Farmall Cub

Wow - a lot of interesting ideas flying around here! The whole idea here I think is to build a modern style tractor without spending the big money for one. ...and of course building something like that would be a ton of fun not to mention the challenge of it. You guys are men after my own heart, that is to say a lot of common interest and ambition. No matter what you do I think more power is needed because of all the hydraulics as you have mentioned and a C60 just isn't up to the job I don't believe, a small diesel would be the way to go. The key to this will be the bottom line after it's all said and done. Scrounging talents are a must, any other way will be too expensive. Good luck with the projects and keep us up to date on progress. One thing I would seriously consider is installing/converting a PTO to a standard 1 3/8" and correct rotation.

Now you have my interest in a 154 hydro again. I wonder if a cub cadet tranny would work with the 154 final drives and a hydraulic oil cooler. It would need a larger capacity tank for more hydraulic oil so heat won't be a problem. We need to keep the hydraulic oil way below its flash point. Since the gear reduction finals are installed it will keep the extra load off the tranny. Now I just wonder how strong the cadet hydro tranny really is? Or will a hydraulic motor with a standard tranny with the finals be better and stronger? A hydro tranny would be better in my project.

I just want a working fel & backhoe in the end with this one with power steering. With out a 40k price tag g have the double ended cylinder for power steering that will mount on the front axle beam. New heavier spindles and hubs are needed I already have those too. I boxed the front half of the frame with channel and boxed the front part under the radiator frame.

BigBill wrote:Now you have my interest in a 154 hydro again. I wonder if a cub cadet tranny would work with the 154 final drives and a hydraulic oil cooler. It would need a larger capacity tank for more hydraulic oil so heat won't be a problem. We need to keep the hydraulic oil way below its flash point. Since the gear reduction finals are installed it will keep the extra load off the tranny. Now I just wonder how strong the cadet hydro tranny really is? Or will a hydraulic motor with a standard tranny with the finals be better and stronger? A hydro tranny would be better in my project.

I just want a working fel & backhoe in the end with this one with power steering. With out a 40k price tag g have the double ended cylinder for power steering that will mount on the front axle beam. New heavier spindles and hubs are needed I already have those too. I boxed the front half of the frame with channel and boxed the front part under the radiator frame.

Sorry bout dragging up an old topic but after my creeper is giving me fits in low range somthing like this is definitely an option. I am wondering if anyone is still considering this swap ?

I wouldn't worry too much about the heat, I used to collect and rebuild Cub Cadets till recently and many of the hydro models were so crudded up all around the hydro with the fans missing or broken that they had no way to cool themselves. And still, they operated fine. The hydro trannys are definitely strong enough to handle the C60 engine. There is a Cadet hydro near me used for pulling and the guy has a 4.3 Chevy V-6 on it. I've been told he's never had any tranny problems. Axle shafts are a different story lol. But with 150 some Hp it's almost guaranteed. The trickier part would be to make the hydro linkage work, but even that shouldn't be too bad. I've seen where guys on the Cub Cadet boards converted them to foot peddle operation. One other thing is the input shaft on the Cadet hydro is higher than the standard shift input shaft. I don't see why you couldn't make a drive shaft with universals at each end to make up the difference.
I also don't think the difference in speed would really be that much of a deal. My 1450 would move faster than my 154 in high gear so even with the drop in RPM of the C60 I don't think there will be much difference in top speed. I never use 3rd in my 154 anyhow so it certainly wouldn't bother me any.
I just happen to have a complete CC 1250 hydro tranny, I may have to consider this if my creeper is going to be cost prohibitive to repair. I need to take it apart this week.

Edit for added info: I would also stay away from the newer hydro trannys as they have an aluminum case. Most guys I know that were taking them to plow days or just using them hard replaced the case with the older cast iron case found in the 123 through the 1650. I don't remember if the red series (582-982) were all cast iron, but I believe they were.

I have a regular cub almost ready to install a hydro drive into.---gotta machine out some couplings on the lathe yet. thanks; sonny

That will be a cool project ! How are you addressing the difference in drive shaft vs input shaft hight with the F-Cub having the torque tube ?
I was really tempted to drag out the hydro rear I have today after starting to pull my 154 apart to see what in the creeper crapped out, but, I need it this winter yet so no sense in getting that involved yet. Unless it's gonna be a $600 bill to replace the crapper lol.

If swapping in a hydrostatic transmission from a Cub Cadet, would it be necessary to change the rotation direction of the input shaft (driveshaft) from the flywheel to the charge pump (which could be accomplished through a geared connection since the height difference needs to be accommodated anyway)? And / or swap the differential around? I ask because I know the Cub Cadet vs. FCub differentials are opposite, but can easily be changed. Don't want to end up with a faster reverse speed than forward speed.

Honestly, I don't remember which way the input shaft will be turning on a Cub Cadet, been so long since I messed with them and no longer have any right now. If needed, using a geared connection would be an expensive proposition. I would personally make the change with the differential. This has been discussed at great length in the Cub Cadet forums when making 4x4 Cadets and turning one transmission around backwards. The amount of wear should be negligible due to the low speeds and torque that we would be using. I think a drive shaft with good universals would be the best way to connect the engine to the charge pump. You don't want much pulling down one the input shaft, ie:timing belt and pulleys to lower the shaft. That would severely increase wear in the charge pump.

I agree about keeping any undue radial load off the input shaft. The idea of a geared connection was to facilitate an easy rotation direction change from the drive shaft to the input shaft, but as you stated this may not be necessary. As was mentioned in an earlier post, some supports with pillow blocks or such could be used to have the driveshaft & an extended input shaft at different elevations but keep them parallel (yet properly supported) - connection between the two via a chain or belt(s). I wonder if a Cub Cadet's hydro setup would clear the driveshaft tunnel cover on a 154/185/184 without modification, and if the standard PTO shaft would clear everything?