No, that is not correct, at least not in the 50s. The first post war light duty IHCs used a Dana 44 frontend, and I believe the Napco Studebakers used them as well. It is true that the M-series Studebakers used a Timken rearend. I plan to call the fellow that spoke for my axle soon. I will give him a time frame, then I will offer it to you. I'm in sw Oregon.


You can see the 44 in this picture of a restored .5 ton Studebaker chassis.

http://napco4x4.flux.com/Photo/stude...45000101D58C45

Makes one almost salivate.

 

I've spent the last hour or more Googling to see if anybody else used the B 150 Timken. No luck. The bigger IHC 4x4 models (i.e. the 140/160 series) appear to have used Eatons.

Be alert to axle ratio compatability A 150 to B 150. The B 150 might be a 5.38. Stu

 

the more I learn ..the less I know...more misinformation...well at least I can stop looking at studabakers ...and then I see a 6 bolt wheel and start wondering again...about napco..and parts...one fellow I have talked to here on the island seemed pretty sure he can find most anything I need ..it's amazing what a little phone call can do for your outlook ..new fuel line is in place tomorrow fresh gas and see if the fuel gauge works..

 

IHC used Eatons pre-war in their tonners, even. No IHC, to my knowledge, used a Timken, and by the early fifties, when the B150 Timken came out, I think Studebaker had gone to Dana. The chassis I pictured is from late 50s, I believe.

Edit, from admittedly shadowy copies of shadowy photos, I think the first M-1-4 (maybe M-2-4 as well) IHC WW2 4wds used a Timken frontend. If so, I'm almost positive it would have been a full-floater, not a semi-floater like the Timkens used by M-H.

 

A thought, it has been over a month since the fellow was supposed to send money for my axle. I am going to call soon. If that deal falls through and Ken is interested, what would be the harm in finding an F250 rearend so the ratios would match? I know it wouldn't be 100% correct, but visually it would be very close, and only to a knowledgeable eye. The higher ratio would make it a little more highway friendly. I just realized the lug pattern wouldn't match- unless here found spacers.

Might all be a mute point if the shaft is a direct replacement for his.

 

Agree that a 4.86 in a A150 would be a lot more driveable. The stock F-250 rear hubs would be an issue, though, like you said. Looking through the Chassis Manual, the A150 options were 4.86 and 5.83 (not 5.38, sorry). The B150 options were 5.13 and 5.83. Seems MH would logically have geared their products to the lowest gearing option, so are you sure yours is a 4.86? If not, and if Ken's too was geared to the lower optional ratio, it might be a direct bolt in. Stu

 

Yes, it is the 4.86 (rounded) ratio. The original Detroit/Timken aluminum tag with name, model, and ratio is still rivited on the housing.

Again, could be that the shaft itself may work in the B series frontend. That would eliminate much hastle!!

 

Got the manual in the mail yesterday. A LOT of good info. It lists both front axles. The 5 lug Timken 51524 is MH #M254-1475 and the 6 lug Timken A150 axle is #M254-1301. Both have 4.86 gears, the only option listed. The A150 axle must have a wider track because, as I saw on the F-250 MH I parted out, MH installed 5/8" wide spacers on each side of the 5 lug axle to widen the track for the '53 chassis.

I'll be standing at the copier at Staples today for a while. I know that Dave and Ken want copies. If there are other F-250 MH owners out there I'm not thinking of please speak up if you want a copy. Stu