184 rebuild completed

IH CUB Lo-Boy Series - 154, 184, 185 Forum -- Questions and answers to all of your Lo-Boy related issues.

Moderator: Team Cub

Forum rules
Notice: For sale and wanted posts are not allowed in this forum. Please use our free classifieds or one of our site sponsors for your tractor and parts needs.
User avatar
Rick Prentice
Team Cub Guide
Team Cub Guide
Posts: 5500
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 7:24 am
Zip Code: 43528
Tractors Owned: 47(circle cub),48(Floyd backhoe),49,,51,54 and another 55
Circle of Safety: Y
Location: OH, Holland

Re: 184 rebuild completed

Postby Rick Prentice » Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:30 am

I have rebuilt over 2000 of these retainers with out issue
So do you mind if we ask the membership if anyone has had one of your retainers that failed. I know that all the retainers I did had to have the seal driven in with a flat plate and bigger hammer till the seal was flush. CR recommended only a .005-.007 pressed fit. If anyone had one of my retainers fail, which I signed on the inside back of every one I did with the date, that means the retainer expanded more.
Rick
When I told my dad I've been misplacing things and doing stupid stuff----His reply---"It only gets better"

User avatar
Rick Prentice
Team Cub Guide
Team Cub Guide
Posts: 5500
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 7:24 am
Zip Code: 43528
Tractors Owned: 47(circle cub),48(Floyd backhoe),49,,51,54 and another 55
Circle of Safety: Y
Location: OH, Holland

Re: 184 rebuild completed

Postby Rick Prentice » Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:49 am

I did a search and started the retainer project back in Oct of 2006. Then I passsed the torch to Phil with this old post viewtopic.php?f=1&t=47084&p=389301&hilit=retainer+Phil#p389301 I'm not sure on the exact final date for Phil and when tst started. All of us flatened the rear surface and the oil pan surface and repaired holes with helicoils if needed.
Rick
When I told my dad I've been misplacing things and doing stupid stuff----His reply---"It only gets better"

tst
5+ Years
5+ Years
Posts: 2881
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:08 pm
Zip Code: 12514
Circle of Safety: Y

Re: 184 rebuild completed

Postby tst » Sat Feb 10, 2018 10:25 am

Sure, ask away Rick, I have not had any returned to me that I repaired that failed, the few that were the seal was torn on the install or the lip spring was missing, none where the seal came out of the housing, I always recommend packing the seal with grease to prevent the spring from popping out or ripping the seal

User avatar
Rick Prentice
Team Cub Guide
Team Cub Guide
Posts: 5500
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 7:24 am
Zip Code: 43528
Tractors Owned: 47(circle cub),48(Floyd backhoe),49,,51,54 and another 55
Circle of Safety: Y
Location: OH, Holland

Re: 184 rebuild completed

Postby Rick Prentice » Sat Feb 10, 2018 10:52 am

Do you have a beginning time when you started your machining process so we can kinda get some idea on when all retainers were done between the 3 of us. Also what did you do with all the retainers that you said the bores were machined too big. Do you machine R1s or only R2s. Just trying to get all the facts in order so hopefully we know a correct fix.
Rick
When I told my dad I've been misplacing things and doing stupid stuff----His reply---"It only gets better"

tst
5+ Years
5+ Years
Posts: 2881
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:08 pm
Zip Code: 12514
Circle of Safety: Y

Re: 184 rebuild completed

Postby tst » Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:11 pm

Rick, I have been doing these probably 10 years, before I became a forum member, I did not advertise I did this until after you and Phil no longer did this as I did not want to step on any ones toes, yes after you two stopped the volume increased but many customers of mine were wholesale buying in bulk from 5-20 at a time depending upon how many cores they sent me, the ones that I received that were cut big came from other people also, we were not the only people doing this, Some I have received were very crude, I think they used an ax to cut them! I have saved some as some day I was going to look and see if there was another seal that could be used to repair them but am to busy at this time as I have a lot on my plate, as you know I make many other cub parts and have a steady stream of customers for repair work, I do a lot of rebuilds, average over 20 engines a year here, I cut both R1 & R2, have seem some that could get away with a just the factory seal installed but they are few and far between, the R2 is a better casting as you know there are porous when we cut in to these, the R2 is less porous than the R1, it does not matter that much to me as I believe when they are updated one is as good as the next, I would think if I had a bulk of bad ones out there it would have been shared on the forum and as you know the internet gets around, I have a few I screwed up on cutting myself that came I found from some one talking to me while I was cutting and not paying attention like I should but they never were shipped out, I have never made it a secret of my methods and just try to save as many of these old cub parts as possible for a reasonable cost, a big chunk of the repair is the seal and shipping, I buy in bulk to keep the cost down as much as I can, price a seal 29952, for example list price from Napa is $28, they are very proud of them, I buy them 25 at a time, the demand was high the past few years but slowed down in 2017, the price from when you were doing this I only raised a few bucks due to seal cost and shipping increases, I do them in bulk so the machine is set up once to cut back on wasted time and have them swap out to save on down time for the customer, they are flatten, sealed threads chased or heilacoiled as required and ready to install for $48.50 with shipping, I always say replaced the gaskets as many just try and goop them up with silicone which I do not like as to much gets used and many engines I have rebuilt have failed due to lack of oil and I fine the silicone blocking oil passages, also when the oil pan gasket is not replaced the old pan gasket is already crushed and the installers just try making the it tighter to stop that leak, I have had many with the threads ripped out due to that and that surface needs to be flattened also.
I hope this information helps your research as I know the quality work and fabrication that you do and you take pride in your efforts as do I, we only met for a few minutes at a red power showed but enjoyed talking with you, perhaps one day we will see one another at a cub fest and have more time together to chat, always enjoyed some one with experience in the same work I am doing, always something to learn, feel free to ask me any of your thoughts if I can help
Tim

Landreo
10+ Years
10+ Years
Posts: 1172
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:10 am
Zip Code: 29130
Tractors Owned: fcub(5)
tricycle cub
154 (4)
Earthmaster (2)
JD 40T, JD 420 crawler-loader, JD MT
JD Unstyled A, Styled A, Unstyled AR
JD H
Centaur Tractor
AC Model C, G
Cub Cadets (9)
Gibson D
Red-E
Circle of Safety: Y
Location: SC, Ridgeway

Re: 184 rebuild completed

Postby Landreo » Sun Feb 11, 2018 9:01 am

There is a difference between the true failure rate and the known failure rate. It would be useful to know the true failure rate for the three suppliers. Unfortunately, that information would be hard to get.

What is the difference in the retainer rework methods? What is tst doing different or is it a lack of data on the failure rate? There appears to be a big difference in the success rate between the three suppliers.

For tst: why use a steel cased seal when the seal MFGs recommend a rubber cased seal for soft metal bores? Why not optimize the customer's chance for success?

Machining is not going to fix the inherent problems with thermal expansion and metal creep especially in an older retainer. Machining a larger bore will make it more likely the metal will creep and fail. A new retainer is still available through several suppliers, new seals are still available, so why risk failure with a old retainer that has already failed once? If someone is trying to preserve the karma of the original retainer in a family heirloom then it may make sense or if the retainers and seals were not available then reworking may be the only option.

I looked at a few other seal retainers for various tractors. There was a mix of pressed steel, cast iron, and at least one that appears to be diecast aluminum. I did not fine any that definitely looked like ZAMACK. The Continental n62 engine looks like it has some sort of diecast retainer that has ALCOA stamped on it so I assume it was an aluminum alloy. IHC may have been alone in using ZAMAK.

However, this thread makes for an interesting postmortem on the seal retainers and their design, engineering considerations, aging metals, etc...
I thank rick for resurrecting this thread, although he may wish he had not since it may seem no good deed goes unpunished, but it does give some chance for followup on the 3 techniques. Although I disagree with machining the retainers folks can make their own decision with their own money as to which direction they want to go to fix a leaky seal and retainer. As the saying go, you pay your money and you take your chances.

Too bad that mjr46 has not responded with his input as to what was wrong with his leaking retainer.

tst
5+ Years
5+ Years
Posts: 2881
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:08 pm
Zip Code: 12514
Circle of Safety: Y

Re: 184 rebuild completed

Postby tst » Sun Feb 11, 2018 9:48 am

All of the rear seals supplied from IH were not rubber, many were steel, I have seen the IH part #s on the steel seals, some do not agree with machining that is fine with me, I have received them from all sorts of fixes from glues, rivets, screws, snap rings, staked to death, the only ones I have not been able to repair are the ones that were already cut to big for the new seal, after 10 years of having 2000 plus seals out there and not having them returned for the seals falling out is proof to me that it works, if they were I am sure I would have heard about it from the customers, I do not believe that using a rubber seal or steel would make a difference either way, for the most part when I receive them from the customer I find that the rubber seals just push right out with my fingers while the steel ones are more stubborn, I think the end results have proven this is a good fix, if it was still failing after this repair I would not be doing this, I not only machine these but work on cubs full time and clutch repair is a common job for me and most customers go for the rear seal upgrade at the time, we have many small working farms in my area that use cubs constantly and they need their machines everyday during that growing season, with all the work I do with these I think I have seen more than my share as many have been customers for years and have not had any failures in this area again, I am probably my best customer for this repair

Just to show another way of repairing "soft " metals is when Harley Davidson came out with engine cylinders in the late 80's the base gaskets all leaked between 5-10,000 miles, there was piles of new and updated gaskets for the so called "fix", it was realized the base of the cylinder was warped where the gasket surface is so new cylinders were install and the were all good until 5-10,000 miles came around again and they had the same issue, they had the same issue as the cub retainers, the metal has now twisted, shrunk and warped and the metal is "seasoned", it is done warping so the cure was to turn the cylinders on the lathe to make them straight again and the issue is fixed, it is a common repair today
years ago when castings were made they used to be left laying around for months before machining them so the metal could go through the shrinking distorting process, a good example if you are old enough to remember is brake rotors, back in the 60-70' era it was not that common to see "warped" rotors on your car like todays newer cars, again the castings were made and left to cure for months before they were cut, today the manufacturers machine the new castings as fast as they cool off not to have any $$ tied in castings sitting around so you tons of warped rotors out there in a short time today
I do not have any degrees in metallurgy but have been in the repair business most of my days and these are not guesses and theory that I pulled out of thin air but proven many years of repair and experience on my part so I do know they work, I go for the long term fix as I do not want to do the job over again, life is to short to be wasting time doing the same job over and want to enjoy some other things, short cut repairs most always lead to wasted time and doing it all over again
Attachments
main.png
main.png (145.84 KiB) Viewed 506 times

User avatar
Rick Prentice
Team Cub Guide
Team Cub Guide
Posts: 5500
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 7:24 am
Zip Code: 43528
Tractors Owned: 47(circle cub),48(Floyd backhoe),49,,51,54 and another 55
Circle of Safety: Y
Location: OH, Holland

Re: 184 rebuild completed

Postby Rick Prentice » Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:04 am

This question is for Landreo. I have some retainers that I gathered over the years and had left over from when I turned the fix over to Phil. I brought all of them in the house and let them warm up to room temp 71 degrees. Can you give any advice on what seal number to purchase and from what company. If seals can be found that will correctly press in, I'll order them and we can see how they hold up.
retainer 1 is an R2 with a bore of 3.888
retainer 2 is an R1 with a bore of 3.889
retainer 3 is an R1 with a bore of 3.887
retainer 4 is an R1 with a bore of 3.894
retainer 5 is an R1 with a bore of 3.884
retainer 6 is an R1 with a bore of 3.887
retainer 7 is an R1 with a bore of 3.880
retainer 8 is an R2 with a bore of 3.882
retainer 9 is an R2 with a bore of 3.881

Thanks, Rick
When I told my dad I've been misplacing things and doing stupid stuff----His reply---"It only gets better"

Jim Becker
Team Cub
Team Cub
Posts: 13631
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2003 2:59 pm
Zip Code: 55319
Circle of Safety: Y
Location: MN

Re: 184 rebuild completed

Postby Jim Becker » Sun Feb 11, 2018 2:12 pm

Part of the problem in evaluating reworked retainers is that although we know the retainers are all used, we have no way of knowing how used they are. We know that any R1 retainer is now at least 64 years old and all were well over 50 when the rework projects discussed here began. An R2 retainer could be as much as 64 years old. But we don't know the history of any of them. One could have been on a tractor that was lightly used while another could have been on a tractor that was run daily for decades. It is impossible to know how many seals have been replaced in any given retainer.

We do know that IH used bare steel seals in the R1 retainers then switched to rubber coated for the R2 retainers. Nothing forced anyone to follow that with replacement seals. You will no doubt find rubber coated in R1 retainers and the reverse in R2. If so, they were replacement seals installed at a later date.

I would be very surprised if we hear anything from mjr46. He has been gone for several years. From his original post, it sounds like the seal wasn't a very tight fit in the retainer. Since Phil (like the others) installed a seal before shipping any reworked retainer, it is unclear what mjr46 was doing. Maybe he knocked it out just to see how tight it was. Maybe he didn't like Phil's seal and decided to replace it with one from a gasket kit. People have done stranger than either of those possibilities.

User avatar
Don McCombs
Team Cub Mentor
Team Cub Mentor
Posts: 13342
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 6:45 am
Zip Code: 21550
Tractors Owned: "1950 Something" Farmall Cub
1957 Farmall Cub w/FH
1977 International Cub w/FH
1978 International Cub
1948 Farmall Super A
Circle of Safety: Y
Location: MD, Deep Creek Lake

Re: 184 rebuild completed

Postby Don McCombs » Sun Feb 11, 2018 4:17 pm

This is directed at no one in particular, but I have found over my years, that it is much, much easier to be a critic than to be an innovator. My thanks go to Rick, Phil and Tim for their efforts in trying to develop a solution to a widespread issue.
Don McCombs
MD, Deep Creek Lake

Image
Proud Member of Maryland Chapter 39

User avatar
Bill Hudson
Team Cub
Team Cub
Posts: 8199
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:50 am
Zip Code: 44057
Tractors Owned: 57 F-Cub - Dad & Mom's Cub
52 F-Cub
49 F-Cub
Circle of Safety: Y
Location: OH, Madison

Re: 184 rebuild completed

Postby Bill Hudson » Sun Feb 11, 2018 4:53 pm

Don McCombs wrote:My thanks go to Rick, Phil and Tim for their efforts in trying to develop a solution to a widespread issue.


You betcha!

Bill
"The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop." Edwin Conklin, biologist

Landreo
10+ Years
10+ Years
Posts: 1172
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:10 am
Zip Code: 29130
Tractors Owned: fcub(5)
tricycle cub
154 (4)
Earthmaster (2)
JD 40T, JD 420 crawler-loader, JD MT
JD Unstyled A, Styled A, Unstyled AR
JD H
Centaur Tractor
AC Model C, G
Cub Cadets (9)
Gibson D
Red-E
Circle of Safety: Y
Location: SC, Ridgeway

Re: 184 rebuild completed

Postby Landreo » Sun Feb 11, 2018 7:01 pm

I have a Centaur, 2 Earthmasters, all I consider orphans. Almost no parts available for either. If I need much then it needs to be fabricated or look for a donor tractor. For a cub rear seal and retainer that is not true since both are available new. So any reworked seal retainer needs to be viewed in that light.

It is reasonable to look at industry standards. That would be a rubber cased or composition cased seal. There are also smoothness criteria for aluminum although the numbers mean nothing to me. Apparently a too smooth bore with aluminum is bad. I assume the same may be true with ZAMAK.

I got my seals from Motion Industries and they are a Harwal ADL 3.00X3.875X0.375. Those should fit in a new retainer or something less than 3.880 but the seals are inexpensive, at least years ago when I bought a bunch, so it would be worth a try in the slightly larger bores. Put one in and do the boiling water test. There was at least one other company that had that size seal but I cannot remember the name. There may be others that also have something that will fit in the enlarged bores but I stopped looking when I found what I needed. Either way, Harwal is a name brand and Motion Industries can get the seals.

Not directed at anyone in particular, my life as a physician is analyzed to the finest degree, surgical complications, amount of xrays ordered, amount and type of medications prescribed, etc... but importantly my care of patients was compared to the "industry standards" called the "local standard of care". You can be outside those standards but you better be able to justify what you did when the patient dies while in your care. Industry standards can serve as useful guidelines for any application because they are likely based on a large group's combined data and experience.

From my time as a researcher, I went down the wrong path many times. I have had to readjust my thinking and direction when it became apparent I was going in the wrong direction. It is useful to use past research and publications so you know what worked in the past and what did not work in the past. Unfortunately, what did not work is typically not published so the less than optimal results are not available to help others refine their processes. What works is good information and what did not work is also good information. No one should be afraid to share their results, positive or negative, nor should anyone be intimidated into not sharing their concerns when they see a potential problem or a potential solution to a problem. Both are useful information. The are times I was completely wrong in the direction I was headed and had to abandon that whole project. Sometimes it just goes that way.

Rick,
If you get the seals or find others that fit, do the boiling water test and post the results with the different bore sizes.

Bob McCarty
Team Cub
Team Cub
Posts: 8825
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 8:02 pm
Zip Code: 80501
Tractors Owned: Cubs, MH Pony, Shaw, Allis G, 1934 Silver King, JD LA and LI, Gibson D, David Bradley Tri-Trac
Circle of Safety: Y
Location: CO, Longmont

Re: 184 rebuild completed

Postby Bob McCarty » Sun Feb 11, 2018 7:27 pm

Harwal ADL 3.00X3.875X0.375. A 3.875 OD on the seal would be .005 smaller than the smallest bore Rick has; 3.880 on a R2 retainer. The seal would need to be at least 3.885 for a .005 press.
"We don't need to think more,
we need to think differently."
-Albert Einstein

Landreo
10+ Years
10+ Years
Posts: 1172
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:10 am
Zip Code: 29130
Tractors Owned: fcub(5)
tricycle cub
154 (4)
Earthmaster (2)
JD 40T, JD 420 crawler-loader, JD MT
JD Unstyled A, Styled A, Unstyled AR
JD H
Centaur Tractor
AC Model C, G
Cub Cadets (9)
Gibson D
Red-E
Circle of Safety: Y
Location: SC, Ridgeway

Re: 184 rebuild completed

Postby Landreo » Sun Feb 11, 2018 8:49 pm

Bob McCarty wrote:Harwal ADL 3.00X3.875X0.375. A 3.875 OD on the seal would be .005 smaller than the smallest bore Rick has; 3.880 on a R2 retainer. The seal would need to be at least 3.885 for a .005 press.


The seal OD is larger than 3.875.
I think it would work for a 3.880 bore size, larger than that I am not sure. Those are the seals I used for my bore size and I did not take the time to research other sizes since I did not need them.

I have place these seals in 3 or 4 retainers but that was years ago and do not remember the bore size of my retainers. I did the boiling water test before installation. One is on a 154 that is used to mow 3-5 acres during the mowing season in SC. I will know right away if it leaks or moves since I can see the edge of the seal on a 154. That seal has been in the tractor for around 7 years or so. The other 2 or 3 are on rarely used FCUBS. As far as I know they are also still leak free.

If seals are not easily found for those bore sizes then another option, if the original retainer is going to be reused, is to get the smallest rubber cased seal you can find and machine the retainer to fit that seal. That may be a 4.00 OD seal or some other size. I emphasize RUBBER CASED since industry standards certainly recommend and support that type of seal. Whether or not the machining part and metal creep are a significant factor remains to be seen but if the original retainers are reused then optimize what you can to give the best chance for success.

mastercraft
Cub Star
Cub Star
Posts: 103
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2015 11:53 am
Zip Code: 14201

Re: 184 rebuild completed

Postby mastercraft » Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:41 am

I think if my whole staking and glue method fails, I'll give TST atry, his seem to be doing good according to him. this thread has been a good read to follow. :)


  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Lo-Boy Series - 154, 184, 185”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests