MTD Cub vs. IH Cub

[dbaker]

I used to have a 129 IH Cub that I really liked. I have seen an ad for a 1320 for $200 which I understand was made by MTD. I have not looked at the tractor.

I have heard that MTD products are not as good as the IH products. I really liked the IH, but for $200 was wondering about the 1320.

Any opinions? Thanks.

Dave

 

[kmcconaughey]

David, your 129 is a Garden Tractor the 1320 is a Lawn Tractor. Hard to compare the two. Here's a few pages from a brochure that has info on the 1320.

 

[dbaker]

Thanks for the info Kraig, didn't realize the 1320 was a lawn tractor.

Anyone have an opinion on the difference between MTD and IH quality and durability? Thanks.

 

[raweaver]

IMHO, the decline in quality after IH sold out to MTD (Cub Cadet Corp) was initially slow. The first generation CCC tractors (late 1981 to 1989) were as good as the twin engine Red IH tractors (1980-1981) depending on how you feel about the aluminum rear end housings that were softer on the outside but tougher, perhaps, on the inside.

It's hard to compare a CCC to an old yellow and white IH garden tractor and its hard to say anything was tougher than one of those old beasts.

With the changeover to the Cyclops in 1990, CCC cheaped them down a bit more but they were still tough machines. Not too sure about the lawn tractors of the 80's and 90's.

Sometime in the mid to late 1990's we started to see MTD go to lots of stamped steel and more plastic. They did manage to hold on to the shaft driven hydro rather than going to a belt. With the recent demise of the 3000 series Cub Cadet I , uh, well, think it is sad.

 

[dbaker]

Thanks for the great info Richard. I really liked that Model 129 IH garden tractor, it was tough. I got rid of it when I bought a used red machine(Not a Cub).

I liked the IH Cub better, it seemed to mow better for one thing.

 

[dross]

My dad bought one of those or one real close to it brand new. Had a snow blower with it. My step brother ran a small mowing buisness with it, mabey a dozen yards in town. Nothing to extreme. It's no 129 but it will pull a yard trailer, move a little snow and mow grass. If it was in good shape, great. If it's not you'll likley spend a similar amout to refurbish that as a garden tractor.

 

[jchamberlin]

All- I'm not trying to hi-jack David's thread, but I would like to pick up on Richard's comment:

<font size="-1"><font color="0000ff">Sometime in the mid to late 1990's we started to see MTD go to lots of stamped steel and more plastic.
They did manage to hold on to the shaft driven hydro rather than going to a belt.
With the recent demise of the 3000 series Cub Cadet I , uh, well, think it is sad.</font></font>

How do you all think the 3000 series stacks up to the IH 82 Series Red tractors and their CCC continuation?

After looking at them closely on Parts Lookup, I notice that the axle is "assembled" quite differently from what I'm used to seeing on my early CCC 782, and the frame doesn't seem to be made of the same heavy gauge material, in other words, it seems to have been stamped rather than the product of a press brake. I'm just wondering what effect these two changes will have on the overall performance of the tractor.

Otherwise, the tractor appears to be configured very similarly to what I'm familiar with on my 782 --horizontal shaft two-cylinder motor with a hydrostatic transmission. The foot pedals to operate forward, reverse, and brake are somewhat different, though.

Anyway, like David, I would be interested in anyone's comments about the relative merits of the MTD 3000 series design versus the traditional IH Cub design.

 

[mhomrighausen]

Here are my thoughts about comparing today's MTD built Cub Cadets to those built by early MTD and IH. BEFORE computers were used to "create" things such as the next Cub Cadet or ???, everything was drawn by hand and with assistance of a calculator, slide rule, protractor, etc. were used in design. When it was discovered that something may have been "over-engineered" during the design-first prototype build part a lot of times that "over- " part was left in. This was due to the fact of to change something tends to cost money and when only so much money is allocated is was easier to leave the over-engineered item(s) in the initial project than to re-design and start over. Nowadays with the usage of computers a design can be stress-tested and studied for longetivity pretty much in the virtual world of the computer long before the first prototype is produced for field testing.

Now you ask whether or not today's or tomorrow's Cub Cadets or for that matter any manufacturer's lawn and garden products will last as long as those built 30+ years ago. I will reply with two words.... PLANNED OBSOLENSENCE. And that is due to we must remember that mankind has always had a desire for the newest/latest from a manufacturer, be it a cart/truck to huge farm machinery to clothing and so forth. Think back to all these old Cub Cadets that are found in barns and sheds and garages. Parked simply because their owners found a newer model on an auction or garage sale or simply had someone else mow their lawn or move snow for them. A manufacturer needs to keep producing new products to stay in business and now they are able to design and build a product that they can more accurately figure "life expectancy" into it. I can't blame them.

David B. To reply to your question about which is a better buy the 129 or the 1320. I will state this. That 1320 has a very little hydrostatic system in it that is only pretty much designed to mow lawn and not much more. I wouldn't highly recommend moving snow with it. Why? Simply due to the design of the whole tractor and not just the drivetrain. if you truly want something rugged and that will last many years then stick with the 129.

I pray this helps answer some questions.

 

[jchamberlin]

All --Since it has been often stated--

--I shall illustrate my query by posting 3000 series construction details from the Parts Lookup site:

For reference, a 3000 series tractor (they all look the same on Parts Lookup):

The 3000 Series Frame (again, they all look the same on Parts Lookup):

The 3000 Series Axle with hydrostatic transmission, I don't know if the transmission is the same as the one in my 782 or my 149; I can't keep up with their model numbers, like Marlin H.:

A shot of the pedals which control the tractor's movement; I would think it would be convenient to keep your hands free while braking, accelerating, or backing up. I suppose there is still a throttle control on the dash as well:

Again, I'm just curious how others think the 3000 series stacks up against the best that IH had to offer.

Oh yeah, did I mention that the deck is shaft driven?

 

[jchamberlin]

All: I didn't realize Marlin had slipped his post between my two. If Dave is asking which is better, 129 or 1320; I'm asking which is better, 782 or 3225?

To refine the Marlin's point as it pertains to my dilemma, I'm wondering if the "obsolescence" evidently planned into the 3225 will overcome its more recent vintage.

The 3225 has an OHV V-twin, power steering, and a shaft driven deck with hydraulic lift; in comparison, the 782 has an opposed twin, and a deck with hydraulic lift. The biggest difference is the construction of the rear end and the frame. We all know the IH-built rear end is virtually indestructible, and the "spread" frame is sturdy enough for most applications (front loader duty being the most challenging, but Extreme Motorworks has a solution for that problem); I'm simply having difficulty believing that one could wear out even the more modern MTD-style axle and frame with just mowing, plowing, and occasional stump-pulling.

What do others think? Has anyone experienced, or heard of, the modern 3000 series tractor wearing out in NORMAL service?

 

[mhomrighausen]

Jeremiah C. If I recall the 3225 has the BDU21L series while the 782 has the BDU15U Series. With that alone.... I easily place my money on the 782.

 

[jchamberlin]

Marlin --I'll bite, what is the difference between a BDU15U and a BDU21L? I've gone to the Sauer-Danfoss site and then to the Hydro-Gear site, but I couldn't find anything on the BDU15U, so I pulled a page out of each of the manuals I've pulled off this site.

Please interpret for the uninitiated.

 

[mhomrighausen]

Good Morning, Jeremiah C. The 15U has a nine piston cylinder block kit and a 15 cc displacement. It is designed and built more in line with its bigger brothers such as the 42 Series, 90 Series, etc. which also share a nine piston cylinder block kit. The 21L is a seven piston cylinder block kit and if you really look inside there are differences. While they are both for garden tractors that subtle difference in the extra two pistons and other internals make a difference. Remember the 15U was to a degree overbuilt to begin with. No one really knew that when it was designed. I'm trying to keep this simple because I could get into some tech stuff that starts to confuse people. The best way to see for yourself is to literally put the two tractors side by side and work them the same way. Over time you will see the differences begin to show.

On a quick note... The 10 Series is pure Bantam Duty with a five cylinder block kit. I'll try and get a little bit more technical tonight.

Have a wonderful day. Off to work.

 

[jchamberlin]

Marlin, David and others,

It didn't take me long to make up my mind when I saw a Model 3225 and a SGT 1872 side-by-side which tractor I would rather have. I will admit the power steering was nice, and the deck controls were silky smooth. I couldn't really tell if the shaft-drive deck added anything to the picture because the spindles were worn out and made too much noise. Bottom line: nothing about the tractor really stood out. The plastic cyclops lens was dull and cracked, all the plastic was faded --it was a tired, old lawnmower.

The 1872, on the other hand, looked like it was ready to go to work! Even though it was chewing up the deck's drive belt, I would much rather have put my money into that tractor than into the 3325 --it was super! It wasn't (yet) for sale, however.

All that being said, I don't think the transmission was a particularly weak point on the tractor, Marlin. Although I would be curious to learn the technical differences, my IMPRESSION was that the BDU21L could probably stand up to the task of mowing; although it would never hold a candle to the BDU15U-equipped tractors which seem to be able to take on ANYTHING.

I was curious, and my curiosity was satisfied. I'm happy with my 782, and with 1/2 acre to mow, I can't justify a Super Garden Tractor, although, I must say, they are awesome!

 

[mhomrighausen]

Jeremiah C. The 21 Series is a relatively strong runner and a very good unit overall. With proper care it will last many years. What would really be a nice test would be for someone to bring a garden tractor with that unit to a few Plow Days.

Still we must remember that as was forty-fifty years ago... Today's society hasn't changed much from way back then. We still desire and long for the next newest thing out there. So, even some of these "today's newest and best" garden tractors will be parked after a couple of years and forgotten about in favor of the next newer model.