Why didn't Cub Cadet Make 14/16hp with Manual Transmissions
 

Based on what I see in Tractordata.com Cub Cadet made 147, 149 and 169.
All hydrostatic. Anybody know, or have speculation as to why no manual transmissions were made?
Was it all market driven (customer demand)?
Or, is there a mechanical reason?

Thanks,
Daryl
MN

1450 and 1650 as well

The best I understood is that the hydro's take an extra 2hp, so in theory your 149 would have the same output as a 128.
The other theory I heard was that the clutches wouldn't take the power of the bigger engines.
But I don't but that, I've but my 128 under some heavy loads ploughing and that clutch has yet to let me down.

I've always just assumed that it was because IH didn't think they would sell. They probably figured that if someone was putting the money down for a 14 or 16 horsepower tractor, they would also want it kitted out with hydrostatic transmission, which to the average lawn mowing and maybe snow plowing customer was a great feature.
I think it's also worth pointing out that in the first series that broke past 12hp, the 6/7 narrow frames, the highest horsepower manual transmission Cub Cadet, the 126, sold poorly. There were more 73s sold, the budget model in that series, and at that point the 7hp models had already well established their position as the slowest sellers. It would have been reasonable to assume that there wasn't demand for higher horsepower manual models at that time. Of course, IH would go up to a 16 horsepower twin just a few years later with the 582, and then MTD/CCC happily put an 18 horsepower Kohler Magnum in front of a 3 speed and creeper in the 1806.