Ok ok, I need some belt help

[jimbob200521]

For my own edification, I want to know what belt to use on an 1864 with a 48GT deck, and a 54GT deck. Basically, I want to know if they are the same belt or not. I looked up on partstree.com and Cub Parts but can't seem to find the size/part number.

Also, and this one I'm pretty sure about, the undercarriages for the two decks are the same, correct? It's pretty much the belts I'm not sure about.

[J-Mech]

Shows they are the same in the parts book..... Both the belt, and the subframe/mule drive.

Part number for the belt: 954-3001, 91.68" long.

[jimbob200521]

Originally Posted by J-Mech

Shows they are the same in the parts book..... Both the belt, and the subframe/mule drive.

Part number for the belt: 954-3001, 91.68" long.

Thanks bud, although I was kinda hoping to hear there was a difference in belt, to be honest. I installed the 54" deck on the 1864 last night but used the 48" deck mule drive/subframe as it was in overall better shape. I also used the belt from the 48" deck. When I started the tractor and engaged the PTO, the deck seemed to have quite a bit of side to side sway, or "jerk" (it's not quite hard enough of a swaying motion to be called a jerk, but not soft enough to be a sway ), while the blades were spinning up. Once up to speed, it was fine. I tried swapping over to the 54" deck belt and it seemed to help a bit, but maybe it was just the placebo effect. In either case, I'm going to have to check things out again, I don't like how much it swings when engaging the deck. Ever heard of a deck doing this?

Edit: One thing I will say is that the mule drive on the 48" deck doesn't seem to keep as much tension on the belt as the 54" deck mule drive. I may swap mule drives but keep undercarriages and see if that helps, although jacking up the front end, removing/installing the deck, messing with undercarriages is getting to be a PITA That, and when the 48" deck was on here, I don't recall it having any startup issues with its undercarriage...

[J-Mech]

Which 48" deck are you talking about? Like a triangle 48" or a cyclops 48"? The parts book shows that the 48" and 54" cyclops decks use the same sub-frame and belts. There shouldn't be any difference.

As far as the sway..... perhaps all the linkage is worn.

[jimbob200521]

Originally Posted by J-Mech

Which 48" deck are you talking about? Like a triangle 48" or a cyclops 48"? The parts book shows that the 48" and 54" cyclops decks use the same sub-frame and belts. There shouldn't be any difference.

As far as the sway..... perhaps all the linkage is worn.

It's a 48" Cyclops deck, I'm not that dumb; the triangle deck is a few generation before the machines I'm working with

As far as the linkage, it looked fine to me. The only difference between the 54" deck on the 1863 and 1864 is the subframe and mule drive. I still think there's something to the mule drive not putting enough tension on the belt, that's my next swap to make. I was just curious if there was anything else that could be causing it.

[J-Mech]

I don't think your dumb..... I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page.

Maybe the mule drive pulleys aren't moving (pivoting) on the shaft like they should be.

[jimbob200521]

Originally Posted by J-Mech

I don't think your dumb..... I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page.

I know, didn't mean anything by it, just what came out of my mouth

Originally Posted by J-Mech

Maybe the mule drive pulleys aren't moving (pivoting) on the shaft like they should be.

That's exactly what I'm thinking. With the mule drive from the 48" deck on there, there is no way to push the idler lever in to relieve pressure on the belt, almost like the tension spring is tired or worn out.

[jimbob200521]

Well, I got it figured out. I think it was a two-fold problem; in the first pic, the sub frame was in a different set of holes. I swapped to the front set, and while it was a bit better, it wasn't quite...right yet. So I said the hell with it and swapped mule drives while leaving the sub frame intact. I took a side by side pic of the two; notice anything? After the swap, all is right again. Belt tension is MUCH better. Hope this can help someone down the road

I'm guessing the spring is either tired, on backwards/wrong, or not tensioned right. Thoughts?

[Sam Mac]

I'd bet the shaft is seized up in the 1863 mule drive. I see one pulley all the way forward and the one with the spring is not and it should be. I've seen the same issue before. Probably never got greased.