Ben07

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

Question on danger when installing these things.  I know everyone will have the plug out no gas etc etc.  But when you look on clarences site he was talking about finger loss.  In a hurry here so no time to direct quote.  Maybe he was talking about compression backlash or something maybe some type of tension backlash from a pulley system  or the auger break still holding back force, don know? .  When clearing snow from the chute  I won't reach in there to save my life, however i don't carry a cleanout either.   Just curious what to tell other users when they think it is safe say just the machine off naturally not engaged as they are going to have to walk around the front of the machine etc.  is there a chance if they reach in there to clean  it something could happen.  I always assume there is a chance so I don't do it,  however I get close.

Thx 

Ben07

Great in-action working model of a 2 cycle
http://www.oldengineshed.com/twocycthry.html

walbroman wrote:

Walby you are the man.. I don't want to belabor the point,  and context again, as  the following is a compliment..

" I very rarely bust out loud laughing to myself.  But I sure did this time" "keeps happening and my eyes won't quit watering,, wew"

It's my vote for joke of the day,  (it beat mine for sure)   Problem people will have to read most of the thread to get the full effect.

  

LOL   thanks

Ben07

p.s. pm me if you do it,  promis not to tell a soul..  LOL

Marshall wrote:

I was wondering if  using "up" would have made a difference or not. Never thought of "off" though.  "Gotta hand it to you for that one." 

By the way. that is just a joke. naturally I only mean using the word up instead of down (context is everything) Just taking a suggestion as to being clear.

Ben07