Choosing the right sized horse (or alternative)

[giantsean 59]

3 hours ago, adsm08 said:

 

That's gotta be the worst dad joke I've told today.

 

I think it might just be sad that it has an OBSCENELY wide turning radius.  WTH 1970's engineers!

 

Here's my theory on dad jokes.  We are forced to tell dad jokes simply because we can't tell the jokes we WANT to tell, to children...

[giantsean 59]

Man... that's just wrong...

 

Edited June 25, 2019 by giantsean

[ebinmaine 71,200]

4 hours ago, giantsean said:

Man... that's just wrong...

 

These could be right...

They're "out side" measurements.

 

Nowadays we measure the inside.

 

 

 

[adsm08 2,789]

7 hours ago, giantsean said:

 

I think it might just be sad that it has an OBSCENELY wide turning radius.  WTH 1970's engineers!

 

Here's my theory on dad jokes.  We are forced to tell dad jokes simply because we can't tell the jokes we WANT to tell, to children...

 

You think the 70s engineers were bad? You should see some of the things that I have found on my mom's Mustang that were apparently considered "appropriate" repairs. Like wires twisted and taped together. Or 100 MPH tape and bubble gum covering the giant hole in the tub behind the battery tray.

[71_Bronco 1,072]

I have a '68 Commando 8, and it surprised me the first time I tried to take a tight turn. I'd have to measure it to be sure, but I'd guess its much tighter.

 

Only downside to your needs is that it is a 3-speed, with no low-range gears. I just recently got an 8-speed to transplant in to give me the low-range, but they do not come with that feature stock.

[giantsean 59]

3 hours ago, 71_Bronco said:

I have a '68 Commando 8, and it surprised me the first time I tried to take a tight turn. I'd have to measure it to be sure, but I'd guess its much tighter.

 

Only downside to your needs is that it is a 3-speed, with no low-range gears. I just recently got an 8-speed to transplant in to give me the low-range, but they do not come with that feature stock.

 

Forgot if I already said this but the real trick with Wheel Horses here is finding a Wheel Horse that's not a B/C/D or newer, that also isn't a rusty piece of garbage.  Or if it's not, it's already a collector's item and outside the range of what I'm looking for for a tractor to pull an aerator or spreader.

 

I did for giggles look at specs on the WH/Toro rear engine riders... neat little go carts but maybe not the best for pulling what with little tires, and for NOT flipping over backwards on hills.  Those Snapper mid-engines were very cool too.  I am wondering if my best bet sadly is going green, like an STX38 or something made in the USA that turns in 2 feet or less.  I really want that C101 though

[71_Bronco 1,072]

3 hours ago, giantsean said:

 

Forgot if I already said this but the real trick with Wheel Horses here is finding a Wheel Horse that's not a B/C/D or newer, that also isn't a rusty piece of garbage.  Or if it's not, it's already a collector's item and outside the range of what I'm looking for for a tractor to pull an aerator or spreader.

 

I did for giggles look at specs on the WH/Toro rear engine riders... neat little go carts but maybe not the best for pulling what with little tires, and for NOT flipping over backwards on hills.  Those Snapper mid-engines were very cool too.  I am wondering if my best bet sadly is going green, like an STX38 or something made in the USA that turns in 2 feet or less.  I really want that C101 though

 

Deals can be had if you're patient and look. I happen to stumble on mine on ebay, and it was in the same town as me. I paid $250 for my Commando 8 with a deck and complete plow.

 

Did need a little work, like some carb adjustment, a couple belts, and work to the tires (I replaced them rather than bothering with tubes).

 

Mines in good usable condition, not rusty by any means, more sun fading than anything.

[Stepney 2,351]

18 hours ago, ebinmaine said:

These could be right...

They're "out side" measurements.

 

Nowadays we measure the inside.

 

 

 

On this subject of turning. I remember well my clean original B-100 from 1974, and how ABSOLUTELY AWFUL it was to drive. Then one day it suddenly steered more like my old '68 did. The tie rod nut on one side loosened up, and I never noticed till then that they had little stamped steel 'stops' on both tie rods. Removed those, and it turned just as good as the older ones. My only guess is this was added to prevent rubbing the mule drive at full lock. Mine would just slightly. But it steered far tighter with the stoppers removed. 

[giantsean 59]

2 hours ago, Stepney said:

On this subject of turning. I remember well my clean original B-100 from 1974, and how ABSOLUTELY AWFUL it was to drive. Then one day it suddenly steered more like my old '68 did. The tie rod nut on one side loosened up, and I never noticed till then that they had little stamped steel 'stops' on both tie rods. Removed those, and it turned just as good as the older ones. My only guess is this was added to prevent rubbing the mule drive at full lock. Mine would just slightly. But it steered far tighter with the stoppers removed. 

 

I had that exact thought while looking at pics of B's and C's with the deck!  The tire was barely turned in and already close to the mule and belt.  I thought the made the nose narrow to compensate but I guess it's not enough.

[Stepney 2,351]

12 minutes ago, giantsean said:

 

I had that exact thought while looking at pics of B's and C's with the deck!  The tire was barely turned in and already close to the mule and belt.  I thought the made the nose narrow to compensate but I guess it's not enough.

It just hardly rubbed something on the right front wheel. Either the deck hanger or the mule. But just barely. Still steered much better. If you want ultimate in radius, a mod 60's rig is the one. My '68 Electro 12 turns on a time and feels as if it has power, it's so smooth and light at the wheel. 

 

[Lee1977 7,064]

There is no way a lawn or garden tractor can turn in two feet with it being 36" wide or wider. That has to be the inside wheels they are saying turns in two feet. A zero turn can turn on the rear wheel  if it"s a 60" deck you had better have ten foot or so clear or your going to hit something.  Two foot turning radius is a sales gimlet to fool people that don't know any better. Turning radius has always been the out side wheels and you had better have a little more room if you have fender or a deck sticking out. 

Edited June 26, 2019 by Lee1977

[giantsean 59]

20 hours ago, Lee1977 said:

There is no way a lawn or garden tractor can turn in two feet with it being 36" wide or wider. That has to be the inside wheels they are saying turns in two feet. A zero turn can turn on the rear wheel  if it"s a 60" deck you had better have ten foot or so clear or your going to hit something.  Two foot turning radius is a sales gimlet to fool people that don't know any better. Turning radius has always been the out side wheels and you had better have a little more room if you have fender or a deck sticking out. 

 

No I fully agree... two feet always sounded unreasonable (as an outside radius at least and some of those specs are as small as 18").  The thing is too that a spec written in the 70's can't be compared with the same decades later, as to your point they are probably comparing apples and oranges anyway.  The modern smaller LT's no doubt have better turning in (like for example my Crapsman destroys the D-200 all day) and the question should be if that's the most important thing, which ones suck the least.  I don't know how much mid-80's-90's JD's compare to my 2007 Craftsman but I know I don't want an MTD/AYP clone or it's ilk, nor do I want a big box JD.

Edited June 27, 2019 by giantsean

[Stepney 2,351]

54 minutes ago, giantsean said:

 

No I fully agree... two feet always sounded unreasonable (as an outside radius at least and some of those specs are as small as 18").  The thing is too that a spec written in the 70's can't be compared with the same decades later, as to your point they are probably comparing apples and oranges anyway.  The modern smaller LT's no doubt have better turning in (like for example my Crapsman destroys the D-200 all day) and the question should be if that's the most important thing, which ones suck the least.  I don't know how much mid-80's-90's JD's compare to my 2007 Craftsman but I know I don't want an MTD/AYP clone or it's ilk, nor do I want a big box JD.

I mowed with a 1974 B100 Auto and a 1983/4 JD model 116 for years. They were on par. The JD was a bit complex to deal with and a tinny, plastic joke compared to the WH .. though by modern standards the JD was a tank. And it sure did cut well. 

If you want it to turn and do light work, I would go for an old short frame. Simple, robust, and tight. Even my 'big' 68 Electro drives better then most any new rider. And I get stuck driving newer machines of all kinds pretty often, as I do small engine repair. 

[giantsean 59]

12 hours ago, Stepney said:

I mowed with a 1974 B100 Auto and a 1983/4 JD model 116 for years. They were on par. The JD was a bit complex to deal with and a tinny, plastic joke compared to the WH .. though by modern standards the JD was a tank. And it sure did cut well. 

If you want it to turn and do light work, I would go for an old short frame. Simple, robust, and tight. Even my 'big' 68 Electro drives better then most any new rider. And I get stuck driving newer machines of all kinds pretty often, as I do small engine repair. 

 

Yeah for anything else I'll have to wait, unless I want to (shudder) consider some other brands.  Open to any suggestions for stout workers, while pining for the C101

[ohiofarmer 3,355]

I have a 1056 that I bought primarily for the engine, but being stressed for time, i simply borrowed the tie rods from the other tractor with the blown engine. Even with only three forward speeds it is a real worker.  I went to a guy to buy a mower deck and he GAVE me a small frame roller that had an automatic and a seat pan that was at least six inches narrower than a C-series [it turns out to be a 1075]. I need to get some piccs on here to figure all this out.  Put new axle seals in it and it runs. I bet that it could make a nice little beast of a tractor.   Without a deck, a little 6.5 predator will run it nicely for a yard tractor. They are out there, but I suppose that there are more in Ohio and Indiana because of where they were built and dealers were everywhere

 

 Since the mule drive was mentioned here as it relates to steering, i guess that I will throw in my oyer opinion about it.  The front mule drive seems to not even come close in performance relating to power transmission to the mower decks. Push it too hard in the long grass and you will soon discover that it takes more horsepower to do the same job and/or you will replace belts after burning one after the other

.  The Raider 10 with its much shorter side drive belt will maul down grass higher than the hood of the tractor. Cut it just once and return two days later to cut again. You have to let it dry between cuttings

. Couple all that to the eight speed, and that mower will take on about anything.  I do make sure that the mower belt tensioner is free to move and not frozen in place by old dust and clippings that can gather under the slide.   

[ohiofarmer 3,355]

First picture is the raider 10 with a borrowed 8 speed from the no name rusty Horse bringing up the rear. That same Horse gave up its 12 HP engine to a C-141.

 The Electro 12 will run if the electrics are converted to coil and condenser.  After seeing what the 12 HP will do installed in the C-141, i am convinced that I need to get the 14 HP that has an egg shaped piston bore redone and not worry about the cost.

 

 I was going to leave the little 6.5 predator in the 1075 to use as a yard sprayer, but after reading some of you fellows comments about short frame autos being somewhat desirable, I might put a donor 8 HP in it if that engine has enough power to  make a 42" SD function.

 

 I also have a 416-8 and 520-H with Onans which both need help.  The 416 is very nice and clean with only 200 hours. Also have a b 800 that needs a fuel pump. Plus one 8 horsepower I traded a Briggs for that needs engine tins.

 

So there is the lineup. Still confused?

 

[Stormin 9,983]

On ‎6‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 3:39 AM, Stepney said:

 My only guess is this was added to prevent rubbing the mule drive at full lock. Mine would just slightly. But it steered far tighter with the stoppers removed. 

 

  That has just solved something that's niggled me a bit. My C-125 which is my main worker and mower, turns tighter to the right than left. The quadrant looks as if it's been welded on, slightly out of place.  But that will be why. To clear the mule drive on left hand turns.

  I'll not cut it off and re-weld now.