Snowblower Forum banner

81 - 92 of 92 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
307 Posts
Yamaha made its mark with its engine, not the snowblower itself. while it was well done and had all the best of features of the time, it was a standard track configuration with a best practice control configuration (the chute controls were on the control panel not in some awkward position).

The engine torque was a function of its design, side valve and long stroke. The issue was it could not make the emissions with that setup. Detroit Diesel had the same issue with its 2 Stroke diesels that had millions out there.

There are ways to tweak to max torque and Yamaha did them (without a turbo) .

And the proof is in the running. I have run the higher hp machines and the only one that came close to the grunt the old Yamaha has was a big all iron machine, it did it with mass. Get it spinning and its hard to slow down.

Our roof was 60 ft long and 15 feet (pure square footage, surveying would take that to flat, you get more property sq foot in hilly ground). That all went into a 4 ft area.

2 and 3 ft of snow got dumped off the roof front and back on top of already 2 and 3 feet of snow and the Yamaha would blow it out just fine.

I have run machinery all my life, form a go Kart to a Mine Class rock buggy 12 feet wide and 30 feet long you sat 10 feet off the ground. From stuff that could barely get out of its own way to some of the finest performing equipment (at the time). I know when something does what it says it will vs PR.

While the dealer claimed it was like an 8 hp, it acts more like 10 hp. Figures back that up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
307 Posts
Full Disclosure: I thought I had a typo on the Passat. The torque curve is flat from 1750 to 2500 per some data and the manual says 3500. Will follow up with the experts.

Its still flat and a lot of Torque per hp in a non truck engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,009 Posts
RedOctobyer shows a torque curve for a 2015 Diesel not the flat toque 2005 Passat. He just can't accept that you can not derive the highly nebulous HP (horses, really) back to Torque. Per the experts it does not work that way.

Of course the below picture is a fabrication (its not a diesel by the way).
I'm not sure how to read this. But if things are making a change to mocking, etc, then I'm out. I've been trying to have a civil & respectful discussion. Cheers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,327 Posts
He just can't accept that you can not derive the highly nebulous HP (horses, really) back to Torque. Per the experts it does not work that way.
Sorry @RC20, but you're dead wrong, and @RedOctobyr is correct. HP & Torque have a strict mathematical relationship: HP = Torque x RPM ÷ 5252 or Torque = HP x 5252 ÷ RPM

TORQUE is defined as a FORCE around a given point, applied at a RADIUS from that point. Note that the unit of TORQUE is one pound-foot (often misstated), while the unit of WORK is one foot-pound.


POWER is the measure of how much WORK can be done in a specified TIME.


"Technical Experts" ask customers:"Do you want your engine to make HORSEPOWER or TORQUE?"
And the question is usually asked in a tone which strongly suggests that these "experts" believe power and torque are somehow mutually exclusive.

In fact, the opposite is true, and you should be clear on these facts:

  1. POWER (the rate of doing WORK) is dependent on TORQUE and RPM.
  2. TORQUE and RPM are the MEASURED quantities of engine output.
  3. POWER is CALCULATED from Torque and RPM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
307 Posts
Sun comes up in the East despite all the argumentative to the contrary. The data confirms the field results.



I have listed examples where torque is flat for a large range for which I am told can't occur and then its portended, well a Turbo changes that (really? it not in the formula is it?) So, despite the formula then there are exceptions to it even if you don't understand the formula someone is qualified to say, well that change it. .Wow.



So, if the moon is up and you hold your nostrils closed you can beat the formula but otherwise....... sure, right.



So, if you are going to argue, present the math and show me how you get something that you claim is impossible. Otherwise, you are just quoting stuff and don't understand the fundamentals.






My book lists metric torque values and it lists two different torque Values for the Yamaha, one 6 and one 8. so its not a typo and the second value for 8 hp engine is in line percentage wise with the difference. As HP is derived form torque then you are allowed to make those comparisons.



People in a poor small town that get 300 inches of snow a year of course would disagree with the ones who claim Yamaha did not produce what they said they did.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,327 Posts
So, if you are going to argue, present the math and show me how you get something that you claim is impossible. Otherwise, you are just quoting stuff and don't understand the fundamentals.

My book lists metric torque values and it lists two different torque Values for the Yamaha, one 6 and one 8. so its not a typo and the second value for 8 hp engine is in line percentage wise with the difference. As HP is derived form torque then you are allowed to make those comparisons.
I guess that perhaps you just don't want to understand; torque varies with RPM. The same engine produces different measured torque values at different RPMs. HP is simply a calculated value, which has been misunderstood by many for the last century or so. According to @skippy1969 & @VintageYamaha the YS624 max operating speed is 4000RPM (others have operated it at 3600RPM), so what's really important is the measured torque available at that speed and not "Max Torque" that might be available down at 2400-2800RPM or so.

There are also different "6" engines; the older "6HP" Yamaha maxs at 2.1 kgf/m or 15.19 lb/ft @ 2800 RPM. The newer Yamaha MZ250 shows 11.6 lb/ft @ 2400 RPM.
 
  • Like
Reactions: toromike

·
Registered
Joined
·
307 Posts
I am being told my torque is impossible by others. The presentation is the Greatest Blowers of All Time and if someone can challenge 15 ft lbs of torque out of 202cc then go for it. But no, just blowing smoke opinions. So for those who want their alternative facts, enjoy them. You still push up dirt in the end.

Rather than a discussion, what would explain that I am told I am full of it, ok any xxx can have an opinion.

I am told the 2.1 is impossible.

I am told flat torque curves (agreed its a contradiction of terms but that is what they call them) is impossible. Well I proved that wrong and I still getting nonsense.

Then I am told that a turbo changes that. Oh really, what else changes that? Facts, no. See a Turbo anywhere in the formula ? What else changes it?

So, yes I am calling BS on those who have an opinion but don't have any data or math to back it up and I have both. There some great names for people like that and you can insert xxxxxxx here or whichever one you want. Frankly its like work when I quit, flipping out Voodoo magic was the answer not facts and fundamentals of concepts.

And that is what is being argued, is my Yamaha - Engine Torque output values are not correct. Frankly I could give a rats ass less about HP - ain't anything out there on the planet that beat it, then, now and in the future.

Well they are there and unless someone has the tech details they can list or present the math otherwise then its a bunch of smoke being blown.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Getting back to the original topic, I have an old MTD that I purchased new roughly 24 years ago. It was a 8/24 Tecumseh snow king engine. I didn't do anything but run this machine. I am telling you all I did was put fuel in this thing & installed a new plug every year, it would not stop running. In 22 years I never even changed the oil just checked it once in a while & added if it needed it & that was only a couple of times. I was a very bad owner of this machine, it was very very abused. I replaced 1 shear pin. I would put this machine through ****. In about the 20th year the carb started giving me problems so I would mess around with it. In the 22nd year I finally got tired of messing with the carb & bought a new Toro. I still have that old MTD in storage & one of these days I will put a new carb on it & I will bet that it will fire right up.

P.S. I am a very responsible snow blower owner now. I do take very good care of my new Toro.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
"
Back in the 60's the first blower I ever used was the Jari Jaw owned by the Parsonage down the street. It was a beast (and was painted like one!) and had a huge auger housing with 2 auger sets. Nothing would stop it - built like a tank, and twice as heavy!



Attachments



We had a Jari Jaw when I was a kid. My dad inherited it from his uncle, and it was a BEAST ! It was already pretty old when we got it, (maybe 1974) but it kicked out the snow !
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
"
Back in the 60's the first blower I ever used was the Jari Jaw owned by the Parsonage down the street. It was a beast (and was painted like one!) and had a huge auger housing with 2 auger sets. Nothing would stop it - built like a tank, and twice as heavy!



Attachments



We had a Jari Jaw when I was a kid. My dad inherited it from his uncle, and it was a BEAST ! It was already pretty old when we got it, (maybe 1974) but it kicked out the snow !
I like the Nose Art shown in Jari2.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
131 Posts
So far, the 2 Ariens blowers are the best I have had. The Compact 24 does a great job now, just lacks the power my old ST824 had, but that can be changed with one swoop of the wrench.
 
81 - 92 of 92 Posts
Top