Mower deck frame mounting

[zippy1]

Originally Posted by Baccarat

Lance. I agree with your deck assessment.

After doing quite a bit of research on the parts lists, I found the following info.

Deck: 1968 - 1971.
Undercarriage: Tractor S/N 218,010 to 400,000. Call it the early version.
Mule Drive: 44" & 50" deck model.

My tractor S/N is 433720. Call it the later version. That undercarriage has a few differences that I can see.

1: The pickle fork has two perpendicular brackets welded on that "look" like they are intended to extend the fork. Part call out #7 on both lists.

2: The adjustable hanger brackets for the hydraulic lift are not the same. The left side bracket is the same as the earlier model. The right side is a two piece assembly. On the early version they call for 2 each of call out #8. On the later version they call for 1 each of call out #8. Then 1 each of call out #s 21 & 22.

Should I modify the fork bracket by welding on the extensions and see if the hanging brackets will work as is? Or, should I find the two piece hanging bracket for the right side? Should I find the correct undercarriage for the tractor/deck combo? I don't think the mule drive is a concern.

Mike

Mike, didn't we check everything that was in the pile the day you were here? I thought so, and there was nothing that appeared to be longer...
Like I SAID, I never had a deck mounted to this tractor. When I got it, it had the tiller on it, and everything else the PO had with it was tossed in the truck.
The mule drive that was on it, was what it came with, and that ran the tiller. If something is wrong that you picked out, I want to make it right for ya, so when you get it figured out, let me know what you need, and we'll go from there.

[TommyK]

Originally Posted by Baccarat

Lance. I agree with your deck assessment.

After doing quite a bit of research on the parts lists, I found the following info.

Deck: 1968 - 1971.
Undercarriage: Tractor S/N 218,010 to 400,000. Call it the early version.
Mule Drive: 44" & 50" deck model.

My tractor S/N is 433720. Call it the later version. That undercarriage has a few differences that I can see.

1: The pickle fork has two perpendicular brackets welded on that "look" like they are intended to extend the fork. Part call out #7 on both lists.

2: The adjustable hanger brackets for the hydraulic lift are not the same. The left side bracket is the same as the earlier model. The right side is a two piece assembly. On the early version they call for 2 each of call out #8. On the later version they call for 1 each of call out #8. Then 1 each of call out #s 21 & 22.

Should I modify the fork bracket by welding on the extensions and see if the hanging brackets will work as is? Or, should I find the two piece hanging bracket for the right side? Should I find the correct undercarriage for the tractor/deck combo? I don't think the mule drive is a concern.

Mike

Hey Mike, you need the correct mule drive and subframe. The one pictured in the later version for a 48 inch deck for a 149.
http://www.cubcadet.com/equipment/AR...0-A/0075600006
You have a WF 44 50 deck mule with a narrow frame sub frame.
When i bought my 108 I had the same mule and subframe as you, a 44 50 mule with a NF subframe, for a 68-71 38 inch deck. It was pieced together by PO just to sell, and it wasn't right, I couldn't level the deck. I bought the correct mule drive, as Jonathan suggests.

[Baccarat]

Todd. Yea, we looked at just about all of the undercarriages after we found that this one appeared a bit short. We tape measured all of the length factors and they all measured the same except for two of the carriages. The one was that white one you said was for your 982 I think(?). The other one we didn't consider and didn't measure was one that had the welded brackets on it. It looked like the fork had been broken and repaired with the brackets. I chose not to consider it because of that apparent "fixed issue". We never measured it as a result.

There is nothing that you could have done, or did wrong. It's just something that happens on stuff when things get to this age and come from various PO sources.

Don't feel bad. Tomorrow's Wednesday and I'll get it done. Without looking at the parts look-up neither of us would have known that the carriages changed from tractor #400,000 and before to tractor #400,001 and later. Who woulda thunk. I don't know what the first 149 serial number was, so we can't even tell if all the 149s had the same carriage, or if they also changed in mid-production.

Let your heart not be troubled.

Mike

[Baccarat]

TommyK. Thanks for the info. At this point I can't check the deck for level until I get the carriage fork to engage properly. As a result I can't really assess whether the mule drive is part of the problem or not.

As my pic's show, the mule drive fits the tractor. Then the mule drive fits the carriage and the carriage fits to the deck. So, my first priority is the carriage fork issue. Once that is cleared up, then I can go from there.

I can fabricate/machine an extension for the fork, but would rather not if the issue can be resolved in the correct fashion. Extending the fork may have an effect on leveling the deck as a result and that would blow the whole thing up anyway.

Thanks again, any and all thoughts and ideas are appreciated.
Mike

[ironman]

Originally Posted by Baccarat

I know that in the service manual the "pickle fork hanger thingy" has two flat bars welded perpendicular to the inside of the hanger and sticking out longer than the fork itself. When I first saw a picture of one I assumed it was a modification to make that hanger fit a difference tractor model. Then when I saw it in the manual I thought, Mmmm, it must actually be original. During the start of the WF series they may have wanted to use up old stock inventory. :big think: That's my only best guess.

I don't remember for sure, but I don't think I saw one like that in the Parts Look Up. I'll re-check that to be certain.

Let me know what you find in your collection. I appreciate it.

I'm probably wrong but I always assumed the ones with the flat bars on the fork were a factory mod that came along later to give the fork more surface to rest on the cross bar, to prevent the fork from getting like this....

[Baccarat]

Ironman. You might be correct in your thinking, but then, why cut the bar shorter and then add the length back on with the welded bars. In the parts look up the flat welded bars definitely extend beyond the original fork bar. The most logical modification to increase the service area would have been to simply weld the two perpendicular ones on flush to the end of the original fork. Not necessarily extending it.

I am extremely logical about things. Sometimes engineers don't always see the forest for the tree. But even I cannot think that engineers and/or production managers would say "OK boys, cut off 1" on all 50,000 carriage forks in stock and then weld two of these 2" extension bars to all of them".

I've seen a fork or two that the bottom side was worn out to the point of totally gone. Far worse than your picture. I wonder if a worn fork like yours has much of an effect on the front to back leveling of a deck.

Thanks for the input. As I mentioned, you may be correct, but it doesn't sound logical.

Mike

[ironman]

Originally Posted by Baccarat

Ironman. You might be correct in your thinking, but then, why cut the bar shorter and then add the length back on with the welded bars. In the parts look up the flat welded bars definitely extend beyond the original fork bar. The most logical modification to increase the service area would have been to simply weld the two perpendicular ones on flush to the end of the original fork. Not necessarily extending it.

I am extremely logical about things. Sometimes engineers don't always see the forest for the tree. But even I cannot think that engineers and/or production managers would say "OK boys, cut off 1" on all 50,000 carriage forks in stock and then weld two of these 2" extension bars to all of them".

I've seen a fork or two that the bottom side was worn out to the point of totally gone. Far worse than your picture. I wonder if a worn fork like yours has much of an effect on the front to back leveling of a deck.

Thanks for the input. As I mentioned, you may be correct, but it doesn't sound logical.

Mike

FWIW, I have four frames lying here, two are narrow, two are wide.

The two narrows do not have the flat bars, the two wide do.

I measured from the very tips of the fork to the center of the pivot point in the main frame. The two narrows measure exactly 12 inches. The two wides measure 12 1/2 inches.

I then measured from what looked like the center of the wear point on all four in the fork area to the center of the pivot on the main frame. All four measured 11 3/8 inches.

So obviously the extra half inch on the flat bars does not come into play other than maybe making it easier to get started on to the cross bar when installing.

I donno?

[darkminion_17]

Too much rain today to play with decks, but it seems you got an idea what you need.

[Baccarat]

Ironman. That is indeed interesting. Todd and I measured the carriages that he had and they all measured the 12" length. That would make them all NF carriages. We also measured from the pivot point forward to the center of the mule drive attaching hole. IIRC that measurement was 19-1/2" on all of them. A different frame measured 20-1/2" on that length and the same 12" to the fork end. That was a white carriage and he said that one that was for his 982(?).

I think what I'll try tomorrow is to clamp a couple of flat bars on and extend them by that 1/2" and see if that helps resolve the issue.

If you would, could you measure from the fork pivot point forward to the mule drive attaching hole and let me know those results?

Also, are the forks on the WF units more of a 1/2 diameter hole versus a full deep U shape?

I will take pics of my fork with a tape measure on it showing the measurements in both the forward direction to the mule drive as well as rearward to the end of the fork and post them.

Thanks for the info and the assistance.

Lew. With Ironman's info, we may be closing in on a solution. Thanks for you assistance as well.

Mike

[zippy1]

Originally Posted by Baccarat

Ironman. That is indeed interesting. Todd and I measured the carriages that he had and they all measured the 12" length. That would make them all NF carriages. We also measured from the pivot point forward to the center of the mule drive attaching hole. IIRC that measurement was 19-1/2" on all of them. A different frame measured 20-1/2" on that length and the same 12" to the fork end. That was a white carriage and he said that one that was for his 982(?).

I think what I'll try tomorrow is to clamp a couple of flat bars on and extend them by that 1/2" and see if that helps resolve the issue.

If you would, could you measure from the fork pivot point forward to the mule drive attaching hole and let me know those results?

Also, are the forks on the WF units more of a 1/2 diameter hole versus a full deep U shape?

I will take pics of my fork with a tape measure on it showing the measurements in both the forward direction to the mule drive as well as rearward to the end of the fork and post them.

Thanks for the info and the assistance.

Lew. With Ironman's info, we may be closing in on a solution. Thanks for you assistance as well.

Mike

Close Mike. It is off my 782, so you had the last two numbers correct.
Well then. I would like to know if the PO I got it from ever had the deck on the tractor. I know, we will never know, but it seems unlikely.
"IF" you end up having to buy a different mule drive, or undercarriage, let me know, I'll make it right.