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

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,