[Farmall] Cub experts
Mike Sloane
mikesloane at verizon.net
Thu Jan 28 08:03:50 PST 2010
I believe that Todd is correct. I have only ever seen "R2", "R11", and
"R92" suffixes on IH parts. The parts manual will generally state when a
higher (later) number part replaces an older one. You will see "can be
used to replace xxxxxxRx" in the description. Also, generally speaking,
IH would not assign a new part number unless the new part would *always*
be suitable as a replacement for the old part. The older parts that were
castings often had only 5 digit part numbers with an "A" or "B"
signifying revisions, adding to the complexity, and sometimes a much
later revision would be given a 6 digit number. And, of course, Case IH
converted all of their numbers to a later system, making all of our old
manuals obsolete (fortunately the CNH computers have integrated
cross-reference capability).
(Ford operated pretty much the same way, using their own numbering
scheme. I am not familiar with JD/Case/Oliver/MM/Ferguson/etc.)
The problem comes in some of the descriptions that IH engineering used.
For instance, the instrument panel on the Cub is actually considered the
"rear support" for the hood/tank, not an instrument panel.
I agree that Guy Fay or Jim Becker might be the ones to best address
this, or maybe Ken Updike.
Mike
farmallgray at aol.com wrote:
> Hopefully Guy Fay will jump in here and correct me if I'm wrong but I think the "9" in "R92" indicates
> that it's an assembly rather than a single part. In the case of something like a dash panel, it could have
> had stiffeners or brackets spot welded to it or something along those lines.
>
> IH usually didn't give the option of ordering the older version.
> The new part would replace the old for function.
>
>
>
> Todd Markle
More information about the AT
mailing list