Murray Furry

[JDgreen]

That is because people like the look of a bigger mower. the small ones are simple, well powered, but don't make you the pride of the block. they are just for cutting grass, and pulling a lawn cart. there are no frill, unless you personaly add them. like i have, and am doing to mine.

I have never paid them much attention because I have thought them somewhat underpowered as compared to a push mower, a pusher has maybe 4-6 hp and spins a 20-22 inch blade and weighs maybe 70 pounds. A rider might have 10 hp to spin a 28-30 inch blade and it has to move it's own weight plus the weight of an operator. Maybe the bigger engine developes so much more torque than the smaller one it's able to cut well.

Hey, while on the subject here, what do you guys think is more important in a mowing engine, torque or horsepower? I read something one time that described the difference between torque and horsepower, I think it read:

"Horsepower is what determines how fast you can hit a brick wall, torque determines how far you will crash through it"...

Everybody got that? :laughing::laughing:

 

[Murry Furry]

Horse power is flawed in measurment. the measurement that you get today isn't the same as they measured it in the sixtys, but i think that the torque is the most important. The torque of a weak motor can carry it as long as the rough spot it short. the small riders are perfectly balanced in that they have just enough horses to do there normal work, and when they are in a hard spot they will almost never fail unless in it to long. i mowed yards for a job in the summer, and my little Murray can do well. if there is a patch of high grass all i have to do is put it in third( its high gear) put her a full throttle, and fly through it. then go back and level the grass to the rest of the yards high in second. As long as it isn't to long you can do anything with a low horse power motor as long as there is enough torque, and it has time to get to speed before.:wink:

 

[JDgreen]

Horse power is flawed in measurment. the measurement that you get today isn't the same as they measured it in the sixtys, but i think that the torque is the most important. The torque of a weak motor can carry it as long as the rough spot it short. the small riders are perfectly balanced in that they have just enough horses to do there normal work, and when they are in a hard spot they will almost never fail unless in it to long. i mowed yards for a job in the summer, and my little Murray can do well. if there is a patch of high grass all i have to do is put it in third( its high gear) put her a full throttle, and fly through it. then go back and level the grass to the rest of the yards high in second. As long as it isn't to long you can do anything with a low horse power motor as long as there is enough torque, and it has time to get to speed before.:wink:

Thanks for your input, I've got a thread going on Tractorbynet.com about torque vs. horsepower right now, interesting to see how the various members view the two. Many of them say horsepower is way over rated today. My old JD 318 is rated at only 18 hp, but the engine is 48 CUBIC INCHES. Would be interesting to compare it to a 48 cubic inch twin mower engine today and see what the hp rating is.

I say in a car for passenger use, horsepower is the deciding factor, but if you are using your vehicle for work, torque is the deciding factor.

 

[twall]

I really prefer them. They are really nimble. You can get them into places that you'd never dare try with a tractor.

Like furry said, They are basically the same as a tractor look-alike. that's not to slam genuine garden tractors, but to say that tractor wanna be's that are just mowers are no better than a RER. They just look tougher.

The snapper I mentioned elsewhere here is a 21hp, 41", dual blade variable speed monster RER that'd put most yard 'tractors' to shame:wink:

 

[Murry Furry]

i did mostly small yards with mine, and it did a superior job to any mower i used. it took a little more time, but it gave me something to be glad to but my businesses name on.:thumbsup:

 

[RobertBrown]

Seems like you have all the weight where it will do the most good, over the drive wheels. I suppose you get better traction that way.

 

[twall]

Thanks for your input, I've got a thread going on Tractorbynet.com about torque vs. horsepower right now, interesting to see how the various members view the two. Many of them say horsepower is way over rated today. My old JD 318 is rated at only 18 hp, but the engine is 48 CUBIC INCHES. Would be interesting to compare it to a 48 cubic inch twin mower engine today and see what the hp rating is.

I say in a car for passenger use, horsepower is the deciding factor, but if you are using your vehicle for work, torque is the deciding factor.

I thought long and hard today ever since this was posted about it.....

Horsepower has been rated the same ways that is has been since the formulas were created to measure HP/torque in the steam engine days. They are a way to tag a number to work. To quantify it, if you will. People have been exploiting and misunderstanding, and exploiting the misunderstandings, and misunderstanding the exploitation (head hurt yet?) since the formulas were put into physics.

Lawn MOWERS, are actually dependant on HORSEPOWER, not torque, because they need to get that deck spinning at as high a rate (and maintain that speed) as they can. A farm tractor, on the other hand, needs torque, to either pull ground-engaging equipment, or to run the PTO and its attachment.

Now, to yard equipment, and therein lies the confusion. Like I just posted about RER's, people confuse their lawn tractor with a garden tractor, and also confuse what they need based on what they think they have. A lawn tractor is essentially a RER, with the look of a garden tractor. The manufacturers, and the outlets selling them, were none too eager to dispel the fogginess. But, these machines need HP to spin that deck fast enough to let the "wings" on the blade do their jobs. Any lack in torque can be made up for in gearing to move the machine (and you) along.

Many brands that made a garden tractor with an available belly mower attachment, tried as well to make up for the lack of speed with gear/belt stepping. But that route burns up too much of the torque in the ways they made the deck speed faster. So they tried smaller blades, more smaller blades, big and small blades, etc., all with lackluster results. JD and other high end manufacturers can only make mowing tractors give a quality cut by increasing HORSE, while trying to leave as much torque intact as they can for tractor duties. They do a heck of a job at it, too.

Torque, although will pull down a barn, won't do it quickly. HP, on the other hand, will move quickly, but won't pull much behind it while it's getting there.

What do you think?

 

[KennyV]

Seems like you have all the weight where it will do the most good, over the drive wheels. I suppose you get better traction that way.

Thats true of the rear engine type ... Plus it has reduced weight over the steering system and thus the bushing and bearings on the complete front ends tend to last forever...

Another nice thing about the rear engine system ... it puts the heat and majority of the noise behind you... I always liked the design. :smile:KennyV

 

[Murry Furry]

Yes, but if you are me it is bad for your health at times. i have never turned down a jod beccause of terrain, and i once had this job at a small apartment complex. only two buildings, but the whole thing was on hills. there were six hill face, and four of them were steep enough that if i drove up them my front wheels would start to lift up. i could work around three of them so i wouldn't have to drive up them. But the steepest one i had to. i'm not the fittest guy in the world, and this was a massive part i didn't want to push, so i would mowe it going up the hill in first while standing on the very front. then going down i would ride in second down on the seat. I ended up only mowing it five times before i got a wake up call. i was going up the hill, when the chain snapped on the mower. i flipped forward, and onto the grass. i hit the ground hard enough to cause a nose bleed. i took the push mower out of the lawn cart i brought with me, and finished the yard. then i took the pliers out of my tool box, and a spare connection link, and i fixed it, and took her home. i didn't have the heart to do it again. so i got a buddy to take the job.

 

[173abn]

I used to have one of those rear engined snappers that was powered by an 8hp b&s.I wore that engine out and put a 12hp on it.I was able to do a few wheelies with that.the frame broke on it in a place where I couldn't weld it so the front part became my PHD carrier,I posted a pic of it.I might be wrong but don't a lot of engine makers now advertise a new way now instead of HP?ONE OTHER THING,dang Murrary Furry but ain't you a little young to have an ex? russ