Whats The Smallest W.H. They Made?

[71_Bronco 1,072]

So out of curiosity, what was the smallest TRACTOR Wheel Horse made? I am talking tractor, not petal car, toy tractor etc.

The only conditions are that it must have separate fenders for the rear tires, not a fender-pan set-up, like my Bronco 14 has. Also, a round nose is a must too.

Something like this styling:

Thanks!

[JimD 3,345]

I'd have to say that would be the Lawn Ranger series, as seen in the picture gallery here: http://www.wheelhorseforum.com/index.php?showtopic=13803

[buckrancher 2,678]

I would say it's a toss up between RJ's, surburbans and early lawn rangers

for the smallest tractor

The lawn ranger looks smaller because of the tire size but the body is

roughly the same

Brian

[SousaKerry 500]

Well ther are the round hooded Walk behinds but they are two wheeled and the handles make them taller then the rest.

[71_Bronco 1,072]

The reason I am asking is because I want another W.H. to add to my collection, but I want to do allot of research first.

I bought my Bronco 14 on a whim, and will be using it as a worker, but I want a small, older W.H. for shows and light duty work.

I figure if I buy a smaller tractor, it would be less space taken up in the garage, and also less parts / easier parts to work on / work with.

I really like the Bronco I have, but for this other tractor, I kinda wanted to get back to the roots of tractors & wheel horse's, that's why I want a round nose, independent fenders, old school metal seat, aggressive ags etc.

Also, I figure that if I decide now what I want, I can have plenty of time to look for one and wait for that one special one to come along.

I don't want to do a 2-wheeled walk-behind, although those are pretty cool, and the Lawn Rangers in the link provided have the fender-pan set-up I do not want.

Thanks guys for the feedback so far!

[grnlark 479]

The RJ's are smaller than the Rangers. I had a RJ and a Ranger stuffed side by side in my shed last winter. :thumbs2:

[LeonardS 0]

For light work and small size, I would go with a 551. I don't know alot about the old Wheel Horses, but my 400 has a bolted together transmission/rear end and my 551's have a cast housing which is alot stronger. RJ's seem like more of a show/parade unit and the 400 would be in this category also. If there is any work or weight involved, I would find one with a cast tranny/rear end.

My .02 of limited knowledge!!

Leonard

[sorekiwi 761]

The RJ's are smaller than the Rangers. I had a RJ and a Ranger stuffed side by side in my shed last winter.

I think Matts right, here is a '63 Ranger next to an RJ58.

BTW, the '62 to '64 Rangers had the seperate rear fenders you are wanting.

[71_Bronco 1,072]

For light work and small size, I would go with a 551. I don't know alot about the old Wheel Horses, but my 400 has a bolted together transmission/rear end and my 551's have a cast housing which is alot stronger. RJ's seem like more of a show/parade unit and the 400 would be in this category also. If there is any work or weight involved, I would find one with a cast tranny/rear end.

My .02 of limited knowledge!!

Leonard

Maybe i should clarify what "light duty" means to me.

The main tasks of my Bronco will be mowing & driveway grading with a mid-mount grader blade.

The only thing that I would be using the round nose for would be a small trailer to possible tow around my cousins in (ranging in age from not born yet to 4 years old).

I would not be using the round nose for mowing, plowing, grading, snow blowing etc etc, so I obviously don't need a battleship. The tasks I use it for will probably be considered "babying" the tractor compared to what some of you guys use them for.

[sorekiwi 761]

My 63 Ranger pulls a trailer full of firewood, and drags a lawn sweeper around. IF I could do it without getting the tractor covered in snow and salt, I'd push snow with it as well.

The only thing small about them is really the wheels, the chassis and transmission is the same as used on the bigger tractors of the day. I once spread some gravel around on my driveway once with the RJ, but I never really saw the point in working it too hard, I had other tractors that did it better.

[littleredrider 408]

I really like the rangers. I have a 63 like the one posted above, and parting a 67. The 67 has a K181 in it and also has a plow. For a small tractor it will push one heck of a lot of snow.

Like Mike said, they are basically the same as the bigger tractors, just smaller tires. It's hard to tell in this pic that it is a ranger and not a 633/753 or similar.

[HorseFixer 2,012]

Red rider what ya doing w that 520 wo an engine?

~Duke

[littleredrider 408]

That's the one I put the 10 horse diesel in. I'm thinking of selling/parting it. I want to keep the rear tires/weights, front axle stuff and maybe the steering. Still undecided tho...I have it in the classifieds....

[HorseFixer 2,012]

:banghead: No Engine, No Front Axel, No Steering, $ 500.00 Good Luck. :banghead:

[littleredrider 408]

I just put that in there since a price was needed. The hydro works great in it, just that can go close to what I'm asking. It's not a big deal if I sell it or keep it, just sits outside looking depressed....

[HorseFixer 2,012]

I just put that in there since a price was needed. The hydro works great in it, just that can go close to what I'm asking. It's not a big deal if I sell it or keep it, just sits outside looking depressed....

Was possibly looking for a rollin chassis. :thumbs2:

[littleredrider 408]

If I keep anything it will be the rear tires/weights. Right now it has 4 lug hubs up front, but have the stock tires/wheels to put back on it. I don't really need the those hubs, but the tires I want to keep. I don't really need the swept front axle, mainly doing it cause of the look. This is all stuff I think about during the day at work, nothing better to do!!!

[71_Bronco 1,072]

Not to be an @$$ guys, but I think we are getting a little off topic lol.

Another reason I wanna look early is so that I can try to scronge together all the correct parts like elusive belt guards and the likes.

[littleredrider 408]

I have a 67 that I'm parting, it's not a round fender, but close....

[Rooster 191]

OK I am going to give this a try....but I am fairly new here so you guys correct me if I am wrong.

You asked for : Small, Simple and light duty.

To me, this spells out RJ Or Suburban 400 or 401.

The 3 speed tranny has relatively few parts , the smaller engines are a bit simpler and the chassis are about as simple as they come.

The RJ's are a little tougher to find and can get on the pricey side. But the Suburbans ,from what I have seen , can be picked up inexpensively if you are willing to do the restoration work, and I have even seen some in really good condition for as low as $200.

Both tractors will easily do the work you mentioned and be easy to fix/restore/maintain.

The Rangers mentioned would probably fit as well...but you asked for the "Smallest" and simple.

Disclaimer: I promise none of this was swayed by the fact that i am a Suburbanite!

[smoreau 658]

You could shrink a 400 down a little and make one like I saw at the Charlot show. this is the smallest I have seen.

[71_Bronco 1,072]

Been doing a little looking and seems I have found a sweet spot in my heart for the Suburban 550. Can anybody tell me a little about these little guys and if they would be a good fit for what I am looking for?

Thanks guys

[TT-(Moderator) 1,129]

OK..... time to settle this.

Three tractors & one tape measure later, the Lawn Ranger wins the prize - but only when it comes to the storage footprint.

Due to the smaller tires, the Lawn Ranger comes out about 4 inches shorter and narrower than the RJ-35 & 633.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As for the 550........

I think you should probably stay away from the Tecumseh-powered tractors. If you seriously want "less parts / easier parts to work on / work with", then go with a recoil start / mag ignition Kohler - which can be found on the RJ's & 400 / 401 Suburbans.

[71_Bronco 1,072]

Thanks allot TT, helpful as always

another thought I had was to find a motor-less suburban and drop a brand new 5 HP Kohler, with a pull start, into it, so I would hve a more reliable motor and still have the operation / styling of the Subrban. Is this idea frowned upon?

Thanks again, and nice tractors :banghead: