Quietline rear end swap to SGT
 

If I find a Quietline rearend that is complete will it bolt up to my 1772 SGT.
Are will I just use the case with my internals.

From what I understood from the other post, we agreed it would. But you will want to use youre internals because of the fine spline axles and the different reduction gear.

Just so you know where I'm coming from I'm now down to three Cubs and all have CI rears, I'll never have another aluminum rear.

"Elsewhere" is a pictorial on how to set up a ring and pinion, there is a lot of info out there if you look around. Others, particularly 'pullers' set up there rears from multiple parts, no such thing as a matching pinion to ring, they use two piece carriers with bolted on rings from Dodge Darts....well just look around you'll see. Also keep in mind these 'pullers' are running 65 to 95 hp twins and upward from what I hear so the point if these guys abuse their trannies more in one afternoon than you will in a lifetime mowing or plowing. As I stated in another thread I don't chase down part #s, I look at the parts and then decide if I can make them work for what I want to accomplish.

So my suggestion is....do what you want. And to answer the question directly--yeah and QL CI and your guts.

Scott

Ive got a 982 with the coarse spline axles and carrier and let me say that I have over abused it, hasn't failed me yet. Other than the 'pullers' desiring them I really can't see any reason to go out of my way for normal use.

Scott

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s...b/P1070809.jpg

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s...b/P1070813.jpg

Something else you can add to your CI rear and not have to contend with that useless dip stick/filler tube on the aluminum rears.

Scott

A neighbor has an complete CI rearend w/hyro pump that he says came out of a 1650. It has internal wet brakes. I'd like to get it for my 1872, but I want to keep my external disc brakes . Any advice would be appreciated.
Thanks

I'm using a 582 standard with internals and '82' external brakes, just ingnore the internal.




Scott

On my 1872 aluminum rearend, there is a dipstick/tube to add and check fluid. There is no such provision on the CI unit. How do you add and check fluid on these?

See the huge pics above.

Scott

Great Pix! But, what is the procedure without this modification?

There should be a plug in the rear cover, remove plug and fill to plug, reinstall plug.



Scott

Ok, I'm a little confused. The CI rear on the 982 has no dipstick on the top? If this is the case why do I have one on my 982? Anyway, the rear is cast but the sides and axle tubes appear to be aluminum. Is this correct?
Also, If you look close you can see a pto shaft coming out the back of the pump, is this standard?

Some tubes are aluminum and some are iron, don't know what the rule is but I have 'em with both.

The 982 is the only one I know of that came with the dip stick in the top cover.

The splined output shaft, all Super pumps have them, drive the rear pto but it in and of it's self is not the pto.

Scott

Ok, my next question is the fluid level. The dipstick is showing it is low but when I remove the plug on the back cover it is up to the bottom of the hole (the way my 149 would be). Which is the correct way to measure the fluid level on this 982? The manual says nothing about this.

If you had a rear pto you'd have no other option but to use/trust the dip stick. I really don't think it will matter one way or the other. Pint here or there.

Scott

Much apprecitated Scott, thanks.

What problems, if any, would there be with swapping a complete CI rear end/pump from a QL (1650) into an 1872? I mean a direct swap without changing any internal components or pump. Would the coarse spline dual disc brake rear axles work with the 1872 calipers, etc?

Thanks.

Several. First, the input shaft on the 1872 pump is splined, 1650 pump isn't. Second, the gear ratio between the pump and differential is different; the tractor will be faster/have less torque with the 1650 rear. The brakes will work, but you are liable to twist off a coarse-spline axle in a super if you use it for plowing.

If you want to do it right, use the 1872 pump and aluminum rear internals in the cast iron case. More work, but in the end, you'll have the best of both worlds.

What's wrong with the aluminum rear in your 1872? Unless you're trying to gain weight or have a broken case, there really isn't any need to do this.

Thanks Matt. That's exactly the information I was looking for. I bought a complete 1650 CI rear/pump for $40. I was wondering if I could use it "as is", and if the internals bit the dust, so what? At the very least, I have a CI case if I ever want to swap the internals.

Is there really a point switching from aluminum to a cast rear unless something's wrong with the rearend? You're most likely not going to have issues with the aluminum rear unless you're abusing it. Seems like a waist of money.

Really it all depends if traction is an issue. Here in the hills I need all the traction I can get, not only am I fed up with spinning out and tearing up my turf but some of the areas of the three lawns I mow are just down right dangerous. I could post pics but pics just don't do justice to how steep some areas are. Also our soil here is a clay based soil and when it gets damp it can be slick as ice.
Every aluminum rear I've had regardless of the tractor has spun out on me. I've loaded tires and added weights and still it's just not enough. Even the 1872 I had would. Certain slopes I could only mow down hill and even then at times it would run away on me. Mowing sideways to the hill I could only mow with the left tire on the low side otherwise the left rear would get lite on the high side and spin out. Nothing worse than fighting and fighting to get a lawn mowed.
My 982 with the CI rear (factory) has never really had an issue with traction, stacked weights and loaded tires. I will lose traction when plowing though, our clay here is tough. Never had a problem getting around with the 982 but then I don't mow with it either.
I replaced my 1811's rear with a CI at the end of mowing season last year, haven't really mowed with it yet but just driving it around it feels 100% better.

It may make no sense to anyone but I do think the CIs transfer power to the ground a little differently, certainly appears that way to me.

Just my experience. Not a waste for me.

Scott

That's a good point. I'll have to take notice when I go plow with the 982d which has the aluminum rear. I know my 782 with cast rear, wheel weights, and loaded tires was a traction beast plowing.