My Tractor Forum banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
MTF Junior Poster Esq.
Joined
·
7,644 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
My 1782 is sort of fine except the transmission won't go much into forward and very very little into reverse.
The problem is simple. The plate that goes around the double spring & endcaps has become sloppy loose and the endcaps and center spring have fallen out and the big spring left has 1/4" of slop both ways until it moves the transmission valve.
That bolt that holds the plate is impossible to get to without either drilling a big hole in the frame so my torx (or hex) socket can be used or remove the transmission to replace the plate thats loose and the springs with the ones off my very low hour 1864 transmission. I THINK the transmission in the diesel also might have the running away problem. Even though it would barely move into forward, it would move about 12 ft then suddenly take off.
Either way, the transmission in the 1864 frame looks like a straight bolt in, even though I was told they won't swap.
I'm aware the 1782 super has different gearing. I Imagine its slightly lower to offset the slightly taller tires. I think it wouldn't be so much it would be noticable, and I have my gas Super to compare with.
I really don't think I can sell the 1864 trans for anything worthwhile because of the shipping, so I'm planning on swapping it in since I really have to remove them both anyway and see why it will or won't work.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
That problem your having with the 1782 transmission is a fairly simple fix. It'll be easier fixing that one rather than putting the gt transmission on it which may give you a problem with the gearing difference.
 

·
MTF Junior Poster Esq.
Joined
·
7,644 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
That would absolutely fix the problem I've been having, however I really wanted to find out just what the different gearing would change and also, I just wanted a low hour transmission in the cub I will probably keep.
If this doesn't work out for some reason, I'll buy a #1 which is too lose on the shaft and the springs and ends. In any case I will keep the transmission for a spare.
As far as saving me labor of changing out a transmission that may not work out..ummm...it's already in there and bolted up.
I've seen many people say the gearing is different, but no one has any experience with the swap to say how much of a difference it makes. Since the tires aren't that much different in height, I can't see the gearing would be much difference. Nobody worries about putting Taller tires on their GT ratio wize on a hydro, should be the same situation.
And I do have an acre up my sleeve...a pair of shorter Carlisle lug tires on Super Cub wheels. Doubt they will be needed though and I'd have to re adjust my deck after them. I plan on using them on my Sanapper with FEL for a wider track. We will see how that goes tomorrow when I get it back together.
Only thing I see different is the brake arms will have to be swapped. I'll get the driveshaft put back together and the tank and pan & seat back on and take it for a spin.
That's tomorrows plans anyway. Used a little elbow grease and gave it a cleaner place to live anyway.
 

Attachments

·
MTF Junior Poster Esq.
Joined
·
7,644 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
BTW, it shifts back & forth smoothly now and seems to travel all the way. Yes, its like swapping engines to fix a carburetor, but when I get my mind set to do something, I just start wrenching.
 

·
Murray tractor owner
Joined
·
2,672 Posts
Good way to stay busy!!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,272 Posts
I with you man. You'll have a clean, low hour trans in there and hopefully you'll not have to go back in again. The cleaning you did made a world of difference - and that side by side pic of the two trans is outrageous. Hard to believe it would accumulate that much crud! I'm big on having clean components, it makes everything easier to work on and diagnose.

Just out of curiosity, do you know about how much difference in hours there are between the two transmissions?
 

·
Farm Show
Joined
·
5,386 Posts
I noticed the clean trans has some sort of shaft, where the dirty one dont. I hear ya on the shipping/selling,....I have a 123 trans. that hopefuly someone will need, cause it is not going to the scrap yard, thats where I got it anyways. Looks like everything is going togeather smoothly:thThumbsU.
 

·
MTF Junior Poster Esq.
Joined
·
7,644 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I actually don't have an idea how many hours is on this 1782 unless you believe it got this dirty and the linkage this worn & sloppy in 300 hours. (I'd believe 2300 before I'd believe 300)
The 1864 was incredibly clean and had 800 hours showing. Go figure. That frame has not been cleaned. The whole mower was that clean. The engine ran rough and I parted it. It wasn't worn out, it just had a bad carb or spark and I didn't bother figuring it out at the price I paid.
In this case, I'll still go to my grave thinking there are 1000 less hours on the 1864. Hour meters aside.
The one on the left has a shaft coming out the back side of the pump. One on the right does too but is carefully camoflaged by the same coating of gunk.
The oil came from the diesels bad dipstick which was leaking a steady drip. By the tape wrapped around the dipstick handle, I'd say its been leaking a long time.
A new dipstick with new rubber seal cured that. In my experience, diesel fuel also is great at sticking on everything and accumulating dirt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
291 Posts
That problem your having with the 1782 transmission is a fairly simple fix. It'll be easier fixing that one rather than putting the gt transmission on it which may give you a problem with the gearing difference.
The1782 and 1864 pumps and rear ends are basically the same. The set up in the 1864 is the same one that was used in the 1872,2172 ect. The only difference is the reduction gear.

His 1782 will work exactly like it did before , but will have a faster top speed. And an added plus, that 1864 rear end has bigger stronger axles and carrier then the original 1782 has.:fing32:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,272 Posts
Oh yeah, diesel fuel is a great attractant of debris - and with these tractors being used in primarily dirt/leaves/grass/mud, it's not surprising.

I looked at a 1641 this year that the owner said had 300 hours on the clock. Sure enough, it said 325 or something like that, but the rest of the unit looked like 1,325! Leaks, dirt, rust spots, banged up...hour meters are just a starting point for evaluating a unit's condition. After looking at that 1641 I was much more careful about trusting the hour meter.
 

·
MTF Junior Poster Esq.
Joined
·
7,644 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Bolted the driveshaft coupler and fan together, adjusted the brakes after changing them out. Got the body pan from the 1864 and put it on (straighter) and changed out the rusty left foot rest. Got it back together, topped it off with hydro fluid and backed it out. Adjusted the shift linkage, and took it for a ride..mowed 4 passes around the back yard. Nothing wrong with it at all, Nothing even leaks and I really can't tell its any faster at all. Pretty fast at top end, but so is my gas Super. I would have done it again in a heartbeat, and aside from the brakes needing changed out and the dipstick tube on the transmission being shorter (still reachable ok, just shorter), I really can't tell the difference between it and my 2182.
Now I know. Another tidbit of knowledge, another day.
EEeeesh..the shop. I swear it was clean when I started.
Got to clean it up and pull in my Dodge Ram which busted a brake line between the gas tank and the frame.
Oh boy. At least its only got 1/4 a tank.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
The1782 and 1864 pumps and rear ends are basically the same. The set up in the 1864 is the same one that was used in the 1872,2172 ect. The only difference is the reduction gear.

His 1782 will work exactly like it did before , but will have a faster top speed. And an added plus, that 1864 rear end has bigger stronger axles and carrier then the original 1782 has.:fing32:
You're not making much sense here. You say they will be exactly the same and then you say it'll be faster which means they won't be the same. You also confirm that the gearing is different. So they are not the same. Cub Cadet put different reduction gears in the GT and super pumps for a reason! If the ENGINEERS with cub cadet felt there wouldn't be an issue, they would have kept the pumps identical between the GT and super which would have most definitely saved them time and money. Yes, it'll work, but no the 1864 pump is not meant to go with the super rear. He won't have any problems with it unless maybe if he were to hook a 12" plow up to it and try to plow some tough ground. My whole point was that his super pump required a VERY simple fix so I was suggesting a possible option.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,272 Posts
Woot! Congrats on the repair. I can't comment on the difference between the pumps/reduction gear, but I hope it continues to provide you with a long life of service. What tasks is the 1782 Super used for other than mowing?


Got to clean it up and pull in my Dodge Ram which busted a brake line between the gas tank and the frame.
Oh boy. At least its only got 1/4 a tank.
Been there so many times. Dodges, Fords, Chevys, they all love to rot out brake and fuel lines right there. You'd think the engineers would eventually take stock of that inherent problem with corrosion, but then they wouldn't be selling new ones, would they? When I worked at an independent shop here in Albany we had those high-lift supports and some great 2 posts drive on lifts that made gas tank removal so much easier.

What we usually did though is just cut the line before and after the break and cut/flare new line that was then routed AROUND the tank. Lots of happy customers with that fix, labor went down quite a bit and we always secured the lines very well.
 

·
MTF Junior Poster Esq.
Joined
·
7,644 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Yes, the gearing is slightly lower because the tires are slightly taller. I can't tell any difference driving it.
I sure don't see any difference in the pump, but I wouldn't argue.
It is true that the problem I was then having was VERY simple to correct.
That's why I'm keeping the original transmission.
I don't know that the original transmission was leaking, or had any other problems. I did know the one I had laying around didn't.
Maybe I did more work than needed, that's my option. I'm fine with it.
Oh, I did notice that the part#1 was held on with a simple "C" clip that would have been a breeze to swap for the 1864 part. While I had the pan & tank off, it wasn't that big a deal to keep going. I was totally prepared to swap it back in if there had been problems. I mowed for about an hour since my last post with no problems. The 1864 is just shorter and has slightly shorter tires is all I can see. It's a stout tractor itself.
I'll most likely keep this one for a few years. Plans now are to swap the better deck on this one off the 2182, and send everything else down the road and end up with just the diesel Kubota and this diesel Cub for mowing. As far as a 12" plow in hardpan, my WD45 is probably stout enough for that.
 

·
MTF Junior Poster Esq.
Joined
·
7,644 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
I probably will never take the 60" deck off. I have numerous other tractors to do other stuff. I sure don't want just one to do everything..I'd have no excuse with my wife for the others!
It probably will drag non running tractors from time to time, nothing that a 1864 can't handle. The tires always break loose first anyway. Got my WD45 for non running hulks.
Heck, when I get around to it, my Davis 300 trencher can drag about anything when I get back to getting it to be a regular runner. my wife won't let me sell it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
291 Posts
You're not making much sense here. You say they will be exactly the same and then you say it'll be faster which means they won't be the same. You also confirm that the gearing is different. So they are not the same. Cub Cadet put different reduction gears in the GT and super pumps for a reason! If the ENGINEERS with cub cadet felt there wouldn't be an issue, they would have kept the pumps identical between the GT and super which would have most definitely saved them time and money. Yes, it'll work, but no the 1864 pump is not meant to go with the super rear. He won't have any problems with it unless maybe if he were to hook a 12" plow up to it and try to plow some tough ground. My whole point was that his super pump required a VERY simple fix so I was suggesting a possible option.

I don't want to start an argument here , BUT,the only difference in the pumps is that the one from a super will have a different tooth count on the output shaft because of the difference in the reduction gear. Every other part inside and out are the same. Given the same input speed the output shafts will spin the same speed on both.

The rear end gears are same also . The difference is in the size of the reduction gear that located between the pump and the rear end. The pumps output shaft turns the gear which then turns the pinion gear in the rear end.

The pump is a hydraulic pump it doesn't care what is behind it, it will act the same. Because of the "infinite" gearing characteristics of the hydro pump,he will still have just as much power (pulling torque) at the wheels as he did before.

He will however see a small increase in top "maximum" speed because of the difference in the reduction gear size. Which by the way is only 2 teeth. 66t for the Gt's and 68t for the super"s.

From what I have been told and read ,the designers did not make this change in the reduction gear for any reason other then to keep the top speed down,do to increased tire size of 26inch, so it would stay within the restrictions and not require ROP's and other added safety equipment.

I don't understand why he would have any problem pulling a 12 inch plow, being all but 2 parts in the whole set up are same. People put 26 inch ag tires on Gt's and pull plows and work them hard all the time . That is the same difference.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top