jthennisch
New member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2012
- Messages
- 4
- displayname
- jim Thennisch
Thank you, I just picked up what I think is a june of 61 original. trying to become informed before the restoration,instead of after like some of my previous projects.
-
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 November 29, 2012
- Thread starter dtanner
- Start date
Help Support IH Cub Cadet Tractor Forum:
hydroharry
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 4,377
- displayname
- Harry Bursell
Jim T - a June of '61 Original would have a serial number in the range of 10022 to 12219, so if my calculations are correct IH produced 2197 units during that month, and since they were only producing O's at that time all of them would be Originals. Those assembly lines must have been buzzing.
Tom H - what the heck happened to you. YOu never did tell us if you figured out what non-original Kohler engine you had in the 1100. That thread you started it dying.
Tom H - what the heck happened to you. YOu never did tell us if you figured out what non-original Kohler engine you had in the 1100. That thread you started it dying.
kide
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2006
- Messages
- 3,779
- displayname
- Gerry Ide
Frank: only issue I've ever had with sleeving an air cooled engine is the poorer heat transfer from the cylinder bore to the fins. Dennis may have thoughts on this also... Just make sure also that the shop doesn't bore too large or you'll have a stack of fins ( lol) .
GERRY - I'm not a big fan of sleeving cylinders for exactly the same reason you mention, the heat transfer is slowed/reduced. But that being said, I have two 4-cyl. water-cooled engines out in the shop that worked their guts out years ago and they have dry liners in them. The old FARMALL H's & M's and all the later tractors built up till 1971 all had dry liners. And most people consider them the best engines anyone has ever built.
That's a nasty looking crack in that bore. Frank may not have an option other than sleeving. I'd have the shop either dye penetrant check or magnaflux the length of the crack, then drill a small hole right at the end of the crack angling up the bore to keep that crack from growing, then have the shop install the sleeve. I suspect they cool the sleeve and heat the block then slide the sleeve in and when the temps of the two stabilize the sleeve is secure. When running the sleeve would get hotter than the block and grow and become even more secure in the bore. Only problem I see is the possibility the crack may grow in length with the heating/cooling cycles an engine will see. But that lower area of the cylinder doesn't see that much heat so it may not be an issue. It's a long ways from any combustion.
As opposed to boring the block and going back to stock K341 bore size I'd seriously consider just doing a slight bore, then hone the cylinder to 100% clean-up and sleeving down to K321 bore size. Gives a much thicker & stronger cylinder wall. There's companies that make sleeves specifically for installing in damaged cylinders of engines.
It's very possible that as long as we can continue to get pistons & conn rods for these engines, we may ALL be running sleeved blocks eventually. There's several people here I know that have sleeved blocks and have run them for years with no problems. It's an added expense on a rebuild but I know what those K341 engines sell for, and I think I'd sleeve that engine if it were mine.
That's a nasty looking crack in that bore. Frank may not have an option other than sleeving. I'd have the shop either dye penetrant check or magnaflux the length of the crack, then drill a small hole right at the end of the crack angling up the bore to keep that crack from growing, then have the shop install the sleeve. I suspect they cool the sleeve and heat the block then slide the sleeve in and when the temps of the two stabilize the sleeve is secure. When running the sleeve would get hotter than the block and grow and become even more secure in the bore. Only problem I see is the possibility the crack may grow in length with the heating/cooling cycles an engine will see. But that lower area of the cylinder doesn't see that much heat so it may not be an issue. It's a long ways from any combustion.
As opposed to boring the block and going back to stock K341 bore size I'd seriously consider just doing a slight bore, then hone the cylinder to 100% clean-up and sleeving down to K321 bore size. Gives a much thicker & stronger cylinder wall. There's companies that make sleeves specifically for installing in damaged cylinders of engines.
It's very possible that as long as we can continue to get pistons & conn rods for these engines, we may ALL be running sleeved blocks eventually. There's several people here I know that have sleeved blocks and have run them for years with no problems. It's an added expense on a rebuild but I know what those K341 engines sell for, and I think I'd sleeve that engine if it were mine.
Jim T.
As Kraig and others have posted, the main differences occured with the early 61 models and included the Thin front axle, front spindles with the collar and pin to retain them in the axle rather the the bolt and washer as was later used. That change took place at S/N 10,332, and is the only change that we know a specific S/N for. Other early production changes were the "half moon" slot added to the right side of the pedestal for steering adjustment (doesn't really work), the hole in the frame added for the creeper handle, a 1/2" or so hole added in the rear, lower part of the dash pedestal (reason unknown to me), and the thin front axle replaced with the thicker axle. The spindles with collars originally used on the thin axles will also work on the thicker axle and are offten found on them, supposedly because a thin axle broke and the replacement was the thicker axle.
Another change, S/N unknown was the dash decal. The Original (along with the model 70, 71, 72)had a recoil starter as standard equipment (electric starter optional) and the early recoil start Originals had a dash that did not have a hole for a choke cable, or the hole for a starter button, and the decal did not have the choke or starter inscription on it. This was changed fairly early to where both the recoil start and electric start used the same dash and decal. The pictures show the difference in the front axle, the tractor on the left being the prototype 409 (note the smooth foot rest), the one on the right is S/N 510. The axle was changed by the first owner, an engineer at the IH Hinsdale test center. The tractor pictures are of my recoil start "O", S/N 653. After these changes, the tractor was the same until production ended in Aug 1963
As Kraig and others have posted, the main differences occured with the early 61 models and included the Thin front axle, front spindles with the collar and pin to retain them in the axle rather the the bolt and washer as was later used. That change took place at S/N 10,332, and is the only change that we know a specific S/N for. Other early production changes were the "half moon" slot added to the right side of the pedestal for steering adjustment (doesn't really work), the hole in the frame added for the creeper handle, a 1/2" or so hole added in the rear, lower part of the dash pedestal (reason unknown to me), and the thin front axle replaced with the thicker axle. The spindles with collars originally used on the thin axles will also work on the thicker axle and are offten found on them, supposedly because a thin axle broke and the replacement was the thicker axle.
Another change, S/N unknown was the dash decal. The Original (along with the model 70, 71, 72)had a recoil starter as standard equipment (electric starter optional) and the early recoil start Originals had a dash that did not have a hole for a choke cable, or the hole for a starter button, and the decal did not have the choke or starter inscription on it. This was changed fairly early to where both the recoil start and electric start used the same dash and decal. The pictures show the difference in the front axle, the tractor on the left being the prototype 409 (note the smooth foot rest), the one on the right is S/N 510. The axle was changed by the first owner, an engineer at the IH Hinsdale test center. The tractor pictures are of my recoil start "O", S/N 653. After these changes, the tractor was the same until production ended in Aug 1963
Paul, thanks! Your photo of #409 reminded me of another possible difference. Did the early Originals use a welded S/G bracket and the later used a cast S/G Bracket? I have had examples of both styles in my parts stash.
Kraig,
Yes, you are correct, I forgot about the SG bracket. The rear wheels were also different. The "slots" between the wheel center and the rim is smaller (in height) on the early Originals, than the later versions. There were some differences between some of the "pre production" tractor's and the production versions, but they are minor and have to do mainly with the thickness or markings (part numbers or lack of))of some of the castings (grill comes to mind). But for the production tractors, I can't think of anything else that changed.
Yes, you are correct, I forgot about the SG bracket. The rear wheels were also different. The "slots" between the wheel center and the rim is smaller (in height) on the early Originals, than the later versions. There were some differences between some of the "pre production" tractor's and the production versions, but they are minor and have to do mainly with the thickness or markings (part numbers or lack of))of some of the castings (grill comes to mind). But for the production tractors, I can't think of anything else that changed.
Paul, thanks yet again! The set of rear wheels that were on my Original when I got it included one with the smaller slots and one with the "normal" slots but both had the same brand tire. Your info clears up a question I've had for quite some time. I figured the "odd" rim was just from a different brand tractor.
Here's a photo comparing the two different style S/G brackets. Note that this particular welded version has been repaired.
My Original also has mixed spindles. I suppose if I ever put the mixed rear rims back on I should put the small slot rim on the side with the collar and pin.
My Original also has mixed spindles. I suppose if I ever put the mixed rear rims back on I should put the small slot rim on the side with the collar and pin.
hydroharry
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 4,377
- displayname
- Harry Bursell
Paul and Kraig - never had an "O" and never really knew to much of them. I was wondering about the steering connection to the spindle especially since Kraig's axle pic shows one with a collar and one with a nut/washer, but then I saw Paul's pic showing the drag link connected on the right spindle which must be somehow on the lower part of the spindle versus the top of the left spindle on units after the "O". Just kinda wondering why IH made that change.
Kraig - is the steel S/G bracket a Kohler item. I'm pretty certain the cast one is.
Kraig - is the steel S/G bracket a Kohler item. I'm pretty certain the cast one is.
I finally decided to uncover that 123 I picked up a few months back and move it to the back of the garage where I can take a better look at it.I, startin to clean it up , I finally got the sn# off it,,,SN# 157490 .. I noticed on the front page the 123's started at SN# 158249 . I did a lil math and this one is #759 . I was wondering if you would call this a somwhat early 123? I was thinkin about puttin a k241 in it that I have, I know it runs good and its basically just sittin in a 100 frame takin up space. After thinkin about it a lil more, I dont think its such a good idea,if I'm going to go through all the trouble it really needs to have the correct motor in it. I dont think it would be under powered too bad,not even sure it you would even be able to notice it. I've never had anything with a k301 in it. Whats your oppinion on that. Nothing is froze up on it,everything turns,other then the motor and steering colum missing,and a few bolts,what is there in my oppinion I think is in really good shape,minor surface rust. As of now I do not want to take it apart,strip it down and paint it. I think this 1 ,if I do decide to get it runnin,I'm going to leave it the way it is,it looks pretty good.
mhomrighausen
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2001
- Messages
- 3,133
- displayname
- Marlin Homrighausen
On the subject of re-s1eeving an air cooled engine. Over the truly many years that I've been around small engine shops and their owners/employees the answer has always been the same when it comes to re-sleeving. Don't worry about it and just go ahead and do it if necessary. A really good shop will make the engine run like new whether it is re-sleeved back to original or not. The same answer came from these multitude of shops. "If it wasn't any good or didn't work then they wouldn't be doing it."
Harry,
I'm not Kraig, but since the engines came from Kohler to IH with the S/G on them, at that time, the welded bracket probably was from Kohler. Don't know why the steering box was changed, other than about everything else that used that type box and a draglink had them mounted on the left. Just a guess, but since no one knows, I guess I could tell you anything and no one could prove me wrong ....
.
I'm not Kraig, but since the engines came from Kohler to IH with the S/G on them, at that time, the welded bracket probably was from Kohler. Don't know why the steering box was changed, other than about everything else that used that type box and a draglink had them mounted on the left. Just a guess, but since no one knows, I guess I could tell you anything and no one could prove me wrong ....
hydroharry
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 4,377
- displayname
- Harry Bursell
Paul - prove you wrong? I know you only read from the Gospel as written in the Wisconsin archives.
Marlin - now I like that confidence for using sleeves. I'm wondering how much that confidence costs to get the sleeve put in place? I suspect Frank is shaking a bit, but I hope he'll be able to do it. That K341 13fin block is supposed to have a thicker casting than the 12 fin so I'm also more hopeful on that basis.
Dennis - on your comment about us ALL possibly running sleeved engines in the future, this machine work is all uncharted territory for me, so I'm wondering when you rebuild an engine that is already sleeved do you normally have a new sleeve inserted, or do you bore the sleeve? (And I hope that's not a dumb question but I don't know how big the sleeves are normally)
Marlin - now I like that confidence for using sleeves. I'm wondering how much that confidence costs to get the sleeve put in place? I suspect Frank is shaking a bit, but I hope he'll be able to do it. That K341 13fin block is supposed to have a thicker casting than the 12 fin so I'm also more hopeful on that basis.
Dennis - on your comment about us ALL possibly running sleeved engines in the future, this machine work is all uncharted territory for me, so I'm wondering when you rebuild an engine that is already sleeved do you normally have a new sleeve inserted, or do you bore the sleeve? (And I hope that's not a dumb question but I don't know how big the sleeves are normally)
jthennisch
New member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2012
- Messages
- 4
- displayname
- jim Thennisch
Paul,and others thank you so much for the information. This 1961 is serial # 10331 that would make it the last one before the axle change? it has pin spindles,no creeper hole,no steering adjust slot,large space rear wheels,and welded start gen bracket. I will get some pictures this weekend. Thanks again , JIM
Harry Bursell
I looked into sleeving my 125 engine because of the deep scratches , but a .030 bore removed the scratch. My rebuiler did fill me in at a cost of $50 for the sleeve and then it would need bored to fit what ever piston you would want to install. So even a std bore would have to be done because all pistons are not the same.On any bore he would need the piston to be used to get the skirt clearances correct .So he said two borings worth of labour,one to fit the sleeve and one to fit the piston. he quote me around 200$ . I thought that was a good deal because of what $$$ they want for a new engine. hope that helps shed some light on sleeving ! my
I looked into sleeving my 125 engine because of the deep scratches , but a .030 bore removed the scratch. My rebuiler did fill me in at a cost of $50 for the sleeve and then it would need bored to fit what ever piston you would want to install. So even a std bore would have to be done because all pistons are not the same.On any bore he would need the piston to be used to get the skirt clearances correct .So he said two borings worth of labour,one to fit the sleeve and one to fit the piston. he quote me around 200$ . I thought that was a good deal because of what $$$ they want for a new engine. hope that helps shed some light on sleeving ! my
Jim T.
Not the axle change, the spindle/knuckle change from the collar and pin to the ones with the bolt and washer, and the last one was 10,332, so your "O" is the next to last one with the collars the way I read the parts manual (says 501 to 10,332). Either way, you have an early one, built in Jun 61.
Not the axle change, the spindle/knuckle change from the collar and pin to the ones with the bolt and washer, and the last one was 10,332, so your "O" is the next to last one with the collars the way I read the parts manual (says 501 to 10,332). Either way, you have an early one, built in Jun 61.
HARRY - I'm like you, never had to sleeve an engine, but I am familiar with engines that have sleeves from the factory like my old FARMALL's. Typically those engines are rebuilt with new sleeves and matched pistons.
But with the press or shrink fit sleeve you should be able to sleeve back to OEM bore size then bore/hone on further rebuilds the typical .010", .020", & .030" O/S.
But like Gerry says, machining out the extra parent bore material in a Kohler block to install a sleeve could leave you with nothing but a loose stack of cooling fins off the block. Those cooling fins make excellent stress risers if the bore material gets too thin. The head and top of the cylinder the head bolts/studs thread into is only a fraction of an inch thick.
In Frank's case with the K341 block, especially a 13-fin block, which is supposed to be able to accept up to a 4.00" over-bore there should be enough meat in the block to install a sleeve.
Like DON T says, you have to bore/hone the block to install the sleeve, then bore/hone the block/sleeve again to fit the bore to the piston. So I imagine you or the machine shop buys the sleeve with a finished OD to a certain standard size, rough machined ID, and a stock length to fit all kinds of different engines.
Co-worker who was really into "antique full size tractors" rebuilt a 1929 2-cyl. green tractor years ago. He did a great job rebuilding/restoring it, but that tractor company NEVER built any engines for many decades that had sleeves to make rebuilds easy. So he had to "sleeve" both bores so he could run the stock size pistons, the only pistons available. Think he said the cost of the sleeves was $500/pair plus the machine work was another $500+. They were large sleeves, something over 5" bore and over a foot long. When you compare the design and technology of that brand of engine to what IHC was building back in 1929, it's about like comparing a Model T Ford to a brand new Ferrari or Mercedes Benz. IH was using dry liners, HUGE ball bearing main bearings that were "Guaranteed for the LIFE of the engine", state of the air oil & air filtration. The IH engines made more HP & torque from fewer CID's and lasted longer while doing it, and rebuilds were much cheaper and easier.
But with the press or shrink fit sleeve you should be able to sleeve back to OEM bore size then bore/hone on further rebuilds the typical .010", .020", & .030" O/S.
But like Gerry says, machining out the extra parent bore material in a Kohler block to install a sleeve could leave you with nothing but a loose stack of cooling fins off the block. Those cooling fins make excellent stress risers if the bore material gets too thin. The head and top of the cylinder the head bolts/studs thread into is only a fraction of an inch thick.
In Frank's case with the K341 block, especially a 13-fin block, which is supposed to be able to accept up to a 4.00" over-bore there should be enough meat in the block to install a sleeve.
Like DON T says, you have to bore/hone the block to install the sleeve, then bore/hone the block/sleeve again to fit the bore to the piston. So I imagine you or the machine shop buys the sleeve with a finished OD to a certain standard size, rough machined ID, and a stock length to fit all kinds of different engines.
Co-worker who was really into "antique full size tractors" rebuilt a 1929 2-cyl. green tractor years ago. He did a great job rebuilding/restoring it, but that tractor company NEVER built any engines for many decades that had sleeves to make rebuilds easy. So he had to "sleeve" both bores so he could run the stock size pistons, the only pistons available. Think he said the cost of the sleeves was $500/pair plus the machine work was another $500+. They were large sleeves, something over 5" bore and over a foot long. When you compare the design and technology of that brand of engine to what IHC was building back in 1929, it's about like comparing a Model T Ford to a brand new Ferrari or Mercedes Benz. IH was using dry liners, HUGE ball bearing main bearings that were "Guaranteed for the LIFE of the engine", state of the air oil & air filtration. The IH engines made more HP & torque from fewer CID's and lasted longer while doing it, and rebuilds were much cheaper and easier.
