140 vs. A rear wheel weights

Farmall Super A, AV, 100, 130, & 140 1939 - 1973
Forum rules
Notice: For sale and wanted posts are not allowed in this forum. Please use our free classifieds or one of our site sponsors for your tractor and parts needs.
5+ Years
5+ Years
Posts: 2358
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 10:24 am
Zip Code: 19342
Tractors Owned: 1948 6v - Dozer
1949 with kub klipper belly mower. mag 6v - Mom
1950 with plow, 54 blade, mott mag 6v - Roxanne
1953 54 blade, c22, wood 42 6v
1957 6v - barn Queen
1965 lo-boy with c-3 mower 12 v - Loboy
1974 Horse II 12 v c-2
1975 with woods 42-6 12 v - Horse
1979 long strip 12 v stuck engine
130 with international 1000 loader 6 v
1969 140 with bush hog tow behind mower 12 v
Terramite T-6 4WD Backhoe Perkins diesel
Memberships: Rough and Tumble Engineers Historical Association;Chapter 8 IH Collectors; IH Collectors Worldwide
Circle of Safety: Y
Location: Glen Mills PA

Re: 140 vs. A rear wheel weights

Postby inairam » Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:27 pm


You have corrected my posts more times than I care to say. However, having just worked with both weights there is a noticeable difference in the two weights.
When you only have 9 horsepower you need to know the names of all of the ponies!

10+ Years
10+ Years
Posts: 1301
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:02 am
Zip Code: 00000
Circle of Safety: Y

Re: 140 vs. A rear wheel weights

Postby indy61 » Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:37 pm

I have heard the Cub rear weights weigh more than the A/140 rear weights. Not by much but I don't know

User avatar
501 Club
501 Club
Posts: 939
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 2:12 am
Zip Code: 65608
Tractors Owned: 49 F cub, donor
50 Farmall Cub bugeyes(dead)
51 Farmall Cub
53 Farmall Cub
55 Farmall Cub Clementine
55 International loboy
57 International loboy
62 140 Industrial The Beast
50s Allis Chalmers B
50 Ferguson TO20 Huppster
49 Ferguson TE20 Fergie
JD 790 4x4 w/backhoe
hinomoto diesel 4x4, early to mid 80s 20HP
73 Pasquali 4x4 diesel 33HP
74 Toro golf course tractor
Gilson 18HP
Circle of Safety: Y
Location: Missouri Ozarks

Re: 140 vs. A rear wheel weights

Postby Indy4570 » Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:03 am

I didn't put the A weights on the cub, I haven't inspected the bolts. but having a 140 with weights and several cubs I can say the biggest difference seems to be the center hole, it being larger in the A/140 weight
Circle of Safety
better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it...( YES this includes CUBS! )

Jim Becker
Team Cub
Team Cub
Posts: 16433
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2003 2:59 pm
Zip Code: 55319
Circle of Safety: Y
Location: MN

Re: 140 vs. A rear wheel weights

Postby Jim Becker » Sun Feb 21, 2021 2:48 pm

Jim Becker wrote:. . . The 140 weights just aren't a very good fit on the Cub wheel disk. The poor fit makes it more difficult to get them centered and keep them in place while mounting. The bolt circle isn't even the same, just close enough to work. . . .
I measured some weights to try to add some clarity to these comments. I'm not sure how well this ASCII artwork will hold up on everyone's display, but here it is. If you measure the horizontal distance between A and B, you get about 2-1/2 inches on either the 140 or Cub weighs. But when you measure the vertical distance, the 140 weights are about 3-1/2 while the Cub weights are about 5-1/2. As a result, 140 weights bolted to a Cub wheel center will only touch the center at the outside circle of the weight. At the inner circle there will be a gap. The bolt circle of the 140 weight is about 13-1/4 while the Cub is about 13-3/4. The gap in fitting the shape of the center plus the fact 140 weights have holes for larger diameter bolts add enough slack to allow bolting things up with different bolt circles. The 140 weights are about 3-1/2 thick while the Cub's are about 3. The Cub weights make up for the reduced thickness with a smaller center hole.

___ <------- A
........\ <---- B

  • Similar Topics
    Last post

Return to “Farmall A, Super A, AV, 100, 130 & 140”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests