love my Stihl equipment. . .

Shindaiwa has what they call the Hybrid 4, which some say Stihl copied for their 4mix. This article should give you an idea how the two stroke hybrids evolved.

Dirty Little Engines Get Cleaner For years two-strokes spewed blue smoke. Then the pollution police sent the manufacturers to the drawing boards. - May 13, 2002

Shindaiwa is good stuff the... h4 doesnt stack up against stihl 4 mix...just my opinion ...hybrid 2 strokes??? They need to leave the 2 cycles alone....if they got rid of them i would flip out. Thats all i like to mess with.........there aint many i havent worked on

themowerking20 said:

Shindaiwa is good stuff the... h4 doesnt stack up against stihl 4 mix...just my opinion ...hybrid 2 strokes??? They need to leave the 2 cycles alone....if they got rid of them i would flip out. Thats all i like to mess with.........there aint many i havent worked on

Click to expand...

You will see more and more company's following the 4 mix or 4 stroke revolution. The 2 strokes will be phased out in time, maybe not this year or even next but it will happen. My advice would be if you have a piece of equipment go down and you need to replace it buy the new technology and forget the old.

Or collect your 2 cycles ...they may be worth something one day ....lol ....im not giving in to 4stroke_2cycles yet....only advantage ive seen on 4mix you can run it upside down ...when you cant do that with a true 4stroke that has oil in the crankcase ....i know emissions emissions emissions....it makes sense ...but to me.. bullbologna..ha

This is the first time I have heard of a 4 mix engine. Looks like its a 4 cycle engine that has no oil in the crank case but runs with oil mixed in the gas. I can't see why it would run any cleaner then a 2 cycle and still would be heaver. I guess time will tell how it will work.

reynoldston said:

This is the first time I have heard of a 4 mix engine. Looks like its a 4 cycle engine that has no oil in the crank case but runs with oil mixed in the gas. I can't see why it would run any cleaner then a 2 cycle and still would be heaver. I guess time will tell how it will work.

Click to expand...

I can't believe you've never heard of the Stihl 4 Mix engine. It's a four-stroke engine that combines the advantages of two-stroke and four-stroke units, fewer emissions, lower weight, higher torque and runs on the regular 50.1 mixture, no crankcase. It was introduced by Stihl I believe in 2002 so it's well proven.

themowerking20 said:

Snapper all the way for the push mower.....and try a stihl fs70 trimmer its pro grade and it aint 4 mix

Click to expand...

I too have an FS 70rc weedeater.Beastly.I let my neighbor use it yesterday (5/8/18) for a small project,when he finished all he could say is :"I've GOTTA get one of these".More power than he expected.Got the job done and more.He's about 6'2.

All of this is really a case of smoke & mirrors, particularly the statistics.
The " houshold" figures exclude pubic transport , busses, trucks, trains & jet aircraft.
It includes cars mowers electricity & gas including that used to generate electricity.
Now 5% of that is a very long bow.

They tried the same BS down here and thankfully got shot down in flames when asked about the exclusions from the measurements.

They even tried to make things worse by using "week end " emissions when a lot of cars are at home all day and the mower & trimmers are out being used.

Even at 1% it sound really good, till you take into account what they excluded.

A 747 jet taking off uses about 2 gallons of fuel a second for about 5 to 10 minutes till it gets to cruise level.
At take off the engines are about 90% efficient ( at best ) so that means of the 1,200 gallons of jet 1 pouring into the engines about 120 gallons go in one end and come out the other unless they are using after burners which they can not use if they want the houses below to keep their tiles on the roof.

Now there are around 70,000 jet flights / day in the USA so roughly 8,000,000 gallons of unburned fuel each and every day from jet travel that works out at 56,000,000 gallons of unburned fuel a week.

Now there are about 118,000,000 houses in the USA, so to be emitting the same amount of unburned fuel as avaition alone each house would have to pour out a tad less than 1/2 gallon of two stroke fuel into a bowl and let it evaporate.
Now very few of those house holds would use anything like 1/2 gallon of 2 stroke a week, let alone having a 1/2 gallon pass through the hand held device unburned.

And I have not bothered to add busses , trucks, shipping or industry to the calculations so even if you use the BS 5% figure, it is 5% of 0.01% total emissions or in laymans terms SFA.

Now making things burn cleaner is in itself a good idea, I don't particularly like paying for fuel that gets blown out the exhaust or burned in a after burner ( catalytic converter to hide it's true function ) that does not produce any power for my equipment. But don't fool yourself into believing it will make any measurable difference to any pollution apart from noise.
Then on top of that there is the inbuilt pollution that gets generated i making the equipment that will not last as long thus require more frequent replacement and the logistic pollution in getting it from where it was made to your door.

So you see it is really a fools errand to make it look like a lot of overpaid but well meaning beurocrats are actually earning their keep ( which they are not )

Bert,BERT,take a breath.GOD knows i'm not into engineering,but i kept up to a point.Take a breath.It's a forum.Everyone has an opinion bruh.It's not that serious....breathe.

The problem is if one does not take a stand and point out hyprocrosity then the total BS gets taken as truth and people get walked over.
So a bannar headline proclaims that "Hand held equipment pollution reduced by 95%" and it looks great and we all feel OK about paying 20% more for them because they are so much "better for the enviroment" when in reality it makes about the same amount benefit as urinating in the Pacific Ocean raises world ocean levels.

The entire article, while containing some truths is basically a lie from start to finish and a total misrepresentation of the actual state of the enviromentm and enviromental protection
We had a public forum quite some time ago when a consummer group claimed a great victory that the last locally made mower engine would go out of production because it was a filthy 2 stroke engine,'Unfortunately for them there were actually some engineers in the audience who very clearly established that it would take 15 years of normal use for the Briggs on a bowl replacement to catch catch up to the Victa because of the embedded pollution in the manufacture of the Briggs engine and its shipment to Australia.
And that was if and only if the Briggs on a Bowl maintianed it's new engine level of emissions.
However the emission compliance of the new engines only last for 5 years, by which time they are so worn that they are burning 1/3 the amount of oil that the 2 strokes do.
By 10 years the Briggs on a bowl is burning more oil than the Ecotorque 2 stroke @ a 100:1 ratio and has reached the end of it's design life.
Now the 2 stroke has a design life of 30 years and when run to the end of it's design life would have been responsible for 2/3 the total emissions that the Briggs on a bowl would be responsible for if it lasted 30 years.
If it was replaced at 15 years this blows out to 1/2.
If the Briggs only last the 10 year design life the the 2 stroke would be 1/4 of the total pollution from using the 4 strokes over a 30 year period.
Now this assumes that the 4 strokes do not get significantly cleaner and the foundries that cast the alloy parts remelt the old mowers to make the new and are powered using current coal fired electricity.
A pound of aluminium has 20 times the embedded pollution of a pound of cast iron.
So a modern "clean" all alloy engine is pollution wise increadably dirty even before the first time it gets fired up.

It is easy and quite lazy just to run the exhaust through a spectrometer and claim one engine is cleaner than another.