520 - H or 8 only

[JCM 9,133]

I know there are mixed emotions on this model because of certain issues seem to follow these around. Myself it is one of my favorite models in the WH line. It is the hardest worked WH that I own among the small collection I have. Would like to see some of your favorite pictures either at work or rest of the two models.The first picture is @Raven on her first WH experience back in 2009. Might as well start her on the big machine first in powder to get the feel for it.

[ebinmaine 67,445]

An 8 speed...

Mebbe a future Herd member?

 

 

 

 

 

[JCM 9,133]

Just remember. I don't believe the 8 doesn't have gear reduction steering .

[ebinmaine 67,445]

2 minutes ago, JCM said:

Just remember. I don't believe the 8 doesn't have gear reduction steering .

Correct. 

This one has standard steering.  

[Pullstart 62,838]

My one and only… that I never drove before @Bow_Extreme so perfectly has been restoring!

[Pullstart 62,838]

I didn’t realize I had pictures of @phil bowling up above…

[davem1111 2,030]

41 minutes ago, ebinmaine said:

Correct. 

This one has standard steering.  

 

Did any 520-8 models have reduction steering?  If not, I guess if a person happened to change it out to reduction, it would "bastardize" the model?    If some of them did have it, and a person did convert one that didn't to one that does, would that be a bad thing?

[JCM 9,133]

520-8 was a one year, 1990 model. No reduction steering that I know of.

[Ed Kennell 38,154]

1988 520H

[Handy Don 12,215]

The reduction steering can, with some effort and tweaks, go into pretty much any 300, 400, 500. It expects a swept front axle (with its 1” spindles), with its slightly different geometry.

One noticeable effect is that the steering column is more vertical. Another is that it gets crowded at the base of the hood stand!

[kpinnc 12,008]

I've had a couple 520-H and one 520-8 that was a very rough (even for the south) parts machine. None had reduction steering but all had the swept axle.

 

I had to cannibalize one 520-H to have a good tractor, as one had a bad hydro and the other a blown engine. I used the best of both to make the one I still use today. It works like a dog, and never complains. The only thing I don't like is the high mounted DCL, but I plan to change it.

 

Meet Pinkie:

 

 

[Lee1977 6,657]

1989 520-H

[ebinmaine 67,445]

7 hours ago, davem1111 said:

 

Did any 520-8 models have reduction steering?  If not, I guess if a person happened to change it out to reduction, it would "bastardize" the model?    If some of them did have it, and a person did convert one that didn't to one that does, would that be a bad thing?

 

That's a matter of practicality and opinion. 

The 520-8 was certainly not a common machine but it isn't a rare muscle car or da Vinci creation. 

 

I've read that every Wheelhorse model over the years had some little things that could have been done differently. 

Changing the design of original to a better one isn't a negative thing to me. Especially on a working machine.  

 

7 hours ago, JCM said:

520-8 was a one year, 1990 model. No reduction steering that I know of.

 

Jimbo if you happen to find the production numbers in writing I'm sure there's a few people on Redsquare who'd like to see that.  

 

[ri702bill 8,316]

9 minutes ago, ebinmaine said:

Changing the design of original to a better one isn't a negative thing to me. Especially on a working machine.  

I agree - like replacing the water filled 4 speed in my 854 when I got it with an 8 speed from a low hour C81... 

All good, unless you paint it green & yellow....

[Handy Don 12,215]

5 hours ago, ebinmaine said:

Changing the design of original to a better one isn't a negative thing to me. Especially on a working machine.  

I like to think that even the WH engineers would approve when the mods are very in keeping with the machine’s original intended purpose while adding usefulness and durability.

That said, I deeply appreciate folks who maintain high degrees of originality in their tractors. They provide the benchmarks and preserve the history for the rest of us!

[Lee1977 6,657]

I don't own a completely stock Wheel Horse all mine have a few modifications. My 1989 520-H has heims joint tie rods going to the back side of the triangle plate. Ball bearing on the upper steering support. 

The steering wheel is bolted on and raised 2 1/2". The belt guard is cut off  and the angle bracket behind is removed. It also has real 1/4"heims joints on the hydro control rod. All mine WH have the frame braced at the transmission mount.

[Handy Don 12,215]

3 hours ago, Lee1977 said:

The belt guard is cut off  and the angle bracket behind is removed

Probably would not have gotten approval from the WH risk management/liability assessment folks! 

 

The rest of your upgrades would have been desirable in the original but probably would have forced unwanted increases in cost/selling price, right?

Edited September 13, 2023 by Handy Don

[kpinnc 12,008]

1 hour ago, Lee1977 said:

I don't own a completely stock Wheel Horse all mine have a few modifications.

 

Same here Don! When I finally restore my 701, it will be "close", but still not original. 

 

1 hour ago, Handy Don said:

Probably would not have gotten approval from the WH risk management/liability assessment folks! 

 

Mine wouldn't either, but my rear cylinder airflow has no restrictions.

 

[Lee1977 6,657]

I've operated equipment for 70 years that had none of the government mandated safety equipment. I also don't have any kids around to get hurt with my tractors

I learned back in the 40's to keep my fingers out of equipment when it's running and still have all ten of them. Most of the safety required by our government was brought about by larger manufactures to put small manufactures out of business.  The small guy can't afford to get the testing required for the little sticker on the equipment so he can sell it.  I bolted these together one summer in 1961 before the owner had to quit building them.

[ri702bill 8,316]

2 hours ago, Handy Don said:

but probably would have forces unwanted increases in cost/selling price,

Ah, yes - the almighty buck... Don and I come from similar Engineering backgrounds where the good intentions are scrutinized by the CBC (Corporate Bean Counters) where they do a "risk accessment" to determine if (and when) THEY decide to eliminate a milestone quality upgrade because THEY have decided that it meets the spec and good enough IS good enough without it.  We would cite past final customer quality issues to justify said upgrade - we would be told to "Bookshelf" it for possible use later IF NEEDED. So. since it was already completely designed, I would omit the parts in question, but leave ALL the mounting holes and dowel holes in the main plate drawing.... Machine gets built shipped afar and folks there ask "What are all those extra holes for??" I tell them to wait a year and ask when a "kit" upgrade is sent for THEM to install - Dega Vu !!! Never did see one of the CBC ever do a halfway around the world visit to see how the "FIX" was going.... I so do not miss those games anymore..................

Edited September 13, 2023 by ri702bill

[Handy Don 12,215]

1 hour ago, ri702bill said:

Don and I come from similar Engineering backgrounds where the good intentions are scrutinized

My experience was mostly in software, but the parallels with manufacturing are impressive.

 

What? You want something NOT on the Minimum Viable Product spec?

Customer demand? Regulatory requirement? Cost to build? Cost to maintain? Additional risk of failure added to the overall product? Potential savings? Reputational risk? Product liability risk? Additional cost for training and supporting customer questions? And on and on....

 

Still, when you enter one of these and come out winning it is really sweet!

[Handy Don 12,215]

1 hour ago, Lee1977 said:

I learned back in the 40's to keep my fingers out of equipment when it's running and still have all ten of them.

Yes, and if all consumers were as careful as you there might be less-constrained products. But that isn’t the way it is, right?

[ri702bill 8,316]

4 minutes ago, Handy Don said:

My experience was mostly in software, but the parallels with manufacturing are impressive.

 

What? You want something NOT on the Minimum Viable Product spec?

Customer demand? Regulatory requirement? Cost to build? Cost to maintain? Additional risk of failure added to the overall product? Potential savings? Reputational risk? Product liability risk? Additional cost for training and supporting customer questions? And on and on....

Back when I was Workin' Folk -  all our Automotive products got the interdepartmental scrutiny of 2 live documents - the Design FMEA and the Process FMEA  ( Failure Mode Effect Analysis) - meetings were long & brutal - we Engineers and Designers wanted it right and to outlast the warranty - CBC and Purchasing wanted it right now and YOU guys can deal with the warranty issues. We made money in spite of ourselves....

[Lee1977 6,657]

12 minutes ago, Handy Don said:

Yes, and if all consumers were as careful as you there might be less-constrained products. But that isn’t the way it is, right?

As has already been stated by Ron White " You can fix stupid, here's your sign" 

[JCM 9,133]

Some nice pictures on here guy's of your 500 Series. I know you old timers like me have seen my pictures on here for years, but some of our newer members don't always get to see them wearing their original paint on the tractor and implements. If you could add the year of the tractor as well it may help someone doing a restoration when it comes to decals etc.First three pics are a 1993 tractor. The blower is original paint as is the Kwik- Way loader and 42'' RD deck. The rest of the pics are a 1991 with same blower and cab.  Thanks