Archive through July 13, 2012

[jsalatino]

Dennis.... You know your right!! When you said " Lisa " is'nt on this year.. .Bummer huh , I've only watched 1 or 2 episodes this season and no LISA.. I wonder what shes doin now?

 

[dtanner]

 

[aschumacher]

OK, IRT

 

[digger]

I guess I'll have to change the name of this website after today!

 

[wshytle]

We have celebrities among us. Charlie has a 169 in a recent cub publication showing off yet another rare cub accessory and Melody has a very nice looking 127 in another edition. I'm sure there are plenty of others here that have been published as well. These are just two I know of.

Nice going to the both of you.

 

[aschumacher]

Charlie, no need to change the name here. It was a quiet weekend and idle chatter happened. Its Monday so I suspect we'll be back on normal track.

 

[bwittman]

I know this subject has been discussed ad nausium, but here goes: I am about to install the engine cradle in my 1250 nightmare, and in a trial set up, I bolted the snubbers (no shims) to the engine cradle and set the OEM ISO mounts on the engine cradle and bolted them in place. According to the service bulletin enclosed with thw ISO mounts, the bolts are to be torqued to 100 inch pounds. In doing so, the ISO mounts compressed considerably, and the snubbers were right down on the frame flange without shims, not the service manual recommended .06-.12". I used new grade 8 bolts from Caterpillar along with steel locking nuts.

It seems to me that the considerable pancake of the ISO mounts with the snubbers on the frame rail is too tight. Some say it is the way the engine cradle should be mounted, Others have said to get a slight compression on the ISO mounts so they move a little bit is the way to do it. I don't know.

If I could get over this hump, I just may get this project finished. The front axle tightened enough to be tolerable. I need a couple of new tie rod ends, a new front wheel and some paint. Other than that, I may be able to stop throwing parts at that machine for long enough to enjoy it.

Still, the only things that should be green and yellow are the NDSU Bison. GO Bison!

 

[jchamberlin]

Brian, are you sure that you're measuring the torque in inch * lbs and not foot * lbs? 100 inch * lbs = 8.3 foot * lbs by my calculations.

Just a thought . . .

 

[hydroharry]

Brian - I'm with Jeremiah especially since I understood the new ISO-mounts from CCC were supposed to be alot stiffer than the old ones. 100 inch pds (8.333 ft. lbs.) of torque should bare squeeze the ISO-mounts. I'm of the school the nuts should be torqued on just past 2 or 3 threads of the bolt (so you see 2 or 3 threads). This should be enough that the nut is locked on and the ISO-mounts shouldn't slip out of place, and the ISO-mounts will hardly show any pancaking (quite similar to the rubbers used on an auto shock mount). The snubbers are to help ensure the belt on the PTO doesn't pull the engine to far out of position. I've not used the new ISO-mounts but when I installed the olds ones I would have slight clearance between the frame and the snubbers. I never worried exactly how much clearance, just so there was a small amount. I believe when you install a PTO belt it will pull the snubbers down against the frame. If your process is putting the snubber tight against the frame then it would certain seem your ISO-mounts are over-torqued and will not allow any engine movement (shaking). Maybe this is what some people want - it's nearly a solid mount with rubbers. I suppose it could work but I tend to like allowance for the engine to move.

 

[digger]

Harry B.
The old mounts were a lot harder than originals.
Last fall Cub Cadet decided to change the stiffness and make them a little mooooshier ( Is that a word?), but they are still kinda hard IMHO.
But like you said, leave 2 or 3 threads showing and run them for a while and readjust and they do fine.

OH YEA!
The best thing to do with the instruction sheet in the kit is to start a fire with it, nothing else!