CUB vs BN

Im looking at 2 tractors a farmall cub and farmall bn. Im not sure between the 2. i plan on using the tractor for cutting the lawn and pulling a small drag in the horse pasture. Which tractor would work better?

Frank

Cub is around 12HP and the BN around 18HP. Cub has wide front and the BN a trike type front. BN will turn sharper then the cub but not hold on a hill side as well as the cub. So if both are priced around the same then the cub is the better buy because they are just plain worth a tad more but not by much. Now it it was a B to cub thing the B is worth a lot less then the cub
Hobby farm

Either tractor will probably serve your needs, but the BN will have slightly more horsepower and more weight for increased traction and is in general a heavier built and stronger tractor. The BN is also more compatible with any attachments and uses a "sleeved" engine that can be rebuilt to like new condition over and over again.

The Cub engine must be rebored, which can only be done once or twice before that engine is basically scrap. Also, the Cub PTO turns in the opposite direction, which makes it incompatible with any attachments other than what was designed specifically for the Cub.

The Cub is slightly smaller over-all than the BN, but not enough difference for that to be a deciding factor.

Either would work fine.

The BN is a lot more tractor than a Cub, and is heavier and wider than a Cub, so why anybody would think that a Cub would not hold on a hill side as well as the cub is a mystery to me.

If you use the Cub, keep in mind that the PTO runs backwards and at a different RPM than most tractors. You will have to get a mower that accomodates it.

The Cub may be worth more than the Cub due to collector value, but I wouldn't give my B for any Cub. The only reasons I have a Cub are: it has a snowplow, and it has been with the family since the very early 80s. My B is an excellent mower tractor. The wide rear end make it very stable, and it'll way out turn the Cub. I don't why old says a BN is tippy or whatever. The Cub is narrower and much lighter, than even a BN. The Cub is built more flimsy, to my way of thinking. I like the 4 speed trans. of the B. And, of course, the B has much more power. The only real problem with the B is the lack of hydraulics.

That said, I would love to have a Super A with a front blade.

Chris B.

Reason I say the BN is not as stable is because a BN is narrower then the common B. Over the years I have woned like 3 or 4 Bs so I know them very well but the BN is like 18 inches narrower then a B and yes the B or BN has a good bit more power then a cub has

Chris, you could easily run a front blade on a B using a power steering pump from a car and a log splitter valve. The one-lever valves from garden tractors go pretty cheap on eBay, too. Use a two-way cylinder to reduce the amount of reservoir capacity needed.

Has to do with the trike front end and how people get in trouble by doing dumb things is why I say a cub will hold better on a hill side. Seen way to many people do stupid things with a trike that they might have not got hurt if they had, had a wide front. I post with the mind set the person is new to the tractor world not some one who has been on a tractor for decades

The BN will or should have a wide front also,and have more power,however the B with standard setup with two long axles is nearly twice as wide as a cub or bn and much more stable on a bank.There were a lot of State Highway mowing tractors with belly mount sickle mower's that were standard B's because of their stability

The CUB is 10 hp, 1600 rpm oppostite rotation, 1620 lbs, 48.25 in wide. The BN is 16 hp, 540 rpm standard rotation, 2400 lbs, unknown width (same as an A) but is 4 in narrower per rear wheel (8 in total). The BN is more tractor. For mowing I would perfer a SA, SC, or even an SH! I once saw a SH with a 6 ft Woods and I saw a SA with a 4 ft(??) Mott flail mower. Good luck.

Charles

A BN is 8 inches narrower than a B, not 18.
4 inches on each side.

Ya a normal B but the BN being 18 inches narrower then the B and by the way both the B and BN have the trike fronts the A is the one with a wide front. None of the Bs ever came out with the wide fronts but they could be put on off an A

18 or 8 both the B and BN are in fact easier to flip over then a cub on most places. Yes either one can/will flip over but for a newbe the cub is safer. Which by the way is the whole point I have been trying to get across

The difference in width between a B and BN is 8", four on each side. Both sides of a BN are the same width as the right side of an A.

So technically, yes, the B, being 8" wider is more stable than the BN with the wheels and rims in like positions, but a lot of folks in the past have mistakenly read that to mean that the BN is somehow unstable, which I don't believe is the case.

If stability were a worry, there are a lot of things to be done (in addition to careful operation, which is always a must). Everytime I look at my neighbor Dave's A (our next project) I'm struck by how wide the rears are set out on it. A glance out of the corner of your eye from the rear you could almost mistake it for a BN -- with the wheels turned out and the rims mounted to the outside, wheel lugs on the outside, he's at 60" (already 4" more than the narrowest you can set up a BN) and could go 4" wider by mounting the rims with the lugs to the inside. If the wheels on a BN were set out the same as on Dave's A, the rear tread would be 88" and could still be taken out to 92".

Given a wheelbase of about 71", that's more than wide enough to be stable in all but extreme situations. Putting our old friend Pythagoras to work, with the rears set to 84", you have very nearly an equilateral triangle between the points where the rears and the front end contact the ground. I'd call that quite stable for a tractor that isn't especially top-heavy.

Put wheel weights on (though not especially desirable if most of its work is cutting grass in the yard, epecially with ag treads!) and the center of gravity is lowered (because of the dropped final drives being below the COG) for even more stability if needed.

Bringing the Cub back into the considerations, I tend to think of it and the A with their offset configurations, as "less stable" than either the B or BN, but rush to remind how Dave has set his A out so wide. The peril of the offset is in any scenario that might lean the tractor to the left. It is very common to find As with a stamped steel wheel on the left (short) side and a heavier cast wheel on the right, which is an easy and effective way to improve stability by moving the center of gravity away from the left (short) side. I don't know if cast wheels are available for a Cub (I think someone told me they weren't) but one could accomplish the same thing on a Cub with steel wheels on both sides by adding a wheel weight to the right side only.

A Cub with or without the added wheel weight might be preferable if only for its lighter weight (less compaction of the lawn) and lower clearance (them cuss-ed trees!) than a BN.

It's long enough to be a nickel, but that's my two cents.

Considering the fact that 60 to 70 percent of any tractors given weight is on the rear wheels makes the whole discussion of narrow front versus wide front kind of a moot point. Add rear wheel weights and liquid ballast in the rear tires and the weight ratio will be closer to 80% rear to 20% front. With 80% of the weight on the rear tires, the configuration of the front axle really doesn't make much difference.

Frank,

You buy the Cub, and let me buy the BN. And we will both be happy.

LA in WI

True if handle the correct way but you missed my point also going that this guy is most likely to be a newbe

You also have missed my point. I figure this guy is a newbe and has no been on tractors so with that thinking the cub would be a safer tractor as a first tractor. Seen way to many newbes hurt and had to go save them and or the tractor

Maybe someone else has mentioned this already, but personally I would prefer a BN with a narrow front for mowing. Aside from "old"s worry that it may not be as stable if hillsides are not handled correctly, it would be much easier to make tighter turns without having to back up. Not to mention the extra power, pto, etc.

Just my opinion.

Not to beat this to death, but a cub at 60" wide versus a BN at near 80" would make a BN much more stable on side hills.

If that is so,then the best thing would be a B with an A wide front for mowing banks.

I get your point, but I think you've missed mine, and suffice to say we disagree on this one.

There have been many discussions around here of whether a wide front is any more stable than a narrow front, and for most tractors with a center of gravity along the center line, the WFE vs. NFE debate is usually worthwhle, if only because folks on both sides usually agree before they're done that the biggest safety factor lies between the ears of the operator, and go back to their corners without changing their minds.

My point is that any advantage to stability, if there is one, in a wide front is significantly compromised by the offset center of gravity of the Cubs and As. That's part of the reason for them having wide fronts--it provides a wider stance, thereby reducing the chance that the center of gravity (which is still left of center, even with the WFE) will move outside the vertical plane between the corners of the base(an imaginary line between the front and rear wheels on a given side), which is the point beyond which the tractor will tip over on its side under its own weight.

As for turns, yes, anybody, newbie or not, can get into trouble making too fast a turn with a narrow front end. But it can be done just as easily, and perhaps even more so, with a tractor whose center of gravity is offset to one side as in the As an Cubs, even with their WFEs. I know of an experienced Cub owner who got banged up pretty badly doing just that last summer with one of his Cubs, on level ground.

As far as operation on uneven ground, the same thing applies, and IH knew it. A LOT of those machines (As) were used for mowing roads, ditches and banks. It was apparent on tractors with steel wheels on both sides and no added weights, that the tractors were being operated on slopes leaning low enough to the left that the combined weight and torque of the longer right side, the operator on the right side, and the the mower on the right side, did not move the center of gravity sufficiently to the right to keep the tractors from becoming unstable or tipping to the left in those situations, even with the wider stance afforded by the WFE. I go back to the number of As delivered with steel wheels on the left and cast on the right, and will qualify my earlier assertion by saying that if IH didn't know it, the folks operating them certainly did, and ordered their As with the extra weight of the cast wheel on the right, which moved the COG both lower and to the right. That's just for the As. I don't have a sense that it's terribly common to add wheel weights to one side of a Cub to achieve the same effect.

99-44/100% of drivers' experience is in cars, trucks and motorcycles, all of which have a COG pretty much along the center line of the vehicle, so that COG never even enters their minds, unless they are driving something that is obviously top-heavy (and I've seen folks on the road who seem oblivious even to that).

My point is that I believe the offset COG of the As and Cubs presents a unique hazard that is outside the experience of and would not be recognized by most drivers, is inherently trickier to handle, and can get a newbie (or anybody else) into trouble quicker than any tractor (NFE or WFE) with the COG along the center line.

I'm up to a dime now! ;8^)

I am going to whip this horse a little more... The BN is a better tractor than the CUB hands down. More power, wider, more stable (who cares for mowing the yard), standard PTO, and not an offset. There would be no question which I would take.

The only way I would get a CUB is if it was a GOOD deal, new tires, good Woods mower and I only needed it for mowing. But even then I would look at other tractors before purchasing. I know several people whom have bought CUBs to mow with and later got rid of them. They are really under-powered. I JD 318 will run circles around a CUB in the yard.

As for stability, the BN wins hands down. I mean come on 60" vs 80", the BN trike would be tough to flip. I have a 1962 Farmall 504 Diesel with a loader on it and the tires are set at about 80", which is pretty narrow for a row crop tractor. It has never been "rubber side up".

If you want the CUB for this reason get it, if you want the BN for that reason, get it... Get the one you feel most comfortable with... You will be happier buying the one that you feel good on.

I'll give a nickel for this one 8)

Charles

Side note. If you ever feel like a trike is going to go over on a hillside, turn the wheel just as fast as you can to the downhill. Doesnt matter if you are turning into a fast downhill ride or a pond, it;s better than going over. I had an H slide the nose downhill twice on me and that is enough. I've done the same ditches many times with my IH300U and never even came close to going over like I did with the H.

I own both a cub and a BN. I use both of them, and like both of them. I also use them for different purposes.

If I had to choose 1, I would probably take the BN, as it has more HP, and is definately more manuverable.

I believe the question here is for work purposes, and not collectible purposes. that being the question, I would take the BN.

However, with all that said, I don't think you will make a big mistake either way you go.......

ps. in my experience, BN attachments tend to be a bit cheaper than Cub attachments if that is of any consideration.

Frank.........I have a "59 Cub and I wouldn"t put a mower on it any bigger than 42 inches. They don"t have the power for anything bigger. Getting under trees is another thing to think about. Either tractor will do what you want and only you know if stability is a problem. rw

Now here's one bit that nobody's even touched on yet: Implement Availability.

Unless you get the implement you want WITH the BN, you're not likely to find it. While the tractor does have a standard PTO, most implements were still proprietary to the BN, and nearly all of those implements have gone to the scrappers in the last 60 years.

You can still get a Woods 60" deck to mount on it, but it will cost many times what you paid for the tractor to purchase new. I've seen a few Bs with mower decks, and a handfull of B/BN mower decks with mounting hardware for sale, but not many.

There's a whole dedicated market for Cub implements and attachments, on the other hand, and many more Cubs on the market compared to BNs. I'd estimate about 50% of Cubs come with some form of mower attachment, and Cub mowers come up for sale frequently.

Another advantage to the Cub is the hydraulic lift. Most Cubs have it, and those that don't can have it added easily enough. With a BN, unless you luck out and find one that has had a Super A or Super C engine installed, you need to cobble up an old power steering pump driven off the fan belt to get pressure. Then you need to obtain a valve, reservoir, cylinder, and hoses, and fabricate a lift mechanism. Otherwise, you use the "armstrong" lift, if you can find one. Also available, but rare, are pneumatic lifts for the BN, but they kinda slam the equipment to the ground, and are very slow to lift.

If you can find a BN equipped the way you want, then by all means go for it over the Cub. But, if your desire is to take a bare tractor and buy the implements for it, the Cub is the better choice.

Get the BN and put a 6ft Woods belley mower and then you will have the drawbar to pull anything you need more HP and traction that the Cub. Cubs are rather narrow and wont go where the BN will go. You will like the narrow front on the BN as it will turn shorter and easier. The tranny in the BN is much more usable than a Cub. As for the Cubs pto running backward all you do is wind the belt different. Get another seat set-up on the BN and you have a great place for a passenger to ride.

Thanks for the help. I think the extra power and rotation of the pto of the BN won my decision. They look the same now I know the advantages of the two.

Just the fact that the PTO goes in the right direction makes the BN more valuable [b:6b53d49b7c]for work[/b:6b53d49b7c] to me.

That and the BN is a bigger, heaver tractor. The Cub is nice, and if space is an issue then it probably a better fit, but it's just not the same worker the BN is.

As far as tipping goes. I always wondered how much tipper they really were. The axle on my A swings pretty far before it stops, seems like if you got that far you might be to far gone as it is.

K

8^)

That anchor bar for the drawbar makes for a good footrest, too, even if you're just sittin on the diff shaft housing. Spent a lot of days when I was a kid sittin' right there.

There were several Bs in our area and all had some sorts of stuff for the riders on that left diff housing. Some had a planks across the drawbar with a big tool box the paint was always shinny where someone sat. Handiest small tractor ever built in its day. I guess thats why i have 6 of them mounted plow on one and a laoder on another one exhaust lift cult on another and it goes on and on.

Really enjoying this since I have both. Apples and oranges, that's all. Farmers around me call the cub a "toy" tractor. Has pulled a few cars out of mudholes, anyhow, whatever you call it. Used to cut 10 acres grass, would be a long day with cub. Long enough with A. Cub gets in places to cut that A could never do. Also lot safer for grandson 11 years old. Uses kill switch cord attached to his britches. Either one, enjoy.

Really enjoying this since I have both. Apples and oranges, that's all. Farmers around me call the cub a "toy" tractor. Has pulled a few cars out of mudholes, anyhow, whatever you call it. Used to cut 10 acres grass, would be a long day with cub. Long enough with A. Cub gets in places to cut that A could never do. Also lot safer for grandson 11 years old. Uses kill switch cord attached to his britches. Either one, enjoy.

Okay, so the PTO turns in the right direction on the BN...

What are you going to hook to it?

Have you priced a new Woods mower deck for a BN lately? Last I checked, it's around $3500 with all the mounting hardware.

From what I gathered, the OP wants to use this tractor to mow grass. If he's got $3500 to spend, he'd be much better off spending it on a dedicated mowing machine. He can get one heck of brand spanking new Cub Cadet for $3500.

If you just LOVE the idea of a Cub or a BN and can't look at anything else, don't read any further!
I'm a dyed-in-the wool IHC guy, probably because I grew up on red (and grey) stuff made between 1926 and 1955. I used to have a chance to drive a neighbor's A and a relative's B. They are certainly one of the nicest tractors of that era, as far as comfort goes (good seat, wide, flatplatform, pedals well placed, throttle accessible, gearshift "falls to hand," as the sports car guys say). I thought the reversion to tiny wheels, after the great traction that 40" rubber provided on the F-12 and F-14, was strange, to say the least. I never got to use either of these in real hard going, so I can't compare them directly to the F-12s I drove for probably 15 years (my father's '38 F-12 on the 40" rubber and cast rears pulled two twelve-inch plows for years; originally rated for 1-16" on steel. Great, rugged tractor with a "heart of gold." Sounds like a reformed stripper, but I'm really referring to how hard the old girl would work to pull those plows or a 7' double disk that was intended for the 10-20 my grandfather bought in 1929.

The A and B are light-years ahead in comfort, compared to F-12 and F-14. They test out at about the same horsepower, so in theory should be able to do the same work.
One drawback to B/BN would be the lack of a good
power lift, unless there is some kind of retrofitted hydraulic system.
I bought a Cub a few years ago, intending to mow a large grassy space with it. Never found a mower before I decided to sell the house, but I did get to drive the tractor around the back 40 a bit. It is as charming as an A, but it is obviously a tiny, tiny tractor with not much horsepower. I have some original IHC literature from right after WW II, and it makes it clear that the Cub is a "real" tractor, but obviously intended for VERY small farms, maybe like the kind of place that used to be farmed with a couple of mules.
Now, to the treasonous part. Last year, I needed
a tractor and mower to keep the weeds down on about 8 acres of a field that overlooks a lovely mountain. I had just been keeping my eyes open, on the ads and along the roads. Lo and behold, one day, I spy, sitting in the yard of a guy I knew a little bit, a Ford (gulp! red face!) 1100 with belly mower. Wasn't crazy about the 2-cylinder engine at slow speeds, but at normal working speeds, it was pretty smooth. Very versatile transmission: TEN forward speeds, from a crawl to ten mph, in small increments. On a Cub or B/BN, you'd really have only first and second gear to choose from for hard work. Rear-mounted 4 or 5 foot mower (never measured), 3-point hitch, excellent hydraulic lift system. Nice seating arrangement, good platforms for the feet, pedals in the right place, accelerator pedal + hand throttle. Sips diesel through a straw. Seems sturdy and reliable, and would probably go for $22-2400.

I am a romantic about the old stuff, but I have to say that a modern utility tractor is a great way to go(mine is pretty "modern" even though it was made in the early 80s).
A note on rear-mount mowers. Super easy to put on and take off (3 pins and the pto shaft), but they do stick out and swing around in a turn. It is easy to whack a tree or a rock if you don't remember that it's back there. No experience with belly mowers, but I imagine they are more trouble to hook up.

A P.S.: The Cub was lowered and became the Cub Cadet, which was essentially a golf-course tractor, very capable of doing nice work on smooth lawns. Gives you an idea of the power level available.

(quoted from post at 14:26:22 11/24/08) A P.S.: The Cub was lowered and became the Cub Cadet, which was essentially a golf-course tractor, very capable of doing nice work on smooth lawns. Gives you an idea of the power level available.

Click to expand...

The Cub that was lowered became the Cub LoBoy, not the Cub Cadet.

The Cadet is a smaller, air cooled Garden Tractor that originally used a Cub's 3 speed transmission.

K

Thanks. I shoulda looked it up.