[Farmall] Cub experts

[E. John Puckett]

thanks Justin, I saved those pages.

Justin Weber wrote:
> Here is some pics explaining the original intent and setup of the R 
> series parts system.  This information comes from and IH publication 
> called "What is a Parts Number?"  (IH Publication number A-90-II).   I 
> had started an article regarding this a few years ago for RPMAG, but 
> kids, Work, etc have gotten in the way.
>
> www.ihparts.com/wpn1.JPG
> www.ihparts.com/wpn2.JPG
> www.ihparts.com/wpn3.JPG
> www.ihparts.com/wpn4.JPG
> www.ihparts.com/wpn5.JPG
> www.ihparts.com/wpn6.JPG
> www.ihparts.com/wpn7.JPG
> www.ihparts.com/wpn8.JPG
> www.ihparts.com/wpn9.JPG
> www.ihparts.com/wpn10.JPG
> www.ihparts.com/wpn11.JPG
> www.ihparts.com/wpn12.JPG
> www.ihparts.com/wpn13.JPG
> www.ihparts.com/wpn14.JPG
> www.ihparts.com/wpn15.JPG
>
> Hope this helps.   Time for me to go to bed.
>
> Justin Weber
> Weber's Tractor Works
>
>
>
> Mike Sloane wrote:
>   
>> 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 
>>>     
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> Farmall mailing list
>> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/farmall
>>
>>   
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> Farmall mailing list
> http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/farmall
>
>
>
>   

-- 
Edgar John Puckett
10142 Mahagony Rd.
Potosi, Mo. 63664
573-438-2799
mobil 573-210-0061