HP and quality of todays vs. older equipment?!

[Chadtoolio]

Personally, I like older equipment due to the fact that they were simpler, more rugged, and lasted longer than almost all of todays equipment. Most that I see post are common to state that their current or previous equipment will last or lasted 10 years or so. Is that supposed to be good or something? I know that they are not of quite the same quality as the older models, but does the lack of maintenance of todays yard equipment contribute to the short life. What does lasted mean anyway? Did it have a bad starter and they gave it away? Was the way HP was rated changed or something. Older Garden tractors that had 14 hp were condsidered top dogs in their day and used ground engaging equipment such as tillers, discs and plows. Todays equipment have 22+ hp and will only cut your grass. Why?

Sorry for the rant, but I'm scratching my head here?


Chad

 

[Anonymous Poster]

I hesitate to get involved in this discussion because of the varied HP vs torque discussions and such... but here goes anyway. The older ehgines usually had a longer stroke and larger crank angle because of the longer stroke, that coupled with the heavy flywheel caused these older engines ( ie Kohler for one) to be real torquers. They would not bog down as much in deep grass and such because of the lower RPM torque. This coupled with the older heavy duty manual tannys gave these old machines real pulling and cutting power.

Todays shorter stroke machines rely on high rpm's to get the torque and the power drops a lot as the RPM's drop. The hydro trannys are not as strong for pulling and many are sealed and non repairable.

Todays machines are built a lot cheaper weight and quality wise. Many people today trade/scrap out lawn mowers like they trade cars, it gets to running rough or some other potentially minor problem and they will use this as an excuse to get another newer shiny one. Well let them spend their money.
Me I use a 30 year old Gravely 12 hp rider, restored and works great. It has had some minor repairs over the years but still has all of the origional major parts. And If I hook a new 25 HP green rider to it ... well I can pull it whereever I want /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[timb]

I think the issue gets bogged down in the semantics - what the textbook definition of 'torque' or 'hp' is, and how it is rated and how different engine designs 'behave' differently even though they may have matching (at least at first glance) rating numbers.

Leaving the 'facts' out of it I do believe that, bottom-line - and maybe subjectively - much of 'todays' equipment must be optimized for something other than real-world power. I ran a 48" deck on a measly 12hp IH Cub Cadet 128 for years and don't ever remember bogging it down - even when we played "brush hog". (Didn't do the deck any good but the 1-cyl Kohler engine kept on chugging). Most companies want to sell you a lot more paper power (18hp or more) to run a 48" deck today.

 

[Redfisher]

I use a 1969 and a 1974 cub cadet 10 and 12 hp,They are built tuff,steel drive shaft and big rear ends,tires etc.And lots of room.I sat on a new one and my knees hit the steering wheel /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif Anywho they don,t build them like that anymore.

 

[Knute]

</font><font color="blueclass=small">( What does lasted mean anyway? Did it have a bad starter and they gave it away?

Chad )</font>

In the last month or so I got a JD 108 from a co-worker for free, he got it from a neighbor of his so this little rig has been around the block a few times. Back to the point, I got it home and it wouldn't start, all it took was a starter and it's been starting and running great ever since.

8 hp and easily hauls me (300lbs on a good day) and 700 lbs of rock in a cart up hill. In fact on the gravel driveway in a couple spots traction is the issue not pulling power.

Subjectivly it seems more solid than the new Craftsman, or even John Deeres I looked at. It's much smaller physically but it's a worker.

John

 

[Slamfire]

I picked up a Wheel Horse A-100 just for mowing, got a bigger tractor for ground engagement work. It has an 11 hp B&S and a 4 speed tranny, 1 speed is reverse /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif, The frame, axles and running gear are a lot heavier than my neighbors 18 hp Yard Machine. I think one of the reasons for the hp race is that you have to drive a car with less power than before the energy prices went out of sight, and folks just love hp. /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

 

[gsganzer]

I have a 1976 Case 446. It's unbelievable to think that a simple garden tractor could still be mowing grass when it's almost 30 years old. With the exception of replacing the engine (which I don't think is too bad in 30 years), every component is original and has never been repaired or replaced. I think part of it has to do with the over engineering of components on the older equipment. My guess is the engineers didn't spend a lot of time calculating stress, wear and other structural details and just decided to build everything as overkill. You look at the old ford 8N's and there the same way, just a huge mass of metal. A lot of todays equipment is engineered with certain criteria for expected hours of operation, wear tolerance etc. There's a lot of truth to the saying that we've become a disposable society.

 

[slowrev]

The main difference between the older and newer engines is the length of the stroke. Longer stroke means more torque.

 

[Hoeman00]

The government (one of it's groups ) changed the way HP is rated like the 6 or 7 HP air compressors that pull 15 amps.
How can shop vacs have 2-6 HP and the motor is the size of your hand.
Now everything is rated by developed HP not starting HP like before.
Like in the early '70's when they changed from gross HP to net HP and all the engines lost 50 or so HP.

 

[chrisjbell]

This is not always a popular opinion, but I believe that there is a distinct difference between different manufacturer's HP ratings. I have a 16 HP JD lawn tractor (gas - not bringing my Kubota into the discussion) and my neighbor has a "25 HP" Sears.

His tractor is just fine, but I have used both fairly extensively (he was kind enough to let me borrow it pretty often before I got my JD). I'm quite certain that his tractor does not have nearly twice the power mine does - in fact, mine is less likely to bog down in deep stuff than his. Maybe this is all deck design or transmission related, but I don't buy it.

My granddad had several Cub Cadets (all older than me) and I'd be willing to bet they were rated at far lower HP than newer tractors and he mowed the heck out of stuff that would scare most later day lawn type tractors.

Anyway, I'm not surprised that the HP rating system has changed (just like the movie rating system - have you seen what passes as "PG" these days? but I digress). But even under the newer standards I still believe that there is a discrepancy between HP ratings and manufacturers.