Export thread

Planing rebuild FR651V

#1

A

amowingfool

I have a Hustler and a BigDog. Big dog old but much better built machine. Deck on Hustler is crap. Moved the newer slightly more powerful FR691 from Hustler to BigDoq which is now a beast again!

Now I have the FR651 and I want to rebuild it and put it on the Hustler chasis minus a deck to perhaps put a small plow on the front to move dirt around. Also tow stuff.

After a lot of digging I did find a service manual and source for kits.

My question is, what is the difference between the 691 and the 651 that gives the 691 those extra couple horse power? Can those be incorporated in my rebuild to basically come up with a 691'ish engine?

Also on same topic, can the manifold and two barrel carb for the FX bolt to the 651 block? ( Just brain storming as this may be a couple months down the road after my next rebuild...a new knee joint...which I will not attempt on myself!


#2

T

txmowman

Question 1, carburetor.
Question 2, technically yes, but not legally.


#3

A

amowingfool

txmowman said:
Question 1, carburetor.
Question 2, technically yes, but not legally.
Click to expand...
Legally? What law would it break. LOL


#4

T

txmowman

amowingfool said:
Legally? What law would it break. LOL
Click to expand...
Federal EPA regulations. LOL


#5

smalltimerpm

smalltimerpm

txmowman said:
Federal EPA regulations. LOL
Click to expand...
Lmao!!


#6

T

txmowman

@7394 @smalltimerpm @amowingfool
Your ignorance and arrogance is showing. You should tend to be a little more professional. People might be counting on you for correct information. Try educating yourselves:

Federal Register :: Request Access

www.ecfr.gov


#7

B

bertsmobile1

txmowman said:
@7394 @smalltimerpm @amowingfool
Your ignorance and arrogance is showing. You should tend to be a little more professional. People might be counting on you for correct information. Try educating yourselves:

Federal Register :: Request Access

www.ecfr.gov
Click to expand...
I do not want this to become a slanging match, however replacing the epa certified carburettor on a 651 with the epa certified carb from a 691 would not constitute a violation of any EPA regulations as both carbs are certified for use on the exact same short block.
Fitting a 4 barrel Hollie or even the carb from a Kohler twin then that would be a whole different matter .
In fact the twin barrel carb is actually "cleaner" than the single barrel carb as it has a smaller jet on the trailing cylinder which tends to run rich on single carbed V twins. It also accelerates quicker so reduces the amount of time the engine runs rich in order to accelerate as these engines have fixed timing so rely on a richer mixture wider throttle opening to go from high idle to full power.

As for pollution, yes every engine adds to the overall pollution load on the planet however the volume of pollution that comes from a mower engine is substantially less than from the family dog and the regulations only go to prove that the EPA is pretending to be protecting the planet by passing a lot of legislation that will achieve nothing in the long run and overall will increase overall pollution because EPA compliant products have a substantially shorter service life and the embedded pollution ( that the EPA ignores ) in a mower is substantially higher than the operational pollution the mower will generate over it's entire working life.
And I am one of the greenest people you will ever come across but the regulations on outdoor power equipment is nothing more than window dressing for virtue signallers .
FWIW
Replacing a single air flight with a train trip will reduce pollution more than never using a petrol powered mower for your entire life .
Or to put it in Texan parliance, the EPA is all hat & no cattle .


#8

T

txmowman

@bertsmobile1 I can agree with the fact that there is less of an issue with EPA for putting an FS730V carburetor on and FS651V model, for example. But would I as a professional make this recommendation? I would not. Anytime you are messing with EPA regulated components, it is not best practice. You don’t know the person posting the question. Could be the EPA posting the question posing as an end user. You have no idea who I am, I might work with the EPA.
When you are discussing swapping air filter systems, then you are on violation grounds for sure. I wouldn’t want to be liable for a $44k fine. Have a great day.


#9

B

bertsmobile1

I think you have a funny idea about EPA regulations and what is & is not allowable
Swapping parts that are all certified for that short block ( engine series in EPA parliance ) is quite fine
Using parts that are not certified for that engine is not .
IF the EPA employees have nothing better to do than haunt repair forums trying to entrap posters then they have breached civil law ie ENTRAPMENT so the fine would not be upheld by any court in the country even in Cal .
On top of that all of the right wing media would have a banquet over it and the case would be front page & lead item in the media for a week .
A go-fund-me page to cover the fine would probably raise $ 44,000,000 from all of the red neck anti government anti authority types .
No one here ever suggests doing things that are dangerous or illegal and if a person suggest doing so then they are warned, as you have done ( although in this particular case you are wrong ) which is what should happen .
Weather we agree or disagree with legislation is irrelevant


#10

smalltimerpm

smalltimerpm

bertsmobile1 said:
I think you have a funny idea about EPA regulations and what is & is not allowable
Swapping parts that are all certified for that short block ( engine series in EPA parliance ) is quite fine
Using parts that are not certified for that engine is not .
IF the EPA employees have nothing better to do than haunt repair forums trying to entrap posters then they have breached civil law ie ENTRAPMENT so the fine would not be upheld by any court in the country even in Cal .
On top of that all of the right wing media would have a banquet over it and the case would be front page & lead item in the media for a week .
A go-fund-me page to cover the fine would probably raise $ 44,000,000 from all of the red neck anti government anti authority types .
No one here ever suggests doing things that are dangerous or illegal and if a person suggest doing so then they are warned, as you have done ( although in this particular case you are wrong ) which is what should happen .
Weather we agree or disagree with legislation is irrelevant
Click to expand...
Well said sir. I apologize for my ignorant laughing. I thought it was a jokingly Givin statement. At least I took humor in it. Apologies


#11

7394

7394

txmowman said:
, I might work with the EPA.
Click to expand...
U probably do.


#12

B

bertsmobile1

You have no idea who I am, I might work with the EPA.
Click to expand...
Well I hope you do & pass back my distain about their totally useless and counter productive legislations
You certainly seem to be illinformed enough about the actual letter of the law to be an EPA employee :devilish:


#13

T

txmowman

bertsmobile1 said:
Well I hope you do & pass back my distain about their totally useless and counter productive legislations
You certainly seem to be illinformed enough about the actual letter of the law to be an EPA employee
Click to expand...
What an unprofessional clown you are. 🤡


#14

D

dana a

bertsmobile1 said:
I do not want this to become a slanging match, however replacing the epa certified carburettor on a 651 with the epa certified carb from a 691 would not constitute a violation of any EPA regulations as both carbs are certified for use on the exact same short block.
Fitting a 4 barrel Hollie or even the carb from a Kohler twin then that would be a whole different matter .
In fact the twin barrel carb is actually "cleaner" than the single barrel carb as it has a smaller jet on the trailing cylinder which tends to run rich on single carbed V twins. It also accelerates quicker so reduces the amount of time the engine runs rich in order to accelerate as these engines have fixed timing so rely on a richer mixture wider throttle opening to go from high idle to full power.

As for pollution, yes every engine adds to the overall pollution load on the planet however the volume of pollution that comes from a mower engine is substantially less than from the family dog and the regulations only go to prove that the EPA is pretending to be protecting the planet by passing a lot of legislation that will achieve nothing in the long run and overall will increase overall pollution because EPA compliant products have a substantially shorter service life and the embedded pollution ( that the EPA ignores ) in a mower is substantially higher than the operational pollution the mower will generate over it's entire working life.
And I am one of the greenest people you will ever come across but the regulations on outdoor power equipment is nothing more than window dressing for virtue signallers .
FWIW
Replacing a single air flight with a train trip will reduce pollution more than never using a petrol powered mower for your entire life .
Or to put it in Texan parliance, the EPA is all hat & no cattle .
Click to expand...
LOL. I never knew the family dog produced more pollution than a lawn mower. I probably push more pollution out my donkey every day.LOL!


#15

B

bertsmobile1

txmowman said:
What an unprofessional clown you are. 🤡
Click to expand...
No it shows I am an Australian where we call out stupidity
And EPA legislation applied to mowers & garden tools is gross stupidity which in the long run will increase pollution from the embedded pollution in almost new equipment being sent to landfill because the lean burn regulations caused it to wear out in 3 years in place of 30 years


Footer Links 1

Top