Joe's 252 Colt Trail Machine "Gadget"

[JoeMeg]

"Well, it's a six chain frame converted over to a four chain"

Mike,how would we know this?

Joe.

[hydromike]

The six chain frames originally had the round 1" cross tubes in the back, and sprocket chain idlers for the front two chains. Attex retrofitted the six chain frames with the "pull back" chain adjusters for the back two chains by attaching them to the back cross tube with the apparatus you see in the picture you took. Later frames that were designed from the beginning to be four-chain machines had a square cross-tube and the chain adjusters bolted right through that cross-bar with a half inch bolt. Additionally, the later four chain machines had a polyethylene chain slider to take up slack on the front two chains. I haven't taken a good look at Gizmo's guts, but I'm imagining that he's (he IS a him, right? ) running the later style frame and adjusters.

::EDIT:: I should probably qualify this, since I'm sort of rambling with no substantial data to back me up. I've seen several frames that seem to have been designed to either run the four chain or six chain setup. I shouldn't say that one's been "converted". It's quite possible that Attex fully intended on running both the four and six chain design at the same time. I always figured that since the later machines were four chain units that it was a natural, intended progression in the design. They're both great designs, but the four chain setup is a LOT easier to keep chains adjusted in my opinion.

[jpswift1]

Yup, just like at least one of Joe's Colts....

Well, it's a six chain frame converted over to a four chain.

Nope, it was actually a true 4 chain frame in the ST/295 body. A 4 chain frame just like one out of a Wild Wolf, Chief, or Superchief. Here's the frame:



Now here's a Colt frame from another machine and I think these pics in my gallery. I think these will help explain what Mike is saying.

[JoeMeg]

Thanks Mike,that's some neat history.Gizmo's frame has the square tubes with the bolt thru them.and the front sliders about mid way on the bottom of the loop.Initially thought these would wear quickly but they are doing well.The numbers on the frame are 73 J 015989,I think it's a '73.When I began disassembling the first Colt I really noticed the rear adjusters and wondered why so much hardware.
Jeff,thanks for the pics.Think the second one answers a question I would have posted sooner or later.That is,do the chains go over or under the sprocket type front adjusters.Looks like under,correct?
Oh,and since Giz will most likely never be an object of speed,beauty or grace that say's he's a him,right?

1973 frame.Rear adjusters.Square cross tube with 1/2" bolt thru it.


1973 frame.Front adjusters.The slider type on the bottom of the loop.



Joe.

[jpswift1]

Joe, the chains should go under the front idler sprockets......the idler sprockets should be pushing down on chains to keep the proper tension on them.

[JoeMeg]

Thanks for confirming that,Jeff. Going back to Giz for a minute,I believe we id'd the frame as being a 1973 from the s/n beginning w/ 73? I do recall Merl telling me the frame was from one mach,the upper and lower body from another and the engine cover from yet another,that's why it's a Gizmo!lol. Back to the Colts,would the s/n's on the frame be in the same location (top of rt rear corner)? Also, on a six chain did the middle sprocket tube have 3 sprockets on it? That is how my Hustler is set up.

Joe.

[hydromike]

Usually, the actual year the frame was made is stamped in a larger font, and only the last two digits of the year. On most of the machines I've seen, it's at the end of the string of numbers showing the "serial number" (which, doesn't really mean a whole lot). The Colt numbers would be stamped in the same place. I've seen '71, '72, '73 (and so on) all stamped in the same location. You're right on the sprockets. Three sprockets on the middle axle for six chain setups.

The frame I got from Merl had the number stamping location wiped out by a nasty (and by the looks of it, peristent) axle catastrophy. I had to graft on another chunk of frame from a whole 'nother machine. How's that for Gizmo'd?

[JoeMeg]

That's some clever gizmo'in Mike,lol. Yes the first 2 digits on Giz's frame (73) are in a larger font. I'll try looking at the 252 frames to see if I can read the numbers on them.

Joe.

[JoeMeg]

Brought the "MI" 252 home Sat, 11-24-12. As of yesterday,the only thing left is to lift the frame out of the tub.Next I will pressure wash the body and begin repairing a few area's with minor damage using some glass cloth and ABS goo. I didn't take any pic's during the process,it looked exactly like it's twin that I just finished disassembling,lol.This will be my second build.I still lost as to what specific reassembly sequence to follow so, I'm just going to plug away at it trying to keep in mind things I did 2,3,4,etc,times over when building Gizmo and at least try to keep that stuff to a minimum.Disassembly was neat,had to destroy outer brg/cut axle on ten of the twelve positions(each mach was completly missing one axle ,lol) everything else cooperated well,honestly,don't remember cursing even once,lol.

Joe.

[JoeMeg]

Another 50 deg Cleveland weekend . Have a jar of ABS goo brewing. Pulled the frame then put the tub,eng cover and floor pan up front to pressure wash



This stuff is "fired" on. It will take chipping it off with a scraper,the pressure waser didn't phase it at all



However,it did well on the outside of the unit



I'm gonna need a lot of practice with this "buffing/shining" process



This will be the new power plant. 18hp should do nicely. I'm using the same engine cover/seat as Gizmo has. For this reason I'm becoming a little more "familiar" with the available space. I vision this one being all "inside" with nothing portruding up thru or out of the engine cover. Sort of a "sleeper" look with a nice big,quiet 18 horse engine hidden inside.



Not really "build specific" but interesting none the less,here are the two 1972 T-20's with the brake disc attachments on the right output shafts

[thebuggyman1]

Joe: crack open that Michigan one. I want to know if it was a good one or not.

[JoeMeg]

Hey Jim, I planed on going through both of them(as soon as it gets really cold around here,shhhh ) and since you asked I'll do the MI. unit first. But,hopefully it'll be a few more weeks yet

Joe.

[JoeMeg]

Need some help/open for suggestions.Going on the fact that both 252 Colt's have holes rubbed thru the side of the tub by the primary clutches,I'm guessing something like a Comet 94C Duster is not going to fit in there very well? What about a Comet 780? Or does anyone have the "magic" unit for this application tried and proven? Thanks,

Joe.

[hydromike]

Hey Joe,

The 780, the duster, heck, even a 102c will fit in that body with no issue given the correct belt length. There are a number of reasons that the clutch could have rubbed against the body, but the first I'm guessing is that someone tried to overadjust for the wrong size, or over stretched belt. Keeping the centerline of the T-20 the same on the machine, almost any clutch option should work OK for you. Some might be tighter than others, but I've run each of those clutches (at least for a little while) on second/third gen bodies. I run the big Comet on the 8x8, and even it fits.

[JoeMeg]

Thanks Mike! Those are certainly words of encouragement. I shall begin the search for a new primary clutch soon. I bought one of the "Tomahawk" driven units from Don. That is what I plan on using for a secondary.

Joe.