• This community needs YOUR help today. With the ever increasing fees of everything (server, software, domain, e-mail) , we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community to help spread our love and knowledge of IH Cub Cadets. You get a lot of great new account perks including access to private forums. If you sign up for annual, I will ship a few IH Cub Cadet Forum decals too in addition to all the account perks you get. You can see what it looks like below.

    Sign up here: https://www.ihcubcadet.com/account/upgrades

1st snow challenge 2024

xtreme motor works
shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
cub cadet used parts
IH Cub Cadet Tractor Forum

Help Support IH Cub Cadet Tractor Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
gchunnett said:
Remember that weights attached to the chassis translates to weight on the wheel bearings ( or bushings in most cases and you may want to rethink that as the bushings are small and soft metal. Wheel weights ( including filling the tubes halfway with water does a marvelous job of creating traction weight and stability on slopes.
I know there is that cracker picture with 20 wheel weights on each side and Im not 'for a moment suggesting you all go completely bonkers, but a double pair of wheel weights inside and out plus water should give you plenty of traction, also allow the tyres to bulge a bit by not pumping too hard.

remember that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, so those poor bushings are not going to thank you for extra chassis held weight
Click to expand...
Gee, Gordon, no offense, but I'm thinking old wives tale. I'm reading that Wade and most of this list would agree that back porch/chassis weight does not contribute to bearing failure. Case in point: Since 1991 my Elec-Trak (160 lbs at the back porch), 240 lbs in four batteries, 80 lbs transaxle, electric lift made the plow up/down/left/right a breeze. No fluid in tires, no annoying wheel weights. I miss it the ET. No plow for my CC102. Craigslist North Jersey has my CC listing where you'll find a rear weight kit, never installed it on the Cub.
Best, Jack
 
jack casey said:
Gee, Gordon, no offense, but I'm thinking old wives tale. I'm reading that Wade and most of this list would agree that back porch/chassis weight does not contribute to bearing failure. Case in point: Since 1991 my Elec-Trak (160 lbs at the back porch), 240 lbs in four batteries, 80 lbs transaxle, electric lift made the plow up/down/left/right a breeze. No fluid in tires, no annoying wheel weights. I miss it the ET. No plow for my CC102. Craigslist North Jersey has my CC listing where you'll find a rear weight kit, never installed it on the Cub.
Best, Jack
Click to expand...
I shud have added to the ET weight, 190 lbs, me.
 
gchunnett said:
Remember that weights attached to the chassis translates to weight on the wheel bearings ( or bushings in most cases and you may want to rethink that as the bushings are small and soft metal. Wheel weights ( including filling the tubes halfway with water does a marvelous job of creating traction weight and stability on slopes.
I know there is that cracker picture with 20 wheel weights on each side and Im not 'for a moment suggesting you all go completely bonkers, but a double pair of wheel weights inside and out plus water should give you plenty of traction, also allow the tyres to bulge a bit by not pumping too hard.

remember that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, so those poor bushings are not going to thank you for extra chassis held weight
Click to expand...
Case in point. Two neighbors, identical Kabota 3000 series. Both with Loaders (FEL). My South Neighbor moves gravel, compost, etc while my East neighbor is strictly pushing out hay from the barn. Both guys have Great respect for their expensive tool.
Having said that, South neighbor has blown the bearings on his front axle twice in 1200 hours. The extra front load absolutely works the bearings harder. Annual fluid changes or not.
Having said that, maybe the rear axle on our Cubs are so robust that they could be used in a small car. If that's the case then a few hundred lbs for a few months may not cause an issue.
For winter plowing I have one set wheel weights plus about 80lbs on my hitch.... Plus me. It does what I need without straining parts.
 
I have 4 years worth of use now on my 149/DanCo rig w/near 350 # in the factory weight box plus loaded tires w/no issues and we have worked the crap out of this rig w/no bearing issues, front or rear.
Gravel, dirt, big chunks of logs cut for splitting, you name it.
 
tkhoffman said:
Case in point. Two neighbors, identical Kabota 3000 series. Both with Loaders (FEL). My South Neighbor moves gravel, compost, etc while my East neighbor is strictly pushing out hay from the barn. Both guys have Great respect for their expensive tool.
Having said that, South neighbor has blown the bearings on his front axle twice in 1200 hours. The extra front load absolutely works the bearings harder. Annual fluid changes or not.
Having said that, maybe the rear axle on our Cubs are so robust that they could be used in a small car. If that's the case then a few hundred lbs for a few months may not cause an issue.
For winter plowing I have one set wheel weights plus about 80lbs on my hitch.... Plus me. It does what I need without straining parts.
Click to expand...
"Axles on our Cubs are so robust..." Could not agree more; have seen on this forum a comparo between Cub and Wheelhorse (of equal HP) where the Cub easily outplowed the wheelhorse. That's an attribute of a stout transaxle.
Best, Jack
 

Latest posts

Back
Top