Abby’s Guide > Outdoor Power Equipment (Lawn Mowers, Snow Blowers, Chain Saws and more) > Discussions > Recall: Toro 421Q & 421QE (38588/38589)
Outdoor Power Equipment (Lawn Mowers, Snow Blowers, Chain Saws and more) Discussions |
|
allenm
Joined: Dec 29, 2010
Points: 8
![]()
|
 |
Recall: Toro 421Q & 421QE (38588/38589)
Original Message Jan 19, 2011 2:07 pm |
|
Toro will have a recall this summer (2011) for Toro 421Q & 421QE (38588/38589). The following problem affects models made in 2009, 2010, and 2011. Toro has learned that Ethanol (used in all gas), is deteriorating aluminum parts within the carburetor. These deteriorating parts break off inside the carburetor creating small fragments then clog areas inside the machine (ie. fuel line). Gas will leak out of the snow blower into (ie. your garage). The end result (gas leak) is similar to what happened on the Toro 180 power clear, but the problem is NOT the same. Toro is aware of the problem and said they are working on a fix to be released this summer (2011) on the Toro 421Q & 421QE (38588/38589) snow blowers. If anyone is having a gas leak now, the current fix is only temporary.
This message was modified Jan 19, 2011 by allenm
|
fleetfoot
Joined: Jan 23, 2011
Points: 19
![]()
|
 |
Re: Recall: Toro 421Q & 421QE (38588/38589)
Reply #19 Jan 24, 2011 5:05 pm |
|
15% ethanol means roughly 15% less mileage.
Just to correct this misconception. Ethanol contains about two thirds the energy of gasoline. So gasoline with 10% ethanol has about 97% the energy of straight gasoline and gasoline with 15% ethanol has about 95% the energy of straight gasoline. You can therefore expect about a 3% drop in fuel mileage with gasoline with 10% ethanol and about a 5% drop in fuel mileage with 15% ethanol.
|
fleetfoot
Joined: Jan 23, 2011
Points: 19
![]()
|
|
|
Re: Recall: Toro 421Q & 421QE (38588/38589)
Reply #22 Jan 25, 2011 12:23 am |
|
I average 5mpg less with 10% ethanol and that's a fact. I keep meticulous records of my mileage for all my cars. I am not disputing your records. Assuming that you average 30 mpg, only 1 mpg of your loss can be attributed to the 10% ethanol unless you average 166 mpg. Something other than ethanol is contributing to the other 4 mpg loss you are seeing.
|
Steve_Cebu
 
Joined: Dec 17, 2009
Points: 888
![]()
|
|
|
Re: Recall: Toro 421Q & 421QE (38588/38589)
Reply #23 Jan 25, 2011 1:35 am |
|
I am not disputing your records. Assuming that you average 30 mpg, only 1 mpg of your loss can be attributed to the 10% ethanol unless you average 166 mpg. Something other than ethanol is contributing to the other 4 mpg loss you are seeing. Well from where I sit it's the ethanol. I pay for 100% gas and that's what I want in my car.
This message was modified Jan 25, 2011 by Steve_Cebu
"If you have more miles on your snow blower than your car, you live in New England." "If you can drive 75 mph through 2 feet of snow during a raging blizzard without flinching, you live in New England."
|
fleetfoot
Joined: Jan 23, 2011
Points: 19
![]()
|
|
|
Re: Recall: Toro 421Q & 421QE (38588/38589)
Reply #25 Jan 25, 2011 10:52 am |
|
most of this ethanol is getting old by the time it gets into most end-user gas tanks and has probably absorbed plenty of water by then - wonder what kind of energy/mpg we're talking about with water-saturated ethanol? Anyway, energy potential is small potatoes compared to all the other big problems attributable to ethanol, like environmental degradation and significant loss of wildlife habitat (especially for upland-nesting gamebirds and ducks). Where are the facts to support either of your statements? I never said that ethanol was good or bad. I just questioned Steve's statement about 15% ethanol gasoline resulting in a 15% reduction in fuel economy.
|
alty
Joined: Nov 1, 2010
Points: 38
![]()
|
|
|
Re: Recall: Toro 421Q & 421QE (38588/38589)
Reply #26 Jan 25, 2011 7:05 pm |
|
MN Runner - " So is there a recall or not? Is this just a hoax? " ....wondering the same thing |
longboat
Joined: Feb 11, 2009
Points: 103
![]()
|
|
|
Re: Recall: Toro 421Q & 421QE (38588/38589)
Reply #27 Jan 26, 2011 8:58 am |
|
Where are the facts to support either of your statements?
I never said that ethanol was good or bad. I just questioned Steve's statement about 15% ethanol gasoline resulting in a 15% reduction in fuel economy. Where are the facts to dispute my statements? There's more than plenty of anecdotal evidence that 10% ethanol gasoline is absorbing water before it gets into the end-user's gas tank - never heard of water in the gasoline helping to get better mileage, and I'm sure many physicists would agree. Maybe water injected AFTER the fact if you have a high-compression engine with variable timing that is designed to take advantage of water injection to reduce engine knock at high-compression ratios, but I don't know of any commercial engines that are specifically designed to do that, and the principle doesn't even work the same for water that is already IN the gasoline. There's only one good way to burn water when it comes to IC engines. It may not be as big of an issue in populated areas where filling stations go through fuel pretty fast with high turnover, but problems are pretty rampant at remote filling stations where the fuel may sit a few weeks or even months. As for facts to support wildlife habitat degradation? If you don't believe me, ask any Wildlife Sciences professor at any university in the midwest or Great Plains, or any Wildlife Manager in those areas. Or if you're like me and you have lived in this country all your life, you can see how much ground has been broken in the last ten years so farmers can take advantage of high grain prices - land that is highly-erodible, and land that has been in CRP since that program started in the 80's. We're talking wetlands and uplands and steep hillsides - it's ridiculous. Let the Wildlife Manager (or Ducks Unlimited) tell you about how loss of CRP results in fragmented habitat that has a compounding effect on contributing to game bird loss and lack of recruitment. I could go on and on, but we've gotten pretty far off-topic already...
|
|
|
