Wheel Horse Vs.....

[Stepney 2,325]

Hello all, I've had this thought for a long time now, and haven't read about it anywhere else, so here goes. I had the Cub 125 out today, and was using it to pull stumps, and do other odd jobs, and I suddenly found that the Cub certainly pulled much better then either of my 'Horses'. Just the same, I've been looking for another tractor, just as a 'Backup' ... Anyway, I've had 3, maybe 4 others on my mind, but keep finding something better in the other... I  find the Cub to be an overall heavy tractor, and the transmission is that of a Farmall Cub, but it is a PAIN to work on... I have run Sears Suburban's on occasion, and really like the styling, but I dunno about that Teccy engine... And I've thought about the Economy tractor's before... But my last run in with a 1614 wasn't one I'd like to repeat... (Er, lets see... New clutch, breaks caught on fire mid run, gas tank built pressure and exploded, drive shaft let go....) You get the idea. So in simpler terms, mainly Sears SS, Cub, and WheelHorse, which would you say is best? I mainly like them all, but just looking for opinions.

 

 

 

Spenser.

[AMC RULES 37,130]

[Ken B 3,164]

I have owned MANY of the three you have listed. I would have too say best OVERALL is Wheel Horse. They are all pretty darn tough. For me it all comes down to parts availability, cost and which one do you enjoy working on the most. I only liked the earlier round fenders Cubs myself... I really do like the late 60's early 70's Sears Suburbans. I haven't had much trouble with the larger Tecumseh engines and they have plenty of power.

I've also owned 3 or four different Power King/Economy's. They are quite honestly in a league of their own when it comes down to reliability and ruggedness. They are built like a brick poop house.

[papaglide 542]

I basically agree with Ken. I had an Economy 2418 and it was a beast and can't be compared to cubs or horses. My first garden tractors were cubs. Over the past few years I have had a 104, 127,169, 1200 and a few others. They are quite sturdy and gave me the impression of being heavier built than horses BUT I didn't sense any difference in pulling power when it came to tree limbs, mold board plows etc. The main difference that I noticed between cubs and horses, especially  pre blackhoods horses, is the ease of maintenance and the ease at which I can work on them. When I got my first horse, a B 80, I was amazed at the simplicity of the design. The belt drive is simple, the brakes are simple, the "clutch" is simple. The PTO is simple, no hidden set screws like the cub has. Cubs are over engineered in my opinion. So for me it's a no brainer. Although I like IHCC's a lot, I am phasing out my cubs and it's horses in my future.

[leeave96 487]

IMHO, it's not even close.  Wheelhorse all the way.  I've got Wheelhorse, Simplicity and IH Cub Cadets.  The Wheelhorse is the simplest to work-on.  Sure the IH Cub Cadets are heavier built, but at the end of the day, if you don't have traction, you ain't going to pull anything with any of them.

 

However, the bottom line, for me, is ALL of these old iron tractors are GREAT!!!!!  Sooo, if you have a Wheelhorse or Cub Cadet or something else, it's all good.

 

Good luck,

Bill

[perry 82]

I have went through many brands here . and for me simplicity / Allis chalmers  came out to be the best tractor for what i am doing. I do a lot of pulling from full length trees to cars and trucks. I put a couple of my 1960's wheel horse tractors up against my 1967 simplicity landlord plowing snow. where the wheel horse would stop pushing the simplicity would keep going. the simplicity tractors have a adjustable posi-traction differential. the 1970's machines had automatic differentials.  My cub 128 was a decent puller but have other issues . wheel horse is definitely most simple to work on  and simplicity would be next and they both have easy on/off attachments. 

 I agree with the sears are tough tractors , the Tucky engine and pain to work on is the down fall. john deere is well you know a john deere and also a  pain to work on .

 I have only used 1960's-70's wheel horse tractors . don't know how the newer one's perform , but I would like to put my scream'in 10hp Briggs powered simplicity landlord up against a wheel horse 520 plowing snow .......

 

here is my 10hp Allis pulling a car . front cross frame was digging in the ground the whole way.

Edited July 24, 2013 by perry

[IthacaJeff 151]

I've only had a few Simplicities and WHs. My big Sunstar is a joy to use, but the mechanicals are so

crammed that I cannot even get to simple grease fittings. I'm unable to attempt the fix the Kohler

Magnum because the access is so difficult -- I gave up trying to get the heads off. My little Simplicity

Yeoman was a tough little mower until the Briggs blew.

 

My WHs are gerry-rigged up one side and down the the other. My main tool to fix them is a hammer.

My kind of equipment.

 

Jeff

[leeave96 487]

... but the mechanicals are so crammed that I cannot even get to simple grease fittings. I'm unable to attempt the fix the Kohler

Magnum because the access is so difficult ...

 

THAT'S one of my biggest fears with the more modern tractors!!!!!  One of the things I like about my 314-8 with the Kohler Magnum is - the engine is sitting out in the open.  Head is completely exposed, no gas tank or exhaust heat shields on it like some later model tractors.  I will give Simplicity credit on my recent find of a late model Landlord DLX, it has a most simple engine compartment too.  I replaced a bad engine with a good one and for the most part, it was a pleasure doing the switch.

 

Bill

[perry 82]

The 60's round hood wheel horse has to have them all beat in the easy to repair factor. but we all know that here   . they are just a  easy to work on tractor.  one of the toughest garden  tractors and easy to work on is  the mid 1970's simplicity's . everything is right out in the open including a completely open frame underneath for easy access to drive shaft and such.  .

 

 

[953 nut 55,243]

  I LOVE my 953s, granted the sheet metal can make them a little hard to work on, but they are so dependable that it isn't a problem.  

 

 

 

[Ken B 3,164]

You got that right Perry, I have had a few Allis B-10's and Similar Simplicity Landlords as recent as a few yrs. ago. If I had more room I would have loved to of kept them. My brother still currently uses the old Landlord to clear his drive. Just this past winter he had a ton of heavy snow at the end of his drive that he said his C-161 couldn't push. Just for ha-ha's he got out the old Landlord. Well what do ya know? He said the Landlord got thru that heavy pile no problem! He later sold the C-161. The old Allis/Simplicity's are tough as nails and make great grass cutters and snow pushers! i personally really like the Briggs power. Not too mention they are pretty darn cool looking as well!

[IthacaJeff 151]

The larger Simplicities have driveshafts in contrast to the belts of the WHs. I used to think the driveshafts were an advantage,

but now I'm not so sure. I've replaced one drive belt; a relatively simple job. No problems, no slipping, easy to check.

The bevel gear boxes on the older Simps can be a problem area, not unlike the tranny mounting plate of WHs. But fixing

the tranny plate is a much less expensive job.

 

The Simps are good machines. My Sunstar takes a backdoor to no garden tractor in performance. But I keep mowing

with the WH 416 because I've been able to fix it myself with rudimentary tools and even less knowledge. That is more

important to me than bells and whistles.

 

Jeff