Anyone put a 2 stage thrower on a Cub 149?

[jetwarog]

Ok this is the 3rd storm already this year where I had snow coming over my QA36 on a 149, and also, the narrow width means alot of passes. I have to ask the question if anyone has had luck installing a 2 stage unit. Rather than finding a QA42 inch (my father has one on his and it works well) I would rather consider a 2 stage like a 451? 551?. I know someone is going to say the 14hp won't be enough but realistically...the 2 stage has a high speed impellor throwing the snow and the slow speed auger feeding the snow. The QA36-42 must waste a lot of power churning that snow through the auger and throwing it. And even at that is works pretty darn good. Mine needs end bearings, guides, botting scraper, and I should go through the gearbox anyway. My main questions are;
1. Will any 2 stage models physically attach to the frame of a 149 (width, locking mechanism, and height?)
2. What drive pulley diameter was the closest fitting model meant to run with?
3. I like the idea of being a taller opening. I've had 6+ inches coming over the top already this year.
4. I don't think it will bog it down. If it does, I will just drive a little slower.

I do have machine shop/welding capability so at a minimum I'm expecting to have to move/alter the idler pulley locations. Lift arm is no problem I can make or modify one.

I need to get the drive speed right (somehow). I can maybe alter the pulley on the blower or I can make a pulley for the engine if I need to increase the blower speed. Alignment of the pulleys/belt will be a pain but I'm sure I can work it out. Anyone have any suggestions???

[Matt G.]

A 364 is probably your best bet if you can find one...it was meant for the 82 series and later tractors, but had an adaption package for the QL tractors. This means it would also work on the 149. The adaption package is probably going to be impossible to find, so you'd have to make whatever isn't there or is wrong. Since by 'machine shop' I'm assuming you mean mill and lathe at a minimum, that should be no problem for you.

The 450 and 451 would for sure physically fit. The 551 had some slight changes to account for the different height front axle of the later 'cyclops' series tractors and may not fit quite right on something earlier. The 450 would have the appropriate diameter pulley; all you would probably have to do is get a 1/2" pulley of the same diameter of the 5/8" one it is equipped with. The 451 has a different gear ratio and would require a smaller pulley to get the same speed, which will give you less than ideal belt wrap.

All of these are extremely heavy (my 364 that I linked to above is 300#), so you'll need to make sure your steering gear and related parts are in tip-top shape...you need all the help you can get.

Of the 364, 450, and 451, the 364 is the most robust design IMO. The 450 and 451 have rather complex drive and lift systems.

Another (probably much cheaper, but more time-intensive) option would be to find some random off-brand 2-stage and adapt it.

[ihnick]

i plan on doing this with my 1650. i think mines a 450 blower and it fits the frame

[R Bedell]

The QA36-42 must waste a lot of power churning that snow through the auger and throwing it.

Quite the contrary. a "snowblower" requires more HP to operate as opposed to a "snowthrower", disregarding the load for each.

You can also add extension(s) (sides & top) to your present piece of equipment as seen in this attachment to gain more cutting width

[jetwarog]

You're going to have to explain that one in a little more detail. The QA36 auger is moving awefully fast and as soon as it touches the snow is has to accelerate the snow across the whole width of the unit. That takes a lot of power. There is probably 15 pounds of snow flying around and around in there which also takes a lot of power to maintain. All that snow is centrifugally pushed against the housing until it reaches the shute. The 2 stage unit has a fairly slow moving auger that does not contain the snow; it rakes snow into the unit. The impeller accelerates the snow to the exit velocity at the chute. There is far less surface area in the impellor of a 2 stage unit than a single stage = less loss. If both units take in the same amount of snow and throw it the same distance, how is a single stage unit more efficient?

[TEET]

Originally Posted by jetwarog

You're going to have to explain that one in a little more detail. The QA36 auger is moving awefully fast and as soon as it touches the snow is has to accelerate the snow across the whole width of the unit. That takes a lot of power. There is probably 15 pounds of snow flying around and around in there which also takes a lot of power to maintain. All that snow is centrifugally pushed against the housing until it reaches the shute. The 2 stage unit has a fairly slow moving auger that does not contain the snow; it rakes snow into the unit. The impeller accelerates the snow to the exit velocity at the chute. There is far less surface area in the impellor of a 2 stage unit than a single stage = less loss. If both units take in the same amount of snow and throw it the same distance, how is a single stage unit more efficient?

I wont claim to be some mechanical engineer that measures the velocity of snow as its churning inside of a blower/thrower, lol....but, these 2 styles of equipment are almost like comparing apples to oranges. Sure the thrower requires the high speed of the auger to "throw" the snow, but I 'm pretty sure the gearing and ratios of the gearbox and sprockets allow for maximum efficiency while using the smallest amount of power. The same is said for blowers, as they in turn are operating 2 mechanisms compared to 1 on the thrower, the slow moving auger, and the impeller. It only makes sense that the hp required to operate these 2 very different pieces is very similar...not to mention the style of operating these 2 is very different as well...with a thrower you need just the right amount of speed to properly "feed" it..usually more than what is required to operate a blower..there are soooo many factors like condition of the blower/thrower, bearings, gearbox, condition of the belt(s), the PTO, engine speed, overall engine strength,is it worn out blowing smoke, or a fresh rebuild, hydro or gear drive..so many factors.

Ive used a qa42a on my tired and worn out 73 which has a stock, well worn and smoking 7hp engine, and I have cut through wet, heavy 12" of snow before..it takes practice to figure out how it works best, but it works very well for me. just my :biggrin2.gif:

Jeff (teet)

[R Bedell]

What I said is....

a "snowblower" requires more HP to operate as opposed to a "snowthrower", disregarding the load for each.

This was also stated in the IH Service Manual.... see... Comparison

[Matt G.]

If you disregard the load, what is the point of the comparison??

I believe the OP's point is that the 2-stage is going to require no more power than the single-stage. I have yet to use my 2-stage, but I'd say that's probably true. I can easily stall the engine on my 782 with my QA-36A in deep or wet snow. 'Less power required' is relative. The starting torque seems to be higher on the single-stage throwers than on the 2-stage blowers. This makes sense because the auger on a single stage has much more inertia than the the blower on the 2-stage.

I would say that the difference in power required for each is a wash without performing some sort of experiment to determine if there really is a difference. There are several ways that you could define efficiency for this, which could possibly result in different conclusions being reached as to which one is more efficient. To me, it would be the one that moves the largest mass of snow the fastest on the least amount of fuel.

[ihnick]

comparing my 1650 or 1450 with the qa42a and dads 2165 with a 2stage. its way easier to stall out the 1X50 with the single stage. and i know for a fact those old kohlers have more torque and power then the 16hp briggs vanguard vtwin. i think the 2 stages blow the snow out faster so they dont have as hard of a time keeping up. just my 2 cents

[R Bedell]

For the record, I do not own a "snowblower" nor have I operated one in the Cub Cadet sense.

The QA36-42 must waste a lot of power churning that snow through the auger and throwing it.

This comment was the area of my address.

The starting torque seems to be higher on the single-stage throwers than on the 2-stage blowers. This makes sense because the auger on a single stage has much more inertia than the the blower on the 2-stage.

I respectfully do NOT agree with this statement. I have looked into the typical Cub Cadet Snowblower, model 190-450-100 for example, and the Parts Diagram reveals this.

Gear Box #1


Gear Box #2


Thus, a snowblower has two (2) gear boxes to power up as oppose to a single gearbox on a snowthrower.

Now, before even one flake of snow hits the impeller of a snowblower, this has a additional load, in that in now has to churn air. I know, being a HVAC/R Tech, fan blades or wheels take power to run them. Pay attention the next time your furnace starts up and the ~1600 CFM blower powers up and the length of time it takes to come to full RPM.

So, a snowblower has...
Load #1 - Gear Box #1
Load #2 - Gear Box #2
Load #3 - Air Resistance

Now, for an accurate measurement of required power, one would have to have an exacting and metered power plant and then hook up both pieces of equipment for evaluation. Now, I will admit that I do not have such and I am willing to bet that Matt doesn't either.

Once this test is performed, then a Snow Load would have to be interjected for evaluation. This would be somewhat difficult to get both pieces of equipment with the same exact snow load (ie: mass, condition, type, compaction, rate of interjection, etc)

Thus, I am going to have to rely on the statements that the IH engineers made when I referenced it above.

Each type of snow removal equipment, has their pros and cons. One will have to decide for themselves, which best suits their needs.