Re: Horse Power Question

Thu Apr 03, 2014 12:33 pm

Stanton wrote:Don't believe there's a lick of difference between a '49 and '59 engine. The "later models" John was referring to were built in the 1970's at the end of the Cub's production run.


Thanks Stanton.
I have been reading through the 1959 farmall manual and I plan on reading through some others from earlier years.
They are interesting reads. The cartoons are great

Re: Horse Power Question

Thu Apr 03, 2014 12:51 pm

Brutalfly wrote:.....
So how different is a 1949 cub from a 1959 cub (not the low boy) not including obvious looks but the inside of the engine and everything internal?
Serial number. LOL. A few cosmetic things such as shape of headlights and looks of the grill, but all parts and implements interchange.
some interesting reading for someone not totally familiar with cubs: Don't forget to go to page 2
http://www.atis.net/CubFAQ/cub_faq.html

Re: Horse Power Question

Thu Apr 03, 2014 1:03 pm

You just gave me another thing to print out and put with the stuff I already have

Re: Horse Power Question

Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:55 pm

My hydro design will make the cub look---well just like regular cub with hydraulic controls and NO clutch pedal/clutch/ or drive shaft! in the torque tube! thanks; sonny

Re: Horse Power Question

Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:49 pm

There are differences between a '49 and a '59 engine.
In 1950, battery ignition became available. True, not an internal engine change, but the variable advance on the timing would make a difference with a bit of additional power. Engine RPM increased in '55, I'm imagine increasing the HP along with it. The Camshaft also changed in '55, and was the only it changed during the life time of the Cub. The Cam did not change again during the later years.

Re: Horse Power Question

Fri Apr 04, 2014 7:51 am

The changes in the engine between 1949 and 1959 are significant, in my opinion. No time right now to sort through the mountain of literature to verify the engine serial number of the change, but about 1953, the crankshaft main bearing mounts and caps were changed to eliminate a tendency in the earlier engines for the caps to move while the engine was running. Such movement resulted in significant shortening of the life of the main bearings and the crankshaft journals plus the power loss due to the friction. The better bearing mounts helped support the increased engine speed soon to follow.
With the increase in engine speed from 1600 RPM to 1800 RPM, the changed camshaft moved the peak torque speed upward a bit. That combination boosted the horsepower.

Re: Horse Power Question

Fri Apr 04, 2014 8:29 am

Nebraska tested the Cub in 1947, test 386 and in 1956, test 575. I have only the synopsis of the tests as reported by C. H. Wendel and he reports, to some extent, on different facts for the two tests. For the 1947, the maximum drawbar pull was 1596 pounds at a speed of 1.96 mph and wheel slippage of 10.98%. 9.23 belt horsepower. For 1956, the maximum drawbar pull was 1605 pounds at 2.25 mph with slippage of 6.73%. 10.39 belt horsepower. Clearly the 1956 was the better performer by about 12%. .

Re: Horse Power Question

Mon Apr 07, 2014 11:33 pm

People buy horsepower but drive torque. Don't fret about horsepower ratings for machines designed to replace a mule, the only purpose is manual labor. No need for speed with tractors.

Torque. It cuts the grass, pushes the snow, plows the furrows. Ask for it by name.