-
This community needs YOUR help today!
With the ever-increasing fees of maintaining our vibrant community (servers, software, domains, email), we need help.
We need more Supporting Members today.Please invest back into this community to help spread our love and knowledge of all aspects of IH Cub Cadet and other garden tractors.
Why Join?
- Exclusive Access: Gain entry to private forums.
- Special Perks: Enjoy enhanced account features that enrich your experience, including the ability to disable ads.
- Free Gifts: Sign up annually and receive exclusive IH Cub Cadet Tractor Forum decals directly to your door!
This is your chance to make a difference. Become a Supporting Member today:
Archive through April 07, 2014
- Thread starter dfrisk
- Start date
Help Support IH Cub Cadet Forum:
hydroharry
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 4,468
- displayname
- Harry Bursell
Ok, I gotta ask this. Does anyone know the thickness of the infamous cork gasket used between the hydro pump and the rearend housing?
1/16" w/o the paper backing.
sblunier
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2006
- Messages
- 4,829
- displayname
- Steve Blunier "Mr. Plow" (Central IL)
54" Blade is PLENTY on a GT. I've used them all, 42", 58" custom, and 54" Haban.......when they get wide and the snow is wet, you have problems....end of story. Even with the blade set straight, in wet snow you get about 2 "rolls" and you have a giant slush "HoHo" and a spinning tractor, chains, weights, it doesn't matter....it just spins!!! Get out the blower or loader at that point!!!
kide
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2006
- Messages
- 3,779
- displayname
- Gerry Ide
Hydro - see my comments regarding the thickness of that gasket towards the end of Cubfaq 94... I miked a new one at .070 and if anyone's considering making their own - I wouldn't use cork and I'd sure test any type of Neoprene for compatibility with HyTran before using it. The composite that MTD sells now is the safest way in my opinion..
hydroharry
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 4,468
- displayname
- Harry Bursell
Hey Charlie and Gerry - thanks for the thickness info. I guess it's between .0625 and .070.
Gerry - I also had a good look at your write up for Charlie's FAQ #94 (I think the last time I really looked they ended at #93 - note to self for future reference - always check easy places first). You did one heck of a job with all your pics and step by step instructions, and are due a great thanks for that.
One thing I did notice (and it would have to be in the 13th pic) is that you have the old original style hydro control rod that uses a cast iron clamp. IH re-engineered that and did away with that clamping cast iron clamp. I must have broke at least 6 of those clamps and always wondered how IH could have ever come up with that design - using cast iron as a clamp with a steel screw to pull cast iron together on a plastic bushing. Repair of this is not something I've seen come up for quite some time. Did you have to change yours are you still using the original control lever rod with that offset clamp set up at the bottom?
Steve - guess I don't understand why you would have the blade set straight across. I always had to set it at the first angle, and if the snow was deeper at the second angle. I will say yes, ideally you really want to push all the snow forward, but if you are going any real distance you can't push everything straight. You have to angle the blade - even tho you end up pushing the same snow several times you eventually will get it. And yes, I will also say the heavier the snow the more it will force your tractor to angle. Am I missing something here? I never operated one that much and only ever used it on my 60ft asphalt driveway. I will say what I didn't like about the 42 is that with it angled my rear tires would track wider than the blade, and I didn't have that issue with the 54. I always wondered if a 48 may have been more ideal (but IH didn't make one and I didn't want to either).
Gerry - I also had a good look at your write up for Charlie's FAQ #94 (I think the last time I really looked they ended at #93 - note to self for future reference - always check easy places first). You did one heck of a job with all your pics and step by step instructions, and are due a great thanks for that.
One thing I did notice (and it would have to be in the 13th pic) is that you have the old original style hydro control rod that uses a cast iron clamp. IH re-engineered that and did away with that clamping cast iron clamp. I must have broke at least 6 of those clamps and always wondered how IH could have ever come up with that design - using cast iron as a clamp with a steel screw to pull cast iron together on a plastic bushing. Repair of this is not something I've seen come up for quite some time. Did you have to change yours are you still using the original control lever rod with that offset clamp set up at the bottom?
Steve - guess I don't understand why you would have the blade set straight across. I always had to set it at the first angle, and if the snow was deeper at the second angle. I will say yes, ideally you really want to push all the snow forward, but if you are going any real distance you can't push everything straight. You have to angle the blade - even tho you end up pushing the same snow several times you eventually will get it. And yes, I will also say the heavier the snow the more it will force your tractor to angle. Am I missing something here? I never operated one that much and only ever used it on my 60ft asphalt driveway. I will say what I didn't like about the 42 is that with it angled my rear tires would track wider than the blade, and I didn't have that issue with the 54. I always wondered if a 48 may have been more ideal (but IH didn't make one and I didn't want to either).
kide
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2006
- Messages
- 3,779
- displayname
- Gerry Ide
Harry - I never changed that clamp - I have adjusted it a few times. I'm not sure of the type of cast that was used, if it is ductile cast iron, it will deform some without breaking... Maybe Dennis knows?
Over the winter I've been mulling over a question... I've got a good running 129 that I've had since '85 and have kept in pretty good shape (and I'm very sentimental over). I don't really need another tractor, but have the 149 that I picked up a few years ago - it's been hacked on quite a bit, but has good hydraulics and a rebuildable K321... I'd really like the hydraulics on the 129, but keep thinking it'd be easier to swap good parts to the 149 frame (including front axle, wiring harness, hood, steering.....etc.)and then disposing of the excess.. but...My heart isn't really in parting with the 129. Comments??
Over the winter I've been mulling over a question... I've got a good running 129 that I've had since '85 and have kept in pretty good shape (and I'm very sentimental over). I don't really need another tractor, but have the 149 that I picked up a few years ago - it's been hacked on quite a bit, but has good hydraulics and a rebuildable K321... I'd really like the hydraulics on the 129, but keep thinking it'd be easier to swap good parts to the 149 frame (including front axle, wiring harness, hood, steering.....etc.)and then disposing of the excess.. but...My heart isn't really in parting with the 129. Comments??
kostendorf
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 617
- displayname
- Keith Ostendorf
Tom, right now I'm using a picture hanging cable covered with vacuum line hose. It has done a fine job for a year now. I am making a hood stop and will take some pics when its done.
hydroharry
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 4,468
- displayname
- Harry Bursell
Gerry - I get what you're saying and you sure have a dilemma. I think there are some key words in your posting. "Sentimental" and "don't really need". You don't say what has been hacked on about the 149 but sounds as though it's still a good tractor. I certainly would not take a really good 129 tractor to make a good 149 into a very good 149. I suspect this is more a situation where the separate parts you need are more costly than the entire tractor would be. This brings me back to the key words you used. You may not need it but it's sentimental. So - don't do it, don't part it out. Spend your time looking for the hydraulics to convert it if that's what you really want. And maybe if you're lucky you'll end up with a 149 parts unit so you can use the remainder of the parts on your current hacked 149. At least this is what I'd do.
