better puller wc or wd45?
Printed From: Unofficial Allis
Category: Other Topics
Forum Name: Pulling Forum
Forum Description: Forum dedicated to Tractor and Garden Pulling
URL: https://www.allischalmers.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=127004
Printed Date: 24 Nov 2024 at 10:24am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: better puller wc or wd45?
Posted By: JM
Subject: better puller wc or wd45?
Date Posted: 09 Aug 2016 at 4:23pm
|
Div 2, 3 mph class, built motor and 15.5s.
|
Replies:
Posted By: Zaddison
Date Posted: 09 Aug 2016 at 6:29pm
|
Well I pull two Unstyled WCs and even know you can do the same to both tractors Id say the 45 would be better.
|
Posted By: PaulB
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2016 at 7:13am
What weight? If you want to run 3000 a WC is the only way to go without lots of aluminum.
-------------
If it was fun to pull in LOW gear, I could have a John Deere.
Real pullers don't have speed limits.
If you can't make it GO... make it SHINY
|
Posted By: CAL(KS)
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2016 at 7:22am
45 is geared lower than wc and with 15.5x38 a wc is pretty fast in first. also a wc can be made lighter. make sure you can run those big tires in the low weights with your rules, NATPA only allows 15.5x38 at 4500 and up
-------------
Me -C,U,UC,WC,WD45,190XT,TL-12,145T,HD6G,HD16,HD20
Dad- WD, D17D, D19D, RT100A, 7020, 7080,7580, 2-8550's, 2-S77, HD15
|
Posted By: DrAllis
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2016 at 8:07am
|
I thought Div #2 didn't allow any "built" engines??????????
|
Posted By: CAL(KS)
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2016 at 8:45am
|
"stock block, naturally aspirated" "original stock appearance"
doesnt matter whats inside lol
-------------
Me -C,U,UC,WC,WD45,190XT,TL-12,145T,HD6G,HD16,HD20
Dad- WD, D17D, D19D, RT100A, 7020, 7080,7580, 2-8550's, 2-S77, HD15
|
Posted By: DrAllis
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2016 at 9:52am
|
I lean towards a "WD" straight stick transmission, which has a faster low gear than a WD-45. 3500 lbs on up.
|
Posted By: DrAllis
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2016 at 10:18am
|
To clarify, a WC low gear is the fastest, WD straight stick is next (both of these were called 2 1/2 MPH @ 1300 and 1400 RPM's) and WD-45 is slowest at 2 1/3 MPH @ 1400 RPM. When you use 38 inch rubber, the difference is even greater between the 3 models, with the WD-45 still the slowest.
|
Posted By: KevinON
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2016 at 11:19am
What year did the WD go to the curve stick transmission? I have a 51 with a curve stick, but wasn't sure if the shifter had been swapped out.
Thanks.
|
Posted By: DrAllis
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2016 at 11:28am
|
Officially at chassis s/n 127,007 and up, is when the transmission design changed from sliding spur gear to constant mesh helical gear. Shift tower assemblies don't interchange between the two types of transmissions.
|
Posted By: KevinON
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2016 at 11:34am
Posted By: DrAllis
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2016 at 11:37am
|
S/N 127,007 translates in later 1952 I think.
|
Posted By: Robacpuller
Date Posted: 10 Aug 2016 at 9:41pm
|
Dr. I run a wc head but all ported and polished big valves. Would a 45 or d17 head do better cause it is taller. I would port it and put big valves in it.
|
Posted By: DrAllis
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2016 at 7:44am
|
I've always preferred the tall head because of the center-fire spark plug location. The porting/polishing on my two engines are very minimal, but I don't know why one couldn't replicate the same (or better) results that you have with the tall head versus the short head. I have one big valve head with 400 cubes and one stock valve head on 290 cubes.
|
Posted By: Robacpuller
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2016 at 5:26pm
|
Dr. My wc head has 1.92 big block Chevy intake and 1.62 exhaust. I did my own porting and polishing, KIETH Merfeld did my crank and he said he has never seen a small allis head opened that much he said my head is just fine. What horse is your 4oo cubes? We think it is around 110 hp. We hit 95 when drop box cracked, it was still pulling. I think if I did the same to a45 or d17 head I could get more
|
Posted By: Zaddison
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2016 at 6:09pm
|
Unless you have a flow bench I wouldnt waste your time. Without a flow bench you have no idea if you help or hurt yourself. If you do the same work to it its not going to make anymore hp just because it's a tall head. In my opinion it would not be worth the money or the time.
|
Posted By: DrAllis
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2016 at 6:49pm
|
20 or so years ago, I did two engines for two different people during the Winter months. Minnesota and Ohio were their destinations. Both were 362 cubes with identical parts and camshafts. One had stock valves and my usual minimal head work and the other already had big valves from a previous builder. Both had identical carbs. Both dynoed virtually the same HP. I always figured the small valve engine would lug down to the point where you could count the radiator fan blades go by and the big valve would have run better at 3,000 RPM. What did they dyno?? That's my little secret !!
|
Posted By: Robacpuller
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2016 at 7:43pm
|
The big valves should have a bigger carb. I will stick to my 110hp thinking. And if people ask I will say it has 226 cubes. Dr. U shouldn't keep ancient Chinese secret. Lol
|
Posted By: joetom08
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2016 at 8:42pm
|
People would ask me how many cubes or you running.. I'd just say "all of them!" I like to brag about it but I liked people guessing about it more lol I'd say the same for horsepower
|
|