Outdoor Power Equipment (Lawn Mowers, Snow Blowers, Chain Saws and more) Discussions

I posted earlier here that I swapped my Toro 1128 for an Ariens 1332. I thought offer some comparisons here..

I bought my Toro 1128 OXE from the local dealer in December of 2006. It was the first walk-behind blower I'd ever owned. I have a double-wide paved driveway about 75' long with turnaround and we get well over 100" of snow yearly, so I didn't want to get caught short. It served me well, but the only regret I had was wishing it was a tad wider. Recently, an Ariens 1332 LE (924128) came up on Craigslist. The seller wanted to trade for a slightly smaller machine. The Ariens was two years older but with very little use, so we agreed to an even trade. I've not had much use with the Ariens yet, but have gone over it very carefully, so I'm posting the differences I've found thus far.

The Toro was at the time, and still is, their top-of-the-line offering. They used to build 12- and 1332's, I believe, but this 1128 is now their biggest. The Ariens, on the other hand, I believe is the biggest machine available at the big box stores (or was--recent trip to HD found 6 hp to be the biggest Ariens in stock); bigger and more deluxe machines (1336) are available at Ariens dealers.

Both machines feature Tecumseh power, but the 13hp has a counterbalancer, hence the Ariens is a bit smoother. Both machines start easily: five pokes of the primer, full choke, half throttle, give the cord a limp-wrist half pull and they're running (heated garage). I've never used the 120v electric starter, but it's nice to know it's there.

The first (and biggest) difference that jumps out is in maneuverability. The Toro has the trigger steering, which not only aids steering the machine during usage, but makes it a snap to wheel around when the engine's shut off. As it's a well-balanced machine, you just pull both triggers, tip back and it's no more difficult to move around on hard surfaces than a wheelbarrow. The Ariens has a solid axle with no steering assist, and weighs about 50 lbs more. The only option you have is to pull the pin on the right wheel which then makes it free-wheeling. In order to do this, you must get the wheel off the ground (I use the "service position"). This is a heavy machine, and I have my concerns about maneuvering during usage. Time will tell. Ariens does offer machines with trigger steering and/or a full differential, which I understand works very well.

The Toro makes use of plastic (or perhaps "polymer")components--including the chute and "Quickstick" control. This is disconcerting at first, and seems cheaper than the Ariens which is all steel construction. However, I never had a problem with the plastic, and the chute never clogged--not one time. The included chute cleaning device on the Ariens says that I can expect some clogging.

As previously mentioned, the Toro has the "Quickstick" chute control. This is a very good design, but takes getting used to. A previous post made reference to the "loose fire hose" effect, and that's not totally inaccurate. Once you get used to it, though, it is slick. The Ariens has the 2.5 crank which works well with a separate deflection control. The newer Ariens have a sliding chute control lever which I understand has been somewhat problematic.

The Ariens seems to be a bit heavier built than the Toro. The bottom panel bolts are 9/16" head on the Ariens, while the Toro has 7/16" or even smaller if memory serves me correctly. The Ariens bottom panel is once-piece; Toro is two, making the Ariens more easily accessible from underneath. The Ariens owner's manual is much more comprehensive than the Toro--I performed virtually all regular maintenance on the Ariens that could have been done by the dealer--and armed only with the owner's manual.

The Ariens has a 16" auger while the Toro has a 14". The Ariens has zerk fittings and shear-bolts; the Toro has neither, as they claim their gearbox will withstand anything (I had no problems during my time with it).

The Toro has the pivoting scraper blade which the Ariens lacks. However, the Ariens scraper blade is easily reversible/replaceable, which the Toro's isn't. I never did quite figure out the advantage to the pivoting blade--it sort of appeared to me to be engineering overkill. My paved driveway does have some cracks and lumps, so we'll see if the Ariens fetches up on them. I do like the idea of easy scraper blade replacement.

The Ariens has handwarmers; the Toro does not. It also has larger tires, but as it's a larger machine it needs them.

Well, that's it for now. I am of course comparing a non-current Ariens to a current Toro, and I've tried to make my comments reflect that.

UPDATE: I've used the Ariens now on two light storms now (both about 3"). It is harder to maneuver than the Toro, expected. The 13 hp Tecumseh, which I'm told has a counterbalancer (thanks, Snowmann!) is indeed smoother than the 11hp, and really makes a nice muffled exhaust bark when it comes into heavier snow. The Ariens is a bit more forward-weighted than the Toro, which was almost centered on the wheels. This makes the Ariens a little less likely to ride up, but doesn't seem to affect traction. Snow blowing distance seems to be about the same--both machines excel. The 2.5 chute crank on the Ariens works well enough that I don't really miss the slick Quickstick. When clearing out the mailbox I broke a shearpin with the Ariens, which I never did with the Toro in two and a half years. The extra 4" width of the Ariens doesn't seem like much, but it makes a world of difference. The handwarmers are very nice.

Both good machines. Toro more maneuverable, Ariens heavier and a real beast. I like 'em both, but I recommend that any machine of this size should have some sort of steering assist.

Nice comparison.  The one engineering difference that I see with Ariens is that their full sized machines come with a 14" impeller compared to 12" impellers for most other makes.  I don't have an working physics or engineering background so I wonder if the larger impeller is meaningful from a performance aspect.

It depends.

1. If both impellers are turning at the same RPM then the larger diameter will throw equivalent snow further since the velocity at the end of the impeller arms is higher;
2. Alternatively for the same arm velocity the larger impeller is turning at a lower RPM and bearings might last longer;
3. Assuming the depth of the blades and the RPM are the same the larger diameter will move a larger volume of snow per minute. The cylinder formed by the impeller has a larger volume;
4. If it is larger volume and / or further then there is more strain on the drive train and things will wear faster and then engine will work harder.

Just to let you know. Briggs & Stratton  engines do have counter Balance in there engines. They all do If not the engine will shake itself apart.There are different designs. Some have counter weights like car engines others don't . Briggs uses led shot in there cranks

bus708 wrote:

Neither of these statements is correct.

You are referring to primary balance to cancel 1st order vibration. This would be a requirement for any reciprocating engine. What is being referred to in the thread above is the balance shaft in the Tecumseh 358cc OHV that cancels secondary (2nd order) vibration. This is why this particular engine (Tecumseh Snow King 358cc OHV, OHSK358, OH358SA) has an offset bolt pattern (relative to the crankshaft and PTO cover) when compared to the 318cc L-head/OHV and the 358cc L-head. They had to make room for the balance shaft. Briggs does not have this on their comparable 305/342cc snow engines, nor are they capable of being equipped with such. The Tecumseh 358cc OHV snow engine vibrates about half as much as the comparable Briggs engines, and about a quarter as much as the other "large" Tecumseh engines (albeit in the final year or two they got a bit better at cancelling the 1st order vibrations with light piston technology on the other large engines).  Some Honda GX engines are capable of being equipped with balance shafts, as well as some of the derivative clones, but it is rare to be spec'd with this feature.

Also, the crankshafts for the comparable Briggs engines in this discussion are statically balanced and machined to acheive primary balance. This is done by drilling or facing the offest counterweight. Lead shot is not used. I would speculate lead shot, Mallory metal, or other heavy metals are almost never used in a production environment to balance crankshafts (at least not in modern times).

PK