Rear weights different for C and H/M?

KWRB

Member
I was looking at an old catalog today (1949) and stumbled across this: Now I have some old weights -I'm unsure of the part no- out at the garage, but I'm virtually certain that these are interchangeable. In fact, I used to help my dad swap them from the C to the H at tractor pulls. Was there a later modification to make them interchangeable C through M? There are no pictures in that year's catalog other than Cub and A.
 
Didn't add the photo the first time...
a257732.jpg
 
Well, I just learned something from you. I always thought that I-H wheel weights were all the same and interchangable on a lot of Farmall and Internatonal tractors. I always thought the weights were 150# weights.
 
Yeah but the Super A weight is and looks completly differant, the C and H,M weight look similar, but they feel like 150 lbs when installing them.
 
Hmmmm, I've been around with and have owned several letter series Farmalls, but I never knew that C's and Super C's used different weights than the ones used on H and M models.....
 
The bolt hole patterns are the same for the C/H/M weights.

For all intents and purposes they are the same and are interchangeable. The difference is the weight of a chicken, as fastfarmall states. To the naked eye I don't think you can tell the difference. Lifting them I don't think you can tell the difference. In the field, I don't think you can tell the difference.
 

Wheel weights for the C, H, and M are all interchangeable. Those same weights also fit pretty much everything IH built, right up to the end. Even those later, split rear wheel weights are a retro-fit all the way back to the C.

I have a set of the split weights on my 1950 H as the first set, and a set of one piece weights as the 2nd set.
 
Strange they list them with different weights when a C weight has the same casting number as 6 spoke wheel weights on H to early 400 and 300, then with 8 spoke wheels they just advanced the number suffix and added holes, but before of or after the suffix change will still go on all.
 
(quoted from post at 11:08:19 02/20/18) The bolt hole patterns are the same for the C/H/M weights.

For all intents and purposes they are the same and are interchangeable. The difference is the weight of a chicken, as fastfarmall states. To the naked eye I don't think you can tell the difference. Lifting them I don't think you can tell the difference. In the field, I don't think you can tell the difference.

All this begs the question, why? How did someone in engineering not catch this and go "umm, can't we just make them the same part?"

Perhaps this happened eventually. I wish I could find a 1949 parts catalog and see what the part numbers were on the weights, compare them with my pile of weights, and see if they were made to universal afterwards... I don't see anything in the way of parts catalogs from that era at the Wisconsin History online archives. That doesn't mean it isn't there. Also, the online parts diagrams at caseih.com only show the split weights.

Anyone have an actual parts catalog? At this point my curiosity is driving me insane and I must get to the bottom of it all!!
 
(quoted from post at 20:00:57 02/20/18)
(quoted from post at 11:08:19 02/20/18) The bolt hole patterns are the same for the C/H/M weights.

For all intents and purposes they are the same and are interchangeable. The difference is the weight of a chicken, as fastfarmall states. To the naked eye I don't think you can tell the difference. Lifting them I don't think you can tell the difference. In the field, I don't think you can tell the difference.

All this begs the question, why? How did someone in engineering not catch this and go "umm, can't we just make them the same part?"

Perhaps this happened eventually. I wish I could find a 1949 parts catalog and see what the part numbers were on the weights, compare them with my pile of weights, and see if they were made to universal afterwards... I don't see anything in the way of parts catalogs from that era at the Wisconsin History online archives. That doesn't mean it isn't there. Also, the online parts diagrams at caseih.com only show the split weights.

Anyone have an actual parts catalog? At this point my curiosity is driving me insane and I must get to the bottom of it all!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know about the straight C but the Super C was 145 lbs each and the same as the H and M. The 145 lbs figure is in the Super C Operating Manual.
 
Ok, I have several paper printed catalogs which shows the different part numbers for these weights. Not getting into the print date of the catalogs (most are originals dated when the models were still in
production and not later reprings) but just the part numbers for the full circle weights for several various Farmall model tractors. The part catalogs for the C, H, M, Super M and MTA part no. is 6818D. The
part catalog for the Super C calls for part no. 6818DA - so some small change was made in the weights but were still interchangeable with the 6818D part no. weights. For Farmall models 200, 230 and 240 the
two piece 75 lbs. weight is shown with part no. 366109R1 - I have a set of the two piece weights on a 1951 Farmall M so they also will interchange with the various C, H and M model tractors if desired. Note
the part numbers shown are the IHC part no. and I believe these weights were also produced by other suppliers so their weights might have different markings.
Also, in looking through the various part catalogs for the different models I have seen the same part no. noted with different weights ranging between 140 and 150 pounds for the full circle weight. The half
size weight is identified as weighing 75 pounds for each half.
Hope this adds some level of conclusion to this matter, Hal.
 
Hal the difference between 6818D and DA is two extra holes near the outer edge compared to D. One reason for other two holes was for bolt access when stacking weights on 8 spoke wheels on 300 and 400 tractors. IH had a bo bo on some real early 8 spoke wheels and drilled the holes for first weight mounting so center hole of weight was off for axle clamp bolt access. Some were re drilled and have 8 holes instead of 4 in wheel for weight mounting. That has nothing to do with just the wheel weights though. May have info somewhere of 6818DA release date. Have checked weight of few in past and found around 142 to 143 pounds most of the time. My SC parts book dated 11-53 shows the 6818D weights.
 
Dave, My Super C parts catalog is revision 4 dated May 1960 which would have been after Super C production was complete, Hal.
 
Dave, thanks for the clarification as with just a casual look the difference between them is not very apparent, Hal.
 
farmallhal:"(quoted from post at 22:29:04 02/20/18 ) Dave, My Super C parts catalog is revision 4 dated May 1960 which would have been after Super C production was complete, Hal."
May 1960 would be after the 8-spoke wheels were in use on the bigger tractors. That may be a relevant point.

IH seemed to have ongoing trouble deciding the exact weight of various wheel weights. The weight quoted for a given model tractor changed over time. The different weight quoted on a single page for C vs. H&M was probably the result of someone in the Consumer Relations department trying to consolidate several documents from different dates. Also, beware that the weight quoted sometimes may be for the special equipment option, which included 4 bolts. Others may be for the weight by itself.

4 big bolts may weigh as much as a chicken.
 
(quoted from post at 21:43:52 02/20/18) farmallhal:"(quoted from post at 22:29:04 02/20/18 ) Dave, My Super C parts catalog is revision 4 dated May 1960 which would have been after Super C production was complete, Hal."
May 1960 would be after the 8-spoke wheels were in use on the bigger tractors. That may be a relevant point.

IH seemed to have ongoing trouble deciding the exact weight of various wheel weights. The weight quoted for a given model tractor changed over time. The different weight quoted on a single page for C vs. H&M was probably the result of someone in the Consumer Relations department trying to consolidate several documents from different dates. Also, beware that the weight quoted sometimes may be for the special equipment option, which included 4 bolts. Others may be for the weight by itself.

4 big bolts may weigh as much as a chicken.

If anything, wouldn't the extra holes be in the H/M weights, thus making them [b:c289eae92e][i:c289eae92e]the lighter of the two weights? [/i:c289eae92e][/b:c289eae92e]

Also, do we know for absolute certain that the part number was always the same for C and H/M? I haven't seen anything here that confirms it.

The whole thing could be put to bed if we had an appropriate year's parts catalog... Wishful thinking, or does anyone know of a digital copy?
 
(quoted from post at 09:18:22 02/21/18 ) Also, do we know for absolute certain that the part number was always the same for C and H/M? I haven't seen anything here that confirms it.

The whole thing could be put to bed if we had an appropriate year's parts catalog... Wishful thinking, or does anyone know of a digital copy?
I don't know if my C parts catalog is old enough to answer that or not (probably is). But it and I are in 2 different places and I won't get a chance to look at it for a while.
 
C parts book dated 2-25-51. weight 6818D, does say 140 at top of page and approximately 140 pounds near bottom of page. H book date 11-19-51 6818D. M book date 11-6-50 and another 4-30-52, both have 6818D. Some numbers on the weights you can't make out and some real plain but all originally for the H, M and C have the same number in the casting. Weights are castings and not usually machined with some being slightly different. When stacking you notice OD, ID and holes not matching sometimes.
 

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Back
Top