IH Cab Cadet vs. Wheel Horse

[Fordiesel69 271]

Lets use the very early 80's for example.  A 12 HP cab cadet, shaft drive, would this type of tractor had any benefits over a wheel horse?  I only owned one, and it was for a very short time.  It seemed like twice the machine of the horse, but was a nightmare to work any any little thing.  A deck belt change would be a 2 hr job. 

 

What are your opinions? 

[Dieselcowboy 211]

I do not see any. Like you said everything is a nightmare. Horses are easy to tame and ride.

[baerpath 517]

What do you mean twice the machine ? Just in the bulkyness sure, ability to get the work done I don't see that they were any better and the Horses are a lot easier to work with or on

[leeave96 495]

I've got 3 IHCC's and a parts tractor, along with my Wheelhorse tractors and a Simplicity Sovereign.  Without a doubt, the IHCC's are very heavy built.  Are they twice the machine - no.  I don't think there is anything a Cub Cadet can do that a Wheelhorse can't do.  The pre-QL IHCC's are the simpliest IMHO.  Once they added isolators and side panels to the Quiteline series and the twin cylinder engines to the later 82 series, things got more complicated in the engine compartment.

 

That being said, IMHO, all old iron tractors are good!

 

Thanks!

Bill

 

[diesel cowboy 263]

There real easy to work on.  An early 80's Cadet 12 horse would be a 1282 or a 1210 and I can do a complete service including points, condenser, oil, air filter and hydro filter plus pull the deck to clean and sharpen the blades in about 40 min.  The last time I serviced a Horse it took me almost 2 hours as I had a hard time getting at the points to change them and the drain tube for the oil was plugged with crud.   Its been my experience with both that the Cadets seem to do better with the attachments that I have used.  I've used mowers, snow plows, and snowblowers for both.  I can switch attachments on the Cadet from mower to blower or plow in about 5-6 min.  The 2 Horses I have are just a nightmare to change over taking me about 15-20 each and that doesnt include putting on the weights or chains on anything either.  I dont really care for the decks riding on the ground as it seems to scalp more in some places and the plow likes to ride up over the snow if its wet, and the snow blower I used for 10 min in one storm and then got the shovel out to finnish as it just didnt seem to work at all.  The horses have the advantage of being lighter so I can get into some places at home that stay wet most of the year and not sink in like a Cadet will but for all the work I do up and down hills and pulling heavy loads I prefer the Cadet because it has no belt to slip or break causing a runaway down the hill.       Stewart

[puddlejumper 67]

I have a 1200 cub that the boys worked hard for 3 years its a tough machine. Strictly due to weight I think it will out pull the horse If both are stock, weight them the same flip a coin. I do like being able to carry the deck on the cub, But when it comes to changing attachments,working them, and working on the machines themselves Horse wins hands down.Especially when something does go wrong on the cub driveline,spend a half a day and break out the checkbook.

[sscotsman 194]

When you get into Cub Cadet Versus Wheelhorse, you are talking about two of the top-brands of Garden Tractors ever..

(if you take modern MTD Cubs out of the equation..most of which are but a shadow of their former selves..)

 

But for the "classic" years..1960's, 70's and 80's, IMO the two brands are pretty much equal in quality..

there are no specific things that makes one brand overall "better" than the other..

 

Its basically a "Ford vs.Chevy" thing..some people prefer one over the other,

but a 1960's Mustang is the equal of a 1960's Camaro, generally speaking..

when comparing similar models and specs..same with Cub Cadet and Wheel Horse I would say..

 

Scot

[Agage1 83]

I own several cubs in addition to quite a few wheel horses. For me, the wheel horse attachments are easier to put on and take off and they seem to be more common in my area. I don't think there is one thing a cub can do that a horse can't. Between my 10 hp cub 104 and my 10 hp wheel horse 1054 I'll take the horse. That is my favorite work tractor and seems to out perform the cub in plowing duties.

 

[Tankman 3,525]

I have owned both CC's and WH's.

The Stallions are much easier to work on, a breeze.

Sold both CC's, too much time fixin' "stuff." Much quicker and straight forward thinking when repairing my Horses.

My vote ~ Wheel Horse.

PS. All my Horses were older models. Lately, I find myself really enjoying the sound and power of my latest acquisition, a '90 520-8 (Onan).

[Challenger 27]

When you get into Cub Cadet Versus Wheelhorse, you are talking about two of the top-brands of Garden Tractors ever..

(if you take modern MTD Cubs out of the equation..most of which are but a shadow of their former selves..)

 

But for the "classic" years..1960's, 70's and 80's, IMO the two brands are pretty much equal in quality..

there are no specific things that makes one brand overall "better" than the other..

 

Its basically a "Ford vs.Chevy" thing..some people prefer one over the other,

but a 1960's Mustang is the equal of a 1960's Camaro, generally speaking..

when comparing similar models and specs..same with Cub Cadet and Wheel Horse I would say..

 

Scot

The fact that Wheel Horse chose to build HIGH QUALITY tractors for a much longer time frame than Cub Cadet is a testament to the integrity of the Wheel Horse brand.

 

In other words, you could buy an exceptionally well-engineered Wheel Horse long after a high quality Cub Cadet had become a memory.

[leeave96 495]

Just a few other observations on the Cub vs Deere as I look at my tractors - IHCC models from 1975 and earlier:

 

PTO - Wheelhorse is much easier and simpler to service/rebuild

 

Subframes - Wheelhorse doesn't have them.  You need specific subframes for the IHCC's depending on the year make of the tractor and deck type.  IHCC's had wide and narrow frame tractors and this subframe would be different between them.  So I've got several deck sizes and both WF and NF tractors and front blades - so I have to have various subframes to keep around to attach these implements.  Wheelhorse - no subframes, the attachment mechanism is integral to the implement, i.e. deck and front blade.  I've bought decks from 1975 to 2005, front blades, grader blades, etc.  They all fit every Wheelhorse regardless of year from at least 1975 to the end of production. The only advantage I can see of the subframes for Cub is that they divide the weight of the attachment - so a 48 inch Cub deck is easier for me to handle as it is two assemblies, where the Wheelhorse is one assembly.  Once the subframe is in place, IMHO, the Cub deck is easier to attach.

 

Quality of cut - Without a doubt, the ground supported Wheelhorse decks are better.  My Cubs give a great cut, but my yard is lumpy and has some slope.  The Cub deck hangs from the tractor and can't react to the ground profile and sometimes will not give a good cut from side to side or will scalp rather than ride over the hump like a Wheelhorse deck.  This ground support is what made Simplicity known for their quality of cut and really the only difference between the WH and Simplicity is the Simplicity has rollers vs two wheels across the back of the deck - so with the Simplicity deck, you get striping out of the box.

 

Clevis/Sleeve hitch:  I can't say one is stronger than the other, but I think the IHCC gives greater ground clearance when a moldboard plow is lifted.

 

Implement lift:  Wheelhorse has a lift that uses a chain between the lift rocker arm and the deck or a cable between the rear sleeve/clevis hitch.  On the Cub, this is a solid linkage.  Cubs have a button on the lift handle to allow for floating, but it is a pain to use IMHO.  Not sure how the hydro's float an implement - yet.

 

Belt vs shaft - even the IHCC's have the famed "shaft" drive and we hear all kinds of "won't slip like a belt" all day long, fact is, I have never known the belt on my Wheehorse slipping - ever!  At each end of the mighty IHCC's drive shaft is a small roll pin.  If they shear, they can be a pain to fix - but not like working on a modern day car.  Without a doubt, servicing or replacing a belt on the Wheelhorse is many times simpler than a drive shaft on a Cub.

 

Gear drive tranny - IHCC's gear drive tranny might be stronger, but you'd never be able to find out as in normal (and most extreme) cases, the wheels would spin on either a Cub or Wheelhorse before you'd do any damage.

 

Engine removal - very easy with both.  Not required on the Wheelhorse to replace the clutch or replace the drive belt.  On a Cub, you have to at least (IMHO) unbolt the engine and move it forward to get the clutch out for repair.

 

I'll think of more later as I've been up to my ears in IHCC's over the past few years.  I enjoy ALL of these old iron tractors and wouldn't discourage anyone from owning or not owning either Wheelhorse or IHCC's based on my comments.  Sometimes though, various brands owners/loyalists can get wrapped around the axle on their tractor brand/model and assert it is the "best" or more "heavy duty" or whatever else.  Doesn't really matter to me - what I enjoy is tinkering with the tractors.  For my go to tractors - I want simple and heavy duty.  Wheelhorse fits that bill - as do my earlier model IHCC's.  But if I had to thin the herd, it's likely the Wheelhorse's would be the last to go.

 

Thanks!

Bill

[Fordiesel69 271]

Very interesting read.  Pretty much summed up all my questions.

[papaglide 542]

I know that this is an old thread but it got me thinking. About 10 yrs ago I discovered the world of garden tractors. My first ones were IHCC's. A 127 as a matter of fact. I did a few maintenance things to it but nothing crazy. The one thing that I could never do was adjust the hydro so that it would not creep...I wasn't mechancically inclined enough. I got a 169 that didn't cause trouble and sold it. It was a nice tractor. I then got a nice 104 that didn't cause any trouble. I ended up trading it away. The decks with their mule drive were kind of a pain to attach. The 42" snow blade was a touch easier. I then saw a GT14 for sale. Man, those big back wheels got me going! The electrical system then crapped out on me. I then traded it for a B-80.

That B-80 got me hooked! I did electrical work on it, mechanical work on it, you name it. For a novice mechanic like myself, it was a breeze to work on. Far and away easier than the IHCC's that I had loved. I had a 520H that I did more work to than all off the cubs combined because it was easier for me to do. (The Onan crapped out and I sold it, but that's another story!) I got the same same GT14 back that I had earlier traded for and I have worked on that! I have my 416-8 that runs well.

My point is this: IHCC's are very sturdy and heavy duty machines. Some say that they are over engineered. WH's seem a little lighter and not as sturdily built. Maybe they are, maybe they are not. But in my opinion they are a crapload easier to work on for a beginner mechanic like myself. For me the attachments go on a lot quicker with less parts. The interchangeability between models and years can't be beat.

My last remaining IHCC that I own, a 1200 which runs fine but needs the iso mounts replaced and the engine cradle mod done to it, will soon be leaving the stable. For guess what? A horse, Wheel Horse, of course!

[BOWTIE 226]

COMPARING THE TWO TRACTORS IS OK IF THEY ARE PRICED THE SAME. BOTH 12HP KOHLER HORIZONTAL, 42" or 48" DECK CUT,LIGHTS. ARE THEY THE SAME PRICE WHEN NEW? JUST A THOUGHT.

 

BOWTIE

[SPINJIM 1,986]

I've been tempted to bid on Cub tractors at various auctions, but everyone I've sat on has had a transmission problem of some kind.   I think the W.H.Unidrive trans is much stronger than the Cub's.    When I go to Garden Tractor PULLS, there are many Wheel Horses (usually with a 16 hp Kohler), but not many Cubs.  I get the impression that it's the combination of a Kohler with the Unidrive that makes them such strong contenders.    

 

Plus, red looks better than yellow & white on a tractor.   White Cubs tend to show the rust sooner than a red Horse.  

 

Also, the existence of a Wheel Horse Collectors Club in PA makes Horses more desirable here.   Just my opinion.

   Jim

[papaglide 542]

Cubs did have the same tranny as the Farmall cub.....I think that the IH tranny is pretty strong.

[Keith 21]

I like all of them.   There aren't many Wheel Horses where I live.   I might have to drive 350 miles get a C-160. Eventually I will do that. Locally, a Cub or green tractor is more likely to show up than a Wheel Horse.  I like simple mechanical things of all sorts.  Yes, the classic Cubs are simple!  As with most equipment there are common sense ways to improve them. Cub parts are relatively expensive, but generally not difficult to source. Cub Cadets are everywhere. Once the classic garden tractor is back in good shape the Wheel Horse and a Cub will last for many more years. Once you have fixed what needs attention Cubs aren't constantly breaking.  I think eight speed Unidrives are more versatile than the Cub gearbox.