A tale of two Supers and some ?'s
 

A while back, I picked up my 1872 which I knew was partially apart, a project abandoned. When I got it home, I found it was missing a few important and expensive parts and the driveshafts (there were 2) were both worn out.

Today I accomplished my mission of finding a parts tractor; an 1882 with a much nicer Haban and what looks to have all of the parts that I need like driveshaft and muffler and a bunch of little things.

So, the questions: On the 1882, the axle shaft housings are much beefier that the 1872. Is this a model year change or did the PO swap out the rear end?? The hydro unit is the same on both; has the splined shaft that sticks out the back. Both units appear to be aluminum. Second: I read about the flex that cracks parts on here, would the end plate from the newer tractor frame cure this?

First question: 82 series had bigger axle housings.
Second: No I had one with an end plate, still cracked the front mounts. Axle braces are needed, especially if you run a big Haban.

Thanks for the reply. I'll add swapping rears to the project.

Why??
What's wrong with the rear in the 1872? They just changed axle design. It's not like there were issues breaking an axle tube on the older style. Leave the rears alone. No gain in switching.

If no strength advantage, I'll leave it be. I'm going to be making one out of two here, so I want make sure to take advantage if any of the parts are stronger or more durable, or just a better design.

Not much advantage. The outer axle bearing is a ball bearing in the 1882 as opposed to the needle bearing in the 1872, but the needle bearings almost never cause issue as long as the seal is good and the rear doesn't get water in it. I wouldn't go to the trouble of switching. Not worth the gain.

Now, if you are wanting to use the driveshaft out of the 1882, then you will have to swap rears. The two tractors use completely different driveshafts. They aren't similar enough machines to use one for parts on the other. Some parts interchange..... but lots of differences.

So are you keeping 1872? You can use the CV style drive shaft from it, you will just need to drill and tap the input shaft on the hydro.

No, the 1872 uses a smooth hydro input, the 1882 is splined. He will need to swap rears, or buy the adapter from Jeff.

The 1872 is splined. My 1872 has a splined input shaft. Pretty sure they all have it, just like the 1572 and 1772.

My mistake. It is splined but uses a roll pin. You are correct. Tap the shaft, and you can convert without swapping rears. :beerchug:

I known you long enough to know you knew, just forgot. :beerchug:

Yeah...... It happens to me more and more. :angry:
Too much on the brain. :BlahBlah:

Keeping in mind that I'm a rookie here...could I just swap the hydro units? Or are they too different? That would solve the tapping of the shaft and I could replace that gasket that I keep reading leaks often. There's something up with the controls on the 1872, all the parts are there but one of the parts is flopping around. I haven't dug in enough to see if it's just a loose bolt or something yet.

Yes, I really like the look and the metal parts are all in great shape except for the fender has a minor bend.

The 1872 doesn't have a viable driveshaft, missing PTO, muffler and several small parts like hood hinges. The deck is a little beat up, but repairable, and is missing the front wheel assemblies as well as some minor hanging hardware. Motor is good.
The 1882 has no usable plastic body parts, fender is trashed with bends, dents and rust. Deck is all there, needs cleaned up and painted. Motor is unknown, they guy said the "magneto" was bad, sparkplug wire is missing on one side.
I might use what I need from it and store the rest of the 1882 for some future project...I do have this 2185...

Without looking, I can't recall if the control plate was the same. The swash plate arm is.... but I think the control arm is different. I think the parts book calls it a swashplate. (Not really what it is, but I think that is what it is called.) Go to cubcadet.com and look up the two machines and compare. You can do it just like I can. Or park them side by side and compare. Sorry for the above confusion. The rear ends themselves will interchange, yes. But some of the control plates may not.

The CV shaft conversion is a good one to do. I'm sure you are like a lot of SGT owners though. Probably just going to use it as an overgrown lawn mower, so other than adding some rear end braces, and getting it working good, not a lot you need to worry about as far as making it "stronger". Probably would have been a lot easier if you had bought two "like" tractors, and bought a CV shaft by itself if you wanted to do that conversion. Also a lot easier for you, and us, if you would "dig in" and find our exactly what you have, and what you need to fix. Guessing usually just makes things worse. :beerchug:

Mine don't have a roll pin. Just the splined shaft.
https://s22.postimg.cc/696bh8fe9/Medium.png

Todd, the parts book lists a spirol pin in the description that goes with call out number 7. Perhaps some have been removed, or broke out... or maybe just didn't use it. I have an 1872 down in the barn, but honestly never looked at it, and I haven't had the shaft out of one in at least 3 years.... I'm starting to forget.

That was the plan, then I found the 1882 for the price of a good used shaft...

Can't beat that I guess.
How about some pics of these two tractors?

:TTWWP:

Todd

Your tractor should have a roll pin to hold the "Arm" number 7 on the shaft of the pump. Maybe that's part of the reason your shaft came out and trashed a bunch of stuff.:bigthink:

Here's a pic of the 1872 after I unloaded it, you can see where the back of the fender is pushed in.

I'll have to get some more of the 1882 once I get it off the trailer.

I've pretty much convinced myself that the 1882 will be saved too, broken and rushed bodywork can be replaced.

Just as it popped up fore sale, I'm sure another will that has the parts I need.

Is it possible to adapt the 48" deck from the 2185 to use on the super? I have to have a smaller deck to mow the ditch along the highway. The 48" just makes it, no way a 60"will work.

Why in the world would you want to put a tiny 48" deck on a SGT? Just leave it on the GT and use it. If you want to mow with a 48" sell the SGT's to someone who will use them. This is exactly the kind of thing that just irritates me to no end.... people buying SGT's just to own one with no use for one. It's like buying a Farmall C with a 72" Woods deck and using it for a lawn mower, then saying it's too big. Duh. If you don't have use for a 60" deck, you don't intend to use it with 3pt (which neither tractor has), then what do you need a SGT for??

Because I'm 6'3" and have one artificial knee. I need the leg room.

I'm lost. The seat moves back the same amount, and there is no dash to hit your knees on. The fender pan is the same, so your feet can't be in any different place. Only difference is the dash and steering wheel is further away..... but your legs straddle the dash. So, what is the gain? Left brake pedal is further away..... but it's not a clutch, so you don't use it. :Unknown:

If a guy owns both, and says a super is more comfortable, why do you care?
I don’t think you can argue with him until you grow 3in taller. :biggrin2:

More than 3". I'm 5'8".
All I know is the fender pan is the same. I don't see how there could be anymore room. It's not like a car where there is a dash in front of your knees. No... it's no skin off my nose either way. :biggrin2:

Comfort. For me the 2185 feels crowded which why I set out to find a slightly more roomy machine. The deck on the 2185 does an amazing job on my lawn and I've rebuilt it top to bottom to make sure continues to do so.

For my yard, 95% is rolling to flat and a large deck is perfect, it's that 5% up front that even the 48" inch is too wide if you miss your approach and departure angles. So a comfy chassis plus the rights sized deck = mowing machine with a purpose.

As for need VS want.. I don't "need" to have my old Massey Ferguson at the house either, but there it is. These thing give me something to do.

So keep the little deck on the little tractor, and the big deck on the big tractor.

JON, what do you care if he decides he wants a 48 in deck on the super. It is his tractor to use as he sees fit. Not all supers came with 60 in decks. many were sold with a 50C. The 48 is only 2 in narrower. I have been using a 1872 to mow for almost 20 years and for a number of years I had a GT46 deck on it so I could use my bagger. I like the supers for a better ride and when mowing a ditch bank they are more stable. When I bought my 782 I moved the bagger over to it and now have a 60 in deck to mow the large areas. You do as you wish with your cubs and quit being so critical of others who do not subscribe to your way of thinking.

To nophun, It would be hard to adapt the 48 in deck from the 2185 to the 1872 without some fabrication. It could be done but if you want the smaller deck you might be better off finding a 48 in deck that was designed to work on a early cyclops tractor.

Fred, don't tell me to mind my own business by not mending your own. It's hypocritical.

How can a tractor with a higher center of gravity be more stable on a ditch bank??? Oh, it's wider you say?... Yep. Just enough wider to balance out the higher center of gravity and make it no more stable than a GT. A GT will slide before it tips. Can't get much more stable than that.

Personal preference often has no justification in life. Sometimes choices are irrational in the eyes of others. Much like a Cub painted purple or some other non-original color. But if the owner is happy, that is the only thing important.

Most of the time my uphill rear loses traction and I have to ride the uphill brake.
On the 782 I have to slide myself to the uphill side, half on the seat and half on the fender.
It’s way cooler to ride the brake than hang off the seat. :biggrin2:

So here's a picture of the 1882 from the ad that I answered. The only picture.

Pulled the engine yesterday and the starter is locked up against the flywheel, and the engine is locked up. I'll have to do a little tear-down to see if it's the starter situation or if the engine is actually locked up itself

It's parked out in waist high weeds and you thought it might just be the starter...... I'm betting the engine is toast.
I've seen things end up in the junk for less though. I wouldn't be surprised either way.

Yeah, I didn't have any great expectation for the engine, if it turns out to be OK then that's great. When I saw that ad and the Haban pull cover for $100, I knew I'd get my much needed drive shaft plus some spares at the minimum. There's been a flurry of "parts or repair" machines this spring, just none reasonable close till this one.

I would buy parts machine Supers like that all day for $100.00. Around here any time one comes up for sale the owners seem to thing that they are made of gold. Be interesting to see what you find wrong with the engine.

Pulled the starter from 1882 engine and its still locked up. Pulled the little valve covers and found a bit of light rust on the spring retainer as well as the cylinder casting. I'm thinking obvious moisture, probably a stuck ring or valve. No matter, I need one of the tins and PTO from it anyhow. I'll tear it down at another time.

Broke a tie rod end on the 2185 which led to the discovery the the local chain of Case/IH and Kubota dealers are also Cub dealer, I'll be able to grab the part on the way to or from work.

Finally tinkered with the 1882 engine, pulled the left head off and there was still water in there...and rust...so no go on it being a runner any time soon.

On the plus side, got the muffler off, and while it looks average worn on the outside, it is oh so clean and pretty on the inside; this is one of the things missing from the 1872.

One of the other things missing from the 1872 is the PTO clutch, the one from the 1882 needs a front bearing and the epoxy bedding is cracking out of the coil. The driven surfaces both have some minor rust on them.

The bearing is staked in three spots, I should be able to grind those and press the bearing out with no trouble.

What's the best method for dressing the drive faces? I'd think letting the rust just grind itself off would lead to grooving.

Lastly, the coil. What kind of epoxy would I use to recover where the old is falling off? I'll have to test it for short to ground and resistance 1st before I put any time into it; if it's shot then an extreme retrofit is probably the best course $$-wise.

1872 and 1882's use different PTO's. Only interchangeable if you use attachments made for the respective PTO.

I'd just buff the rust off. Grooving on the PTO clutch doesn't seem to affect them much.

You can put epoxy over the potting on the coil..... but usually once they crack out, they aren't any good. Seen guys fill with epoxy and got a few more years out of them.