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

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.