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

Well, we got our first dump of snow over night.  I'd say ten to twelve inches of moderately heavy, but not too wet snow.  Nice stuff for giving the new used Murray SS machine a trial.  Have to say, I'm very much happy with it.  It's actually a bit better than the Craftsman SS machine I've been using.  Probably because the 2006 Murray was virtually new and had very little time on it.  Everything on it is fresh compared to the old 1997 Craftsman. 

I had some thoughts about how well the TH139 series engine would stack up against the HSK850 engine (both 139cc two strokes).  Being that the TH139 was supposed to have been cleaned up (carb main jet change?), I figured it would be down on power but I was pleasantly surprised to see that it gives up nothing power-wise.  It actually feels stronger when running at stock rpms and is pretty much the same, if not a bit more powerful when cranked up.  One thing I did notice about the TH139 engine in the Murray is that it seems to use considerably more fuel than the Craftsman.  Haven't done any scientific study but, the Murray seemed to run out of fuel quicker.  One thing that I have to admit though, is that the Murray was working in 10 to 12 inches of fairly dense snow and that likely caused it to work harder.  Nonetheless, I'm very much pleased with this $30.00 investment.  I'll tell you, I cannot understand how people would dump something like that for $30.00.  When cranked up, it works better than machines 20 times the price. 

Due to my neighbour's husband being out of town, I volunteered to clear their driveway using their one year old 824 Ariens Deluxe two stage machine.  Plenty of gizmos on it and nice enough to use but I'm not particularly impressed with it's performance.   A couple times I had to tie down the auger drive to walk around to the front to see if both augers were working.  They were ,but for some reason, even at the slowest speed, it left a good 6" high ridge of snow on the cleared side on just about every pass.  In order to avoid that, I had to make half width passes.  It's like the machine couldn't process the snow effectively.  Everything else was fine, engine was running well, very nicely actually (Powermore brand).  Now that I think of it, I'm suspecting that the Impeller belt might need tightening because it wasn't impressing me with how far it was throwing the snow either.  The Murray, when cranked up was actually pitching snow a bit futher.  Something doesn't seem right there for an eight h.p. 24" Ariens?   What's a bit confusing is that it did a fairly good job on the 30" high slush/snow mix EOD deposit from the plow.  Nothing seemed to be slipping and I didn't smell any burnt rubber for the couple of hours I used it.  When the owner get's home, I'll have to tell him to check the belt tension.  I'm sure that machine should be more capable than that.  Compared to my 928 Simplicity,  the 824 Ariens looks pretty whimpy.  I have to conceed howerver, that the Simplicity 928 could very well be an 1128 if one takes in the variable h.p. ratings of the 305cc engine.

I took some videos of the Murray.  I'll upload one to Youtube and post in a while.

Here's a short video.  Nothing special.  Not high definition.  Just the Murray getting it done:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWf6X1KsnRc

A very nice video.  Did you lose some weight?   We, Americans, are storing some fat for the winter and shopping season.  Why do you go back and forth instead of going straight then doing a 180 degree turn? Could you not do a 180 turn and rotate the shoot at the same time? We got a 1/2" of snow this moring and it is all gone.

MN_Runner wrote:
No.  Same weight that I've been for the last 40 years.  I likely had less bulky clothes on.  

I use that pattern near the house to move the snow in one direction, north to south then to the west where it will all end up on my front lawn. If I were to move it south to north in that area, I'd end up putting a fair amount of it on our entrance steps.  In addition, usually after a storm like that, the wind blows from the north and/or northwest so I like to have the wind on my back whenever possible.  Today, it was blowing from the north.  When I do the full length of the driveway where the lawn is completely exposed and no house in the way,  I move snow in both directions, up and down the driveway, with most of it going westward onto the lawn. 

Hi Borat, you sure make a good case for ss machines. I would have never tried one in that much heavy snow, but I'm anxious to give my Toro CCR2000 a try. Got it for $30 to but had to replace the scraper bar and the lower housing plate it attaches to.
The only thing we need now is snow, it's been 8 to10 degrees all week. Just waiting to see if it's going to be another wimpy winter or if we'll pay for the long lovely summer we had?
Cheers

It's amazing how much power can be squeezed out of those wonderful little Tecumseh 139cc two cycle engines if you run them at speed.  

That day I spent equal amounts of time on both the reasonable sized Ariens dual stage and the Murray SS machine.  The only place where the dual stage machine was necessary was the 30" pile of EOD deposit.   I tried tackling it with the Murray, and, due to the fact that the snow hadn't hardened up, it could move it, albeit with lots of physical input.  If the SS machine is all had, it would have done but not very effectively.  If the EOD deposit had frozen, it's very unlikely the SS machine would have been of any use at all.   Once the EOD deposit was out of the way, the Murray easily managed that amount of snow with far less operator fatigue.   I did the neighbour's driveway with their Ariens 824 and was getting a pretty good sweat on.  Had to put on a dry shirt before doing my driveway, which is about 20% larger than theirs and using the Murray, I didn't break a sweat.  I did the entire front driveway, side parking spot beside my garage and a fairly large paved area behind the house all with the Murray with far less fatigue than using a dual stage. 

Not saying one doesn't need a dual stage.  There are times when it's necessary.  However, it would take quite a lot of snow (around 15" or more) and/or slushy wet snow or frozen/hard packed snow before I'd need to pull the dual stage machine out.  The cheap, light, powerful SS machines do 90% of the work. 

It's kind of ironic when you think of it.  An inexpensive $30.00 machine doing 90% of the work while an expensive, heavy, dual stage  prima donna lounges around in the garage, waiting for the right conditions to be put to work.

Going to haul out the MTD SS machine to put it to work on the deck.  I'll leave it there for the winter.  It's good enough for that assignment.  It's peculiar how minor differences in design of the machine can effect it's performance. The MTD has the same engine as the Murray and Craftsman machines but isn't nearly as effective.  It's quite a bit lighter than the other two machines but, personally, I think the most effective difference is the shape/design of the paddle housing and chute.   It just doesn't seem as capable at ejecting the snow despite the fact that it has the same style paddles and equivalent power. 

If one is in the market for a used two cycle powered SS machine, other than a decent Toro, I'd focus on a Craftsman/Murray or any derivative thereof.   One thing I'd like to point out is that the Tecumseh engine is the easiest to over-ride the governor to get the power boost and when that's done, the machine will outperform pretty much any stock Toro.   I know for a fact that my  Craftsman when cranked up, throws more snow further than my new Toro 221QRE and the Murray is stronger than the Craftsman.   From my experience, I'd likely choose Craftsman/Murray in preference to a used Toro even if prices were equal.  

All it takes is a piece of string and ten minutes of work to turn Limp Dick Willy into Jack the Bear!     

Borat,

That Murray snowblower moves the snow well.  I can see the engine has got some grunt behind it.  Sounds good too.  I wonder how that engine would perform in a modern rubber paddle and chute design of the Toro 221Q or 621QZ.   Seems like the Murray could use some optimization in those areas.

Awesome deal for $30.  I think I lost count of how many SS you have collected.  By the way, what's the differences in the TH139 and HSK engines?

aa335 wrote:
I've got four SS machines.  A new (last year) Toro 221QRE, a 2005 MTD Yard machine-TH139, the 2006 Murray-TH139 and the 1997 Craftsman-HSK850. 

The only significant difference that I've found between the TH139s and the HSK850, other than the name change is that the jetting in the carb is different and I think that is only in the  carb on the Murray.  The other two carbs have brass main jets while the carb on the Murray has a blue plastic main jet.  Other than that there's no detectable difference.  There is some difference in the crank length of the MTD engine.  Due to the different chassis, it has a considerably shorter crankshaft.  Otherwise, all three engines are identical. 

They'd make a great engine for a Toro chassis if it could be made to fit correctly.  Might take a bit of imagination and fabricating to get one in there but once in, it would be a fine combination.  If your snow removal area is relatively level, the added power will be appreciated.  If you have grades to contend with, the additional power may not be of much use unless you run it uphill. 

Regarding upgrading the paddle design, in my situation with the 10% grade on the driveway, I'd prefer not to have any more tractability than what the Murray/Craftsman have to offer.  They way they are, they're easy to handle and pump snow very well.  I find that the Toro has far too much forward bite going downhill and tends to pull me off balance.  No problem going up the grade, just a bit precarious going down if the surface is at all a bit slippery.  Accordingly, I've had to actually set back the engine rpms to 4000 to make the machine more managable.   I'm certain that the Toro is capable of moving considerably more snow if it were run at higher rpms.  Cranking up the Rtek would likely outclass the other machines easily, simply due to superior design.    However, I'd be less prone to run an Rtek like I do the Tecumseh engines.   From what I've seen of how they're built, the Tecumseh engines seem to be a better candidate for running at higher speeds. 

Borat,  Are you feathering the "string" setup you talk about in earlier posts, or do you leave it alone?  Sounds like the blower picks up just before snow contact.  Helluva blower either way to clear that stuff!
Now you got me looking for a cheapo Murray SS and I hate that brand

jtclays wrote:
I've got the string attached to the governor arm at the engine, run it out the left side of the cowling then up the handle.  I angle the line across the corner of the handle and leave it just slack of actuating the governor then I tie and tape it there to keep it from moving.  When operating the machine, I pull back on the paddle engagement lever and pin it to the handle then I use my little finger and ring finger of my left hand to squeeze the string to speed the engine up as required.  Not slick, not complicated but totally effective.  All three Tecumseh powered  machines have the same set up.  The only one that I haven't "strung up" is the Toro because it's still under warranty and the governor on that thing is the vane type which will be a pain in the a$$ to modify.  

The shaft type governor control on the Tecumseh is the primary reason I prefer that engine design.  Not to mention it has a one piece crank and one piece connecting rod.  Two important components to make an engine run at high rpms reliably.  

The Rtek engine is nice and makes good power at 4000 rpm and up but due to it's design limitations, I'm reluctant to spin it up.  It's not a whole lot different from the old Lawn Boy engines of the 60s with the two piece connecting rod and bearing cage. 

I operate them like a chainsaw. No need running it full steam when it isn't required right?

I'm certain that if you keep your eyes peeled, you'll find a Murray or a derivative thereof.  Just make sure you're getting either a TH139 or an HSK-8xx variant. 

The last one I bought wouldn't start when I went to look at it.  ,The guy selling wanted $50.00.  I checked for spark and compression.  Told him the spark looked weak (it did) so I, offered him $30.00 and he went for it.  When I got it home, I cleaned the spark plug and the spark was much better.  Then I pulled the carb and found the float bowl full of two cycle oil and hardly a hint of gasoline.  Other than that, the carb was spotless.  I put some fresh fuel in it, cranked it once or twice and it fired right up.  Sweet!  That was back in July or August so I had to wait until yesterday to see how well it worked. 
 

jtclays wrote:

Same here. Just one more SS and I'm caught up with Borat's line up.  :)

I saw a Craftsman in good shape selling locally for $175.00 a couple days ago.  Now it's no longer listed.  Must have sold.  

I think I have enough to last me a while if I don't blow them up.   

borat,  Check your PM's please!

jtclays wrote:
Reply sent.

There were a series of Toros that came with the 139cc engine.  Now that would be a find!   If I could get my hand on one of those, I'd most certainly string it up.  The combination of Toro's superior design and a jacked up Tecumseh two stroke, would be something I'd like to see.  I'm certain that it would out-perform any SS machine I presently have. 

borat wrote:
Yeah.  Those seems to be rare.  I think those were in production for one year.  It was in between phasing out the Suzuki engine and the current R-tek.

Although I think the TH139 and current 221Q/621Q chassis would work.  There's a lot more room in these new chassis. 

From what I could find, the HSK8xx was used in Toros manufactured in 1997. 

The crankshaft length of the Toro is very close to that used in Craftsman/Murray.   The Toro crank protrudes 3-3/8" past the mounting surface, the Craftsman/Murray protruded 3-7/32.  So, it appears that the Toro crank is 5/16" longer.  In addition to that, the end of the cranks are not machined the same.  The Murray crank is stepped down to 5/8" for approx. 13/16".  The toro shaft is 39/64".  Both cranks are tapped/threaded with 5/16-24.  Also, the Murray crank appears to have a 13/16" long by 3/16" wide keyway.   The Toro crank also has a keyway but it's 1-9/16th long. 

I guess one could use the crank and  pulley combination from a Murray and see how it lines up with the Toro drive system.  If I had a Toro machine that could receive a TH139, I'd give it a shot.   It would be a very interesting project.  A jacked up TH139 engine in a state of the art chassis......Sweet. 

Cool video, thanks. I'm jealous, we have nothing here at all for snow and my Powerclear 221QR is restless

I have a tv085 85cc tecumseh on my HOFFCO earth auger, thats a torquey one, have to really hang on.

Loblolly77 wrote:
You're going to really appreciate the 221QR.  Excellent machine.  Make sure you have the rpms set at 4100 give or take 200.  You'd be surprised how much extra power a few hundred rpm will give you.  If I recall correctly, my machine was set around 3700 or so when I bought it. 

I've got a 1980's Jiffy ice auger with an 85cc Tecumseh two cycle engine.  Still running strong.  Great little engine.

However, an ice auger engine lives a very easy life compared to most equipment.  Anything with enough weight and power to fatigue the operator in short order doesn't see a whole lot of service unless there's multiple operators.   Even when I was half the age I am now, I recall trudging through snow, digging the snow away from the ice, drilling the hole clearing the ice/slush from each hole, repeat as required.  Wasn't long before the heavy clothing would come off to keep it from getting wet from perspiration.   A few holes, no big deal.  Cut twenty or so and you'll know you're working. 

Yes, I love that 85cc Tec, I use it for planting landscape bushes and trees and fence posts. I do take many breaks as it wears me out pretty quickly. Very high quality engine, I was lucky to buy that new. Got an 8" and 2" auger for it.

Just to let you know, that the Chinese aspect of the Murray seems to be coming through.  Cheap plastic used for the chute and housing.

Got some snow today and was clearing my driveway this morning when I noticed excessive wobbling of the chute.  I checked it out and it had a four in long crack on the left side of the chute running vertically from the bottom upward.  So I hauled it down stairs, found a piece of Krazy Karpet to make a patch, got out the JB Weld and some rivets.  Patched it up pretty good.   Took it out for a test and the patch is holding up well.  Saw the neighbour's wife out struggling with their driveway again so I went over and started working on it.  I hit a few pieces of ice under the snow and noticed that the deflector suffered a large Y shaped crack in the centre of it and snow was sifting through.  Finished their driveway, took the machine into the garage, cut a piece of 1 mm thick stainless steel plate, big enough to cover the bottom of the horizontal piece of the deflector, drilled it and riveted into position.   Solid fix.  Hope that's it for cracking.

I know the Craftsman chute is made of much better material.  It's been punished far more than the Murray and hasn't cracked anywhere.  I also notice that the Murray had a crack on the corner of the housing near the hole for fuel opening.  I drill stopped it.  Seems that the Chinese plastic isn't made for cold temperatures and believe it or not, it isn't that cold here.  It's only around 20 degrees F.  Hate to see what happens when it gets to -20F.  

Borat, got a line on a Mastercraft 5hp 21" today, and wondering if the paddles are the same as your Craftsman or Murray? I think Mastercraft is usually made by MTD & could have a Tecumseh on board so might be a candidate for boratification?

That machine looks more like my MTD Yard Machine. 

It also seems to have the  same style paddles as the as the Craftsman, Murray and MTD.  Should also have a Tecumseh 139cc engine in it.   Can't really see the condition of the paddles.  What I do see, kind of look a bit worn.  The chute and deflector on the Mastercraft looks like a good solid design.  Similar to the Murray/Craftsman but looks like it's built better.   if you can get it cheap, go for it.  Might need a carb cleaning and a new belt and that's probably it if the paddles aren't too worn.  Check NAPA for belts.  I bought one there for the Craftsman for around $7.00 vs. $53.00 that Uber Gouger Sears wanted.

Thanks Borat.
On the phone the guy says it has an HSK850 # 8327C (circa 1995-2000) with electric start (that doesn't work). Wants $100 which is about the asking around here for one in that condition. Only problem is that it's about 45 minutes from here. Also it has no model number from chinadian tire which makes getting a manual more difficult.

Cheers

Do a compression check if you go for it.  Compression of around 110 is OK.  If it's up around 120 psi. it's a fairly fresh engine.  Don't sweat the manual.  There's not much to these things.  Basically an engine, a couple pulleys, a belt and the paddles.   Very easy to work on.  Anything that matters is visible by removing the housing or cover.  

The engine is another matter.  Hard to get good info on it.  Partstree.com has diagrams etc.  You can find an "operator's manual" on line for the engine but I've never come across an actual repair manual for it.   However, that's not really an issue.  Two cycle engines are simple enough to understand and repair. 

Let us know if you go for it.