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

Hi,

I live in Wisconsin and we get some pretty good snow here. What I need is a 16inch wide snowblower because my walkway is only 18" wide and I don't want to hit grass on either side of the walkway. I want it to be a 4 stroke because I heard it's easier starting and I don't like mixing fuel/oil. I also want as much HP as I can get in a machine that size. (preferably around 1000 pounds per minute rating)

My budget is $500. Could you please make a suggestion on a quality item that will last many year? Thanks.

you are not going to find what you want with your budget.

dohcrxl wrote:

You're trolling right?  Do you have any idea how much snow it takes to make half a ton and then to move it in one minute with a 16" wide snow thrower?  This get's funnier the more I think of it.   

Solution:
Toro PowerLite.
Wish list:

Toro PowerLite, New $325-425 with and without electric start. I got one for 10 from Wally. Wally gets them from the dump from people who cant get them started and toss them. Mine has 110 psi compression, $40.00 new augers, and tosses 25 feet.

1,100 lbs/min
$325 new wo/electric start - a little care and you'll never miss the electric start.
16 inch width
two stroke but no mixing gas and oil - wife mixes gas an oil.

Really, how many gallons do you expect to use per year? Get a two gallon gas tank and find a container that holds just the right amount of ounces for a 50:1 mix for the two gallons. It's not messy or hard.

I've got a number of machines here and 4 refilling tanks. Three for the two strokes of one gallon each, 32:1, 40:1, 50:1 all labeled with what's inside. One 21/2 gallon with a touch of SeaFoam and one 5 gallon which mostly is empty.

Put a chart on the garage wall for the wife with the mixing values for one gallon and have a couple of few ounce containers with see through sides for easy mixing.
trouts2

borat wrote:

Yes I have a pretty good idea how much snow it takes to make a thousand pounds. I could go through the motions of calculating the weight of a cubic foot of snow at a certain density and dividing that into the thousand pounds while considering snow depth to come up with the distance a 16" wide thrower would have to cover to equal that that thousand pounds but I think we both know how to do that.

The 16" Toro model that was mentioned has a rating of 1100lbs per minute. It's quite a task for a 16" thrower but I'm pretty sure the Engineers at Toro probably didn't make the claim to be funny.

And what do you mean by "trolling"? I think I know but don't wanna assume.

trouts2 wrote:

Thanks trouts. That model was actually the only 16" thrower I was able to find online. The only problem that "I think" I have with it is that it's a 2 stroke. To clarify, it's not that I don't like mixing the fuel/oil. It's that from information/misinformation instilled in me that I think a 4 stroke is more reliable, starts easier, and lasts longer. If any of that needs straightening out, please do.

What I do actually have a basis for disagreement with regards to a two stroker is that the fuel and lube are together. That lubrication system in my mind can't possibly be as good as an oil resevoir and pump.

Anyway, I guess unless someone knows of a 4 stroke 16inch thrower, I might have to go with your suggestion.

Trolling is when some one, usually new to the group, poses a question to the forum that is either contentious (to start an argument) or silly (to see if someone will answer).   Forgive me for being presumptuous but I thought your question as the latter.  Not to insult you, but it seemed to me that a machine with a 16" bite being able to move 1000 lbs. of snow in one minute is somewhat of a lofty claim.  I stand corrected.  However, I would like to see that claim proved before my own eyes.  I have moved a lot of snow over the years and have used a number of much bigger machines than the single stage Toro.  The conditions would have to be precisely ideal in my opinion for a single stage 5 or 6 h.p. machine to pull off that feat. 

Now, lets talk two stroke.  Simply put, I love them.  They are a marvel of simplicity and performance.  I have numerous two stroke machines including five recently acquired two stroke Yamaha motorcycles from the early '70s.  These were the hot rods of their day.  The RD350s and 400s would humble machines more than twice their displacement and were more reliable than most machines of the day and better than many.   I plan to restore these machines and have the engine from one of them down in my basement workshop taken apart.  The engine is original from 1976.  That would put it at 32 years old.  By the amount of dirt and carbon on and in the engine, it appears to have never been taken apart.  This engine not only ran when I got it, it ran strong.  So, if you have any concerns with two stroke reliability, you can put that to rest.  In addition, new two strokes use less oil in their mix with fuel.  That combined with superior oils of the day, you will be pleasantly surprised with how clean they burn.  I just bought an Echo leaf blower/vac and other than the first second or two after start up, it runs virtually smokeless.   I also have a twenty year old Echo two stroke lawn mower that will not die.  It also runs like the day I bought it.  So, don't let two stroke technology put you off.  If you don't forget to mix the fuel, It will probably last as long as you will need it.  Chances are the rest of the machine will fall apart before then engine fails.      

Thank you borat. Your experience with and endorsement of the 2 stroke makes me more confident in my soon to be purchase. If you don't mind saying, could you please give me some 2 stroke -vs- 4 stroke pros and cons? .....unless of course if this is an age old debate that will stir up trouble.

oh btw- I was at a Toro dealer the other day and asked the guy there if it was true that 2 strokes generally make more torque than 4 strokes of the same displacement (as I have heard) and he said no. Is he correct?

dohcrxl wrote:

Two stroke generally do not make as much torque as an equivalently horse power rated four stroke.  For instance, a five horse four stroke will make more torque than a 5 h.p. two stroke.  However, don't let that deceive you into thinking that the two stroke will not have sufficient torque.  A two stroke engine makes a power stroke twice as often as a four stroke.  The reciprocating mass of four stroke engines is usually considerably more than an equivalent  two stroke engine.  This is where some of the torque advantage is.  Accordingly, four stroke engines will be heavier.  Two strokes have less mass but  in ope applications run at considerably higher rpm and are capable of generating quite a bit more power of an equivalent displacement four stroke.   The main advantages of two stroke engines are simplicity and light weight.  They are easier to start in cold weather because there is no oil in the crank case to cause resistance.  They have fewer moving parts thus fewer opportunities to fail.  You will never need a valve adjustment.  Two strokes love to rev.  Once you have it warmed up, run it at full rpm always.  Four stroke ope engines should be run at max. rpm as well.  Two strokes will burn more fuel than four strokes but in engines of this size, that will not be much of an issue.    

As far as torque measured in two stroke and four stroke engines of the same displacement, I'd say that the difference would not be of too much consequence.  For instance, a 200cc two stroke engine is capable of making  considerably more power than a four stroke L head or ohv engine of the same displacement.  That's why a 5 to 7 horse power Tecumseh two cycle engine is only 141 ccs vs. 195 ccs for their 5.5 horse power L-head four stroke.    Another aspect to consider is that the Tecumseh two cycle engine is no where near it's maximum power capability.  It's relatively under stressed.  If one  really wanted to, it would not be too difficult to squeeze ten horsepower out of that engine  A larger carburetor, some porting modifications and a tuned expansion chamber would do it.  Not that I would recommend such a thing for a snow thrower.  After all, the engine would  probably be revving up around ten grand and the shriek of the exhaust would be hard on the neighbourhood.     

Okay the weight of snow topic captured my interest so I tried to research it but my brain farted out.

If anyone else is interested here the link I tried to use.

http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/almanac/arc2007/alm07feb.htm

By the way, it it were me and I had a budget of $500 I'd try to find a good used 2 stage self-propelled snow-thrower.  7-8 horsepower minimum.  And look for a machine with a large heavy frame...if two men can lift it "easily", it's too light.

I think his width limitations for sidewalk precludes a two-stage. :)

I know but if it were me I'd rather have a 2 stage.  I run my 2 stage over grass to help out the dogs.  It doesn't harm the grass at all.  Frankly I think that a single stage would be more likely to tear up grass.  I'd go for a used 24" 2 stage with around 7-8 hp since he want to move snow quickly...and adjusted properly it shouldn't hurt the lawn.

Mr. Borat,

I too share your love of two strokes,  but if i may correct your statement.

"In addition, new two strokes use less oil in their mix with fuel.  That combined with superior oils of the day, you will be pleasantly surprised with how clean they burn."

All two stroke engines have the same needs/ requirements,  over time only the quality of the oil has changed ..

Give me an old engine that says "25-1" mix in the manual,  I will run it all day on 100-1  ratio premium  2 stroke oil , or  25-1  ratio of SAE 10w30 

Likewise if you check most manuals of newer two strokes they give a alternate of 25-1 for use of SAE 10w30 or so on....