PAUL - Yes, that was one they fixed, but there were others they never addressed, like the frt axle spindle problem that DAWID posted about. But I guess the WF welded spindle kinda fixed that, but gave other problems, like the spindle the wheel mounts on breaking out of the "U" shaped piece because there wasn't enough surface area on a 3/4" or 1" spindle to adequately weld the spindle to. MTD/CCC finally fixed the problem going back to the bent "J" shaped 1" spindles with splined & clamped steering arms. IH did that on the 982 but didn't carry the idea over to the smaller tractors.
And on the GD's, the very furthest back hole in the driveshaft at the front of the coupler, is the only place a single 1/4" dia roll pin drives the whole tractor thru a rather small 5/8" dia mild steel shaft. There's two pins in the clutch, and actually another single pin on the back of the coupler, but it's driving a hardened high carbon carburized steel pinion shaft. A 7 or 8 HP GD will never wear that back hole out in the driveshaft, but with 10 or more HP, it will last only about 12-15 yrs and wallow that hole out to almost accept a 3/8" pin. I don't think IH ever used a rag joint in a GD CC. But I seem to remember maybe MTD/CCC did. But at least on the Hydro's, MTD/CCC redesigned the drive shaft to use something similar to a Lovejoy coupling to soften the impact of the engine's power stroke. I had to replace the rag joints in my old 129, and the 982 had new rag joints & drive shaft when I bought it. If IH would have started using a larger, say 1" dia driveshaft with 5/16" or 3/8" roll pins there wouldn't have been any problem. The drive cup & pilot bushing could have stayed 5/8".
And for ground engaging higher HP tractors, the rear axle shafts were getting kinda small. I know several people here have twisted off the splined end of the rear axles in the diff carrier in their CC's. MTD/CCC went to a 1-3/16" dia. axle with finer splines while IH kept with the 1" dia axles. That was a 41% increase in surface area & strength. Several people here have swapped in the newer stronger MTD parts into their IH CC's.
And the old TRW/ROSS steering gearboxes were not quite up to the task of turning heavier tractors with wide tires with heavy frt mounted attachments like snow blowers, loaders, etc. But power steering fixed that problem. Something else MTD/CCC did that IH never brought to market.
And I was reading on another forum last night that several people have had frames crack right behind the engine mounting plate on IH 982's and early MTD/CCC SGT's. A little thicker steel in the frames on the bigger tractors would have been a good idea. Longer frames generate more stress in rough terrain. And carrying the thicker frame over into the smaller tractors wouldn't have hurt either.
So yes, the same engineering group that thought the 460/560 would be fine with a 50-60+ HP engine ahead of a rearend designed for 36 HP were still using the same logic when designing CC's. As long as it worked well for 90, 95, even 99+% of the time for 10-15 years it was Good to GO. So that being said, maybe trying to use these old tractors for 33, or 45, or even 48 yrs is asking too much. It'd just be nice if all the rest of the tractor was as rugged & long-lasting as the transmission & rearend was, both GD & hydro.
One thing I know for sure, the CC 1100, 482, 582 Special, etc with the Peerless rearend wasn't the right answer. After running CC's for 50 yrs I'm not about to switch brands.