MCCULLOCH The official McCulloch thread

[PogoInTheWoods]

The flywheel bearing uses the clip on both styles. The groove locates the crank in the same spot with either bearing. The seal is press fit either in the crankcase bore or the extended race inner bore. Depending on the bearing/seal style used. The pto bearing and seal in the 54cc engines is just sandwiched by press fit in the crankcase bore. On the 57cc and up saws the pto bearing and seal is pressed into a sleeve that is sandwiched into the crankcase. The early sleeve uses a ring like the flywheel bearing to key it. The later uses a pin in the oil tank half and a hole in the bearing sleeve to key it.

Are you sure about that? LOL

The bearings from 54cc all the way up to 82cc are the same

This is still an inaccurate and misleading statement any way you want to spin it, but good on you for the detailed follow-up clarification. Why search for a 63429 and seal thinking that's what you need if an easier to find (and probably much less expensive) 67905 and seal will work just fine?

Interchangeable, yes. The same, no.

​

Photo courtesy of Mark from a similar AS discussion. I believe he also may have posted it here recently.

​

 

[Al Smith]

I'll say it again .I've never had a failed bearing on a 10 series saw and very few seals leak .That's from right hand start early 10-10's up to 850's .Why I have no idea because some were very well used certainly not pristine shelf queens .Could it be the mix oil ratios or maybe just blind luck ?

 

[Al Smith]

I might add on the subject of getting more go on a ten series . If you can find the muffler with a curvature on the bottom that exits straight out with no blunt end 90 degree upturn it will improve them a lot .Those contraptions used on the later version had too much restriction .If it can't get out it can't get in ,just the way it works . With no baffles they do get loud but it wakes them up .

 

[Steve]

Are you sure about that? LOL



This is still an inaccurate and misleading statement any way you want to spin it, but good on you for the detailed follow-up clarification. Why search for a 63429 and seal thinking that's what you need if an easier to find (and probably much less expensive) 67905 and seal will work just fine?

Interchangeable, yes. The same, no.

​

Photo courtesy of Mark from a similar AS discussion. I believe he also may have posted it here recently.

View attachment 303748​

It seems I am of no help and will mislead future generations of McCulloch collectors and enthusiast with my extensive experience on the 10 series saws. Only seen damn near every single bearing, seal, piston, ring, cylinder and crankshaft combination. I have pieced together many saws from piles of mis- matched parts to have good running saw only to see if it works. Have helped many people get their saws going when they could not find the "correct" parts by giving them inaccurate information. So to prevent myself from harming others with my extensive experience, I'm out.

 

[Maintenance Chief]

I'll say it again .I've never had a failed bearing on a 10 series saw and very few seals leak .That's from right hand start early 10-10's up to 850's .Why I have no idea because some were very well used certainly not pristine shelf queens .Could it be the mix oil ratios or maybe just blind luck ?

Yeah I've only seen a bearing failure due to rust from the crankcase being full of water, other then that I've never seen a bad one from use.

 

[Maintenance Chief]

Are you sure about that? LOL



This is still an inaccurate and misleading statement any way you want to spin it, but good on you for the detailed follow-up clarification. Why search for a 63429 and seal thinking that's what you need if an easier to find (and probably much less expensive) 67905 and seal will work just fine?

Interchangeable, yes. The same, no.

​

Photo courtesy of Mark from a similar AS discussion. I believe he also may have posted it here recently.

View attachment 303748​

Jesus,!, Poge can you stop running professionals off!!! Haha

 

[PogoInTheWoods]

Funny how some folks react to a bit of correction and a little ribbing even after receiving credit for their clarification.

Get over it and be a big boy, Steve. You sound like Brad Snelling at the height of his thin-skinned baby days over on AS.

If you don't like being corrected, be correct.

 

[heimannm]

I believe the actual rolling elements (balls) in the flywheel side bearings are the same, just that the 63429 has the wider outer race for the seal. The seal to go with 63429 is easy to find, the seal to go with 67905 (67906) is a rare breed.

I am in agreement with Steve, I've found the 67905/67906 combination used as OEM bits in PM850's and PM800's as well as most of the 10-10 models regardless of what the IPL's call for. I have no idea why McCulloch would have been using two different parts in the same application and using them interchangeably unless there was a problem with the supply of one piece or another.

The only thing that may be reasonable is the wide outer race of 63429 would distribute the load of the bearing over a wider area and so may be less likely to wallow out the bearing bore is a similar fashion to how the sleeve on the PTO side spreads the load over a wider area.

Mark

 

[Al Smith]

You'd be surprised what is available to say adapt bearings substituting others because of rarity .I've got the books from Bearings Inc that are nearly as thick as a dealers book of Stihl chainsaws which must weigh 15 pounds in total .This stuff is out there but the hunt might take a long time to find it .Then again if it were easy anybody could do it .Welcome to the world of restoration .

 

[Al Smith]

If you cut to the chase on so called "correctness " it doesn't make any difference as long as it works .It might be a 1937 Rolls Royce but it's not ,it's a chainsaw .I don't care what it is ,old bulldozer, chainsaw or Singer sewing machine there are always alternative methods .You are only limited by creativity and imagination .In other words there are nearly unlimited methods to skin the same cat certainly nothing to get hurt butt over .

 

[PogoInTheWoods]

I'm gonna try this one more time and then move on...

So an inexperienced guy tears down his first 10 series saw to find a trashed flywheel side 63429/61618 mess. He reads a post on an internet forum saying all 10 series bearings are the same and sets out to find the very allusive combination required to rebuild his saw according to the bearing he found in the saw and a statement in an internet forum claiming all 10 series bearings are the same. He comes up empty in his search for a bearing and seal to match what he found in his saw.

Frustrated and disillusioned, he tosses the box of parts into the corner next to a box of McBrick parts -- which has a different bearing that will also accommodate the application given the correct seal. But according to information he obtained from an internet expert, he has no idea it is interchangeable with the one he needs to replace because it is not the same as the original one. Functionally equivalent, yes. The same, no. It uses a different seal. (With any luck, he eventually finds this thread.)

That's the freekin' point.

Interchangeability of the two distinctly different bearings was never in dispute.

And no matter how one attempts to justify the original statement, it is still misleading any way you want to spin it. (A bit of bearing humor there for those finding this little pissing contest amusing.)

And since sides now seem to be taken in the discussion, let me be the first combatant to apologize for confusing anyone with the facts. I'll simply close this out with the following...

If you need a flywheel side bearing for a 10 series saw, there were two types used. One is commonly available and was more widely used than the other. If you have the less common bearing, they are interchangeable (given the correct seal) as has been discussed multiple times in many forums over the years.

As you were, ladies and gentlemen.




.

 

[Sagebrush33]

I got no dog in this, 'cept I think I can piss the furthest.

 

[Al Smith]

On the discussion if you have the big book of IPL's there are multiple parts lists covering several examples including the engines used for a number of things .Just like West Bend and Power Products McCulloch engines found there way onto machinery Mac never made themselves .So in theory if you could read the bearing number that parts list should list the proper seal that goes with it .As for me I seldom try to track down a seal using Mac numbers except to cross reference to CR seals .On that usually I find them on Flea Bay reasonably priced .Some E-Bay sellers think because they have NOS parts think they can get a kings ransom for them .Some will pay it, I won't .

 

[Maintenance Chief]

What he said ۩

67905 is the same bearing uses on the 600 Series saws and most of the 10-10 models. 63429 has the wider outer race that the seal presses in to.

Mark

What pto seal do I want to use in my ProMac 55 ? Is there an aftermarket one you find better then others?

 

[fossil]

@Maintenance Chief

The PTO seal is the same for all of 1o series saws. Your PM55 takes,

New seals would be either SKF CR6119, SKF CR6120 or National Timken 253747.

 

[fossil]

Can anyone tell me if the spike for a CP125 will fit on a 797?

Thanks.

 

[jacob j.]

Can anyone tell me if the spike for a CP125 will fit on a 797?

Thanks.

Yessir. The dawg mounts for all of the large-frame Macs are pretty much the same, except for some of the earliest saws.

 

[fossil]

Yessir. The dawg mounts for all of the large-frame Macs are pretty much the same, except for some of the earliest saws.

Thanks Jacob!

 

[heimannm]

6119 is a double lip, 6120 is a single lip, I like to use 6119.

Mark

 

[heimannm]

The Super 797 belongs to a local fellow. Carburetor kit and a new carburetor gasket turned it back into a runner, replacing the 1-7X oil tank with one from a 700 saw provided automatic oiling again.

The SP125 is mine now, but will need a lot of work to make it into a proper runner again.

The CP125 is a saw I put together from a tote full of parts from Sawfun. It would not run properly when I took it to Oregon and today I decided to try resolve the issue. I found the intake boot was not properly fit over the intake on the saw which was a relatively easy repair. Now starts, runs, and cuts as it should. I will give it some regular exercise until I take it back to Oregon next year unless someone offers me $2,500 for it in which case I will split the cash with Don.

The S797 has been repainted so don't get too excited.







Mark