Farmall Cub

clodhopper wrote:

bob in CT wrote:The oil hole went away when the production line at The Torrington Company was bought out and shut down. You will have to use the bearing that is available.

Any reason why the hole was done away with, or was it just a money saving production thing? Any idea if anyone other than Harold R has taken all the measurements and tried to find a suitable cross? Longevity of the new bearing? I just dont see any info like that on this site, and if it isnt on this site, I dont think I will find it anywhere....

Timken bought and closed the factory. Some lines they moved others were scrapped and if Timken was already making the bearing without the hole and no more capacity was required, then it was a casulty of the buyout like all the people that worked there. Putting the hole in was one step in the process that probably did not add up to the bean counters if IH was the primary reason for that feature to begin with. I am sure that is all that there was to it.

If IH is selling it that is what they recommend. The original design lasted 60 years in tractors with milkshake emulsion in many trannies for lubricant. I would not lost any sleep over it but I would maintain the lube inspection/change schedule per Factory recommendations.

Well, I think I have chased this dog as far as I feel like going. TM has the bearing for $20 + shipping, so I have exhausted enough time looking for a suitable cross. While I have nothing against buying online, I do try to trade locally, however this time it looks like online it will be. At least it is a site sponsor.

I just recently used a method found on the Forum here for the main shaft. I had it turned down to 0.787 and use a sealed bearing SKF 6004 2RSI. The bearing was only $9 but the machine work was pricey.
Wally

wfmdfm wrote:I just recently used a method found on the Forum here for the main shaft. I had it turned down to 0.787 and use a sealed bearing SKF 6004 2RSI. The bearing was only $9 but the machine work was pricey.
Wally

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that method is only for the earlier style case.

George Willer wrote:Tom,

I haven't done this with the later case so I don't know if it will work, but I've made a substitute (improvement) for the bearing in that location in the early case (352402R91). It requires reducing the shaft slightly by precision grinding and no change to the case to convert to ND 3L04 or SKF 6004. This eliminates the wear problem caused by the rollers running directly on the shaft.

I think you are correct.

Yep, GW's post was regarding the older tranny case with a sealed bearing. I would think that if Tom at TM could find one with an oil hole, he would sell it (if up to quality standards).

I have a tranny with what TM sells (same as a dealer), but no run time on it. I agree that there should be enough oil splashing around to keep it reasonably well lubed. But an oil hole would be better.

I could barely find the lube hole for the front bearing and it's not uncommon for them to be plugged up.

Buzzard Wing wrote:Yep, GW's post was regarding the older tranny case with a sealed bearing. I would think that if Tom at TM could find one with an oil hole, he would sell it (if up to quality standards).

I have a tranny with what TM sells (same as a dealer), but no run time on it. I agree that there should be enough oil splashing around to keep it reasonably well lubed. But an oil hole would be better.

I could barely find the lube hole for the front bearing and it's not uncommon for them to be plugged up.

My front oil hole in the case was gunked up a bit. When I pulled the input shaft and looked at the front bearing it was obvious it had been oil starved. I crossed that bearing to a timken 105CC that is double sealed. I think I will have just as much luck with it on the front as an oil starved needle bearing on the back.

Those 'main shaft' bearings get no lube when the PTO (belt pulley) is run stationary. It relies on the gears to sling oil.

The original front bearing on my 77 was shielded on one side (to keep the oil in the bearing), the replacement is not. I thought of using a sealed bearing, but figured an open bearing is fine in the tranny. Seem to recall it's 'common' (6000 series) and should be readily available from SKF or NTN. The only downside of a rubber sealed bearing is a bit of drag. Any good bearing should be fine for the life of the tranny.

Put the o-ring in the shifter while you have it apart...... water isn't kind to bearings.

What is the O Ring on the shifter?

The o-ring goes under the bottom spring retainer : (picture from TM Tractor) The o-ring keeps water from running down the shifter into the tranny (or at least helps in that regard).

Bob

The diagram in the parts catalog isn't very helpful on placement. It calls out 1/2 x 5/8 x 1/16. George Willer suggested 1/2 x 11/16 x 3/32. The larger size is probably helpful if the center hole in your shifter shield is stretched or irregular.

Yep Jim, you can tell by the 'sequence number' (highest on the page) that it was added in after the original design. It can't hurt and I am with GW on the larger size, the real purpose is only to divert water from going in the shifter/tranny case.

#24, should be available from a hardware store. Odd that TM doesn't have it.

http://www.farmallcub.info/tc37f_db/tc3 ... 007-10.jpg

My earlier post was referring to GW's shifter rebuild, in which he made his own spring retainers that had the o-rings in them: http://www.cleancomputes.com/Cub/Mainte ... vement.htm

Bob

Bringing this back to the top. Have one more question. I set the preload on the carrier bearings. Now I am trying to get the gear set "dialed in". I can see the factory specs are unattainable with a 62 year old gear set... but I have shimmed the carrier left to right and back. I can get it quiet in one direction but not both. Quiet in one direction is about. 012 backlash. Am I going to have to just live with this noise unless I replace the gearset? I am afraid to get too small a backlash on an old gearset, cause I dont want it to explode on me, but I havent shimmed it below. 008. I dont know if that would affect the noise or make it worse. Input?

I would get the back lash out, I dont think you will have a lot of ring and pinion noise , That would come from the gears in the trans. JMO