Thanks for the feedback. I know where one scene from the Blues Brothers was shot in Park Ridge. Before they rebuilt Lower Wacker downtown, I also used to take out of town guests through there as the Blues Brothers portion of Chicago tours. I called a lawn mower repair shop in Niles and they said that they send reels out to be sharpened and that it cost $50 for the service. Can anyone compare the Sunlawn to the Scotts manual reel? Is there much difference if any? I've seen Brill got some unfavorable reviews in the forums so I guess I'll avoid them. Here's a place that sells a variety of manual reels including others besides Sunlawn or Scotts: http://reelmowersetc.com/products.htm. I'm gathering that the blades don't get very close to walls, trees, etc., so there's no getting around using an edger, is there?

I have both a Brill and a Scotts classic, and they both have their own advantages and disadvantages. For sure, I wouldn't use them on a big lawn (my house sits on slightly less than 1/4 acre). For the purposes of comparison, here's a rundown if anyone is interested in either mower. AFAIK, the sunlawn is similar to the Brill Maneuverability: The brill is much lighter than the scotts, and the rollers on the Brill make turning around obstacles much easier than the Scotts with the wheels. However, the Scotts is a bit easier to stay in a straight track because of this. Also, I find the Scotts better for hills, because the Brill is so light, the cut is compromised especially when going uphill or cutting sideways along a hill (where the wheels are slightly "lifted" up due to the light weight and slow the blade down). Advantage: for flat lawns with many obstacles, the Brill. For hilly lawns with no/few obstacles, the Scotts. The Blades: A lot of hype is touted with the contact free blade system of the Brill (and Sunlawn) over the scissor contact type blades of the Scotts (and many other traditional reel mowers). Yes, the Brill is much easier to push around when "not cutting grass", but when you are actually mowing, the difference is very little in the force required (and I'd attribute the difference to the narrower cutting width of the Brill). I also find I need to adjust the Brill once or twice a season for optimum performance (not the 4 years or whatever they claim) though it is very easy to do. There is also a good reason the Brill only has a maximum cutting height of 1.8": the cut quality suffers at its highest setting (in unevenness), but cuts awesome at the lower settings. I guess the blade needs to dig in lower where the leaf blade is stiffer and doesn't cut as well when the grass is longer and "floppier" You also need to maintain a decent speed when cutting with the Brill to get the best cut. The scissor blades of the Scotts are much less dependent on height and mowing speed than the Brill in getting a good cut. I'm not sure about sharpening interval, as I have only had the scotts a few months, but it is still cutting great. So, in my opinion, the contact free blade system might have an advantage in sharpening interval (with easy adjustments now and then), I prefer the cut of the Scotts overall, unless you are cutting short (under 1 1/2 in), where the Brill is probably equal. The dreaded wheel lines of the Scotts: Yes, you notice the lines, but they are less pronounced the shorter the cut, and depending on the grass type (I hardly notice them on my front lawn which is KBG, whereas it is more noticeable in the back with the KBG, fescue and rye mixture even at the same cutting height) The Brill with it's rollers has a much less noticeable track, and in fact due to it's slightly less quality cut (compared to scissor blades), looks more "natural", or like the lawn hasn't been cut recently (but nice and even, not that the lawn hasn't been cut!) So, I think neither is better than the other, it depends on your conditions. For a lawn with few obstacles and turns, but has hills, I'd recommend the Scotts even though it is heavier. For flat lawns with a lot of obstacles and curves and only minor grades, "and" you always cut shorter than 1.8", the Brill would be good. I'm glad I have both, as my lawn is in between the conditions that would prefer one or the other (some hills out back, flat in front, some obstacles and curves). If I only could have one, I would pick the Scotts mainly due to the higher cutting setting available. I will be pulling out my Brill when it gets cooler and am cutting shorter. As for my lawn, I get many good complements from the neighbors, who all use power rotary mowers, and some who even have sprinkler systems ( I use oscillating sprinklers when needed, and fertilize organically 90% of the time)

I am surprised at the pricing differential as well. Whether 7 blade or 10 blade, a price from $550 to $600 is very good given that McLane wants $950 to $1000 on their website. The Amazon price of $730 sounds about right, which would be a $200 discount from McLane list price. Keep in mind that the Sears mower is some kind of "Sears Only" model, which has probably been "dumbed-down" to lower the price point. The Sears engine has the older "Pulsa-Jet" carburetor with tank below the carb. The Amazon, as well as current Mclane production, now uses a Briggs with a float-feed carb, and the gas tank is above (gravity feed) the carb. That may result in the difference in torque ratings, although torque and horsepower ratings are subject to all kinds of manufacturer's manipulation. I suspect the $599 Home Depot model is also the older pulsa-jet as it is rated 3.5hp vs. 4hp with the Walbro float carb. Internet pricing can be crazy, so it pays to shop around. On the Tool Shed Forum a few days ago, a post had questions about McLane Edger pricing. Amazon had a 101 for $300 ($430 list) and an 801 for $330 ($525 list), yet wanted $650 for the 4G7P Honda Engine, which is full list price. Go figure.

The 17" is a completely different design. Among other things, the drive mechanism is a "mickey mouse" friction drive to the rear wheels, similar to that used in some cheap front wheel drive rotary mowers. Also, it uses a special engine with an extra 1/2 speed camshaft drive. Nothing inherently wrong with the engine, but if you have to replace the motor, your choices are considerably limited. The 20" and 25" are similar designs, both a lower cost knock off of the Trimmer. McLane uses belt drive to the mainshaft and a different reel and bedknife arrangement, but otherwise shares the roller propulsion drive and other features of the Trimmer.