a heavier duty 8 pinion transmission or hydro available for all engines. Those were from 10 HP to 16 HP.  

 

The Top of the line in a C series from 1974 up was the C160. 

 

 

That'll get ya started. Others will be along....

[C100guy94 30]

The passion you will find on this site. Wish I remembered or could get onto my old account on here but none the less sure am glad I'm back. 

Ok thank you that helps me begin to wrap my head on things. 

 

I look at this tractor and think wow it's a lot like my 400 series 10hp also just that one was the magnum if I'm correct. Big tire heck I was amazed that some things I still had left over like my wheel chains all would fit. 

I'm astatic I got this tractor. This tractor as are many others are theropt for me. 

 

Thanks for the great information 

[pfrederi 20,418]

C-Series horse power went from 8 to to 16 single cylinder     17 for twins.  Hydros could be had with 12hp and higher engines.  About 1980 Eaton hydos replaced the Sunstrands

[oliver2-44 11,455]

 

Then along came the C-195 1982-84. Around 600-700 built

19ho Kohler Twin

Larger frame than standard C- Series, had some similarities to the D-Series.

 

 

[Sparky-(Admin) 25,163]

1 hour ago, C100guy94 said:

Wish I remembered or could get onto my old account on here but none the less sure am glad I'm back. 

 

 
 Do you remember what your user name was? Or close to what it was?  
 If so I can help, don’t need your password as I’ll assist you with that as well. 

[ri702bill 12,009]

2 hours ago, ebinmaine said:

The C series had an 8 speed HD transmission with a heavier duty 8 pinion transmission or hydro available for all engines. Those were from 10 HP to 16 HP

Do not forget the lowest HP versions - THe C81 and the C85. Both agile workers...

[ri702bill 12,009]

Worth the price for the 10 HP Kohler & the rear weights alone...

[ebinmaine 78,554]

3 minutes ago, ri702bill said:

Do not forget the lowest HP versions - THe C81 and the C85. Both agile workers...

 

 

Definitely agreed.  

I was referencing the first years. 

[Bar Nuthin 2,394]

The C-**0 tractors are hands down, my preferred lineup.

I also have C-141, which is a good worker, but I hate the tower design because it's a pain in the butt to access the rock shaft for changing out attachments.

 

[ebinmaine 78,554]

1 hour ago, Bar Nuthin said:

The C-**0 tractors are hands down, my preferred lineup.

 

Absolutely agreed. 

 

Quote

I also have C-141, which is a good worker, but I hate the tower design because it's a pain in the butt to access the rock shaft for changing out attachments.

 

 

Here at 

 

 

We will not likely ever build another tractor later than 1977 for that very reason alone.  

 

 

[MainelyWheelhorse 2,474]

The C-121,141, and 161 Automatic was only available in 1978 and 79. The C-141 Auto was just shy of 2,600.00 or roughly 13,168.00 with inflation in 2026 without attachments when it was new. It’s top speed is an eye watering 6 miles an hour.

 

[Bar Nuthin 2,394]

22 minutes ago, ebinmaine said:

Here at 

 

 

We will not likely ever build another tractor later than 1977 for that very reason alone.  

 

On a positive note, I do like the external brake on my C141 Auto - for when I need to park my trailer on an incline.

Edited 2 hours ago by Bar Nuthin

[C100guy94 30]

Most of y'all prefer a manual over auto or is it more per task. 

[C100guy94 30]

5 minutes ago, MainelyWheelhorse said:

The C-121,141, and 161 Automatic was only available in 1978 and 79. The C-141 Auto was just shy of 2,600.00 or roughly 13,168.00 with inflation in 2026 without attachments when it was new. It’s top speed is an eye watering 6 miles an hour.

 

Man that a perdy traptor

[ebinmaine 78,554]

2 minutes ago, C100guy94 said:

Most of y'all prefer a manual over auto or is it more per task. 

 

Around here Trina ALWAYS uses her several manual transmission tractors for tasks. 

She won't even touch a hydro unless moving outta the way. 

 

I'm nearly the same. 

I prefer a manual transmission for any task except snow removal. And that's only because I have a monstrous plow that I'd rather not lift manually.  Hydro transmission with a hydro powered lift is a game changer there.  

 

 

 

[Bar Nuthin 2,394]

1 minute ago, C100guy94 said:

Most of y'all prefer a manual over auto or is it more per task. 

 

If you need maneuverability, the Automatics are nice and the hydraulic lift is extra nice.

You'll have a little more maintenance as things develop leaks over time.

Old Wheel Horse literature says they deliver the same torque as manual transmissions, but I question that.

[ebinmaine 78,554]

33 minutes ago, Bar Nuthin said:

 

Old Wheel Horse literature says they deliver the same torque as manual transmissions, but I question that.

 

For an implement - off the PTO - sure. Out the transmission to the axles? I don't see how. Hydros use more power to operate than a manual transmission. 

 

That said, I have both. I've used both for various tasks. The hydro system itself is very good and also a hair faster top speed than the same year manual transmissions. 

 

I don't feel a diminishing of torque strength while on the hydro. 

 

My personal preference for a manual transmission tractor is because of my own driving style. I like to set a gear in a speed and put my feet flat on the floor boards and go. No adjustments. No lever movements. 

[C100guy94 30]

That's always been my understanding too. They pull more power. Manual set and forget and can use rpms to fine too some more yet.

Pure grunt power evenly given

[ebinmaine 78,554]

4 minutes ago, C100guy94 said:

Pure grunt power

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JoeM 9,848]

20 minutes ago, ebinmaine said:

I like to set a gear in a speed and put my feet flat on the floor boards and go. No adjustments. No lever movements. 

Yeah, hydro machines definitely require more coordination and driving of the machine. I know some folks that have bought them just can't catch on. 

I tell them it is like driving a car and pressing on the gas, when you come to a hill you got to give it a little more and leave off when going down. Comes in handy when mowing slopes, not to mention ease of operation, no clutching and braking on the hills just moving one lever.  

If all you got is flat ground not much to think about. 

 

As far as torque to the back wheels I had both and they both exceed the traction capability of the machine. 

 

 

 

[8ntruck 8,821]

@ebinmaine has his Cinamon Horse weighted down.  Wheel weights, maybe filled tires and the weight of The Bear himself.  Lug tires and chains to increase traction to get all the power to get a maximum amount of power transmitted to the ground.

[pfrederi 20,418]

Foe grass cutting by the hour 2nd is too slow 3rd to fast....

[ebinmaine 78,554]

12 minutes ago, 8ntruck said:

@ebinmaine has his Cinamon Horse weighted down.  Wheel weights, maybe filled tires and the weight of The Bear himself.  Lug tires and chains to increase traction to get all the power to get a maximum amount of power transmitted to the ground.

 

Yep. The fluid ALONE is over 255 lbs. Then 130 lbs of steel. Then me, another 250 ish.  

Heavy rig.