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

Greetings:

I'd like some help in ironing out specifics on snowblowers and the components that make them up (and make up their engines). I have collected some data from various places, but it seems that the manufacturers are VERY against disclosing any of the nitty-gritty details about the make-up of the snowblowers (which seems silly). I'd like to limit the thread to high quality construct (meaning at or near comercial grade) 24" or 28" 2010 snowblowers to try to keep things moving forward if possible. I'll start by listed information I've gathered on the two models I am looking at most currently. If you have any confirmed factual information, please post it; but I'd like to try to stay away from unconfirmed opinions or personal experience arguments if possible.

Ariens Platinum 24 (921017)
[Engine: Briggs & Stratton 1150]
- Moderate Fuel Efficiency *F
- Torque: 11.5 ft-lbs (SAE J1940) *WARNING: Class action lawsuit against B&S (and others including Honda) for creating a false standard J1940 to conceal horsepower fraud, so this number has no real-world value. Can anyone get a real number for this please, perhaps in SAE 1349 standard? Honda has corrected their HP/Torque ratings on their website, but B&S hasn't yet.  *D, *E
- Type: OHV *D
- Crankshaft: Ball Bearing  *Snowmann, *slinger

[Gearbox: SX Aluminum]
- Steel Worm Gear *G
- Bronze sleeve bearing *G (for sleeve), *Snowmann (for material)

[Movement: Drive Disc]
- Automatic Traction Control / Quick Turn *C
- Bronze Sleeve Bearing *G

[Auger]
- Serated *C
- Nylon Sleeve Bearing *G
- 14" *C

[Impeller]
- 14" *C

[Accessories]
- Light *C
- 120V Start *C
- Hand Warmer *C

[MSR]
- $1599 *C

Honda (HS724WA)
[Engine: GX200]
- Superior Fuel Efficiency *F
- Torque: 9.1 ft-lbs @ 2,500 rpm (SAE J1349 International Standard) *B
- Type: OHV *B
- Counter-Vibration *B
- Noise Reduction *B
- Crankshaft: Ball Bearing *A

[Gearbox]
- Steel Helical Gears *A
- Steel Ball Bearing *A

[Movement: Hydrostatic]
- Infinitely Variable *A
- Fixed 2wd *A

[Auger]
- Serated *A
- 14" *trouts2

[Impeller]
- 12" *trouts2

[MSR]
- $2299 *A

Notes
- SAE J1349 assumes 15% loss of power to internal friction; in reality, this is just an average and varies per engine (so less internal friction would mean the actual HP is higher) *this can be validated at any site that defines the SAE 1349 standard

Sources
- A : Honda Snowblower Specifications (http://www.hondapowerequipment.com/products/snowblowers/content.aspx?asset=sb_whychoose) (http://www.hondapowerequipment.com/products/modeldetail.aspx?page=modeldetail&section=P2SB&modelname=HS724WA&modelid=HS724WA)
- B: Honda Engine Specifications (http://engines.honda.com/models/model-detail/gx200)
- C: Ariens Specifications (http://www.ariens.com/products_snow/s_deluxe_platinum_group/s_deluxe_platinum_24/Pages/default.aspx)
- D: Briggs & Stratton Specifications (http://www.briggsandstratton.com/engines/other-engines/detail.aspx?series=1150+Series&id=%7BB8CACFAE-E522-4511-88F6-9DA80E1C1ADC%7D)
- E: Class-Action Engine HP Fraud Lawsuit (http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/Lawnmower_Horsepower_Fraud) *there are many other references, just google
- F: Personally inferred from many (>20) personal forum posts by different owners
- G: Ariens Parts Catalog (http://partsradar.arinet.com/scripts/EmpartISAPI.dll?MF&app=ariens&lang=EN&TF=Empartweb&loginID=ariensc&loginpwd=consumer)

*I can't seem to find the link to the online Honda parts catalog again (it was hard to find and I didn't bookmark it). If anyone finds it, please post the URL

Can you define superior and moderate fuel efficiency? What is your final objective ? What is your definition of confirmed factual information and unconfirmed opinions?

Also on your list, indicate for each item your source and date of certification or date of data collected and by whom

Electrocutor wrote:

Is your name really David? Are you from NJ?

Do you have the budget and able to pay for independent third party validation and certification? Name your requirements and specific SAE, ASME standards and applicable UL listings or recognition

aa335 wrote:

I was thinking the very same thing...

Electrocutor wrote:

This is an internet forum, your holistic expectation may have to be rearranged and aligned with reality. Contributions to this forum are from people, not manufacturers (except one poster), suppliers, and governing bodies. So take that with a grain of salt.

FrankMA wrote:
I hope there's a purpose to picking these two machines for comparison other than just kicking specs around for discussions and debate, like actually snowblowing needs and requirements.

It seems you misunderstood somewhat. I personally have no qualification and aside from spec sheets on components, I do not have any first-hand knowledge. Most of what I posted is from spec sheets, the rest is from reading posts from people (like snowmann) who have actually seen the components. Lets be realistic here: As I mentioned, the snowblower manufacturers for whatever reason are completely against giving out the nitty-gritty information on their components, but I believe such information is crucial to determining the quality of construct and long-term reliability of teh machine.

Yes, my name is David. No, I do not live in NJ (the profile settings must have just defaulted to that?).

I determined 'superior' and 'moderate' fuel economy from the hundreds (or maybe thousands at this point) of forum postings from people who have used various snowblowers and have made note of how long it lasts per tank and how large the tank is. This is by no means an exact number because I believe the only way you could get such a number is through careful measurement instruments and owning all of them (which just won't happen).

My final objective is to have the data I need (and provide it to others who want to know) on which models have what quality of construct and components. We live in a day and age where almost every manufacturer tries to hide production-cost-saving materials within good or strong-looking containers and provides no details. The group here seems to have a number of people that have actually torn into these and know first-hand what they are inside.

I am defining confirmed as having more than 1 reliable source stating the information (you're not going to find this kind of stuff in the product manual unfortunately). Opinions I want to avoid is "mine is better", "X is better than Y", and senseless back-and-forth bickering that clutters up a lot of the posts around here. That said, there are a few rare instances where one components design may be better in every way to another: if such a case is so, then I'd want to have some reliable-source web links that explain why that is so.

I'll go ahead and mark down where I got the information shortly, which I would deem a reliable source. It's also possible that I got some of it wrong and need to be corrected: that is part of why I want help with this information to begin with.

I am not going to pay for someone to find out this information, I thought that was point of this forum; that many people who repair, design, build, or have worked with these machines are able to post about their first-hand knowledge of them in order to help others? If I am mistaken, and this forum requires monetary compensation for information then I apologize for bothering you all with the post.

Electrocutor wrote:

Why bother joining or perusing OPE sites like this if you're not prepared to listen to the advice of people who have owned, operated and maintained equipment like this in real world conditions. What better way to objectively collate the various experiences and opinions, sort it out and then draw your own conclusion based on these experiences. Doing your homework is one thing, over analyzing your choices is a whole different story. Just my subjective opinion...

I agree that opinions of real-world use is very important, but there are tons of other posts about that. What I failed to find no matter where I looked was a quantitative comparison and detailed analytical comparison of different like-machines components and construction practices. One thing that has become abundantly clear is that for every component that has been improved in the last 30 years, 3 components are now made less durable or from cheaper quality and build materials/design than they used to be. The problem is that no one knows this kind of info except the engineers that designed it (who aren't allowed to reveal that info) and people who have dug into the workings.

I guess I was hoping for more actual information from people and less having to defend myself for asking how well something is built. I just assumed that everyone would have thought knowing the construction quality of a machine was just as important as knowing how well the users like it.