A "Super" Dilemma

[Tom Scott]

Sorry, couldn't help the pun...OK, here it is...

The setting: For summer the loader is on the 2182 and the 1872 has mowing duty. The 1861 wears the dozer blade just in case it comes in handy (and it does) and pulls the cart for processing firewood (about 4 cords a year, so this is a worthy job).

For winter (here is where the problem starts) I have to remove the loader to install the 450 blower on the 2182. The mower comes off the 1872 and it gets the Haban dozer blade. The 1861 stays as is wearing the dozer blade just in case it is needed to come out of retirement for snow duty again.

The problem: I am tired of removing the loader every fall to install the blower. Last year I didn't even need the blower, but I don't have the garage room to wait until it is snowing and the 3 inches that were called for are turning into 18 inches. I have done that dance before and it is stressful changing attachments as the storm is kicking in.

The plan: With some sadness I am selling my 1861. A good friend wants it and it just isn't getting the use it should to justify keeping it. My plan is to buy a third Super so I can keep the loader on one full time, keep the Haban blade on another full time and only have to swap a mower deck for a blower at each season change.

The dilemma: Ah finally, here it is... I am struggling with what Super to pursue, keeping in mind what I am tending to find available. I am even torn over Cyclops vs 82 series. On one hand I like a lot of things about the Cyclops: lower and larger gas tank, heavier duty rear fenders, better brake mounting, I don't mind the looks, more seem to be available in good shape with lower hours. On the 82 series, I do like a metal front end that is not as fragile and they will all come with front hydraulics (CCC only, not going back to IH unless it has all the features of an 1872).

To further complicate matters, I want the advantage of full attachment compatibility. Most of the Cyclops Supers I have seen over the past two weeks have the large front pto which means all of my small pto attachments will not work. Yes, I am not looking to swap much, but it is always nice to have a back-up tractor available when a magneto or something else dies without warning.

Sorry for the long post, but hey, things have been a little slow here anyway, so feel free to slap me around a little!

[vince_o]

Wow you are all messed up! I hate to do it but I traded my 582 for a 982, Ive always wanted one. I dont like hydros but these supers sure are nice!

[VScott]

Tom,

I think the 18-2072 would be my choice just as far as reliability and ease of maintenance. The electrical issues that you and I have discussed being my main concern with the cyclops.

The cyclops is definately a more comfortable ride. I have thought about building a hybrid between the two. Using the rear sheetmetal and seat, along with the fuel tank from a cyclops on an 1872 frame and running gear. Battery relocation would be the hardest in my mind, but I have a 782d dash tower and battery tray here that would fix that issue. Unless you use a diesel hood, there would be an extra hole over the newly relocated battery.

As far as the brakes, I have never had a problem with the function of any of the Cub Cadet braking systems, but I agree that the cyclops brakes are very heavy and well made. Gotta love the drilled rotors, they make you feel like you can stop on a dime, and give 9 cents change. The cyclops axles are the heaviest, thickest axles that were made. I can see both coming into play when using a loader, but I think either would be ok for normal (do we really use them normally though) use. I'm probably like everyone else, and use the hydro lever as the brake. This is great with the engine running, but it doesn't work too well with a stalled engine!

[bbaker]

I got a 2082 here that you could use to build you a nice super with your 1861 parts tractor.... be the cheap way...

I like both tractors but I will always prefer the 82 series sheet metal and looks.

[Tom Scott]

I appreciate the discussion. Vince took me up on the invitation to slap me around! Wow, am I really that messed up? I do wonder if I am being a little ridiculous wanting three Supers, but that all fades away when it is time to start swapping attachments.

Bryan, I don't think my buddy would appreciate his new pride and joy being referred to as a "parts tractor"! Here it is in action a few weeks ago:

1861 getting it done.

1861 dozing stump tailiings (cropped 2).JPG (552.43 KiB) Viewed 11032 times

It is a nice machine; I couldn't part it. It is the reason I got into these and it is hard to sell it. I just don't have room for four tractors, or I would probably keep it.

Vinny is right, objectively the scale is tipped towards another 18-2072; the small pto and already installed front hydraulics are a huge advantage. But I keep finding myself curiously drawn to the Cyclops. And I really do like my 1872. Maybe it is because my first tractor was a Cyclops. I need counseling.

For further discussion:

1) I believe a small pto will bolt up to a Command engine of the later tractors, I just haven't had time to research.

2) I can add front hydraulics to a Cyclops, but with the kit NLA, I will be building it. How big a pain is that going to be? Has anyone done a clean example without the kit, and did you choose to bend up line or go with all rubber to simplify things?

3) Am I really that messed up?

Thanks, Tom

[dag1450]

It dosent sound like u have a dilemma at all. I personlly like the older more classic look, but both series have pros and cons. I think u just made your job of finding a ; nice, clean, low hour, not beat tractor a lot easier. Around my area most of the ( i call them 72 series ) supers are beat and not cared for at all, and it doesnt sound like u r looking for a project tractor. So the way i see it is u just cut your search time in half by liking both series tractors. Good luck with the hunt and i will keep my eyes peeled up north. Dave

[bbaker]

lol parts tractor. just offering up another option. A custom built tractor that started as a nice 1861 and then got a lot better!

I think you can interchange the PTO's from one to the other, Command/magnum.

I like the looks and the fit of the Cyclops tractors, but that plastic nose is junk....

I keep looking at the 2082 I have sitting out back and thinking about putting 82 series metal on it and making a custom 982.

[VScott]

Tom, Just a few more thoughts.

Are you crazy for wanting three supers? NO!

I have 6 at the moment: a 982 waiting to be re-assembled while I decide what engine to go back with (2) 1872s, 1 running and 1 that has a bad frame and no engine, a 2072, a 2082, and the 2182. I have had 2 other 982s but in a moment of poor planning, I sold them both. My dilemma...the only attachments that I have for them are mower decks and one aftermarket cat "0" blade. I really have no use for a blower here, but would love to have a Haban power angle blade. I had thought about modifying a standard blade to fit the Supers (someone had done this, and posted a step by step either on here or the old forum).

Any thoughts on the cyclops/82 series hybrid?

BB, 2082??? Don't know if Tom's ears are perked up, but mine are!
EDIT: Guess we were typing at the same time, just saw your last post.

[bbaker]

whatcha want for the bad frame no motor 1872??

[Tom Scott]

Vinny - Thank you for being an enabler! You are the pusher every addict needs! You know me by now, yes I perked right up at Bryans 2082, but he is a bit far away. Not impossible to make work, but does make things more difficult. As for a dozer blade for you, rather than modify a blade, just find a Haban. I have seen quite a few come up for sale lately. You are one of the kings at finding, you will find one.

Bryan - Send me some pics of the 2082, and what you want for it. Maybe we could make something work. I would buy new plastic for the right tractor.

I am not sure when it happened, but Cub did add more strengthening gussets to the base of the plastic grill that made it stronger where it was prone to cracking. I posted pics when I replaced the one on my 2182 with the brand new kit from Cub that includes the sealed beams:

Old without new gussets:


New improved, tastes great, less filling, and all that and more:


All that being said, I think my 1861 offers great testimony to the longevity of the plastic if you can avoid running into things. I have owned my 1861 about 12 years and put over 300 hours on it. When I bought it at 600 hours the hood's plastic "studs" had JB Weld where the metal screwed in. The panels were all perfect. The grill had a crack on one side along the single rib like that which is shown above (although you can't see the crack in the one above).

12 years later, all of the 1861 plastic is just like it was when I bought it. I think that it is just that most of the people that bought these new didn't give a rat's rear end about the machine. To many of them it was just another appliance, like a washing machine. And many of them must of had money to throw away; how else could you take machines that cost this much money new and abuse them? Uh, oh, starting to be a rant.

[Tom Scott]

Dave G. - Yeah, trust me, I have been banging on that Philly and Allentown Craigslist. I have and will travel that far if needed! The main problem is that most of the Cyclops don't have the front hydraulics which equals more work for me. And although every Cyclops I ever found has had the small pto, most of the good ones that are close to me have been newer and have the large pto. I could make it work, but it will be more time and money to convert.

[VScott]

BB, Not looking to sell it right now, it plays into the 982 resto-mod, and keeping the other supers in business. I will have to get a picture or two in the next few days. It is on four wrong wheels and the dash tower is still there with all of the steering and hydraulics intact. Sheetmetal/grill/fenders are gone, rear end housing is broken, so a p.o. welded it in with scrap steel. If it would have had an engine, it would have been a decent start, but it's just too far gone for that.

[vince_o]

Tom

I dont think your all messed up cause you want 3 supers, I think your all messed up cause you cant make up you mind!

I have 3 now and one extra frame. My plans are to put this 27 command pro in it and a gear drive with hydro lift and maybe over drive. Lots of guys are telling me to go with Vogels over drive rather than Mid West. Ill do more research as the time comes.

I personally like the 82 look over the cylops, but the cyclops is more comfortable like you said.

[dag1450]

Tom, 982 Baltimore craigslist ! all u need to do is get a dual spool from Ray ! Looks nice ! Dave

[VScott]

Tom, 982 Baltimore craigslist ! all u need to do is get a dual spool from Ray ! Looks nice ! Dave

That one is a little different... IH built, cat 0, and turning brakes, but no remotes. My understanding is 982 was a basic tractor, 984 is w/turning brakes and dual spool, and 986 is all the above w/a 3 point and rear pto. Something has been added or removed there I would say. Not uncommon after 32-33 years though.

[BigMike]

Multiple 2072s.....that would satisfy me

[JMotuzick]

That was me on the blade coversion. I'm sure the pictures are on my old pc ill look for them if anyone cares.....
I bought my 1872 in October and a week later found a 54" power angle blade. To me it old made seance to play with the new toy! All I did was added 3" to the under carage of the IH plow at the back. I added about the same to the lift braket that attaches to the A frame and then opened up one hole on the rock shaft to 1/2 from 3/8. By putting the lift Rod in this location(on the bottom) on the rock shaft the picture on the dash is acutlly backwards. Meaning up is down and down is up!

[Tom Scott]

Dave - Man, don't start pointing out all the Supers in my area to the whole world! Trust me, my CL radar is on constantly and I know of everything within several hundred miles. I have even been searching outside of where I might be willing to drive just in case it is worth it.

It will have to have everything a 18-2072 has: front hydraulics, power steering and turning brakes. And I seem to be a yellow and white guy...

Probably part of not making up my mind is that the 1861 is still here waiting for me to replace the axle seals and finish the maintenance and prep for my friend. I want to hand it over "needing nothing" so he can just start using it. I really can't go get another Super until I get the 1861 delivered, hopefully by next week.

My first post was so long I left out some of the plan...

With the liquid cooled engine, I think the 2182 is the best candidate for mowing and especially snow-blowing. It has been a bit of a waste to just use that engine with a loader. So the new Super will probably be on loader duty, unless I am lucky enough to get another 2182. A diesel is great in theory, but I am not willing to spend the extra money they generally bring.

Any thoughts on the Command vs. the Magnum, power, smoothness and longevity?

[TractorDan]

Tom,
I had similar thoughts a few years back when I wanted to discontinue using my my zero-turn with a plow for snow removal. The tractor was fun to drive in the snow (no chains, but used ATV tires). However, after eight inches of snow on the ground, it was difficult for the tractor to push it. So I wanted a traditional setup on a tractor, not sure what the answer was at the time. The short answer is I discovered the power of the SUPER, in fact now there are 3. The 2082 has a 451 blower. This machine is nice to ride in the winter, I extended the exhaust pipe with a 90 bend & vertical about 24". Keeps the tractor quieter, mainly because with this setup, I like to wait until all the snow is on the ground usually late night...then suit-up and enjoy the power of the blower. In fact, I have found that I am now my neighbors best friend when the heavy deep snow falls. The second is a 2072 with a Kwik-way loader. Admittedly, I have yet to use this for snow removal. But, it is readily available in case the 2082 decides its too cold outside. This tractor will never leave my side, they will be digging my grave with it. Having the the two tractors, with attachments already on and ready to go is "peace of mind". I'll even go so far as to say that my wife would have no problem using any of the tractors to remove snow in my absence. Both are easy starting, sit up high, power steering, and attachments glide up and down. Funny thing is that I always beat her outside to take on the roll of 'snow command'. Yes, I did mention 3 supers, the 1772 is parked for winter, but it has a plow if needed. My plan is to completely restore the 1772 and mount a blower or a full hydraulic front blade....still trying to find the time & $$$$$$$$$. But having the tractors already to go is the way to go.

[VScott]

Joe M, Yes I am very interested in seeing the mods to the standard blade. I can't find , nor afford a Haban.

Tom,
If you haven't purchased the axle seals yet, check your local auto parts store, my Carquest had them in stock, and was able to supply them for about $3.50 each which was about 1/3 of what my Cub dealer wanted for them.

Also, something to consider on which series you want, I prefer the cv joint driveshaft on the cyclops tractors. I have to think that it would be a much better setup for a loader tractor.

Command vs Magnum

Magnum pros:

Good power

Quiet/smooth

Reasonably fuel efficient for the power that they provide

Respond very well to tuning with the Kohler adjustable jet carbs.

Electronic ignition

Magnum cons:

Obsolete

Governors seem to be good for about 1,000 hours before self destructing and breaking pistons, rods, blocks.

Poor fuel pump location fills crankcase with gas when the diaphragm goes bad.

Internal parts are VERY expensive.

Non-adjustable valves

difficult to access starter and more difficult to access magneto

Command pros:

They sound awesome!!

Fuel efficient

early 18, 20, and 22 hp engines were the same with the changes being in the carb, ignition, and flywheel that all interchange...easier to add a few hp with the right parts

starter is easy to access

Command cons

From my experience, hard on head gaskets, and rear main seals seem to be leak-prone causing oil film to be blown into the cooling fins, attracting dirt, and causing overheating and premature failure

Can be hard to start thru the factory wiring, can be remedied with adding extra relay(s)

Ignition modules are expensive, models with the "smart spark" system can be especially troublesome.

Just my 2 cents worth, not looking for an argument.

To me, the mag 18 and the mag 15 (same thing with the only difference being carb jetting) both have adequate power for running a 50" deck in a hydro tractor, and pushing snow with a 54" blade. In fact, the power of the 15 and the 18 feel so close to me, I am considering replacing the weak mag 18 in my better 1872 with the 15 hp from a 1541, and I honestly don't think that I will re-jet it to 18 hp specs, as it does a fine job as-is, and is easy on fuel.

The mag 20 is a different story. You can feel the difference between an 18 and a 20 hp. The 20 is a real brute, and I have never run out of power, however, you do pay for it with fuel consumption. There are a few subtle differences between the mag 18 and 20. The oil pressure switch threads are different, with the 20 hp requiring an adapter between the switch, and the block. #2 male by 1/8" female pipe if i recall correctly.
Also, the crank snout is different requiring a different bearing than the 15/18 hp versions. Also, the starters show to be different, but I don't know the difference.

I'm still learning a lot about the Commands, but did I mention that they sound awesome? I have done a few head gasket repairs on them, and a few rear main seals. I do like working on them. The throttle and governor linkages can be a puzzle if you don't pay attention. There seem to be a lot of pullers going to the commands, and really it seems to be a more efficient design that the magnums. I have seen a few people who had installed Commands in the 82 series tractors with good success.

[Tom Scott]

Dan - Yes, being ready before the snow is the only option. I have arrived here out of necessity. Regular GT's are great machines, but the 22% grade of my driveway demanded a Super for the blower (4WD would be better, but I only have money enough for a few old Cubs). Even with the Supers, I ended up with over 450 pounds ballast to get the job done with the 450 blower. Filled tires with RV antifreeze, 240 pounds of wheel weight, two-link chains, and some more steel just from adding the three point to the tractor. I like to keep the bulk of the weight on the wheels so the tractor isn't carrying the weight.

I have also found that a blade is the premier tool for most snows. A 6" snow is pretty much just a joke to the 1872 and the Haban blade. The 1861 did a good job with the small blade, but with the increased width and height of the Haban, and the ability of the SGT, it is incredible. What tickles me most is when I can push the snow so fast with the Haban that it creates a hollow "surfer" wave. Besides making me grin, that throws if further off the drive to keep the berm a little smaller. I have pushed 12" of snow with it, but the problem becomes the berms. If I then get even a 6" snow, there is nowhere to push it.

I have less love for the blower than you. It does its job, but with the hill, it requires a huge amount of ballast. The driveway turns as well, so it is a little dance of raising the blower just slightly to get the front to steer, but that un-weights the rear some, so real quick back on the ground once you get steered in the right direction. When I need a blower, that also means I have to go cross country through the woods to help out my neighbor. When I need a blower, it is a grueling day for both man and machine. I end up with about a 1/4 mile to clear, and it can be brutal. Although Maryland may not be known for snow, I live in what is known as the "Hereford Zone" in Northern Baltimore County. We regularly get much more than other nearby areas due to some weird combination of elevation and terrain. We can also get wet snows that pack those spirals if you drive too fast.

So, that is how I ended up with two Supers. One with a blower, one with a blade. That is a must all through snow season.

I view the loader as a poor tool for snow and I only want the third Super so I don't have to remove it for the winter. I don't need to use it, I just don't want to take it on and off the tractor any more.

[vince_o]

The big thing with the command is that they build their torque when running wide open, for the most part. The mags you can idle them down, dont recomend doing it, and work the crap out of them with awsome power. Ive never had a command that was hard to start cause of the factory wiring. If a command hasnt had good mantance then get ready for a rod to go. At this dealership i see it all the time around 1000 hrs. These comercial guys dont do a thing to their engs. The 27 I have has around 2500 on it, but the guy took care of it. The mag is no more than 2 Ks mounted horz. Id have a mag ove the 18 threw 23 command any day. But they are like anything, every eng has its good points and bad points, just like Ford Chevy Dodge. One eng Im still out to lunch on is the Kaw. Some run for ever and we see some that seem to have nutting but problems. Could be the loose nuts in the seats too!

[Tom Scott]

I have already experienced some of what is on Vinny's list of cons for the Magnum: Failed magneto soon after getting the 1872, pulled the engine to replace. Suspected fuel pump failure filled the crankcase with fuel (still not 100% sure it wasn't the carb needle/seat leaking). I replaced the fuel pump ($$$) and have installed a fuel shut-off valve now until I can rebuild the carb. Governor worries me some, but I don't have the motivation to tear it down just to change it proactively. (Comments on time and value of proactive governor replacement are welcome.)

The 1861 has a vacuum operated fuel pump mounted high on the firewall; I would consider converting any other Magnums to this pump and install the block-off plate on the engine. I should have done that with the 1872, but I got lazy and just put the original type back on the block.

I did rent a stump grinder once with a Command 27. It did sound awesome! It also blew the valve cover gasket before I was done and was blowing oil like a pig. The rental place didn't seem surprised at all.

I have never had the pleasure of having a Magnum 20. Now I want a Command (awesome sound, gotta have some of that!) and a Magnum 20 (lots more power, want some more of that too!). Again, both good choices, but no clear winner.

Both engines seem to have their good and bad, so I will be fine with either. As I have never had a Command, that is enticing just because it is something new I have not played with yet. The closest I have gotten (besides the stump grinder) is the single cylinder Command 13 in my Dad's 2135. Runs great, but you need almost 1/2 throttle to start the deck blades. Makes plenty of power at full throttle.

[TractorDan]

I will agree the blower requires a rather large amount of counter weight. Originally, I thought just some 50lb wheel weight in on each wheel would suffice. But, then I loaded the tires with RV antifreeze. I believe the blower weight is about 340lbs. Now hang that much weight off the front, even with the longer wheelbase of a super and the tractor still loses traction. So, I can see your problem with a steep driveway.

Any thoughts on how much weight can be added to the wheels?

[bbaker]

My 782 has 100 lbs of weights, and 50 plus pounds of fluid in each tire. I've never had any issues, and sometimes even hang some weight on the back for blade work.


So 150 lbs of weight at each wheel is good but sometimes not enough.

[VScott]

I had a beautiful Deutz-Allis 1918 Ultima (Mag18) that ran great when I parked it. When I went to fire it up to mow one morning it just cranked and cranked without starting. I went through all of the standard troubleshooting, and had fuel and spark. Went back to cranking on it, and BANG! The engine locked up tight as a drum. Long story short, after a lot of head scratching, I looked down the oil fill pipe, and the governor was gone! It came off of the shaft, and got caught between the right side rod and the block, and split the side of the block. I would have thought that gov. failure only happened at higher rpms.

I have read online that once the governor is brownish, and no longer white in color, it should be replaced. It just seems like a lot of work, and money on an engine that could have another major failure within the next couple of hundred hours.

Proactive governor replacement is probably a great idea if you have $400 to $800 to spend.

As sure as you open up an engine, you will see cylinder wear that you don't like. There's $100 at the machine shop. Not to mention the pistons and rings at about $200 per hole.

The crank journals won't mic out right, there's another $50 to the machinist. Add $80. per rod

Most Magnum engines over 1,000 hours are going to have excessive valve lash (out of spec). Well, heck we are this far...might as well do a $100. valve job.

Gotta replace all of the gaskets...$50-$70.

And last but not least, the $45.00 governor itself.

If you just decide to split the engine and replace the governor there is always the chance of parts not going back together as they came apart, maybe you start to use oil, maybe the used rod bolts don't torque just right, there are a lot of variables to consider. I don't feel like it's worth the effort myself, and I think I will have to take my chances on them holding up.





I

[vince_o]

Man you got that right oil will leak from that little plug if your not careful!

[Tom Scott]

Dan - Fully loaded Super tires are about 12 gallons if I remember correctly, so that works out to about 100 lbs per tire for mine. If you add up my list of weight: 200# fluid, 240# wheel weights and 30# of chains and hardware you are at 470 lbs total. I also added a factory 3-point and rear pto, so that is probably another 50#.

So the grand total of 520 lbs is what I consider to be about the limit for total counterweight. The tractor is getting worked pretty hard to bring all that dead weight up the steep hill. I weigh about 185, but I didn't count that because it is pretty average and every tractor will have an operator.

I will say that the Super loses a lot of comfort with the tires fully loaded. I put the valve stem at 12 o'clock and put in all they would take, so I don't have much air in there for comfort (fluid is not compressible). I have done this to both Supers because I am not comfortable stacking a third 60# wheel weight (currently at two per wheel). Plus, RV antifreeze in the tires is cheap easy weight compared to steel wheel weights.

Vinny - Yeah, I have never opened up a Magnum and I didn't know if there was an easy way to get to the governor without complete disassembly. I prefer your answer, it is easier to run to failure, then find one to rebuild if too much gets trashed.

[JMotuzick]

V Scott
Give me some time. The 1872 is out and easy to get to but the plow is burred. It's under my stairs and there are at least 10 more plows in front of it. Hopefully some will sell and I'll be able to fish it out! as for the old pictures I couldn't find them on the PC and the old one is already long gone, I fear they are gone forever, makes me wonder what else is gone for pictures!!

[VScott]

No problem, Joe. I have time. It might not happen before winter, I don't have ag tires for any of the supers yet anyway. Thanks in advance whenever you get to it.

Vinny