[heygrassman]

Anyone have any thoughts on additional motor life expectancy with liquid cooled vs. air? I had a dealer tell me that liquid cooled scag would last 1/3 longer than air cooled. Seem reasonable?

Thank you

Jeff

 

[pinnacle]

As far as I'm concerned if you can afford liquid cooled D you should go that way. I had a liquid cooled saber tooth tiger when I was contracting for farmers and I can tell you now you will get longer service intervals and better life expectancy for the motor.

 

[DLS1]

Did the dealer give you any type of statistical proof like a study between liquid versus air cooled. It may be true what he said but I am real leary when dealing with salesmen. Thats why I like this site where people have used a product and can give real life experience answers versus salesman claims.

Of course you have to filter out people posting on this site who post like they know what they are talking about but may have never used the product. Their is a few people I would listen to on this site like Lawngodfather and Switchless to name a few since they have a history of giving what I think is real life experience good answers and tell it like it is.

That was long winded to just say don't believe everything you hear.

 

[TLS]

Theoretically, a LC engine allows the manufacturer to reduce clearances and make a "tighter" engine. This because there isn't such a large temperature swing as there is in an AC engine.

LC engines are quieter.

LC engines are slightly heavier. You have the radiator, and over a gallon of coolant.

LC engines have no little cooling fins to clog with grass and hinder its cooling efficiency.

I hope to say that my LC Kawi will last for quite a while, and allow it's next owner to enjoy years of trouble free use.

 

[GLAN]

Never owned a LC

But when buying a Walker. I was given the option and told of the difference.

Let's see if my memory serves me well


The Liquid Cooled is quieter, some would say not all that much.

The engine would run cooler for reasons already mentioned, thus extending life of the motor.

Repairs would be more expensive.

Machine would be heavier.

More regular service points.

Oil changes would not be needed as often.

 

[rodfather]

I would say that sounds reasonble (1/3 longer for liquid vs. air). Then again, that is only one issue to consider in determining the life of a machine. You need to also address the total PM program as in scheduled oil changes, lubrication, filter changes, and other things like environmental conditions, job site conditions, etc.

 

[pinnacle]

How many of you have owned liquid cooled? I have. Ah hello, you get longer service intervels.

 

[Lawn Tek]

My opinion air cooled gives a better return on investment .Air cooled will last 3000 to 6000 hours .With no coolant, water pumps, hoses , repairs to make . There is never a chance a blow hose / radiator will stop your day . Most people want a new mower ever 3 to 5 years , because better mowers are made each year . If you want to keep a mower for 10 years yea , water cooled may be your ticket .Condsidering the extra cost water cooled is not for me

 

[grassdaddy]

I agree with lawn tec--if your gonna trade in every couple years air cooled would be cheaper route.-However if you was going to keep one awhile,and or,mowed alot of large accounts,where hours of continous use, where engine was ran solid for hour upon hour I think L/C would be the way to go.--the maintence isn't really an issue with me,I still change oil every 25hrs on all mowers-a radiator flush and fill every couple yrs isn't a big deal.