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

Here are a few photos of the Snow Commander with the covers off.
 

Lots of room.



Good access to the carb by removing two bolts that hold on a large access cover.
That large spring is part of the tilt mechanism.



Four wheels instead of two.  You don't have to push down on the handle when you are moving backwards.
You just release the engage handle a little and the blower housing tilts down in back ( with the help of the spring) lifting the
cutting edge off the ground.
It's always rolling on four wheels like a lawn mower.




Three paddles instead of two.  And a 24" clearing path.




Here is the most interesting thing I found and will be food for thought for some.
It may be a little hard to make out but I've placed a pulley from a CCR 2000 on the shaft up against the pulley on the Commander.
The (white) pulley is the same diameter used on a lot of different, if not most Toro single stage models.
It's 6" in dia.  the pulley on the Commander is 7.5" in dia.
Seeing as how the performance or the ability SS blowers have to blow snow is centered around high RPM.
Why would Toro choose to slow down the augers by using a larger pulley.  Granted it has three augers and a 24" cutting path.
Which would call for more power.  But it has a 7hp engine.
There are many 2 stage blowers that have 24" cuts with only 5hp engines.  And that engine is driving augers, impeller
and the drive train.  There are also 7hp two stage blowers with a 24" cut.
Of course these blowers have 4 stroke engines.  So we are comparing apples and oranges.
But I'm still surprised that Toro would sacrifice the auger RPM.  When it seems that they have the power available in the 7hp
to cope with the extra weight of the additional paddle and the 4" increase in cutting path. 
But maybe I'm wrong.  I am tempted to put on that smaller pulley.  That is, of it will fit and I could find a belt to fit.
The hub and shaft size looks the same.

aa335 -  I'm curious as well to see how it performs under different snow conditions.
I would agree "There's a lot of engineering there, but perhaps too much complexity and weight".
I'm really scepticial of those small wheels and how they will function when they get coated with
snow and ice.
Your right about the 7hp rating.  It's only a 141cc which is the same engine size used in other
blowers only claiming a 5hp rating.
So I don't know, it's an interesting trade off.
Gearing down the augers so to speak to keep the engine in it's optimum power band.
In turn slowing down the auger RPM which is critical for a SS to perform.
Borat has shown that boosting the engine RPM can really make a
difference in a blowers performance.  But in doing so the auger RPM
is also increasing. Thinking out loud here, increasing the auger RPM would increase the
throwing distance, and allow for faster processing of snow through the blower.
Which translates to being able to walk the blower faster and clear more ground.
I know I'm over thinking this, just trying to get my head around the Commanders
design.  Also the addition of a third paddle.  But I'm guessing that was added
to deal with the increase in the cut path.  You wouldn't  think that a 3" increase
(221Q 21" cut)  would warrant an additional paddle.  But what do I know.
Guess I'll have to wait until I can give it a "where the rubber meets the road" test.

Maybe I should just drop the Honda GX200 engine in it that I have sitting around.
Then put on the small pulley.

You've probably read this before. But it shows how the engine manufacturers.
are really covering themselves regarding HP ratings.
Sounds like a lot of smoke and mirrors.
Copied from the B&S web site.

Engine Power Rating Information
The gross power rating for individual gas engine models is labeled in accordance with SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) code J1940 (Small Engine Power & Torque Rating Procedure), and rating performance has been obtained and corrected in accordance with SAE J1995 (Revision 2002-05). Torque values are derived at 3060 RPM; horsepower values are derived at 3600 RPM. Actual gross engine power will be lower and is affected by, among other things, ambient operating conditions and engine-to-engine variability (what does that mean). Given both the wide array of products on which engines are placed and the variety of environmental issues applicable to operating the equipment, the gas engine will not develop the rated gross power when used in a given piece of power equipment (actual "on-site" or net horsepower). This difference is due to a variety of factors including, but not limited to, accessories (air cleaner, exhaust, charging, cooling, carburetor, fuel pump, etc.), application limitations, ambient operating conditions (temperature, humidity, altitude), and engine-to-engine variability. Due to manufacturing and capacity limitations, Briggs & Stratton may substitute an engine of higher rated power for this Series engine.

I'd like to know if all the "horsepower values are derived at 3600 RPM".
Or whether some are derived from higher RPMs.
Seeing as how some engines/blowers are spec'd to run at higher RPMs than others.
Case in point.  The 7hp 141cc engine in the Commander versus the 5hp 141cc engine used in the 421Q or my 210R.
I guess the difference could be in the carbs, porting, cranks, rods who knows.

Bingo borat,  The engines are the same.
The Commander engine # 084333-0199-E1 and the Powermax 726TE engine # 084333-0197-E1
I also looked at the parts list for both engines and the numbers match for all the important components.
Head, Cylinder assy, crank, piston, rings, main jet, carb, etc.

Something else that's interesting is that today (it was cold and rainy here) I also compared the engine parts list of the
Commander and the 210R that I have both have the 141cc engines.
In the parts list the Cyl assy for the two engines is different.
But it also use the term Boost with reference to the Cyl assy for the Commander.
And the term Non Boost when referring to the cly assy. on the 210R
That may be what they are calling or labeling the additional intake you spoke of.
Don't know that for sure as you said information is scarce.

I will also add that in comparing the Commander engine and the 210R engine.
The Cyl assy., crank, piston, rings were different #s.
But the head, rod, main jet and carb #s were the same.
Though that was curious.