The Build to "Beware of Husqvarna Garden Tractors!"

OK, the comment about it being harder to drill kind of confirms that it isn't mild steel, it has to be a higher carbon and higher hardness to be in the 70-80 ksi range.

BTW, China makes all grades of steel, from junk to very good stuff. And in fact, China produces about 1/2 of all steel made, with Japan (6.2%), India (6.0%) and the US(4.9%) following far behind.

Dan


If I remember correctly, the book that was shown to me rated the steel at 70Kpsi-80Kpsi. You are right, this is not the Chinese steel sold out of convenience at HD and the like. I took the engineer at the fabrication shop seriously with upgrading my tools for this task, and I’m very glad I did.

This steel was not like what I was used to drilling holes in, much harder, and takes along time to drill each hole. I kind of thought logically that there is a difference between Chinese steel and American, but wow, there really is a difference!
 
If you twist that thing up now you're really going to have problems. Honestly don't think that will happen. Hopefully it doesn't find other weak spot.

Wouldn't it be something if all Husqvarna had to do is beef the frame up like you're doing to make it a decent little tractor.
 
A long and tedious upgrade for sure and true craftsmanship. My question is: now that this weak link in the chain is fixed, will the front axle or spindles be the next weak link? Don't know if you had it already but maybe some rear counterweight would help.
Mike

Thank you. The spindles issue is going to be another problem to address in the future, but are actually strong enough for the job in the short run. They are 3/4 inch same or almost identical to the JDX570 and the steering plate is also used on the JD. The cast iron axle is strong enough too. Here is what I don't like about it;

1) The 5/8" drag links are not adjustable (they need to be able to adjust), so the extreme toe in that they have is what you get. (I am working on a plan here too with 4x4 stuff).

2) The wheels have sleeves for bearings, I want ball bearings that can take true axle loads like trailers, horizontal and vertical load.

3) The spindle pivots at the axle conection or where they rotate, are also sleeves for bearings.

4) The axle support plates have a sleeve too, yep, I want ball bearings.

5) The steering shaft at the top should have ball bearings and a solid mount, it's very sloppy as it is now. So far the perfectionist is starting to come out :)

6) The factory tires are two ply, fine for cutting grass, but they need the weight capability of four ply tires at least, and the extra wall support.
I have replaced mine with four ply lugs so that they actually turn (sand tends to give way to easily and allows the front to slip forward frequently). Also another thought for someone thinking about this, if you are on a grade sideways with 200lb in the bucket at axle height, the extra wall support is good insurance for a firm footing.

The front tires are now capable of handling more weight than will ever be on the front (an extra 200lbs over the 2 ply each tire) and the support is so good that I think more of the bucket actuator force is now going to the load and not being absorbed by the squishy weak tires that came with it, does this ring true for anyone out there? (side note, a suspension on a tractor seems like a very bad idea).

On the last comment, YES YES YES, I have learned that weight equals traction! I have the rear uni sleeve from Johnny Buckets and the JD suitcase weight bracket with 4 weights. I only seem to need the weight of four when I'm working dry sand, otherwise 2 are fine (bucket use) and I think if you have actual dirt you might be fine with wheel weight and tires filled (what has been referred to as free weight)?

I observe letting the job dictate when and how much weight should be used because according to a conversation I had with Tuff Torq (so far another company that can be honest and keep their word!) the lugs and weights are fine, the K66 is built for it.......The catch.......when you use these accessories then the tractor is no longer a grass cutter and it needs to be maintained like a transaxle should. The no maintenance transaxle claimed by Husqvarna is only true if it is used for flat grass cutting only (and they are still counting on the customer to buy a new tractor before the 200 hrs anyway, I wonder why?). Husqvarna has failed to mention this, must have slipped their lawyers minds or something, huh! Tuff Torq also said, The more weight you use the sooner the time between oil changes! Tuff Torque has a general maintenance schedule on their web site that says;

first 50 hrs and every 200 hrs after. That's just for general use (grass cutters too!) If you use the weights and accessories then it is recommended that you change the oil as often as your engine oil, 25 to 50 hrs or per season. The oil is listed as either theirs or a quality 5w-50 synthetic (10w-50 synthetic is fine too but the higher weights are for heat and load). The oil also needs to be the type that is rated for a "wet clutch" such as dirt bikes and ATV's, the reason I was given is because of the "wet brake" internally. (yep, that's something I want to change too).
 
well as I remember from the old thread he already had the trans replaced and did so with a heavier model....
but the sales person swore up n down it would do what he wanted it to do, and the fact that you can buy attachments made FOR THIS MACHINE would lead a "normal" person to believe that they were buying a machine designed to do the job.

but Dan, you are so right about the "lot of junk being built/sold today".... exactly why most of us fix up these OLD tractors and keep them as long as parts can be had and make a few ourselves along the way.

I just want to be clear, the K66 with mechanical differential lock came with it and was used as one of the big selling points that it was a GT.

I could not have said it better "the sales person swore up n down it would do what he wanted it to do, and the fact that you can buy attachments made FOR THIS MACHINE would lead a "normal" person to believe that they were buying a machine designed to do the job".

wow, well said!
 
Unfortunately, sometimes, things are what they are. Opinions are in the same category. If you want to do something it's your/their choice. Everybody is not the same nor are their abilities . What you can do. What you want to do. What you can afford to do. We all have different ways we do things. Doesn't always have to be a right or wrong thing. I enjoy following people's work. If I see something that seems wrong to the point where someone may get hurt I may give an opinion. But I try to stay on the positive/suggestive side with my post. I hope I always come across, to all of you, in that way.

Bill
Thank you, hopefully I am careful with this too.
 
OK, the comment about it being harder to drill kind of confirms that it isn't mild steel, it has to be a higher carbon and higher hardness to be in the 70-80 ksi range.

BTW, China makes all grades of steel, from junk to very good stuff. And in fact, China produces about 1/2 of all steel made, with Japan (6.2%), India (6.0%) and the US(4.9%) following far behind.

Dan

I stand corrected, thanks for the reminder, you are catching some of the bias in me. I was trying to compare to the common steel available at the box store's.

I was not correcting the ksi, I wasn't sure if it was that or psi and the k for thousand:) hopefully this comes out in the laid back spirit I'm intending. Not intending to be the proverbial rabbit trail.....
 
If you twist that thing up now you're really going to have problems. Honestly don't think that will happen. Hopefully it doesn't find other weak spot.

Wouldn't it be something if all Husqvarna had to do is beef the frame up like you're doing to make it a decent little tractor.

WOW! I was thinking the same thing. With their resources they could put an extra $500 on the retail and still be a bargain.

The frame is very solid when using the bucket, or even driving uneven ground. It is very transformed, but proof will be in time. I figure 30-40 hours on the bad frame before it buckled, so 30-40 on this frame before any real declarations can be made!
 
12AUG2018, Time to transfer the motor and transaxle to the new frame. I created a way to safely hold the motor until I installed it.

IMG_1004.JPG

IMG_1005.JPG

IMG_1006.JPG

this was easy and I could quickly roll it around out of the way. The movers dolly is HF, been used for many things.

The bolt at the bottom of the motor shaft came out easiest with a impact wrench while using the old belt on the drive pully (twisting it tight so as to not allow slippage and to not do anything damaging to the pulley. The HF air tank is modified to be able to use air tools but won't last long. I get about 3 or 4 good uses with the impact.

Out with the old frame,

IMG_1009.JPG

In with the new frame,

IMG_1008.JPG
 
It does. In engineering, usually stress units are stated as 1000 lbs/in >>> or ksi.

"I was not correcting the ksi, I wasn't sure if it was that or psi and the k for thousand:) "


Man that old frame is ugly.


As for what is suitable for ground contact, I kind of view it as the tractor should be a minimum of about 800 lbs and ideally have 26" tires on the back.
Now my Bolens/Troybilt GTX 20 is listed at 810 (it was much more as a Duratrac and the cast iron Kohler) but it only has the 23x10.5-12's on the back, so I would limit it to very light work. On the other hand, even though it's the same power and trans, Eaton 11, my MF/Snapper 1855 is listed at 860 lbs, only 50 lb more, but it has the 26's on the back and I would use it for heavier dirt work.

BTW, the GTX has 1" spindles, the 1855 ft hubs, not sure the spindle size.

Dan
 
Last edited:
This steel was not like what I was used to drilling holes in, much harder, and takes along time to drill each hole. I kind of thought logically that there is a difference between Chinese steel and American, but wow, there really is a difference!
It is not so much chinese or American steel as to alloys that is put into it to make the steel.
 
It does. In engineering, usually stress units are stated as 1000 lbs/in >>> or ksi.

"I was not correcting the ksi, I wasn't sure if it was that or psi and the k for thousand:) "


Man that old frame is ugly.


As for what is suitable for ground contact, I kind of view it as the tractor should be a minimum of about 800 lbs and ideally have 26" tires on the back.
Now my Bolens/Troybilt GTX 20 is listed at 810 (it was much more as a Duratrac and the cast iron Kohler) but it only has the 23x10.5-12's on the back, so I would limit it to very light work. On the other hand, even though it's the same power and trans, Eaton 11, my MF/Snapper 1855 is listed at 860 lbs, only 50 lb more, but it has the 26's on the back and I would use it for heavier dirt work.

BTW, the GTX has 1" spindles, the 1855 ft hubs, not sure the spindle size.

Dan

I have plans for weighing this tractor by axle and total weight with this very handy device;

IMG_1007.JPG

My best estimate right now is at 800 lbs with the Johnny Bucket, each rear wheel is approx 100lbs, etc.

You are bringing up a good point with the 26" wheels. I've been thinking the 23" are too small as nothing more than a hunch and a little knowledge about tire patch. 23"x3.14 = a circumference of 72.2" and 26"x3.14 = 81.6" circumference. If the wheel is equal widths, that's a potential tire patch increase of 11%, plus you would increase torque with an instant gear advantage too, and I'm guessing the gear advantage is more significant. My question is this;

If adding weight (filling tires) is free weight, being that the weight does not get considered or applied to the transaxle max axle weight spec, then why is the 23" max size of wheel being applied to the specs of the K66 with the same axle diameter as the K72 but with a larger max diameter wheel for its spec? Or is the max diameter of the wheel a force on a different component of the transaxle, then the axle?

I don't believe I'm getting the full 24hp the engine is supposed to produce (not to get lost in the sauce but I do understand the 24hp rating is just a rating under lab conditions that were controlled anyway) at the transaxle because of the nature of the v-belt. The 1/2" wide v-belt has a very small surface area within the pulley and will slip under loads and moisture/dirt etc. The longer the v-belt run is, the more play, the more waste of power transmission. Am I missing something?

Our modern cars with many increased demands on the accessories (such as A/C compressors up to 20hp to run, high amp alt and such) that contribute to higher parasitic drains on the motors found solutions to this with the multi-ribbed serpentine belt, significantly increasing the contact surface area to keep up with the increased loads, but our little grass cutters have not.

A GT back in the 70's would have a 10 to 15 hp motor, and today are commonly 24 hp +. They keep increasing the HP on the engines but don't increase the ability of the extra power to be transmitted to the transaxle. This must be why I see the comments that a real ground engaging tractor needs a drive shaft to transfer power and not belts?

Anyway, I agree with the assessment of "Light Work", The more I dive into this and study diagrams of other tractors, stripping away the marketing, there seems to be common designs for capability. I have tried to stress that this project is supposed to be bringing this GT that wasn't, into the category of a real light duty garden tractor from the beginning. It is my hope that message doesn't get lost.

My ignorance is going to show with this next question, by GTX are you referring to front spindles on a John Deere GT?
 
A couple of comments here

There isn't only a question of HP when comparing engines, the torque also makes a huge difference, this is why a 16hp 2cyl boxer Onan of the '70 will be more powerful than newer cheapo 16hp engines. Same comes with Diesel engines, my '05 Passat TDI with 140hp is way more powerful than 140hp gasoline engines, the gas ones will be 140lbs-ft or so when my TDI is around 230lbs-ft!

BTW a AC compressor does not use 20hp, a car at around 115km/h uses somewhere in between 20-50hp to keep going and the compressor makes about no difference to the fuel consumption. On electric cars I am told a AC compressor is about 750W (~1hp) therefore I doubt a compressor would require more than 2-3hp on average cars.

The use of serpentines has more to do with wear, easier routing (tighter bends to use a single belt instead of 3+ on some old cars) and resistance to slipping when wet. On the notion of shaft driven implements I would add that most tractors like the MF 1655 the shafts are driven at one point or another via v-belts, always in pair in case of the 1655.

About the tire size my guess is that bigger wheels would be HARDER for the tractor (given the same gear ratio) as it would act as a gear. With bigger wheels for the same distance the engine would have to make LESS turns therefore it would be harder to accomplish the same distance.
 
Right! Horse Power is for marketing and Torque is for work:cool:

The compressor does vary but I somehow got the compressor on my mind, when referring to the total component list it comes out to 20 + hp of parasitic drain on the motor, good correction.

On the MF and Case (also I think Cub Cadet does also?) those belts are as you say doubled up and I'm guessing very direct routing?

As to the TDI, I too have experience there with a 1981 VW diesel pick-up (caddy). I had a 1.6 litter that my friend and I replaced with a 1.8 from Canada that went in a jetta (MK2). I used a quantum injector pump with fuel enrichment and a Volvo turbo and a 2 click head gasket, with an exhaust manifold off a turbo diesel Jetta (not tdi) and a flow master. Blew the head, changed the gasket to a 5 click and added ARP studs, and with 15psi boost it was stunning! That was 20 years ago, but a fun project. I'm told those 1.9 tdi's can actually pump out 300+ ft lbs of torque with minor modification, that's a powerful little motor!

On the tires, that sounds right, smaller tire more revolutions increase in torque, so the larger tire can go on the tractor with an adaption to the internal gear ratio which might be a loss in top speed but a gain in traction, does this sound about right?
 
12AUG2018 more stuff

I decided to go with a Kevlar drive belt. The stock belt had less surface area in contact with the pulley.

the old belt;

IMG_1011.JPG

the Kevlar belt, Minor difference, but I’ll take it;

IMG_1010.JPG

Having the belts stretched out;

IMG_1012.JPG

IMG_1013.JPG

IMG_1014.JPG

This is the actual code for the drive belt, the one from Husqvarna is not actually terrible in price, the one for the fabricated deck is!

The deck belt (fabricated clear cut decks only) is 4LK1360 1/2”x136” (AK134).

This is the drive belt package;

IMG_1015.JPG

notice the Ariens part #, it’s common for many different makes and has a Stens # too.

Starting to fit parts together;

IMG_1017.JPG
 
This is a very easy transaxle to perform oil changes on, the down side is that little reservoir bottle. The bottle is an expansion tank not under pressure. The pump fluid gets hot and expands into the bottle as needed and as it cools goes back into the pump chamber. So far so good. The bad is that the bottle does not have a very secure way of sealing to the upper case. It can be bumped, leak, and you wont know because the observation of that connection is through the right wheel and not the back. If the Dealer puts it on in a hurry and doesn’t care about his customer (I have experience in this) than you could be set up to fail from the start and remember what the warranty is? Good to check.

Mine did not leak but could have. I have an idea for this too involving JD Dealer. From Tuff Torq the bottle and means to allow fluid to go in are up to the manufacturer, JD uses a hose to pipe fitting with hose clamps for a solid connection. Husqvarna hopes that the connection will just stay based on the bottle hopefully not moving.

IMG_1030.JPG

Notice the straight piece of plastic from the bottle to the transaxle. The end that inserts into the transaxle is plastic and is over an steel tube. The bottle pushes down on a flimsy mount that is supposed to cup it in place. The bottle can move back with vibration and the hard plastic seal will work its way out. I will fix this by next trans oil change and share pictures.

IMG_1160.JPG

IMG_1161.JPG

IMG_1162.JPG
 
Back
Top