V-Belt B-Belt Dilemma

[jchamberlin]

Joe Knight: Thank you for taking another look at the pulleys. I was about to quit on this project after Matt took the wind out of my sails; but you have prompted me to re-assess the situation.

A summary of observations and suggestions received thus far includes (in chronological order):

Allen Schumacher observes: Belt riding deep in the Pulleys . . .

Charlie Proctor opines: Cheap Belts!

Kendal Harvey notes: The idler pulleys are tipped in so that the belt is wearing on the side.

Dave Ross (first post) suggests: (1) Check the "V" dimensions on the Crapsman pulley, and (2) Verify that both idler pulleys are the same, since belt seems to sit more deeply into the "drive" or adjusting side.

Dave Ross (second post) notes: That (1) generic "B" belts aren't really designed for gas engines, but electric motor drives; (2) explains how the Crapsman pulley on the engine can be causing abnormal wear since the belt isn't sitting correctly in the "V" but riding on the outside. In other words, the pulley is wearing the belt out by forcing it to conform to a different shaped "V" pattern.

Matt Gonitizke opines: That (1) the B-82 belt has worn out like the others; and (2) that time and money I'm investing on this setup would be better spent on a proper IH/CCC deck and belt. He counsels me to "get serious" about locating some replacement spindles so I can fit a genuine deck to the machine and finally un-confuguliate it.

Luther Ray Hinds signals that he concurs with Matt's advice.

Joe Knight zeros in on the angle of the "drive" or adjustment idler pulley (cf. Dave Ross's first post above).

First, I want to thank everyone who has responded to my "dilemma," because this situation really has confused me.

Second, after all the responses I plan to take the following actions:

<font size="+2">1.</font> Compare the "V" in the PTO pulley currently on the tractor to the one on the MTD 1862 currently in my possession (somehow), or just swap out the PTO.
<font size="-2"> Problems at the PTO would help explain why belts also wore out fairly quickly with my earlier setup.</font>

<font size="+2">2.</font> "Adjust" the angle of the idler pulleys so that the belt rides true without side loading the belt.
<font size="-2"> I'm resigned to the fact that IH/CCC didn't manufacture machines which were "perfect" in every respect --some "fine tuning" would probably be required in any case.</font>

<font size="+2">3.</font> Source a better belt 5/8" wide x 86" long (B-83).
<font size="-2"> Blue "Kevlar" belts come to mind, but I'm having trouble finding them in 5/8" width --I may need to give one of our sponsors a call.</font>

I'll report the results of each change for everyone's benefit, because I don't think that I'm the only one challenged by V-belt applications.

At this point, I'm not going to be too scientific about it, i.e., make (1) change and record the difference, make another single change and record the difference, etc. I think there is enough agreement on what the possible issues are, although, if the "V" on the two PTOs differ, I may hold off on "adjusting" the idler pulleys until I see how much the new PTO pulley affects the belt wear. If the PTO pulleys are different, I suspect it is the biggest part of the problem. I just remembered that I also have the PTO that came off the B&S 16 HP that powered my tractor when I acquired it, I don't remember as much "shiny part" showing on that pulley . . ..

Meanwhile I continue to search for good deals on used spindles, I simply can't justify the cost of new spindles when I have two machines that cut grass and all that stands in my way is getting one lousy belt to work the way it should.

 

[kharvey]

If you don't get the belt going into the idler pulleys right it will just keep grinding off the side of the belt. Thats my story and I'm stickin to it.

 

[dross]

Mabey somebody could post similar pics of thier mule drives, you had mentioned you "restored" the mounting brackets.

 

[jchamberlin]

Kendal: Ok, I believe you.

I'll "adjust" the pulley angle on the mule drive when I install this:

Picked it up at TSC today, even though it appears to have been on the shelf for a while:

Even though I purchased it at a different store, it appears to be manufactured by the same company the manufactured the $10.00 B-Belt, although the country of origin is not given.

Judging from the most of the other stuff I find at TSC, it probably came from China.

Edit: Dave Ross: I'll post pictures of the tools I use to do the "adjustment" and I think you'll get the idea.

 

[jchamberlin]

I finally got an opportunity to work on the Confuguliated 782 to try to resolve the B-Belt / V-Belt Dilemma. Everyone seemed to have a piece of this puzzle, particularly Kendal, Dave, and Joe.

When I finally got the PTO off the M18 that reportedly came out of an 1862 tractor, the light bulbs started flashing. It seems that the 1862 PTO pulley is 4-1/2" in diameter, while the other two PTO pulleys in my possession (one from the Crapsman currently installed on the tractor, and one that came installed on a 16 HP B&S motor like the ones in an IH 582) both measure almost 6" in diameter (about 5-7/8").

I couldn't see or feel any significant differences in how the belt sits in pulley; but the fact that the stock 1862 PTO pulley is much smaller the Crapsman or B&S pulley would explain the angle of the the idler pulleys and why I had to "adjust" the angle of the original carriage's idler pulleys. I'm willing to wager that the belt will pull straight through the idlers with the stock 1862 PTO pulley installed.

Of course, using the modified carriage with the 5-7/8" pulley hooked to the 4-1/2" deck pulley on the 44C deck would mean that the blades would turn faster; conversely, using the 1862 PTO pulley with the 5" pulleys on the confuguliated MTD deck would mean a loss in tip speed.

Thoughts, anyone?

Edit: As an epilogue, Matt Gonitzke somehow shook the CL gods and when I performed a search again for the umpteenth time, a 44C deck turned up -wonder of wonders (first time in 3 years). I've been through the deck and everything works, except the blades were junk. I've installed Gator blades, greased the spindles, and all I need is a belt and a patio wheel to finally unconfuguliate my 782!

 

[mgonitzke]

Use the 1862 clutch with the 44C...then you have all the correct pulley sizes. That larger PTO will spin the deck way too fast. It will really HOWL with that big clutch. Cuts the grass nice, but the spindles probably weren't intended to go that fast, so I wouldn't go down that path.

 

[jchamberlin]

Matt: I agree with you that the PTO pulley needs to be the same size as the deck drive pulley.

All: I've acted on all three initiatives I outlined previously, results in order:

1. The posts below demonstrate that the <font size="+2">dimensions of the "V" in the PTO pulley</font> all seem to be identical (per Dave Ross's observation), I haven't investigated a way to measure them, but I imagine I would need to fashion some sort of gauge and transfer the measurement to a protractor or carpenter's square.

2. <font size="+2">Adjust the angle of the pulleys</font> (per Kendal Harvey & Joe Knight): I was VERY reluctant to modify a stock IH undercarriage that I had finally learned to install correctly until I realized that I could simply swap out the current "new" mule drive with the one that had come with the tractor. I had modified this mule drive earlier (before I knew what a mule drive was), and it was set up for the 6" PTO pulley. This way, I didn't have to re-adjust the deck to get it level. (I hate leveling a deck, I can't seem to get it right without adjusting it at least three (3) times; I used to have to remove the deck to adjust the front clevis pins because I had threaded them into the bracket to gain clearance --but that's another story.)
Note: The old mule drive did not have a ratchet, and I couldn't transfer the one I had without significant modification, so I just left it off. (I really give credit to Kendal Harvey for correctly diagnosing the main part of the problem, and for sticking with his diagnosis.)

3. Everyone agreed I needed a <font size="+2">better grade belt</font>, so I upgraded to a Kevlar belt, 86" long as depicted in a previous post.

As a follow-up Dave Ross's comment <font size="+2">all pulleys same</font>, I went ahead and dropped some money into the HD pulleys available from MTD sources which employ heavier gauge steel, all welded construction (not just spot welds), and larger ball bearings. The ones on the "new" mule drive seemed were rusted where the belts run; even burning through three belts had not removed the pits, so it seemed a good investment.

The next step is to follow Matt's advice and swap out the "confuguliated" deck for a genuine, refurbished 44C deck complete with the PTO from an 1862 Cub Cadet with properly-sized 4-1/2" pulley and the "new" mule drive in which the idler pulleys will run true and the idler ratchet will fit correctly. I'll post the changes in my refurbish & restoration "unconfugiliating a 782" posting.

The pictures tell the story with fewer words:

After cutting 1/4 Acre of heavy, wet grass:

Rusted Pulley:

 

[jchamberlin]

Observation and Conclusion:

After all this messing around trying to make a non-IH/CCC belt serve as a PTO drive belt, I've concluded that the effort is wrong-headed. (Did I hear "Amen, Brother" from Matt Gonitzke and Luther Ray Hinds?).

Here are the reasons for my conclusion:

1. If you examine the wear on the Kevlar belt, you will observe that it is working its way down into the pulleys in much the same fashion as the non-Kevlar belt. It may not show well in the pictures, but the entire side of the belt is wearing, just like the previous belts. I don't think that adjusting the pulleys really solved the problem, although it might have slowed it down some.

If my prediction is right --that is, if the Kevlar belt wears out in 3 or 4 uses (instead of 1 or 2 uses as with the non-Kevlar belts), one can draw only one conclusion: the belt just isn't up to the application.

The remedy is either to keep trying better and better belts, maybe a different brand (like Stens) will work, but unless it has been specifically designed for the twists and turns under load with a gas engine, I think the effort is doomed to failure.

2. My previous experience with the same deck, with the same PTO pulley, and (now) the same mule drive with the same pulleys buttresses my position. If you examine the pictures below of what turns out to have been a genuine CCC belt (P/N 754-3003A) you will notice that the belt has not worn down into the pulley at all (at least not down into a new P/N 756-3003). The belt in the pictures ran my deck for at least one full season.

Therefore, I'm going to re-adjust my strategy and re-position the rear hangers again (for the fourth time) and modify the cross-member for the sub-frame's pick-up tabs to allow clearance for the center deck drive pulley. Then the side-to-side orientation will be correct and "balanced" and the front-to-back placement will allow use of standard 88-1/2" PTO drive belt. I will still need to be sure the 6" PTO pulley and modified mule drive are installed in order to drive the deck properly.

So the take-away is: If you're going to "adapt" a non-standard deck to fit a Cub Cadet tractor: START WITH THE BELT, and be sure to hang the deck so that it can use a manufacturer's PTO drive belt of the proper width.

As for my part, I'm going to keep the deck, mule, and PTO combination for those times when I either want to mulch the grass or run a bagger. Neither of these options were available on the original 782 (IH or CCC versions), so I feel it has been worth the time to sort it all out, although I will admit it has been a bit of a challenge.

Pictures of the CCC P/Ns 754-3003A and 756-3003.

[Note: The belt was procured over a year ago entirely by accident when I went back to the local tractor supply for the 3rd or 4th time (after exhausting NAPA, Lowes, and Home Depot) trying to find a belt that would fit the deck's "new" position. I didn't ask for a CCC belt, and he didn't tell me that he had given me one, he sold the belt in the pictures to me because he was out of B-belts in that size, or at least that is what he told me --he may have already known what I've discovered, anything else is a waste of money and time.]

Thanks to everyone who took the time to read my posts, examine the pictures, and post their opinions and suggestions. The reason I come to this site is because two (or more) minds are more powerful than one.

 

[mhomrighausen]

Oh No thought here... what if those Cub Cadet belts are "farmed out" to PIXAR to manufacture???

.... just kidding

 

[mgonitzke]

There exists a 46GT deck that will fit your 782 and allow you to use a bagger.

 

[jchamberlin]

Matt: I didn't know that! I'll have to keep my eye open for one.

Marlin: Oh, you kidder you!

Seriously all, the only belts I'm buying from now on are going to come from Cub Cadet!

 

[jchamberlin]

Update on the Kevlar belts by PIX, it seems that the belts will hold up if the pulleys are adjusted correctly. I adjusted the pulleys after the first run, ran it again on fairly wet grass, and the adjustment seemed to hold. So I think I'll finish the season with this set up and de-rust and paint the 44C replacement in preparation for next season.

Pictures below are
(1) the Kevlar belt adjusted after 60 minutes running
(2) the Kevlar belt after 120 minutes running, no adjustment.

Bottom Line: I think the Kevlar belt will allow me to finish the season --the standard B-Belt just isn't up to it.

 

[digger]

Jeremiah C.
You really need to fine tune those pulleys, from the angle in your pics, they both look off to me.
The 2nd pic not as bad as the first though.

 

[jchamberlin]

Charlie: You're right about the "sprung" pulley, it could stand some tweaking. I have the mule drive off the tractor now, I think if I line it up with the existing grooves it should be about right.

However, that is not my biggest problem right now.

After moving the rear deck mounts so that I could use the default 88-1/2" belt (P/N 954-3003), and cutting 1/2 acre of wet grass, I went out to the shed and found the following:

Cub Cadet 954-3003, used successfully for at least one season, re-installed, and found flipped over on the PTO pulley after mowing about an hour:

Same belt has a cut in it and cord has been severed:

--What in heaven's name is going on with this tractor? I'm now beginning to wonder if the drive pulley on the deck isn't doing the greater part of the damage.

This situation is driving me crazy! I can't wait to get the 44C deck installed.

To top it all off, after spending all afternoon swapping in the 4" PTO from the donor 1862 motor, I find the motor appears to be locked up somehow-- it won't turn in either direction, even if I put a wrench to it. I'm going to investigate the situation later today and post an update.

 

[jchamberlin]

Matt Gonitzke: Well, it looks like I won't be able to run the 44C correctly until or unless I swap in the whole motor that came out of an 1862. It seems that the two different style PTOs pictured in previous posts also use two different diameter crankshafts. The 6" diameter PTO is sized for a 1" crank; the 4" diameter PTO is sized for an 1-1/8" crank.

Note: For a reason I have yet to determine, if you attempt to install the PTO designed for an 1-1/8" shaft on a motor with a 1" shaft, the motor locks up ???

I try not to attempt major changes like engine swaps in mid-season, so my preference is to hold off until the end of the mowing season to swap out both motor and deck. But I'm having so much difficulty getting the "confuguliated" deck setup correctly, I may go ahead and do it anyway --just not today.

I'm really in the dumps about this mess.

 

[mschutz]

Jeremiah, You are having the darndest time with that mule drive. Wish I knew more to help out. I got another one because the one that came with the 782D was mangled. I then put on a 42U I had here because the 44c needed to much work.

 

[jchamberlin]

Melody: Thanks for the sympathy note, you're an angel.

I still don't know what I'm going to do, my choices are:

1. Keep the "new" mule drive on and change the motor out to gain the 1-1/8" crank to mount the 4" PTO to run the 44C deck.

2. Change the "old" mule back in and run the "confuguliated" MTD deck.

I've become increasingly dis-satisfied with the MTD deck. I thought it cut pretty well, but on close examination, I see that the mulch plug doesn't really work, grass spews out the front; it refuses to hang straight on the tractor, I'm going to have to fasten weights on it or something. I refuse to spend any more money on it, I was just trying get the maximum use out of it before I discarded it. But you know, sometimes "saving money" isn't worth the trouble.

I really want to run the 44C deck.

Even though I don't look forward to swapping engines, I'm not going to buy another $35-$40 belt just to watch my tractor chew it up.

 

[jchamberlin]

Update: I swapped in my "spare" M18 motor to gain the genuine 4-1/2" Cub Cadet PTO, in order to run the original 81-1/2" belt, but it seems there is a problem with the motor-- it won't start. I'll post another update to this thread if/when I get the replacement motor started, or if I have to go back to the non-CC motor with the "confugilated" PTO. If I have to go back to the 6" PTO, at least I'll have an answer for Matt G. when he asks why I'm still messing around with it!

 

[mgonitzke]

How about we figure out why your engine won't start before you do something crazy like that again?

 

[jchamberlin]

While I attempt get the M18 started, so that I can run the 44C deck, I investigated the status of my 50A deck so that I could cut the grass to meet my wife's (high) standards. She wasn't satisfied with the way the backup Model 149 cut the grass with the 42" narrow frame deck, and I wasn't either, it seemed to scalp a lot (because I couldn't install the guide wheels: the mounting holes were made for a narrow frame).

Anyway, I ran into a whole different set of issues with the pulleys on the 50A deck.

It was Saturday. I had this brilliant idea that instead of dismantling two decks to rob the parts required to return the 44A deck to service, why not pull the 50A deck out of the back of the shed and use it? It had (1) re-buildable spindle and two "water pump" style spindles all of unknown functionality. All I needed to do was sharpen the blades! Easy-peasy.

But after pulling the cover off, I discovered that I needed a deck belt; the one that was installed on it didn't even engage the idler --it was non-functional. So off I ran to Tractor Supply for a blue Kevlar belt that had a chance of working (see below).

When I came back to install the deck belt, Son #1 pointed out that there was something wrong with the idler pulley itself, it seemed loose on the idler arm. I told him that the grass seemed high to me, and the sun seemed low, and that I was going to mow that evening with that deck, period.

After mowing with the cover off, I pulled the deck off, because it is too wide to fit through the shed door (which is why is was stored in the back of the shed).

First, the light of day revealed that the deck belt was disintegrating as it went around the pulleys, especially the outside ones:

At first I wasn't sure if the unexpected wear was due to fact that (1) the outside spindles had a bit of play in them compared to the center spindle, or (2) if the wear was due to the rust-encrusted 2nd outboard pulley, or (3) the wear was due to the funky idler pulley.

On Monday I picked up a new idler pulley and a new outside pulley because one of the pulleys had been "butter welded" in such a manner that we couldn't get a wrench on it. It turned out that it was actually the GOOD outside pulley, the other one was causing the real problem.

I think the one rusty outside pulley was shredding the fabric off the belt.

The wobbly idler pulley didn't help any. My #1 son was again with me for the disassembly effort Monday evening. He was the one that noticed that what I thought were two different pulleys were actually made the same way, it's just that when the existing idler pulley was installed, the washer under the bolt head had been omitted. The pulley had been able to descend over the splined "insert" that keeps the pulley off the arm down onto the deck itself. With the addition of a washer, the "insert" was once more effective, and since the old bearing seemed to be OK, we re-installed it.

After mowing again Thursday night (the neighbor's yard), I pulled the cover off and it seems to me that the belt wear has been arrested by (1) replacing the rusty pulley and (2) installing the idler pulley correctly; but time will tell.