torinwalker Posted September 2, 2003 Posted September 2, 2003 I just picked up a 42" AC Rotary Mower that has no visible mfg number. When I tried to install it under the 1965 Landlord 101 (990351), it appeared far to big to properly install. When the front mounting forks were close enough to hitch to the frame, the adjusting screw brackets were digging into the rear tires. We (the previous owner who will now take it back, and myself) never suspected it might only fit the larger framed tractors. He has an AC whose frame appears to be, say, four inches larger than mine. I would like to confirm that this is in fact too big for my tractor. I previously thought that only a 48" deck would be too long (front to back) for my Landlord, but apparently there are 42" decks that are also too long. Is this correct? Torin...
Kent Posted September 2, 2003 Posted September 2, 2003 Is it a yellow deck, or orange? The reason I'm asking is that decks for the newer, longer wheelbase tractors (such as a 900 series) might have longer hitch arms on the front of the deck... I have NO experience with the newer decks, but am using a 48" deck off a 7000 Series Simplicity on my HB-216 with no problems. Also, I think (may be mistaken) the height adjusters were moved out farther toward the edge on the newer decks, in order to clear the running boards, while the lift point for the implement lift was moved in, closer to the center of the deck...
torinwalker Posted September 2, 2003 Author Posted September 2, 2003 That's the trouble. The previous owner painted it AC yellow (it was probably previously yellow). The hitch arms appear to be the correct distance apart, but they are way too long. Could it be that the body of the deck is also larger than previous (B-series) decks? I mean, if it's only the arms that were lengthened, I might be able to cut them and re-drill the mounting holes. Torin...
torinwalker Posted September 2, 2003 Author Posted September 2, 2003 Also, I just looked up the 700 series AC tractor and looked at its lawn deck (one of them, anyway). 1690022 seems to work with the 990351 (Landlord) given a number of kits. That doesn't seem right though, since this thing is physically to large to fit between the wheels (there is about 3/4" of clearance between the mower and both front and back wheels when this deck is sitting flat on the ground. If it were raised, I could only imagine it would touch the front and back wheels simultaneously. Torin...
Kent Posted September 2, 2003 Posted September 2, 2003 Are you sure this is a 42" deck, and not a 48" one? Sounds like a 48" deck to me... As far as I know, the deck housings were essentially the same size for both old and new tractors, though the length of the arbor housings changed in there somewhere....
torinwalker Posted September 2, 2003 Author Posted September 2, 2003 Sigh... No, it's a 42" deck. We measured it before putting it into my car. Judging by the drawings in the Operations manuals for the variety of lawn decks that fit the Landlord, it appears that the rocker arms on the deck that I received are much longer than depicted. Perhaps all that is necessary is shortening of the arms. How close is the height adjustment screw bracket to the rear wheels? How far is the blade housing from the front tires? Is there really that little room (3/4" from each) beneath the tractor? It appears as if I'm going to have to take pictures with a tape measure in hand. Torin...
HubbardRA Posted September 2, 2003 Posted September 2, 2003 Torin, I'll try to measure for you this evening. I have two of the 48 inch decks from 700 series ACs and one of the bolt together 42 inch decks that came from my 61 Wards. I should be able to get the info you need.
torinwalker Posted September 2, 2003 Author Posted September 2, 2003 Hubbard, Thank you Sir, that would be fantastic. I'll measure the deck housing for LxWxH and could you also do the same? We'll compare our results. Don't forget, I have the Landlord 101 (AC B-Series) - the smaller frame. If the housing is the same as yours, then all I have to do is modify the rocker arm length. Torin...
Kent Posted September 2, 2003 Posted September 2, 2003 Torin, Look at this pic of the 1964 9Hp Landlord (one year older than yours) with a 42" deck: [img]http://www.simpletractors.com/images/new_in_1964/landlord_pg1_small.jpg[/img] Should give some idea of the clearance. I don't have a 42" deck mounted right now, only a 48"...
UCD Posted September 2, 2003 Posted September 2, 2003 Torin This is a 48" deck on an HB-212 basically the same frame as your 101 Landloard. The higth adjusters clear the rear tires by only the thickness of a sheet of paper in the fully raised position. [img]http://www.simpletractors.com/club2/attach/UCD/outside%2008-23-03-original%20size%20002a.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.simpletractors.com/club2/attach/UCD/outside%2008-23-03-original%20size%20009a.jpg[/img] Closeup of two mower hitch points My deck is pinned in the front set of holes Showing clearence on left rear tire in full raised position Top of deck in full raised position
Kent Posted September 2, 2003 Posted September 2, 2003 While the front frame of a hydro or variable speed is the same, the rear frame rails are 4" longer between the axle and BGB.
HubbardRA Posted September 2, 2003 Posted September 2, 2003 Torin, I measured the front attachment brackets on both mowers. Both are 5 1/4 from attaching pin to mounting bolt - no difference. Distance from front mounting pin to rear of rollers 32 inches on the 42" and 35 inches on the 48". On my AC 716H I have two inches between tire and roller with deck on the ground. Distance between wheels at top of mower is 25 inches on the 61 Wards and 29 inches on the AC716H. At the point of the adjusters the 42 inch deck is 22 inches front to back, and the 48 inch deck is 24 inches front to back. By the way, both of my decks have only one mounting hole. Hope this helps!
torinwalker Posted September 3, 2003 Author Posted September 3, 2003 Guys, I'm embarrased to say, but the problem isn't with the deck. It's with me. I should have measured it myself instead of trusting the previous owner's word. The deck is a 48" deck. I'm such a moron! Thanks UCD, but I don't think the dimensions are the same. I have far less clearance than is shown in your photographs. You clearly have enough room to raise the deck. My deck touches the rear wheels BEFORE the deck has been pulled back far enough to hitch in. That three inch difference that Hubbard so kindly measured (thanks) makes all the difference in the world. I'm back to square one. The previous owner said he would have a look around Windsor for another deck (I had better tell him to find a 42" deck, eh?), but I think I'll be coming back empty handed. Do you guys know anyone parting with a 42" deck that might be conveniently located within an hour, two at most, of Windsor? Shamefully, Torin...
Kent Posted September 3, 2003 Posted September 3, 2003 Torin, If it's any consolation, 48" decks are usually considered more valuable than 42" ones... so it could have been a pleasant surprise if it would fit your tractor...
HubbardRA Posted September 3, 2003 Posted September 3, 2003 I have a homemade chassis extender that will extend your wheelbase five inches. I could make a sketch if you want to have one made. It fits between the BGB and the frame, and then you have to lengthen the driveshaft by the same amount. This will allow use of a 48 inch deck on that tractor. If you are interested, I could sell you the one I have. I can always make another if I need it.
torinwalker Posted September 3, 2003 Author Posted September 3, 2003 Hubbard, That's an intriguing idea. I have a TIG welder and a small metal bandsaw, and TONS of metal. Can you show me the sketch, or email it to me? Torin...
torinwalker Posted September 3, 2003 Author Posted September 3, 2003 Hmmm... ...I'll have to lengthen the rear lift rod too. Torin...
MPH Posted September 3, 2003 Posted September 3, 2003 Torin, was gonna say to streath your frame 4 inches. Not heard of the method Rod is talking about, but the Varible speed models used longer BGB to tranny mounting plates. Advantage I see in streching it there is you don't have to extend your driveshaft. Still would have to extend the shift rod, lift rod, and clutch rod, but they don't spin so no prefect balance issue to deal with. Might be best to just a 42 inch deck to fit the tractor..MPH
HubbardRA Posted September 3, 2003 Posted September 3, 2003 The reason I made this type of extender was that I had the 61 Wards 3-speed tranny but my AC716 was a Hydro. I wanted to use the 3-speed for tractor pulling in the later model frame, but be able to put it back in the Wards tractor when I was through pulling. Yes, you will have to lengthen all of the control rods by the length of the extension. I'll try to take a picture of the unit tonight. It may take a couple of days for me to get time to draw it up.
torinwalker Posted September 3, 2003 Author Posted September 3, 2003 Wait a second... If one modification extends the driveshaft and lift rod, then the other should extend the lift, clutch, shift, and pulley length - but not both, right? Torin...
HubbardRA Posted September 3, 2003 Posted September 3, 2003 Torin, With the BGB spacer you will have to extend the driveshaft, gearshift rod, and clutch rod, because the whole transmission assembly is moved to the rear. If you can find and use the longer side plates, you may still have to extend all of the linkages, unless you can get them with the plates. You will not need to extend the driveshaft since the BGB is not moved. I chose the BGB spacer because I would not have to touch anything related to the BGB-tranny assembly. I added a piece into the driveshaft. I moved the rear mount on the shift rod and re-welded the shift in a new location on the rod. I remade the clutch linkage by adding a flat bar to the adjuster slide to make it reach the attachment and didn't modify the rod at all. I have, since then, converted it all back to original except the driveshaft which was a spare that I had anyway.
torinwalker Posted September 3, 2003 Author Posted September 3, 2003 Ok, now I have a mental picture. The spacer goes between the frame and the BGB, not between the BGB and the tranny. I'll have a look when I get home. I have this mental picture of a couple of 3/16" square rings welded to a 3x3x3/16" square tube (like a square flanged tube) between the frame and BGB. I think it would probably be easier to cut the linkages, split and rejoin the tractor with the extension, then sleeve and tack weld the linkages and driveshaft while the extension is nice and tight. Then one can remove them and weld at leisure. This would reduce the possibility of welding the linkages or driveshaft to the wrong length. I dunno... driving back to Windsor seems less risky at this point. Besides, the 48" deck that I have only has a zerk fitting on the center arbor. I'd rather get a deck with zercs on all three arbors and not have a seizure some time down the road. Besides, if I keep modifying this tractor to do everything I want, how on earth will I convince the wife I need a Kubota B7200? ;-) Torin...
Recommended Posts