Doug A.
If it was welded up using the right material, and offset drilled, It will last a long time.
If it was welded up using the right material, and offset drilled, It will last a long time.
-
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 March 04, 2014
- Thread starter digger
- Start date
Help Support IH Cub Cadet Forum:
hydroharry
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 4,468
- displayname
- Harry Bursell
Kraig - Oh Great One Keeper of the Photos - thanks for researching your data for "Quiet Line". I just wonder where that term came from. I used it around a couple dealers before (back when they knew what an IH Cub Cadet was) and they didn't seem to recognize it. I don't think it was something started on here.
And another thing about that IH marketing stuff. It says they "added a super-sized muffler, twice as big as the old one". And they have the gall to go on and say "Result: The end of annoying engine racket"
When you put all this stuff together I just don't get it. The Quiet Line series sold more than any other model series, and I think was produced longer than any other series. BUT - it was not the most powerful IHCC ever (at the time that belonged to the 169). That super-size muffler was "not" twice as big as the old one. If you consider the stock 169 muffler it was smaller. And what is it about the "sound-deadening iso-mounts" that makes them sound-deadening. I thought they reduced vibrations. Do they stop echos or something? I could go on and on here but the truth is all this marketing crap must have come out of some new IH marketing group that didn't know the truth about the previous units.
Ok Bill QQ Jamison - you're right, the Quiet Line units were more modern "looking" but I've yet to find anyone that actually tested and proved they were really quieter than the earlier units.
I still loved my 1450 (always will since she was my first) - but I'll also say she was NOT quiet, except if you were lucky that day, got her to idle down to about 1000 maybe 1100, instead of the spec'd 1500rpms - and you of course had to be out in the open air, not in a garage with the muffler pointing to a wall allowing it to echo back around the whole area.
Yup, I loved that 1450 - but my pride and joy is still my 169. It was put together with all the best features IH developed over the years AND THEN they added the most powerful engine of the era.
(ps - Kraig, do you happen to have those 3 pics of me throwing snow with my 1450/QA42A? It's the right time of year to post them again. It was the heavier March snow and would only thro about 10-15 feet).
And another thing about that IH marketing stuff. It says they "added a super-sized muffler, twice as big as the old one". And they have the gall to go on and say "Result: The end of annoying engine racket"
When you put all this stuff together I just don't get it. The Quiet Line series sold more than any other model series, and I think was produced longer than any other series. BUT - it was not the most powerful IHCC ever (at the time that belonged to the 169). That super-size muffler was "not" twice as big as the old one. If you consider the stock 169 muffler it was smaller. And what is it about the "sound-deadening iso-mounts" that makes them sound-deadening. I thought they reduced vibrations. Do they stop echos or something? I could go on and on here but the truth is all this marketing crap must have come out of some new IH marketing group that didn't know the truth about the previous units.
Ok Bill QQ Jamison - you're right, the Quiet Line units were more modern "looking" but I've yet to find anyone that actually tested and proved they were really quieter than the earlier units.
I still loved my 1450 (always will since she was my first) - but I'll also say she was NOT quiet, except if you were lucky that day, got her to idle down to about 1000 maybe 1100, instead of the spec'd 1500rpms - and you of course had to be out in the open air, not in a garage with the muffler pointing to a wall allowing it to echo back around the whole area.
Yup, I loved that 1450 - but my pride and joy is still my 169. It was put together with all the best features IH developed over the years AND THEN they added the most powerful engine of the era.
(ps - Kraig, do you happen to have those 3 pics of me throwing snow with my 1450/QA42A? It's the right time of year to post them again. It was the heavier March snow and would only thro about 10-15 feet).
Jeff B. I also like the 1x8/9 front too. I own 149 and 169. But the cast aluminum piece stick out farther the rest and is what takes the impact if you run into something and then cracks, plus they eat hood hinges at about one per year at my place. My 106 has yet to have the hood come off, and I've hit plenty with cast front end with no damage - well at lest not to the tractor.
Everyone standup for the Quietline!!!!!
hydroharry
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 4,468
- displayname
- Harry Bursell
HOOORAAAAYYYYYY for the Quiet Line!!!!!!!!!!
Kraig -thanks for posting those.
Doug B - the Quiet Line hood hinge was a 100% improvement over the piano hinge used on the 1x8/9. If you're eating one a year go get yourself a couple QL hinges, which are an exact replacement fit (might cause the hood to sit up just a smidgin' higher) and will last nearly forever. Here is what a QL hinge looks like on my 169
Kraig -thanks for posting those.
Doug B - the Quiet Line hood hinge was a 100% improvement over the piano hinge used on the 1x8/9. If you're eating one a year go get yourself a couple QL hinges, which are an exact replacement fit (might cause the hood to sit up just a smidgin' higher) and will last nearly forever. Here is what a QL hinge looks like on my 169
Hydro/(QQ) J,
The 169 was introduced in early 1974 during the last year of 1X8/9 production and were only produced for about 6-9 months thus limiting the quantity produced to ~4005 units. I can only guess that the 169 was introduced to either test demand for a 16 HP model prior to introducing the QL models in 1975 or that or Kohler came out the K341 and IH decided to incorporate it into the line and hence the 169. There was demand for 169's as I remember we tried to get one for our dealership from the KC Regional warehouse in the summer of 74 but was told there weren't any available and they had several hundred on back order from Louisville. Also, the muffler used on the 169 is similar in size to the QL models, possibly testing the new quieter muffler design before the Quietline models were introduced. At the time, they were introduced I don't recall the term "Quietline" being used but it certainly fits. It is probably one of those terms someone came up with and it stuck, kind of like the term "Big Boy" for UP's 4-8-8-4 4000 series Steam Engines.
Yes, the Quietline models were in production longer than all prior CC models which explains why there are more of them. All prior models were produced for 2-3 years max. I've often wondered what the reason was for that. Perhaps there were development problems with the KT-17 twin cylinder engine that delayed the 82 series introduction or there was a funding priority issue that delayed the 82 series. I do know there were a number of improvements/changes implemented on the last year of Quietline production that carried over to the 82 series. Items like the 1" front axles & wheel bearings, hydro auto dump valves, improved grip steering wheel and cast aluminum rear axle housings. Other changes to reduce costs included going to internal brake in lieu of the disc brakes and deletion of the bushing inserts for the rear 3 pt hitch upper link. It's like they had a bunch of the engineering changes ready for the 82 Series but then there was a delay so Louisville implemented what they could in the current production. Food for thought.
The 169 was introduced in early 1974 during the last year of 1X8/9 production and were only produced for about 6-9 months thus limiting the quantity produced to ~4005 units. I can only guess that the 169 was introduced to either test demand for a 16 HP model prior to introducing the QL models in 1975 or that or Kohler came out the K341 and IH decided to incorporate it into the line and hence the 169. There was demand for 169's as I remember we tried to get one for our dealership from the KC Regional warehouse in the summer of 74 but was told there weren't any available and they had several hundred on back order from Louisville. Also, the muffler used on the 169 is similar in size to the QL models, possibly testing the new quieter muffler design before the Quietline models were introduced. At the time, they were introduced I don't recall the term "Quietline" being used but it certainly fits. It is probably one of those terms someone came up with and it stuck, kind of like the term "Big Boy" for UP's 4-8-8-4 4000 series Steam Engines.
Yes, the Quietline models were in production longer than all prior CC models which explains why there are more of them. All prior models were produced for 2-3 years max. I've often wondered what the reason was for that. Perhaps there were development problems with the KT-17 twin cylinder engine that delayed the 82 series introduction or there was a funding priority issue that delayed the 82 series. I do know there were a number of improvements/changes implemented on the last year of Quietline production that carried over to the 82 series. Items like the 1" front axles & wheel bearings, hydro auto dump valves, improved grip steering wheel and cast aluminum rear axle housings. Other changes to reduce costs included going to internal brake in lieu of the disc brakes and deletion of the bushing inserts for the rear 3 pt hitch upper link. It's like they had a bunch of the engineering changes ready for the 82 Series but then there was a delay so Louisville implemented what they could in the current production. Food for thought.
balbrecht
Well-known member
Kraig,
There was at least one reference to "Quite Line" in the 1975 sales guide to dealers, but for the most part even the sales guide likes to use "Quite Ones". And for Harry B., the hood hinge is one of the highlighted improvements in the 1975 Quite Line sales guide.
There was at least one reference to "Quite Line" in the 1975 sales guide to dealers, but for the most part even the sales guide likes to use "Quite Ones". And for Harry B., the hood hinge is one of the highlighted improvements in the 1975 Quite Line sales guide.
hydroharry
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 4,468
- displayname
- Harry Bursell
Ron S and Brian A - thanks for all that info. Some is new to me. Interesting IH did call them "The Quiet Ones". Maybe it's just the 14hp and 16hp that seem loud to me. I recall the 10hp being pretty quiet and the 12hp similar, so I suppose I should back off a little on those IH marketing guys.
As for the 169, I recall something about a production issue (not enough hydraulic lifts), and I believe it was Paul Bell that mentioned something about the 169 being the only unit produced for several months before end on the 1x8/9 production but not sure why. Also, I believe Kohler came out with the K341 a year or 2 before the 169 and IH was really getting beat up on sales for not having more hp. Remember this was 1974, towards the end of the muscle car era but hp was still king. Also, alot of safety standards were being updated and added as well. I think the 169 was a fairly straight forward production change since the only real difference was the engine and decals, but even the decal didn't get "Hydrostatic" name below the 169 numbers. Probably difficulties a big corporation has in making line changes - BUT they did get the 169 out, all 4005 of them, and they were the most powerful Cub Cadet ever no matter what the Quiet One brochure says.
As for the 169, I recall something about a production issue (not enough hydraulic lifts), and I believe it was Paul Bell that mentioned something about the 169 being the only unit produced for several months before end on the 1x8/9 production but not sure why. Also, I believe Kohler came out with the K341 a year or 2 before the 169 and IH was really getting beat up on sales for not having more hp. Remember this was 1974, towards the end of the muscle car era but hp was still king. Also, alot of safety standards were being updated and added as well. I think the 169 was a fairly straight forward production change since the only real difference was the engine and decals, but even the decal didn't get "Hydrostatic" name below the 169 numbers. Probably difficulties a big corporation has in making line changes - BUT they did get the 169 out, all 4005 of them, and they were the most powerful Cub Cadet ever no matter what the Quiet One brochure says.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2005
- Messages
- 812
- displayname
- Binder 1650
Harry B - looks like that 1450 is getting the job done. Deep snow too. Was there any struggle on the part of the 14 hp engine? Any problems with the electric PTO in wet/heavy snow? Was your 1450 an earlier model with the 3/4 inch front spindles or the later model with 1 inch spindles and aluminum axle carriers, internal brakes and cast aluminum front grill?
Just curious, why did IH change over to the aluminum axle carriers from the cast iron ones? We're the internal brakes similar/same as the ones on the earlier NF tractors?
My theory on where the "Quiet Line" name origin came from is that the same guy that came up with name "Original" for the Original Cub Cadet also came up with "Quite Line" .....
BTW my QL 1650 w/ 14 hp engine is the quietest garden tractor I've ever owned. Sometimes I wonder if - while the mufflers outwardly seem to be ok-fine, inside all the baffles are long gone and my QL is the only tractor in the fleet with a good muffler.
I've still got a lot of dabbling to do with these tractors. I kind of like the 14 hp engines overall best. I'd like to try a 149, a 128 and put a 14 or 16 hp engine in a 1x8 or a gear drive QL. Another project I'd like to try is combining an early and late model QL tractor, merging the best of both into one tractor.
So many tractors, so many combos, so little time and $$$'s
Just curious, why did IH change over to the aluminum axle carriers from the cast iron ones? We're the internal brakes similar/same as the ones on the earlier NF tractors?
My theory on where the "Quiet Line" name origin came from is that the same guy that came up with name "Original" for the Original Cub Cadet also came up with "Quite Line" .....
BTW my QL 1650 w/ 14 hp engine is the quietest garden tractor I've ever owned. Sometimes I wonder if - while the mufflers outwardly seem to be ok-fine, inside all the baffles are long gone and my QL is the only tractor in the fleet with a good muffler.
I've still got a lot of dabbling to do with these tractors. I kind of like the 14 hp engines overall best. I'd like to try a 149, a 128 and put a 14 or 16 hp engine in a 1x8 or a gear drive QL. Another project I'd like to try is combining an early and late model QL tractor, merging the best of both into one tractor.
So many tractors, so many combos, so little time and $$$'s
snicklas
Well-known member
One thing I will say in a comparison of a 149 to a 1450 is the ISO mounts do wonders for the vibration in the 14hp engine. Dad's 149 after about 45 to 60 minutes my feet are tingling from the vibrations from the engine in the runningboards. I can run my 1450 all day with no tingling. This was also with the grenade gears in Dad's 149. It just went through a rebuild, and he pulled the grenade gears, and it is MUCH WORSE now. I love the 149 and would own one in a heartbeat, but for operation comfort, the quietline and 82 series win hands down. (we have a 782 also... the twin is really smooth)
hydroharry
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 4,468
- displayname
- Harry Bursell
Hey Bill QQ - my 1450 was a 1978 production unit, had the updated steering wheel with the silver IH emblem center cap, 1" front axle spindles, cast aluminum lower grill housing, aluminum rear axle carriers, hood support with rubber blocks (used later on the seat trays) instead of the thin slotted rubber cover (this was a nice design change), internal wet brakes (same as earlier rearends) and maybe some other things I don't recall right now (I already mentioned a couple tidbits here that aren't often known about the later QL's).
My K321AQS ran that QA42A thrower like a beast. It had just the right amount of power to allow for completely variable hydro control you needed due to snow variations. I did go completely thru the thrower before I ever used it so I know that helped as well. I never had those fingers on the chute but didn't seem to need them. Early in my learing how to use the thrower I remember figuring out that to avoid chute clogging I needed to run faster, especially if the snow was like slush. It might not throw it that far but it got it out of the way.
I had absolutely no problems with the electric PTO when I was using the thrower. I will say that thrower is scary if you're in front of it with the PTO engaged. I know you have to look at it sometimes but that auger is dangerous so lets all be really careful out there.
Now, about the muffler - I never did change mine althought I considered it, especially when I had to change the air duct (Charlie recently posted a pic of it) because it cracked, and the tin muffler box panels rattled all over. At that time the dealer told me it wouldn't make any difference - my muffler was fine. I do know IH used 3 different versions on the QL. The early one had a stubby exhaust pipe that did not exit the grill. IH changed this and went to about a 4-5 in exhaust pipe so the exhaust wouldn't blacken the inside of the white grill housing. That one blew leaves and grass all over the place and if you used a thrower it would cause the chute to get hot and melt the snow causing clogs - so IH finally went to a mid length exhaust pipe (about 3") that just existed the grill by about 1" and was about even with the grill housing - that's what I had and worked perfect for me.
My only real complaint about the QL units ain't really with IH, it's with Kohler for using that dang whinny starter, which definitely isn't as quick as the old S/G.
Scott N - you're just sitting with your feet in one place for to long if'n you're gettin tingly-toes.
(And it's not fair to compare a twin against a single - that's comparing old iron to new).
My K321AQS ran that QA42A thrower like a beast. It had just the right amount of power to allow for completely variable hydro control you needed due to snow variations. I did go completely thru the thrower before I ever used it so I know that helped as well. I never had those fingers on the chute but didn't seem to need them. Early in my learing how to use the thrower I remember figuring out that to avoid chute clogging I needed to run faster, especially if the snow was like slush. It might not throw it that far but it got it out of the way.
I had absolutely no problems with the electric PTO when I was using the thrower. I will say that thrower is scary if you're in front of it with the PTO engaged. I know you have to look at it sometimes but that auger is dangerous so lets all be really careful out there.
Now, about the muffler - I never did change mine althought I considered it, especially when I had to change the air duct (Charlie recently posted a pic of it) because it cracked, and the tin muffler box panels rattled all over. At that time the dealer told me it wouldn't make any difference - my muffler was fine. I do know IH used 3 different versions on the QL. The early one had a stubby exhaust pipe that did not exit the grill. IH changed this and went to about a 4-5 in exhaust pipe so the exhaust wouldn't blacken the inside of the white grill housing. That one blew leaves and grass all over the place and if you used a thrower it would cause the chute to get hot and melt the snow causing clogs - so IH finally went to a mid length exhaust pipe (about 3") that just existed the grill by about 1" and was about even with the grill housing - that's what I had and worked perfect for me.
My only real complaint about the QL units ain't really with IH, it's with Kohler for using that dang whinny starter, which definitely isn't as quick as the old S/G.
Scott N - you're just sitting with your feet in one place for to long if'n you're gettin tingly-toes.
This most powerful Cub Cadet 169 vs 1650 or any other compairable horse power tractor models, REALLY gets my goat. You could have two tractors coming off the in in order and one might be a beast and the other a piece of $--t.
I am enjoying all this Quietline conversation.
Among the things I enjoy about my 1250 Nightmare is that it has modern things like a stator, electric starter and an electronic regulator, not the problematic starter/generator and mechanical regulator of the previous models. I also think it is an attractive machine to look at, rather than having the engine sticking out; it has nice lines. (Just my opinion.)
I am intrigued about some of the things mentioned; such as aluminum axle housings, internal brakes, etc. My 1250 was built in September of 1977. This is about the middle of the run. It has internal brakes, automatic hydro valves, 3/4" front spindles and a narrow diameter steering wheel. I know the service manual has a certain serial number for the hydro valve change. Were these changes from cast iron to aluminum axle housings and internal brakes done in stages, or was it random?
I don't think anything has been changed by previous owners, but do I have a hybrid?
Thank you in advance.
Among the things I enjoy about my 1250 Nightmare is that it has modern things like a stator, electric starter and an electronic regulator, not the problematic starter/generator and mechanical regulator of the previous models. I also think it is an attractive machine to look at, rather than having the engine sticking out; it has nice lines. (Just my opinion.)
I am intrigued about some of the things mentioned; such as aluminum axle housings, internal brakes, etc. My 1250 was built in September of 1977. This is about the middle of the run. It has internal brakes, automatic hydro valves, 3/4" front spindles and a narrow diameter steering wheel. I know the service manual has a certain serial number for the hydro valve change. Were these changes from cast iron to aluminum axle housings and internal brakes done in stages, or was it random?
I don't think anything has been changed by previous owners, but do I have a hybrid?
Thank you in advance.
kostendorf
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 617
- displayname
- Keith Ostendorf
Got this from another site and since its QL time. Check out the weight of these tractors. That is impressive to know mine weighs 845 pounds and cost what a cheap car went for in 1977.
hydroharry
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 4,468
- displayname
- Harry Bursell
Brian W - I don't believe you have a hybrid at all. Doesn't hybrid mean it runs on batteries until they die then gasoline power takes over? (hehehe).
The things you mention were all pretty well known and documented production changes that occurred during the QL's several years of production. More like the model was so great you couldn't change the appearance just to change the name. And what would you call the next model since IH basically ran out of numbers that followed the established identification based on hp and hydro/gear drive.
I had understood the change to the aluminum axle carriers was a cost savings which surprised me would be the case in the 70's. Same thing for the front lower grill housing - but I assume one also offset the front to rear weight difference of the other.
One thing you said I would not quite agree with. In my view the S/G and Volt Regulator were "not" really problematic. The A/C Delco units were top quality. They may have had their share of problems with more use/run time in auto use, but based on the number of hours use on a Garden Tractor they really were top quality. I think the best evidence of problems is by the number of people that inquire on here, which seems to me very few. I rate it a very similar number of problems traced to the integrated starter, electronic regulator, and least likely stator on the newer engines - but these engines have also not been around as long as old style units. I also rate the old styles easier to diagnosis and fix as well - but that could be me.
There is one thing I absolutely agree with you about - the style of the Quiet Line can't be beat. In my view it really is the last of the old iron. It was the first of the modern look but last of the real cast iron and real steel, and some aluminum but no plastic (gas tank excluded). I'm sure the '82 lovers are gonna come out here, but the 82 to me just doesn't retain that old iron view. The rearend almost immediately became aluminum, grill housing thin die cast, side panels and hood of a thickness hardly measureable - it was the beginning of the end, the start of the era when all the good stuff was removed. They are nice to look at and do perform well, and the twin cylinder engines are a really nice feature, but in my view it's hard to see them still being around in similar percentages to the earlier units.
Keith O - if I'm reading that chart correctly it looks like your saying a 1977 Model 1650 weighed 845 lbs, but it also shows a 1978 Model 1650 weighed 690 lbs. That's 155 lbs less and I'm not sure that is really the case. I know the lower grill housing changed from cast iron to aluminum around that time and I understood there was a 40 lb difference as a result of that change, but that would mean another 105 disappeared somewhere else. Did the rearend housing change to aluminum? It's hard to imagine that much difference. Where or where did the weight go?
The things you mention were all pretty well known and documented production changes that occurred during the QL's several years of production. More like the model was so great you couldn't change the appearance just to change the name. And what would you call the next model since IH basically ran out of numbers that followed the established identification based on hp and hydro/gear drive.
I had understood the change to the aluminum axle carriers was a cost savings which surprised me would be the case in the 70's. Same thing for the front lower grill housing - but I assume one also offset the front to rear weight difference of the other.
One thing you said I would not quite agree with. In my view the S/G and Volt Regulator were "not" really problematic. The A/C Delco units were top quality. They may have had their share of problems with more use/run time in auto use, but based on the number of hours use on a Garden Tractor they really were top quality. I think the best evidence of problems is by the number of people that inquire on here, which seems to me very few. I rate it a very similar number of problems traced to the integrated starter, electronic regulator, and least likely stator on the newer engines - but these engines have also not been around as long as old style units. I also rate the old styles easier to diagnosis and fix as well - but that could be me.
There is one thing I absolutely agree with you about - the style of the Quiet Line can't be beat. In my view it really is the last of the old iron. It was the first of the modern look but last of the real cast iron and real steel, and some aluminum but no plastic (gas tank excluded). I'm sure the '82 lovers are gonna come out here, but the 82 to me just doesn't retain that old iron view. The rearend almost immediately became aluminum, grill housing thin die cast, side panels and hood of a thickness hardly measureable - it was the beginning of the end, the start of the era when all the good stuff was removed. They are nice to look at and do perform well, and the twin cylinder engines are a really nice feature, but in my view it's hard to see them still being around in similar percentages to the earlier units.
Keith O - if I'm reading that chart correctly it looks like your saying a 1977 Model 1650 weighed 845 lbs, but it also shows a 1978 Model 1650 weighed 690 lbs. That's 155 lbs less and I'm not sure that is really the case. I know the lower grill housing changed from cast iron to aluminum around that time and I understood there was a 40 lb difference as a result of that change, but that would mean another 105 disappeared somewhere else. Did the rearend housing change to aluminum? It's hard to imagine that much difference. Where or where did the weight go?
Brian A., thanks for posting that!
Any chance I can get a high resolution version of that for my archives?
