I might be picking up a 1944 HG. The engine was tore down and a lot of the parts are gone missing. I would like to repower with a ford engine out of an 8n tractor or later hundred series ford tractor. Has another done this swap before? I have a bellhousing out of a jacobsen tractor and could pick up a trans to bolt up to it for an aux trans.
Thanks, Kirk
I know a guy who put a 172 Ford diesel in an OC -3. It was a lot of work, the frame had to be widened and he really just about built a whole new frame for it. It worked out OK, but you have to be real careful with it. The bigger engine has a lot more torque and Hp. I think an 8-n is a bad choice, if you go to all that work, I would use a more modern overhead valve engine. There were some smaller Ford industrial engines that might be a better choice. Also plenty of small diesels around, like Kubota, Yanmar, Isuzu, Perkins. etc.
I'm the type that believes in keeping things original, hacking up a machine often kills the value and unless someone really knows what they are doing, it often doesn't work out well. But I guess to each his own.
Thanks for the reply. I didn't what to get into widening the frame just figure I might be able to use what I had laying around. The machine has been sitting for years outside under tarp. Head is off, engine locked up, it has no head,carb, starter, mag, generator, radiator. Just figure repowering with something I have would be cheaper than buying all the parts and rebuilding the engine. Maybe I'll just look around for a running HG/OC3 engine.
Thanks, Kirk
I had a 251 chrysler out of an Oliver combine in mine. Governed at 1500 rpm it still had twice the power as the original. the only frame mod I did was extend it so I had a place to mount the rad
We have the original experimental tractor for developing the OC-6. It's an HG with an Oliver 77 engine. Fit fine in the frame. Used the Oliver bell housing. They had to cut the gas tank in half so it's flat in the front and almost up against the engine. This tractor handled the power fine. They don't really have enough weight to hurt themselves.
There is a member on here Jim W who has an HG that has a Mercedes diesel engine that I originally sold to another guy. As far as I know, the project was never finished, but it could be by now. Do a search for Mercedes in the search command on this forum.
Blake
I'm in the final stages of fitting a Datsun A15 and Vanette gearbox to mine. I have had it running and driving, it feels great.
It fits in the chassis with a couple of notches, nothing too serious.
I often thought of using an Oliver 66 motor. That makes a lot more sense than using an Oliver 77 6 cylinder and having it hang out way too far in front. I still say watch the HP and torque, the finals in those machines are weak as it is with a little IXB motor. The other major issue with these machines is the frame to transmission housing mountings. They were a major weak spot and were failing due to torque. If you double the horsepower and torque that point is going to fail even quicker. Over the years Oliver improved that area, but I still see frame mounting failures even in the later machines. If you are going to use the machine with a dozer or loader the excess power will be a factor. To take it even a bit further, if you add an extra transmission, you increase the torque further. If all you are going to do is drive it around with no load, engine size wouldn't be a factor.
Ran across this interesting engine swap. Nice to look at but I thought the stand HG engine was under powered can't image one with a cub engine.
http://antiquetractorblog.com/2015/12/28/one-of-a-kind-cub-crawler/
I think a Cub engine would be a waste of time. Maybe an H engine if one wanted to go IHC?
I think it's been done to look nice, not to do work.
I agree with Blake, not much power. I had a 1950 Farmall Cub. Other than mowing and cultivation, it could barely pull it's own weight.
A quick look at the TractorData site shows you would be giving up half the horsepower of a IXB3:
Farmall Cub Power:
Drawbar (claimed): 10 hp [7.5 kW]
PTO (claimed): 11 hp [8.2 kW]
Belt (claimed): 9.76 hp [7.3 kW]
Plows: 1 (12 inch)
Drawbar (tested): 9.87 hp [7.4 kW]
Belt (tested): 10.39 hp [7.7 kW]
Oliver OC-3 Power:
Drawbar (claimed): 22 hp [16.4 kW]
Jethrow
Farmall A motor would be a better choice. The originals were 113", then 123" The later versions were 135" that were used in the 340 tractors and many industrial applications. Great engines and easy to get parts for.
The A is a pretty small engine too. From the experimental tractor we have, we know it held up with the Oliver 77 engine, so I would opt for more power than the Farmall A. The thing is, the tractors are so light more power is not likely to cause damage because they will just spin out.
I recently put a MH22 engine in my OC4. The original was trash and I didn't want to spend the number of dollars it would take to rebuild it. In looking for something that would fit in the HP range, I decided that a frame tractor like the MH, Allis Chambers, Olivers would work the best, rather than trying to adapt to the Cletrac bellhousing. I ended up using the MH engine and bellhousing. It fit within the frame with newly fabricated engine mounts. Even used the original radiator.
Its been quiet a while since I have been on. I did get the Mercedes conversion in the OC-3 running. Its not "finished" but does run and runs good. I was able to locate a brand new drive shaft and modified it to mate with the Mercedes manual trans output. Used some Chevy motor mounts and home made brackets welded to the frame to secure the diesel. New radiator is now mounted out front of the frame using an electric fan. Picked up several track parts from Chris but yet to install them. I take it out and drive it around every so often but right now its tarped over in back of the shop as other projects are using up the space inside. Need to figure out a way to mount the hydraulic pump and rebuild the blade hydraulic system, replace the track support on one side (its an HG set up on one side...) and a few other items as well as turn the tracks around the right way. Will need a custom made hood and grill and still looking for an air cleaner assembly to use on it.
Why would anyone want to put a 6 cylinder engine in a lil OC-3 ?????????? Engine swapping in itself is hard enough if you have an engine of similar physical size. The extra length of a 6 cylinder is just something you won't need to deal with. I've seen so many of these machines ruined by hanging some 6 cylinder car engine in them. You need a longer frame, different radiator, sheet metal etc. Most any overhead valve 4 cylinder of equal or greater displacement than the original flathead IX series would be a big improvement.
The International C-123 is rated at 40 Hp, with 101 ft/# torque @ 1200 RPM. Sounds like plenty of power for an OC-3.
If the bigger engine is going to give you power you don't really need, why bother? Unless you just like to do lots of extra work and like to pour lots of gas in your machine.
Well it depends on what you want to do with your HG/OC-3. If you want to restore it to original show condition, I would keep it original. If it has a loader or dozer and you want to use it to work, I would keep it original, or replace the engine with a similar-sized engine. If you have a plain tractor and originality is not important to you, or you want to build something custom to have fun with, there is no reason not to re-power it with something of your choice.
The HG with Oliver 77 engine we have did not require a frame extension or any harsh modifications. It did require the gas tank be cut in half and the front half replaced by a sheet metal plate, making it flat to allow room for the engine. This cut the capacity in half. It also used an Oliver 70 radiator and grill and plain sheet metal wrap around hood. It was the experimental tractor for developing the OC-6. It would pull a 3-bottom plow.
If one wanted to built a modified fun HG/OC-3 today, a V-8 would probably be a better choice than a six cylinder as it would fit better without gas tank modifications. Though a tractor with a V-8 would not pull a lot more than a stock tractor due to traction, it would have a lot more speed and would be fun to drive in snow, etc., especially if it were a 68" wide machine.
I think there is room for both lines of thought on this one. It's not like these are rare tractors where one would be sacrificing a potential show restoration for a fun modification.
I still think you would tear it up with the extra hp. I have worked on lots of these machines and every one of them had one or more of the following: frame to trans housing bolt failures, cracked frames, cracked castings, sprocket centers broken out, broken teeth on final drive gears etc. When you see some people run a dozer or loader in dry conditions, it's pretty harsh. Saying it will spin the tracks doesn't seem an adequate safety feature. They were designed to take a certain amount of torque and hp, and even with the original 26 or so hp engine they tear up, so put 50 60 or more hp in it, what will you get? In my experience, they might spin tracks in the mud or on wet grass, but against a load a properly counterweighted loader would be destroyed with double the hp. Sure, you can build a toy to drive around with an oversized engine, but if your going to work it, watch out!!!
Anyone can do whatever they want, just my opinion. Also, just stating some facts to give people who might not have a lot of experience with this sort of thing some background to consider before they destroy their tractor.