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

I've just stumbled on to this web site and think it's great!   I'm totally new to the snowblower world, but would like to jump into it. 

I  have a 650cc four wheeler that I put a plow on that does an awesome job on my 32 ft x 45 ft driveway and 250 ft of sidewalk,

because I have room to push it all, but now have been offered a side job clearing 24 drives in a condo complex, which are all

sloped, and the plow isn't  going to work well there because lack of places to push the snow. The guy who has done it for the

past few years has a front mounted blower on a walker riding mower.  I've doing some research and thought I was set on a

Ariens 1336, but after reading some of the things people have had to say about them I'm back to square one.  I'm hopeing

that you guys can give me some insite as to what would be a good purchace to get the job done in a timely fashion. I

usually keep any thing I buy forever, so I kind of believe in " you get what you pay for ", but since I'm new to the snowblower

world I'm not sure if that still applies 

Thanks for Your time and Knowledge- Dan

nhmatt wrote:
Let's clarify a bit. Your machine is at least 5 years old. It is the 924,XXX variety which ended production in 2004. This particular platform was in production for decades. When it's inferred "they don't make them like they used to",  the fact is that your machine for the most part -is- made like they used to. It shares no common parts with jdmcsnow's machine. The differences are significant. As you have no experience with a new Ariens 1336, perhaps your advice to others should say "don't buy a 5 year old Ariens 1336". Even then, this would be perplexing to some as relevant threads on forums such as this largely speak to the fact that the old models (of which your unit is a member) are "tanks".

While I think the older platform is a fine machine when properly set up, maintained, and operated to a practical duty cycle, there is definitely an arguable case to indicate the newer platform is superior to the former. Dual belt auger drive (few or no adjustments needed, ever), higher volumetric capacity, far stronger gearboxes w/faster ratios, increased throwing distances, fully automatic differential, stronger shear bolts, beefier frame, stronger axles, better final drive ratio (more wheel torque/slower speeds), easier to service, halogen lighting, freeze resistant impellers, and the list goes on... I don't see a thread anywhere about how "cheaply" the old units were made because they had one auger belt, manual differential locks, no subframe, incandescent lighting, etc... Not sure I can sign up to the philosophy that everything made now is junk.

The idea is to put the right amount of money in the right places to make them last longer, perform better, assemble faster and be more manufacturable (when it snows do you want your snowblower or service parts now or in 6-8 weeks?), service easier, etc... To use an analogy, most cars now last twice as long (or longer) than they did in the "good old days" and there are now laymen cars that corner, stop, and accelerate better than "hot" cars of old.  The 2010 base Camaro (V6) has 300+ hp and the 1967 base Camaro (I6) had 140hp. The cheap base Camaro is in the league of "hot" cars of the past, not the base cars. You do the math, and I don't think I need to say which is better in all facets (except nostalgia). Top end muscle cars (even Subarus) are putting down high 4 second 0-60 passes now. Mid 6's in yester-year at best. Metaphorically, Muncie Rockcrushers and dual quads are gone, but I'm not sure I would call current cars crap.

PK
 

Snowmann wrote:
Nicely put.  I'm glad "they don't make them like they used to."   I used to subscribe to the "knuckle test" as a measure of quality.  If I rap on the body panel and it feels tinny, it is a cheap car.  Well, I bought one of those cheap car, a 1998 Honda Accord that felt tinny when I rap it.  Well, that tinny sound has no direct correlation on how well the car held up.   After 10 years in salt and snow country, the car did not have any rust spots on the paint.  The car was still tight and rattle free.  I had to get rid of it at 250,000 miles.  Nothing was wrong with it.  I just got bored of it and I wanted something new with more get go and more electronics like Bluetooth, heated bun warmers, rain sensing wipers, navigation, ect... 

Cars are definately better than they were 30 years ago.  My dad could buy a new car for $5000, and it would be junk in 5 years.  Nowadays cars are $25,000, last at least 10 years, and have a ton of bells and whistles.  Not a fair comparison, because snowblowers don't last longer, they don't have more features, and they cost a hell of a lot more than they did.  The slip-o-matic transmission of the ariens is a good example. 

The idea is to make something that works, so people will buy it, and you can make money.   All the motivations you mention are incidental when presented with a machine that doesn't hold up or do its job.  The right amount of money?  How about $3,000 for something that shakes itself apart so you have to massage it back into place every 5-6 hours of operation. Easy to work on?  They'd better be.  These machines are overpriced for what they are.  Buy a $1200 from Home depot before you bother with the beefed-up version of this dinasaur.  Or buy from Sears, but I wouldn't spend a premium price for it.  

 I can see having two lines to hit two different price points, but I look at it like furniture, or everything else in America for that matter.  When we used to make it here, it was good but pricey but we could afford to buy it because we knew it would last.  Then came Japan, and Mexico, and China.  Now there are two choices for American manufacutring: 1) Make it as good as you can and charge a ton for it, because its "expensive" to make things in America.  2) Ship your plant to China, and then ship it back here.  You've seen it in every thing else we do.  Why would snowblowers be any different?  How much for a Harley compared to a rice rocket?  You remember when Harley tried to compete by selling bike-for-bike?  Sure, they were easy to work on.Ariens may indeed be coming out of a very black hole it has entered.  Harley Davidson did.  I remember walking around the showroom with my father while he was looking for a new bike, and seeing puddles of oil on the ground under brand new bikes. 

  5 years is not that long ago, and I doubt they've improved much if any on the guts, or the rust-prone metal.   Availability of parts nowadays is much less a problem.   One thing I did notice about the new Ariens when I was looking at the deaer:  1) They've moved the battery 2) No more motorized chute.  That's probably where they got the extra money to upgrade the engine.  These are both things I would've done, but the new chute feels like it would break in a week.  Plastic is great for a bushing or keeping down weight, or a place where bearings are just going to get too dirty, but I don't know about that joystick.  I bet once it gets cold you're going to shove it, break the trigger lock, and then it won't stay in place while you're blowing.  

Well said!!