Jump to content

Nominations for Tractor of the Month
Garden Tractors and Parts on eBay



Photo
- - - - -

Goodbye to Horsepower


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 Tmo OFFLINE  

Tmo

    Tractorholic

  • Senior Member
  • Contributor
  • Member No: 2023
  • 356 Thanks
  • 486 posts
  • Location: Missouri

Posted September 07, 2011 - 08:40 AM

The following is taken from the Green Industries News:

Goodbye to Horsepower

Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. Engine and Power Products Division will begin rating its engines in accordance with SAE J2723. This marks a broad departure for the industry. Kawasaki officials believe this Critical Power rating will alleviate end-user confusion over horsepower labeling and "usable" power.

The new move to Critical Power ratings will not reflect the wide tolerance that is currently permitted by SAE J1940, which has been the generally applied industry standard. This new, stringent testing and rating method will assure consumers that they are receiving the power they expect for their application needs.

Kawasaki officials say purchases of Kawasaki-powered lawn and garden equipment can be assured that the production engines will produce at least 98% of their rated values, not the 15% potential variable permitted under SAE J1940.

SAE J2723 rating methodology, in combination with SAE J1995 Gross Power testing procedures witnessed by global testing agency, TÜV Rheinland Group, provides an accurate assessment for real world equipment applications for the engines. The agency verifies sample models from specific Kawasaki engine series.

Company officials said that end-users of original equipment products using engines from various manufacturers have suffered from uncertainty and confusion when comparing and making purchase decisions based on claimed horsepower ratings.

Kawasaki will stress performance and integrity in ratings through reliance on the very strict SAE J2723 standard. It is, according to the company, better suited to accommodate Kawasaki's advanced engine and manufacturing technologies.

None of the newly rated engines will exhibit performance differences when compared to current engines being sold.

Many of the company's engines are produced by Kawasaki Motors Manufacturing Corp., U.S.A. in Maryville, MO. Others are built at parent company facilities in Japan and Southeast Asia.

Here are the SAE specs listed in the article:

SAE J2723
Posted Image
saej2723.pdf (104.6 k)


SAE J1940

aej1940.pdf
Posted Image
  • tractorgarden said thank you

#2 NUTNDUN OFFLINE  

NUTNDUN

    Lost in Cyber Space

  • Admin
  • Staff
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Contributor
  • Member No: 3
  • 10,266 Thanks
  • 15,618 posts
  • Location: Pennsylvania

Posted September 07, 2011 - 09:12 AM

I understand the changes because of the average homeowner going out to buy a piece of equipment doesn't take in to account the average 15% deduction you should take off of peak hp to get your useable horsepower rating.

I think the rating that drive me nuts the most is the torque ratings and not putting the horsepower ratings on the engines.

#3 Cvans ONLINE  

Cvans

    Tractorholic

  • Senior Member
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Member No: 5412
  • 4,473 Thanks
  • 5,007 posts
  • Location: Eastern SD.

Posted September 07, 2011 - 11:33 AM

This reminds me of the turmoil that those of use that grew up with cubic inch displacement engines went through when the converted to cubic centimeters. I was totally lost for a couple of years. I guess we will have to adapt. The phrase HP has been so abused that it is not really useful anymore. Used to be that a 1/2 horse power bench grinder was something to recon with. Now a 1/2hp grinder won't hardly sharpen a screw driver without stalling. I'm not happy about it but what are we to do? Maybe this is another reason to enjoy our older garden tractors while we can.

#4 MH81 ONLINE  

MH81

    Proud to be Deplorable

  • Staff Admin
  • Staff
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Contributor
  • Member No: 802
  • 27,237 Thanks
  • 28,598 posts
  • Location: N. W. PA

Posted September 07, 2011 - 11:36 AM

I think the rating that drive me nuts the most is the torque ratings and not putting the horsepower ratings on the engines.


Yes, I don't want to have to do math just to compare products. How about one standard, one number, with explanation on products... not to much to ask, is it?

#5 Tmo OFFLINE  

Tmo

    Tractorholic

  • Senior Member
  • Contributor
  • Member No: 2023
  • 356 Thanks
  • 486 posts
  • Location: Missouri

Posted September 07, 2011 - 11:58 AM

What stands out for me is the 15% allowable variance by SAE J1940. The spec states that the actual number have to be at least 85% of the advertised number, meaning an advertised rating of 26 hp can, in reality, be only 22.1 hp.

#6 olcowhand ONLINE  

olcowhand

    Red Tractor Nut & Diesel Addict

  • Staff Admin
  • Staff
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Sponsor
  • Contributor
  • Member No: 20
  • 35,572 Thanks
  • 29,821 posts
  • Location: South Central Kentucky

Posted September 07, 2011 - 01:00 PM

meaning an advertised rating of 26 hp can, in reality, be only 22.1 hp.


IF you're lucky!

#7 Billygoat OFFLINE  

Billygoat

    Tractorholic

  • Senior Member
  • Member No: 2454
  • 76 Thanks
  • 206 posts

Posted September 07, 2011 - 01:05 PM

While reading this thread, I was also thinking about electric motors. Then I see Cvans post. I know what he means by that. Look at the HP ratings on some air compressors, table saws and vacuums. Going strictly by the horsepower ratings, one would think they were getting something. What one gets is scammed.

#8 caseguy OFFLINE  

caseguy

    Connoisseur of Rusty Junk

  • Senior Member
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Contributor
  • Member No: 906
  • 1,624 Thanks
  • 5,600 posts
  • Location: Edinburg, PA

Posted September 07, 2011 - 01:07 PM

Yes, I don't want to have to do math just to compare products. How about one standard, one number, with explanation on products... not to much to ask, is it?

I'm all for a single standard that uses a strictly defined HP rating. It always bothers me when they throw out the old stuff for something totally different, then they don't make everyone follow the new rule. Take your slide rule and your abacus next time you want to shop for power equipment!

#9 Cvans ONLINE  

Cvans

    Tractorholic

  • Senior Member
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Member No: 5412
  • 4,473 Thanks
  • 5,007 posts
  • Location: Eastern SD.

Posted September 07, 2011 - 01:07 PM

I wonder why we need a 15% veriance? Why not just be honest with the consumer? What ever happened with the "truth in advertising" act? Have you ever notice that the people that create these idiotic guidlines are never available to answer questions like these!:mad2:

#10 Tmo OFFLINE  

Tmo

    Tractorholic

  • Senior Member
  • Contributor
  • Member No: 2023
  • 356 Thanks
  • 486 posts
  • Location: Missouri

Posted September 07, 2011 - 01:24 PM

The SAE J2723 spec that Kawasaki is claiming to be used is to get manufacturers to follow a procedure for testing torque and horsepower and getting them to follow a particular rule for advertising those numbers. Here is one paragraph in SAE J2723:

The manufacturer shall report the declared power, declared torque and the respective speeds at which those values are
achieved. The power and torque shall be designated as net (SAE J1349) or gross (SAE J1995). The declared values are
those values that the manufacturer can use as “SAE Certified” in their product advertising and sales literature. The
measured values of torque and power must be at least 99% of the declared values to be certified.


These specs are to try and get the manufacturers to be more honest when declaring the values they do claim. Rather or not the manufacturers follow this guideline and who "polices" this is questionable in my opinion.

#11 ducky ONLINE  

ducky

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Contributor
  • Member No: 564
  • 1,623 Thanks
  • 3,860 posts
  • Location: Freedom, WI

Posted September 07, 2011 - 01:35 PM

I can remember back when a 2 horse Clinton on a Bolens walk-behind could pull a garden cultivator and a 5 " plow.

#12 Cvans ONLINE  

Cvans

    Tractorholic

  • Senior Member
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Member No: 5412
  • 4,473 Thanks
  • 5,007 posts
  • Location: Eastern SD.

Posted September 07, 2011 - 01:43 PM

:iagree: And a 12hp engine ran a 42" deck just fine. Now it takes 22hp to do the same thing. Go figure:anyone:

#13 olcowhand ONLINE  

olcowhand

    Red Tractor Nut & Diesel Addict

  • Staff Admin
  • Staff
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Sponsor
  • Contributor
  • Member No: 20
  • 35,572 Thanks
  • 29,821 posts
  • Location: South Central Kentucky

Posted September 07, 2011 - 01:51 PM

:iagree: And a 12hp engine ran a 42" deck just fine. Now it takes 22hp to do the same thing. Go figure:anyone:


And back in the olden days 22hp would pull 3 or 4 bottom plows!

#14 Cvans ONLINE  

Cvans

    Tractorholic

  • Senior Member
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Member No: 5412
  • 4,473 Thanks
  • 5,007 posts
  • Location: Eastern SD.

Posted September 07, 2011 - 04:38 PM

And back in the olden days 22hp would pull 3 or 4 bottom plows!



Never gave that a thought but it's very true!

#15 wilberj ONLINE  

wilberj
  • Senior Member
  • -GTt Supporter-
  • Contributor
  • Member No: 51
  • 4,179 Thanks
  • 5,205 posts
  • Location: Michigan

Posted September 07, 2011 - 06:37 PM

It all comes down to one thing. $$$




Top