My Tractor Forum banner
  • Are you passionate about Tractors? Would you like to write about topics that interest you and get paid for it? Read all about it here!
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I read a post today about the Cub Cadet 1000 and recall seeing an older Cub that an Uncle of mine had many moons ago when I was a boy - I don't recall the model of it.

I see a ton of post around the internet on the Hydro Cubs, but tell me about these gear drive Cub Cadets. Does one have an advantage over the other? Are parts available for the gear drive Cubs? Any weak link on the gear drives? What would have motivated someone back in the day to choose the gear over the hydro machines? What is the bad and ugly about these gear drive cub cadets?

I'm kind of interested in maybe making a project out of one.

Thanks!
Bill
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
588 Posts
I'm one who will take a manual transmission Cub Cadet over a hydro Cub Cadet anyday. The transmission slips when you pull a roller, moldboard plow or any other ground engaging attachment. With a manual trans Cub you let the clutch out and wheel speed is constant.....unlike a hydro Cub you need to move the direction lever some to keep a steady speed. Hydros need 2-3 horse power to run the pump.

Next reason is cost. Manual trans Cubs cost less when they were new compaired to the hydro version. The maintance is less on a manual trans Cub. Hydro Cubs need the hydraulic filter change once in a while. Cub Cadet filters cost $12-$14 plus Hy-Tran oil to replace what you loose when you change the filter. A 5 gallon pail of Hy-Tran cost $95 to $100. I buy Hy-Tran by the 5 gallon pail.

Manual transmission are easy and cheap to fix. I just finish rebuilding the trans/rear end on my IH Cub Cadet 800. I had to replace 2 gears because there were teeth missing. Shifter and a shifter fork were broke at one time causing the trans to get stuck in 2 gears. Total cost to rebuild trans was $95...that includes gaskets, oil and gears.

I never worked on a hydro pump. I do know everything needs to be clean and spotless when they go back together. Getting the shifter linkage set can be a pain and costly if you need parts.

A Hydro are faster pushing snow. I use a manual trans off topic tractor with a snow thrower when the snow gets too deep for a blade. I use my IH Cub Cadet 149 with a blade to push snow.

My off topic tractor was purchase new in Jan. of 1996. It has a manual trans. This is my main mowing tractor.

The manual trans used in a Farmall Cub tractor is the same trans used in a IH Cub Cadet. The majority of the garden tractor pullers use the old tried and true IH Cub Cadet trans with a few modifications done to them.

It boils down to what you are use to....I've been pushing a clutch pedal 48-49 years. I like the direct connection/feel a manual trans gives. I'll take a manual trans automabile over an automatic trans anyday.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
I have a 1966 model 122 with creeper gear and a 1968 model 125. Both have freshly rebuilt engines.

Personally, I like the hydro 125 much better because I can adjust the speed to exactly what I need. This holds true whether mowing, throwing snow or tilling.

As you can see, Merk and I are on opposite sides of the fence on this. For our own applications, we're both right in our opinions. :trink39:
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
17,717 Posts
I'm one who will take a manual transmission Cub Cadet over a hydro Cub Cadet anyday.
:ditto:
Parts are very available for the Gear driven Cub Cadets and a Good Place to start for Parts Or even getting You hands on a Old Gear driven is Here http://www.mytractorforum.com/showthread.php?t=172824
and Here are a few Gear driven Cub Cadets that I own
Model 70 Made 1963 to 1965

Model 106 Made 1969 to 1971
:thThumbsU
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,272 Posts
I agree with Merk when it comes to automobiles, but when it comes to tractors, I'm a hydro guy. I'd owned several gear drive units, and when I finally went hydro it was a breath of fresh air, especially for mowing. It really makes mowing pleasant, being able to infinitely match your speed to your terrain. Both the hydro and gear drive Cubs are nigh-upon bulletproof in the garden tractor application. You really can't go wrong with either. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
I love my hydros. and they are both shaft drive.They crawl around nice on hills. I have three hydros,and one gear. Two are shaft and one is belt driven.The other is gear.I would take the shaft drive anyday.
:thThumbsU
 

·
Deceased as of 06 February 2021
Joined
·
2,076 Posts
The shaft-driven hydros in the cubs are tough units which require very little maintenance. If you were to compare a belt-driven hydro to these, I'd rather go with the gears. Gears are tough, but your wear factor is the clutch......be prepared to replace one now and then.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
452 Posts
I have only owned one gear driven cub(126) and several hydros. My main complaint with the gear drive is that they are much slower than a hydro.
As for operations that require alot of moving forward and reverse, such as plowing snow where you have to lift and lower the blade, a hydro makes it easier since you aren't having to engage the clutch and shift gears. Also the hydros are easier to adapt to hydraulic lift than gear drives if they don't already have it. Hydraulic lift set ups for the gear drive cubs are expensive. hydros like the 149, 169, 1450, & 1650 came standard with hydraulic lift. you may think that isn't an issue... until you lift a tiller or a snow blower manually all day.
As for the gear drives, I'll take one for plowing any day.
As you can tell, there are things that are better suited for a gear drive than a hydro and vise-versa. then you throw in your personal preference, and then you got a real horse race.
One thing I know for certain... if it is a IH built Cub I love it no matter what makes it go.
 

·
Murray tractor owner
Joined
·
2,672 Posts
My main complaint with the gear drive is that they are much slower than a hydro.
As for operations that require alot of moving forward and reverse, such as plowing snow where you have to lift and lower the blade.
I disagree, I can shift almost as fast as a hydro with my 72.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
522 Posts
if I am tilling I prefer a manual gear drive. If I am mowing or plowing (snow) I prefer a hydro. I suppose I prefer both.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
452 Posts
Mtd,
I think you missed my point.
My Hydros will run faster than my 126 would in high gear. In some applications this isn't an issue. But when you are pulling a cart and want to get to point B from point A in the quickest amount of time, the 126 would seem to just crawl .
As for the snow plowing, you just have alot more things to push, move, depress and to engage to move back and forth and raise the blade up and down with a gear drive than on a hydro. And more likely than not, with a gear drive you'll be doing it with Arm power rather than hydraulic power.
As you said: You could shift "almost" as fast as a hydro.

Just my 2 cents
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
452 Posts
Quickrch,
I have been contemplating on getting a gear drive 1200, or a 128 for use with my tiller. Do you use a creeper or just till in 1st gear?
Just curious. I kind of want to keep the tiller mounted on a dedicated tractor just for that application. Do you have a spring assist to help lift the tiller? I would think that the tiller hanging off the back end would be pretty hard to lift.
I have heard so many different preferences for which tractor to use for tilling and it seems that just like this thread it can go either way, according to who you ask.
 

·
Deceased as of 06 February 2021
Joined
·
2,076 Posts
Another consideration is that foot-operated hydros free up your hands. That's particularly nice for me when mowing and a tree branch gets in my face. Also handy for holding on when riding the fender on the bad slopes!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,939 Posts
I think a lot of the difference in opinion of hydro vs gear results from the terrain where you operate the machine.

Some people say a hydro holds speed. I offered to buy a brand new JD 420 from the local dealer if the tractor could go down my lawn and back up 1 time without touching the hydro lever.

The dealer tried it, on one of the less steep areas with a brand new machine. He went down, turned around, started up and the tractor stopped.

Well, when the tractor failed, he said it must need adjustment.

After adjustment the tractor failed again.

He said he had never noticed that before. That is what hydros do.

I just do not like constantly moving the hydro lever to select the ground speed for some things. Constantly selecting the speed is great for pulling a cart.

I mow with a Gravely, that is the best of both worlds for mowing on hills.

Land vehicle Vehicle Tractor Mode of transport Agricultural machinery


I never pull with the Gravely, the 1872 hydro is better at that.

For "feeling" my way along grading or pushing a blade, the QL1000 is entertaining.

If I lived on flat ground, I probably would only have the 1872 for all jobs.
 

·
Deceased as of 06 February 2021
Joined
·
2,076 Posts
I had the hand manuevered hydro lever on my 105. It held well, but it still sucked. Give me the foot control any day of the week......especially Sunday!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
I agree with cadplans %100.

I mow with a gear drive (1806). I have mowed with others,1210,1211,1811,1861, but I cannot stand always fidgeting with the hydro lever. I put my 1806 in second gear and go. Nothing to worry about, keeps the same speed no matter what. Plus it is simple. Nothing to go wrong with it.

I do however plow snow with the 1211. I have plowed snow with the 1806 and the constant shifting doing 5-6 driveways was a pain. The hydro lift on the 1211 is nice. Being able to used the hydro lever to adjust your speed is a lot nicer then having to feather the clutch. The gear drives will spin the wheels a lot more when plowing snow also. The hydro's will (bog) down a little before they spin, where as the gear drives won't.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
522 Posts
Quickrch,
I have been contemplating on getting a gear drive 1200, or a 128 for use with my tiller. Do you use a creeper or just till in 1st gear?
Just curious. I kind of want to keep the tiller mounted on a dedicated tractor just for that application. Do you have a spring assist to help lift the tiller? I would think that the tiller hanging off the back end would be pretty hard to lift.
I have heard so many different preferences for which tractor to use for tilling and it seems that just like this thread it can go either way, according to who you ask.
If I am doing heavy duty tilling (new ground or deepest setting) I use the creeper gear and the variator on the slowest (highest torque) setting. If I am doing shallow tilling at the start of the season I'll do one gear higher on the slowest setting. I actually got the JD because I could get the tiller, plow, and deck. I would have been just as happy if not happier with a late 70's model CC. It is just what was available in my area at the time.

Oh, and in my opinion a gear tractor is better for a novice driver to learn on. Most new drivers get the gears and it lets them focus on steering while speed is constant. Just my opinion but I would say gear drive is better for new drivers if you have kids/teenagers driving them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
678 Posts
I became a fan of the gear drives, and Cubs in general, when I went to my first garden tractor pulling competition. The gear driven Cubs with that automotive type clutch and rear end are unsurpassed as far as pulling heavy loads. But for mowing grass and trimming around landscaped beds where speed control is essential, a hydrostatic drive is much better IMHO.

And, to take it one step further, a foot controlled hydrostatic is far superior to the hand controlled hydro on the older Cubs. I boast that I can out-cut any other garden tractor with my foot controlled green machine.

Weaverama
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top