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

Apparently, my local Toro dealer says that this year's 421Q model comes with a B&S 4-stroke engine.  He said that this engine is more powerful than the 2-stroke R-tek engine that is in the 221Q. 

He started the 421Q 4 stroke engine.  It sounded fairly quiet and was relatively vibration free smooth running.  Definitely quieter and smoother than the Honda GX160 engine.  I was impressed.  Good job B&S.

He didn't start the 221Q 2 stroke engine.  Stated that it had no gas in tank.  Either that could be true or he didn't want to stink up the showroom with exhaust fumes.

Has anyone used both engines on the Toro 221Q and 421Q and can provide honest report?  Which engine is more powerful and can do the job of moving heavy snow better?

I know there are folks here are dyed in the wool 2-stroke fans, you know who you are.  Barring the 4 stroke heavier weight, complexity, and hassle of oil change, none of these draw backs are really a concern to me, I can go either way.  No big deal to change oil or mix oil in gasoline.  The 421Q felt slightly heavier in the front, but not enough to make a difference.  I won't be lifting either snowblower up and down the bed of a pickup truck so weight difference of 10 lbs isn't an issue. 

superbuick wrote:
An excellent review, however some clarification is in order. Yes, compression and displacement affects torque, but not that much in this size range. Comparison is not possible with these two figures alone.

Much more significant is the engine's stroke (period that power is applied to the crankshaft) and the rotating mass of the power train (crankshaft, flywheel, etc). This applies equally to 2 or 4-strokes. A longer stroke, all else being equal, will always produce more torque than a shorter stroke. The fact that a 2-stroke has one power stroke per revolution does not translate into more torque, since the power PERIOD is shorter. A 2-stroke must rev higher to compensate, and this tends to bias the power band toward the high end. Not a problem with something like a chain saw, but a snowblower is often pushed to the limit. The combination of longer stroke (2-strokes are more limited in stroke length) and heavier powertrain is what gives the 4-stroke it's torque advantage. It's a trade-off, for sure. Added weight and more moving parts come with the package.

That said, I like 2-stroke engines just fine. Have several two-bangers in my garage, and love them all. Retired a Toro CCR3000 awhile back, and would still be using it if not for worn-out main bearings (common with high-revving engines). To be fair, I thrashed the little Toro way beyond it's limitations, and it still held together for better than 10 years. Quality is the watchword when comparing engines - not displacement, horsepower, or torque. All these figures can be manipulated by the manufacturer in their favor. A quality 2-stroke engine will beat a chintzy 4-stroke every time - and visa-versa.

Like it or not, the great white fathers seem intent on banishing 2-stroke engines from the kingdom. As more 4-stroke snowblowers, snowmobiles, and leaf blowers come to market, the discussion is likely to shift from 2-stroke vs 4-stroke to who produces the best 4-stroke for an intended purpose. There are some awfully sweet small 4-strokes available right now, and that's encouraging.

In that light, I'd like to add that I've used a Toro 421QE for two seasons now, and it seems to outperform my older (higher HP) Toro 2-stroke unit. I have one of the first generation PowerClears, so I'm stuck with the primative Tecumseh L-head engine. Noisy, smelly, rattles and vibrates like a washing machine - not at all what I expect from Toro.  But, it gets the job done and hardly ever stalls. I'm very much interested in hearing how much better (if any) the new engine performs. Also like the idea of the new pivoting scraper - sounds real good in theory. With a quality engine installed, this paddle blower would rank at the top. As it is, it's still pretty darn close.

Now, if only Toro could only do something about the price...

In the end, your decision should be based upon real-world data, and not advertising hype. Nothing wrong with preferring a 2-stroke engine over a 4-stroke, as long as it does the job you want it to do. Both types have strong and weak points. For cold-weather operations, I like the 4-banger. For day-in, day-out thrashing in the heat, a solid 2-stroke is hard to beat. Your mileage may vary, which is why boards like this are invaluable.

One more observation: I don't think the push for 4-stroke engines is completely due to marketing wonks. They didn't CREATE a market, but seem to be testing the waters prior to the day when that's the only option. Who knows when that day will arrive? When it does, though, doesn't it make sense to have your product in the pipeline ready to go? If GM, Ford, and Chrysler had figured this out in 1975, they wouldn't be where they are today. Just my 2-cents.

The motors in the 421 and the 221, however, rotate at the same RPM (3600 rpms give or take). And in these small applications, the difference in stroke is just as significant/insignificant as the compression and displacement. The info you present for 2 strokes revving higher to compensate for stroke limitations is not a universal dynamic. Look at the ultra low-revving 2 strokes in HUGE oil tankers, or trains, for example, where torque is the only thing that matters. I've run both blowers back to back (your version of the 421 with the tecumseh) and the 221 is simply more powerful. Its not an insult to the 421 or a superiority statement for all 2 strokes, but in this case, the R*Tek is better suited for the task at hand. Not massively so, but enough to be noticeable. For a great illustration of 2 stroke torque, check out some videos of lawn-boy mowers in heavy, heavy grass. They just burble right along at 3600rpm without a care in the world :-) Your 421 is an awesome snowblower, however, either way, and its design (shared with the 221) is the current "top of the heap" for single stage blowers. Also, I think this is a great and interesting discussion that we're having, and I hope others can learn from it as they read it :)

This thread is getting interesting.  The Toro 221/421 chassis is a good design with either engines.  I'm still on the fence about which one to get, so if this discussion goes on further, it will provide me and others with an informed decision.

My neighbor has a 221 and in heavy snow, I can hear the RPM drop quickly under load.  However, if he eases up on the snow load, the RPM spins quickly back up.  I noticed that the distance and the amount of snow diminishes quickly as the RPM drops.  To me, while the 221 2-stroke has power to propel snow at pretty good distance, it seems not to have as much torque. 

In comparison, I have a 10 year old Honda HS621 with a 4 stroke GX160 engine.  While this snowblower doesn't throw as far as the Toro with medium to light snow, when pushed into the heavy snow, the torque seems to be there.  I can hear the engine tone loading up but heavy snow is still coming out at a good speed and volume.  So while the Toro 221 excel at medium to light snow, the Honda HS621 hunkers down better at heavy snow.  Now I am comparing two different chassis and auger design so take it with a grain of salt.

Superbuick has mentioned that he had used both the 221 and 421.  His observation is that the 2 stroke on the 221 was more powerful.  However, I have read from another person's observation that own both models and he observed quite the opposite, the 4-stroke 421 threw snow a little bit farther and does better in wet snow.  So far, these two are the only two head to head comparisons.

Now my question to Superbuick is this.  I actually like the Toro 2450 the best.  It has a slim athletic look to it.  (a la BMW E46)  The 2450 chassis is perfect for the Rtek engine, not oversized to accomodate a 4 stroke engine.  The 221/421(BMW E90) is fat in comparison.  In fact, it is fatter than my HS621.  Since you have both, any chance you can tell me if there's enough room underneath the plastic cover to transplant the 221 chute onto the 2450?    If you have pictures of the Quick Chute mechanism under the cover, I'd appreciate if you post them.  I also follow your posts in the "other" forum.  Good information and awesome pictures.  Love those Lawnboys.

superbuick wrote:
Good points, all - except for the one above. That one was was a little over the top, eh?

Since I haven't used the 221, It would be presumptuous to say one model is significanly better than the other.  My point was that low-end torque is very important in this particular application. Following your line of thinking, one has to wonder why the the majority of two-stage models use bigger, heavier 4-stroke engines. Wouldn't a lighter, more "powerful" engine be preferable?

The answer is obvious: The blowers we're discussing are a compromise of light weight, size, and maneuverability over brute force. Weight is one of the the crowning glories of the 2-stroke - it's the obvious choice for small OPE. If you're like me, though, you often push your equipt beyond it's design limits. My 421 performs better than expected in this respect - that's all I'm saying. For comparison, my old CCR3000 (similar size, with the superb Suzuki engine) was not as forgiving in the wet, packed snow as this model. In light powder, though, both units are outstanding.

If I were to give someone advice, I would say (as you did) that either the 221 and 421 will put a smile on your face - especially at a discount.

If weight isn't a concern and you're tired of mixing fuel, the 421 deserves a serious look. With the upgraded engine, this could become a Honda-killer. If you demand light weight, your needs are modest, or you just prefer 2-strokes, by all means save your money and go with the 221. Either model comes with the slick chute director, and is available w/electric start if needed. Toro's two-year warranty is icing on the cake.

My summation of the 421 comes after many hours behind the bar. For the record, Ariens, Simp, and Honda all make competing products that should be on your short list as well. Toro makes great products, but they tend to be significantly more expensive. Buy wisely - and be careful out there.

oldcrow wrote:
I thought it was quite good!

The 4 strokes work great, but they are in predominant use because of legislation, not superiority.  The simple economics of making a 2 stroke (much cheaper to manufacture) vs a 4 stroke would mean they'd be offered to lower the price point if it wasn't for regulation.  In the 2 stage applications, a 2 or a 4 stroke will work equally well.

Look at Detroit Diesels (2 strokes).  They were legislated out of existence.  Did they have drawbacks? Sure, just like any design will, but there is a reason the military still to this day uses them (they are still available new for the military only).  Simplicity, power, smaller size, and rock solid reliability.

I, like you, also have the better part of 2 decades behind the bars of a Toro single stage, and though my use of the Tecumseh-powered 421 was very limited (about an hour total over the course of 2 storms) I find the 221QR to be the better of the 2.  Enough to make a difference to someone who prefers a 4 stroke? No, but enough to make a difference to me.  I don't think the "mixing gas" argument is realistic or fair.  As a 2 stroke user, you know that mixing gas is as simple as making a cup of Swiss Miss Hot Chocolate (easier actually), and its about 200x simpler than changing the oil on a 4 stroke piece of OPE (not that doing that is difficult either)

The design of the 421/221?  I couldnt agree with you more.  It is the top dog on single stage snowblowers, by a long margin.  Simplicity, Ariens (though they dont make them anymore), briggs, craftsman, mtd, and honda all offer single stages that are, put simply, inferior to the Toro Power Curve design. 

One more thing though, about those 2 strokes and 2 stages.....





I'm happy to report they work superbly on a 2 stage platform!

Yup, I've seen that two-stage 2-banger, it's a pretty machine indeed. Would have liked to take one around the block. When you start getting into the 7-10 HP range, though, the size advantage of the 2-stroke diminishes a bit.

Brother. I gotta admire your tenacity!  If Toro is looking for a national sales rep - they could do a lot worse.

Me, I'd be happy with either 21" model - but I'm still glad I picked the one with the rat motor. Long as you understand that I'm not a 2-stroke basher.

Oh, I don't mind mixing up fuel that much. It can get sloppy (especially in the cold), but so can eating a plate of lasagne. What I mind is the 5 different containers I keep on hand for all the various ratios required. Yup, I've got a lot of 2-stroke toys

It's kind of like the remote control thing - two remotes isn't so bad, they fit on your side table just fine. Three is a liitle more difficult, and four becomes a pain in the arse.

Unlike remotes, though, I don't have the option of purchasing a "universal' mixture that will work for all OPE. You must know how critical your fuel mixture is when you race in competition. A gnat's hair off could spell 2nd place. Granted, OPE is not so demanding - but mixture is still a biggie. Doesn't take being off by much to send a piston through your crankcase at a 55:1 ratio. How do I know that? Don't ask! Folks who are new to 2-strokes need to know things like this, IMHO. Everybody's got a different comfort level.

Have to take you to task on your comment about 4-strokes being "legislated" into existence, amigo. Maybe you misspoke, but these little buggers have been around a long time - long before there was any EPA, DEQ, or Consumer  Protection Agency. They proliferated for one reason alone - people bought them, people liked them. Ah, the good ol' days...   ...just trying to keep it real.

I'll cut you some slack, though. I'm assuming that you meant to say that post-Y2K 4-strokes on small snowblowers have been the result of new laws. That's probably true, although they still only represent a fraction of the total units sold. I'll be more upset when the black helicopters following me ditch their turboshafts for a 4-stroke. Won't be any fun if I can outrun them on a YZ-250.         Sorry...the devil made me do it.

BTW - and this isn't directed at you, superbuick - those who harp on the "complicated" nature of a small 4-stroke engine need to tear one down before they speak. Jeez, I've rebuilt or repaired more of those puppies than I can count - and I'm no master technician. The extra moving parts are not many, compared to a 2-banger. The carbuerator is no more complex. The crank assy differs little from a 2-stroke, nor does the jug. The cylinder head and cam are the two major differences. That, and the fact that it carries it's own oil supply (which is an advantage to some). All in all, an aircooled 4-stroke is a pretty simple mill. If you're concerned about longevity, than for pity's sake perform regular maintenance. No secret there. These days, reliabilty isn't much of an issue with engines this size - 2 or 4-stroke. You'll be fine with either one - if you take care of it.

Definitely right about the size advantage. The 141cc 2 stroke on that 2 stager is smaller than a Tecumseh snow king or briggs ohv snow motor, but on a big chassis, it doesnt matter very much.

I don't think I would rep for Toro - I'm not a huge fan of alot of their products - mainly just the single stages, and like you mentioned, they are very expensive (almost as bad as Honda 2 stages)

About the fuel mixture thing, we certainly adjust the mixture based on conditions when racing the karts, but those motors are 125ccs putting out in excess of 30hp, and the fuel/oil mixture there has the added responsibility of cooling the motor, particularly during the constant revving up/down under heavy loads as we pull out of corners and upshift. A snowblower, or even trimmer/blower, isn't really under that kind of up and down load, and certainly not nearly as high strung, so I'm actually comfortable using a single mix in all of my 2 stroke OPE. I run Opti-2 at about 70:1 (versus the recommended 100:1 ratio, because I like the mental comfort of having a little extra in there, even if it means I don't reap the benefit of the lean mixture in terms of less smoke and more gas to make power with) Normally the little high revving chainsaw/trimmer/blower motors demand ash to serve as a lubricant at high RPMs they run at, and the low revving "torquey" 2 strokes in snowblowers and mowers want a TCW3 oil (made for well-cooled, torquey/big 2 strokes in outboards and jetskis) because they are so well cooled, particularly in the snow environment, and they run extremely "relaxed". A 141cc snowblower motor making 7hp is a whole different world than a 125cc making 30+hp (you obviously know this, I'm saying it for the integrity of the post) The trimmers/blowers/saws are somewhere in the middle in terms of being high-strung. After a year of using the Opti-2 at this ratio I'm very happy. (echo trimmer, echo blower, weedeater edger, 3 Toro snowblowers, 2 lawnboys, and a Radio Controlled Boat with a 4hp Zenoah in it) You ought to give it a shot - it might simplify your gas mix hassles.

I have taken alot of 4 stroke motors apart too btw - big ones and small ones! The governors tend to be more complicated, and they have more parts, but both types of motors are extremely simple and reliable (i.e. not designed by german auto makers )

This is an awesome discussion and I'm enjoying it - thanks for posting here in this thread - I hope others gain some insight from our OPE-hobby inspired banter!

My bad - I thought you said you raced bikes. Can't comment on karts, but I figure they're a close relative of OPE. 300 HP @125cc? Holy steroid, Batman! Could have used your help when I was trying to max out my old Wombat. Nice explanation just the same - should help some folks out.

I've had good luck with several Klotz products, and some product from Temko that I can't recall. One bike in particular (Yammy 360) literally screamed on the Klotz diet. To be honest, though, any quality oil (including marine) worked for me. Tolerances were tight, and I had my own special ritual for tweaking the mix ratio. I might think different if I had a sponsor, though. Not a big fan of Seafoam, either, but I've used it without any ill effects. For OPE, the manufacturer's recommendations should suffice (if you follow them, that is).

These weekend warrior engines are pretty forgiving critters. It's amazing how much neglect /abuse they can take and still soldier on. I've become pretty bad about regular maintenance as I get older, something that my racing bikes would not have tolerated for long. I suppose the ease of disassembly and repair has lulled me into a "never happen to me" mindset. Just the same, there are some things I won't fudge on. Oil is one of them - be it 2 or 4-stroke. Good quality oil (and oil changes) helps decrease your chances of catastrophe significantly. Now, get out there and push some powder!

If I may, I'd like to offer my opinion concerning some of oldcrow's comments. First and most importantly is your concerns for having multiple fuel mixtures. Not to be a smart ass but, being very familiar with two cycle engines for a very long time, I feel obligated to advise anyone who wants to know, that having multiple containers with various ratios is totally unnecessary. I have machines that require the following ratios: chainsaws - 32:1, ice auger - 25:1, brush trimmers, leaf blowers, lawn mower - 50:1, racing dirt bike - 25:1, I mix one container at 30:1 and run it in everything listed. A two cycle engine will be sensitive to the oil to fuel ratio only if the oil is UNDER the recommended ratio by quite a margin or ridiculously over. Actually if the mix has way too much oil, it will probably not start and if it does, it will not rev up. Having a greater oil component will not damage an engine and in most cases will deliver better lubrication and power. Let's not forget that modern engines and lubrications are far better now than they were 30 years ago. An engine that called for a ratio of 25:1 back then can run with no problem on modern oil at a ratio of 40:1 or even 50:1. It's not uncommon to see two cycle oils that recommend 100:1 ratios. Regarding your comments about power to size ratio becoming less significant when the engines get larger. This is a bit confusing to me. A two cycle OPE engine will make more power per cc. regardless of the size. It's simply the nature of the beast. As far as I'm concerned, the two cycle engine is superior in OPE applications in just about every aspect other than possibly fuel consumption. I will admit that larger two cycle engines will burn more fuel than an equivalent four stroke. However, anything under 100ccs in size would be insignificant.

Yup, Borat is right. I choose to store my mix in multiple containers - it is not mandatory. Sorry if I was unclear about that. I have a small junkyard of 2-stroke equipment, many of which are long in the tooth. Most small engines are pretty tolerant of a rich mixture, but the finnicky factor does vary widely. I also have a stable of ancient dirt bikes, and they can be VERY stubborn regarding oil. It's just more convenient for me to have several blends pre-mixed on the shelf - up to a point. Holdover from competition days, I suppose.

I'm glad you pointed out probably the most important point to remember: Too RICH is always better than Too LEAN. Like the man said, if you foul your plug or upset the carb balance, these are easy problems to remedy - but enough of a pain to teach you a valuable lesson. Sometimes, an overly-rich mixture can actually help a worn-out engine last a little longer - but that's another story.

Since we're not talking about engines that power airplanes, automobiles, or boats, no one is likely to die if something goes wrong. Hope nobody got scared away with all this esoteric banter.

Stay tuned: A budget RPG launcher for your Craftsman two-stage. Show that b*st*rd in the plow truck you mean business!