help me with the differences.....

[tiger9297]

147 vs. 149 vs. 1450

169 vs. 1650

[Don McCombs]

Check this out.

http://www.geocities.com/jluckeycub/index.html

[klejeune]

147= gear drive, 14hp solid mounted engine, manual lift, or electric lift, external brakes

149= hydro drive, 14hp solid mounted engine, hydro lift, external brakes

1450= hydro drive, 14hp rubber ISO engine mounts and side panels (Quietline), hydro lift, internal wet brakes

169= hydro drive, 16hp solid mounted engine, I think hydro lift too, external brakes

1650= hydro drive, 16hp rubber ISO engine mounts, hydro lift, could also have external hydro ports on the front for hydro angle blade. Internal wet brakes.

147, 149 and 169 used a starter generator system, while the 1450, 1650 used a magneto and automotive style starter.

The 1X7, 1X9 series hydro control was on the left side of the steering wheel, while the Quietline series hydro control was on the right. Also, the 1X7, 1X9 and early QL's had 3/4" front spindles and later QL's had 1" spindles.

Both series are Wideframe tractors and can use the same implements and mule drives, if I'm not mistaken.

I own a 1450 for a mowing tractor, but if I were to build a loader tractor, I'd want the 169 for that.

I'm sure I missed something, but that's the basic differences.

Keith

[tiger9297]

well I looked at that page and the only differences I can see b/t the 14 hp models, as well as the 16 hp models is that the engines are different versions w/ the same HP and the brakes are different. Thats about it. The only other thing I could guess is that they were different year models, but that site didn't give any manufacturing dates that I could see.

I'm looking for a tractor that I could buy for the sole purpose of attaching a loader to. Just wondering which one would be best for this job.

[Paul B]

The 147 is a hydro, not a gear drive (anything IH built above a 12 hp is a hydro).

The 147 is a narrow frame with solid mounted engine and was built in the 11/69 - 8/71 time frame.

The 149 is a wide frame with solid mounted engine and built in the 9/71 - 10/74 time frame.

The 1450 is a wide frame and the engine is mounted on ruber ISO mounts, and was built in the 10/74 to late 79 time frame.

If it were me I would look for a 149. It has easy access to the drive line componets, and the drive line (driveshaft, couplers, etc), are less expensive to repair/replace than those on the 1450, although the 149 does use a starter/generator, but I don't have a problem with that.

[trac48]

Paul,

What about me; I am looking more for the look of the CCO. and I would like to push snow. That's all.

Gilles

[Paul B]

Gilles
An Original will push snow, and if that is the look you like, keep a watch for one. Tiger 9297 just was asking about which of the three models he asked about to put a loader on.

[Snotzalot]

I don't understand what is meant by "1X7" models.

[Paul B]

1X7 is just a way of refering to the series instead of typing 107, 127, 147 or 1X9 = 109, 129, 149 where the only difference in the series is the engine size. In this case they are all hydrostatic drive tractors. If it was 1x6/7 it would refer to both gear drives and hydros in the series of the same basic tractor such as the gear drive 106, 126 and hydros 107, 127, 147, all the same basic tractor and series. Clear as mud?

[tiger9297]

The 147 is a hydro, not a gear drive (anything IH built above a 12 hp is a hydro).

The 147 is a narrow frame with solid mounted engine and was built in the 11/69 - 8/71 time frame.

The 149 is a wide frame with solid mounted engine and built in the 9/71 - 10/74 time frame.

The 1450 is a wide frame and the engine is mounted on ruber ISO mounts, and was built in the 10/74 to late 79 time frame.

If it were me I would look for a 149. It has easy access to the drive line componets, and the drive line (driveshaft, couplers, etc), are less expensive to repair/replace than those on the 1450, although the 149 does use a starter/generator, but I don't have a problem with that.

Just out of curiosity, why would you choose the 149 over a 169?

[Paul B]

Mainly because of the engine shake or vibration of the 16 hp Kohler. In my opinion, the solid mounted 16 has more shake to it than I want to put up with, the 14 has enough but not quite as bad as the 16, and there is very little noticeable difference in power between the two, and I have had both.

Not all 169's had a hydraulic lift due to a parts shortage. The 169's were only built the last month or so (Aug-Sep 74 time frame) of the model/series run and there was a shortage of control valves. They were built with the ported pump for the hydraulic system, but had a manual lift. A conversion kit was made available early in 1975 to retro fit the manual lift 169's with the hydraulic lift, but not all were converted. As a rule, you will find more 169's that still have the manual lift than with the hydraulic lift.

[klejeune]

Oops, missed some stuff there, huh?

I sure didn't know the 147 was a narrow frame though, I did mean to put down that it was a hydro, doh!. I've seen very few Cub Cadets in person myself as they isn't as many around SW MO as it seems they are East of the Mississippi.

Good info, PaulB.