# 17hp?!?!!!



## Elt31987 (Sep 6, 2015)

ARIENS 17 HP SNOWBLOWER

lol Deluxe 24 with 17HP


----------



## RedOctobyr (Mar 2, 2014)

Hey, it's 250cc, of *course* it's making 17 hp. It just needed a turbo added, a small NOS canister, and the governed speed raised to 6000 RPM


----------



## sscotsman (Dec 8, 2010)

Seller thinking, while composing his craigslist ad: 

"hmm..I wonder how many horsepower this is? the engine says 250cc, but thats not the horsepower..what other numbers can I find? the owners manual says the different models available are:

921013
921017
921018
921022
921023
921027
921031

Those last digits must obviously mean the different horsepower ratings for the different models..mine is model 921017, therefore its 17hp..mystery solved..man i'm smart!"


----------



## Old Geezer (Feb 19, 2016)

Adjust the governor, run at 4500 rpm..... Problem solved !

Seriously, though, my experience has been that commercially available snowblowers are always underpowered for handling heavy wet snow. Years ago, I had a Sears with a 7 hp engine that died (broke a connecting rod), that I repowered up to 10 hp. Much better! My current 11.5 hp Ariens would work better with 13 - 15. I think the snowblower engineers must live in areas with powdery snow.


----------



## Elt31987 (Sep 6, 2015)

Posting has been updated to 11HP. lol geeeessshh


----------



## UNDERTAKER (Dec 30, 2013)

205 CC works out to 8-9hp.


----------



## Bob z (Apr 5, 2015)

What is the horsepower of the AX414 cc?


----------



## RedOctobyr (Mar 2, 2014)

Bob z said:


> What is the horsepower of the AX414 cc?


I've heard about 15hp, but I'm not sure if that's accurate. As a point of reference, my 318cc OHV Tecumseh is rated at 10hp.


----------



## detdrbuzzard (Jan 20, 2012)

POWERSHIFT93 said:


> 205 CC works out to 8-9hp.


more likely to be 5 - 7hp
but for the $950 he's asking you could pretty much buy a new delux


----------



## RedOctobyr (Mar 2, 2014)

detdrbuzzard said:


> POWERSHIFT93 said:
> 
> 
> > 205 CC works out to 8-9hp.
> ...


The engine is actually 250cc, I'm guessing the 205cc in PS93's post was a typo.


----------



## lillbear (Jan 5, 2016)

**** I got lied to I tought 420 at 15HP was the biggest Ariens engine :-( lol.


----------



## UNDERTAKER (Dec 30, 2013)

RedOctobyr said:


> The engine is actually 250cc, I'm guessing the 205cc in PS93's post was a typo.


Yeah probley it is, Ain't the first time. And won't be the last.:facepalm_zpsdj194qh:facepalm_zpsdj194qh


----------



## UNDERTAKER (Dec 30, 2013)

I have pondered this for awhile now. CC'S really don't mean squat. you would have to crack open the engine. to see what is stamped on the Gov. I wonder if it is still written in HP'S. I have never opened up a newer model engine. to see if the truth is still in there.k:k:k:k:k:


----------



## JJG723 (Mar 7, 2015)

I know a guy with an Ariens pro 28, 420cc. Always saying how it has 21HP. I gave up explaining to him how the motors are rated now after 6 times.


----------



## UNDERTAKER (Dec 30, 2013)

16-18 HP. is more than likely a twin cylinder.:tempted:


----------



## RedOctobyr (Mar 2, 2014)

POWERSHIFT93 said:


> I have pondered this for awhile now. CC'S really don't mean squat. you would have to crack open the engine. to see what is stamped on the Gov. I wonder if it is still written in HP'S. I have never opened up a newer model engine. to see if the truth is still in there.


Not really sure what you mean. 

cc's aren't *everything*, no. You could have a large-displacement engine, that produces very little power, if designed poorly, or really worn out (valves or piston rings leaking). 

But the old expression "there's no replacement for displacement" has quite a bit of truth to it. These engines basically all run at the same speed, 3600 RPM, or close to it. And the displacement pretty much determines how much torque the engine can produce. 

Horsepower is torque * RPM. So if the cc's effectively determine your torque, and the RPM is essentially fixed (there are no blowers turning at 6000 RPM), then the cc's basically determine your horsepower. 

OHV engines produce more torque (and therefore more power) for the same cc's when compared with older flathead engines, so there is some difference there. This is because in an OHV, the valves are located above the piston, whereas in a flathead, they were off to the side. This allows the OHV to reduce the "unproductive" air volume in the chamber, which can result in a little higher compression ratio, and a little more power. But pretty much all blower engines are OHV now, so this difference is largely eliminated. 

I would argue that cc's are a pretty good indicator of the power-producing potential of an engine. Certainly one of the better indicators we have at the moment. And I'm not sure what you mean by looking at the Gov (governor?) to look for power info. I doubt there are secrets written on anything in the engine, and people can mark stuff with whatever info they want anyhow


----------



## bad69cat (Nov 30, 2015)

The only large HP >12Hp single cylinders I have seen are the Wisconsin engines - I think they had 14 and 16 ones. You see them on skid loaders and things like that. It would take a pretty stout frame to hold up to one! You better pray it runs - cuz I doubt you could push it around easily!


----------



## YSHSfan (Jun 25, 2014)

JJG723 said:


> I know a guy with an Ariens pro 28, 420cc. Always saying how it has 21HP. I gave up explaining to him how the motors are rated now after 6 times.


A lot of people confuse torque specs with HP, since a lot of newer engines (or snowblowers) do not have large HP decals but torque specs decals instead (or are advertised by its torque rating rather than HP).


----------



## foggysail (Feb 21, 2015)

HP-- torque! You CANNOT have one without the other. No matter how many times one trys, HP and torque are related.

*HP= ( torque (lbs ft) X RPM)/5252*

So many times I have listened to guys say... "torque is more important that HP" 

NOT SO FOLKS! Both are inter-related to the above formula


----------



## foggysail (Feb 21, 2015)

Old Geezer said:


> Adjust the governor, run at 4500 rpm..... Problem solved !
> 
> Seriously, though, my experience has been that commercially available snowblowers are always underpowered for handling heavy wet snow. Years ago, I had a Sears with a 7 hp engine that died (broke a connecting rod), that I repowered up to 10 hp. Much better! My current 11.5 hp Ariens would work better with 13 - 15. I think the snowblower engineers must live in areas with powdery snow.


Yes, I agree it would be better to have larger engines. But again, there are buts!

Everything (at least in a well engineered product) is sized to perform in a specific environment. I refer to shaft sizes, thrust bearings, belts, wheels, gears, gear ratio and the list goes on. For example, if one were to place modern 300HP engine into an old car such as a pre 1940 Ford and drive it to the limits of the engine, you would quickly find the transmission or the rear differential failing. 

So although I agree that a larger engine will perform do a better job on a snowblower, that machine should be designed to accommodate the additional HP. And one other note worth considering. Gasoline engine HP is usually highest at high RPMs. Snowblowers I am aware of have governers to prevent operating at high RPM. Many instruction manuals strongly advise not to adjust the governers to high RPM or risk engine failures.


----------



## UNDERTAKER (Dec 30, 2013)

RedOctobyr said:


> Not really sure what you mean.
> 
> cc's aren't *everything*, no. You could have a large-displacement engine, that produces very little power, if designed poorly, or really worn out (valves or piston rings leaking).
> 
> ...


Take for example the flat head BRIGGS Engines. 19 Cubic Inches. using the same bore and stroke. they could get 7,8,9 maybe even 10 hps out of that block. just by switching out the Govs in them. they have it stamped right on the gear what HP it is. I know this from when the original engine on "SR". the GOV broke wind, and is now long gone with the Schwinn.:smiley-shocked033:


----------



## ChrisJ (Nov 27, 2014)

Yep,
BTW, I believe the BS 420 is around 13 or 14HP.
Hard to say being they don't tell you what the torque actually is at operating speed and they use gross figures.


----------



## lillbear (Jan 5, 2016)

Rpm x torque/5.252 = Hp. The 420 cc = 14.4 HP


----------



## ChrisJ (Nov 27, 2014)

lillbear said:


> Rpm x torque/5.252 = Hp. The 420 cc = 14.4 HP



Yeah,
Except that's it's peak gross torque, we have no idea what it's torque is at 3600rpm. 

We also have no idea what it's torque is with a muffler, period.


----------



## RedOctobyr (Mar 2, 2014)

POWERSHIFT93 said:


> Take for example the flat head BRIGGS Engines. 19 Cubic Inches. using the same bore and stroke. they could get 7,8,9 maybe even 10 hps out of that block. just by switching out the Govs in them. they have it stamped right on the gear what HP it is. I know this from when the original engine on "SR".


I don't doubt your experience. But this has me puzzled. 

The governor's job is simply to open or close the throttle plate as required, to maintain the set RPM. It doesn't increase or decrease the engine's power, per se. 

Now, if a certain governor was designed to never open the throttle plate more than 80%, and another governor that could fit the engine allowed the throttle to open 100%, that would allow the 100%-throttle-equipped engine to produce more power. I suppose this approach could be used to artificially (and intentionally) restrict the output of an engine, by using certain governor parts. 

But that seems to me like a special case. In any of those situations, if you simply pushed the throttle plate open 100%, manually, all the engines would have produced the same amount of power. And in all cases, it would have been a 10hp (or whatever)-capable engine, which is effectively determined by the cc's. Albeit maybe artificially-limited by a special governor selection, based on what you're saying. But the cc's still matter, a lot. 

Now, I have seen an old governor (on my Tecumseh) that was not fully opening the throttle, even as the engine bogged. I adjusted it, to no avail. I then replaced the original spring from the governor arm to the throttle mechanism, and it performs better now, opening the throttle further than before. Apparently these springs stretch over time, and don't pull on the throttle mechanism (to open the throttle) as hard as they're supposed to. 

I wonder how many older "tired/weak" engines are just fine, but are never actually being given full-throttle, due to stretched governor springs, or out-of-adjustment governors. 

It sounds silly, but tying a string to the throttle plate arm would allow checking this. Drive the blower into heavy snow, to make the RPM sag. Now give the string a tug, to help fully-open the throttle plate. If the engine suddenly speeds up, then the governor isn't really doing its job properly, and isn't opening the throttle fully, even as the RPMs drop. Thus depriving you of the engine's full output. And showing that the governor needs some work/adjusting. Alternately, remove the heater box, and watch the throttle arm while bogging the engine down, see it hits the fully-open stop.


----------



## foggysail (Feb 21, 2015)

ChrisJ said:


> Yeah,
> Except that's it's peak gross torque, we have no idea what it's torque is at 3600rpm.
> 
> We also have no idea what it's torque is with a muffler, period.


Only because you don't know what the HP is at 3600 RPM.


----------



## foggysail (Feb 21, 2015)

lillbear said:


> Rpm x torque/5.252 = Hp. The 420 cc = 14.4 HP




Power and Torque: Understanding the Relationship Between the Two, by EPI Inc.


----------



## ChrisJ (Nov 27, 2014)

foggysail said:


> Only because you don't know what the HP is at 3600 RPM.



Yeah,
Was kinda the point?


----------



## lillbear (Jan 5, 2016)

I raced cars long enough to know that there is no substitute for displacement so your cc has a big impact on HP. If Honda claims 13HP on a 389 cc then the formula would be accurate with in reason. If I take the 19 ft/lbs for the 389 cc at 3600 rpm it comes out bang on. 99% of snow blower are limited at 3600 rpm. Since most suppliers give you the torque and rpm is pretty much a constant then it would stand to reason that it would be accurate. We can get into the lost of power because of muffler etc. We could also get into the power at the blower fan, auger and more but that not something I believe small engine manufacturer does. It certainly more accurate then when they used the Hp instead of the cubic centimetres.


----------



## ChrisJ (Nov 27, 2014)

lillbear said:


> I raced cars long enough to know that t*here is no substitute for displacement* so your cc has a big impact on HP. If Honda claims 13HP on a 389 cc then the formula would be accurate with in reason. If I take the 19 ft/lbs for the 389 cc at 3600 rpm it comes out bang on. 99% of snow blower are limited at 3600 rpm. Since most suppliers give you the torque and rpm is pretty much a constant then it would stand to reason that it would be accurate. We can get into the lost of power because of muffler etc. We could also get into the power at the blower fan, auger and more but that not something I believe small engine manufacturer does. It certainly more accurate then when they used the Hp instead of the cubic centimetres.



Yeah.
It's not like forced induction can ever provide power or anything and we all know more valves doesn't do anything along with overhead valves, variable cam timing, better flow etc.

There are plenty of replacements for displacement especially when that displacement is on a terrible design. Harry Miller showed us just that for many many years. A 1920's Miller design is more advanced than many 1990s car engines. Take a look at a tiny 1970s 2.6 liter Offenhauser producing 1000HP and tell me how great a 7 liter V8 producing 400HP is.

*Regarding power loss due to mufflers and air cleaners this is exactly what small engine manufactures do and it's why they specifically advertise gross horsepower.

Honda is the only one I know of that specifically states net horsepower.
*


----------



## RedOctobyr (Mar 2, 2014)

lillbear said:


> I raced cars long enough to know that *there is no substitute for displacement*...





ChrisJ said:


> Yeah.
> It's not like forced induction can ever provide power or anything and we all know more valves doesn't do anything along with overhead valves, variable cam timing, better flow etc.


ChrisJ, this is true, there are absolutely things that can increase the power produced by a given engine displacement. 

But to say that this disproves the statement of "there is no substitute for displacement" seems short-sighted, to me. 

Almost anything that can be done to a smaller-displacement engine can also be done to a larger-displacement engine. You can put a turbo on both engines, and increase the power of each one. 

Now, if the discussion is power-per-pound-of-engine, or something like that, then definitely, forced induction may be the way to go, vs larger (heavier/bulkier) displacement. 

But to say that forced induction, as an example, "disproves" no-replacement-for-displacement, I would disagree with that. I'd say the displacement provides your "baseline" power-production potential, and you can build on it from there (forced induction, variable valve timing, etc). 



> There are plenty of replacements for displacement especially when that displacement is on a terrible design. Harry Miller showed us just that for many many years. A 1920's Miller design is more advanced than many 1990s car engines. Take a look at a tiny 1970s 2.6 liter Offenhauser producing 1000HP and tell me how great a 7 liter V8 producing 400HP is.


I was unfamiliar with Offenhauser engines. But Wikipedia gave a rundown: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offenhauser

A few things jumped out at me. One mention was a 4.1L producing 420hp, while using a 15:1 compression ratio. That's a very-high compression ratio, quite a bit higher than typically used with "normal" gasoline (it would likely result in pre-ignition if used with road gas). And another was the mention of the 1,000 hp engine, at 44 psi (!!) of boost. Dang, that is a lot of boost! A 911 Turbo described in a 2013 C&D article is only running 14.5 psi. Running it that high would likely require a big intercooler, etc. 

I'm not denying any facts about the Offenhauser. But it sounds like it falls into the "extraordinary measures" category, which is appropriate for a racing engine. 

But comparing it (or other race engines) to a normal car engine doesn't seem quite fair. A normal car engine needs to run reliably for 100,000+ miles, and be produced at a reasonable cost. A drag-racing engine produces mind-blowing power, but has rebuild work done every few runs. Most equipment is built with compromises in mind.


----------



## ChrisJ (Nov 27, 2014)

RedOctobyr said:


> ChrisJ, this is true, there are absolutely things that can increase the power produced by a given engine displacement.
> 
> But to say that this disproves the statement of "there is no substitute for displacement" seems short-sighted, to me.
> 
> ...


Comparing race engines to normal engines is fair when claiming there's no displacement for displacement. I've found guys who use that phrase are typically into large displacement 2 valve per cyl pushrod engines. There are plenty of substitutes for displacement, forced induction being the biggest. Can you do the same to a larger engine? Yes, but typically you'll end up breaking things like transmissions. 

Further more, anything that can be done to "a" smaller engine can't necessarily be done to "a" larger engine.

For example, if you have a larger flat head engine and a smaller 4 or 5 valve per cylinder engine you can do a lot more with the smaller one.


To get back to the point.
No, I'd say an OHV Honda is superior to a flathead Tecumseh, Briggs or any other similar engine. Even my beloved Kohler K series, and those are beautiful engines even if the flathead has more displacement.

That's my opinion anyway.

RedOctobyr, btw, those "Offy's" are mean little engines, even the early 1930s ones which were in part by Harry Miller.


----------



## lillbear (Jan 5, 2016)

I think the point is getting missed when I said there no replacement for displacement. Sure you can get same 700Hp out of a civic as the 700Hp out of a 502 ci. I'm not arguing about that. One hits it's peak torque at 7000 rpm the other at 3500 rpm. What I was saying is that for a fix rpm of 3600 both carburetor engine OHV. You need displacement to get more torque that will also increase HP. Just like if I run my 502 in town in 3 gear at 2500 rpm and I floor it without down shifting I'll light up the tires on it. If you do that at same rpm with the civic nothing really happens till rpm gets way up there. So since it's a basic engine, on a snow blower and that pretty much all have the same type of engine OHV at fix rpm I'll ask this. How are you going to make significant increase in Hp and torque?


----------



## ChrisJ (Nov 27, 2014)

lillbear said:


> I think the point is getting missed when I said there no replacement for displacement. Sure you can get same 700Hp out of a civic as the 700Hp out of a 502 ci. I'm not arguing about that. One hits it's peak torque at 7000 rpm the other at 3500 rpm. What I was saying is that for a fix rpm of 3600 both carburetor engine OHV. You need displacement to get more torque that will also increase HP. Just like if I run my 502 in town in 3 gear at 2500 rpm and I floor it without down shifting I'll light up the tires on it. If you do that at same rpm with the civic nothing really happens till rpm gets way up there. *So since it's a basic engine, on a snow blower and that pretty much all have the same type of engine OHV at fix rpm I'll ask this. How are you going to make significant increase in Hp and torque?*




Boost :tongue4:

I agree with what you said though, if both engines are the same general design running at the same speed they are likely very close in power.

BTW, overall, I'm a GM guy.
A civic just doesn't fit me.


----------

