C160

[dkg520 499]

I want to thank everyone with all the information for my C160 restoration.  Thanks also to Jim Kemp for the exhaust stack.  I think it looks great!  

[Ed Kennell 35,584]

Great looking tractor.       And, IMO, the best tractor WH made.

[ClassicTractorProfessor 5,255]

Great looking machine...the C160 has always been up at the top of my list of tractors I would like to own...and i must agree that exhaust looks great. thanks for sharing 

[DennisThornton 4,769]

10 hours ago, Ed Kennell said:

Great looking tractor.       And, IMO, the best tractor WH made.

I own a C-161 so I'm pleased with your comments.  But still a bit curious as to why you feel that way.  I can certainly understand that it was the best Classic at the time, but WH didn't stand still.  They made bigger and I think in some ways better.  Simpler?  No.  Is that a major reason for your comment?

[Sarge 3,462]

Versatility , simplicity and great power for it's size . The C-160 was at the top of it's game - only thing it lacked was a pressure lubed engine .

Sarge

[Searcher60 208]

I have a C-160H, 312-8, 520H. I don't need 3 tractors, but don't want to give up any as I cannot make up my mind which i like the best. IF, IF, IF,  the 312-8 had the electric lift, all things considered, it would be hard to beat. But, there is something I just cannot let go of with the C-160H, The 520 is the king, it's a monster, but it's a gas hog, and the wiring can irritate. Sooooooooooo, I'll still have 3 tomorrow. 

[DennisThornton 4,769]

27 minutes ago, Sarge said:

Versatility , simplicity and great power for it's size . The C-160 was at the top of it's game - only thing it lacked was a pressure lubed engine .

Sarge

Certainly not arguing at all, but instead just asking for more.  Versatility applies to most WH, as does simplicity  (odd that it seems that WH was more so than Simplicity itself!) but certainly the C-16X power to size ratio had to be high for that time period, and not just within the breed of WHs.  Hadn't thought about the pressure lube and certainly that's a plus especially in some applications like mowing hillsides, but was anything that WH had at that time pressure lube?  So I'm thinking that "simplicity" is once again a major "like".  Especially compared to a later 520 with all the safety switches, 9 pin molex connectors and on and on.

 

So is "simple guts" a close description of the finer qualities of the biggest WHs of that time?  I should note for others that might be reading this that I've been of the opinion that anything over 14hp is mostly not needed in a GT.  I don't want everyone thinking they have to have 16HP to have a decent GT.  Just ain't so.  Though for some tasks, indeed more is better.  Snowblowing!

 

More praises of the C-16X?

4 minutes ago, Searcher60 said:

I have a C-160H, 312-8, 520H. I don't need 3 tractors, but don't want to give up any as I cannot make up my mind which i like the best. IF, IF, IF,  the 312-8 had the electric lift, all things considered, it would be hard to beat. But, there is something I just cannot let go of with the C-160H, The 520 is the king, it's a monster, but it's a gas hog, and the wiring can irritate. Sooooooooooo, I'll still have 3 tomorrow. 

I really enjoy comments like this!  I have several GTs including several not listed within my postings but I don't have one of everything so I still enjoy others opinions!  I also hope that all of us will continue to share our opinions so newcomers can benefit from ALL of OUR experiences.  We may know and know that many of us know but keep in mind that we have a steady influx of those who don't.  I love my C-8X because I'm not sure they actually use any gas.  Oh I have to put some in sometimes but I'm thinking that's from evaporation.  Pretty sure my 520XI actually uses gas.  Sometimes I wonder why I'm using it when I could have used one of the C-8Xs!  Heck they are all different, not a one of them best, but some shine brighter than others and I still enjoy hearing and sharing.  Hope others do as well.  I bought my C-161 because it was the biggest of that time but now that I have others bigger, well I like them too.

 

Thanks!

[BOB ELLISON 2,976]

I'll have to agree with @Ed Kennell I have at the moment 4 running wheelhorse tractors and my favorite is my C160. I love the hydro and the hydro lift. It is simple to work on and it can move mountains of snow. My 2000 314-8 is a really nice tractor but a pain to work on. My 67 lawn ranger is for fun.

And my 77 B80 is like the c160 in every way except it lacks the power of its big brother the c160.

I like the design of it over the black hoods and as for all the safety switchs on the later models nothing but a pain in the butt. I think it's a  good looking tractor.

 

[DennisThornton 4,769]

21 hours ago, BOB ELLISON said:

I'll have to agree with @Ed Kennell I have at the moment 4 running wheelhorse tractors and my favorite is my C160. I love the hydro and the hydro lift. It is simple to work on and it can move mountains of snow. My 2000 314-8 is a really nice tractor but a pain to work on. My 67 lawn ranger is for fun.

And my 77 B80 is like the c160 in every way except it lacks the power of its big brother the c160.

I like the design of it over the black hoods and as for all the safety switchs on the later models nothing but a pain in the butt. I think it's a  good looking tractor.

 

Absolutely!  Great looking tractor!  I remember reading someone commenting that they would never own a "black hood" and I wondered why?  A Wheel Horse is a Wheel Horse!  Who cares about the hood!  Took me awhile, (oh heck I still don't know why he said that!) but I do like the older hoods better for some reason!  More like the older farm tractors of my time I suppose.  Great looking!  Simple!  Clean lines!  Love 'em!  I suppose that helps explain why with all my choices I very often hop on my C-85 (C-81 is sick...).  It's such a simple and dependable tractor that sips a bit of gas from time to time, or it just evaporates, don't know but still gets the job done somehow (but it doesn't blow snow!).  I do love the older WHs even though I really love the newer ones too!  How does a guy decide?   Side note.  A friend of mine here on the forum, (yes you know how you are!) commented that there was no need to have more than one GT.  I think he has 6 or so now!  Oh maybe 5!  It's not an addiction!  But rather a progression of knowledge!  <chuckle!>  But really!  The more you learn that even if there is one best overall, there are different tasks so the more Wheel Horses you need!

Edited September 26, 2017 by DennisThornton
if

[Ed Kennell 35,584]

There are features I like about all my tractors, but if I could only have one, here are some reasons it would be a C-160.

1. just like the clean hood design

2. prefer points, coil ignition

3. prefer solid mount engine over rocker plate

4 . prefer high fuel tank over under the seat...with a full tank, they run w/o a fuel pump

5. the single Kohlers use less fuel than similar HP twins

6. and they produce less heat

7. they have adequate HP to handle any task....tilling, blowing, 48"deck

8. I prefer hydros with the console mounted motion control....easier to add my foot control

 

 

Edited September 26, 2017 by Ed Kennell

[Searcher60 208]

Great looking C-160! I need to paint mine. Got the paint. Just need to get motivated!

[Searcher60 208]

9 hours ago, Ed Kennell said:

There are features I like about all my tractors, but if I could only have one, here are some reasons it would be a C-160.

1. just like the clean hood design

2. prefer points, coil ignition

3. prefer solid mount engine over rocker plate

4 . prefer high fuel tank over under the seat...with a full tank, they run w/o a fuel pump

5. the single Kohlers use less fuel than similar HP twins

6. and they produce less heat

7. they have adequate HP to handle any task....tilling, blowing, 48"deck

8. I prefer hydros with the console mounted motion control....easier to add my foot control

 

 

 

Just curious why you prefer points? My M12 ignition seems flawless.

[Ed Kennell 35,584]

31 minutes ago, Searcher60 said:

 

Just curious why you prefer points? My M12 ignition seems flawless.

I have an M12 also that runs fine, but if any of my K12s lose fire, I know I can easily and inexpensively make the repair and restore the fire.

With the points, I also have the ability to fine tune the timing.

[953 nut 51,486]

One other point on points (pun intended), a battery ignition system provides a stronger spark. The gap for a magneto system is .025" and for points is .035".

[chip61 655]

My C160 has been my worker of choice until the past couple years when odd issues have made it somewhat unreliable. I think it is a better looking, more comfortable tractor than my 300/400 series tractors and it does use less fuel than the 16hp Onan twin. I am hopefully going to have some time this winter to work out the quirks this machine has developed so it will be my go to machine again next summer. Nothing major, just some electrical issues and the adjustment collar is frozen on the shaft for the motion control lever (was like that when I bought it). Still debating on whether or not to paint it.

It is the last tractor I would part with even with the issues.

[Sarge 3,462]

I started out with a 1277 - that turned out to be a lucky find , to me it's the most reliable/simple/easiest to use one they made in the era before the rocker mount engines and the more complicated wiring - and by far the most elegant look they did for a garden GT . I do not care for the newer models , their colors nor their wiring systems and safety switches . My 1277 if not operated properly can kill you , the neighbor , his dog and wipe out his car too . It's more like my old Land Cruiser - if you're not smart enough to operate it - the thing will eliminate you as the problem . It comes from an era where folks had to be responsible - start it in gear and you'll need a new garage wall , or dog , kid - whatever . Get off that 1277 with it running and the hydro engaged , well - there are pics out there of what happens next ...

 

The C-160 just had a lot more power than the old K-301 - it was the evolution and solution of one shortcoming of the smaller big blocks , especially for running a blower or pulling a large deck through the heavy stuff at warp speed . You almost can't knock it off it's power band without destroying a belt or glaze the clutch - the belt usually loses the battle first as does spindles and bearings . Mine has broken 2 auger chains on the blower hitting frozen snow banks - the same thing on the smaller engine would knock the engine down too far to be effective . I still prefer the 1277 - it's more open , no floor boards (gotta love the stirrups on a Horse) and attachments go on/off so quick it's disgusting in comparison to anything else made . As I said - the 1277 was quite elegant - the later model C's to me were pretty ugly with that wide , flat nose and odd looking grill - but it did have sort of an "industrial" looking appeal to it - took awhile but it grew on me .

 

Upgrade the engine in the 1277 model to a K-341 - that would be an ultimate Horse and I may just do that - I have a replacement factory Kohler out of a Simplicity with very low hours available . I do wish Kohler had done better with the oiling system in the 341 , doesn't take much side hill angle to starve the rod and destroy it - the results are generally either a broken rod and mangled crank or a window in the engine . Within that era the larger twin opposed K's became available with pressure lube systems in the big D's - the K-482/532/662 line had oil pumps and two larger ones had filters to boot . The torque level of those big twins is staggering - it's like running two K-341's that just refuse to stop pulling - hence all the fried pto clutches on the D series . I've ran across the newer 3/4/500 series tractors at some pretty decent prices . While they were tempting - I saw far too many potential issues that could take one out of service - the Onan engines for starters along with their wiring . Anything that ever failed on the older models was fixed in a few minutes and right back to work - not the case with all those safety switches and added sheet metal/plastic . Prior to the C - everything was made of metal and just plain stout with simplicity - a winning recipe in my book . It's all about preferences - I get that part , but I like simple and effective so I've stuck with the early stuff around here . It seems like something was lost once WH got sold the first time in '73 - that core simplicity and farm-tractor looks/reliability factor , the soul of the brand in my opinion .

 

I know not everyone will understand all that - unless you've owned a mid-60's long/short frame and the early C models . I do appreciate that WH kept the later/newer stuff planted tightly in the brand's roots as much as possible . Times had changed and they had to evolve - it happens to everything . The old Land Cruiser next to it's modern day model would be like comparing a Model T to any of Ford's new cars - you'd wonder how the heck it went the direction they took . My old , beat up and tired tractors will still do the work of modern GT's available now - and do it easily for another 30+yrs when they have been long scrapped .

 

Sarge

[Ed Kennell 35,584]

                                                                                                

 

                  I never owned a 1277, but totally agree the older simpler design iron is the best.     Not knocking some of the newer improvements, but  IMO simpler is better.

I'm sure we all could use our experience to build the ultimate vehicle.    My truck would be a  Ford F-150 with a Dodge Cummins engine and a Chevy Allison tranny.

 

[Searcher60 208]

1 hour ago, Sarge said:

I started out with a 1277 - that turned out to be a lucky find , to me it's the most reliable/simple/easiest to use one they made in the era before the rocker mount engines and the more complicated wiring - and by far the most elegant look they did for a garden GT . I do not care for the newer models , their colors nor their wiring systems and safety switches . My 1277 if not operated properly can kill you , the neighbor , his dog and wipe out his car too . It's more like my old Land Cruiser - if you're not smart enough to operate it - the thing will eliminate you as the problem . It comes from an era where folks had to be responsible - start it in gear and you'll need a new garage wall , or dog , kid - whatever . Get off that 1277 with it running and the hydro engaged , well - there are pics out there of what happens next ...

 

The C-160 just had a lot more power than the old K-301 - it was the evolution and solution of one shortcoming of the smaller big blocks , especially for running a blower or pulling a large deck through the heavy stuff at warp speed . You almost can't knock it off it's power band without destroying a belt or glaze the clutch - the belt usually loses the battle first as does spindles and bearings . Mine has broken 2 auger chains on the blower hitting frozen snow banks - the same thing on the smaller engine would knock the engine down too far to be effective . I still prefer the 1277 - it's more open , no floor boards (gotta love the stirrups on a Horse) and attachments go on/off so quick it's disgusting in comparison to anything else made . As I said - the 1277 was quite elegant - the later model C's to me were pretty ugly with that wide , flat nose and odd looking grill - but it did have sort of an "industrial" looking appeal to it - took awhile but it grew on me .

 

Upgrade the engine in the 1277 model to a K-341 - that would be an ultimate Horse and I may just do that - I have a replacement factory Kohler out of a Simplicity with very low hours available . I do wish Kohler had done better with the oiling system in the 341 , doesn't take much side hill angle to starve the rod and destroy it - the results are generally either a broken rod and mangled crank or a window in the engine . Within that era the larger twin opposed K's became available with pressure lube systems in the big D's - the K-482/532/662 line had oil pumps and two larger ones had filters to boot . The torque level of those big twins is staggering - it's like running two K-341's that just refuse to stop pulling - hence all the fried pto clutches on the D series . I've ran across the newer 3/4/500 series tractors at some pretty decent prices . While they were tempting - I saw far too many potential issues that could take one out of service - the Onan engines for starters along with their wiring . Anything that ever failed on the older models was fixed in a few minutes and right back to work - not the case with all those safety switches and added sheet metal/plastic . Prior to the C - everything was made of metal and just plain stout with simplicity - a winning recipe in my book . It's all about preferences - I get that part , but I like simple and effective so I've stuck with the early stuff around here . It seems like something was lost once WH got sold the first time in '73 - that core simplicity and farm-tractor looks/reliability factor , the soul of the brand in my opinion .

 

I know not everyone will understand all that - unless you've owned a mid-60's long/short frame and the early C models . I do appreciate that WH kept the later/newer stuff planted tightly in the brand's roots as much as possible . Times had changed and they had to evolve - it happens to everything . The old Land Cruiser next to it's modern day model would be like comparing a Model T to any of Ford's new cars - you'd wonder how the heck it went the direction they took . My old , beat up and tired tractors will still do the work of modern GT's available now - and do it easily for another 30+yrs when they have been long scrapped .

 

Sarge

 

I like my Onan. 

[Horse46 512]

4 hours ago, Sarge said:

 If you're not smart enough to operate it - the thing will eliminate you as the problem .

 

Sarge

 I love that, pure class!

Thankfully I am, and my C161 is my favourite and my only horse, so it has no competition. But I do like the look of the early model with the narrower bottom to the front.

Edited September 27, 2017 by Horse46

[Sarge 3,462]

23 hours ago, Ed Kennell said:

                                                                                                

 

                  I never owned a 1277, but totally agree the older simpler design iron is the best.     Not knocking some of the newer improvements, but  IMO simpler is better.

I'm sure we all could use our experience to build the ultimate vehicle.    My truck would be a  Ford F-150 with a Dodge Cummins engine and a Chevy Allison tranny.

 

 

Actually , given the funds/expense - you can have whatever combination you want in a pickup now . There are quite a few businesses that do just that - you pick your truck/engine/trans combo and they will build it using either new or very low mileage parts . How they've figured out the computer system integration is beyond me - different brands have their own code systems and getting software to work together had to be the biggest challenge . I've met two guys that had that exact build spec truck - 3/4 ton Super Duty Ford with a fully computerized Cummins and the indestructible Allison transmission - it's quite a combination and everything looked as if it were built that way from the beginning .

 

Maybe one of these days the Auto Makers will figure out what the heavy truck industry has known for so long - give them the truck/engine/transmission combination they prefer and you'll sell to more brand loyal customers .

 

I love certain models of the Onan engines , but the ones that were chosen and how they are mounted in a WH in my opinion was not the best idea . If Onan had addressed the cooling issue on their twins and those notorious valve seats I think they would have bitten into a bigger share of the market . The Onan for so long was the go-to choice for generator engines and they would last far longer than anyone - but how they did things with the WH tractors were pretty bad . I'm sure the WH engineers had a lot to do with this - that's a common problem in so much equipment when you design something at the limits of it's engineering specs . I will say there is nothing better than throttling up one of those big V-twins under a load - such a sweet sound and throttle response !

 

It's too bad WH didn't use a heavier rear axle and hydro motor in the big D series - if they had changed to a better pump input shaft system and used a heavier rear axle overall it would have been the most stout machine built for a very long time - well into the subcompact class built today , just far simpler . The only major issue with the mid-60's long frame big block tractors was it's frame design - that angle iron should have been heavier along with a lot more beef at that rear end . With those two issues addressed , I doubt you'd be able to find one of those models as cheap as they go for now - they would probably be double in used value . For whatever reason , it seems the frames post-'73 were made from better steel . Not sure if that's really true but overall they seem to flex less and have fewer problems cracking the sheet metal parts . The belt guard on the 1277 is notorious for breaking off it's tabs and cracking all over - that's due to the frame moving so much when it's being worked . The stuff is easily repaired and adding strength is not an issue - upgrades can even be easily hidden to keep a stock appearance . I think I've welded the dash stand/tunnel on mine twice - those sections are going to need reinforcement plates on the back side so it won't just keep repeating the same problem . With the thing being so simply built it's an easy job compared to later models - that's where a lot of the attraction lies to me and it's looks are why I'd never let it go .

 

Document your repairs here - it helps others in the future keep these machines alive . I get a lot of thumbs up with that old crusty machine - lot of folks appreciate it's heritage and how well it was built to still be in service today - 50 years later .

 

Sarge

Edited September 28, 2017 by Sarge
bad grammer

[ebinmaine 62,947]

On 9/25/2017 at 9:05 PM, BOB ELLISON said:

And my 77 B80 is like the c160 in every way except it lacks the power of its big brother the c160.

I like the design of it over the black hoods and as for all the safety switchs on the later models nothing but a pain in the butt. I think it's a  good looking tractor.

I have a 74 B80 and I agree with Bob.

I like the 74-77 style the best.

If I get another tractor anytime soon, I think I'd lean towards a C160-8 with a small FEL.

I've pulled 2 trees over that fell sideways when cut and it Never lacked for power.

I've pulled Well over 1000 pounds of logs on a trailer a little ways on Very rough ground... Do I NEED a C-160?

I honestly don't think so until I can get a FEL.

 

On 9/25/2017 at 9:39 PM, DennisThornton said:

no need to have more than one GT.  I think he has 6 or so now!  Oh maybe 5!  It's not an addiction!  But rather a progression of knowledge!  <chuckle!>  But really!  The more you learn that even if there is one best overall, there are different tasks so the more Wheel Horses you need!

I GOT to remember that....

[EricF 589]

I definitely admire the C160s -- that model (Hydro or 8-speed) was on my short list of models to go for when I set out to find a Wheel Horse. As luck would have it, I found a 520H. Both are pretty much at the top in power and work capability for their eras. When you really think about it, the four extra horsepower of a 520H comes with a fairly hefty price in terms of having to beef up the rear of the frame, plus all the extra complexity of the Onan twin and its electrical and fuel systems. (I kind of leave the safety switches out of the picture for performance comparison; they're just part of the more modern era.) In terms of work you can do, either tractor is quite capable. Even snowblowing isn't likely to be too much for a C160 to handle if you don't attack it too fast. (Heck, I used to chew through southern Michigan lake-effect snowfalls with an 8-HP John Deere 110!)

[Sarge 3,462]

I've ran the C-160 against a single stage snow blower - that Kohler loves to kill chains/sprockets/idlers/belts if you push the blower too hard into a snow bank or frozen material , the engine just doesn't stop pulling at full torque nor does it care what it breaks . Operator stupidity for sure , but I was having carb issues and finally got it to run right when the governor opened the throttle fully - the blower took the wrath of the engine in a bad way . I've never had one instance where I could load that engine beyond it's pulling range without damaging whatever accessory was on it - which is why I love that K-341 so much and the overall simplicity of the C-series . Sort of reminds me of the short wheel base big block cars of the past - forget using the wheel to steer it , the throttle worked better anyway ...

 

Sarge