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

Guys,

I may get to go check out some SS's. One is a Yardman 21" 5hp 2-stroke. The other is a Toro CCR2000e 2-stroke.

I am leaning towards the Yardman, based on boratification possibilities. I'm guessing/hoping it has a 5hp Tecumseh, maybe the HSK850. The Toro would have a 4.5hp Suzuki engine, from what I understand. I don't care about electric start. Any reason to avoid the Yardman? I realize it's probably not as solid/durable a machine as the Toro. But if it could be ramped up more in the power department, I could live with that. Thanks for any feedback.

The yardman will probably have a TH139 which is a more modern version of the HSK850.  As you suggest, it will be easy to modify.

The Toro on the other hand is a better designed and built machine.  The Suzuki engine is also a gem worth owning.   Tough call.   I'd buy both.

I would have a preference for the Toro CCR2000, due to the Suzuki engine and the curved paddle design.  Also, it's more rare, complex, and smartly engineered.  However, the Suzuki parts are expensive, especially the coil and carburetor.  The flip side if you get everything working great, they have great resale value and is likely to sell fast.

The Yardman with the Tecumseh engine would probably be a better choice if you just want to experiment for cheap.   I think parts availability is better and cheaper.  I don't know who else uses the Suzuki engine except Toro.  But the Tecumseh engine is used on a lot Murray, Craftsman, and other brands.

I think since the demise of Tecumseh company, there's seems to be renewed interest (or cult following) in these dependable workhorses. 

I bought the Yardman, got it for $50. I already had to explain why I was buying *another* SS, no need to try and explain buying 2 It has an HSK850 (woohoo, my first "big block" 2-stroke), with electric start, which works. Starts right up with the pullstart, seems to run fine. Got about 92 psi on the engine, with it a bit warmed up. The plug looked OK to me. Going to open it up and take a look inside the housing, see what needs to be addressed. I see a few areas already that may need attention. I'll post pics later. To Yardman's (MTD's) credit, this has the hole on the top of the housing, so you can see & pull the plug easily. And you can see the engine and stuff from below. My Ariens is completely sealed shut until you pull off the top cover.

I"ve got the MTD Yard Machines version with a TH139 in it.  Nice light machine but not as capable a snow mover as the Craftsman despite fact the the MTD is also jacked up.  It seems too light to handle the additional power and wants to climb up on top of the snow when on the gas.  It almost seems like the additional impeller speed lifts it up making it less effective.  I think some weight added to the front/top of the machine may help keep it down.  It makes for a great deck clearing machine.  That's for sure. 

Regardless, for fifty buck, you've got potential for a decent snow mover that's easy to modify and fun to use.  Enjoy!

Don't know much about the Yardman.  But the Toro CCR2000s have a very easy governor step up to modify.   The only thing I learned about the SS blowers with the steel screw type augers.
Is that they don't like hard rough ice on the pavement or in EOD piles.  They are spinning so fast that if they catch an ice lip wrong they can and will wrap a part of the auger around the shaft.
Or break it loose.  Snapper  LE model SS are know for that fun little trick.

We'll see how this does (if we ever get any snow). It's certainly heavier than my Ariens SS322, but I have no idea how it compares to your Craftsman. Here's what I've found so far:

The machine does not have the stock impeller & paddle assembly. For whatever reason, it has the paddle from another blower. It appears to mount up just fine, but this paddle is 1" narrower than stock (it's a 21" machine, which is really more of a 20" now). It looks somewhat like a Powercuve type of paddle to me, but I don't actually have a Toro, to say for sure. I'd welcome any feedback on what it might be from. If I need to replace the rubber, I have no idea what to order, at the moment :) I can fit a fingertip between the rubber and the blower housing, in terms of how worn the rubber is. Not planning to replace it currently.

The cable-mounting assembly at the bail handle must have broken, and was replaced with something to make the machine work. It looks like a cable mount from another machine was mounted to the handle, held in place with hose clamps It does appear to work fine, at least. The belt tension was much too loose, so I tightened that up. The belt looks OK to me.

I got pics of the cylinder and piston. There is what looks like maybe some light scoring? The compression test was good (90 psi), it starts fine, and doesn't feel "scratchy" or anything when pulling it. The rings are free. The engine does seem to sound a bit quieter than my HSK600. The 850 has a bigger muffler, and is also turning slower, I think, which must help.

The build quality does not particularly impress me. The engine mounts leave something to be desired. The engine bolts on with 4 bolts around the crankshaft. On my Ariens, even with the smaller HSK600, the engine bolts on with the same 4 bolts, and also 4 more under the engine, so it's much more secure. borat, if yours is like this, I can see why your engine mount broke. There is an issue with the chute, with cranking it to the left. The teeth on the chute are worn wide, so the screw on the crank binds up. I moved the crank closer, which helped, but it's not there yet. I'll be trying to improve it.

The PO must have repainted the sheet metal housing, so the stickers are covered up. I found a picture of an identical-looking machine, which listed its model #, so I used that to try and find manuals. Now I really appreciate the ready access to my Ariens owners manual, parts list, and service manual. I got an owners manual for this, and I can get parts list info off MTD's site. No service info or anything. Please forgive posting a bunch of pics.

The auger assembly looks like it came from a Toro CCR2450 / 3650. Those were 20" wide.

It's amazing what people will come up with to make things works.  Referring to the auger bearing flange extension bolts.  Never seen anything like that.
But it was a good idea, I love it.

Red:

I haven't taken the MTD machine apart so I'm not certain about the motor mount arrangement.  However, I suspect that it's very similar to yours.   If you're seeing excessive vibration, you may want to stiffen the engine mounting system some how.  You'd be surprised how even a little pulley offset can eat up belts. 

The engine doesn't look too bad.  I wouldn't really that scoring on the cylinder/piston.  It looks more like regular wear on an engine that's obviously seen it's fair share of work.  Run your fuel at 32:1.  The extra lube will be good for the engine.  

I do like the impeller swap.   That modification combined with a throttle mod will likely make that thing quite the kick-ass snow blower.  You may have to weigh it down some to keep it on the ground but I bet it will chuck some serious snow.   For fifty  buck, you did well.

   The MTD isn’t a bad machine even compared to Toro.  They both have their points even with the price break.

 

   Below are pictures of engine supports on the Toro Powerlite and MTD 5.5hp. 

 

   The Toro has a triangle brace running from the lower handlebar over to a triangle brace mounted on the cowling recoil.  

 

   The MTD has a couple of inch horizontal brace bolted to the intake housing running to the engine cowling and cross machine lower brace.  It’s a nice stiff support.   

 

   Both are strong but the MTD better.  The MTD allows access to the recoil and gas tank.

 

Borat,

   The MTD 5.5 weighs 62lbs.  The Craftsman 3/21 53lbs.   Too much to be just engine an difference.  Your MTD is probably a different model.   Maybe it’s riding up is due to the angle and way of attachment to the base. ?  Toro’s will ride up also.  I’ve got a Toro 3650 here this year so can get in some comparison runs to the MTD 5.5.    

trouts2 wrote:

I'm glad the engine on the Toro Powerlite is supported at the crankshaft and the recoil cowl.  These two points should at least be the bare minimum of engine support.  I would be leary of crankshaft support only unless if it is really beefy.  When you have a flooded engine, the recoil rope can put a lot of cantiliver forces on the engine crankcase engine mount.

The MTD engine mount seems very solid.  The forces of recoil and engine torque is braced by triangulated members.  These are the same as the Honda SS.  Having unobstructed access to the recoil housing is nice on these.

RedOctobyr wrote:
Good idea on the spacer for the auger assembly.  Reminds me of something MacGyver would have come up with.  Although the right side of the snowblower wouldn't perform as well as the left side.  Also, the auger discharge doesn't exactly line up with chute opening. 

That Tecumseh HSK850 engine is surprisingly compact with that muffler.  The chassis seems to be fairly stiff to handle extra power.  I've never seen a spark plug that close to the console before.  This is a very tidy compact machine, I like the separate gas tank that is not part of the upper housing.  Easy to pull off without worrying about fuel leakage.

I just weighed both machines with some very accurate American Tourister luggage scales.  MTD was 59.6 lbs. the Craftsman was  ten pounds heavier at 69.6 lbs.  Both machines clean with no snow/moisture on them and both full of fuel.  Ten pounds difference.

The MTD is Yard Machine 31A-260-516 with no electric start.  The Craftsman has electric start. 

Trust me.  There is a major difference in how both machines get the job done.  The Craftsman is, hands down, better at throwing snow.   The MTD might be able to match it if it had more weight but as it is, it doesn't.  

Just out of curiousity, does the the your Craftsman seems to have the more of engine weight in front or rear of the axles?  I find it that a machine is easier maneuver when the weight is more towards the rear, but it tends to ride up and bounce around more.   10 lbs difference might not mean much if both machines have the same weight balance over the wheels, but it is quite noticeable when that 10 lbs is in front of the wheels

The Craftsman is a longer machine overall and it does take more effort to tilt the front upward compared to the MTD.   Without going into a thorough weight distribution analysis between the two machines, my observations lead me to believe that some of the additional weight of the Craftsman is more forward.  The electric start motor is toward the front and bottom of the engine.  That alone puts a few pounds in the right place.  

>>>I just weighed both machines with some very accurate American Tourister luggage scales.  MTD was 59.6 lbs.

 

   Just checked your MTD model and it’s very close to mine.  Mine has electric start so that might be the difference.

 

  My Craftsman is a 3/21 so some weight there.  Mine has electric start. 

 

Oops, just thought of the amount of gas in the tanks would make a difference.

 

>>>Trust me.  Their is a major difference in how both machines get the job done.

    I believe you, it’s the reasons.  Weight could be it. ??  As aa335 mentioned how the weight is distributed would be a factor along with handles and other things. 

    Ten lbs will make a difference on a big two stage.  There’s more leverage there but weight would be a factor for the SS’s. 

 

   Just checked the Craftsman weight again and it’s the same.  Not much gas in the tank.

 

   Without question the weight on the MTD is much more forward compared to the Craftsman.  The Craftsman tips backwards with the handle falling to the ground on the slightest bump in front.  If I just lower the handles slightly it will fall backwards.  The MTD goes forward from a much lower position.  The weight on Craftsman is pretty much over the wheels and on the MTD forward of the wheels. 

 

   Maybe my Craftsman is build different. If your’s does not fall back with a couple of inch tilt to the handle then it’s different. 

 

    The angle of the handle bar to the machine is the same on both at least on my machines.

Just read your last post.  Mine is definetly not the same.  I can't put it someplace and walk away without checking the handlebar to see if it's going to tip over. 

Yeah, sounds like the two Craftsman models are considerably different machines and different again from the MTD.   As I've said, it's got plenty of power.  It's just not as eager to dig into and throw snow as well as the Craftsman.  For use on the deck, the MTD is fine.  If I were to want to press it into serious duties, I'd be doing some experimentation with weights over the front of the intake.

Sad thing is that we're not getting much snow.  It's like freaking spring here.  Snow is melting when it should be falling........  Despite the pleasantries of mild temperatures, I'm not happy with that.

It felt weird doing spring cleaning in February.  I was cleaning out my garage, detailing the car, and summerizing 3 snowblowers this weekend.  It was so warm I thought about waking up the grass with some spring fertilizer feeding.

However, I feel being cheated out of my share of snowblowing.  I haven't used even one gallon of gas on snow removal yet. 

   Looked at the Murray 3hp and Craftsman 3/21.   With the cases off the frame parts look the same.   Looking from the side with the wheels as the reference the Craftsman's engine sits further back than the Murray engine. 

Wow, lots of good info. Thanks guys.

aa335, really appreciate the pointer on what the paddles might have come from. That's great to know.

And I'm in complete agreement with you. I do not like how the engine is currently a big, unsupported cantilevered beam. That makes me uncomfortable. Fortunately for me, there is a threaded stud sticking through the recoil shroud, at the bottom of the engine. I took a look at the parts list drawings, and it does not appear that anything is supposed to attach there (strange). But it seems like a great place to add an engine mount, probably going to the big green tube that goes right below the engine. I will have to measure it up, then I'm hoping to be able to make something to grab onto that tube, and bolt to the engine. That would make the engine mounting vastly more secure. The sheetmetal that it mounts to by the shaft is not terribly thick. trouts2, they had an opportunity to mount it rather like your Toro picture, but apparently chose not to.

This machine has a very different look/feel from the Ariens. The Ariens has a much larger housing (even ignoring that mine has the smaller -600 engine). There's a lot of empty space in there, and still would be in the version with the -850. The Yardman, by contrast is very compact, as was noted previously. They may not quite have packed 10 lbs of stuff into a 5 lb bag, but they definitely took a different approach than Ariens, which has 5 lbs of stuff in a 10 lb bag. The Yardman is noticeably heavier (larger engine, plus electric start. Also a metal lower body, vs plastic on the Ariens). But I wonder if I might actually be easier to carry up the stairs if I had to. Being physically smaller, you can get the weight closer to your body, and it's also just less bulky.

Thanks for the positive feedback on the machine & specifically the impeller setup. I was starting to worry that I may have simply bought an albatross. But if the Powercurve impeller might actually be a bit of an improvement (for performance) in some respects, then maybe the swap isn't a terrible thing. I do wish I could at least slide the impeller to the right, to center it, but I doubt there would be a practical way to do that, while still letting the drive pulley mount to it. I haven't taken a close look at that, though. Just took a look at my pics again, and looked up the part # molded into the drive pulley. It's a Toro #. And the stock Yardman belt is a v-belt, whereas the machine has a ribbed-style belt (and engine sheave). So who knows what all was swapped around to make this change I'll confess I don't like that kind of thing, because it makes me wonder if the setup will really work, and it also becomes difficult to replace a part if something wears or breaks. Is the broken thing the part # that's actually listed in the parts list, or something else?

If the engine wear doesn't look too bad, that's good to know, thanks.

RedOctobyr,

Have you thought about pulling the HSK850 from the Yardman and put it into your Ariens SS322 chassis?  Seems like that chassis can accommodate a 3 hp, 5hp, and a 7hp engine with just a few mounting brackets here and there.   I think Ariens have a good design on this snowblower,   I think that molded auger is pretty cool and just need some serious power to drive it.  I've been toying with the idea of picking up one of these Ariens SS, pull the stock engine, and drop in a GX200 Honda clone engine.  The GX200 engine is a four stroke, 200cc, has very good torque, combined with that stiff molded auger, should be able to dig through EOD very well, for a SS, that is.  The only trouble is that this engine is OHV, dimensionally it might not fit inside the housing.

Anyways, I was just throwing out some ideas since you have the SS322 and the HSK850 sitting around that potentially can make an awesome machine.  Somehow, they should be united.  :)  I found this youtube video on the Ariens 722EC, that's where I got the idea from. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GOixwhKtMg&feature=related  ,  skip to 8:00 for closeup on the Ariens 722EC

The other machine on that video is the Honda HS928TCD, one of my favorite 2 stage machine.  It's a shame Honda does not sell this model in the US.

I have, in fact, considered that. The swap is probably doable, though it might take a bit of tinkering. I might need to make something for the second set of engine mounts, the ones near the recoil housing, for the Ariens frame. Assuming that both engines have the same crankshaft dimensions, I *should* be able to pull off the V-belt sheave from the -600 and put it on the -850. I'm not sure how the electric start plug would mount in the Ariens.

The impeller RPMs would be too low, since the -850 spins slower than the -600, and comes with a larger pulley sheave when used in the Ariens. At 3600 RPM, the impeller RPM would be 1000 using the -600's pulley, vs the 1200 that it should be. Cranking the RPMs would raise it back up, but would still be lower than with a larger -850 sized sheave at the same RPM. The flip side would be added impeller torque (due to the lower "gear ratio" for the impeller), so it wouldn't bog as much in heavier stuff It could become an EOD-busting SS. 

Haven't looked into any details yet. No idea what the larger pulley sheave costs, if I wanted to swap it. One downside is that my Ariens does not have a chute crank. The "fancier" SS522 comes stock with a chute crank. The other option, of course, would be to sell the Yardman and simply buy an SS522 in the first place. I don't know if I could put the smaller -600 in the Yardman. One thing that keeps going through my mind is wondering if it's just silly to be thinking about swapping engines around, and maybe I should just get the Yardman ready for action and leave it at that

Red,

    That cowling stud dosent seem to go with that body.  I'll bet the engine is not original to that body and may have come from a newer MTD model.  Makers like MTD and Murray would order cowlings specific to engines so paying for an extra unused mounting bolt is not likely.

Red:

Jack up the Yardman and flog it.  See how it does.  I agree that you should try to use the stud in the recoil/fan cover as an additional engine support.  It will assist in keeping the engine put.  Mix your fuel at 32:1 and see how well it works.  I suspect that running at speed, with that auger, that thing should move some serious snow. 

Does the center of the curve of the auger paddles line up with the snow ejection hole/chute?  If so, it should work well.  Even if it's off to one side a bit, I'm confident that slight disadvantage will be overcome by the sheer velocity of the auger. 

RedOctobyr wrote:

Sometimes you can find a used SS522 cheaper than you can do engine swaps.  Nothing wrong with running the HSK850 on Yardman and see if the extra RPM improves performance.  I'ts easy, cheap, and convenient.   It's just my nature to run with my own hodge podge than someone elses.  Besides, there's no snow in sight to test the machine and it's been warm so it's the perfect time for engine swaps.  You know sooner or later whether you will just leave it at that. 

RedOctobyr wrote:

You definitely want to gear it so when the auger is under high load of the EOD, it doesn't slow down the 2 stroke engine below the powerband, seems like torque drops off fast.  When that happens, the auger slows to a crawl and doesn't have the velocity to push the snow up the chute and it just plugs.  Seen this all the time on my neighbor's 221QR.  Toro's PowerCurve design is semi open around the shaft by intent, so when the snow cannot be pushed up the chute, the auger spits it out in front.  This lessens the torque demand.  The upside of this design is the auger assembly is extremely lightweight and efficient which gives it good throwing distance.  It's quite smart design actually, because when plugging occurs, you just have to ease back, let the engine spins up again, and the auger will purge the plugged snow, with a little wiggling.  The auger just aerates the snow, purges it, and you're back in business.  Rarely do you need to stick something in the chute to clear it.

If you want an EOD busting SS, look into the Honda HS621.  That has a reinforced flat center paddle, it is basically a chopper bar in the middle.  The center is also closed so it will throw sludge very well, nothing gets past it.  The torque demand for this machine is a lot higher, higher rotational mass, it is more suitable with a large displacement four stroke spinning at lower RPMS.  I've bumped up the RPM on this engine and it does not like overrevving, lots of noise and vibration.  It feels like throwing a rod or messing up the valve train.

Anyways, I think I've gone into more details on the mechanics of the snow moving parts than you may expected, but it's interesting to see how each company differs in approach of the problem.  When I looked closer at the Ariens 722EC, this design seems to be a combination of Toro and Honda design pulled together.  I think Ariens would have had a killer all around SS if they had dropped in a 200cc 4 stroke engine.  Unfortunately, at the the time these super expensive SS were coming into the market, people were just not interested in spending +$800 single stage machines.  It's expensive to make a SS approach the performance of a true 2 stage, and it only gets heavier.  Ariens didn't see the point of having this super SS encroaching on the sales ground their revered 2 stage. 

trouts2, given the other changes on this machine, I could believe that this might not be the original engine, due to the presence of the "extra" mounting stud. I was also surprised to see it there, with nothing attached, for reasons like you said.

borat, the center of the paddle does not quite line up with the chute, unfortunately. Given that the new impeller is supposedly 1" narrower (haven't actually measured it), it would be off by 1/2". Though it might be a bit more than a 1" difference. I'd be looking to ramp the RPMs on this, so hopefully that would help offset the problem, like you said.

It's the quality/durability of the Yardman that is part of my concern. The Ariens feels like a better machine. Plus the Yardman is sort of a collection of assorted parts at the moment.

I would not attempt an engine swap if I could not put the -600 in the Yardman. Currently I have 2 machines that run, the goal is to sell 1. That's a lot tougher if one no longer has an engine. But I might be better off to leave them with their own engines, sell 1, and keep an eye out for an inexpensive SS522 or other good machine with an -850. One advantage with my SS3222 is that I know it's in good condition overall. And a number of SS machines don't have chute cranks (so maybe it's not a big deal). I can just spin it manually. The extra power, however, would be pretty nice.

I did realize that the choke controls are different on the 2 engines. The Ariens uses a push-pull plunger for the choke. The Yardman uses a left-right lever. I'd have to look at them more closely to see if the carbs themselves work the same way, and I could keep the plunger control on the Ariens, even with going to the -850 carb, etc. The Yardman does have several sets of engine mounting holes around the crankshaft; hopefully some would line up with the -600.

Oh, and as nice as a Honda would be, I can't justify spending a whole bunch of money for something really nice. I'd like more than 3hp, so I could use the SS in slightly bigger storms. But I don't really need something of the Honda's caliber & expense.

"Oh, and as nice as a Honda would be, I can't justify spending a whole bunch of money for something really nice. I'd like more than 3hp, so I could use the SS in slightly bigger storms. But I don't really need something of the Honda's caliber & expense."

I know exactly what you mean. 

Last year when I got the SS bug, I bought the Craftsman, tried to use it (totally pathetic), hopped it up, fixed it up and have been totally satisfied with it ever since.  Being that I had only spent $75.00 or so out of my snow blower acquisition budget, I was still cruising around for a Toro product due to their reputation for being one of the best SS machines available.  Nothing reasonably priced was being offered used so, when Home Depot put  the 221 QRE on sale for $599.00, I just couldn't resist.  Now that I've had both machines for over a year and used both of them enough to know what I like,  I'm always drawn to the cheap old Craftsman first.  I admit that it's nowhere near as nice as the Toro for adjusting the snow trajectory but despite that, I'll go to if first simply because it works great and is much more fun.   I still wouldn't part with the 221 now that I have it.   The jury is still out on how long the 850 will last under the conditions it's seeing.  However, the more I use it, the more I trust it.   Chances are that I probably didn't "need" the 221.   Another factor that pushed me toward buying the Toro last year was the discontinuation of use of two cycle engines in their larger SS machines.   That alone was enough to make me buy one.

By the way, I went out and adjusted the tab that holds the governor spring on the TH139 engine in the MTD.  I fired the machine up and put the sirometer on it.  I was getting a solid 4100 rpm.  That would appear to be factory setting.  I bent the tab and dropped the idle speed to 3000 which is noticeably quieter and easier on the engine.      

Well, an engine swap is looking impractical. Before trying to take the cover off the Ariens, I looked up a bit of info on the crankshafts.

Thanks to the document trouts2 posted a few days ago (http://th.manualwebsite.com/pdf/engine_and_accessories_2001.pdf - a great resource!), I got some info on the crankshaft in the 850, which is 290614. The 600 has 290676. I can't specifically find interface details on 290676 (seems like it might have been a bit of a special for Ariens?). But the main diameters of the 600 and 850 crankshaft outputs are different. So I can't just swap the pulleys (the pulley styles are different between the two machines, ribbed belt vs V, so I also can't just leave them on the engines).

And the proper pulley half for an 850 engine in the SS522 (03801200) would be $30, and you need two halves. (by contrast, the pulley halves for the 600 engine are only $4 ea!). At $60 for a pulley, which may or may not actually fit the crankshaft geometry on the 850, swapping engines does not make any sense. I could buy a whole SS522 for not too much more.

Unfortunately a swap is not an option, but at least that provides direction- go through the Yardman and get it ready Make an engine mount, etc.

Checked the engine RPM of the 850 last night, it's set at 3900. I tried nudging the governor to speed it up. It's certainly quite a bit louder at 5000. It didn't sound bad, but I didn't feel like bringing it up to 6000 just yet. The engine starts quite readily. As I was running & shutting it down, it would fire up again with not even a half pull. It was 1 or 2 pulls (I forget which) when cold. Got the idler pulley's arm adjusted to try and align the pulleys as best I can, based on your good advice, borat. They were out of alignment as-is (no need to munch the belt).

Any engine that is sped up will make more noise.   I'm not keen or revving an engine when not under load.  I'll do it for brief bursts for testing purposes but that's generally it.  When working, you'll notice the engine doesn't seem as loud and changes it's tone.  Could be due to the load effecting back pressure and/or the snow absorbing some sound.  Either way, when working these HSK/TH engines seem to enjoy the higher rpms.   They certainly make serious power for their size and seem to be as "happy" as any two cycle engine I've owned. 

I'd never thought about it this way before, but in some ways, I'd imagine a governed 2-stroke (not a 4-stroke) could actually be seeing less wear at high RPMs & high load, vs high RPMs & no load. With a load applied, the governor opens the throttle significantly. That adds more gas, but it also brings more oil. So under full throttle, your engine is actually better lubricated than just sitting at that RPM. A fixed-RPM SS is a prime example for this, I suppose, since the RPM should be the same whether just warming up, or actually doing stuff. So, let that be a lesson- be kind to your 2-stroke, keep the paddles fed

In terms of noise, the snow would help absorb some sound. You're also doing stuff (not just focusing on the noise), you're *expecting* it to be doing more, and you're also not crouched by the exhaust (like I was last night ).

I had wanted to do something to make the motor mount more secure. When you'd pull the cord, you'd see the top of the engine move to the left as you hit the compression stroke.

I took some measurements of the area around the engine's unused mounting stud. Drew up what I wanted to make, starting with some 2" x 2"  90 degree extruded aluminum. It's just a simple piece, but milled what I wanted, including a radiused face to match the radius of the frame tube I wanted to mount it to. The radius should help keep it aligned with the tube, and keep it from sliding around as much. I bolted it onto the engine's stud, and used a pair of stainless hose clamps to secure it to the tube. The hose clamps aren't exactly fancy, but I had them around, and they'll be plenty secure for this purpose.

Tried pulling the cord, the engine stays rock-steady now It looks much better vs when it was tilting left/right. Took it outside, primed it, started on the first pull. Now I just need some snow to try it on! I haven't tried to boratify it yet. Might start with simply adjusting the governed RPM higher, before trying to rig up something to allow controlling it.

  Nice fix Red. MTD chose a good place for a support.

Red,

Looks nice and tidy, and instantly effective.  Keep a close eye on that nut, they tend to vibrate loose.  Use some blue thread locker liquid or use Nyloc nuts to take prevent that from happening.
 

Nice job red.  What did you use to machine the radius?  Excellent work.

Don't want to second guess you, but did you confirm your pulley alignment prior to building/installing the new engine mount?  If required, you could easily shim the mounting base to raise it and oval out the hole a bit if you need to lower it. 

Thanks guys. aa335, I had a lockwasher I was going to toss in, but the stud was too short. I was so caught up in whether this was actually going to work that I did not just grab my blue Loctite. I will have to go back and add that, good point. "Fortunately", the stud was rather rusty, so the nut was snug already. It came with built-in, brown, threadlock

borat, I had corrected the pulley alignment prior, and I don't think this really shifted the engine noticeably. But I will have to double-check the pulleys, just to make sure I didn't accidentally cause an issue. The mount was sized so that it basically lined right up with the stud location, so I'm not expecting issues with alignment, but I'll check.

The tube is 1.25" diameter, and there was a 1.25" diameter endmill available, so I just used that. If the tube had been a size for which an endmill wasn't available, I would have had to program that feature on the machine, and made it with a smaller cutter. And I'm definitely just learning how to do this, so it was a lot easier being able to just use a tool that happened to be the right size, vs programming.

Edit: and, trouts2, unfortunately MTD did *not* choose a good place for a support. In looking at the parts lists for this machine, I did not notice a reference to any sort of engine mount where I added this. I'm not even sure whether the engine is "supposed" to have a stud in this location (in other words, as was mentioned previously, I can't be sure that this is the original engine; if it is, there was a stud present, and nothing appeared to actually use it). The impression I got was that the engine is really supposed to be supported only around the crankshaft, and the rest of the engine just hangs in space, free to move around. Which doesn't strike me as a good idea.

RedOctobyr wrote:
Yeah, existing rust works as thread locker too.  :)  Forgot about that.  They work so well, sometimes you snap off the bolt trying remove the nut. 

This is what the bottom engine mount looks like on my MTD Yard Machines:

Can't figure out why this pic is so big?  I resized it to 400x400.  I apologize if it causes people viewing problems. 

As you can see, the PTO end of the engine is bolted to a plate which is part of the chassis.  Much better than the Craftsman mount.  The bottom is supported by a triangular strut which is attached to the rod and a brace which is attached to the back of the intake housing.  All in all, a very stout arrangement. 

You did the right thing Red when you added that support.  Particularly if you're going to "crank it up"!   The added torque effect would very likely cause negative effects on the engine mounting system had you not beefed it up. 

Borat,

Looks like your MTD is nicely supported. 

Was the Craftsman machine only supported by a single bracket on the PTO side?  Seems very flimsy considering the weight of the engine and the twisting forces involved.

On my Honda 621 and Toro 421QE, the engine is supported at 3 points.  PTO, base of engine, and to bucket.  It is a nicely triangulated structure, which secures the engine and brace the chassis as well.  The only negative drawback is that these mounts are direct to metal, without dampeners like rubber grommets, so the engine does transmit all the vibration towards the handles and the operator.  I get quite a buzzing if I don't wear gloves without sufficient padding.

If I recall correctly, there's a triangular strut that comes down from the recoil/fan housing and fastens to a piece of tubing that runs the width of the machine.  Similar to the MTD set up but without the bracket going to the housing.  The PTO end mount is cantilevered quite a distance from the chassis frame and not made of the most robust material.  Thus the vertical crack in the PTO end mount.  It seem the reinforcement I put in is more than an adequate fix.   It appears to have contributed a fair amount of overall stiffness to the mounting set up.  Better than it was.  That's for certain. 

I like your MTD's mount, borat. That also supports it against front-back engine movement. My mount can't really do that effectively. It seems to have made a big improvement, mind you, but it's not perfect. Adding an attachment to the housing would be nice, but probably not something I'll undertake. It sounds like a lot of the machines have put in pretty robust mounts (Honda, Toro, even MTD, etc). At least you were able to replace and improve your mount, borat (the Craftsman that broke).

Red:

I didn't do anything to the MTD.  That's all stock and looks more than adequate.  Much better set up than the Craftsman before I fixed it.   

RedOctobyr wrote:
They have to, the newer machines are all 4 stroke engine that are heavier.  Some of them have 208cc which are not featherweight.  And they look pretty porky too.

Yeah, you're not kidding. I've played with some of the 4-strokes in stores, they are surprisingly heavy when you push down on the handles. Way lighter than a 2-stage, of course, but significantly heavier (or at least differently-balanced) than my 2-stroke machines. And the housings do seem to have grown quite a bit.

I saw a Husqvarna the other day that actually had LED headlights, on a SS! I thought that was interesting. It had a quick-style chute, but it used a drum with a crank on it. Two cables come off the drum, one pulls the chute to the right, the other pulls it to the left. It's a lot bulkier than Toro's QZR (?), but it seemed a bit more intuitive. It's also larger and gave the impression, at least, that it could be more robust.

The newer Husqvarna SS with the crank is more intuitive than the Toro Quick Chute.  Left to turn left, right to turn right.  The Toro is down to turn left, up to turn right.  I don't care for the Husq console with the lights, seems to block visibility to me.  And their chute crank, while intuitive, feels cheap. 

The Ariens 722EC has the crank chute that only need 180 degree rotation left to right.  This is my favorite and most intuitive system, feels robusts too.  If only they add remote deflector adjustment, like pull up and down on that same crank lever.  Anyways, I'm at SSSAS 2.  The Ariens is my next target acquisition.  :)  If only someone figured how to introduce forced induction or a nitrous shot to that 2 stroke engine.  Maybe it's a stretch to mention Tecumseh and turbo in the same sentence. 

I don't know if you can do forced induction on a 2-stroke Because the intake and exhaust ports are so "interconnected" (not completely separate cycles from each other), some of the raw intake charge, still unburned, typically goes out the exhaust on each stroke. That's one reason the EPA doesn't like them. But because both ports are exposed at the same time, if you pressurized the intake charge, I'd expect you'd just blast more of it out the exhaust (the same thing that happens normally, only worse), before all the ports were closed.

Edit- Also, because the next intake charge is in the crankcase, below the piston, if you pressurize that, it would be fighting the piston somewhat on the way down. I'm sure it's been done (someone has probably made a V8-powered desk fan), but I don't think it's as "straightforward" as it might be on a 4-stroke. You could probably do nitrous, though. Tuned pipes would also probably work, especially where the engine should be running at a fairly constant RPM. Look at what people do to chainsaws in the different classes of competitions, for other examples of what you can do to enhance 2-strokes. Some of those get pretty wild.

I'm just kidding about the forced induction on a 2 stroke. The fact that 2 stroke are powerful, simple and lightweight is enough not to mess with them.

When you think of it, these 140ish cc engines are very mildly tuned.  Even when cranked up, making maybe 10 h.p. that's relatively tame.  Back in the 60s to mid 70s, single cylinder air cooled 125 cc off road motocross racing engines were making 20 to 25 h.p. and spinning at 9000+ rpm. 

People don't try to "supercharge" two cycle engines.  As Red pointed out, that's not how to make power with these things.  The secrets for power gains is in making the air/fuel mix and exhaust flow quickly through the engine.  Easiest way is to improve air intake to make it less restrictive and same for exhaust.  Next step is to re-jet the carb to take advantage of the freer breathing engine.  A great deal of instant power can be had this way.  If one wants more power yet, porting is the next step.  However, without the thorough understanding, machining skills and equipment, Joe average, such as myself, won't be doing that kind of work. 

In addition to being "skills/tools" intensive, the end result often creates an engine that's got a power band narrower than one would want.   Not that the power band would really matter that much with an engine on a piece of OPE.  On a racing motorcycle, it would make a great deal of difference.  That's why certain very talented riders (Kenny Roberts) could ride championship winning killer motorcycles (Yamaha TZ750 two stroke) when other very competent riders couldn't manage the power band.   Back in the 70s, the TZ750 was making 140+ r.w.h.p. at 10700 rpm.  The power band was reportedly like a light switch. 

The same engine was detuned to 125 h.p. and used in a flat track race bike piloted by Kenny Roberts.   The following is an entertaining excerpt that I found in an article about the TZ750:

"It’s the bike that inspired Kenny Roberts, one of the most fearless motorcycle racers that ever lived, to utter these immortal words: “They don’t pay me enough to ride that thing!” Desperate to compete with the dominant  HD  XR750s in the 1975 AMA Grand National championship, tuner Kel Carruthers shoe-horned the two-stroke four-cylinder from King Kenny’s TZ750 road racer into a Champion flat track frame and set him loose at the 1975 Indy Mile. Roberts won that race from a near-last-place start, cementing his name forever in flat track history. The TZ750 flat tracker made 125 horsepower, had a light-switch power band, a 150-plus mph top speed and no front brake. It was so fast, and so difficult to control, that the AMA banned it from competition after just three races—before someone got killed."

Fact of the matter is that the TZ750 wasn't banned so much for worry that "someone would be killed" as much as being such a dominant machine that fans (HD fans in particular) would lose interest in the sport causing a serious drop in attendance and revenue. 

Got the Yardman reassembled tonight, in preparation for the (disappointingly small) amount of snow we're supposed to get tomorrow. Bent the governor tab to raise the RPMs from 3900, where it had been, to 4500. I have no idea what the RPM spec is for this machine, but it appears that 3700 might be the spec for the 850 (based on the info I found on the 845, showing 3700). It's nice that, on this machine, there is no lower-rear cover to obscure the engine (like in the Ariens, where it's completely enclosed). So I can make "fixed" governor adjustments with just a pair of needlenose pliers, at any time. Adding true, on-demand, boratification will come later. I want to get a chance to actually try the machine before messing with it *too* much.

Boy, I don't know how the current fuel/oil was mixed by the PO, but it sure is smoking at the moment. No risk of oil starvation, or of mosquitoes bothering me! Based on your advice, borat, I have a can of dino 32:1 that I may use in it, vs my planned synthetic (Stihl Ultra) 50:1. Perhaps when I mix my next batch of Ultra I'll go for around 40:1, so I can just use one tank of gas.

Interestingly, as an aside, the HSK845 engine is described as 4.5 hp at 3700 in the Tecumseh info document that trouts2 posted previously. That document shows nothing on the 850. But my 850 engine was right at 3900 when I checked it. If you scale the rated hp of the 845 from 3700 to 3900, you get 4.74 hp. Based on OPE engine hp math, which apparently involves an awful lot of rounding up, one could infer that perhaps the only difference between the HSK845 and KSH850 is simply 200 RPM?

RedOctobyr wrote:

   It's looking like that.  I picked up an MTD HSK845 and comparing it to a few HSK850's.  The HSK845 has the same piston, rings, crank, muffler as many HSK850's.  The carb and governor spring are different in most.  There are many models of both engines and the parts not always exactly a match but mostly are.  The HSK845 is basically an HSK850 with a carb and governor spring difference.   The 3700 rpm limit in the HSK845 spec page is just a limit for the way that block was configured.  The HSK845 could be run at the same limits spec'ed for any HSK850 so 4500 no problem.

   The one variation that seemed to vary the most was the governor spring.  Since the HSK850 is bumped to 5.5, 6, 6.5 and 7hp that's reasonable.

   Another difference from one HSK850 to another was crank weight which can be a few ounces.  I'm not sure exacely what that would do to HP but for torque I would imagine that the same amount of gas would keep a heavier crank going through a load at higher torque.

   While poking around I found the base level HSK830, HSK835 and HSK845 all had cast iron sleeves.

Two strokes generally smoke quite a bit more when cold than warm.   What's strange is that with the R-tek engine in the Toro, when I first fire it up, there's very little smoke.  As it warms up with the choke on, it starts to smoke quite a bit.  Take the choke off and it clears right up. 

If an engine isn't seeing the extreme operating conditions to warrant synthetic oil, it just doesn't make economical sense to spend that kind of money for it.  I buy Canadian Tire TC-3 oil by the gallons.   It's know to be an excellent two stroke oil and relatively inexpensive.  I've been using it in everything I own (30+ engines) for over 25 years.   It's never caused me a lubrication problem in all those engines over all those years.  I also use CTC TCW-3 in my outboards.  What I've noticed lately is that two cycle engine manufacturers (B&S R-tek for instance) recommend TCW-3 oil.  Not going to happen.  I'm positive that it's likely an effort to meet EPA requirements by using a lower ash oil at the expense of not providing the best choice of oil for an air cooled engine.  Chances are that in a snow blower application, with relatively lower rpms, TCW-3 will work.  However, higher speeds and higher temperatures would lead me to believe that TC-3 would be the oil of choice.  Personally, I use TC-3 in all air cooled engines and TCW-3 in liquid cooled engines.

trouts2 wrote:
So, if I'm reading that right, are you saying there were HSK850's spec'd at 4500? Just curious because that's what I currently have mine set to. If that was an officially-sanctioned speed, that would be nice to know (I wouldn't feel that I'm pushing the engine as hard).

As far as crank weight, I'd expect:
- If the change was to a counterweight, the change might be to help properly balance out pistons & connecting rods with different weights (but it doesn't sound like there were different versions of those?)
- If it were a "nonspecific" weight change, I'd expect the extra mass would primarily act like a very small flywheel addition. It could help the RPM stay a bit more constant through small & quick loads. Flywheels only help smooth the quick bumps & dips due to changing engine loads. They won't help for prolonged added loads (a bigger flywheel will just make the engine take a bit longer to slow down). But a crank change would do much less than a true flywheel, and would make a very  small difference, I'd think.
- I presume the difference is not just due to differences in the PTO area (different length & diameter sticking out of the engine, etc)?

So, if I'm reading that right, are you saying there were HSK850's spec'd at 4500? Just curious because that's what I currently have mine set to. If that was an officially-sanctioned speed, that would be nice to know (I wouldn't feel that I'm pushing the engine as hard).

 

   Oops, that should be 4300 Max from factory 4000 +- 300.

 

The following from Tecumseh manuals.  These manuals predate later maker models past 2002 which have mostly been rpm bumped.

 

HSK600

Toro      290607,  fixed speed top governed speed 4500

MTD      290609, fixed speed top governed speed 4700

Snapper 290607, fixed speed, top governed speed 4500

Toro       290602, fixed speed, top governed speed 4700

Murray   290607, fixed speed, top governed speed 4500

 

For HSK845 also listed as TH139SA (<<<---same as HSK850)

MTD      290614, fixed speed, top governed speed 3800

Toro       290681, fixed speed, top governed speed 3850

Service   290627, fixed speed, top governed speed 4000

 

   For some reason they have tied these spec's to a given crank.  I have HSK600's with these cranks so it looks like I'm legal for 4700.

   For reference on the HSK870 to HSK850 crank difference it was 2.825lb (870) vs 2.481lb

 

>>I presume the difference is not just due to differences in the PTO area (different length & diameter sticking out of the engine, etc)?

 

    For the SHK870 vs 850 difference I don’t know where the wight diff is.  I have seen 8hp crank differences in the lobe masses next to the journals.  The lesser crank was on a Craftsman so I thought it might be to cut the crank cost but just a guess.

I got to play around briefly today with boratifying the Yardman. I tried tying a string at the upper governor linkage connection, where it goes to the throttle plate. I ran it through an existing screw hole in the lower housing (which was already missing its screw and open- if that's not a sign to boratify it, I don't know what is ), out the side of the machine, and up to the handle, where I tried attaching it to the bail.

I liked how it worked. Squeeze the bail, the RPMs climb; let go, and they drop. For the way I tend to use it (squeeze then release at the end of a run), that sounds good. I could lower the fixed-governed speed to even below-stock (for warming up, etc), and keep a high speed for doing work. I didn't have much time to mess with it, and I don't have any springs sitting around, so I need to revisit this. I'd like to add a spring, and perhaps something like a turnbuckle adjuster, or some other means to make controlled adjustments to the high-speed setting.

I was at Home Depot yesterday and took a look through their OPE-parts section. They have a universal throttle assembly (lever and cable) for $7. That could be a pretty convenient way to add a control that you can simply set & forget. An advantage over simply pulling a string by hand is that the lever would reach some maximum setting. Once properly adjusted, you couldn't accidentally take it to 9000 or something (that would be my fear if I was yanking on the string manually. Have it catch on my glove or something, and send the RPMs to the moon). Heck, with an appropriate-stiffness spring between the throttle cable and the governor, you might be able to make it such that lowering the lever would give you a nice idle, and you could perhaps use pretty much the whole range of the lever to adjust your speed.

I'm not knocking your approach of simply pulling on the string, borat. That's simple, cheap, effective, etc. Just trying to tweak it slightly based on what I think will work better for me. For all I know, I could get this sorted out, then find out you really need the ability to adjust the high-RPM's on the fly, for heavier/lighter snow.

Hey, Red, it's your machine to do as you wish.  All the power to you.  Just let us in on your mods.  Always enjoy to see what tricks guys are cooking up for their machines.

I don't think the 139cc Tecumseh engine can rev past 6500 rpm.  I pegged mine for a couple seconds unloaded and that's about it's limit.   I think the exhaust ports are probably  the most restrictive part of the system.  Those three little holes are pretty tiny for 139 cc engine.  If you ever saw the exhaust port on a 125 cc motocross bike engine, you'd know what I'm talking about.  They're positively huge by comparison.  You can stick a fresh bar of soap through the exhaust port on those things. 

    It's 50+ here and feeling like summer.   Out putzing with the machines and noticed the MTD 7hp SS had the cowling bolt but no support bracket.  It's an earlier model like Red's.  They probably did not come with with engine supports like later models.  The bar the clamp is on is a stablizing bar welded to the side of each intake housing side. 

   The brown bar is the wheel axle.  In later models they removed the stablizing bar and left just the axle which is where the bracket runs to on later models.  The bracket connected the axle, engine and back of the intake housing making a nice brace.   The added bracket is a RedOctber-like motor stablizer out of a steel steel.  Can't see the bolt and nut very well as they were slimed with grease.  The brace dampens the engine considerably and even noticable at the handles.  Probably would never had added it if I did not see Reds.   

   It's a 7hp now as it got update 803554, RMP Enhancement String Kit.

Trouts:

Are you using the high speed nylon braid or the super slick over-drive mono line?

I have one of each installed.  Despite all the hype, I've not noticed any discernible difference in output between the two.  Sure, the bright yellow mono looks spiffy but it doesn't tie as nicely as braided.  However, I do think I'm getting better fuel economy with the mono.

Borat,

   I"ve actually been looking for better string like a tight braded nylon but thin. 

   I had set a few of the machines to have a base rpm higher than normal and the string to max it from there.  Running it like a chainsaw seemed a good idea so I lowered one way down and ran it like that for a while.  Funny stuff as it is like using a chainsaw and gives the engine a break so I set the other machines the same way.   

   It's 40 here in the shade today so will probably get to the low 50's.  It'll be in the 50's next week also.  It's looking like no possibly snow here at lest into March.  Very frustrating.

Nice mount, trouts! I thought about using sheetmetal, but I didn't really have something like that handy. So, ironically, making it out of aluminum was almost easier. It was more fun, at least, I got to machine it

I'm on board with what you found, in terms of raising RPMs. I haven't yet gotten to play with my string setup any more. But I did pick up a spring to add to it, and a turnbuckle for easier adjustability. I want to add them to the machine, then maybe I'll try to get some pics. I have the string going to the bail, so as the handle gets close to fully squeezed, it raises the RPMs. I haven't yet lowered my governed-RPM speed, but that's on my list. I took the governed speed from 3900 to 4500. I will probably lower it back to 3900 (stock), maybe even lower. And try to adjust everything so that squeezing the bail is enough to crank it up to a feisty operating speed.

I'm using general purpose braided nylon string. Excuse me, Ultra Performance Turbocharging RPM Adjustificator Space Age Polymer Cabling. My string is just white. But if I dyed it red, that would add another 0.25 hp and 1" of cut width right there. You did have me wondering what 7hp MTD you were referring to, until you listed the part # and explained the upgrade And borat, you're probably right, the mono line will give you better fuel economy vs braided, as it reduces weight, and will have less wind resistance. If you polish the line, that will also help reduce drag as the machine is moving forward. +10 points for bragging rights, however, if the line you're using has a tensile strength greater than the weight of the machine.

I found that adding NOS stickers at the appropriate places can increase torque or horsepower.  You just move it around until the engine feels right for your application.  It's kind of cool to tune the engine by just altering the placement. 

Early last year, I put in application  with the Canadian Federal Government to purchase a piece of "militarily sensitive" Spectra space tether.   Putting that on the Craftsman would make it deliriously awesome......

The package finally arrived and I was quaking in my boots to see this stuff.  I feverishly tore the box open only to find that they sent me a piece of binder twine? 

I think they're testing me to see  how much I know.

I've been so dissatisfied with how the bail handle doesn't engage the auger as crisply as I like it.  While the bail lever effort is very low, there is way too much slack.  I get no action until the 1.012" slack is taken up.  And when it engages, it feels very mushy, like there's a lot of wasted slipping going on.  It should be instantaneous without slipping or jerking.  Is that too much to ask Toro to design a positive, crisp engagement bail systems?  What good is all that power if it doesn't get down to the rubber?  Also, I get no feedback from the bail lever, feels the same auger is engaged or disengaged.  I wounder if changing out the cables and adding some precision pulleys would help. 

The Toro SS would be such a perfect machine had the engineer spent a few hours revising this power delivery system.  I mean they got a great Power Curve auger, don't stop there with just some low cost steel cables.  This is 2012, we got high performance cryogengically treated teflon impregnated oxygen free copper cables that would add pennies to the machine. 

Just my $0.02, but the fact that it doesn't engage "all at once", if you will, could be deliberate. If you squeezed just a little, and the bail kind of just clicked from disengaged to engaged, that might cause a lot of undue wear on the belt when it "hooked up". Kind of like on a 2-stage (which is a bit exaggerated, due the additional rotating impeller/auger mass), if you squeeze the handle abruptly you're more likely to make the belt chirp, as it suddenly has to get everything up to speed right now. That puts a big instantaneous load on the belt. Engaging a bit more gradually may make things easier on the belt, like easing off the clutch in your car, vs dropping the clutch.

Now, that said, I'm assuming that your machine is still adjusted properly. When I got my Yardman, the belt tension was way off. If we actually had any snow to move, I have a feeling the paddles would have simply stalled out in heavier stuff, and I would have smoked the belt at the engine's pulley. Likewise my Ariens SS was also too loose. After getting both adjusted properly, they feel better, and do not seem like they will slip. But both initially had only a small amount of tactile feedback when squeezing the bail. The paddles spun, but the belts were not under much tension. Now, after adjusting them, I feel the springs fighting me more, when I squeeze the bails. I've never used a Toro, so I don't know how much tension you should actually feel. If you can't really feel the belt engage, that makes me wonder if the belt tension needs to be adjusted.

Mine do seem to have some unnecessary bail travel, I'll grant. Seems like maybe the bail shouldn't need quite that much motion. But maybe it's to help ensure that the idler is fully disengaged, and the paddle brake has engaged, to avoid having any light drag between the belt and the engine's pulley while it's just running but not blowing snow.

aa335 wrote:
aa335 - One of the reasons there is no feel in the bail is because.  Both the bail cable and the tension pulley arm are working off a spring.  You could do one of two things if
you just wanted a stronger or less mussy feel.  One would be to get a stiffer spring that hooks in line with the cable.  The other would be to get a stiffer spring that attaches
 to the tension pulley arm.  If you stiffen up that one the bail will hard to engage and will be harder to hold down.  Actually once the belt engages in the pulley grooves
more tension on the tension pulley will only stretch or the belt quicker it won't necessarily keep the belt from slipping.  That is if the belt is in good condition to start with.

The function or operation of most blower tension pulleys is kind of two fold. They remove slack in the belt ( which needs to be there).  But more importantly they push in on the belt in a position that causes more of the belt to come in contact with more surface area of the pulley by pushing the belt in somewhat underneath the drive pulley.  They force the belt to bind up on the pulley.
They are actually just rerouting the belt path.  It's that binding position that really causes the belt to hold and not slip.  That is why on a two stage when the belts starts to stretch out.
You can simply adjust the tension pulley to take up the additional slack.  You can keep doing this until you run out of adjustment, then you have to replace the belt and move the
pulley back to it's starting position.  Other wise your putting more tension on the belt than is needed and will stretch it out before it's time.

You could do a quick & dirty check of your belt tension, aa335, without having to remove any covers. Stick something into the paddles to jam them up and prevent them from turning (a stick, wrench, whatever). Now hold down the control bail. With the ignition switch set to Off, try to pull the starter cord. Once the paddles jam up, you should not be able to pull the cord any further. If the engine will continue to turn, then clearly your belt is slipping and should be adjusted/replaced. If the engine does *not* turn, and the belt holds, that's great. Though it's still not conclusive evidence that the belt is adjusted correctly. Just that you're not getting gross slippage.

I am certain that the belt is not slipping. I've used the snowblower on heavy wet snow at the end of drive and the power is getting delivered to the paddles.  I'm pretty tuned on making proper tension, too little introduces belt slip and wear, too much causes more friction and belt stretch.  Although the flat serpentine belt may be less sensitive to higher friction than the v-belt.

Anyways, the soft bail lever is not a big issue that bother me.  I was just making a tongue in cheek remark since we talked about mono filament cables as an performance enhancement.    Thanks for all who chimed in and offering tips.  I was hoping easy solutions like Seafoam or Veilside stickers make everything better.

The Toro SS bail is fine and works as designed, but it definitely has a different feel than a Honda SS.  Kinda like driving a Toyota and a BMW.  Feedback isolation versus road feel.   At the end of the day, the destination is the same, but the experience is vastly different.  I know, it's just a snowblower. 

Tough crowd aa335....

I knew what you were up to. 

I knew you would, Borat.  You have fine sense of subtlely but jump with a fervor of a spring lion, when needed. 

How's that twine cable working out?  Does it work better with parafin wax , PAM spray, silicone grease, or peanut butter?   I heard the domestic twines aged with crisp Canadian winter air offers great feedback but they tend to break too easily. 

"How's that twine cable working out?  Does it work better with parafin wax , PAM spray, silicone grease, or peanut butter?   I heard the domestic twines aged with crisp Canadian winter air offers great feedback but they tend to break too easily. "

Bulky and notchy come to mind.  A total rip-off. 

Got a line on a guitar string from one of Ozzy Osborne's guitars on ebay.  Might be able to experiment a bit with secondary harmonics to reduce engine vibration and improve over all performance.  Hope nobody outbids me.

borat wrote:
I've heard people using guitar strings on cheese slicers, but this is the first application on a snowblower. 

You know me......

Envelope?  What envelope? 

The nice thing about having no conventional training is that you don't have conventions to restrict you.  Anything goes...

So we finally got some snow yesterday. Not a whole lot, about 4", but it was wet, heavy snow (mixed with rain during the day). Very packable, great for snowballs.

I started out with the Yardman, with HSK850, mildly boratified to 4500 RPM. It did quite well, I have to say. It was throwing reasonably far, I'd say, at least given the conditions, etc. It has quite a bit of power.

I did observe that when I'd 'overfill" the paddles (ground speed too high, not letting it process the snow), it would spray snow forwards along the ground. As that spread out, it would mess up the area I'd just cleared. The machine does have a non-stock paddle assembly apparently from a Toro, which is 1" narrow, and therefore not quite centered under the chute. That may have contributed, I don't know. I did have to stop once and shut it down to clear a glob of snow out of the paddles, as it was acting like it was clogged. Sometimes when finishing a particularly heavy pass, I'd seem to get a whiff of something hot. I don't think the belt is slipping. There was no smoke, no squealing, and I had tried to adjust the belt snugly. I presume the engine was just working hard. A few times I swore it was going to stall (in piles of the wet stuff), but I'd let off, and it would get back up to speed. I did find myself having to push more than I expected, when going up my driveway's incline (just raising the handles wasn't enough). With the snow being so wet and packable, it seemed somewhat difficult to push through.

I did try the Ariens with the HSK600 at 4600 RPM. That was having a lot more trouble, given the type of snow. I could probably have taken narrow passes, but I put it away. I'd just wanted to compare the 2 engines. The HSK850 was very noticeably more powerful

At the end, I was using the Yardman to try and clear areas where previously-blown snow had landed in the driveway. So I had the original 4", plus what did not reach the edge of the driveway on earlier passes. It started approaching a stalemate It was working hard, but wasn't making lots of progress. So I got out the ST824 2-stage. Boy, that's a different feel. From a 4500 RPM 2-stroke to a 3600 RPM 4-stroke. The 2-stage sounds like it's at idle, by comparison, and you don't get all the vibration in the handles. Used that to clear the rest of the extra-packed stuff, without incident. It would just pop the throttle open, bear down, and churn through. But it was putting a good load even on the 2-stage, in 2nd or 3rd gear, so it's not surprising that the SS was having trouble.

I'd call the evening a success. The Yardman performed well, and was reliable.

>>> I did try the Ariens with the HSK600 at 4600 RPM.

     I had the same problems here with 2 HSK600 machines running at varying speeds.  The load was just too much for them.  They either blugged up or slipped their belts.   The 4.5hp HSK850 did a little better but would only go a few feet before having problems.  

    Good that your modified paddle machine worked ok. 

Just curious, how could you tell the belts were slipping? Was it audible? Only asking because it's possible mine was slipping at times last night, and I just didn't know it. I tried to get the belt pretty tight, but it could still be slipping under heavier loads. Even when the engine was close to stalling, snow was still moving around, so the paddles certainly hadn't stopped turning, but it could have slipped periodically.

I was thinking that if you could put a smaller-diameter sheave on the engine, the extra revs on the HSK600's (or, frankly, the -850's) could be used to provide more torque to the paddles, at the expense of losing some of the extra throwing distance. More torque was really what was needed last night.

 

    Yep, very tough snow.  I also used a Toro 2450 and 3650 which also had big problems and were useless with clogging and belt slip.  Those machines are in good condition and I think the belts and tension ok but need re-checking after the very poor performance. 

 

    The Toro 421EZ did very well on the driveway area having no problem at all.  It out tossed the dual stages in the driveway area easily and was impressive.  Almost no sag in the Lincon 5.5hp 163cc engine.  

    The EOD was a problem though.  It got the edges of the EOD OK but the middle higher sections could not be handled.  It required lots of pushing and back and forth movement to take very small bites before stalling.  It was too much of a hassle to use so finished up with the two stage which also had a tough time but much easier to use.

 

     The 421 was so impressive it’s getting the pole position for storms.  There is a requirement here to have a machine that can lift snow up over stored machines which are tarp covered.  It requires something like a chip shot.  It’s tough for any dual stage in most conditions.  The single stages are better at it in good snow, even a 3hp Powerlite so I always start with them.  The 421 will be very good at that in most conditions.

    If the snow had ben a bit better the 421 would have been able to get the EOD.