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

I think the sheet metal hub is there to limit the amount of snow that gets pulled in.   If that was hollow, there would be snow swirling around with not enough velocity to make out of the chute but all it does is drag down the engine. The 3rd rubber auger is there to allow it to take smaller bites of snow.

If you're not in a hurry to get rid of the SC, keep it around and play with the pulley ratios to see if you can dial it in to your liking.  I'm not sure how much those pulleys and belts costs, but it might be fun to experiment.  The SC is a unique machine.  I venture to say that the SC will never throw further than 210R. 

If you get tired of the SC, you can pull that engine and put it on the 210R.  $70 isn't bad for that Rtek engine. 

Some of the older Toro 2 stage models actually have a drum auger.  As far as SS, I've only seen this similar design on the SC.  I think the principle is the same on both, to limit the amount of snow gathered and create a positive displacement pump action.  I guess there's a trade off to this design.  It takes more horsepower or torque to turn the rotor, hence slower rotation speed which translates to reduce throwing distance.  The gain is that it will push slush and heavy snow up the chute better.

On some of the older Toro CCR2000 and the Honda HS621, the rotor makes a complete seal with the rubber paddles.  There is no opening for the snow to swirl in between the shaft.  The older S-200 with straight paddles also have hub around the shaft too.  These models are excellent at slush.  Again there's a trade off.  My newer Toro 421 SS has the open paddle design, the Honda HS621 has the closed padle design.  The Toro 421 always seems more efficient at throwing snow and has greater distance, its rotor/paddle assembly is 1/3 of the mass of the Honda.  However, the HS621 will keep pumping out slush up the chute, even up to the point that the engine almost stalls out.  The Toro, on the other hand, will stop pushing slush up at some point and I have to ease back and let the engine RPM pick up and build up rotor speed.  So this is the differences that I noticed, which is a fair assessment since both the Toro and Honda have essentially the same engine and power/torque characteristics.

Getting back to the SC.  I don't know how torquy the R-tek is at lower RPMs and how flat the torque curve is, but expecting that engine to power 125 lbs snowblower with heavy rotor/auger assembly that is 24" wide may be too much.  I do feel that this SS deserve a healthy 250cc 4 stroke for low RPM torque characteristics rather than high RPM HP of the Rtek. Opinions will vary, but when it comes to moving snow, I prefer an engine with lots of torque that wont' sag when it sees a heavy load.  2 stroke engine can have explosive power at screaming high RPMs, but once out of powerband, torque seems to drop off pretty quickly.  This may be the case with the SC, where the pulley ratio was determined to keep the engine in its powerband while sacrificing rotor speed and throwing distance.

I do like the SC concept of being a super single stage that has confidence tackling EOD piles, and that's what Toro is pushing to sell.  However, it seems like engine choices, heavy weight, and high price may not be in the SC favor.  The selling price of the SC was high and enroaching on the terrority of small 2 stage units, but the SC doesn't outdistance or handle more volume in a performance standpoint.   The only thing it has over a 2 stage is the maneuverability.  I've already discussed how a smaller 21" SS is superior in throwing distance and maneuverability.  So without an outstanding strong point for the SC, $1000 for a wide single stage is a difficult sell.  In addition, those rubber paddles are expensive and replacing them is time consuming, hence operating and maintenance costs are higher.

It is good that Toro decides to cut its losses and discontinued the model.  However, this design could have been baked to completion, but that would only mean higher costs and complexity.  At that point, I would just throw in the towel and sell someone a small 24 inch 2 stage with a 250cc 4 stroke engine at $900.

 

Hi;

          

OK, shut up because we are not getting anything but rain 

My future idea: Install a piston and cylinder from the boost port snow commander on my 221QR chassis, and adjust carb jettng if needed. 

Really I'm perfectly satisfied with the 221QR as it is!

We only have about 3 weeks left for any chance of snow, so I'm not holding my breath for snow, this will be the third year now without any real snow.

MN_Runner wrote:
My paddles are holding up just fine.  I typically replace mine every 4 years.  At this rate of snow, it will probably be 8 years until I need to replace any paddles.

One way to keep the paddle wear to a minimum is keep moving at a constant speed and not let the paddles beat the snow down to the bare pavement.  The sun will melt that thin layer of snow within a day.

Loblolly77 wrote:
Of course your 221QR is perfect.  It doesn't have to see any snow this year to perform badly.  :)

I was pretty unimpressed with the Snow Commander when I had one.  Plenty of power but the throwing distance, as mentioned, was terrible.  Less maneuverable than the 221/421 and only a couple of inches wider.  I'd keep the 210R over the SC any day of the week.