Engine casting date and serial number don't match tractor...

[awander]

My Cub is Chassis SN 152710, which makes it a '52.

The engine serial number is 155412, which I understand is ok because they used engines for other things than the tractors, so having the engine number bigger than the chassis/tractor number is normal.

Whayt i don't understand is that the enginbe casting date is 3.26.Y which seems to mean it was cast in March of 1953. Is it possible that they were still making "1952" tractors in March 1953? Or did this engine get swapped at some point?

...or did I read the casting date wrong......?

[Bus Driver]

Wonder if the "Y" is a poorly cast "X"? Check the angle of the lower leg on the "Y". That is the only possibility that occurs to me at the moment.

[Jim Becker]

A serial number difference between the tractor and the engine of around 3K is about right for '52. I believe you have the original block. As Bus Driver said, some of those codes are not easy to read and it could be a messed up X. Or the date plate may have been misstamped with the wrong code that day. I don't have any other explanations either.

[Matt Kirsch]

I'm going to disagree with Jim here and say that your tractor probably has a replacement block on it. Are all the other casting codes "X" codes?

This isn't for the sake of disagreement, but for practical reasons: There are many legitimate reasons that a nearly-new tractor would end up with a block. For example, if the new owner, a former horse farmer who was not used to maintaining tractors, forgot to drain the water and it froze (no antifreeze back then, or it was VERY expensive!), the block would be ruined and would need to be replaced. The new owner, never having operated a tractor before, could've been a little rough on the old girl and could've broken the block. The Cub has a very well-known weak spot right at the front of the engine block.

Then again, the block could've been replaced at any time during the tractor's lifetime. There are at least 2 people on this site looking for a good Q-code block for their '47s. A previous owner needing to replace the block for any number of reasons could've been just as fussy, but ended up settling for "close enough."

My money is on the tractor's original engine block being damaged beyond repair some time in the first year of the tractor's life, though.

[Jim Becker]

Matt,
For that to be the case, it would have had to be a replacement block with no serial number stamped and whoever put it in would have had to stamp the original number into the new block. That could have happened, but how many times do we think anyone bothered to stamp the number in?

[Super A]

Then again, the block could've been replaced at any time during the tractor's lifetime. There are at least 2 people on this site looking for a good Q-code block for their '47s. A previous owner needing to replace the block for any number of reasons could've been just as fussy, but ended up settling for "close enough."

Farmers don't care about casting codes. They care about getting the tractor running again. That is why we have a Farmall Super C block in our 230!

Al

[Matt Kirsch]

Jim,

If replacement engines didn't have serial numbers stamped into them, then how did the serial numbers get so far off? I thought the engines all came off the same production line, and went to tractor, power unit, baler, combine, or spares as demand dictated. If the engines only got serial numbers after they were installed in the tractor, then the serial numbers should be the same all the way through production.

[John *.?-!.* cub owner]

If I understand correctly the serial numbers were stamped on the blocks when the engines were built, not when the block was cast, and they were then pulled off the line for use in cubs, combines, etc. A replacement block that was shipped as a block only, not an assembled engine form the factory would not have had the serial stamped in it.

[Jim Becker]

Yeah, what John said.

My point is that for a block to have been replaced and have the original serial number, it would have had to been replaced as a bare (or possibly short) block and been stamped in the field. If the entire engine had been replaced, it would have been stamped at the factory with a number in range for '53 rather than '52.

[Matt Kirsch]

Ah, I didn't put two and two together. The engine block serial number would put it in the 1952 production year, wouldn't it?

That leaves only one logical conclusion: The "Y" is really a poorly-cast "X."

Does the "Y" look like this: Y

Or, does it look like this: y

The base of the Y should be straight up and down, not off at an angle. My '53 Super H has all Y castings, not y castings. I'd imagine the 1953 Y-code castings for the Cub used the same lettering set.

[awander]

Well, I guess I am getting old. I just went back out and looked, and the "Y" hjas been magically transformed into an "X". No poor casting, no dirt on it, it is a very nice "X".

All of the other casting codes i could find(drop housings, tranny, torque tube, axle tube) are "X"'s also.

I sure learned a lot from this thread, though! Sorry about my failing eyesight....