Jump to content

J-Mech

Members
  • Content Count

    1,967
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

J-Mech last won the day on July 1 2019

J-Mech had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

675 Excellent

About J-Mech

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://www.everythingcubcadet.com/

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Oblong, Il
  • Interests
    Cub Cadets, IH machines, motorcycles

Recent Profile Visitors

2,742 profile views
  1. I just totally rebuild a Chevy Truck over the winter. Put a used cab and bed on it from a southern salvage truck. Found out when we had the rebuild approved by the state that the title goes with the frame/chassis. Better check with your local department of motor vehicles, but I'm going to say that the same laws will apply. You have to give the title with the frame.
  2. Pry the fan off the hub. It's stuck. It comes off. Probably has paint over the pilot hub.
  3. Yes, but it is very small inside diameter, so it doesn't move much air. Try a fluid like KS suggested.
  4. What brand of loader is on it? Does it have a foot throttle on it? Maybe the PO only used it and the hand throttle is just froze up from lack of use? There are people out there who will con, and people who dont know any better, but if he said "all was fine" I can't image that idle speed was all it has.
  5. What's your goal here Jrbranton1? You wanting to part this thing out? That's what it sounds like.
  6. As stated, the oil "leak" is normal, and it is working as it should.
  7. Actually, no. The van hit a strong 16-18mpg consistently to the end. It never leaked oil. Not even a little. My data shows that the 5.7L engine made 210hp. They pulled a pop up camper with it in the summers on long trips, usually around 500-600 miles away. Even pulling the camper, I don't recall it dropping below 12 mpg. Although I won't swear to it, I do not recall it having California emissions, only federal, in which the air pump was optional. I don't think it had one.... I did work on it for dad a few times, and remember specifically putting a water pump on it. But I just don't recall it having the air pump. Not that it matters, some engines did still use air injection for emissions as of the early 2000's, and maybe later. Only difference was the fan was electric instead of belt drive. Now, let's compare that to a more modern engine/similar vehicle. Vans are pretty obsolete now, so I'm going to use the next full size comparison, a Chevrolet Suburban. (I'll stick with Chevrolet because that's what I drive, so I know the data off hand.) We own a 2012 Suburban Z71 1500, 4X4, 5.3L engine, 6 speed automatic, with factory tow package. Just for another quick bit of info, I drive a 1990 Chevrolet Silverado K2500 with a 5.7L gas and automatic trans. (Truck is comparable to the old van except it is 4X4.) We haven't yet taken the Suburban on any very long trips, and we pull a single axle box trailer with it at least once a week, sometimes more often. The 5.3 engine makes 315hp. It has been averaging around 15mpg, but pulling the trailer is bringing the average down, plus all rural driving. What short trips we have been on, I expect highway miles to go up to between 16 and 18mpg. That's the same as the 2001 Chrysler T&C with its 3800 V6 got, that the Suburban replaced... and, I'll be damned, the same as dad got with his 1988 van. Now, comparing my gas guzzler 4.10 gear truck to the Suburban, the truck gets somewhere in the neighborhood of 10/12 even pulling a trailer. Instant read out on the Suburban shows with the trailer an average around 12. So.... the Suburban has over 100 more Hp, 2 more gears, and it does have the E85 ready, AFM engine that goes to 4cyl when cruizing.... yet it performs NO BETTER AT ALL than an 88-90 truck, or an 01 minivan. Except maybe with only 2 people on board, driving all interstate, it might go up in mileage. So.... there's some data from an owner. I think the thing people get hung up on is the data that says "cars now get better mileage". Ok.. what cars? We comparing a 1970 Charger to a 2020 Dodge Charger with a Hemi? Better look.... I know for a fact it doesn't get exuberantly better mileage. But if we are comparing the family sedan of the 80's or even 90's to a new Chevrolet Cruze? Yeah... the new ones are exuberantly better. But you aren't comparing apples to apples. Big heavy rear wheel drive V8 VS a front wheel drive 1200-1500# lighter car. Well yeah the new ones are better. I drove a 1985 Chevrolet Chevette as a first car. As I recall, it got around 25-30 mpg pretty consistently depending on driving habits and speed. Dang. The new Cruz advertises 39. Now, while 10 mpg is nothing to scoff at, I'd be willing to bet if I put a turbo on that old Chevette, I could pull quite a bit more MPG's out of it. The 85 diesel Chevette boasted 41 mpg, but I've talked to owners claiming 50. Meanwhile the 2020 diesel Cruze boasts 49, but my brother owned one and said 45 was pretty common to get. So... what did all that "tech" get us?? Higher priced cars, and that's about it. Wanna compare OTR truck MPG'S or gallons per hour on tractors, new VS old now? All this of course has nothing to do with a 706.... sorry for derailing.
  8. Well.... there is a lot of interesting technology out there. But believe me, it isn't all panning out. A lot of it was forced by government, but for the wrong goal and wrong reasons. Some of it looks neat, and the companies are making big claims.... but a lot of it is a step backwards. I don't want to spend a lot of time on this... and I could... but don't be fooled by some of the claims, and new tech. It isn't all they make it sound like it is. We've lived in that world for 30 years or more now. My parents bought a brand new Chevrolet G20 van in 1988. A good old 350 TBI was under the hood. That is the first mass produced fuel injected engine by GM, and it was a speed density system. VERY low tech. They drove it 250K miles and literally never opened the engine, even for the dreaded intake manifold gasket leaks that a lot of those engines had. Transmission was original too. I worked for a guy in high school that had a 1966 Autocar semi with over 1 million on the truck. No power steering. We saw tractors with 20K on them in the 90's. None of this is "recent". The biggest reason for the longevity seen in the last 30 years is due to advancements in machining and metallurgy, lubrication (oil), and better filters. But better road's didn't hurt either. The demand was for longer running, higher hours and miles with less major work. If you notice the cap for most cars has been, and will remain to be, around 250/300k miles. I've actually noticed a slight decline in the last 10 years. A lot of major failures in less than 200k on some of these new "eco" engines. Again huge topic, broad generalization. Truth. But it is not necessary to the extent you went to on your build, or what I see you recommend to others. Not picking on you, just making a statement based on what I've seen you post, and responding to your question below... I've seen the thread, read over it briefly, and I am confident you went over the top. You could have gone bone stock, new parts with tight tolerances, minimal "tweaking" and it would have made 15% over and lasted the rest of you life and half your kids life or more. The tractor is already 2 generations old. And why does a 656 gas need to be 15% over anyway? Well.... yes. But only because you went so extreme. You don't need have custom pistons made, coat the chambers, pistons and exhaust ports and get Chuck Vogul to regrind your cam to get a 291 to run 15% above and last 20 years. And that is no offence to Chuck at all, he knows his stuff. It's just wayyyyy over the top. You didn't build a better mouse trap. You built a machine gun to use for killing mice... that no one will ever use to the extent any of that was necessary. But... I see the darn nice shop you are working in, so I'm assuming money was no object, and you can spend your money on your tractor however you want to. Just as long as you know that you did what you wanted, not what was necessary to get 20 years and 15%.
  9. There are guys I agree with on here, so no. Ever watch one of those reality TV shows where people sing? You know, like American Idol? There's always a few that are just God awful, but they have no idea how bad they are? It's called the Dunning-Kruger effect, and it applies to "mechanics" very harshly. I've dealt with it a lot over the years, and it's getting worse.
  10. Yes, a motor is a motor.... but I've seen far too many examples... nevermind. This debate never gets anywhere on here. There seem to be two crowds on this forum: The guys who think every engine in a tractor should be turned up, and set up like it's going to the tractor pulls or the races.... and the guys who think ring jobs are the same as overhauls. Very few in between. I'll just bow out this time.....
  11. As I recall, the 340 uses a filter cartridge filter, sandwiched between a metal screen. Maybe I'm remembering wrong. Been years since I worked on one. A pic would help. I'm not afraid to admit, I'm too lazy to go look it up on a parts page.
  12. Good with fast cars doesn't mean good with old tractor engines. Apples and oranges.
  13. I would agree with this if you are talking about adjusting a combine, or trying to diagnose a problem. But doing a tune up which includes a multitude of things, we really don't care which one fixes the problem, as they all need done and are part of regular maintenance. No need to do one thing, then go test, do another, then test... ect, ect. Now, if the timing is set, carb tuned and all the other things done, it still isn't right and you want to try different timing settings and possibly monkey with carb adjustment, then yes. Do one at a time. But it has been my experience that unless you have made some changes to the engine in other ways (internally), or it has extreme wear (and it sounds like this one may) the book settings for timing and such are usually spot on. I will say though that far too many people who try to tune a carb.... cannot.
×
×
  • Create New...