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
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
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.
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.
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.
**Use current month and year to reply (e.g. email@example.com)***
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.