[Farmall] Cub experts

[Stan Bass]

Great info, Justin!
Thanks,
Stan(VA).

--- On Thu, 1/28/10, Justin Weber <jweber77 at charter.net> wrote:

From: Justin Weber <jweber77 at charter.net>
Subject: Re: [Farmall] Cub experts
To: "Farmall/IHC mailing list" <farmall at lists.antique-tractor.com>
Date: Thursday, January 28, 2010, 11:50 AM

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