Newer Lawn Tractors with 25+ HP

[dkopp 1]

I don't know if anyone has noticed the HP craze that some tractor manufactures have been into lately. I've seen lawn tractors, not garden tractors, that have 27 HP engines in them. Why is this? Just look at what a good 10 HP motor will do in a WH, not to mention a strong 12 or 16. Why are people buying these over-hyped, over-horsed, not-so-heavy-duty tractors? I just don't see the point. Has anyone else questioned why the manufactures have been doing this? I have a Murray automatic that has a 42" deck with a 14.5 HP Briggs and it is more that enough motor for that tractor. The only time the motor bogs down is when I put it through a very, very tall patch that I threw clippings into. I sometimes throw all the grass to the inside to help mulch the majority of the clippings several times, keeps me from raking so much. Anyway, I know I'm rambling....I'll get off the soap box now.

[rallysman 0]

My guess would be that it's purely for marketing. I was wondering the same thing today when I was at home depot.

[Confused99 2]

I was told once that they rate them different now then back when most of our horses were made. Example being a 10hp Kohler back in the day would be comparable to a 16hp aluminum POS. Anyone else here something like this?

edit - Comparison is purely power based and not quality based :omg:

[dkopp 1]

I haven't looked into the actual displacements of the engines, but my guess is that people think bigger is always better. Has any of the smaller displacement WH owners pulled against a neighbors larger Hp garden variety lawn tractor and come up with an upset? I know that my folks have several WH, a 1967 607 and a '88 416-8, and it depends who was driving which horse as to who pulled who. I was heavier than my dad at the time and I pulled him around on whatever tractor I was on. You wouldn't think that the 607 would pull a 416-8 backwards, but it did. Look at the Farmall Super M, it's only rated at 48 HP but pulls like a 60 Hp tractor. If you ever seen one pull, it runs out of power and traction at about the same time when pulling. A very balanced tractor in my opinion. Not too much motor for the tractor. If you can't put the power to the ground or to an attachment, what good is it? You paid for something you can't use.

[can whlvr 991]

I have a newer jd 155-c with a 25 hp industrial breaks and scrapem,it turns a 48 inch deck with absolutley no problem,but compared to my 414-8 with a 14 hp magnum,it just isnot the same,i would imagine that a 18 hp kohler would put out the same power.I also have a 13 hp honda in my 308-8 and this engine is aluminum and probaly has more power than the kohler,they just dont last as long as the full cast motors.

[norman 0]

they are throw aways

[Rideawaysenior 25]

If you compare the specs of the newer engines to the older ones you will find several differences. The older cast L blocks had a pretty deep stroke to them which produced more torque. I was also told by an old school mechanic that the newer engines with the higher HP have similar torque specs to the older L head engines. The Vtwin high HP engines are also supposed to be more "environmentally friendly". Could be a bunch of BS but I have a 308-8 which is a real garden tractor and a Sears Crapsman GT2500 with a 25hp Kohler Vtwin and that 308 will kick the snot out of that Sears all day long. Pulls better, plows better and cuts the same with better quality in my opinion. Take the opinion for what its worth though because it's a jaded one. I am a Horse Man through and through. I even bleed red. LOL

[WheelHorse_of_course 99]

I see 2 factors

1) Hype. People don't know what else to look at so the go by the "number".

This is exactly the same reason as why vacuum cleaner manufacturers brag about "Amps". Some of them have spotlights on the front primarily to up the "Amps" number.

2) There have been some exaggerated HP ratings, but as far as I can tell this is not more than a few HP.

:drool:

[Jim_M 178]

I think the whole high horsepower thing started just so you could tell you neighbor that yours is bigger than his. :omg:

[Hodge71 663]

I also have noticed that the pushmower manufacturers have started rating their mower motors in torque specs, which as far as I'm concerned is a more realistic rating of how much work it can really do. I think thats what is true about the rider also. Al these horsepower numbers just make you think "oh wow that must really be good it has so much horsepower" when in reality its the torque that does the work and these newer motors just dont have it. The green and yellow boys are relying on peoples ingnorance to sell more plastic. I'm a drag racer and I was taught by an older drag racer that HORSEPOWER SELLS CARS BUT TORQUE WINS RACES. Torque is a bettter assessment of how much ability is there to due a task.

Just my opinion im not a physycist or an engineer

Jeff

[rustyoldjunk 127]

i'll second hodge.the old cast iron engines had long strokes and heavy flywheels.these engines made lots of torque and made it from low rpm s up thru their 3600 rpm redline.by comparison these newer aluminum engines with shorter strokes and very light flywheels just dont make the same torque and i believe the power they do have is in a much narrower band,in other words you have to keep them near 3600 rpm to stay in their power band.

[T-Mo-(Moderator) 4,345]

It's just not the green and yellow folks - in fact, they were one of the last to get into the HP wars. It looks like the AYPs, MTDs, and Murrays were the first to go "BIG". It's sort of the Tim "The Toolman" Taylor mentality - "MORE POWER".

[travisg84 1]

I use to mow with a 18.5hp murray with a 42" cut it did alright until my pear trees dropped pears. If the deck caught one that was all it took to bogg it down enough to kill the motor. Now the 312-8 on the other hand will eat anything you throw at it. They are just better built machines, I sold a 3 year old murry and kept my 22 year old horse.

[bitten 133]

My Ferris has a 27hp kaw. in it and will mow at 10M.P.H. in a straight line. None of my Wheel Horses will do that, but my smallest one will out pull the Ferris with out any dout.

I was thinking it was more for the newer hydro systems. I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken so anyones guess is as good as mine.

P.J.

[wh500special 2,055]

Horsepower and deck size are really the only marketable specifications on these mowers that means anything to the general public. They are both something people have a feel for and can use for comparison purposes. So, from a sales standpoint, I want my machine to have the largest engine possible within the tractor's size class so that it betters - or at least compares favorably to - competative models. Like Jim said "mine is bigger than yours".

If they tried to market features like the relative strength of a frame, transmission, or hydraulic system most buyers would be lost in the fog. We all have a feel for power - and especially for the "more is better" mantra - and engine size is really about the only option available to distinguish one product from another. Hardly anybody outside these tractor forums use their machines for anything but cutting grass so really very few people care about the other parameters of the piece of equipment.

Engines may be rated differently now - perhaps they now advertise peak/intermittent hp as opposed to continuous - but there is no doubt in my mind that the engine in a new 25 hp tractor is more powerful than a 15 hp engine from 30 years ago. Mowing and blowing heavy snowfall are really the only applications for our tractors that require much horsepower. The power required to propel the tractor and even pull a plow thru the ground are comparatively lower.

When you look at the older equipment with small engines (C-81, 855, 953, whatever) the engine was pretty well matched to the actual work capability of the machine. Aside from being able to run larger mowing decks, there really wasn't much call for increasing the horsepower of the engine since it was essentially wasted power and fuel. As the market moved from making miniature tractors to basically serving the riding mower market, things like attachment capability were lost and engine sizes really became the only things to differentiate between models or brands.

Does a modern 42" lawn tractor need 25 hp? Nope. are there instances where it might use ALL of that power? Perhaps if mowing a tall field at top speed. But if all 42" tractors made by MTD, Sears, AYP, or whoever had 15 hp what would the average consumer use to make his buying decision? Price? Color?

I would assume that to a manufacturer like MTD, the price difference between a 15 hp engine and a 25 hp engine from somebody like Briggs is trivial. So why not stuff as big a motor under the hood as possible? Sure, it may be overkill for the rest of the machine but the added cost is probably easily justified in light of making the tractor easier to sell.

Put another way, who - aside from a person who is a contractor or something - really NEEDs a full sized pickup truck with a v8 engine? Who really needs a Mustang with a 300 hp motor? Who needs a bass boat with a 250 hp powerplant hanging on the back.

Nobody. Had the price of gasoline not been so cheap for so long I'd bet we would see far fewer 20+ hp riding mowers and fewer monster engines on the road too. Power was cheap.

but there is something satisfying and American about having more power than you need.

I really think there is something elegant about the tractors like the B-60 and the B-80. They are capable of an enormous amount of work and really have a very well matched engine for their size range. I remember thinking how huge the 520's were when they came out, but it does indeed take quite a bit of power to spin a 60" mower thru any kind of cutting task while propelling a 1000 pound load across the lawn. At the other end of the spectrum, even a 42" can be a real load for a small engine.

In a real sense, increased horsepower lets you get more work done faster. But if the rest of the machine is not up to the increased workload it just becomes one more marketable statistic. And a waste of fuel.

Steve

[Jim_M 178]

Steve,

That's what I was trying to say....I just didn't feel like typing that long.

Jim

[norman 0]

I have a Cub Cadet 7254 with a 25 hp Kawasaki and it hates the mower..... I dies right out with a 54" deck even when I tried a rear finish......

I am waiting for my 414-8 from Jack with a 16 hp Kohler Transplant to mow with

WAHOOOOOOOO

[W9JAB 156]

:omg:

Ya need a 25 H.P. tractor to go with your 200 H.P. fishing boat!

[Horse Fanatic 49]

I work in the power equipment buiness, as stated it's about marketing. What people don't think of when they buy a 22 hp Murray is using an engine much larger than necessary wastes fuel.

[wh500special 2,055]

I have a Cub Cadet 7254 with a 25 hp Kawasaki and it hates the mower.....

I remember when that line of tractors came out a few years ago and I wondered how well a small "garden tractor" engine could do in a Sub Compact Utility. It just seemed like too much tractor for the motor...

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while I suppose.

Steve

[dkopp 1]

I think that everyone is on the same page with this topic. I wish that they still made engines like they used to, cast iron and long strokes. If you need speed, use torque and pulleys to get it, not RPM's. I'm sure that some of you guys have seen old hay balers with the Wisconsin THD twin inline engine on the baler instead of a tractor driven PTO. Now pulling a baler is no small feat! That plunger takes power to push it through it's cycle! Not to mention the cycling effect of loading and unloading the engine. Do you think that todays engines would stand up to punishment like that. Now I know that that particular engine was not put in garden tractors that I know of, but....man think of the grass you could cut with that thing! Too bad it doesn't fit under a WH hood.

Thanks to all who chimed in on this rant, glad to see that I'm not the only one who is disgusted by marketing "progress".

God bless!

[travisg84 1]

I still don't uderstand why they are called "Garden Tractors", high horsepower or not they can't do the work nor do they have the attachments to do the work. Its like putting a dirt devil in the same catergory as a kirby vacuum for god sakes you can paint your house with a kirby. I'm suprised those didn't have mowing attachments!

[igota310-8 0]

Well my Neighbour has a 500 series mid-90's big Toro Garden tractor, Kawasaki 20 hp twin, with a massive I think close to 60" deck and pulls a large Vac behind it.

Thing is a beast, mows well and very fast.

He's a Lazy SOB and does the minimal maintenance to it, thing runs like he bought it Yesterday.

On the other hand, I'm super happy with my 310-8, so far it has not let me down power Wise!

Eric