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

Looking at the Honda website I see the Honda HS520 (US version) throws a outstanding 55 tons/hr. The Canadian version can only handle 32 tons/hr. Does Honda actually expect someone to believe that the US version has a higher output than the 928? Is this a joke or am I missing something?

You are correct about the advertized 50 tons/hour number.  IMO, it must be a typo.  It just sounds too good or high for that model.  Maybe you should take Honda to the small claims court and demand some type of settlement like the hybrid owner in CA for not meeting the specifications.  Unless that Honda has been Boratized.

Fifty five tons per hour for a single stage?   I call BS.  

Thirty two tons per hour for a single stage?   More of the same, just less of it. 

As for the difference in quoted tonnage for the two different countries, possible the Canadian anti B.S. (false advertising) laws are tougher? 

Regardless,  I'd love to see the conditions that would allow any 5 h.p. 21" single stage snow blower move either amount of above tonnage.

I don't know what a typical snow coating on a driveway might actually weigh. In a big storm, it will certainly be a lot (which may be cleared in an hour). Do I think the machine is definitely 32 tons/hr? Don't know.

But you may also need to consider how they're defining "move". If you're doing EOD slushy stuff, that kind of snow weighs an awful lot (exhibit A- 1 shovelful). And they may be defining "move" as simply having it come out of the chute. 32 tons/hr is 18 lbs/sec. That's a lot, no question, feels perhaps a bit optimistic. But if you're letting the machine hammer its way through the deep slush in 1st gear, and the stuff is basically just pouring out of the chute (landing 2 feet away), that's maybe a few pounds per second (thinking about my 8hp MTD). I've never tried to catch & weigh what's coming out All just speculation on my part; for all I know, maybe it's 40 tons/hr.

   The numbers might all be true but are probably best condition numbers and have nothing to do with average snow or EOD.  An SS can throughput a bunch of good condition snow but seem to bog down disproportionatly to a two stage as conditions toughen. 

Toro 621           54

Honda 520        55

Toro 210          51

Toro 418           33

Toro Powerlite  33

  

Two stage:

Toro 826    57

Toro 1028  63

Toro 1128  66

trouts: Nice post. Did not try to compare to other makes. At least the Toro lists the same output for both US and Canadian models. Maybe that is why the US output for the 520 is on the high side. At 32 tons/hr it puts it in the performance of machines almost half the price.

There's short, long and metric tons.   The Honda 520 could be 55 or 50 depending who's tons.   I listed all short tons (US).

trouts2 wrote:

Interesting information.

One thing I might ask, do you really want to confuse the issue with facts?

Take a look at the following video.

I took this the other day watching a wood harvesting operation not far from my home.  This is a good size operation with industrial size equipment.  Everything is pretty much standard wood harvesting equipment.  While watching them, I timed how long it took them to fill a 40' x 8' x 10' chip van with 21 tons of  hog fuel, which is primarily chipped wood/branches and bark.  It took approx. 30 to 40 minutes with the chipper running non-stop.  In this video the chipper starts off slow because it was just relocated.  When running full tilt, it puts out a pretty solid stream. 

Now, I ask, does anyone out there think they have a consumer grade snow blower of any brand or type that can fill one of these high cube vans twice in an hour?  How about even once in an hour?

Hyper link not working.  You'll have to cut and paste.

 http://youtu.be/yK2M1NL2gNQ

 

   The chipper setup is highly optomized speeds and feeds for throughput .   

    I'd bet for snowblowers the marketing guys review what the engineers came up with and went over any possibility to lift those numbers by varying something like ground speed, snow depth, density and etc. 

   Just say you could get a mile of nice flat highway with 20 inches of snow and an 8hp with a 24 wide and a higher than snow bucket.  Say the snow is light enough to clear at an average blower speed of 2-3 on the shifter.   Going for a full hour, no turns, no stops, no breaks just cranking the machine could throughput lots of snow. 

   The van is big but the 21 tons is sketchy.  Are they crunching pine or hardwoods?  One would probably be twice as dense as the other so half the van volume for 21 tons or double ?? depending. 

   Snow volume is always different i.e. density, crystal types & etc so the weather service thinks about it in terms of water, so much water per cubic foot of snow.  But that only tells you what's there at the moment.  There's no defined standard.   Water is heavier than wood chips but in snow form the volume large for the weight.   Once thrown into the van the compacting could make the snow very dense and heavier than wood chips. 

    The marketing number are probably what they are in most spec's.  Attainable only under ideal test conditions.   It's like the specs for laptop battery lift.  You can make the thing work for 8 hours on battery but there isn't a user who would use his laptop in the way required to get 8 hours of up time.   Marketing numbers are sometimes useful for comparisons but no so useful for judging somethings capability.

trouts2 wrote:
Well said. As with a lot of things, they are probably only useful as relative comparisons between machines from the same brand. And, perhaps, really only between same-style (SS vs 2-stage) from the same brand. I'm sure there are cases where, even within a brand, the 20-ton 2-stage can outperform the 25-ton SS. Deep, wet snow, icy stuff, that sort of thing.

This is like contrast ratio ratings for TVs. Those numbers mean squat. Especially with the "cheating" that goes on when they start talking about "dynamic contrast ratios". It's bogus to list a number based on the max possible contrast between a black image with the backlight set fully dim, and a white image with the backlight maxed out. But, all that said, if you're looking at 2 sets from Sony, and one has a 4,000:1 contrast ratio, and the other is 6,000:1, then hopefully the 6,000:1 set really is better in that respect.