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



Does it look something like this?
http://inventorspot.com/articles/lawnmower_cuts_your_grass_and_to_7527
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 05:22:46 -0800 (PST), snipped-for-privacy@operamail.com wrote:

Yes, I've copied your link to him in his lab, he'll be gutted ;-)
AJH
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 21/11/2007 11:15, AJH wrote:

What's its 0-60 time?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Err ...
No comment
--
geoff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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
--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yes little 2-strokes are less worried by inclines and big (diesel) ones have forced lubrication.
I know one firm I worked for had a contract planting shrubs on a motorway embankment, though I was not involved with it. They were using a small, pedestrian controlled, wheeled auger to make the shallow pits and crumble the soil. This had a B&S 4 stroke engine and it did eventually seize because at the angle the oil wasn't being distributed by the splash system.
AJH
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thanks very much for that Kaiser
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@operamail.com wrote:

I wouldn't say that with any certainty.
garden 4 strokes are not optimised for fuel efficiency at all.
In general 2-strokes are used because they are lighter - stuff that doesn't have wheel on in effect.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As others have said, a Flymo uses quite a lot of its power just to hover: a self-propelled mower might use well under half a horsepower to turn a cutting cylinder, perhaps a little more for rotary cutters.
As a very, very rough guide, look at the rated power of the engine. For every horsepower, it will use about a pint of petrol an hour when working flat out, but it won't be anything like flat out in practice. So a typical 3.5hp pushed mower might use, say, 1 pint /hour, and a larger self-propelled one, with perhaps a 5hp engine, say 3 pints/hour. YMMV.
--
Kevin Poole
**Use current month and year to reply (e.g. snipped-for-privacy@mainbeam.co.uk)***
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 14:20:45 -0000, Autolycus wrote:

My milage does vary. My B&S 4.5 hp self-propelled 18" cut rotary does about 1pt/hr, this is on bumpy ground and cutting long grass. Also rough paths on steep hills.
--
Cheers snipped-for-privacy@howhill.com
Dave. pam is missing e-mail
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Liquorice wrote:

My 13.5bhp 'lawn' tractor does as little as a gallon an hour, or as much as a gallon every three, depending on the state of the grass.
Cost me about £3 an acre in fuel to cut grass.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.