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

How do old buzzard machines stackup to often touted Honda tracks?  Both Snappers were purchased and gone through.  

It’s two days after the storm.  The sun has been on the area for two days.  The snow went from 14-20 inches to 12 to 18 inches.  The area has received double throw so tougher conditions than the day before, but less tough than in the very first test.  All runs made with full bucket widths and snow to both sides (plowed snow can not flow to the sides).

   Testing a Snapper 1030 commercial, Snapper 824 medium frame but is essentially the same machine as the commercial with smaller tires and no lights.  Same Hondas, 1132, 828, 624 all hydro tracks.

   The 1030 first gear is too fast so had to be feathered the whole time.  The 824 first was very slow approx .5-.7 MPH.  Strange because they have the same parts and they are not adjustable as far as I know.  The difference has to be checked.

   Both Snappers are from approximatly 1986, engines worn but have satisfactory compression, Tecumseh on the 1030 and Briggs on the 824.  Both were used commercially.  The 1030 by a professional clearer.  The 824 by part time guy who cleared lots in Boston..Compression wise they are ok but at a disadvantage to the newer less worn Hondas all with GX commercial motors that have cast iron sleeves.  I'm not sure if the Snappers had cast sleeves.  I don't thing they do.

Snapper 1030    Snapper 824

  All machines had excellent traction with some slipping of the tires or treads occasionally but overall the snow, melt and double throw were not a problem EXCEPT for the Honda 828. 

 Snapper 1030 vs Honda HS828.

The 1030 had to be feathered but make progress with slight lifting but the lifting minimal and not tiring.  The 1030's progress was pretty much no problem and uninterrupted without objectionable engine sag under governor control but not deeply taxed causing a drop in distance of 10-20 feet staying

The Honda 828 struggled, had a very difficult time and had to be managed and handled to make progress.  It was taxing and too difficult to continue.  The 1030 was no problem.

The very poor performance of the Honda was unexpected.  The area had been doublethrown to the day before and it was through possibly the 1030 row might be easier so the machines swapped into the others row.

The Honda struggled in the 1030's row as before.  The 1030 made fine progress in the Honda row with no problem.  It was pointless to continue with the 828 as it it just could not make progress.  The engine seemed fine. It was not overloaded.  It could not reach into the pile to clear for itself.  Even with lots of up, down and side to side from the handlebars it would not make progress

The HS624 was brought out as it did so well in the prior tests.  It buzzed along effortlessly making faster easier progress than the 1030 tossing approx 20 feet well into governor control but not deeply or objectionably over taxing the motor.  Another impressive showing for the 624.

(Note the long middle path cleared by the 624.  It buzzed that path easily).  The 1030 did so well the Snapper 824 was tried and performed about as well as the 1030.  The 824 has a great first (both are 6 forward and 1 reverse) and had no problems or tire slip.  824 was throwing close to the 1030 but at a disadvantage because of it's low chute which is about 12-14 inches.  It has the 1030's chute mounted.  The 1030 has a taller Deere chute.  The 1030 with the Deere throws much better and has a consolidated flow.  The 824 splatters and shotguns which makes it tough to get good distance.  That's typical of older design machines that had the low chutes like Ariens and Toro.  Good throughput, low splatter, wide flow not the best distance compared to newer designs. 

    What would the Ariens 1028 have done?  It probably would have been to fast and reqired feathering but would have had made progress easily tossing 40 feet without too much effort.  It's close in bucket shape and weight to the 1030 so probably would have done the same with less effort do to it's much newer motor in excelent shape.  Given the unexpected blanking of the Honda 828 the Ariens might have had problems aslo but it would be hard to imagine. 

   Unsure what happened with the Honda 828, very odd.  Right now the test area is in full sun and the water melting off the roof of the house.  It should be a little tougher today but the 828 might be given another shot.

Updated: 3/31/2011 with comments about the Honda 828 used.

   The Honda 828 was a second hand purchase that had major problems.  The impeller barrel section of the intake housing was worn through and split from tossing gravel.   The barrel was lined with a steel sheet and the repair sufficient that the machine was useable again.   Initially the repair was thought to bring the machine back to snuff.  It was used and seemed fine throughput and distance expected for a Honda 828.   After the repairs and tests posted above I repaired a Honda 828 of similar vintage and got to use it side by side with my Honda 828. 

   The difference in capability was substantial.  The machine brought in for repair had better throughput and out tossed my machine consistantly by 5-15 feet depending on conditions.  The barrel repair done on my machine caused the barrel to be out of round and affected the impeller arm to side distance such that the overall performance was degraded.  It's still a great machine but less than a stock machine in proper shape.