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

LOL, the top of the page looks like something I've seen somewhere else....

I know that they are "just another" opinion and not gospel by any means, but in case you are interested click here for readable size of the whole page. (Edit: I'll replace the linked to photo with a proper scan using the scanner at work tomorrow. Done.)

For any Canucks, the Canada Extra middle insert puts the 921022 up a notch as the big 30" 357 cm3 is not available in the Great White North. (They both had the same top 88 "overall score" in any case.)

It is snowing here again! What a melt we had with all the rain a few days ago.

NotMoneyGuy wrote:

I saw that in CR too. So funny.

Consumer Reports measures the NEW ONLY machines and evaluates how effectively they blow the snow.  The drive systems Do Not get evaluated at all, and a snowblower with a power chute rotation gets extra points, as do heated hand grips.  Unfortunately the drive mechanism and the reliability matter most, and CR lists brand reliability separately.  As I said in my previous post CR admits to not testing as extensively as they do other products, like cars, because only people who live where snow is a problem need to know about snowblowers.  Thus many CR subscribers have no need for, or interest in, snowblowers.   But the things they do test the machines for, are in fact valid objective tests of brand new machines.

For all machines the use of steel fasteners and surfaces that have no serious rust protection beyond a powder coating of paint is another issue that is never mentioned.  Machines that must sit in storage all summer, and move water in its solid and semi-solid state the rest of the time do not get the kind of rust protection our cars and trucks get.  There are plasticized coatings that better resist rust, and even stainless steel that could be utilized more, at least in the so-called PRO machines, yet they are not.   Unfortunately I feel these machines are seen as designed for regular replacement, and lots of maintenance by most who manufacture them.

I would like a comparison of the diameter and width of the rubber "Tire" that allows the Friction Wheel to Grip the Drive Plate because they are NOT the same on similar width and powered machines.  Ariens does make a wider larger friction wheel on their better machines, and if you call them they'll tell you the size differences.   CR should be asking such questions, and they have not.   So what CR does they do well, but they are far from perfect, and leave out some information which would be useful to us who need to buy these costly machines.

I will go out on a limb and say the CU auto reliability charts have been spot on for my families vehicles for the last 20 years or so. I'm not referring to the product tests but the actual problem areas of a vehicle that span 6 years at a time and reported by subscribers.

I'm surprised that the toro units did not score too high.  I have the two stage 826 and love it.  I also bought the little powerclear 180 and it's not too bad on small stuff either.  I used to have an Ariens two stage and it constantly broke down in the 3 years I owned it.

Gee, when  I bought my Toro back in Oct, 2004, It was rated #1 at that time. It is a 1995 model year, 38050 powershift  824.  It is a really good machine.

joed wrote:

This is why I don't depend on CR for my info any more. They are biased and always have been. Toro makes great machines but they are a bit pricey and that probably hurts their CR scores. I would rather have my Toro than most other brands.

Totally disagree with the review!