I couldn't find the shop manual for my 2012 RER (it's either a 7800784 or 7800785 ) through the Snapper website, so I sent them an email. They sent me a PDF copy of the last Snapper RER shop manual, published several years ago. Cosmetics of the newer models have changed but not the mechanics. Also, my RER drives fine without the blade engaged. Once I engage the blade, everything is fine until I apply the brake/clutch pedal again. When I release the brake/clutch pedal, the mower will not move forward unless I rock it back and forth. But it will work in reverse. And the problem moving forward is worse if I have applied the brake/clutch pedal and placed it in reverse and then try a forward gear. I'm assuming that the problem lies in the drive disc height adjustment. I plan to replace the driven disc while I'm at it. The shop manual shows a "Tool To Hold Driven Disc #3-2392" that will help with removing/installing the driven disc and it will also help with setting the correct distance for the drive disc. The current part number appears to be 7060601YP Snapper or Briggs & Stratton and may be called a "Drive Disc Adjustment Tool" or "Adjustment Gauge".

Does all of this seem confusing? Opinions everywhere, pieces of facts here and there. Even suggestions of possible fraud in some cases have now surfaced in regards to some of the crashes. From a technicians viewpoint, I have to draw the line at personal experience with these cars and this problem. I have not observed a throttle sticking on one, so therefore I have not had the chance to actually search for the cause on my own. All I can do is rely on the information that basically everyone is getting to hear both from on the news and snippets from techs around the country. Remember all of these are also going to dealers to be fixed under warranty, the aftermarket (independent technicians) are not involved at all with this. One Toyota tech even did a video of how the repair is done and you can find it on YouTube which essentially amounts to removing the pedal assembly. The tech then measures a gap between two portions of the pedal assembly, and then he/she installs a shim to take up that space and that causes more spring return pressure in the pedal assembly. The push for years has always been to have techs that would robotic-ally simply identify a failed (failing) part, remove it and replace it. Remember its all about price, no matter how expensive one may think auto repair labor fee's are, I've said it many times it's under priced by a significant margin. Six months ago, the repair would again have been to replace the part if they found one sticking, and this may well have happened many times. I have never seen information to support or deny how often that may have occurred if it did much at all. The diagnosis and replacement of the pedal assembly likely paid a technician about 1/2 an hour's time for the job. I could very well imagine someone else at another time looking at that pedal assembly, and if they could not prove that it was faulty, they would back flag the dealership for the repair, who would in turn take back the pay that the technician got for doing the repair back off of him/her. Many people would take the position that the tech ultimately not being paid for that repair isn't their problem, and in a direct fashion that would be true on that day. But eventually these actions erode the technician talent pool, and is the fundamental cause of many of the anecdotal stories of poor service you have ever heard of, read or told. Lastly, there have been many times that I have seen people condemn American car manufacturers about quality, and they point to recalls as their proof. It really was just a numbers game before one of the imports suffered a big issue, Toyota's quality hasn't changed because engineering underestimated what appears to be the spring tension required on one specific part. GM and Ford especially were never as bad as consumer reports wanted to make them look. JMHO. Now the Prius brakes issue where there can be a delay under certain circumstances due to a rough road? I can picture what is occurring, the rough road bounces a wheel up and and immediately locks with almost no braking pressure. That would look like a need to begin an anti-lock function to the computer. This isn't something that a dealer technician could fix on his/her own. The fix would have to come in the form of software for the HV, and ABS computers. They could in some cases require a redesign of, or potentially add a yaw sensor if the car didn't come with one. They could even incorporate suspension height sensors to help detect road surface conditions. The wheel speed sensors alone do allow for detection of rough road conditions. There is a resonance to the lock-up that is occurring the system will recognize as not matching the anti-lock systems function, and be scored as road surface, which results in less ABS activation. In Toyota's case that time period must be significantly long which is allowing the drivers to observe it.

Machiem. Yep, bully. That's why you had to press this one more time. My bet is you won't let it end here either. Somehow this won't be quite enough "proof". When my insurance agent sits across from me at my desk and tells me this is happening, and shows me in my policy where they provide coverage, why should I doubt him? http://www.insuranc-e.com/faqa.htm Besides, from the website link above, this spells it out pretty clearly. Sorry that I cannot publish the exact language in MY insurance contract. That would be inappropriate. Quite similar in fact to the actions if I uploaded and displayed a schematic from my service information. That is a copywrite infringement, and while the majority of the time nobody really cares, it could, and I quote "could" be just the kind of thing that could get you sued, and that's not even for incorrect advice. Here is a quote from that website. Q) We do not currently use our Internet site for anything other than provision of information on our company. It is not interactive. How does this affect our position? A)The existence of a non-interactive web site in itself does not present the liability but the content may well do so. The broadcast or publishing risk nonetheless exists in some form and incorrect information or misuse of information from or on the site where third parties may be entitled to rely on the details, does present a potential legal exposure. Let me break this out for you. See the words, (phrases) incorrect information, risk, third parties, and potential legal exposure? That's enough for me to base my OPINION, you can take the text as FAQ, which does sound awfully close to "fact" if you try to pronounce it...... Here is another web site. http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2001/03/12/smallb4.html and from the text this quote: "Essentially, if there's any conceivable way a client could contend the performance of your Web site, products or services affected his or her business and sue you for it, you need to think about Internet insurance. A few types of coverage generally are offered." Now if you want to pick nit's and say "this isn't MY web site" then go ahead and put your head back in the sand. As far as the terms of service issue go. If you really believe they protect you and you feel safe, good for you. IMO logic dictates anyone with any pockets at all is fair game if someone thinks they have been harmed and are trying to recover. I'd rather have my insurance company deal with paying someone to argue that point, than me ponying up for someone to do so. Unless of course you would be willing to do it for free, and be the one to pay if you lose in court.

What a great help everyone is here. I thought to add my 2 cents as I have an X330. Drives me crazy why there are so many different models. Seems like I have to be very specific when ordering parts as they are not always the same as the X300. So I'm cutting the grass yesterday and towards the finish, Betsy wasn't moving forward or backwards very well. Just seemed that something bad happened. I stuck my head down behind the transmission area and it sounded to me like a grinding noise and as if something needed oil or lubrication. To make a long story short, I went through the procedures above and everything was smooth until I tried to remove the pulley and fan. My model has a bolt and not a snap ring. The bolt would just turn and move the shaft along with it. I tried a lot of things like trying to hold the shaft with some channel locks. Anyway, I did some searching on line and it turns out holding the pulley with my hand while using an impact wrench quickly did the trick. My pulley has no more teeth. Since I have to wait a few days to replace it, which John Deer's website's part number doesn't match. I cleaned the transmission up and was going to change the oil, but the oil looked very good. I have 330 hours on her and not doing any major work except cutting the yard and driving the lil wagon around with stuff in it. I closed it back up. So X330 users, be ware....