Register free!

The Green Industry's Resource Center



Reply
 
Thread Tools   Display Modes
  #31  
Old 10-08-2013, 06:05 PM
Choppin Choppin is online now
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: crossett, ar
Posts: 529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valk View Post
I'll say that if EVERYTHING was the same (engine size/HP/impeller design?) except for the tube tips...then I could wrap my mind around this concept.

So what would happen if the 7500 tube tip was put on the 8500? Too much backpressure...&/or a possible 250mph air speed???
I was wondering the same thing I would thing the MPH would go up and the CFMs would come down but a 250mph blower with 800 CFMs would be nice
Posted via Mobile Device
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10-08-2013, 08:19 PM
Ridin' Green Ridin' Green is offline
LawnSite Fanatic
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 8,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valk View Post
I'll say that if EVERYTHING was the same (engine size/HP/impeller design?) except for the tube tips...then I could wrap my mind around this concept.

So what would happen if the 7500 tube tip was put on the 8500? Too much backpressure...&/or a possible 250mph air speed???
No. Go to Husky's website and study the specs. The 570 runs at higher RPMs than the 580. The 580 must have a slightly larger fan or more pitch or something ( I haven't removed a fan from each to see what the difference is) because it blows more air (on paper anyway), which makes its air stream more dense, thus more CFM. The fan on the 570 spins faster so more MPH. Changing the tube tip on the 580 is supposed to concentrate the stream into a smaller footprint on the ground, but defeats the purpose of the high CFM's by doing so. There is a forum member that doesn't post much, if at all, here anymore who has the 580. I believe he said he tried the 570 tube end, but preferred the stock end of the 580 for his purposes. Those comments are here on LS somewhere in his posts. He changed his forum name a couple times, so maybe he's here now under a different name, but if so, I'd be surprised because we get along well, but he likes to get into these threads and poke fun at my little 570 (which he admits scours better than his 580).
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 10-09-2013, 12:48 AM
ddixon7 ddixon7 is offline
LawnSite Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 339
The 8500 with its flared tip is better for what it is intended for, moving piles and piles of leaves. The 7500 with its pointed tip is better for what it is intended for, pin pointing on grass and debris.

In fact, today I was thinking this very thing. I purposely through tons of grass clippings into a parking lot and tested both the 8500 and 7500 side by side. The 8500 of course blew a wider swath. The 7500 blew a slightly narrower swath but deeper. Both are POWERFUL. Also, I ended up driving my mower over the grass clippings, which makes some of them stick to the concrete... The 7500 can "unstick" the smashed grass better than the 8500 because of its higher velocity and pin pointed nozzle.

The 8500 is undeniably moving more air, you can just feel it has more "kick." But, in REAL WORLD applications, they are almost the same. The 8500s strength deviates more towards leaves, and the 7500s strengths deviates more towards debris and grass.

The 8500 is noticeably taller and bulkier that the 7500 also.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 10-10-2013, 04:26 PM
Realslowww Realslowww is offline
LawnSite Bronze Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Melrose FL
Posts: 1,523
If you are trying to replace a street blower for larger pavement areas a 8500 for sure.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2012, LawnSite.comô - Moose River Media
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:24 AM.

Page generated in 0.05660 seconds with 7 queries