Does a petrol flymo use less fuel than a "regular" lawnmower?

Would a petrol flymo lawnmower use less petrol than a push or self-
propelled petrol lawnmower?
I'm just guessing it might use less since there isn't the friction
which is created by a push or self-propelled mower since a flymo isn't
in contact with the ground.
Reply to
susie2007
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:21:44 -0800 (PST) wrote :
More surely since it has to generate the lift to keep the machine off the ground?
Reply to
Tony Bryer
And the amount of friction for a push-mower is irrelevant as the force to overcome it is provided by the human not the engine.
Reply to
Andy Burns
A flymo might spend a proportion of its time going over grass already cut. Less likely to do this when making stripes.
Reply to
John
Good point. Hadn't thought of that.
Presumably a self-propelled petrol mower would use more petrol than a push petrol mower?
If correct, would it be a lot more?
Reply to
susie2007
I don't think you'd notice it, these small engines are not the worlds most efficient... Oh and if the area you intend to mow is anything less than absolutely flat and is mown regularly use a self propelled one. A small dip or any sort of hill will make it hard work for a push only.
Reply to
Dave Liquorice
Not sure about petrol mowers, but a quick look at electric mowers with approx 33cm cutting width indicates: Flymo and push-along rotary both have motors in the 1100 - 1400 W range. Cylinder mower only needs a 400W (approx) motor.
I've got a Flymo with a 40cm cutting and a 1500W motor, which seems a bit excessive. I'm pretty sure that very little of that power is spent actually cutting grass.
So for efficiency, a cylinder mower seems to be worth considering.
Reply to
Simon
In message ,
Does it really matter? Unless you have a few hundred acres to cut the difference in fuel costs would only be a couple of quid per year.
Reply to
Alan
Unless you have a few hundred acres to cut the
I wasn't too sure what the difference would be, that's why I was trying to discover any differences before purchase.
Reply to
susie2007
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:27:01 -0000 Simon wrote :
There's others here who really understand these things, but wouldn't it be the case that the motor would only draw 1500W when really loaded; when it's just spinning back emf or whatever would cut the current draw significantly.
Reply to
Tony Bryer
The Flymo petrol mowers have 2 stroke engines which are considerably less economical than 4 strokes also you need to mix oil with the petrol.
Most conventional wheeled lawn mowers use 4 stroke engines apart from the odd few like some Victa mowers.
All in all 4 stroke engines use much less petrol and oil than 2 strokes.
Reply to
kaiser
In message , andrew heggie writes
Of course, a mechanical one would consume no fuel and also get rid of all that flab you've been accumulating ...
Reply to
geoff
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 22:45:46 -0000 Kaiser wrote :
IIRC Flymo went for 2-strokes because one of the original selling points was being able to mow steep banks with the machine suspended on a rope (H&S, what H&S) where a splash-lubricated 4-stroke might have problems
Reply to
Tony Bryer
Wot flab? I've no more than when we last met, how about you ;-)
My 400hp mower is a mechanical one, as to manually propelled that's fine on my lawn, which is so small that when a mate demonstrated his bicycle mower we couldn't get a decent run and I fell off trying to turn at the end.
AJH
Reply to
AJH
You're hilarious adder1969
I'm trying to discover the differences between the myriad of various mowers on the market.
Rather than just going out and buying the first thing I see...
Reply to
susie2007

Site Timeline Threads

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.