Should I c101

[Crazyredhorse 296]

What do you guys think is this one you guys would bother fixing up or should I find a better model kinda like to have a model to put on blower. no deck tho.guessing it has electric start but could get cheep.

[Herder 2,355]

Depends on how cheep.  Personally I run a snow thrower on a hydro with a hydraulic lift.  The snow throwers are a bit heavy when lifted manually.  I also stay away form shaker plate engines.  The rubber mounts can allow the engine to move around and cause damage to the drive belt.  The rubber mounts can be replace with solid ones.  If it runs and doesn't smoke and the transaxle is good, shoot for a good price.  Best of luck.  

[stevasaurus 23,301]

That looks like a solid, complete horse.  Plenty of power for a blower, and it looks like it would clean up nicely.  If the blower is too heavy, they make helper spring kits for the lift.  If it runs, a 10 horse Kohler is a good engine.  It is electric start. and a good chance the transmission if OK.  Up to you, I don't know what cheap means to you...I know what cheap means to me.

   How close are you to Elgin, Ill??

[Crazyredhorse 296]

I'm close to 94 and state line.but I wouldn't give him more than a 100 for it without a deck

[clueless 3,259]

That's a hundred dollar tractor all day long even with out a deck. Hell even if it doesn't run.

[Herder 2,355]

Agreed, a hundred is a good price.  I've paid more for less!! 

[Pullstart 67,034]

A good running 10 horse is worth that.  For quite some time, a C-101 was the largest in my small herd (back then) and easily tackled chores.

[Ed Kennell 42,138]

Any WH roller is worth a buck around here.       But, if I were looking for a snow machine( blower or plow blade) I would only buy a hydro with a 12HP minimum.

A gear drive and manual lift may be OK on a long straight run, but if you are clearing snow like I do on 5-6 small driveways, I probably log as many hours in reverse with the blade raised as I do forward.

If I had to change gears and lift by hand, I would never get done.

 

And I have to agree with @Herder,   The rocker plate engine mount was one of the few engineering mistake that WH made.

Tractor engines especially with belt drive should not be moving around on rubber mounts, and IMO they never reducdr any vibration.

[Crazyredhorse 296]

ok didnt realize it wasn't hydro.maybe hold out for somthing a little more beefy.maybe I'll pick it up just for kicks if it's cheap enough. still waiting for him to get back to me.but dont think it's one to dump money into.

[Pullstart 67,034]

The one you posted is an 8 speed.  Ed suggested looking for a hydro 

[WheelhorseBob 1,550]

Well I have to disagree with the rockers were e a mistake Sentiment. Certainly you can have rubber mounts and a belt drive ala all HD touring bikes. The rockers do vibrate less at throttle but a bit more at low speed idle. The reduction is in the buzzing frequency range if that makes sense. Unless someone knows different I would think they only lasted 2 years due to the added cost to build them. Could be wrong but a guess because WH was a very frugal company. My C161 has become my favorite WH and at 44 years young works perfectly. If it were a mistake, no one told it. It just keeps on going. In fact I replaced a large section of lawn this spring and Rototilled 6500 sq feet of rocky root infested ground. Don’t bat an eye at a “rocker” horse just make sure the mounts are in good shape.

Edited May 16, 2021 by WheelhorseBob

[EricF 589]

I think the difference in the behavior of the WH "shaker plate" engine shock mount and the motorcycle rubber-mount implementations has to do with the somewhat simpler, consistent drive angles on motorcycles versus the varying drive angles and operating conditions faced by tractors. Also very different belts -- the flat toothed belts on motorcycles have different characteristics compared to the V-belts used on tractors. Wheel Horse probably could have sorted it out more if they'd wanted to, but ultimately the engines available in the industry were moving toward smoother-running opposed twins for the higher-HP tractors. The need just wasn't there any longer. They went back to tried-and true solid mounts for the less-expensive moderate-HP tractors and smooth-running opposed twins in the high-HP models that didn't need complex anti-vibration mounts.

[WheelhorseBob 1,550]

7 minutes ago, EricF said:

I think the difference in the behavior of the WH "shaker plate" engine shock mount and the motorcycle rubber-mount implementations has to do with the somewhat simpler, consistent drive angles on motorcycles versus the varying drive angles and operating conditions faced by tractors. Also very different belts -- the flat toothed belts on motorcycles have different characteristics compared to the V-belts used on tractors. Wheel Horse probably could have sorted it out more if they'd wanted to, but ultimately the engines available in the industry were moving toward smoother-running opposed twins for the higher-HP tractors. The need just wasn't there any longer. They went back to tried-and true solid mounts for the less-expensive moderate-HP tractors and smooth-running opposed twins in the high-HP models that didn't need complex anti-vibration mounts.

Pardon my ignorance but what belt issues do the shaker mounted horses experience. I haven’t experienced any yet but it doesn’t mean I won’t. BTW the belt system on a bike is much more variable, it literally changes every time the rear wheel moves. 

[EricF 589]

The shaker mount allows belt angle/tension to change as the engine moves under vibration. Motorcycle suspensions move in a very defined arc, and the engine mounts are engineered to restrict the engine's movement to the same plane, and it all works in harmony with the toothed flat drive belt. The WH "shaker plate" was less constrained, so it could move up / down / fore / aft / in  /out to small but varying amounts. (There's a little flex in the tractor frame and in the rubber mounts) Enough to potentially accelerate wear on V-belts due to friction and tension changes. It probably could have been fine-tuned for better behavior, but given WH's frugality, they probably didn't see enough value in spending time and money on it. Interesting approach though. If it had worked out, it would have been a nice selling point since WH was a high-end brand.

[WheelhorseBob 1,550]

Interesting, I’m glad mine works well and I’m currently building another. For what it’s worth, mine doesn’t bounce around at all at operating RPM. It does shake at idle just like my HD bikes do. I’d love to hear from someone who worked for WH back then or spoke to someone who did and hear the rest of the story so to speak.

[cschannuth 3,817]

2 hours ago, WheelhorseBob said:

what belt issues do the shaker mounted horses experience.

I couldn’t get my C1 61 to hook up in third gear high range when I had the shaker plate rubber mounts on mine. It deflected just enough that the belt would slip under heavy use. I installed solid mounts on the plate and it has zero slippage now. Mine could’ve just been an oddity but that was my experience.

[cschannuth 3,817]

I’m used to 20 hp Onans and 16 hp twin Briggs but my experiences with the smaller horsepower stuff is that they make fine trailer puller‘s but you have to be very patient if you expect them to do much else.  Even my 314-8 which is in like new, low hour condition aggravates me when using a 42 inch deck on my thick lawn.  I will say that my little 6.5 hp predator pushes snow in high gear all day long with no issues so I have been impressed with that.

Edited May 17, 2021 by cschannuth

[Herder 2,355]

One of my previous dozer's was a C-141, all in all a good tractor.  Do to it's age at the time the rubber mounts where probably not in the best shape, not torn or cracked, just soft.  When the engine would move under a load the belt would rub the guard and run uneven.  Back then I wasn't able to find solid mounts for it.  Needless to say the drive belt became a replacement item.