Export thread

Briggs and Stratton powered SnowBlowers engine RPM Adjust ????

I have been noticing many Briggs and Stratton SnowBlower engines do not come with throttle controls anymore. There is nothing to slow-down the rpm. These engines are running to high. Is there a way to adjust the rpm of the engine without removing the gas tank. I am thinking today's engineers are a bunch of morons or management will cut features out to save a few pennies. Sad part is if these engines are operated in this state they will self destruct in no time.

edgenet said:

Briggs and Stratton powered SnowBlowers engine RPM Adjust ????

I have been noticing many Briggs and Stratton SnowBlower engines do not come with throttle controls anymore. There is nothing to slow-down the rpm. These engines are running to high. Is there a way to adjust the rpm of the engine without removing the gas tank. I am thinking today's engineers are a bunch of morons or management will cut features out to save a few pennies. Sad part is if these engines are operated in this state they will self destruct in no time.

Click to expand...

1) EPA or NSC regulations not penny pinching
2) governor controls engine revs so it will not damage the engine unless the governor is broken
3) all small engines that are governed should always be run at full throttle.
4) No reason for a snow blower to be throttled down,

I will start carrying my rpm meter and test the rpm. I always set the Older engines in the 3,500 rpm range these engines sound like they are running in the 5,000 rpm range. Will update in a few weeks.

Just curious do you know the factory RPM settings on these engines. I would like to know the rpm range on the larger engines installed on 28" to 30" snowblowers

This is an observation from what I have read on here. Almost all engines except Honda's are set to run in between 3000 and 3500. Honda's are from 2800 to 3200. Someone may know more than me.

No,
One of the few things that are a worldwide standard is PTO Speeds.
3600 rpm & 1800 rpm.
Thus it should be doing somewhere from 3000 to 3800
A modle number would be very helpful.
A racing engine is usually a governor problem.

Told you someone would know better.

edgenet said:

Briggs and Stratton powered SnowBlowers engine RPM Adjust ????

I have been noticing many Briggs and Stratton SnowBlower engines do not come with throttle controls anymore. There is nothing to slow-down the rpm. These engines are running to high. Is there a way to adjust the rpm of the engine without removing the gas tank. I am thinking today's engineers are a bunch of morons or management will cut features out to save a few pennies. Sad part is if these engines are operated in this state they will self destruct in no time.

Click to expand...

The reason for no throttle control is if it has a throttle control or adjustable speed the engine must meet EPA emissions standards throughout the entire throttle range from idle to full speed. Easier to meet standards at one speed. And the engine should be run at full throttle all the time it is under load. Better engine cooling, and more torque. Normal speed would be in the 3400--3600 range.

And as a side note. When they went to the single speed engine the idle circuit inside the carb was removed, so some engines won't even run or run poorly if you try to slow them down.

Great information nice to see a pro on this site. I service snowblowers and lawnmowers at peoples homes I have just been noticing that when the B&S engines get around 3 to 4 years old their engine speed is much higher then other same B&S engines. A spring is a spring not a very accurate device over time it changes. As I said in my earlier post I will start carring an rpm meter and see what is going on.

One other question when turning off an engine from high speed what happens to the raw gas still sucked in by the engine till it finally stops ???????

edgenet said:

One other question when turning off an engine from high speed what happens to the raw gas still sucked in by the engine till it finally stops ???????

Click to expand...

It gets pumped through the cylinder and out the exhaust, unburned. Can result in a big 'bang' if anything in the exhaust is hot enough to ignite it.

Some engines have a solenoid-operated valve in the carburetor to stop the flow of fuel into the engine at the same time the ignition is shut off.

edit: It isn't "raw gas" though. It's the same fuel/air mixture that the engine was running on.

You made my point rather then leaving the throttle control where by the engine speed is reduced and then it shuts off using-up all the fuel vs spewing raw fuel in the environment when shut off at high speed. How did the EPA approve this mess.

Edgenet, even if you can slow the engine down there is still unburnt fuel being pushed through the engine and out the exhaust, and a lot of engines don't hold the throttle at idle at shutdown, they actually open the throttle so you risk getting fuel from the high speed jet even then, unless you have a fuel solenoid that shuts off all fuel flow into the venturi, which some don't. Some just shut off the high speed jet and not the idle. And there are a lot of briggs engines with fixed engine speeds, that do not have an idle circuit in the carb, They run on high speed circuit fuel all the time.

edgenet said:

You made my point rather then leaving the throttle control where by the engine speed is reduced and then it shuts off using-up all the fuel vs spewing raw fuel in the environment when shut off at high speed. How did the EPA approve this mess.

Click to expand...

Look at it this way:

There are three parties involved in this--the EPA; the engine manufacturer; and you, the owner.

The EPA gets to force the manufacturer to make single-speed engines. They go away thinking they have, yet again, saved the world.

The engine manufacturer gets to cut costs and reduce longevity by making single speed engines, which cost less than full-range engines.

The owner, on the other hand, gets an engine that won't last as long and spews the maximum amount of fuel/air mix into the atmosphere.

Two out of three parties came out ahead. You are not one of them.

edgenet said:

You made my point rather then leaving the throttle control where by the engine speed is reduced and then it shuts off using-up all the fuel vs spewing raw fuel in the environment when shut off at high speed. How did the EPA approve this mess.

Click to expand...

You need to have a little think about what you are saying and get things into perspective
1) on a single speed engine there is usually only 1 jet, the main jet and the fuel solenoid rams a stop into it, thus there is no fuel available to the venturi to be sucked into the carb, so no unburned fuel coming out.
2) On a carb with an idle jet, the idle jet is generally richer so idleing down runs a richer mix than the engine can burn completely thus pumping out some unburned fuel before you shut down.
3) it is a small engine 320 cc which does about 50 power strokes on shut down till stationary.
4) most engines are wired so the alternator goes dead short to increase the load on the engine to shut it down faster and may more have a flywheel brake to again shorten down the rundown time.
5) the volume of the carb float bowl is around 50cc and if you shut off the fuel, that 50 cc will run the engine for around 3 to 5 minutes, the engine stops after shut down in less than 30 seconds = around 8 cc of fuel.
Opening a can of fuel that has been sitting in the hot sun for an hour will release more unburned fuel than that into the atmosphere.
6) Thus we are talking trash in the overall picture of things, unburned fuel after shut off would equal about 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 % of global pollution and would be about equivalent to the amount a person farts each day.

The pollution generated by the people researching this, writing legislation running the air conditioning in parliament house while the bill is debated, making all of the paper to amend the act, pulping all the old obsolete acts then distributing the new legislation would be in the order of 1000 x the pollution the act seeks to prevent occurring.
It is TRASH LEGISLATION designed to make it look like some one is doing something while all the time doing nothing.
One obsolete 747 taking off fully loaded at an airport where they can not use afterburners will pump out more unburned fuel than every mower in the entire continential America running for an entire year, and there are around 200,000 obsolete 747's flying in the USA alone doing around 10 take offs a day.

Now just so you see where my mind is at, I have nothing about pollution legislation that has a real outcome, reducing car engine sizes, enforcing minimum MPG figures for motor vehicles, enforcing home insulation laws. These things make sense and will have a net outcome. Shutdown solenoids will not.
There was even a move to replace all 2 strokes with 100% ethanol burning engines mixed with vegetable oils , that makes good sense, and I supported it, putting ethanol in regular fuel does nothing other than make profits for the ethanol companies shareholders.

Enjoyment/Employment Prevention Administration aka EPA:mur::ban:

Mad Mackie said:

Enjoyment/Employment Prevention Administration aka EPA:mur::ban:

Click to expand...

We may NOT lose the EPA in it's entirety, But, we have already taken a lot of wind out of their sails, OSHA too is on the "chopping-block" , the current "Big-Man" in our "Big-House" is gettin things back in order, and these things take time, Washington currently, has only 2 speed's ... SLOW and COMATOSE !