[AT] Cat 50

[JParks]

The Cat 60 was 4 x 6 1/2 x 8 1/2.......weighing in at 20,500 lb. (bare)

and while we're at it...
Cat 70 was 4 x 7 x 8 1/2    31,070 lbs
Diesel 70 was 4 x 6 1/8 x 9 1/4   30,800 lbs


Diesel 75 was 4 x 5 1/4 x 8     32,600 lbs

John Parks
Boise, ID
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ken Knierim" <ken.knierim at gmail.com>
To: "Antique tractor email discussion group" <at at lists.antique-tractor.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: [AT] Cat 50


> Anyone seen the specs on an old Cat 60? I thought they were a lot
> bigger than that.
> 
> Found them for a 65.... 7X8.5, 650 RPM. Might need its own fuel truck
> at that rate. Fuel consumption at rated power was 8.21 HP/Hr/Gal.
> That's 8.7 gallons per hour at full load (rated at 72 HP) from the
> numbers on the Nebraska test.
> 
> Diesel sounds a lot more economical. Might be why that one's still
> intact... nobody could afford to wear it out. :)
> 
> Ken in AZ
> 
> On 2/13/07, Easley, Greg <EasleyG at health.missouri.edu> wrote:
> > 5.5 bore by 6.5 stroke by 4 cylinders:
> >
> > 617.7171cid
> >
> > I'd guess close to 9 gallon/hour huge.
> >
> > Greg
> > http://www.geocities.com/heartland/woods/1416
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: at-bounces at lists.antique-tractor.com
> > [mailto:at-bounces at lists.antique-tractor.com] On Behalf Of
> > william.neff.powell at comcast.net
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 12:49 PM
> > To: Antique tractor email discussion group
> > Subject: Re: [AT] Cat 50
> >
> > Wow, thats huge!
> >
> > I'm coming up with about 450 cubic inches...  I thought my Buda 344 was
> > a big 4 and that's a diesel.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Will
> >  -------------- Original message ----------------------
> > From: RonMyers at wildblue.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AT mailing list
> > http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
> >
> _______________________________________________
> AT mailing list
> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at
>