Yes, lets modify the incorrect part to try and make it work. :bash2:

Todd offered to make right the incorrect part. Why don't you just find the right one and do it the right way instead of altering a good subframe?


I'm not sure you're working toward a solution......

Here ya go, measurements are hole's center to center, hope it helps!

Total front hole to rear hole
NF 32"
WF 33"

Front hole to lift arm pivot point
NF 19.5"
WF 20.5"

Rear hole to lift arm pivot point
NF 12.75"
WF 12.75"

Front hole to lift link hole
NF front hole 23.5", rear hole 25"
WF 24

Rear hole to lift link hole
NF front hole 8.5", rear hole 7"
WF 9.25"

Shorter total length by 1" and pivot point being 1" more forward would leave you shy of the crossbar if you have measurements like the NF above.

Jon. I only said that I was going to clamp extensions on to see what the result looked like and if it would function correctly. I want to verify that the slightly longer fork length is what is needed and if the deck will level correctly. I didn't say that I was going to actually fully modify it. Todd gave me a second sub-frame that the lower side of the fork is totally worn off. IF I modify one, it would be that one and not the totally good and correct one.

The problem is not Todds fault. He had no way of knowing that the subframe was not the correct one for a WF. As he mentioned, he bought the tractor with a tiller mounted on it and the PO threw the deck and subframe in as well. Either the PO didn't know it was a wrong sub-frame or simply threw in the wrong one by accident.

In my way of thinking we are making progress toward a solution. The first step in finding any solution to a problem is to determine what that problem really is. The second step is to explore any and all options to fix the problem. We have determined that in all likelihood the subframe is incorrect. The solution is (A) modify an already bad frame. (B) Find and get a correct frame. Which direction I choose is still to be determined. That in my mind is making progress.

Todd. You didn't do anything wrong. The issue is not your fault. Let your heart not be troubled.

Ironman. You have moved up on my Xmas card list. All of that info and those pic's have indeed solved the issue. I just finished measuring my two frames and taking a couple of pic's when I came online to post them. I must have been writing my previous post this am when you sent them at that time because I didn't see them until now.

Based on your dimensions, I indeed have a NF that is too short for the application. The 1" difference will definitely have an adverse effect on mounting and if I simply extend my existing fork by 1" the deck will probably never level up properly. My kingdom for 1".

Your pic's do bring up a few questions.

1) Your NF frames are all straight from the center to the rear and have no rear cross brace. My NF frames are straight, but do have the rear cross brace.

2) The WF frame is curved to the rear. The Parts look up shows that they should be straight with the cross brace. When I post a "wanted" request I want to make sure I am looking at and getting the correct one. What was the WF frame attached to? Perhaps a smaller deck? The Parts look up indicate that the same sub-frame was used for 38" 44" & 48" decks on tractors 400,001 to 529,999. Heaven help my mental state if I would find/buy an incorrect one.

I can't thank you enough for your help here.
Mike

Ans #1. All the narrow frame pics are the same frame. I just showed it with a quick attach mule and a bolt on mule to give you some perspective, and yes it has no rear cross brace. HOWEVER the other narrow frame I have is identical in every respect but it DOES have the cross brace.

Ans #2. I'm not sure what tractor it came from but it did have a 44A deck with it.

What are you using for parts lookup? I'll try to locate some stuff about decks that I printed out good while back, but I'm not sure I ever understood it completely.

Ironman. Thanks for that update.

I am using the "Parts Resources" thread here on OCC. In there I am using "Cub Cadet Online Parts Lookup". That takes you to a Cub Cadet web site. Type in the tractor model, choose the specific model. Under the heading "Attachments" are listed all of the various attachments available for that tractor. The attachments they list for a 149 are: 38", 42", 44", 48" & 50". Hitch Attachments(?) show the mule drives and sub-frames. I've gone through them a couple of times in my researching and all of the sub-frames have the straight center to end style, no curved ones. So, perhaps that WF subframe is for a later model.

Hope that helps you as much as you've helped me. Let me if you find something out about the curved one. IIRC Todd's frame for his 782 had straight rails, but don't quote me on that.

Mike

I use this one.

http://www.onlycubcadets.net/forum/s...ad.php?t=24721

Yes, I believe that is the one I was referring to. For some reason that document confuses the hell out of me as to where one thing ends and the next begins. Guess I'll ask the grankids for help.

That's easy to help with. A picture/diagram starts a new section. Everything after a diagram refers to the diagram before it.

2) The WF frame is curved to the rear. The Parts look up shows that they should be straight with the cross brace. When I post a "wanted" request I want to make sure I am looking at and getting the correct one. What was the WF frame attached to? Perhaps a smaller deck? The Parts look up indicate that the same sub-frame was used for 38" 44" & 48" decks on tractors 400,001 to 529,999. Heaven help my mental state if I would find/buy an incorrect one.

Hey Mike, the curved subframe is for 44 and 50 inch decks. If the cub cadets part list is right, you need the straight subframe, which is used for the 38 and 42 inch decks. The mule drive has a spring in front, not the tension bar. I have both WF mule drives, and i do think they're different. I'd have to dig out the tension rod one to compare.