What happened to HP ratings on small engines

[oldnslo]

What is the cubic inch displacement of the engine in your car/pick-up? I suspect part of the HP to CC is the global economy. The US has to adapt to the metric system used by the majority of the world.

CC, liters, cubic inch, etc. is probably a more consistant form of engine size

Roy

 

[20 20]

I was about to say the same thing, my old wheel horse with 12 hp seems to be about as powerful as my new husqvarna with a 24 HP briggs.

I had an old gravely 12 HP with a 50" mowing deck. That could EASILY out work the newer craftsman 17hp I have now. The gravely was just plain built better.

 

[MossRoad]

No offense, but what proof do you have for any of this blanket condemnation of today's consumer and blanket praise for older ones? The 'older and wiser' consumers wanted bigger, longer, wider cars with ever larger fins and designs that looked like fighter jets. Cars like this were bought out of 'need'? How many 'older and wiser' consumers knew how to clean an oil bath air filter or replace the points and condenser in a distributor? And it just had to be an 'executive' who decided to ship the different decals. Maybe all these changes have something to do with the EPA (click here)? Nah, couldn't be. Must be an evil corporation looking to deceive the uninformed, modern consumer. :confused2:

Mike,
That document explains a lot of things regarding emissions, but does it explain why the HP ratings are disappearing from the engine specs? I can't find it anywhere.

 

[MossRoad]

Some folks have mentioned displacement and comparing Cubic Centimeters (CC) to Cubic Inches (CI), but displacement has little to do with HP and torque. You can have a skinny cylinder with a long stroke or a fat cylinder with a short stroke and have the same displacement number. And there can be wild differences in HP and torque with engines of similar displacement.

They (whoever they are) should come up with and adhere to standard HP and torque measurement tests and require engine manufacturers to adhere to those tests if they want to advertise HP or torque ratings.

 

[MikePA]

Mike,
That document explains a lot of things regarding emissions, but does it explain why the HP ratings are disappearing from the engine specs? I can't find it anywhere.

I found a link that discussed SAE standards for small engines which mentioned getting away from hp ratings. The fact these changes are across many brands and engine manufacturers tells me this was an externally imposed mandate and not one company's effort to confuse the consumer which was the original rant.

 

[MossRoad]

I found a link that discussed SAE standards for small engines which mentioned getting away from hp ratings. The fact these changes are across many brands and engine manufacturers tells me this was an externally imposed mandate and not one company's effort to confuse the consumer which was the original rant.

I started poking around and found several references to lawsuits against Briggs and Stratton regarding multiple HP ratings for the same engine in Illinois back in 2008, I think. So B&S started listing torque. Apparently many of the other small engine makers are following suit.

What gets me is CC is useless as is torque as is HP alone. I want to know the torque and HP at the RPM before I know the CC.

For instance, I had a Yamaha motorcycle that was 396CC in displacement. Anyone that saw a Yamaha 400 CC motorcycle knew it was a dog back in the early 80's. Except mine was a 2 stroke twin, not a 4 stroke twin from the mid 70s. They'd see 400 on the side and start laughing at me until I ran an 11.9 in the quarter at 118MPH. Not bad for a 25 cubic inch motor.

That engine had very high HP for its size, but a very narrow torque range. 6 gears helped it.

I just wish the government would require small engine manufacturers to use a standard test to list HP and torque if they want to sell small engines in the U.S.

 

[charlz]

IIRC from something I read a while back is the engine manufactures label the HP, and possibly the torque, produced in that application. So if one application runs the engine wide open and another at 1/2or 3/4 throttle they label it with the numbers produced at that RPM. This would somewhat explain the variable numbers for the same engine.

I don't know that listing CC's is any better as already noted. But I guess we need some kind of number to compare against

 

[Dargo]

Yeah, I'm working on one of those little paint ball sized CO2 cartridges to setup NOS on my little 4 cycle string trimmer. You know, sometimes you get into some tall thick weeds and need a little more umph. I figure that holding that NOS button down will help me make it through those tough spots without having to buy a bigger trimmer.

Seriously though, take a 350ci GM engine for example. For the same displacement, how much do you think the HP varies for that same displacement engine in different situations? It seems that Honda sells boatloads, literally, of their 190cc engines. I have one on my Cub Cadet tiller, on my push mower and on my generator. However, when reading the owner's manual, the stated HP rating in the manual varies from 6.5 hp to 13 hp for that same engine. Percentage wise, that's a big difference.

 

[tallyho8]

The first time I found out that you can not tell much about an engine's speed or power from their ccs was back in 1960. I had a 150cc Simplex motorbike and a 150cc Harley Hummer.

The rich kid on the block got a new plastic girly-looking Honda 50cc that absolutely left me in the dust. Very embarrasing!

 

[20 20]

Change for the sake of change. Displacement is probably the only valid figure that can be used. Hp and several other "standards" are near usless.

What about an engine torque rating. As Moss Road pointed out displacement can have little to do with the power needed to operate a piece of machinery. Of course if we go back to a torque rating then wouldn't a proper {across the board} HP be the same thing?

Sorry but displacement is not a valid measure of power/torque needed !

 

[20 20]

I started poking around and found several references to lawsuits against Briggs and Stratton regarding multiple HP ratings for the same engine in Illinois back in 2008, I think. So B&S started listing torque. Apparently many of the other small engine makers are following suit.

One big dog does it so the others follow.

What gets me is CC is useless as is torque as is HP alone. I want to know the torque and HP at the RPM before I know the CC.

yep :thumbsup:

For instance, I had a Yamaha motorcycle that was 396CC in displacement. Anyone that saw a Yamaha 400 CC motorcycle knew it was a dog back in the early 80's. Except mine was a 2 stroke twin, not a 4 stroke twin from the mid 70s. They'd see 400 on the side and start laughing at me until I ran an 11.9 in the quarter at 118MPH. Not bad for a 25 cubic inch motor.

That engine had very high HP for its size, but a very narrow torque range. 6 gears helped it.

You don't have to go back in time to prove this. Look at todays bike. A 750cc crochrocket will blow the seat off a 1600cc Vtwin not only in speed but also rpm's, and hp. If the 1600cc tried to turn the same rpm's it'd blow apart.

Before anyone gets excited I'm not knocking ANY type or brand of cycle. Just proving that displacement will not help when it comes to torque needed.

I just wish the government would require small engine manufacturers to use a standard test to list HP and torque if they want to sell small engines in the U.S.

I agree 100%

 

[20 20]

I found a link that discussed SAE standards for small engines which mentioned getting away from hp ratings. The fact these changes are across many brands and engine manufacturers tells me this was an externally imposed mandate and not one company's effort to confuse the consumer which was the original rant.

I doubt that highly, just check out the Northern Tool Catalog kohler still goes by HP. Infact B&S had both listing last year. Maybe one comapny started this to try and get a heads up on the game? Then another that didn't want to be out done followed suit? The problem is while they play their games the consumer takes the smacking. After all the right salesperson{or sales cimic} can sell dog pooo and make it look like a steak.

 

[om21braz]

I started poking around and found several references to lawsuits against Briggs and Stratton regarding multiple HP ratings for the same engine in Illinois back in 2008, I think. So B&S started listing torque. Apparently many of the other small engine makers are following suit. .

Just got a class action suit notice asking for me to sign up. If you purchased a push mower you may get a maximum of $35 or $75 max. for riding mower - for either purchased after Jan. 1, 1994. I filed it in the usual "cabinet".

 

[forgeblast]

just got in the mail a class action law suite. says that defendants misrepresented and overstate the horsepower of their lawn mowers, and engines.
www.lawnmowerclass.com
a huge list of defendents. i guess you can get about 75 dollars back for a riding, 35 for a walkbehind mower.

 

[ToadHill]

By the time all the lawyers get their fees,You'll be lucky to get 75 cents.

 

[20 20]

Right you are, but that isn't what I meant. CC is the "only" thing that you will know that is true. The hp and torque ratings may be derived from different standards and may be somewhat meaningless. But if the sticker says one is 400 cc and another is 500 cc, then you can count on that one fact alone. Perhaps it's a poor system, but at least you have an accurate comparison of size. Hey, I didn't make the rules!

Okay I understand what you're saying

 

[MossRoad]

Right you are, but that isn't what I meant. CC is the "only" thing that you will know that is true. The hp and torque ratings may be derived from different standards and may be somewhat meaningless. But if the sticker says one is 400 cc and another is 500 cc, then you can count on that one fact alone. Perhaps it's a poor system, but at least you have an accurate comparison of size. Hey, I didn't make the rules!

Knowing the CCs is about like knowing its a 1lb bomb. You know it weighs 1 pound, but you don't know if it is a pound of loose powder of a pound of C4! But you do know it weighs 1lb. :laughing:

 

[MossRoad]

just got in the mail a class action law suite. says that defendants misrepresented and overstate the horsepower of their lawn mowers, and engines.
www.lawnmowerclass.com
a huge list of defendents. i guess you can get about 75 dollars back for a riding, 35 for a walkbehind mower.

Hey, that's a good link. Thanks. Good reading. I wonder where we can find the standards for the
Certified Power Rating
test the manufacturers will have to adhere too?

 

[BobRip]

Horse power is a measure of the work that can be done. CC and torque are not. Differences in carburetor, fuel injection, turbo charger, exhaust, cam, etc. can make two engines with the same cc perform a lot differently. Kilowatts is the metric equivalent to horse power and is also a good indicator. The horse power can be measured different ways and a standard is needed.

 

[2manyrocks]

Is anybody really surprised at this? I've been seeing those 15, then 17, then 18, then whatever HP tags on lawn mowers for some years now. In my personal opinion, they aren't as powerful as the 12-16 HP kohlers K series that was sold in the 70's.