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

well folks a tied up the briggs rep and made him fess up on the sno engines.

there are 3 real horsepower ranges.

the small one is fron 6 to 8.5 horse...actually 8 horse i beleive not positive on this

the 9 to 12 horse units ...actually 12 horse

last is 13 horse  and it is closer to 14 horse

and almost all of them are cast iron bore.

the snappers are all cast iron  bore according to the tech.

thare have been no service manuals on the inteck engines since april of 2002,and there is no info on them that is any newer than that.

this is why there is so much controversey on it.

briggs never thought that they would have the success with the engine that they did,things just worked out real well for them.

they plan to get the numbers RIGHT for next season...and you guessed it ...it will be cubic inches not horsepower.

later chris

"they plan to get the numbers RIGHT for next season...and you guessed it ...it will be cubic inches not horsepower."

Chris, I am already noticing on many sites, that the OPE manufactureres are not quoting HP anymore. It's either cubic inches or cc's. Funny that we stumbled along this at the same time they're starting to advertise them in this way. I'm begining to think the OPE manufacturers were unaware of this too for the first few years, then when they figured it out, they change their advertising. Who knows?

I bet you a dollar it's the same on all way on all engines not just snow engines.

You know what they say in car racing:

There's no substitute for cubic dollars.....

Guys,
It's going too be great fun this season trying too learn too speak a whole new ope language.
There used too be a day when a guy would post that he had a 5 hp Briggs engine...and everyone instantly had a clue about what he was referring to. (We dont need no stinkin' model numbers!)
Tecumseh issued a whole new vocabulary on thier engines also.......an HSSK50 is now a LH195SA.
An AV520 shall now be refered too as a TVO85XA.
When I went too my Toro update a month ago....The question came up about what the sales people were supposed too tell customers when they were asked, "What horsepower does this unit have?"
The correct answer was, "What horsepower do you want it too have?"

what horsepower do you want it to have ...Lint you are the MAN. that says it all folks ,what horsepower do you want and it shall appear ...right on i like it

later chris

buttlint wrote:
Unfortunate to think those bone-heads over at Toro and Tecumseh are having a real big laugh at their customer's expense. That statement is just to close to the truth to actually be funny  Next piece of OPE I buy may be a Honda.

Rich,
It's not just Toro and Tecumseh having a laugh on anybody.
The thing is that there was a class action lawsuit that determined that things were going too be measured in cubic centimeters and not horsepower. Why?( Just look at the debates that were spawned on this forum and others in the recent past.) Horsepower was being jacked around so much...that it really didnt mean anything anymore.

Is Honda going too comply with the new labeling?

I'd suggest a new measurement of useful work rather than horsepower: "kegs of Molsons lifted per fortnight". At least the common man can identify with it, and when we've finished rating the engines, we drink the beer. Then we'll all be happy. No class actions suits to make some lawyers rich; some may need a new suit depending on where they upchuck the beer.

Highwind wrote: LMAO! 

     SS,

What about the Tec engines, do you think or know that Tecumseh was doing the same as Briggs.

I think that they were both doing the same.

                                                        Fred    

buttlint wrote:

Hi there Lint,

Yes, you are correct, it was just my frustration getting the best of me.  This problem is industry-wide, no question about it.  However, It still raises more questions in my mind.  Using Toro as an example since I know their products best, and they use Tecumseh engines, they sell 3 different 4-stroke 2-stage snowblowers.  They are 8 and 10 HP L-heads, and their top machine is an 11 HP OHV model.  The 8 is 318 cc's, the 10 is 358 cc's, and their 11 HP OHV engine is also 318 cc's.  If you look at that, how would the consumer know that the previously rated 11 HP engine, that now will be rated by CC's or cubic inches is supposed to be more powerful, will they call it a 318 cc OHV high output or something?  I was hoping Snowshoveler could have cornered a Tecumseh representative as well.  Although, we all know what the answer would be.

Personally I think changing to a different measurement ( CC, cubic inches, hogsheads, whatever) is stupid and highlights the problem even more. The basic problem is that the manufacturers are lieing. Coming up with a new way of measuring things just allows them to lie in a different way.

I don't care how big the cylinders are, I'm interested in the amount of useful work that is coming out the end of the engine, how much fuel is used and how long the engine will last running at its rated power. The measurements are simple and adequately defined in engineering circles. The problem seems to be the sales force is taught to do anything to make a sale including being dishonest.

Saying that B&S wasn't prepared for their popularity is just letting them off the hook. They are putting different horsepower stickers on the same engine, this is lying, pure and simple. If all they have are 8, 12 and 14 HP motors then that is what should be on the stickers and in the OPE manufacturer's catalogues.

Hi Nibbler,

I don't think it could have been any better stated than in your post  I also believe we should not be so quick to let the engine manufacturers off the hook and buy their ridiculous excuses, which is just a tap dance in my mind.  It sends the wrong message to them, and keeps the door open allowing them to continue to find different ways to deceive us. 

snowshoveler wrote:

Hi guys!

 No disrespect intended to Chris and sorry to be contrary but that just ain't so. The Snappers come with the 20G4140111E1 1which is most definitely an aluminum bore engine. Reference the "G" designation on the Briggs & Stratton web site where they tell you how to decipher spec #s.

One of the problems I suppose is that the Briggs tech. may not be familiar with each and every detail of each and every engine that each OPE builder is using. When I first got involved with researching this topic I got far more accurate information speaking with the OPE builders tech. Reference my first post in the thread " Conversation with Simplicity" and you will see that the Simplicity guy gave all the correct information during one phone call.

I believe it to be unfair to ask the engine manufacturer questions about an individual piece of OPE's power plant without supplying him with the spec #. There are simply to many variables in the manufacture of one displacement size engine.

Marc   

Don't know if I want to get into a "horsepower" debate as I feel like a boy scout selling cookies to a religious cult, and will end up with a handful of pencils, but I'll throw my $.02 in for fun.

Horsepower, by itself without the RPM at which that horsepower is made is prone to be played with. Engine makers should quote an RPM figure with it, and to be totally honest, with most of these small engines which are governed to run at a set max speed, they should quote HP at the governed running speed.

Ideally, I'd like to see a torque vs RPM curve for the engine, and they can put HP on there if they wish, but engines only produce torque and RPM. HP is a man-made concept to supposedly simplify comparison of engines. It appears that has been played with by the manufacturers.

Agreed Highwind.

The thing that bothers me is, you can go get HP and torque charts for these different labeled engines that are really the same and the damn charts are made to lie. They'll show the HP and torque at certain RPM's and it will show a curve right to 9HP or 10HP or 12HP with corresponding torue figures. It appears that the charts and graphs themselves are just bold face lies, if you will. 

Marshall,

When they do what you've noted and the mechanical parts of the intakes, exhausts, pistons, displacements, and carb are the same then I'd agree they are fudging the numbers. I'd like to see them forced to adhere to a standard certified dynamometer test by an independant body that would rate the engines and produce the graph for a model with a set configuration. I'd like to have it tested in the configuration the end user has it, not what the manufacturer wants tested.

Take an outboard motor for example. You can produce two different curves for it depending on how you test it. Take the power head, remove the alternator, fuel pump, water pump and connect the power head itself to external fuel, cooling water and electricity and run it on the dynamo. Let's say it makes 25 HP. Take the same outboard but in the configuration the consumer buys it in (fully kitted with fuel, water pumps, alternator, gear box, right angle drive) and measure its HP at the propellor shaft. Lets say it only makes 20 HP. Which would you rather have as a consumer? To me the second one is what delivers the useable power and I'd say rate it as a 20, but the manufacturer could rate it as a 25.

Highwind wrote:
I would like that as well. Rate all of them at the output shaft of the engine. Or, have them all rated the the other way, I don't care as long as all of them are done the same from every manufacturer on every engine.

The problem with rating them at the blade shaft, on lawn tractors for example, is the a lot that HP is used up in the hydro transmission, some LT's may only have gear tranny's. It wouldn't be a fair comparison of the engine rating itself. I don't see any way a engine manufacturer could rate them as usable HP after the transmissions, they would have to have every tranny made and test them that way or, have them tested after the machine was built and that aint gonna happen. In outboard engines I can see them rating at the prop shaft though, the engine is assembled at the same plant, that wouldn't be a problem.

as i reported when i started this thread...my information comes from a factory technician.not a salesman.

the most important part to note is that the engines are newer than any information that is published anywhere that is available to the public.

i can go to the briggs site on the web and key in my own code and get a whole network that you folks have no idea of.

so you see there is the public website and a service web site and they are not the same...and guess which one is up to date.. MINE.

that being said briggs isnt going to acknoledge any wrongdoing anywhere.

and as for fudging numbers ...well how about the automakers,ever wonder why you dont get the advertised mpg ha ha i gave up that one.

later chris

Marshall wrote: Yeah, Marshall, that's for sure.  I sure wasted a lot of my time researching all these engine HP performance charts for nothing.  Well, it looks like I should also verify visually if my Tecumseh powered Toro snowblower engine really has the cast iron cylinder sleeve it's supposed to.  Man, will it ever end.

snowshoveler wrote:

Chris,

The EPA is responsible for that one.  Believe me, people are really getting tired of it too.

EPA   i have a new dodge with the hemi and on my trip home from the update ,after refueling (101 dollars).i had the cruise on and going down hill the computer in the roof display had the nerve to tell me i was getting 89 mpg. if i had of had a gun i would have shot me or the computer right then.

i thing im gonna quit all this and just grow some vegtables.

later chris

Snowshoveler,

What about the Tec Hp ratings on the  engines with the same  displacement??

                                                              Fred

snowshoveler wrote:

If the above comment refers to my earlier post,my information did not come from a SALESMAN. It came from a TECH at Simplicity in the engineering department of the Port Washington Wisconsin factory. I DON'T doubt that the information you get as a tech is far better than we get as consummers.However I believe that information about SPECIFIC OPE units is more reliable from a tech at the manufacturing facility of the OPE than a tech at the facility that manufactures only the engine.

Once again, the information stated by the Simplicity tech was right on the money .

Respectfully,

Marc 

tecumseh isnt quite as far out there as briggs but they do have there own way of telling the truth.

the only thing i can tell you for sure is that every ope engine will really produce the advertised horsepower. however the rpm that you have to run it at to get that horsepower is an entirely different thing.

the only lawnmowers that actually make the advertised horsepower would be the ones with 2 blades.

later chris 

snowshoveler wrote:
Those are idiot meters, as bad as engine idiot lights. I had one on a 77 Olds Toranado XSR and a 78 Caddy Seville, they did the same thing back then. Nice cars back then, now they're pimpmobiles. LOL

Matter of fact, the Toronado was this very year, model and color. The rear window wrapped around the back, there was no C pillar.

snowshoveler wrote:

Chris,

At that split second you probably were getting 89 MPG.  Even if the cruise control was on, and going down hill, it most likely let off on the accelerator so the car was coasting.  In the end, I'd say you averaged 17 MPH during your trip.  That's what can get confusing about those computers, they have the ability to show you on-the-fly MPG and is a far cry from overall average mileage.  Great engine you got there.  Too bad they don't make a mini-version for our OPE

oh yea i know at that second it was getting the super mileage ...but going up the hill on the other side . well can you say negative numbers...

later chris

Marshall:

Did that year have the 500 cubic inch engine?  That was one fine, smooth running engine, don't make them like that anymore.

bbwb

bbwb wrote: No it did not, it had a Big Block 403 or 405, can't remember which one now.

But, my folks had an Eldorado of 74 or 75, I think, and it had the 500 cu in engine. You're right, that baby would flat out hum down the interstate! You're right they sure don't make them like that anymore.

snowshoveler wrote:

I was checking out the tec engines last week and they had both extremes in the cubic inch ratio to horse power.  For example they had an 8 HP that was the 21 cu. in. and an 11 Hp in the 19 cu. in.

Then conversely

They had  an 8 hp in the 19 cu. in.  and an 11 hp in the 21 cu in.

So them going by cc's or cubic inches will now tell you less.  Now they are calling the hp bait and switch "downlabeling" ,  saying there is no crime in giving the customer more than they paid for.

Well they can't quite do that with stating the physical size of the displacement because that is a physical element. 

But as you can see, you can be led to believe you are getting more power with a bigger engine when in fact your not.  They just keep going farther and farther.

P.s.  By the way for some of the engines that I can only assume they are hiding the actual H P this year,  you now need a cross reference to find the horsepower as the nomenclature in the model number doesn,t reflect the horse power anymore. .

Here's an example you can look at Tec site has an OH318sa model num, it is a 318cc engine

Then go to Tulsa eng. Site and  they sell it as a OH318sa/OHSK110 (they crossed referenced it as to being an 11 Hp) and they advertise it as a 10 HP 

Then go back to TEC's site and punch it in as spec number 221821b.   and you will see it has the same piston etc. as the standard 8 HP L-head. ,, but I guess it is really an 11 HP and so probably is the 8 HP.  L-head.

 

So going by cubic inches I think is getting the consumer further away from the truth.  Definitely in this size engine and up)

 

What's really gonna burn someone's a-- is in the future someone will be doing a job with say a log splitter, or snow blower, (might be newer, but same design as the older one) and an older model will be doing the job much better.  The guy with the newer model will be saying well I got a 400 cc engine.   How many cc's does your 11 horsepower unit have, and he will say mine is only 318 cc's

 

Probably the worst thing that can happen is when someone starts playing games with weights and measures.

 

Ben07

snowshoveler wrote:

Hi there Chris,

<<begin rant mode>>

This has the potential to become one of those "never ending threads" (God, I hope not). I am shocked, shocked to learn that some manufacturers (you know who you are) are not entirely forthcoming about engine horsepower claims and what numbers are being used to justify them. Furthermore, the move away from hp ratings to engine displacement comparisons will only confuse the issue more, resulting in the marks (I meant to say, the consumers) paying more than they should or getting less than they wanted. Even if an engine advertised at 11 hp REALLY IS only 8-9 hp, how much of a problem IS that? Does it make the machine any less capable? I think not. It really only wounds the ego and feeds the fires of buyer's remorse. I'm not going to lose any sleep worrying whether or not Toro or my dealer took advantage of my naivete. I did the best I could at the time with the information I had, and I accept the machine for what it is. As long as it meets my needs, it satisfies me. If it doesn't, I'll make a better choice next time.

<<end rant mode>> 

Yep, that Earl Grey tea produces quite a caffeine buzz. They should really put a warning label on that product.

AZ

Hi, I know just what you guys are talking about, I bought a craftsman 13.5 torque rating and was led to beleive that it was a 13.5hp by the sears retailer, only after much research on the internet that I found out that it was a 9.5hp.  Even the owners manual that the I have came with it says that its a 13.5hp, but on the snowblower it says 13.5 torque.  When I was at the sears retail store, I asked the retail guy just what horsepower the engine was; and after digging out the owners manual, he bought it over to me and it stated right on it that it was a 13.5 horsepower...I've checked the model number on the manual and on the snowblower and they are a perfect match.  I am certianly getting to do battle with sears, and I'm not going to take this sitting down!!

Thank's