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

Well, we finally have had some snow fall here in Grass Lake MI, at least enough to break out a snow blower. I picked up the Toro Power Clear 221QE a few weeks ago here in Jackson MI at a local Toro distributor, and caught it on sale. I bought the Toro to replace a 15 year old Toro 21" single stage as she was getting rather long in the tooth. The area I need to clear is aprox. 10,000 sq ft of asphalt, an "L" shaped drive that faces due West with a good sized pond beyond that. I also have an older Sears Craftsman 2 stage for the really big stuff, the Craftsman still runs like a champ but for the usual 6 inch snowfalls around here it is a bit of an overkill, but still gets a few runs a year when we get the big storms.

Well, I pulled the Toro out of the garage and gave her two primes and gave her a pull, she started with the first pull, with no choke, as I forgot that in my excitement to try her out. She sputtered for a split second, and away she went, very little if any smoke, pretty cool. The noise level was as expected for a two stroke, but yet quieter than the 15 year old two stroke Toro she replaced.

I played around with the quick chute before starting out and found that solid and easy to use. And I would highly recommend getting the quick chute model, that feature is worth the money, at least to myself. I started my normal routine in clearing and she was much more powerful, which I expected, than the old gal she is replacing. She threw the snow a good 20' as advertised and was of course very easy to maneuver. I found the motor to be more than adequate to get the job done of clearing the snow as was again expected.

The one issue, maybe good, maybe bad, but man does this unit have some torque. I found that on the uphill portion of my drive (say 10 degrees if that) she was very hard to control, to the point that I was was nearly walking along side of the unit to keep it straight. This was not very enjoyable as I have tendonitis in both arms. I tried tilting it back so that the paddle was not hitting the drive, tried holding it back, tried forward pressure to get full contact, etc... Going down the drive, she was a bit easier to control, but not by much. This was not like my 2 stage that just chugs along and devours the snow. This was actually quite a workout, not saying I don't need the exercise, but my older Toro was much more controllable.

Am I missing something here? When I purchased the 221QE I also purchased its little brother, the 180 to do my walks and deck, which is a 4 stroke and indeed smaller, but it tracks straight and does not want to "run away". I am wondering now if I should not have ponied up the extra cash for the 421QE? But here is the irony of my decision to purchase the 221 over the 421, I wanted the extra torque of the 2 stroke over the 4 stroke! Now I am regretting, or questioning, my decision.

Maybe something isn't correctly assembled on the machine. Talk to your dealer and have them test it out.

It has nothing do do with the engine. Its the larger paddles and the force of the snow shooting out to whichever side you are blowing it. The 180 can't move enough snow or shoot hard enough to produce the "torque steer" effect you are feeling. I have a Powerlite (16 inch, 2 stroke) and it has no "torque steer" because again, it moves a smaller volume of snow. The 421 will feel basically the same when using it - its just a bit weaker in the wetter/heavier stuff, and sounds "farty" like 4 strokes do ;-)

superbuick wrote:
That makes sense now that you mention it. When I was headed up the drive I had the snow chute aimed 90 degrees to the right side, 3 o'clock, and the rear of the blower wanted to go to the left or 7 o'clock. When I was heading down the drive, I had the chute at roughly 10-11 o'clock, and the unit was tracking virtually straight but still wanting to kick out in the rear, but not quite as bad. So, it sounds like my technique needs some adjusting.

Thank you very much for your reply and clearing this up for me. Now I just need some more snow...

Mike

Nice, I didn't know that those chutes also function as thrust vectors.  :)

aa335 wrote:

Yeah - they are pretty darn powerful, and coupled with the light weight of the units, you can get some of that torquing effect.  I've found, as he mentioned, it to be stronger going up hills than down.  However, I don't fight it, I just let the machine pull itself along - they work FAST!

superbuick wrote:
That explains why my neighbor walks so fast.  I thought he was a speed walker.  I guess it takes less effort keeping up rather than trying to slow that snowblower down.

So do you point that snowblower at a 45 degrees like an airplane crabbing dealing with cross winds?

aa335 wrote:

Most aviators I know use the term "side slipping" for the maneuver you've labeled as "crabbing". I have a buddy who owned a Cessna 185 Skywagon with floats. We were flying into one of our moose hunting camps on a tiny lake that was longer than it was wide and had a small island in the middle of it. In order to land on this lake we had to go between the island and shore and we needed pretty much most of the lake to land and take off. The lake is is surrounded by pretty high hills so, once we cleared the hill, we had to lose elevation rather quickly. I swear that we would come in so low, I could almost touch the tree tops. Once over the ridge, the pilot would slew the plane sideways so that we were coming down diagonally. With the drag caused by the fuselage and floats, It was like being in an elevator. When we were about 50 feet above the lake, he lined the plane up for landing and would put that thing down ever so gently. He is a masterful bush pilot.

Sounds like landing in Hong Kong.  :)  Just in a smaller airplane.

aa335 wrote:

When I was in Hong Kong the plane landed near the beginning of the terminal and after we had landed and slowed to taxi speed it was about 3/4 the length of the terminal.

borat wrote:
Actually he was correct using the term "crabbing" for what he was describing.  Putting an airplane into a slip is for losing altitiude without gaining airspeed.  Primarily used during landing by airplanes that dont have flaps.

superbuick wrote:
Your not kidding, I peeled that 10,000 sq ft off in about 1/2 an hour. It was not enjoyable, but the job is done....

PACKO wrote:

None of the pilots I know have ever used the term "crabbing" for that particular maneuver although, from the information below, we both might be using the incorrect term for the maneuver I experienced. The correct term is "forward slip". Don't know if you are familiar with the "Gimli Glider", a Boeing 767 that ran out of fuel over Manitoba. The pilots had to use "forward slip" to lose elevation without gaining air speed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider .........Excerpt: "I was taught that a forward slip is a cross-controlled descent maneuver. You can lose alot of altitude without gaining speed. A side slip is essentially the same, but is balanced with a crosswind to allow you to fly straight down the approach, with the upwind wing low. Crab is weathervaning into a crosswind when flying straight and level. I fly a 180, and sideslipping is a normal procedure.

borat wrote:
Yes, this is the term that I meant.

Just purchased a Toro 221QE to replace a piece of junk Sears(Murray) single stage that was broken more often then not. I have used it twice so far and I was just thinking of how obnoxious this machine is and now I know why. It's got the personality of a pit bull!!! This is my first experience with 2 stroke machines. All of the comments here are exactly what I have experienced so far and I have to agree that using this machine, though extremely efficient, is not exactly fun. Originally I was purchasing a 2 stage Toro(722E) but realized it would not fit in my side shed and would require digging out of a shed in the back of my yard. So the 221QE was the dealer's suggestion. He said this machine was more than enough for my needs and I would be finished much faster than with the 2 stage. He was correct but this machine makes snowblowing just a chore to be over and done with instead of the satisfying fun heavy equipment using experience it should be!!! If I sound disappointed I am. I really wanted the 2 stage. Oh well. Maybe I can find an old 2 stage used at a reasonable price someday and keep it in the shed for when the storm of the century hits and the 221 will be overmatched! If speed and efficiency are the priority then this machine does the job. Just not very elegantly.

Happy Snowblowing!

@ ralphfr

Sorry to read about your disappointment and lost satisfaction of what should be an enjoyable outdoor activity.  Hope you find a two-stage and mangage to keep both!

Some readers, like me, though, may find your comments an endorsement of the 221QE; speedy, efficient, obnoxius, pit bull-like and needing a 100-year storm to be overmatched....

Thanks for the encouragement NMG. You are correct that I intended this to be apositive review but at the same time I wanted to inform that this machine will definitely not satisfy the "TIM ALLEN" in anyone.

Just had a foot of heavy dense snow here on Long Island. The first two storms here were of the light fluffy variety. The 221QE handled this storm with no problem. It actually seems to be happier with more snow. The only difference this time was that where the snow was densest the machine would rise up slightly and I would have to make another pass to get the concrete clean. This machine was throwing nice rooster tails and throwing snow 20 to 25 feet in these conditions. EOD was a little slower but no problem at all and cleaned right down to the street.

Driving around after the cleanup my observations were that this machine can throw snow as far or further than many of the two stage machines I saw today. Now this may seem obvious to the experience snow thrower users on this site but it seems to me that it's all about horsepower. Most Long Islanders in my neighborhood seem to have smaller 2 stagers that I assume are in the 5 to 8 HP range. The 221 is rated at 6.5 HP. I assume the reason this machine can compete with many of the 2 stage machines is that all 6.5 HP are working at throwing snow while I provide the power to move the machine @ 80LBS. I'm curious to know what percentage of HP is used to self-propel the two stage machines @ >160LBS.

Back in the '90's I used a big 2 stage machine that an elderly neighbor had but was not able to handle anymore. I don't recall the model or HP but it was big and had tire chains. If memory serves, I recall being less tired with the 2 stage then with a single stage. Of course I was a lot younger then!!! As I said in an earlier post the 221 is really quick but I must admit I'm am tired after using it. Not as tired as shoveling though!!!  I guess its a speed vs fatigue issue. This machine is growing on me, quirky starting issues, smelly clothes and all. I feel it can handle most if not (*)all of the storms we can expect here.  I wish they would make drift cutters for it though as my driveway always drifts 2 to 3 times the actual snowfall height.

* - Did I just summon up the storm of the century with that comment???

ralphfr wrote:
My guess would be very little.  I recall an old Cub Cadet tractor that had a 7hp engine and a 30" deck and would pull anything I'd hook up to it.  More horsepower was only needed as the mower deck increased in size...not to move the tractor.