Farmall Specs

ChevelleSSLS6 · Apr 28, 2010

I'm wondering about the 'letter series' Farmalls and the similar era cubs.

What's the fuel consumption per hour, displacement in cubic inches, rated HP of each model?

I'd say at the PTO would be a good number, but all I can find is 'belt' and 'drawbar' HP... some clarification would help me here.

Any help would be appreciated! Hopefully I'll be able to sell off the yard tractors and get a cub/a/b/bn. Grandpa has a bunch of 'red iron' he might be interested in letting go so I thought I'd get educated

All I can find is that the Cub used a 60ci four cylinder and used a gallon an hour of fuel under load.

Andrew Z · Apr 28, 2010

belt hp is what was used before pto hp was tested. As for the rest of the info you all ready know. The cub never changed engines etc, they upgraded them though the years but never changed disparagement.

Andrew
cub link

ChevelleSSLS6 · Apr 29, 2010

any info for other models? How much larger/more powerful were the As and Bs and BNs (same engine)? I also wonder about the C, H, and M.

ChevelleSSLS6 · Apr 29, 2010

any info for other models? How much larger/more powerful were the As and Bs and BNs (same engine)? I also wonder about the C, H, and M.

That link is awesome! Has everything I need there but fuel consumption (as far as the Cub and As and Bs are concerned, it's not a whole lot of fuel consumption anyway)

Anonymous-0 · Apr 29, 2010

Pappy had a Cub with a Woods 42...the engine had a power unit governor, which allowed it to turn about 2250 RPM, as opposed to the stock 1800, and the jet had been drilled out to allow sufficient fuel to flow for extended operation at this speed.

We could mow about an acre an hour, and fuel consumption stayed steady at about a gallon on hour.

Cub n M in OR · Apr 29, 2010

It depends ALOT on the tractor, and the work it's doing. My '44 M will pull a pretty heavy 10' disc around and burn about 2 gal/hr. My MTA, which I doubt is tuned right, burns more like when 4/hr plowing with 3/16's.
You're asking for alot of information...

Ben

ChevelleSSLS6 · Apr 29, 2010

Good point... a tired or 'in need of tune' tractor will use more fuel and probably make a little less power as well.

Are the 'C' engines the same as the A and B (and BN) tractors? The tractordata site says both are 4 cylinder, 3" bore 4" stroke, and 5.33 compression ratio. I'll take the opportunity to ask for someone to confirm this.

Also, my 'real dad' (has a lot of Red iron... we've fallen on bad terms a couple years back though) mentioned a 'high compression' cylinder head that helped power a little bit also. I'm not sure if it was offered in later years, or was an option. He scrapped one out where there was a small bb sized concave 'dimple' in one of the combustion chambers. Seems to me a dab with a welder and some careful grinding to match the original chamber shape would have saved it. But I'm rambling.

ChevelleSSLS6 · Apr 30, 2010

(quoted from post at 18:32:06 04/29/10) Pappy had a Cub with a Woods 42...the engine had a power unit governor, which allowed it to turn about 2250 RPM, as opposed to the stock 1800, and the jet had been drilled out to allow sufficient fuel to flow for extended operation at this speed.

We could mow about an acre an hour, and fuel consumption stayed steady at about a gallon on hour.

hotrodded tractors

hahahaha... cool

so long as it's not a sbc/LS1 swap or anything silly like that. Enough good ol pickups and cars had that done to them already :evil:

Farmall Specs

ChevelleSSLS6

New User

Andrew Z

Well-known Member

ChevelleSSLS6

New User

ChevelleSSLS6

New User

Anonymous-0

Well-known Member

Cub n M in OR

Member

ChevelleSSLS6

New User

ChevelleSSLS6

New User

Similar threads