Outdoor Power Equipment (Lawn Mowers, Snow Blowers, Chain Saws and more) Discussions

Trying to pick a replacement for my Craftsman single stage snowthrower that I am replacing due to difficult starting and since it is generally inadequate in clearing my drifts,EOD, and heavier accumulations.

Background:

I have an 80ft flat, paved driveway, appx 20ft wide and a bit of side walk to clear.  Although NOAA says my average snowfall is 24"/yr, some years we don't seem to get any and other years (such as last year), we get about double that, some times in the 12"-14" range.  I live in a windy area where drifts get in the 2' + range.  Storage of unit with clearing width to 30" is not a problem.

Choices:

Budget $1000-$1500.

Toro 826LE or 828LXE-I have several good service/dealer locations nearby (price $1099/$1399)

Simplicty L10530E-Having a Simplicity Tractor, I know the dealer fairly well-average as far as service/support (price $1499)

Ariens 824E or 1027LE-Dealer is about 20mile away, don't really know him. (price $999/$1200)

These were the ones I was considering, I see +/- to each.  Let me know what you think or if you need more info.  Thanks

Is it too late to recommend Honda? The HS928TA is awesome  

MichaelFix wrote:

A liitle too rich for my blood  :).  The $1399 for the TORO is my MAX,

All engines are marketed by their hp, which is kind of a misnomer. (Horse) Power is simply work done over time.

Torque is, of course, twisting force. It is the best unit of measurement when hp is in question, not displacement.

But really, I don’t want to get lathered up on the subject of torque beyond where we are now. I don't think Simplicity would put a 13.5hp engine on a 28" frame based on their current convention. That is just my opinion

However, 13.5 ft-lbs torque ? (typically not measured as gross) Sure I'd go along with that. . . It's about a 9.5 hp. . .  but either way , 

Toro still gets my vote

MichaelFix wrote:
Michael,

No confusion on my part either. It does look like a performance curve to me too. Only it was published prior to this year (when Briggs rated in hp) and it is for an Intek AVS vertical shaft 344cc lawnmower engine. The AVS system is not available on their snow engines. Also their peak rating for snow engines is 13.0hp (16.5 torque rating, 342cc horizontal).

The reason the industry is going away from horsepower is due to pressures stemming from legal challenges of the SAE practices for rating horsepower. The practices by which engines can be rated are somewhat deceiving at times. That said, the torque equation holds true as long as the power curves are published by engineers and not marketing folks. With various manufacturers rating their engines differently it will get very confusing soon for customers (as has happened here).

Torque is a better indicator for engine selection versus displacement only if the curve itself is published (this is not very practical marketing-wise). The quality of the curve is what is most important (not peak torque). For example, an engine with a peak torque too close to the operating RPM can have problems snubbing out when it  is overexerted.  Or if an engine has a very peaky torque curve it will not hold the line well. The Tecumseh L-heads (318cc and 358cc) have a very flat curve that peaks down around 2500 RPM which is beneficial. The Briggs model 15 (249cc), which is market-wise comparable to the 318cc Tecumseh L-head, has near comparable peak torque but nowhere near the quality of the torque curve. The higher average torque across the RPM range of the Tecumseh is (in this case) mostly a result of a 28% displacement advantage.

Ed,

The Intek Snow trim is comparable to the Blizzard Max and the Blizzard is comparable to the Powerbuilt Snow. There are no major differences short of a new marketing plan. They can be trimmed identically. The 13.5 Torque rating engine (it is not 13.5hp despite what you might have been told) is equivalent to the 9.5hp from last year, and it is 305cc, not 324cc (as is the 14.5 Torque Rating). The 15.5 and 16.5 are 342cc.

If you buy a Briggs powered unit make sure the recall work has been done. There have been many of these that ignited from backfiring in the heater box.

Nibbler,

You're on the money as usual. Not only are temperatures a problem in various areas of the engine, but moisture is equally an enemy.

PK

tbone2004 wrote:

T-bone,

This will make you feel good.

http://images.ariens.com/i/r/2007_snow_ad.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmmICPz2Jt4

Large Cub Cadet on the left, then a Large Simplicity, then the Ariens on the far right...


Did you get a Briggs powered machine?

Snowmann wrote:

All engine maufacturers are required to follow the same SAE practicies, there are no disadvantage or advantage fro any one engine or any one maufacturer. It is more a matter of  compliance or non-compliance.

It is a matter of policy that research development engineers create engine performance curves not marketing folks. Again, it's not a free for all a these labs, it's a matter following their policy. Can you imagine one of these places being audited and the auditor asks R&D for the method by which they derive hp and the engineer points to the marketing group? Yeah that would go over well. . .

 

Snowmann wrote:

As an engineer I know a little about torque curves.

Measuring an engines performance based on displacement is analogous to doing the same based on it's color, or it's dB rating.

For all engines or class of engines produced  a corresponding  performance curve is also produced, you know. . .  that physics thing again.

And on performance curve there is and will always be  torque = force at a specific rpm and work in a unit of time which is hp. I do not think this is likely to change.

Sales, Marketingand OEMs may chose to intrepret these performance curves disigenuously but to me "when in doubt, look at the curve"      

 

MichaelFix wrote:
It doesn't go over well at all actually...

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/hyundai_settlement.html

And the cost for non-compliace? A wonderful example indeed

"I am an Engineer, in my profession I take deep pride.  To it I owe solemn obligations. . . " 

They must have been absent that day 

Snowmann wrote:
It has gone so far as to confuse the dealers.  Three in my area were under the impression that it was a 14hp engine based on simplicity's model # system.   I actually went through 3 Briggs techs before I got one that had the correct info (rated on torque rather than HP)...interesting that the dealers didn't seem to have any confusion about the other models....I'd assume that simplicity would be re-numbering them also.  Looking at the numbers I'm sure you're right,  It's still the engine that was rated at 9.5HP on last years models.