Farmall Cub

Just curious what most thought..... on how many occasions have you felt a Super A or 100/130/140 would have been better for a given task than your Cub?

I ask as I've had many opportunities over the past year or so to use the Cub (rough cutting pasture, pushing snow, 193 plow) and having had various IH Cub Cadets over the years (and even a 982), I'd never go back to that smaller platform for any 'real' work. I relish the look and feel of the pre-War designs which precludes more modern CaseIH options as well.

So while moving snow last week with the Cub, I was really wondering if folks were wanting for double the power, more weight, etc., of the slightly larger platform. If anyone has both models, please do offer your input.

I'm considering beginning a search for a Super A/100 or 140 and appreciate the replies.

I agree, for many tasks the Cub is no well suited. That's why I own larger tractors, implements, and skid steers. And I frequently find out that I need something larger or a different attachment.

As far as the tractors listed in the subject line, maybe, or perhaps a different make and model of tractor. I wouldn't limit my search to the 3 models listed in the subject line.

To answer the title question, Never.
I have Cubs and an H. I think you hit it when you mention "real work" in your post.

Whether or not the Cub is suited to any particular job really depends on how big the job is and how fast you want to do it. For instance there is a four acre field at my brothers. If I want it mowed fast I use an H with a 6' brush hog. I have done it more than once with a Cub and Woods 42, takes a little longer but does the job. I could do it with a rider or even a push mower. It just depends on how fast I want it done. Another example is snow plowing the couple hundred yard driveway. A Cub works great for that but I would NOT want to plow the seven miles of highway back to town. The Cub could do it it'd just take a while

So my advice is if your current jobs with the Cub are taking longer than the time you have then I would look at something bigger. (Or if you are trying to move a mountain all at once.)

In terms of utility, the later Cub Cadet tractors are better. When the Cub was designed, IHC was stuck in the midset that the Cub should look like a "real" tractor. But this ended up being a handicap. If the original Cub had had ~15hp, a more conventional PTO (and maybe a front one as well), and if the implement attachments had been somewhat less clunky, it would have been a better product.

I got my Cub after looking at a Super A. That tractor, I thought, was difficult to maneuver -- would really benefit from power steering! So that's why I didn't buy it. Pricewise, not that much difference from a nice Cub to a Super A.

I have both cubs and 140s as well as Fords , the 140 is twice the tractor of a cub. and a 3600 Ford is even better. On the down side the 140 is about 2 times the price of a cub and a 3600 is 4 times the cost.
Boss

I would not consider the SA over the cub if I had only one tractor. More than one tractor the cub is fine as a small tractor. I have used an A. But as an only tractor or a second tractor I would go bigger than a SA. I have a cub because I inherited it. The short answer is yes, I would have at times liked a bigger tractor. I can however clear my drive in about half the time using the "little" cub cadet with a blower than I can with the cub. Dad's old H with chains and extra weight on the drawbar and 7 foot blade however would be even faster. Job would be done before the engine could warm up. Vern

I own 2 Cubs and a SA. My large garden was real close to a road ditch and a corn field. The cubs were perfect for that application. I used my SA to pull a disc, and that was a little harder to maneuver. I really like that SA though!

I like the little Cub because it is so much more maneuverable than the larger tractors. The Cub is small enough that I can park a Cub or two in the corners of my garage. I have a 200 which has the same C123 engine as the 100-140. It seems gigantic after driving one of my Cubs.

After I put an IH 1000 loader on one of my several Cubs, I decided it was really better sized for a Super A thru 140. That's how I got my FIRST 140. Now I have two 140's. Wanna buy a tractor? The barn is full!

I find my Cub is not suited for some jobs and that is why I have been looking for a nice 100 or 140 in my area. It has to come with a snow plow and fast hitch is the only thing that way I can still use my cub stuff I got. I have a Super M, 300, and 450 for my bigger jobs and fun seat time rides but I have not gotten the implements for those that the cub has. I have been looking for a 2 point blade for my 450 to push snow with but have not come across one close by. I just want to be able to use the 450 more, besides disking or planting.

It is all a matter of preference, and I will most likely pick my cub over most for doing jobs here and there just because of it's ease of use and versatility. I don't think anyone can go wrong with a cub or several.

Thoughts:

I got a Cub because they are cute. I like using it; it does well with a 12" plow, 5" sicklebar mower, and 1 row cultivator. It's lightweight and easy to haul.

If you have small crops where you need to cultivate slowly, or a small garden, or not a lot of storage space, a Cub is the way to go. I believe IH said it was an appropriate tractor for farms 40 acres and smaller. I would hate to know I had to plow 40 acres with a Cub, but it was a different time then.

If you want to pull two 12" bottoms, cultivate faster, have a PTO that turns the correct direction and speed, as well as pull some real tillage tools, then go with the Super A/100/130/140.

The Cub is definitely a little more maneuverable than the Super A, but not enough to be a deal breaker. It's really not that much smaller. The cub will go much slower than the Super A if you need to cultivate really small plants. I miss not having hydraulics for both the front and back cultivators on the Cub.

Super A has 4 forward speeds with 3 working gears, Cub only has 3--only two working gears. (Although calling 3rd a "road gear" may be debatable!)

I hooked the sicklebar mower up to my Super A (I have an A-22 and a Cub-22) this summer, and never attached the Cub mower. I didn't notice any difference in maneuverability, and it felt good to have more tractor under me.

I have always thought the 113 engine was easier to work on and less finicky than the cub engine.

I don't see as many Super A's with broken engine block ears. (In fact I have only ever seen one. It's mine, and a white demo...how lucky am I? )

I grew up around a Super A. I love 'em. I own 4 and I would love to add more, just for fun. If I could only own one old tractor, it would most likely be a Super A/100/130/140, simply because it is more versatile than the Cub. Fortunately, only my time and $$$$ restricts me to the number of tractors I can own!

Al

Wow, this is such a great forum! Thanks to all who have replied so far!

In reference to the Cub Cadet- the 982 had a Haban 54" blade and I couldn't get enough weight on the machine to move snow very well. It got pushed around by the blade, where the Cub takes the same in stride, and is a much stiffer tractor over the Cadet's flexy stamped steel frame. I also prefer the gear drive over the 982's hydro. We have some slopes on the property and it's "constant speed correction" no matter how good the mechanical state of the trunnion. The 982's Haban 60" deck cut better than the Woods 59, though I couldn't lift it high enough for the pasture cutting height I wanted to do with it. It's at least two times more expensive to rebuild the Onan B48 or re-power with a 25+ hp V-twin, than the grand or so it takes for a C-60 overhaul.

Regarding wanting a Super A, 140 et al, sure- I might be in the market so PM me about what you may potentially have for sale! (I hope that statement is within the rules given the post's context). My inclination towards the larger machine wouldn't be time reduction, it would be just having a more substantial platform, while keeping with the older machines, which I enjoy. Space and tight maneuverability isn't in the equation. I just think they were built to last, perhaps longer than ever intended- and built when American craftsman pride was a force to be reckoned with.

If I wanted to so some serious work, I'd have to think of something newer and more capable- point well taken. IH may have advertised the Cub for up to 40 acres, though it was a simpler time and there were more hours in the day back then!

ghennessy wrote:IH may have advertised the Cub for up to 40 acres, though it was a simpler time and there were more hours in the day back then!

We also have to remember that the Cub was designed to replace a mule, not a three point, multi-bottom plow tractor. Would you rather walk behind a mule or sit on a Cub to plow 40 acres?

Don McCombs wrote:

ghennessy wrote:IH may have advertised the Cub for up to 40 acres, though it was a simpler time and there were more hours in the day back then!

We also have to remember that the Cub was designed to replace a mule, not a three point, multi-bottom plow tractor. Would you rather walk behind a mule or sit on a Cub to plow 40 acres?

It wasn't until I talked to someone who lived it that I really understood that statement. It took a Cub one trip to do what it took three trips with a mule when it came to cultivating: You had to work one side of the row, then the other one, then split the middle. A Cub did all 3 in one pass!

In my case, my granddaddy replaced a mule with his Super A. Can't help but wonder if some Cub owners were "jealous" but back then there was still so much pent up demand from WWII that it was pretty much "take what you can get."

When it comes to mowing, I wouldn't even want anything but say a Cub Cadet. IMO a Cub is too big/bulky for mowing a lawn. On the other hand, when I see people actually plowing with a Cadet, my mind is blown.....sort of reminds me of that old saying about "eating poop with a knitting needle!"

Al

When IH said 40 acre farm I don't think they meant 40 acres in cultivation. I'm guessing that acreage included pasture, wood lot, out buildings, pond/stream, and the home and barn(s). I doubt many cubs were responsible for working a total of 40 acres.