Hello all.

Hi canguy. What are the make/ model number(s) of the Home Depot so called 'Earth Friendly' mowers ?

Good Day.

They will all be 'Earth Friendly' mowers in the next year or so.

For the EPA just passed a law requiring lower emissions on Lawn tractors and push mowers. According to the EPA mowers are responsible for 46% of the air population in the United States.

So Canguy check that mower closely. Bet it has a Catalytic converter which is now going to be required on all lawn and garden sized engines in the next year or two at the most..

Home Depot is just grabbing a head start in the game of these new mowers.

My prediction is when the laws takes effect. Briggs and Stratton will be the first small US engines to be put out of business. I just ordered three new Tecumseh 6.5 HP engines for my two 10356 LawnBoys. For I believe that they will soon follow Briggs into the history books. I hope that I am wrong. But who knows?

Hello all.

Thanks for the heads up guys.

I'm glad that I still have my Scotts Green Classic reel mower for its 20-inch cutting width, no catalytic converter required and maximum cutting height of 3 inches.

WD-40 keeps them blades rust free and spinning like a top.

So long Briggs & Stratton and Tecumseh.

Good day.

"Home Despot is running an ad claiming that a mower emits as much pollutants in one hour as the average car being driven 550 km, just over 300 miles..."

Why don't they tune it up?

I am directly involved in the OPE industry and we are seeing a lot of changes, some good and others questionable. The products are generally a lot better performing and easier starting with less maintenance required than what I started with in the early 70's.
Home Depot's claim and the EPA figure hippy cites seem a little over the top and appear designed to scare the consumer into compliance. How do they come up with these numbers? I would like to see results based on accepted scientific methods from a qualified unbiased agency if that is possible anymore.

Happening sooner than I expected..

ROLLA - Nearly 500 Rolla-area employees of the Briggs and Stratton Plant will be out of work by the end of the year.

Here is a link that might be useful: Closing Plant to Layoff 500 Jobs

hippy said: "Happening sooner than I expected..
ROLLA - Nearly 500 Rolla-area employees of the Briggs and Stratton Plant will be out of work by the end of the year."

Exactly what is happening sooner than you expected. Are you saying that emission controls are causing the reduced demand for small engines which resulted in the layoff at the Briggs plant?

The 300-mile claim isn't _that_ hard to swallow if you consider some of the likely test conditions. First, they don't say what mower engine. "A mower" could mean an L-head engine in bad tune, or who-knows-what. A new, well-tuned L-head is probably a very dirty mower because the chamber shape is so incredibly bad. As for the car side, new car engines are really, really clean running. I recall that a few years back Saab actually did a promo showing one of their cars' engines running directly off the exhaust fumes of another identical engine! A brand new car today has emissions controlled very well, and I don't think cars are even responsible for the majority of pollutants anymore - most of it from industrial emissions. And most of the pollutants from all cars in the US come from the worst 10-20% of vehicles on the road - things like 15-year-old Chevy's that aren't in tune anymore, and trucks (which haven't had the same emissions regs as cars up until now). Finally, if you drive at 45mph for 300 miles, a smaller new car is probably only going to need 10-15hp of actual output to maintain the speed on a level surface. So even though that's not a realistic driving scenario, that is probably what they compared. I could easily see that new car driven under those conditions could have less emissions than an L-head mower engine at full output for one hour.

What's misleading, though, is the actual usage rates of lawn equipment vs cars. Most households that have one mower have two or more cars, and each car is probably driven 15 hours/week or more, while the mower may run 30-45 minutes. And there are millions of apartment dwellers that have cars and no lawn. So although I'm sure lawn equipment does contribute some pollution, I find it hard to believe that it's really significant.

The flip side is that I think basic emissions can be implemented without a lot of pain. There are already catalytic converters on many trimmer 2-cycle engines, and they have only raised the price $20-30 without adding a lot of weight. You won't be able to match car emissions, but you could make major improvements without a lot of expense. I hope that those who tout electric equipment as a green solution remember all the coal that is burned to make that electricity!

"The 300-mile claim isn't _that_ hard to swallow if you consider some of the likely test conditions. First, they don't say what mower engine"

Excellent points. Are they creating a hypothetical comparison mower by picking well worn 2 stroke and 4 stroke motors? A more meaningful if less newsworthy comparison would be between new mower engines of 2006 and 2007 manufacture to new engines of this next generation of motors.

I read this story on at least 4 other websites and it seems to get retold a little differently each time. Or parts are picked out of context from the EPA study. One website talked about: "The average gasoline mower tested by the EPA emits in 1 hour of operation the same amount of hydrocarbons that a 1992 Ford Explorer emits over 23,600 miles".

Well, straight from the horse's (EPA's) mouth:

"Americans spend more than three billion hours per year using lawn and garden equipment. Currently, a push mower emits as much hourly pollution as 11 cars and a riding mower emits as much as 34 cars. With this proposed rule, nonroad gasoline-powered engines, such as those used in lawn and garden equipment, would see an additional 35 percent reduction in HC and NOx emissions beyond a 60 percent reduction that finished phasing in last year under an earlier rulemaking. Those engines would also see a 45 percent reduction in fuel evaporative emissions."

Let's break this down a bit. Three-billion hours per year sounds _very_ suspect. We have 350-million Americans total, including lots of children and senior citizens. If an average household is 4ish people, and we know that many households aren't in houses with land, then there are probably only a few million houses with land. But let's say there are 35-million to be generous. Am I supposed to believe that each household operates lawn equipment for 100 hours/year? I don't buy that. I wonder how they got that number?

So unregulated mowers currently pollute at the same rate as 11 new cars. That is, either the average emissions found by EPA tests or the current EPA standards for non-road small engines show that one average push mower engine emits the same amounts of "big three" greenhouse gasses as 11 cars for any given time period of operation. Now I can believe that, actually. As I wrote before, new cars are so tightly regulated by very sophisticated management systems that they are really clean.

Even if I think they are seriously overestimated the usage and impact of these engines, I still think it's worth reducing their emissions if it doesn't cost that much. And I don't think it will. I don't see these regs as the beginning of $1000k basic push mowers.

I found this very interesting:
"Additionally, recreational watercraft can emit as much as 348 cars an hour. By 2030, recreational watercraft powered by gasoline engines would see a 70 percent reduction in smog-forming hydrocarbon (HC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), a 20 percent reduction in carbon monoxide (CO), and a 70 percent reduction in fuel evaporative emissions. When fully implemented, the rule would result in annual emission reductions of 630,000 tons of HC, 98,000 tons of NOx, 6,300 tons of direct particulate matter, and 2.7 million tons of CO."

I can believe that, too, because many of these are still giant 2-strokes with 100hp and 600-700cc displacement. I've been wondering what's taking the EPA so long to get on their cases! The other thing I wonder about are the teeny little scooters and mini-mini-bikes in my neighborhood. I bet those are escaping regulation altogether as well.

Here is a link that might be useful: EPA Press Release on the

"Exactly what is happening sooner than you expected. Are you saying that emission controls are causing the reduced demand for small engines which resulted in the layoff at the Briggs plant?"

I mean just what I said.

"My prediction is when the laws takes effect. Briggs and Stratton will be the first small US engines to be put out of business."

Like about all US companies that will not spend the money to upgrade their factories or improve their product for fear that the CEO's will have to give up $10 or $15 dollars of their yearly income. They decided it best to just shut the doors and put 450 or so people out of work.

"Briggs & Stratton officials have said that redesigning their engines to comply with tougher regulations would be so costly they might have to move production overseas. The company employs more than 1,000 workers in Missouri."

Here is a link that might be useful: I mean just what I said.

Some good points made here, but let's try to be realistic: if there are plant closings, it is b/c EVERYTHING is cheaper to make in Asia, esp. China where there are few if any environmental and labor regs. See: the ongoing pet food disaster that has now crossed over to human consumption (hogs...our pork chops and bacon...poisoned from bad feed in CA, google it) -- all from China-sourced foodstuffs.

These companies have a hard time competing, yes, but that is b/c they are not being honest with themselves as Americans (how about an ad campaign saying it costs a little more to buy AMERICAN but it's worth it for these reasons: American jobs, American prosperity, American democracy, human rights, environmental considerations, etc.) -- plus, we as American consumers demanding cheap cheap cheap are also the problem. These guys are all itching to close up shop here and go to China. If not this, it would've only been a matter of time that they closed down anyway. GM is already sourcing engines from China. Wake up and smell the coffee, people. And yeah, I believe I heard a quote the other day that said the average S&P 500 CEO makes $14 mil a year while the employees make a miniscule fraction of that and are darn lucky to have anything approaching real health insurance.

Nothing's going to change until WE ALL start demanding moral rectitude from American companies and government. And yeah, that DOES include on the environment. There's no reason business interests and a cleaner environment can't coexist peacefully.

And if you think EPA is run by left-wing zealouts, you're completely misinformed. EPA is naturally an arm of the pro-biz Bush adminisistration with Bush appointees running the show, and any regs that come out are tempered from that stance...so you know whatever they are, they probably are not NEARLY as strong as they could be. I'm not making a political issue out of this, it is just a dose of objective reality...that we as Americans need to stand up for our country and do the right thing on so many levels, even if it costs us all a few bucks more.

And if you disagree with tighter environmental regs, then let me put it somewhere else where it hurts: anything less than us standing up with pride as Americans and demanding more from our comapnies and gov't -- is another nail in our ECONOMIC coffin...all in the name of stock prices and profit. Everything we do has consequences. Learn Mandarin if you're against these principles and regs, b/c the strength of your nation as you know it is being sold off.

Hello all.

Right on pacer!

Ohh....I was not aware that GM (General Motors) had already established a Chinese connection.

Good day.

remember it was bush senor who sighned the law speeding up the phase-out of r-12 freon. (so dupont could get rich allover again who holds the patton for r-134a

With 1.3 billion people, near 4 times the USA, there's a lotta cars to be sold in China. GM has been partnering with a Chinese company for a few years now pumping out Buick Centurys etc to the new Chinese middle class. Fortunately for the Chinese none of their GM cars have any emissions controls on them and are total polluters. So much for GM & Ford and all the rest who are making cars over there and their phony caring about the environment. The majority of China's agricultural land is so badly polluted now that nothing will grow on it without massive amounts of fertilizers, including many banned in N.American and Europe such as the infamous Melamine which is now causing all the grief over here with the pet foods etc. Little to no food actually grown in China is fit for human consumption according to the FDA and Health Canada. Everyone should take a few minutes or so and read up on the truth about China's agriculture and pollution problems as well as their unfair labor practices. It's absysmal and our companies are right in their for all they can make.

"Exactly what is happening sooner than you expected. Are you saying that emission controls are causing the reduced demand for small engines which resulted in the layoff at the Briggs plant?"

I mean just what I said.

Which was only one sentence with no support.

"My prediction is when the laws takes effect. Briggs and Stratton will be the first small US engines to be put out of business."

Like about all US companies that will not spend the money to upgrade their factories or improve their product for fear that the CEO's will have to give up $10 or $15 dollars of their yearly income. They decided it best to just shut the doors and put 450 or so people out of work.

"Briggs & Stratton officials have said that redesigning their engines to comply with tougher regulations would be so costly they might have to move production overseas. The company employs more than 1,000 workers in Missouri."

If your prediction is that Briggs & Stratton is going out of business, it is not supported by the Briggs & Stratton statement that they would move production overseas. I would see that statement as a negotiating tactic to get wages down, possibly to the level at the Honda mower plant in the USA.

mattv21, great stuff as always. I'd like to see a comparison of actual emissions of a new car doing 45 minute Saturday morning run with a cold start and three stops, where the engine never gets warm, and a new Honda mower mowing lawn for the same period. I don't think it would make their case nearly as effectively.

pkguy, GM isn't just making cars in China to sell in China. Every Chevy Equinox sold in the U.S. has a V-6 engine made in China.

China is about to pass the United States as the number one emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. They will not enjoy that notoriety. Futhermore, a growing middle class in China will not tolerate the continued increase in pollution. China will follow in the footsteps of every other developing country and use a portion of their increasing wealth to clean up their environment. The faster they get rich, the faster they lose their competitive edge.