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

For now its only lawn equipment, that will be sold by sears made by Snapper starting this spring.How long before they start selling snowblowers??oh well in the end its all bout the almighty dollar.The worse thing that could of happened to snapper and simplicity was B&S buying them out...

Now that's bad news. 

If Snapper/Simplicity goes "box store", we will probably see compromised quality of the Sears products similar to  Ariens and Toro at Home Depot.   That will be a shame.  Next step will be moving production to China. 

If you're planning on getting a Simplicity, get a good one while they still make them. 

From what I hear the Snapper brand units sold by Sears will be different from the ones sold at dealerships, toned down and cheaper. So it's more about Snapper expanding its range of products than going box.

I did a quick check on Simplicity/Snapper dealers in my zip code area and there aren't many around.  My guess, it's all about product distribution to boost a slow sales history.  These are high quality machines and the company is using Sears as a mass distribution outlet in order to compete with the big box retail world.  Meanwhile Sears wins by acquiring a high quality big name to boost their image.  The small dealer can't afford to compete and companies like Simplicity will sink with these small dealers if they don't take action.  For Simplicity shareholders it's a shot in the arm.  I'm sure Simplicity will tell their dealers that they've been underperforming.  It happens all the time.

I remember when supermarkets were new to the world and neighborhood grocers started closing one at a time.

Snowbound wrote:
Holy schlitz! Just how old are you? 

;)

My guess would be that he's not much older than 60 years. I'm younger that that, and can definitely remember what it was like to shop at a local grocery store. You could find supermarkets in the bigger cities at that time, but even then they were a bit of a novelty. It seems like they exploded overnight, and swallowed up the mom-and-pop grocers like Microsoft swallowed up the competition. Or Wal-Mart. Or Toyota. Or Anheiser-Busch, etc.

Point is, it really wasn't that long ago. If you're under 30 years old, I can see how this may seem like ancient history. Scary thing is, it will be less than 30 years before the next generation looks at your lifestyle and declares it "irrelevant". Just like the generation before. And, the one before that. And, the one before that...

How about gasoline at $1.00 per gallon? Do you remember that? That wasn't that long ago, either. I'll not even mention what the price of gas was when I started driving. No sense in bumming anybody out. Let's just say that, at 9 MPG, my Hemi 'Cuda got great gas mileage - on a minimum-wage job.

Sorry...

Was that a 426 c.i. hemi?

I watched a documentary last night that pitted the Chevy 409, Pontiac 421, Chevy 427, Ford 427 and Mopar 426 against each other in a max. crankshaft dyno measured power comparison.  The 409 made 406 h.p., the 421 around 416 h.p., the Chev 427 at 425 h.p., the Ford 427 an impressive 637 h.p. and the Mopar - get ready for this, 853 h.p.!!!!!  That was in the 60s!  All of the above engines were stock components but blue printed.   The elephant was certainly an awesome engine.   I'm recalling from memory so I might be off by a horsepower or two.    

Yup, the infamous 426. Mine managed a respectable 465 bhp, but it was pretty much factory stock. Still, the HP/Weight ratio made that 'little' car scream. Bendix four-speed, 4:15 rear end, and enough torque to pull stumps on Sunday. Not too shabby for 3500 bucks (used).

Not sure how they punched up a stock Hemi to over 850 HP, but I doubt if blueprinting would be enough. If I remember right, Richard Petty's 440 superbird (which dominated) ran well below 800 HP, but I could see how a blown funny car version (or top fuel) could pull those kind of ponies. Never heard about anything on the street that potent, though. You'd probably have to buy fuel at the airport to feed a beast like that.

Some of the well-healed Mopar guys in my town claimed 550+ horsepower with the right high-rise, camshaft, and carb combination. A lot of those hot parts were available from Chrysler dealers directly, as a result of their racing program. When I think of what 6 or 7 thousand would buy you back then, it makes me wish I had hung on to more than a few of those gas-guzzling monsters. Oh well, you know what they say about hindsight.

Oh yes, just to keep on topic - I agree with with the folks who figure there will be two seperate tiers of Snapper products. Sometimes, though, the low-end Sears version of branded power equipt. can be a real bargain. Other times, it's a matter of you get what you pay for. Will be interesting to see the first snowblowers appear at Sears (or K-Mart?).

The program measured h.p. at the crank and other than blue printing, nothing else was done to the engine.  They actually showed the dyno run for each machine.  It was truly an outstanding  engine.     You're probably talking rear wheel power.   I have also read that the stock 426 was actually rated closer to 550 h.p. bone stock to keep insurance rates down.     

borat wrote:

You want to hear a good one boys? I went to a snowblower parts store around the corner, and this guy selling mower too, so I looked around to see what's new this year and I was supprised to see that orange mower call Ariens with you kknow what a KAWASAKI engine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the guy told me that kawa is coming strong so dont be surprised if tecumseh out of the way in the future.

That is good news, indeed. I'm hoping that Toro will follow this lead with their future 4-stroke single-stage models. So far, the weakest link in this series seems to be the Snow-King engine. A real throwback, considering how far small 4-strokes have evolved. If Toro expects folks to shell out the big bucks for their name alone, they're in for a surprise.

borat wrote: Yes, I was referring to brake horsepower, the standard of the day. Losses in the drive train gobble up significant horsepower. Also, the showroom offerings took a real HP hit due to the second generation of emissions standards (I had a 1971 model). The 550 HP figure sounds about right for 1969. though. The 426 was famous for it's bottom-end strength, as proven in top fuel racing. So, it's not that much of a stretch to imagine 850 HP. Still, that must have been one well-engineered package to produce 850 HP with normal aspiration (carbureted).

Surprised they didn't mention Ford's version of the Hemi - the 429 CI NASCAR engine. They were available in limited numbers on the street, and many were salvaged from former cop cars. This would seem to be the only engine of the day which could compete with the Mopar mill.

Also surprised to see such low numbers on the Chevy 427. Although they turned high revs (and burned out quickly), the truck version (with 4-bolt mains and forged rods) was  the motor of choice for many street racers. In a little 2100-Pound Camaro, it was a religious experience for sure (if you could keep the tires on the rims). If the factory induction was used, though, that would explain the low figures. GM was way behind the curve in this respect - even the Corvette suffered from severe breathing problems until fuel injection came along.

Would you happen to know what channel/network this program appeared on? Would like to give it a look-see for myself. There are a lot of things about the 60's and 70's that I'd just as soon forget. Cars aren't one of them, though.

It was either on Speed or Discovery channel.

borat wrote:
Roger that. Will check the schedule online.

borat wrote:

I noticed Sears has rated the power of this year's snow thrower (comparable to my particular model) with torque rather than with horsepower.  My model is rated at 11.5 hp and this year's corresponding model is rated with 14.5 torque.  HP isn't mentioned.  Fifteen customer reviews were mostly great with a few exceptions and they (customers) mentioned that this model is 11 hp.  Does the use of the word torque, rather than hp, have more "power" in sales talk?  Does 14.5 torque translate to 11 hp?

Here's the website:

http://www.sears.com/shc/s/p_10153_12605_07188106000P?keyword=snow+throwers

oldcrow wrote:
I'd wish I was under 30 but unfortunately I'll be 45 this year. I believe the confusion comes from our definition of what a "supermarket" is, which seems to differ. 

In the town where I grew up there still a medium size independent grocery store with a sign proclaiming "Your Supermarket Since 1922" in red and green jumbo neon letters, it's horrendously tacky (the sign not the store) but that's what happens when one of the major employers in town is a neon sign manufacturer.  According to my late grandparents that sign appeared in the mid-1930's when another grocery store opened so that everyone in town would know who was there first. So the concept of supermarkets was already a reality in the 1920's even though the word itself may not have been in use until a decade later which is still quite a long time ago. 

Because of this I could not imagine that someone who would have known the era before supermarkets (before 1922) could be less than 90 years old.  

   

Snowbound wrote:

Are you in the U.S. or Canada?  Is your engine the B&S 305 cc ?  There's been quite a bit of discussion about that engine and B&S bizarre h.p. ratings for the same engine.  I've read that all the 305cc engines are 11 h.p. and marketed as 8, 9, 9.5, 10, 10.5. 11 and 11.5 h.p.  I have a Simplicity with a B&S labeled as 9.5.  It's a much more potent engine than my previous Tecumseh 10 h.p. engines.   I don't doubt that it's probably an 11 h.p. engine.    The difference between h.p. and torque is that torque can be readily measured.  Horse power is calculated.  The following is the formula concerning torque vs. horse power.

Horsepower Equation P = T times N/5250

Where:

P = Power, hp
N = Rotational shaft speed, rpm
T = Torque, lb-ft

so: 14x3600, divided by 5250 = 9.6hp

T=14 for ft/lbs torque
N = 3600 (usual RPM OPE engines are rated at)

borat wrote:

Horsepower Equation P = T times N/5250

Where:

P = Power, hp
N = Rotational shaft speed, rpm
T = Torque, lb-ft

so: 14x3600, divided by 5250 = 9.6hp

T=14 for ft/lbs torque

N = 3600 (usual RPM OPE engines are rated at)

I'm in the U.S., Massachusetts.  Thanks for the formula and translation!  Found this B&S 14.50 torque version in the Northern Tool website along with some specs.  According to their specs, the rpm is 3750 max.  Using your formula, I get 10.357 hp.  Close enough.  My manual doesn't list the engine size.  My snow thrower B&S model number is 21C214-0530-E1.  (sorry about displacing the quote above  -  couldn't fix it)

http://www.northerntool.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_6970_200084174_200084174

B&S 2100000 series engines are 342 cc.  (20.85 cu. in.)

At 11.5 h.p. you'd be at the low end of that engine's rating.  If I recall correctly, that engine has been rated as high 13 h.p. If it throws snow like no tomorrow, it's probably closer to 13 h.p.