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

It’s confusing the way torque and power are talked about.  Maybe someone can square me away?  The confusion is people referencing max torque of engines from torque curves.

 

Related to snowblowers only.  The following are not statements of fact.  They are my understanding.

 

Torque is the guy that tosses the snow, the lifting energy.   Power (speed) is also a factor.  Together they make up the needed elements for throughput related to torque (how much can be gobbled up) and power (distance of toss from engine/impeller speed). 

 

Torque and power have to be considered together at the useful “range” which for a snowblower is max throttle, max RPM.  For the RPM part that is max under load so 3600 drooping to ?? unsure but a guess 3000. 

 

People talk about how much torque is available for a given engine and those figures usually reference torque curves. Referencing torque curves seems useless for a snowblower because it’s never operated in the range of RPM where max torque happens.   Any references to these numbers for a snowblower are meaningless.

 

The only part of a torque curve that is the meaningful for snowblowers is the far end (not max torque from the curve) and that happens at 3000 to 3600 (the far end).   

 

Is the above right?  Max torque from curves is not useful for a snowblower.  It’s what is at the far end of the curve that is meaningful for snowblowers.  The 3000 to 3600 section of the curve.  No one runs their engine at 2400 RPM. 

I think we are all in agreement.  It’s not so useful to consider max torque alone without brining in its value in the useful operating range of a machine.  The specs at HD or dealers just give max ratings without RPM or curves so not much info about the engine. It would be nice if they included some.    

 

Niper99: I’m with you Niper99.  It’s time to  surf around for a clip on tach,

 

Paul7, may be the Subaru has a better curve in the higher RPM range than similar cc Briggs.  They are supposed to be good engines.  Maybe I should hunt down some curves for Honda and Yamaha.

The other thing is you can load an engine and have it run hard as in working very well not straining but under governor control control.  You can here when it's running well loaded but not struggling. 

Then there is running with loading that boggs down the engine heavily.  Engines at this point almost sound like thumping on old train engines.  Running a motor in that range for very long would bring a quick end.  It will still perform well but seems too taxed.  I've always wondered where I am in the curve at that point.  Time to get mobile tach. 

I was looking at one of these unit. Has both a tach and an hour meter.
http://www.tinytach.com/tinytach/index.php

trouts2 wrote:

The problems most have with snowblowers is the transfer of the engines torque to the drive mechanism, either via Hydrostatic Transmission or a friction wheel in contact with a drive plate being turned by the engine.  If the machine hits a particularly solid block of ice the engine may have sufficient torque to crush and throw it via the auger and impeller, but the drive may not let allow that to happen because the belt can slip, the tires can slip or the rubber faced friction wheel can slip, all of which keeps the machine motionless.  3000 pounds of torque is the equal of a 12" long Breaker Bar on a bolt and you applying 3000 pounds to the handle.   That is a lot of force.  Getting it where you need it is usually the only problem. This is why adjusting all these things before the season, and replacing the rubber friction wheel 'tire' or the belt from the engine crankshaft to the drive plate matters so much because all that irresistable torque can just as easily slip a belt that is stretched or a glazed friction wheel tire rather than drive the wheels and the machine.  So a better question to ask of any new snowblower is "How Wide is the Friction Wheel Rubber ?"  and "How Large is the Diameter of the Friction wheel ? " compared to other competitive snowblowers because it is quite literally how the Torque gets to the meet the Road under the machine. Lacking gears in a transmission these friction wheels are what makes the wheels turn or not.  The ones that better utilize the engines torque have never been determined, a failure of Consumer Reports who claims to evaluate and compare such machines IMHO. What CR tests they test fairly, but they fail to address and compare these critical drive systems that utilize the Torque you are concerned with.

trouts2 wrote:
trouts2 -  the commercial Robins (Subaru) on my mower is by far the best engine I've ever owned...quiet, one pull starting, very smooth power and perfectly balanced.  However I think that Robins make different models of varying specs and quality.  Probably not accurate to rate their entire line based on one model.  The OHV one I have has an oil pump so that mowing on slopes isn't a problem, an oil filter, auto decompression, etc. 

My guess is that just like Briggs and Honda, Robins-Subaru likely make a top of the line model all the way to a basic utility model.  Honda built a well deserved reputation with their GX line which debuted in 1987.  Then they came out with the GC line in 1997 and a lot of people bought equipment just because it had a "Honda" engine.  Most people never realized that it wasn't the same engine that built Honda's reputation.  Honda also has a GS model that falls somewhere in the middle of the GX and GC.   Anyway my sense is that not all Robin-Subaru's are created equal and different models may have different hp - torque curves.

   According to Snowman yours is a bit beefier because Ariens ordered it that way.  If I ordered the same model as yours I would not get the same engine. 

I've got a TinyTach on my CubCadet 930 (357cc Chinese motor). Full throttle @ no load shows 3700rpm. A heavy load pulls it down to 3000 rpm. Having the torque peak below the set RPM is a real benefit since as you load the engine down, it becomes harder to bog it down further. I wish I could find a torque curve for this motor to see where things sit. Horsepower is a simple equation HP=(Tq * RPM)/5252. So mathematically HP and Torque numbers can ONLY equal each other at 5252 RPM. However the HP and torque peaks have almost no relation to each other. The RPM of the torque peak is almost entirely dependent on the cam profile.

You have it basically correct. Torque is the twisting force. Its the real unit of how "powerful" an engine is. Horsepower is effectively a linear multiple of torque at a given RPM:

HP = rpm x torque / 5252

For an electric motor, torque is essentially flat across the RPM range, but the same is not true of an internal combustion engine, so when we deal with gas/diesel engines, we talk about a torque curve because its way more interesting. Every internal combustion engine is effectively optimized to produce maximum torque at a place the designer/engineer decides it would be most advantageous. Diesels produce all their torque down low. A honda VTEC tends to produce it up high in the RPM range (which means these engines produce lots of horsepower, but little torque, which at first doesn't make sense.)

For these OPE engines, torque is a way more interesting number than HP, particularly in the range of 2500-3600 RPM because that's where the engine does its work. So ideally, you want these engines to have their max torque in this relatively wide band, because if it falls off too quickly, as soon the motor bogs down under load its out of its power band and you're cussing because that big 13HP motor bogs down in the pile of snow.

The relevant formulas are here:

http://www.elec-toolbox.com/Formulas/Motor/mtrform.htm

Even for car engines, people should be far more concerned about the torque curve, but that's too complicated, so people fixate on BHP in their cars, which is largely irrelevant. This also explains why a BMW inline 6 can often produce more useful power and fast times 0-60 than a V6 despite having 40-60 less max HP, since the torque curve on the I6 is often very broad and a lot of power is available from 2K RPM on up to the redline. But people like to argue peak horsepower, which again, is almost irrelevant.

Honda will show you there torque curves at this site:

http://engines.honda.com/models/model-detail/gx340

Subaru/Robin have it here, although the torque curves are missing from the snowthrower engines:

http://robinamerica.com/pfeatures.aspx?pid=199

I can't find the equivalent for Briggs engines, but I found this web site:

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00Al4s

   I could not fine the Honda torque curves at the URL posted above but they are available at the URL below for, GXs, 160, 200, 270, 340.

http://www.auspowered.com/powered-by-honda/gx200.html

 

tkrotchko:>>Every internal combustion engine is effectively optimized to produce maximum torque at a place the designer/engineer decides it would be most advantageous.

 

Related to that, does anyone know wear degradation related to running an engine at design max torque? 

 

There are various degrees of running loaded.  When the engine is deeply loaded and struggling it can take it.   The tossing distance cuts almost in half, the engine thumping, the head gasket almost seems it will blow out but it can keep munching and tossing at that load.  When it gets to that point I often wonder where I am at the top of the torque curve because it seems to be dealing with the load and can keep it up but it also seems like I’m destroying the engine.  It’s one thing to run max’ed in short EOD piles but making a long run in heavy wet snow is very tough on an engine when running very loaded. I’ve always wondered if the point of extreme load is at the max torque point and a place to not run for long periods.  A tach would help to locate where on the curve it's running when deeply loaded so picking one up.

 

From an old snowshoveler post.  He did not say these figures were max torque but I assume they were.  Interesting is the HMSK80 having max up so high.

 

hmsk 70    11.3   lbs  of torque  at   2450 rpm

 

hmsk 80    12.75  lbs of torque at   3000 rpm

 

hmsk 100  15.5   lbs of torque at   2600 rpm

 

hmsk 110   15.75  lbs of torque at   2500 rpm

 

ohsk 120  17.5  lbs of torque at   2550 rpm

 

 briggs next... all ohv intek snow engines.

 

9 horse  14   lbs torque  at    2500  rpm

 

10 horse  14.25   lbs torque at   2500 rpm

 

11 horse 18 .5   lbs torque at   2400 rpm.

 

trouts2
I'll put in my 2 cents. I'm my opinion running an engine at max torque at max load for long periods of time, would not be something a person would want to do. At the very least is causing the engine to
generate a lot of heat. 
The max. torque an engine can put out is just, that the max.  It's simply an engine spec.  It's not in my view, the place you want your engine to be at for long periods of time.  There is no point in it. 

You see evidence of what can happen when you push an engine to it's max limits in Drag cars.  Brand new engines or with a couple of runs and boom, parts everywhere.  That's obviously an extreme example and usually more related to excessive RPM.  But it's related.

There are to many things you can do to keep your engine from being under max. load for to long. A little smaller bite or cut with the bucket. Slower forward speed.
I push my blower hard sometimes, really hard.  (which is not hard to do with a 32" bucket). But I always try and keep it just out of that max. load max torque range for to long a period.  It's not hard to tell when your there.  The engine sound tells you.  When the engine really starts to bog down and lose RPM, but your still moving forward, your there.  It has a totally different sound than just being loaded, full on the governor.  Just my thoughts. 

Personally, I'd like to see the max torque at about the 3000 RPM point. That way, you still have more RPM to keep impeller speed up to prevent throwing distance from falling off too much.