Ford 1200 or International Harvester CUB-154 LO-BOY?
Which should you choose?
The data can’t decide this. Power at the PTO shaft cannot be compared: the 1200 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the CUB-154 LO-BOY has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- The Ford 1200 suits loader and hydraulic implement work better on this data: 104% (7.9 L/min / 2.1 gpm) more hydraulic flow.
- The Ford 1200 suits road haulage better on this data: 25% (3.0 km/h / 1.9 mph) more top speed.
Generated by rule set compare@4 from the figures on the side-by-side table, allowed by route “the same stated configuration”. Measured figures are compared only with measured, claimed only with claimed, at the same test condition; differences within each figure’s tolerance are not called.
What decides it, question by question?
| Question | 1200 | CUB-154 LO-BOY | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 11.3 kW (15.2 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1200” | 11 kW (15 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC Cub 154 Lo-Boy” | Not comparableNot comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 1200 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the CUB-154 LO-BOY has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft. |
| Which turns a litre of fuel into more work at the shaft? | — | — | No figureNo call on fuel efficiency at the shaft: no figure on record for the 1200 and the CUB-154 LO-BOY. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the 1200 and the CUB-154 LO-BOY. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | 15.5 L/min (4.1 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1200” | 7.6 L/min (2.0 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC Cub 154 Lo-Boy” | AheadThe Ford 1200 has 104% more hydraulic flow (7.9 L/min / 2.1 gpm) than the International Harvester CUB-154 LO-BOY (both pump flow, as stated by the source). |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 400 kg (882 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1200” | — | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the CUB-154 LO-BOY. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 608 kg (1,340 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1200” | 671 kg (1,479 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC Cub 154 Lo-Boy” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The International Harvester CUB-154 LO-BOY is 10% heavier (63 kg / 139 lb) than the Ford 1200 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source). |
| Which may carry more ballast and load? | — | — | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the 1200 and the CUB-154 LO-BOY. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 10 to 15Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1200” | 3 to 6Traktorenlexikon, “IHC Cub 154 Lo-Boy” | AheadThe Ford 1200 has 67% more forward gears (4 gears) than the International Harvester CUB-154 LO-BOY (both forward gears, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the 1200 and the CUB-154 LO-BOY. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 15 km/h (9.3 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Ford 1200” | 12 km/h (7.5 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “IHC Cub 154 Lo-Boy” | AheadThe Ford 1200 has 25% more top speed (3.0 km/h / 1.9 mph) than the International Harvester CUB-154 LO-BOY (both top speed forward, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 540 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 1200” | 1800Traktorenlexikon, “IHC Cub 154 Lo-Boy” | No figureNo call on PTO speeds: no standard PTO speed stated for the CUB-154 LO-BOY. |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | — | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the 1200 and the CUB-154 LO-BOY. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Ford 1200” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “IHC Cub 154 Lo-Boy” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1979–1982 | 1968–1974 | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Ford 1200 is newer: production began 11 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The Ford 1200 has 104% more hydraulic flow (7.9 L/min / 2.1 gpm) than the International Harvester CUB-154 LO-BOY (both pump flow, as stated by the source).
- The International Harvester CUB-154 LO-BOY is 10% heavier (63 kg / 139 lb) than the Ford 1200 (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Ford 1200 has 67% more forward gears (4 gears) than the International Harvester CUB-154 LO-BOY (both forward gears, as stated by the source).
- The Ford 1200 has 25% more top speed (3.0 km/h / 1.9 mph) than the International Harvester CUB-154 LO-BOY (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
- The Ford 1200 is newer: production began 11 years later. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- Even on drive: all two-wheel drive.
- Not comparable on power at the PTO shaft: the 1200 has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft; the CUB-154 LO-BOY has only engine power (gross or net not stated), claimed — a different quantity from power at the shaft.
- No figure on record for every machine, so no call on: fuel efficiency at the shaft, drawbar power, three-point lift, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range, PTO speeds and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources