P220 Onan

[artfull dodger 439]

I see so many Onans lacking the gromet, not having the valves adjusted and dirty. Along with folks butching their belt guard thinking that is the problem, which is far from the truth and not a problem. Then bad mouthing the engine when it is actually the user having lack of proper upkeep knowledge of the Onan engine vs Kohlers. If you want to see a P200 with some challenging cooling fin blockage, go look under a few older RV's with Gensets powered with P series engines.  You cannot even see the cooling fins among all the ducting they have to direct the hot air downward under the RV.  But those engines tend to be better serviced when the RV gets winterized/serviced.  Its not a bad engine design, its what happens when you use a high performance generator engine in a garden tractor enviroment.  Which is dirty and not always the best upkeep by nature.  Only thing I dislike about my P216 is how much gas it guzzles.  Wish the 512d was sold in the states.  My 416H is a great size tractor, just a total gas hog!   

[Ed Kennell 39,562]

5 minutes ago, artfull dodger said:

Only thing I dislike about my P216 is how much gas it guzzles.

Yeah that and the amount of heat they generate.     I only use my 520 for snow removal.   It burns too much fuel and throws too much heat for summer mowing.

It is great in the winter as I duct the heat into the cab.  It stays around 30F above the outside temps.

[c-series don 9,209]

@artfull dodger I totally agree, my P216 uses damn near twice the gas of my twin cylinder Kohler and Briggs engines. I love it and it runs great but man does it suck down the fuel! 

[artfull dodger 439]

Heat is part of the high performance design, but nothing to me beats the sound of an Onan in full snarl under a load.  All flat twins suck gas, but Onans really suck it down.  

[lynnmor 7,447]

My 20 HP Onan flat head with a 60" deck takes about 3 gallons per mowing.  My 25 HP Kohler OHV 60" zero turn takes about 3 gallons per mowing. Both are run WFO with the zero turn finishing faster due to the greater efficiency of that type of mower.  I mow about 2.5 acres.

[artfull dodger 439]

The ZTR mowers really do make getting the yard done faster.  Them and the SCUT tractors are what killed the GT market as prices for true GT's rose to darn near what you can get an entry level Kubota SCUT for.   But yes, most all gas twins are fuel hogs.   They were just bringing out TBI fuel injection when I left the industry, Be interesting to see if they get better gallons per hour usage vs the carbs.  The diesel ZTR's just like a GT sipped the fuel in comparison but were more expensive for that option.  

[RED-Z06 2,365]

WheelHorse refused to design a reasonable sized fuel tank on thr 300/400/500s.  At the same time that WH had 2.25 and 3gallon tanks, Deere had 4 to 6.5 gallon tanks using the same engines.  So the guzzler engine was more prominent on WH applications.

[artfull dodger 439]

I agree, the tanks on a 318 or 420 are huge in comparision to the WH ones.  Plus, back when these were built, gas was much less expensive, so high gas usage was not as big a gripe as it is today with $3.00+ per gallon for gas depending where one lives and time of year.  

 

[Handy Don 12,919]

17 hours ago, artfull dodger said:

I agree, the tanks on a 318 or 420 are huge in comparision to the WH ones.  Plus, back when these were built, gas was much less expensive, so high gas usage was not as big a gripe as it is today with $3.00+ per gallon for gas depending where one lives and time of year.  

 

Agree completely. The engines of that era were not designed to limit pollution or for efficiency. Heck, they didn’t even have a consistent method of determining horsepower!

I loved my Chevy Suburban-owning neighbor bragging about his driving range. He claimed 575 miles between fill-ups. Yep, and a 31 gallon tank!

[Ed Kennell 39,562]

7 minutes ago, Handy Don said:

He claimed 575 miles between fill-ups. Yep, and a 31 gallon tank!

A fuel sipper compared to my 

F-150    18/MPG with a 36 gal. tank

boat       2/MPG with a 86 gal. tank

[RED-Z06 2,365]

My 97 K3500 Sierra got 10mpg, loaded, unloaded, highway, city...that 37g tank had a range of 370milew no matter what🤣

 

My Vette gets 32mpg hwy, 23city...its my 430hp fuel miser🤣🤣

[lynnmor 7,447]

20 hours ago, RED-Z06 said:

WheelHorse refused to design a reasonable sized fuel tank on thr 300/400/500s.  At the same time that WH had 2.25 and 3gallon tanks, Deere had 4 to 6.5 gallon tanks using the same engines.  So the guzzler engine was more prominent on WH applications.

WH did offer an auxiliary fuel tank kit that fit on the rear of these tractors, few were sold perhaps because they were a PITA.

 

[RED-Z06 2,365]

4 minutes ago, lynnmor said:

WH did offer an auxiliary fuel tank kit that fit on the rear of these tractors, few were sold perhaps because they were a PITA.

 

Yeah big ol thing that hangs off the back, added like 5 gallons of capacity.  I often feel like the resistance to update the WH design ultimately led to its demise.  The steering was not great, fuel capacity was low, Unidrive was too narrow, frame was too short.

[artfull dodger 439]

WH really needed a "large frame" super GT that shared the same body style as the 400 series but was larger overall with a bigger rear end.  A modern version of the D series but better.   I think neither AMC/WH or Toro were interested in doing any expanding of line at that point.   Toro went the other way with the plastic hooded cheapened models.  There was a place in the line for the classic WH GT, but they really needed a complete redesign with a complete new transaxle that was not weak cast alum design.   One has to remember, casting iron parts is a VERY dirty and not enviromentally friendly process.  Cub Cadet had issues with this when the tooling wore out for the old cast iron rear ends.   All cast iron facalities had a big bullseye on them with the EPA in the late 70's and early 80's.   Lots of behind the scene issues affected the GT industry.   

[RED-Z06 2,365]

1 hour ago, artfull dodger said:

WH really needed a "large frame" super GT that shared the same body style as the 400 series but was larger overall with a bigger rear end.  A modern version of the D series but better.   I think neither AMC/WH or Toro were interested in doing any expanding of line at that point.   Toro went the other way with the plastic hooded cheapened models.  There was a place in the line for the classic WH GT, but they really needed a complete redesign with a complete new transaxle that was not weak cast alum design.   One has to remember, casting iron parts is a VERY dirty and not enviromentally friendly process.  Cub Cadet had issues with this when the tooling wore out for the old cast iron rear ends.   All cast iron facalities had a big bullseye on them with the EPA in the late 70's and early 80's.   Lots of behind the scene issues affected the GT industry.   

Imagine a 20hp shaft drive 2spd Hydro WH, Diff lock, 3 spools of hydrailics, 3pt hitch, 6.5g tank, power steering...60" deck capable.  I mean that size tractor was selling at 7500+ from other manufacturers at the time when WH was getting 6000+ for 520H models with manual gear steering, 1 spool of hydraulics, no 3pt, basic hydro, no diff lock, in a chassis shared with 8hp 300 series.

[artfull dodger 439]

Yes, Toro/Wheel Horse got left behind by relying on dated designs and not upping their game at the right time.  JD with the 420 and 430, heck the 300 series had rear 3pt and rear shaft PTO ablities.  Along with power angle snow blades.  WH just got left in the dust.  Still a great tractor but they sorely needed a bigger machine, with liquid cool diesel and air cooled gas options.  Everybody else had that, or air cooled diesels for a couple older GT brands.   The only WH diesels were export models.  But I would LOVE to find one stateside to buy!   

[Handy Don 12,919]

14 minutes ago, artfull dodger said:

The only WH diesels were export models.  But I would LOVE to find one stateside to buy!   

@Tractorheadimported a US model to Germany with an assist from @Pullstart. You could surely get one the other way, right? Reach out using the member map to our members “on the continent"

Edited January 8 by Handy Don

[artfull dodger 439]

I cant imagine the cost of shipping a whole tractor across the big pond to the USA.  Probably cost as much or more than the tractor is worth.  Now I suspect most of the tractor is a bog standard WH, its the Robin/Subaru diesel that makes it unique.  

[Handy Don 12,919]

25 minutes ago, artfull dodger said:

I cant imagine the cost of shipping a whole tractor across the big pond to the USA.  Probably cost as much or more than the tractor is worth.  Now I suspect most of the tractor is a bog standard WH, its the Robin/Subaru diesel that makes it unique.  

Yep. Ship only the unique parts!

A couple years back I shipped a pallet crate with family heirloom furniture to my brother in Ireland. I think the price was fixed for less than 1,000 pounds for a certain, standard crate size. It went by slow ship (about a month in transit) and we opted for door-to-door (vs. port-to-port) that added some cost. 

Edited January 8 by Handy Don

[kpinnc 12,946]

27 minutes ago, artfull dodger said:

Yes, Toro/Wheel Horse got left behind by relying on dated designs and not upping their game at the right time.  JD with the 420 and 430, heck the 300 series had rear 3pt and rear shaft PTO ablities.  Along with power angle snow blades.  WH just got left in the dust.  Still a great tractor but they sorely needed a bigger machine, with liquid cool diesel and air cooled gas options. 

 

Sounds like you are forgetting not only the D series but also the XI. 

 

I agree that JD definitely had more options on the 400 series machines, but the classic Wheel Horse was not left behind. It was selling very well, just to a different customer base. Simplicity and ease of changing implements were selling points for Wheel Horse. 

 

I would argue that the 400 JD was overly complex and expensive, as well as the cost and effectiveness of implements for a 500lb tractor. 

 

I think both designs fell short of the subcompact tractor abilities and power. And zero turns most definitely are more powerful and optimized for mowing. 

[artfull dodger 439]

I agree, even the jd 430 fell short of what a true SCUT could do, lacking a true tractor style frame, 4wd ect.   By the time the last classic WH GT came out, from what I have read sales were stalling, ZTRs were taking over and SCUT's were taking over what was the true GT market, along with the X700 series JD that blur the line between a 1000 series SCUT and the LT/GT line for big green.  Its sad we no longer have WH with us.   But Toro owns the rights last I knew to the name, so it could be revived in the future.  I would rather see WH on their line of ZTR machines vs anything else they use.  That said, if someone comes across one of those Robin diesels, or the twin cylinder Wisconsin/Ducati diesel.  I am look for those, once to fix my Bolens HT20d and the Robin to build myself a 512d

[RED-Z06 2,365]

34 minutes ago, kpinnc said:

 

Sounds like you are forgetting not only the D series but also the XI. 

 

I agree that JD definitely had more options on the 400 series machines, but the classic Wheel Horse was not left behind. It was selling very well, just to a different customer base. Simplicity and ease of changing implements were selling points for Wheel Horse. 

 

I would argue that the 400 JD was overly complex and expensive, as well as the cost and effectiveness of implements for a 500lb tractor. 

 

I think both designs fell short of the subcompact tractor abilities and power. And zero turns most definitely are more powerful and optimized for mowing. 

The 5xi was definitely a step up in power, had power steering but still lacked the robustness, still had the Eaton 1100/uni hydro, still pretty narrow, didnt use the 26/18 tire combo over the 23/16.  They did update the fuel capacity.  I think the Xi models probably sold fairly poorly, lasted what..3-4 years.

[artfull dodger 439]

To me the 5xi series were more of a side step.  Improvements yes, but not to the level of the compitition at that time.   WH needed to take on JD and CC head on with a super GT, a true bigger version of the 400 series.  The ix fell short of that.  And I think the styling also falls flat on the xi.  

[RED-Z06 2,365]

8 minutes ago, artfull dodger said:

I agree, even the jd 430 fell short of what a true SCUT could do, lacking a true tractor style frame, 4wd ect.   By the time the last classic WH GT came out, from what I have read sales were stalling, ZTRs were taking over and SCUT's were taking over what was the true GT market, along with the X700 series JD that blur the line between a 1000 series SCUT and the LT/GT line for big green.  Its sad we no longer have WH with us.   But Toro owns the rights last I knew to the name, so it could be revived in the future.  I would rather see WH on their line of ZTR machines vs anything else they use.  That said, if someone comes across one of those Robin diesels, or the twin cylinder Wisconsin/Ducati diesel.  I am look for those, once to fix my Bolens HT20d and the Robin to build myself a 512d

Its a weird market, 4x4 kills turning radius and tends to be tougher on lawns, it makes a GT more useful in some aspects, but makes it less functional in tight areas, harder to mow with.  The 420/430 was a large tractor, people compare them to the 318s like they are just a longer hood and bigger tires but its alot more there 

[RED-Z06 2,365]

1 minute ago, artfull dodger said:

To me the 5xi series were more of a side step.  Improvements yes, but not to the level of the compitition at that time.   WH needed to take on JD and CC head on with a super GT, a true bigger version of the 400 series.  The ix fell short of that.  And I think the styling also falls flat on the xi.  

I want one, with the Vanguard Diesel, just because😂, but it would need to be pretty cheap because parts for that engine and platform are probably getting scarce with Briggs coming out of Bankruptcy and WH long gone.

 

Another thing not to overlook, the Eaton1100 was pretty low pressure as I recall, low volume too, they really couldn't do much with them as far as attachments.  The Sunstrand Model 15/90 had 875psi at the outlets, the K91 had 1150psi, running a loader is not an issue.  That pump really painted them into a corner but it was a fantastic pump, dead reliable, quiet, durable.