Jump to content
Firebug

C series confusion

Recommended Posts

I was just wondering what the difference was between the 2 c series tractors. I have a black hood c 85 and a c160. They look nothing alike but are both c series designations

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

C-160 was made  from 1974 through 1977

The c-85 was a new design in 1980

referred to as the blackhood tractors. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

So they redesigned the same model during the production run. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
2 minutes ago, Firebug said:

So they redesigned the same model during the production run. 

Sort of. 

  The frame, steering, motors and transmissions pretty much stayed the same. The sheetmetal and a few other things changed over the years. 

  A) The first machines referred to as a “C” series and were the same each year were the 1974-1977 units.

  B) The 1978-1979 “C” series looked real close to the previous machines with a few changes.

  C) The 1980-1984 “C” series were very different looking (same mechanicals as previous years) . 1984 was the last  year a “C” series was offered. Machines made after 1984 were called the 300, 400 and 500 series.

  There were also a couple of oddball “C” series machines produced after 1979 such as the Gt2500 Anniversary model and a couple others.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

In addition to the sheet metal changes to the "Cs" in 1980, I believe this was also when the fuel tanks were relocated under the seat.    IMO, this was one of two poor design changes WH made.   It causes hard starting due to fuel pumps losing prime and restricts cooling air flow around the hydros.  The other was the rocker plate engine mounts. I could never see a difference in the vibration.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

The first under the seat gas tanks and rubber motor mount tractors were the 1978-79 C-series. 

  • Like 3
  • Excellent 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

The fuel tanks under the seat came about in 1978 I believe. My C141 has the plastic tank under the seat.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Did they increase the tank size when the moved it under the seat? My 160 has it under the hood and it seems pretty small. Not sure how big it is but I would say it can’t be more than a gallon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

The under-hood tank on the C-160 holds approximately 2.5 gallons.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Then there is this guy with the Briggs twin.  Mine does not have the Briggs anymore though. 

IMG_20181107_155414.jpg

  • Like 3
  • Excellent 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I never would have guessed that was a 2.5 gallon tank 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I replaced the rubber mounts on my ‘78 C-161 with solid mounts and didn’t notice any added vibration.   I did get much improved power transfer though the belt. The rubber mounts deflected so much that the drive belt never achieved full tension on the pulley and would cause slipping. 

 

 By the way, don’t be scared of the Briggs. It’s the only Wheel Horse engine I’ve never had to work on or rebuild. 

 

909B121A-2577-4D00-B985-FA65CDA7A14F.jpeg.25baad3f5fc3ab8133b0eda8cc6ab752.jpeg

  • Like 4
  • Excellent 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

What tires are on the front of that, are those the Firestone’s?

Share this post


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

I replaced the rubber mounts on my ‘78 C-161 with solid mounts and didn’t notice any added vibration.   I did get much improved power transfer though the belt. The rubber mounts deflected so much that the drive belt never achieved full tension on the pulley and would cause slipping. 

 

 By the way, don’t be scared of the Briggs. It’s the only Wheel Horse engine I’ve never had to work on or rebuild. 

 

909B121A-2577-4D00-B985-FA65CDA7A14F.jpeg.25baad3f5fc3ab8133b0eda8cc6ab752.jpeg

Craig, you might be putting that tractor and blade to use this weekend - I know if you were in my part of Missouri you would be.  We're supposed to get a lot of snow, I heard amounts from 8 inches to 13 or more for this area.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
12 hours ago, Professor1990 said:

The fuel tanks under the seat came about in 1978 I believe. My C141 has the plastic tank under the seat.

 

Yup, 1978. I'm guessing one of the main reasons was to get it away from the battery. 

 

13 hours ago, Ed Kennell said:

In addition to the sheet metal changes to the "Cs" in 1980, I believe this was also when the fuel tanks were relocated under the seat.    IMO, this was one of two poor design changes WH made.   It causes hard starting due to fuel pumps losing prime and restricts cooling air flow around the hydros.  The other was the rocker plate engine mounts. I could never see a difference in the vibration.

 

I never thought about the cooling issue with the hydro but I can see it. As far as the wobble mount engines fortunately they didn't stick around long. I agree, two bad ideas. :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

What tires are on the front of that, are those the Firestone’s?

 

Yes sir. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
1 hour ago, T-Mo said:

Craig, you might be putting that tractor and blade to use this weekend - I know if you were in my part of Missouri you would be.  We're supposed to get a lot of snow, I heard amounts from 8 inches to 13 or more for this area.

 

 I’ve heard anywhere from 5 to 12 inches in our area. We are about an hour or so west of St. Louis so it looks like we’re right in the heart of it. However, since it’s starting earlier it almost looks like we might get a little bit more of the rain/sleet to start with so that might hold the totals down a little bit. And since I would really like to try out the plow with a little extra snow I’m sure we won’t get very much, ha ha. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

What year was the brake band added to the transmission on the hydro?

78?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I believe the gas tank move was partially becuase of people fueling hot tractors and spilling fuel causing fires. I believe remember hearing about this when I was a young-in. Not sure if this was government rule or not.

 

 

 

 

 

eric j     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
9 hours ago, ericj said:

I believe the gas tank move was partially becuase of people fueling hot tractors and spilling fuel causing fires. I believe remember hearing about this when I was a young-in. Not sure if this was government rule or not.

eric j     

Yes, there were a few incidents, mainly if the gas tank was above or near the battery.  Gas fumes and sparks from batteries don't mix too well.  Deere made a kit, that was free, to add covers to the battery or battery connections to reduce the chance of sparking.  Up to a year or two ago, if you had the serial number of one of the tractors involved, you could go to a Deere dealer and get one free.  Of course, some people were trying to sell these on ebay, even though anyone could get a kit free from Deere.  I got a few from my dealer for my round fender John Deeres.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

As far as the gas tank, I got a story.

My first WH was a B100 Auto, 1975. It was about 15 years old when I went to run it one day. I know the tank had plenty of fuel left from cutting a few days earlier. I started running and it ran out of gas, strange I though, so I got a can and began to fill the tank only to see the rubber grommet on the tank valve failed and the fuel leaked all over the battery and down the side of the engine.

Seemed pretty dangerous. Of course, the fuel that was in the tank leaked out while idle and nothing bad happened. Very well could have been ugly, if I didn't happen to look down and see those drips and cranked it up. The starter solenoid was wet too.

I like that tank location because it keeps the carb primed but I can see how it was a good idea to move it also.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

What would have been the purpose of going to a plastic rear fender set? All the other models around the same time frame kept the metal rear fenders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I’m not sure but I do know it wasn’t a good idea. I’m not saying they don’t look good but they broke or cracked relatively easily. I have a C-161 twin automatic with a chip out of it. I’m not sure if I’m going to switch it to metal. I just switched my C-175 auto to metal fenders and kind of like it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

My c 85 fenders are all broken up. I have a set of metal ones off a gt workhorse to put on after the go from grey to red. Not sure if I need to change the floor boards or not because of the height difference in the front edges of the 2 fenders

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.

×