Could be a RJ-59?

[Eriks Red horse herd 96]

Could this be a RJ-59 with that lift sector that everyone is always wondering what was on a RJ-59 HMMMM!!

Check it out she's on Ebay!

http://cgi.ebay.com/Wheel-Horse-1958-1958-...id=p3286.c0.m14

[linen beige 14]

It could be, but here is why I think it is not. Notice that the bottom of this cresent sector has the rounded holes like used on the '60s & '61s as well as the more crude squared off slots along the top. If Wheel Horse made this part for the '59 why would they add the rounded slots and not also supply the lift lever that matches them?

I think this part was taken from a '60 or '61, had the square slots cut into it, and added to this RJ. :thumbs2:

[MikesRJ 552]

I agree with Jim! It looks to me to have been cobbled together by someone who had just enough knowledge (to be dangerous). But I'm a neophyte purist, so what the he** do I know.

[fireman 1,021]

Not to hijack this thread but is it true that the numbers cast on top of the transmission casing give hint to the year? I was told or read somewhere that "-8" or "-9" determined the year. The first RJ I bought, the guy said it deffinately was a 58 as he had bought it from the original owner and even though the serial label was missing, has L11-8 on the transmission. The second one I bought, I was told it was a 59 and it again is missing the elusive serial label, has A21-9 on the transmission. Is this just coincidence or is there any truth to it?

[C-Series14 15]

To kind of continue what Fireman said, I just checked my RJ and it has F10-9 on top of the tranny. I was told mine was a 1959 model. My lift sector has the short sector like the RJ-58 has along with a larger one that looks homemade bolted to the outside of the original one that goes forward down to the frame. :thumbs2:

[Coadster32 793]

I don't recall the lift sectors being "scalloped" on the outside diameter on the Suburbans. I don't think I've seen a RJ in person with it either. I have seen them only in pics. I wonder if someone just likes the design. As far as the tranny numbers go, there was a 2-3 page thread on this recently here. The last digit seems to indicate the year. It was said that there were alot of leftover 58 trannys, that were built in 59. This most likely skews the number on rj's built in 59. That being said, who knows how many other parts were leftovers. Perhaps 1/2 thru the year, they peiced together a new design for the remander of the year. Maybe that's why they are thought to be but 2500 of them.

[MikesRJ 552]

I asked that very question some time ago. The only thing for sure is that we all have a consensus of opinion that the transmission casted numbers (i.e. F10-9) might be the date of casting. The following is an assumption on my part. In other words;

F = 6 (a=1, b=2, etc)

10 = 10th day

9= 1959

Date-Code = June 10, 1959

That said, it appears that the 1958 model production year extended well into 1959 and the RJ59 only being produced near the very end of the 1959 year. That is why production numbers for the two combined for the RJ58/59 was ~25,000, where the RJ58 accounts for 22,500, and only 2500 RJ59 models. Yet production ran solid for both years.

Considering the fact that they made 25,000 in 24 months (~1040/month) , it's probably a fair guess to say that the RJ58 was manufactured well into September or October (roughly 21 months of production, and perhaps only OCT, NOV and DEC) of 1959.

This assumption leaves one to conclude that even if your transmission has a casting date of 1959, there is still no way to tell for sure that it is a 58 or 59 unless (based on, and if you believe, my previous assumption) the date-code is I, J, K, or L (SEP, OCT, NOV, DEC).

This is about the most plausible answer anyone can give you based on the facts as they exist now.

[MikesRJ 552]

Not to hijack this thread but is it true that the numbers cast on top of the transmission casing give hint to the year? I was told or read somewhere that "-8" or "-9" determined the year. The first RJ I bought, the guy said it definitely was a 58 as he had bought it from the original owner and even though the serial label was missing, has L11-8 on the transmission. The second one I bought, I was told it was a 59 and it again is missing the elusive serial label, has A21-9 on the transmission. Is this just coincidence or is there any truth to it?

Based on my previous post, both are almost certainly RJ58's regardless of what you were told. Your L11-8 would be DEC 11, 1958 which means it was probably assembled (barring some fluke in pulling production part stock at the WH plant) in January or February of 1959.

[Coadster32 793]

I'd also add that castings made in 59 were prob. used up on the 60's suburbans also.

[linen beige 14]

I'd also add that castings made in 59 were prob. used up on the 60's suburbans also.

Hey... that was my line.

Although the RJs used trans model 5003, and the Suburbans used model 5010, the cast center housing was the same. My 400 has a '59 "date" on it and since my dad bought it in 1960 I am absolutely positive that it is the original transmission.

[fireman 1,021]

Mike,

If it were assembled in January or February, wouldn't that make the tractor a 59? Usually the current year models come out late the previous year.

As far as the month code: A=1 or January etc. I just got back from SteveBo's house, and his RJ has M as the letter then 11-8. That makes the month code theory invalid.

[TT-(Moderator) 1,131]

As far as the month code: A=1 or January etc. I just got back from SteveBo's house, and his RJ has M as the letter then 11-8. That makes the month code theory invalid.

Unless...... like in many alpha-numeric coding systems, the letter "I" was not used due to the similarity between it and the digit "1" - which would then make the letter "M" represent December.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is also my understanding that late in the calendar year of 1959 (when the first of the 1960 400/550 models started appearing) the lift lever retrofit "kit" with multiple-position sector was offered for the RJ-58/59 models. Whether this is true or pure bull remains to be verified, but I can see why it would have been a viable update since the RMR-32 mower deck could only be adjusted for height of cut by the lift lever. (it had no gauge wheels) Buyers purchasing the remaining "leftover" RJ's might have seen the sector on the "new & improved" 1960 models and requested to have it installed on their tractors.

If the date on this revised (it was revised for a reason, right?) price list is any indication of when the switch was made from RJ-58 models to RJ-59's, then the alleged low production numer makes more sense. Assuming (I know that's not a good thing to do) the next year's production run began in Aug./Sept., that would have only given WH 5 or 6 months to produce tractors and use up the existing inventory of RJ parts before the first 1960 models were built and shipped to distribution centers/dealers. I'm fairly certain that only the 400 Suburban models were produced in late '59 and that the 550 models came a little later. (early 1960)

[VinsRJ 721]

The 5003 tranny off my RJ58 has no cast markings what so ever (letters or numbers). The serial tag is still affixed to the frame: RJ58/#1871. Making it, IMO, an early production RJ..... if that makes any difference.

[linen beige 14]

It has been pretty well established that the early RJ-58s did not have numbers cast into the cases. From that serial number and the lack of a "date code" (If that's what these numbers really are) I'd say you do have an early one.

[MikesRJ 552]

Then if you take my who post and back up the production dates by 3 months, then it would align with TT's theory.

[VinsRJ 721]

It has been pretty well established that the early RJ-58s did not have numbers cast into the cases. From that serial number and the lack of a "date code" (If that's what these numbers really are) I'd say you do have an early one.

To use a Johnny Carson Line: "I.... I did not know that"

Cause I was wondering what the no cast markings ment?

[Eriks Red horse herd 96]

Reading the posts here I decided to take a look at my RJ-58s & my 59. My 59 has

F5-9 on the trans case and even though it doesn't have the serial sticker on the frame I Know for a fact that its a 59 due to I got it from the original owner and he said that he bought it in Aug of 59 had the invoice to show me. Now I have one 58 thats a early with no trans #, a another with G10-8 and third one A21-9 Hmm!

My confirmed 59 is quite different in construction from my later 58s for instance the lift lever on my 59 the piece of steel that in locks the lift lever into the sector is rounded at the ends unlike my 58s that are square. But the sector is just like the 58s one notch.

Now we had a nice discussion At the charlotte show this last weekend about the very same things. and Duke raised the Idea that the PONDS must have flew by the seat of their pants the way they constructed tractors over the years. So many things changed on models even during production. Take a look for instance the RJ-35s the frame( structural steel to rolled pressed steel to structual), steering wheels( aluminum cast to cast steel to larger steering wheels ), rims and certain componets. Now look at the 754 model seems over the years the ponds had the reputation of useing up excess parts.http://www.wheelhorseforum.com/index.p ... topic=9540

Hence the Reco letter, a fast moving clean up sale get rid of the 400+ 7HP kohlers.

I know from running a bussiness that you use up the excess old before you break out the new! Seems like the PONDS were crude bussiness men the waste nothing attitude. Moneys, money when you run a bussiness especially when you came from the depession era and during the world war era. Use what you have!

I think Duke had it right. The PONDS did fly by the seat of their pants! Just some to think about? :thumbs2:

[MikesRJ 552]

I Know for a fact that its a 59 due to I got it from the original owner and he said that he bought it in Aug of 59 had the invoice to show me.

I'm not throwing stones at you Erik, just making a point on your statements of fact. In the absence of a 59 sticker on your machine, and all your other plausible facts aside, just because the original owner bought it in August of 59 and showed you his receipt hardly confirms it's a 59. You have no idea how long it sat at WH before being shipped, or how long the distributor or dealer had it before it was sold.

I'd like to hear from one person who has a 59 sticker and ask them to provide pictures of their machine, then do a side by side comparison of that and a stickered 58. I've yet to hear of a 59 stickered model or a side by side done with a stickered 58.

All said, I absolutely agree that the Ponds flew by the seat of their pants. No question there.

[kpinnc 11,873]

Now I have one 58 thats a early with no trans #, a another with G10-8 and third one A21-9 Hmm!

It is possible that the numbers before the "-" were simply lot numbers on a given production run. Those lot numbers could be traced back to any deficiencies (or equipment changes) by company internal records.

The thing about ID numbers used by any manufacturer is that the general public really does not need to know how to read them- for them to be an effective way to keep up with production issues. Anyone who has worked in ANY type of manufacturing has seen such things. Now I'm not kicking the "-8 or-9" as being the year of production identifier, but given the numbers prior, I don't know how much weight I would give to them.

I think Duke had it right. The PONDS did fly by the seat of their pants! Just some to think about?

Not sure I'd say that personally. If the number format used to identify products built is a clue to the way a business is or was run, then we need to say pretty much every manufacturer just plain sucks. Almost everything has a number to identify to SOMEONE when it was made, even if we don't understand it.

The RJ- if the stories are to be believed, was what made WH products the manufacturing giant it once was. The company basically went from a hometown small business to a major equipment manufacturer due to the addition of this single machine. I have no issues whatsoever seeing how the "labeling" processes needed to be modified many times over during such a period of high growth.

Kevin

[TT-(Moderator) 1,131]

.......the PONDS must have flew by the seat of their pants the way they constructed tractors over the years. So many things changed on models even during production.

...... the ponds had the reputation of useing up excess parts.

.......you use up the excess old before you break out the new! Seems like the PONDS were crude bussiness men the waste nothing attitude.

You guys think we have it tough figuring out Elmer & Cecil's creations???

You ought to try deciphering some of cousin Harold's Speedex conglomerations!

Talk about changing ideas, designs, and parts throughout a production run!

I'll take a Wheel Horse over a Speedex ANY day.

[stevinator 1]

Yea it can get pretty interesting,my rj 58 has zilch on the tranny for #'s also.

[fireman 1,021]

Just dug out the 61 401 getting it ready to sell and looked at the numbers on the transmission as it's the same one used in the RJs. The numbers there are F27-0. This tractor is a 401 because it has the correct hood unless it was changed over time. I also found half of the serial plate. There is only the serial number and not the model. The serial number is 42908. Is it possible that they made over 42,000 of these?

[linen beige 14]

Just dug out the 61 401 getting it ready to sell and looked at the numbers on the transmission as it's the same one used in the RJs. The numbers there are F27-0. This tractor is a 401 because it has the correct hood unless it was changed over time. I also found half of the serial plate. There is only the serial number and not the model. The serial number is 42908. Is it possible that they made over 42,000 of these?

The RJs and the suburbans DID NOT use the same transmissions! They are VERY similar, and very hard to distinguish between, but they ARE NOT directly interchangable.

The most obvious differences are in the brake band mounting tabs. The RJ (5003)tab is mounted at a right angle to the ground and the 400/550/401 (5010) is at a 45 degree angle to the ground. That makes the clutch/brake rods etc. non interchangable between the RJs and Suburbans as well. It's interesting that WH used the same part numbers for the side plates of the two different models, yet the plates are different.

IF these are date codes, they can only tell us when the center case was manufactured. There is no way of knowing how long they sat in storage before being used. IF F27-0 means June 27, 1960 then it could very well have sat unused until the '61s were built.

I have a 1960 serial number plate with 40241 on it. Judging by the 42908 I'd guess your 401 was an early '61.

[fireman 1,021]

Jim,

I meant the same as far as the three piece design over the two piece case of the 551. Based on your serial number and mine, I wonder if it safe to say that the Ponds continued the serial numbers from the RJs .

Michael Martino was bestoed all the company papers. I wonder if anything he has can shed any light on the subject?

[TT-(Moderator) 1,131]

The tags on the early 401's and 551's are left-over 1960 "combination" tags (S/N, shift pattern/control lever identification) that were cut off below the serial number. (more proof that the Ponds didn't waste anything)

Once all of the 1960-style tags were used up they were replaced by the small sticker.