Güldner AX or International Harvester CUB?
Which should you choose?
On performance, no comparable figure differs by more than its threshold: on this data the machines are level. On features, the Güldner AX is ahead on forward gears and top speed.
- The Güldner AX suits road haulage better on this data: 94% (9.4 km/h / 5.8 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 | AX | CUB | Call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which puts more power through the PTO shaft? | 7.4 kW (10 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner AX” | 7.2 kW (9.62 hp)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick Cub” | EvenEven on power at the PTO shaft (both power at the PTO, claimed): the difference is under the 10% threshold for claimed figures, too small to call. |
| 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 AX and the CUB. |
| Which pulls harder at the drawbar? | — | — | No figureNo call on drawbar power: no figure on record for the AX and the CUB. |
| Which pumps more oil for implements? | — | 10.6 L/min (2.8 gpm)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick Cub” | No figureNo call on hydraulic flow: no figure on record for the AX. |
| Which lifts more on the three-point hitch? | 435 kg (959 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner AX” | — | No figureNo call on three-point lift: no figure on record for the CUB. |
| Which is heavier, for traction? | 800 kg (1,764 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner AX” | 649 kg (1,431 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick Cub” | Ahead (a fact, not an advantage)The Güldner AX is 23% heavier (151 kg / 333 lb) than the International Harvester CUB (both unladen weight, as stated by the source). |
| Which may carry more ballast and load? | 1,300 kg (2,866 lb)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner AX” | — | No figureNo call on maximum permissible mass: no figure on record for the CUB. |
| Which has the wider choice of gears? | 6Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner AX” | 3Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick Cub” | AheadThe Güldner AX has 100% more forward gears (3 gears) than the International Harvester CUB (both forward gears, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers a creeper range? | — | — | No figureNo call on a creeper range: not stated for the AX and the CUB. |
| Which is faster on the road? | 19.4 km/h (12.1 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner AX” | 10 km/h (6.2 mph)Traktorenlexikon, “McCormick Cub” | AheadThe Güldner AX has 94% more top speed (9.4 km/h / 5.8 mph) than the International Harvester CUB (both top speed forward, as stated by the source). |
| Which offers more PTO speeds? | 575 rpmTraktorenlexikon, “Güldner AX” | — | No figureNo call on PTO speeds: no standard PTO speed stated for the AX and the CUB. |
| Which PTO runs independently of the ground drive? | dependent (stops with the clutch)Traktorenlexikon, “Güldner AX” | — | No figureNo call on PTO independence: not stated for the CUB. |
| Which drives on both axles? | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “Güldner AX” | 2WDTraktorenlexikon, “McCormick Cub” | EvenEven on drive: all two-wheel drive. |
| Which is newer, and what about parts? | 1956–1959 | 1955–1957 | EvenSame era: production began within 5 years of each other. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts. |
What does this mean in plain words?
- The Güldner AX is 23% heavier (151 kg / 333 lb) than the International Harvester CUB (both unladen weight, as stated by the source).
- The Güldner AX has 100% more forward gears (3 gears) than the International Harvester CUB (both forward gears, as stated by the source).
- The Güldner AX has 94% more top speed (9.4 km/h / 5.8 mph) than the International Harvester CUB (both top speed forward, as stated by the source).
- Even on power at the PTO shaft (both power at the PTO, claimed): the difference is under the 10% threshold for claimed figures, too small to call.
- Even on drive: all two-wheel drive.
- Same era: production began within 5 years of each other. We hold no parts-availability data, so there is no call on parts.
- No figure on record for every machine, so no call on: fuel efficiency at the shaft, drawbar power, hydraulic flow, three-point lift, maximum permissible mass, a creeper range, PTO speeds and PTO independence.
← Every figure for both machines, side by side, with sources