I am looking for a new snow blower and have discovered that the power rating
of the engines are no longer in "Horse Power" but in "Foot Pounds" if given
at all. Sometimes all that is given is the CC's of the engine.

Even the people selling these machines don't know what the "Horse Power"
ratings are so that old geezers like myself can understand what is going on.
Does anyone have any general rules regarding the conversion of Foot Pounds
or CC's to Horse Power?

--
Ron P

Quick questions rarely have quick answers

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 09:35:04 -0400, "Worn Out Retread"
wrote:

I am looking for a new snow blower and have discovered that the power rating
of the engines are no longer in "Horse Power" but in "Foot Pounds" if given
at all. Sometimes all that is given is the CC's of the engine.

Even the people selling these machines don't know what the "Horse Power"
ratings are so that old geezers like myself can understand what is going on.
Does anyone have any general rules regarding the conversion of Foot Pounds
or CC's to Horse Power?

Your best bet is to find old literature for small engines and make a
chart of displacement=hp. Then use that chart to determine approximate
HP of newer equipment where you know the displacement but not the HP.
It will be a fairly accurate guide.

"Worn Out Retread" wrote in message
...
I am looking for a new snow blower and have discovered that the power
rating of the engines are no longer in "Horse Power" but in "Foot Pounds"
if given at all. Sometimes all that is given is the CC's of the engine.

Even the people selling these machines don't know what the "Horse Power"
ratings are so that old geezers like myself can understand what is going
on. Does anyone have any general rules regarding the conversion of Foot
Pounds or CC's to Horse Power?

Horsepower to CC is highly variable and not a good measure of power. My
cars have different engines. The 3800 cc is 190 HP but my 3300 cc is 234
HP. I suspect smaller engines are similar.

Foot Pounds is actually more useful as it is the torque to the shaft that is
doing the work. That said, none are truly meaningful in the whole scheme of
things. What good is high horsepower ratings with a poorly designed snow
throwing system?

Check out some models here
http://www.dontshovel.com/snow_blower_comparisons.html
http://www.consumerdemocracy.com/phe...spx?catId=9996

If I was buying a new machine, I'd base my decision on features, size, drive
type, and what is important for my situation. The manufacturer will couple
the right sized engine to perform with the design of his machine. A half HP
difference is going to be not noticed, but a clogged chute will **** you off
every time.

Worn Out Retread wrote:
I am looking for a new snow blower and have discovered that the power
rating of the engines are no longer in "Horse Power" but in "Foot
Pounds" if given at all. Sometimes all that is given is the CC's of the
engine.

Even the people selling these machines don't know what the "Horse Power"
ratings are so that old geezers like myself can understand what is going
on. Does anyone have any general rules regarding the conversion of Foot
Pounds or CC's to Horse Power?

Unfortunately, not at all precisely, no...thanks to the dam lawyers

One can _VERY_CRUDELY_ estimate hp at about 60-70% of torque.

The relationship I recall (I'd have to go off and think again to
re-derive the denominator) of hp ~ torque (ft-lb)*rpm/5250 which boils
down to the above since most ratings are at 3200-3600 rpm.

Unfortunately, that's about best one can do other than simply try to
find similar engine w/ known rating and compare based on displacement.
Problem there is that tune and emissions requirements, etc., make that
comparison as variable as the above.

Earlier Northern Tool catalog still listed an unofficial "old hp rating"
as well but I just looked and the last one doesn't. Now I'm hoping I
didn't throw the old one away and lose that cross-reference.

All in all, it sucks to guess how to compare even worse than before when
ratings could be tweaked--at least you knew what Sears was doing w/
"peak" or "instantaneous" horsepower; the torque ratings might be
absolutely accurate but they're still nearly useless as a comparison to
previous ratings and certainly there's not even the same measure used if
only provide displacement in one and torque in another.

--

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:01:54 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:


"Worn Out Retread" wrote in message
...
I am looking for a new snow blower and have discovered that the power
rating of the engines are no longer in "Horse Power" but in "Foot Pounds"
if given at all. Sometimes all that is given is the CC's of the engine.

Even the people selling these machines don't know what the "Horse Power"
ratings are so that old geezers like myself can understand what is going
on. Does anyone have any general rules regarding the conversion of Foot
Pounds or CC's to Horse Power?

Horsepower to CC is highly variable and not a good measure of power. My
cars have different engines. The 3800 cc is 190 HP but my 3300 cc is 234
HP. I suspect smaller engines are similar.


For the types of engines generally found on lawn equipment, comparison
of new engines and old engines of same brand and displacement is a
valid comparison. These are utility engines designed to run at optimum
RPM's while in use. A car engines is vastly different in it's
requirements.

If an old snowthrower with a 13 hp Briggs engine is 350cc, then a new
350cc Briggs powered snow blower will be about the same HP.

wrote in message
If an old snowthrower with a 13 hp Briggs engine is 350cc, then a new
350cc Briggs powered snow blower will be about the same HP.


B & S is using the foot pounds from what I've seen. an 8.5 ft lb is 6.5 hp
11.5 = 7.5 hp 15.5 = 11 hp

Van Chocstraw wrote:
....
CC's equate more to Cubic Inches. Foot pounds equate to horsepower.

cc and ci are both displacements, yes.

torque and horsepower aren't the same units at all---

Multiply horsepower by 33,000 to get foot pounds.

So a 3hp lawnmower has almost 100,000 ft-lb of torque??? Amazing! Them
are some stout crankshafts...

Actually hp*33,000 -- ft-lbs/minute, _not_ ft-lb (as the table shows).
The "per minute" part is significant here.

--

dpb wrote:
Van Chocstraw wrote:
...
CC's equate more to Cubic Inches. Foot pounds equate to horsepower.

cc and ci are both displacements, yes.

torque and horsepower aren't the same units at all---

Multiply horsepower by 33,000 to get foot pounds.

So a 3hp lawnmower has almost 100,000 ft-lb of torque??? Amazing! Them
are some stout crankshafts...

Actually hp*33,000 -- ft-lbs/minute, _not_ ft-lb (as the table shows).
The "per minute" part is significant here.

Yes, "per minute" is the key. Same as how horsepower is measured.

"Horsepower is defined as work done over time. The exact definition of
one horsepower is 33,000 lb.ft./minute. Put another way, if you were to
lift 33,000 pounds one foot over a period of one minute, you would have
been working at the rate of one horsepower. In this case, you'd have
expended one horsepower-minute of energy."

http://www.web-cars.com/math/horsepower.html

Tony wrote:
dpb wrote:
Van Chocstraw wrote:
...
CC's equate more to Cubic Inches. Foot pounds equate to horsepower.

cc and ci are both displacements, yes.

torque and horsepower aren't the same units at all---

Multiply horsepower by 33,000 to get foot pounds.

So a 3hp lawnmower has almost 100,000 ft-lb of torque??? Amazing!
Them are some stout crankshafts...

Actually hp*33,000 -- ft-lbs/minute, _not_ ft-lb (as the table
shows). The "per minute" part is significant here.

Yes, "per minute" is the key. Same as how horsepower is measured.

"Horsepower is defined as work done over time. The exact definition of
one horsepower is 33,000 lb.ft./minute. ...

Well, DOH! if 1-hp * 33,000 ft-lb/min/hp = 1 hp I guess it would follow
that the definition of 1 hp == 33,000 ft-lb/min...

--

On Oct 10, 10:57*am, Van Chocstraw
wrote:
Worn Out Retread wrote:
I am looking for a new snow blower and have discovered that the power
rating of the engines are no longer in "Horse Power" but in "Foot
Pounds" if given at all. Sometimes all that is given is the CC's of the
engine.

Even the people selling these machines don't know what the "Horse Power"
ratings are so that old geezers like myself can understand what is going
on. Does anyone have any general rules regarding the conversion of Foot
Pounds or CC's to Horse Power?

They are just trying to pull one over on us by frigging up standard
ratings in the US.
CC's equate more to Cubic Inches. Foot pounds equate to horsepower.
Multiply horsepower by 33,000 to get foot pounds.
It's just another crooked business tactic to screw you over.

See the chart:http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/S...53/convert.htm

CC is cubic centimeters, CI is cubic inch, my new toro is 6.75 ft lbs
of crap, it doesnt cut as well as an old 3.5 hp engine, the new
ratings just decieve all. I thought my toro was 6.75 hp, I was ready
to junk it because it bogs so bad.

On Oct 10, 8:35*am, "Worn Out Retread" wrote:
I am looking for a new snow blower and have discovered that the power rating
of the engines are no longer in "Horse Power" but in "Foot Pounds" if given
at all. Sometimes all that is given is the CC's of the engine.

Even the people selling these machines don't know what the "Horse Power"
ratings are so that old geezers like myself can understand what is going on.
Does anyone have any general rules regarding the conversion of Foot Pounds
or CC's to Horse Power?

--
Ron P

Quick questions rarely have quick answers

Talk to a local shop that sells and services them, you wont get any
service at the big stores

Worn Out Retread wrote:
I am looking for a new snow blower and have discovered that the power
rating of the engines are no longer in "Horse Power" but in "Foot
Pounds" if given at all. Sometimes all that is given is the CC's of the
engine.

Even the people selling these machines don't know what the "Horse Power"
ratings are so that old geezers like myself can understand what is going
on. Does anyone have any general rules regarding the conversion of Foot
Pounds or CC's to Horse Power?


the HP is really irrelevant. Don't worry about it.

"Van Chocstraw" wrote in message
...
Worn Out Retread wrote:
I am looking for a new snow blower and have discovered that the power
rating of the engines are no longer in "Horse Power" but in "Foot Pounds"
if given at all. Sometimes all that is given is the CC's of the engine.

Even the people selling these machines don't know what the "Horse Power"
ratings are so that old geezers like myself can understand what is going
on. Does anyone have any general rules regarding the conversion of Foot
Pounds or CC's to Horse Power?


They are just trying to pull one over on us by frigging up standard
ratings in the US.
CC's equate more to Cubic Inches. Foot pounds equate to horsepower.
Multiply horsepower by 33,000 to get foot pounds.
It's just another crooked business tactic to screw you over.

See the chart: http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/S...53/convert.htm

Not so! You neglected the time part of the conversion--it's (ft-lbs/Min).
RPM is an input too all of this
MLD

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 09:35:04 -0400, "Worn Out Retread"
wrote:

I am looking for a new snow blower and have discovered that the power rating
of the engines are no longer in "Horse Power" but in "Foot Pounds" if given
at all. Sometimes all that is given is the CC's of the engine.

Even the people selling these machines don't know what the "Horse Power"
ratings are so that old geezers like myself can understand what is going on.
Does anyone have any general rules regarding the conversion of Foot Pounds
or CC's to Horse Power?


Foot lbs X rpm /5252 is horsepower. So you need to know the RPM.

The reason they have done this is because several companies were sued
for over-rating the horsepower their engines actually put out.
Like a lawn mower has a 4.5 HP engine (rated at 3600 rpm by the
manufacturer) but because of the blade length and safety regulations
the engine is limited to 2400 RPM on the mower (maximum velocity of
discharge limit). So the 4.5HP engine is now 2.85 HP - but it is STILL
a 6.56 ft lb engine.

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:19:38 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:01:54 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:


"Worn Out Retread" wrote in message
...
I am looking for a new snow blower and have discovered that the power
rating of the engines are no longer in "Horse Power" but in "Foot Pounds"
if given at all. Sometimes all that is given is the CC's of the engine.

Even the people selling these machines don't know what the "Horse Power"
ratings are so that old geezers like myself can understand what is going
on. Does anyone have any general rules regarding the conversion of Foot
Pounds or CC's to Horse Power?

Horsepower to CC is highly variable and not a good measure of power. My
cars have different engines. The 3800 cc is 190 HP but my 3300 cc is 234
HP. I suspect smaller engines are similar.


For the types of engines generally found on lawn equipment, comparison
of new engines and old engines of same brand and displacement is a
valid comparison. These are utility engines designed to run at optimum
RPM's while in use. A car engines is vastly different in it's
requirements.

If an old snowthrower with a 13 hp Briggs engine is 350cc, then a new
350cc Briggs powered snow blower will be about the same HP.
Unless the old 350cc 13hp Briggs is a "side valve" engine with 5.6:1
compression ratio, and the new 350cc engine is an overhead valve
engine with 11.5:1 compression ratio - which MIGHT be a 18HP engine.

Numbers just picked out of thin air, but the principal is there.

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:04:18 -0500, dpb wrote:

Worn Out Retread wrote:
I am looking for a new snow blower and have discovered that the power
rating of the engines are no longer in "Horse Power" but in "Foot
Pounds" if given at all. Sometimes all that is given is the CC's of the
engine.

Even the people selling these machines don't know what the "Horse Power"
ratings are so that old geezers like myself can understand what is going
on. Does anyone have any general rules regarding the conversion of Foot
Pounds or CC's to Horse Power?

Unfortunately, not at all precisely, no...thanks to the dam lawyers

One can _VERY_CRUDELY_ estimate hp at about 60-70% of torque.

The relationship I recall (I'd have to go off and think again to
re-derive the denominator) of hp ~ torque (ft-lb)*rpm/5250 which boils
down to the above since most ratings are at 3200-3600 rpm.

Unfortunately, that's about best one can do other than simply try to
find similar engine w/ known rating and compare based on displacement.
Problem there is that tune and emissions requirements, etc., make that
comparison as variable as the above.

Earlier Northern Tool catalog still listed an unofficial "old hp rating"
as well but I just looked and the last one doesn't. Now I'm hoping I
didn't throw the old one away and lose that cross-reference.

All in all, it sucks to guess how to compare even worse than before when
ratings could be tweaked--at least you knew what Sears was doing w/
"peak" or "instantaneous" horsepower; the torque ratings might be
absolutely accurate but they're still nearly useless as a comparison to
previous ratings and certainly there's not even the same measure used if
only provide displacement in one and torque in another.


Multiply the old rating X 5252 and devide by 3600 and you have the
torque rating of the old engine to compare. Virtually all of the old
engines were rated at 3600 rpm.

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:57:52 -0400, Van Chocstraw
wrote:

Worn Out Retread wrote:
I am looking for a new snow blower and have discovered that the power
rating of the engines are no longer in "Horse Power" but in "Foot
Pounds" if given at all. Sometimes all that is given is the CC's of the
engine.

Even the people selling these machines don't know what the "Horse Power"
ratings are so that old geezers like myself can understand what is going
on. Does anyone have any general rules regarding the conversion of Foot
Pounds or CC's to Horse Power?


They are just trying to pull one over on us by frigging up standard
ratings in the US.
CC's equate more to Cubic Inches. Foot pounds equate to horsepower.
Multiply horsepower by 33,000 to get foot pounds.
It's just another crooked business tactic to screw you over.

See the chart: http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/S...53/convert.htm
PARDON?????
My 140HP Corvair puts out 4,620,000 ft lbs of
torque????????????????????????????

WOW!!!!!

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 12:20:17 -0700 (PDT), ransley
wrote:

On Oct 10, 10:57Â*am, Van Chocstraw
wrote:
Worn Out Retread wrote:
I am looking for a new snow blower and have discovered that the power
rating of the engines are no longer in "Horse Power" but in "Foot
Pounds" if given at all. Sometimes all that is given is the CC's of the
engine.

Even the people selling these machines don't know what the "Horse Power"
ratings are so that old geezers like myself can understand what is going
on. Does anyone have any general rules regarding the conversion of Foot
Pounds or CC's to Horse Power?

They are just trying to pull one over on us by frigging up standard
ratings in the US.
CC's equate more to Cubic Inches. Foot pounds equate to horsepower.
Multiply horsepower by 33,000 to get foot pounds.
It's just another crooked business tactic to screw you over.

See the chart:http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/S...53/convert.htm

CC is cubic centimeters, CI is cubic inch, my new toro is 6.75 ft lbs
of crap, it doesnt cut as well as an old 3.5 hp engine, the new
ratings just decieve all. I thought my toro was 6.75 hp, I was ready
to junk it because it bogs so bad.
It is the "old" 4.5 HP, but because of speed limits it is really
only 3 hp - assuming 2400 RPM limit.

On a 24" mower, the blade tip travels 75.36 inches (6.28 ft) per
revolution. At 3600 rpm that is 22,608 ft per minute - well in excess
of the mandated 19,000 limit. The limit is reached at just 3025 RPM.
So IF it is a 24" mower, it is a 3.88 HP mower.

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:36:45 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:19:38 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:01:54 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:


"Worn Out Retread" wrote in message
...
I am looking for a new snow blower and have discovered that the power
rating of the engines are no longer in "Horse Power" but in "Foot Pounds"
if given at all. Sometimes all that is given is the CC's of the engine.

Even the people selling these machines don't know what the "Horse Power"
ratings are so that old geezers like myself can understand what is going
on. Does anyone have any general rules regarding the conversion of Foot
Pounds or CC's to Horse Power?

Horsepower to CC is highly variable and not a good measure of power. My
cars have different engines. The 3800 cc is 190 HP but my 3300 cc is 234
HP. I suspect smaller engines are similar.


For the types of engines generally found on lawn equipment, comparison
of new engines and old engines of same brand and displacement is a
valid comparison. These are utility engines designed to run at optimum
RPM's while in use. A car engines is vastly different in it's
requirements.

If an old snowthrower with a 13 hp Briggs engine is 350cc, then a new
350cc Briggs powered snow blower will be about the same HP.
Unless the old 350cc 13hp Briggs is a "side valve" engine with 5.6:1
compression ratio, and the new 350cc engine is an overhead valve
engine with 11.5:1 compression ratio - which MIGHT be a 18HP engine.

Numbers just picked out of thin air, but the principal is there.

The principle is pretty gaseous as well. In the real world, the old
and new 350 cc engines will have about the same HP. Seen any snow
blowers with Briggs or Tecumseh engines that call for premium gas
lately? Ever?

Worn Out Retread wrote:
I am looking for a new snow blower and have discovered that the power
rating of the engines are no longer in "Horse Power" but in "Foot
Pounds" if given at all. Sometimes all that is given is the CC's of the
engine.

Even the people selling these machines don't know what the "Horse Power"
ratings are so that old geezers like myself can understand what is going
on. Does anyone have any general rules regarding the conversion of Foot
Pounds or CC's to Horse Power?

Hi,
It is all matter of useful HP and useful torque. HP rating is often very
misleading. If Peak HP occurs near top rpm it won't be good. I'd pay
more attention to torque. I still remember what I was told when I was a
kid. Torque is how big a stump an engine can pull, HP is how fast.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
If an old snowthrower with a 13 hp Briggs engine is 350cc, then a new
350cc Briggs powered snow blower will be about the same HP.


B & S is using the foot pounds from what I've seen. an 8.5 ft lb is 6.5
hp 11.5 = 7.5 hp 15.5 = 11 hp

This is the most useful of the information supplied so far. I am going to
make note of the ft lbs/hp ratios as the foot pound rating is the most
popular of the ratings around here. The displacement ratings are almost
useless in my opinion.

Thank you.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:19:38 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:01:54 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:


"Worn Out Retread" wrote in message
...
I am looking for a new snow blower and have discovered that the power
rating of the engines are no longer in "Horse Power" but in "Foot
Pounds"
if given at all. Sometimes all that is given is the CC's of the engine.

Even the people selling these machines don't know what the "Horse
Power"
ratings are so that old geezers like myself can understand what is
going
on. Does anyone have any general rules regarding the conversion of Foot
Pounds or CC's to Horse Power?

Horsepower to CC is highly variable and not a good measure of power. My
cars have different engines. The 3800 cc is 190 HP but my 3300 cc is 234
HP. I suspect smaller engines are similar.


For the types of engines generally found on lawn equipment, comparison
of new engines and old engines of same brand and displacement is a
valid comparison. These are utility engines designed to run at optimum
RPM's while in use. A car engines is vastly different in it's
requirements.

If an old snowthrower with a 13 hp Briggs engine is 350cc, then a new
350cc Briggs powered snow blower will be about the same HP.
Unless the old 350cc 13hp Briggs is a "side valve" engine with 5.6:1
compression ratio, and the new 350cc engine is an overhead valve
engine with 11.5:1 compression ratio - which MIGHT be a 18HP engine.

Numbers just picked out of thin air, but the principal is there.

This is perfectly true. Engines of the same displacement can vary greatly in
power developed due to the ratio of diameter of piston to the length of
stroke, valve configuration, exhaust tuning and other factors.
--
Ron

"dpb" wrote in message
...
Worn Out Retread wrote:
I am looking for a new snow blower and have discovered that the power
rating of the engines are no longer in "Horse Power" but in "Foot Pounds"
if given at all. Sometimes all that is given is the CC's of the engine.

Even the people selling these machines don't know what the "Horse Power"
ratings are so that old geezers like myself can understand what is going
on. Does anyone have any general rules regarding the conversion of Foot
Pounds or CC's to Horse Power?

Unfortunately, not at all precisely, no...thanks to the dam lawyers

One can _VERY_CRUDELY_ estimate hp at about 60-70% of torque.

The relationship I recall (I'd have to go off and think again to re-derive
the denominator) of hp ~ torque (ft-lb)*rpm/5250 which boils down to the
above since most ratings are at 3200-3600 rpm.

Unfortunately, that's about best one can do other than simply try to find
similar engine w/ known rating and compare based on displacement. Problem
there is that tune and emissions requirements, etc., make that comparison
as variable as the above.

Earlier Northern Tool catalog still listed an unofficial "old hp rating"
as well but I just looked and the last one doesn't. Now I'm hoping I
didn't throw the old one away and lose that cross-reference.

All in all, it sucks to guess how to compare even worse than before when
ratings could be tweaked--at least you knew what Sears was doing w/ "peak"
or "instantaneous" horsepower; the torque ratings might be absolutely
accurate but they're still nearly useless as a comparison to previous
ratings and certainly there's not even the same measure used if only
provide displacement in one and torque in another.

--
I had an eight horse power MTD blower and for most most jobs it was
perfectly adequate. Now that I want a new blower, I don't want to buy a
machine that has less power than the old one but the published specs are
just plainly designed to confuse the buyer and there are very few web sites
that do much to untangle the mess of misleading information.

If all you are doing is clearing 6 inches of snow off a driveway that is one
thing but when the snow plough comes by and dumps a mess 2 feet deep and 6
feet up the drive, that small snow blower is just not going to get the job
done without nearly blowing its guts out especially if the material to be
cleared has had any great amount of salt added to it making the mess very
dense and therefore heavy and difficult to move.
--
Ron

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:04:18 -0500, dpb wrote:

Worn Out Retread wrote:
I am looking for a new snow blower and have discovered that the power
rating of the engines are no longer in "Horse Power" but in "Foot
Pounds" if given at all. Sometimes all that is given is the CC's of the
engine.

Even the people selling these machines don't know what the "Horse Power"
ratings are so that old geezers like myself can understand what is going
on. Does anyone have any general rules regarding the conversion of Foot
Pounds or CC's to Horse Power?

Unfortunately, not at all precisely, no...thanks to the dam lawyers

One can _VERY_CRUDELY_ estimate hp at about 60-70% of torque.

The relationship I recall (I'd have to go off and think again to
re-derive the denominator) of hp ~ torque (ft-lb)*rpm/5250 which boils
down to the above since most ratings are at 3200-3600 rpm.

Unfortunately, that's about best one can do other than simply try to
find similar engine w/ known rating and compare based on displacement.
Problem there is that tune and emissions requirements, etc., make that
comparison as variable as the above.

Earlier Northern Tool catalog still listed an unofficial "old hp rating"
as well but I just looked and the last one doesn't. Now I'm hoping I
didn't throw the old one away and lose that cross-reference.

All in all, it sucks to guess how to compare even worse than before when
ratings could be tweaked--at least you knew what Sears was doing w/
"peak" or "instantaneous" horsepower; the torque ratings might be
absolutely accurate but they're still nearly useless as a comparison to
previous ratings and certainly there's not even the same measure used if
only provide displacement in one and torque in another.


Multiply the old rating X 5252 and devide by 3600 and you have the
torque rating of the old engine to compare. Virtually all of the old
engines were rated at 3600 rpm.

So that works out to be approximately 70% of the rated torque if rated in
foot lbs. which would be easily calculated while browsing different models.
Someone else gave some equivalents of torque and horse power and the figures
pretty well agreed with what you have given.

Thanks

--
Ron

"Van Chocstraw" wrote in message
...
Worn Out Retread wrote:
I am looking for a new snow blower and have discovered that the power
rating of the engines are no longer in "Horse Power" but in "Foot Pounds"
if given at all. Sometimes all that is given is the CC's of the engine.

Even the people selling these machines don't know what the "Horse Power"
ratings are so that old geezers like myself can understand what is going
on. Does anyone have any general rules regarding the conversion of Foot
Pounds or CC's to Horse Power?


They are just trying to pull one over on us by frigging up standard
ratings in the US.
CC's equate more to Cubic Inches. Foot pounds equate to horsepower.
Multiply horsepower by 33,000 to get foot pounds.
It's just another crooked business tactic to screw you over.

See the chart: http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/S...53/convert.htm

Thanks for the link. I have used it before but the formula that they gave
had me somewhat baffled what is 10 over score 7? Is it 10 to the power of 7,
10 to the power of 1/7, 10 divided by 7? No explanation is given and I have
not ever seen that way of writing a formula.
--
Ron

"ransley" wrote in message
...
On Oct 10, 8:35 am, "Worn Out Retread" wrote:
I am looking for a new snow blower and have discovered that the power
rating
of the engines are no longer in "Horse Power" but in "Foot Pounds" if
given
at all. Sometimes all that is given is the CC's of the engine.

Even the people selling these machines don't know what the "Horse Power"
ratings are so that old geezers like myself can understand what is going
on.
Does anyone have any general rules regarding the conversion of Foot
Pounds
or CC's to Horse Power?

--
Ron P

Quick questions rarely have quick answers

Talk to a local shop that sells and services them, you wont get any
service at the big stores

That is exactly what I have been doing and they have no accurate information
in this regard. They could only offer guesses.
--
Ron

"Steve Barker" wrote in message
...
Worn Out Retread wrote:
I am looking for a new snow blower and have discovered that the power
rating of the engines are no longer in "Horse Power" but in "Foot Pounds"
if given at all. Sometimes all that is given is the CC's of the engine.

Even the people selling these machines don't know what the "Horse Power"
ratings are so that old geezers like myself can understand what is going
on. Does anyone have any general rules regarding the conversion of Foot
Pounds or CC's to Horse Power?


the HP is really irrelevant. Don't worry about it.

I guess that you are only going to look at your machine and not actually do
some work with it. Work requires power and knowing what you have IS
important.

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...
Worn Out Retread wrote:
I am looking for a new snow blower and have discovered that the power
rating of the engines are no longer in "Horse Power" but in "Foot Pounds"
if given at all. Sometimes all that is given is the CC's of the engine.

Even the people selling these machines don't know what the "Horse Power"
ratings are so that old geezers like myself can understand what is going
on. Does anyone have any general rules regarding the conversion of Foot
Pounds or CC's to Horse Power?

Hi,
It is all matter of useful HP and useful torque. HP rating is often very
misleading. If Peak HP occurs near top rpm it won't be good. I'd pay more
attention to torque. I still remember what I was told when I was a kid.
Torque is how big a stump an engine can pull, HP is how fast.

That is the point of the question asked. I want to buy a machine of at least
the same power as the old machine but the system of measurement has changed
so that creates a problem that I have to solve before parting with my money.
--
Ron

"Worn Out Retread" wrote in message

the HP is really irrelevant. Don't worry about it.

I guess that you are only going to look at your machine and not actually
do some work with it. Work requires power and knowing what you have IS
important.

How will you know how much power it has? Surely not by the HP ratings on
the engine.

Worn Out Retread wrote:
"Steve Barker" wrote in message
...
Worn Out Retread wrote:
I am looking for a new snow blower and have discovered that the power
rating of the engines are no longer in "Horse Power" but in "Foot
Pounds" if given at all. Sometimes all that is given is the CC's of
the engine.

Even the people selling these machines don't know what the "Horse
Power" ratings are so that old geezers like myself can understand
what is going on. Does anyone have any general rules regarding the
conversion of Foot Pounds or CC's to Horse Power?


the HP is really irrelevant. Don't worry about it.

I guess that you are only going to look at your machine and not actually
do some work with it. Work requires power and knowing what you have IS
important.

Lordy. Unless you are buying pro-grade gear, odds are it is gonna be an
MTD anyway, no matter what brand name is stuck on it. The same size
blower will have the same engine across all the house brands. Buy the
size you need, and move on. Almost always, it will be adequate. The
manufacturer has no percentage in giving themselves a bad reputation, so
they match them up pretty well. Don't lose sleep over it- life is too
short.

--
aem sends....

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 22:28:39 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:36:45 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:19:38 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:01:54 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:


"Worn Out Retread" wrote in message
...
I am looking for a new snow blower and have discovered that the power
rating of the engines are no longer in "Horse Power" but in "Foot Pounds"
if given at all. Sometimes all that is given is the CC's of the engine.

Even the people selling these machines don't know what the "Horse Power"
ratings are so that old geezers like myself can understand what is going
on. Does anyone have any general rules regarding the conversion of Foot
Pounds or CC's to Horse Power?

Horsepower to CC is highly variable and not a good measure of power. My
cars have different engines. The 3800 cc is 190 HP but my 3300 cc is 234
HP. I suspect smaller engines are similar.


For the types of engines generally found on lawn equipment, comparison
of new engines and old engines of same brand and displacement is a
valid comparison. These are utility engines designed to run at optimum
RPM's while in use. A car engines is vastly different in it's
requirements.

If an old snowthrower with a 13 hp Briggs engine is 350cc, then a new
350cc Briggs powered snow blower will be about the same HP.
Unless the old 350cc 13hp Briggs is a "side valve" engine with 5.6:1
compression ratio, and the new 350cc engine is an overhead valve
engine with 11.5:1 compression ratio - which MIGHT be a 18HP engine.

Numbers just picked out of thin air, but the principal is there.

The principle is pretty gaseous as well. In the real world, the old
and new 350 cc engines will have about the same HP. Seen any snow
blowers with Briggs or Tecumseh engines that call for premium gas
lately? Ever?


You are blowing smoke. Because you don't know anything about engines.
My numbers were a bit high. A 20HP Intek is 8.8:1. A 25 HP Kohler
Command is 9:1, and the Briggs Animal runs 9.5, 9.7, or 10.0 :1
depending on class.


From Popular Hot Rod's tech pages:

Basics
Increasing the CR produces an increase in output throughout the rpm
range. It is also worth an increase in fuel economy. If a longer
duration cam is installed, raising the CR at the same time can be
worth even greater dividends than these two moves considered
separately. When the CR is raised, peak combustion pressures are
increased. As a rough rule of thumb, cylinder pressures are about 100
times what the CR is so, from a 10:1 engine, we would expect to see
about 1,000 psi of peak combustion pressure.

Cylinder pressures and output will increase as the CR is raised, but
what is less obvious is that the increase in compression also
increases the engines thermal efficiency. Thermal efficiency is a
measure of how effectively the engine converts heat into mechanical
power. To appreciate this it is better to consider the engines
expansion ratio (ER). This is the opposite side of the coin to the CR
and describes what is occurring as the piston moves down on the power
stroke rather than what happens as it moves up on the compression
stroke.

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:41:38 -0500, Steve Barker
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 12:20:17 -0700 (PDT), ransley
wrote:

On Oct 10, 10:57 am, Van Chocstraw
wrote:
Worn Out Retread wrote:
I am looking for a new snow blower and have discovered that the power
rating of the engines are no longer in "Horse Power" but in "Foot
Pounds" if given at all. Sometimes all that is given is the CC's of the
engine.
Even the people selling these machines don't know what the "Horse Power"
ratings are so that old geezers like myself can understand what is going
on. Does anyone have any general rules regarding the conversion of Foot
Pounds or CC's to Horse Power?
They are just trying to pull one over on us by frigging up standard
ratings in the US.
CC's equate more to Cubic Inches. Foot pounds equate to horsepower.
Multiply horsepower by 33,000 to get foot pounds.
It's just another crooked business tactic to screw you over.

See the chart:http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/S...53/convert.htm
CC is cubic centimeters, CI is cubic inch, my new toro is 6.75 ft lbs
of crap, it doesnt cut as well as an old 3.5 hp engine, the new
ratings just decieve all. I thought my toro was 6.75 hp, I was ready
to junk it because it bogs so bad.
It is the "old" 4.5 HP, but because of speed limits it is really
only 3 hp - assuming 2400 RPM limit.

On a 24" mower, the blade tip travels 75.36 inches (6.28 ft) per
revolution. At 3600 rpm that is 22,608 ft per minute - well in excess
of the mandated 19,000 limit. The limit is reached at just 3025 RPM.
So IF it is a 24" mower, it is a 3.88 HP mower.


I've never heard of two things mentioned he

#1. a 24" push mower
#2. a 2400 rpm limit

AFAIK, all small engines are governed at 3600 and that's where they operate.

s
Well you are wrong on both counts. I use a 24" rotary "push" mower to
mow my lot all the time, and current lawn mowers are rpm limited to
prevent tip speeds in excess of 19000 ft/minute - and in some cases
14000. It's the LAW in Noth America for all home use lawn mowers.
Apparently SOME commercial units may excede the tip speed depending on
other fastors that I am not aware of.

It IS because of this that lawn mower power ratings were changed. The
engine is rated at a given HP at 3600 RPM - but the equipment does not
allow it to run at that speed so the HP rating is no longer valid.

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 12:35:02 -0400, aemeijers
wrote:

Worn Out Retread wrote:
"Steve Barker" wrote in message
...
Worn Out Retread wrote:
I am looking for a new snow blower and have discovered that the power
rating of the engines are no longer in "Horse Power" but in "Foot
Pounds" if given at all. Sometimes all that is given is the CC's of
the engine.

Even the people selling these machines don't know what the "Horse
Power" ratings are so that old geezers like myself can understand
what is going on. Does anyone have any general rules regarding the
conversion of Foot Pounds or CC's to Horse Power?


the HP is really irrelevant. Don't worry about it.

I guess that you are only going to look at your machine and not actually
do some work with it. Work requires power and knowing what you have IS
important.

Lordy. Unless you are buying pro-grade gear, odds are it is gonna be an
MTD anyway, no matter what brand name is stuck on it. The same size
blower will have the same engine across all the house brands. Buy the
size you need, and move on. Almost always, it will be adequate. The
manufacturer has no percentage in giving themselves a bad reputation, so
they match them up pretty well. Don't lose sleep over it- life is too
short.
If a particular frame size is available with 3 engine options (which
is normal) buy the middle one for normal use, the big one for heavy
snow conditions, and the small one as an ornament. (or for light snow
conditions)

My old 26 incher was available as a 5, 8, and 10 hp.

Mine was a 5 HP Tec Sno-King and was adequate for normal blowing, but
stressed handling deep packed snow plough ridges. When I blew the 5 I
put on an 8, which was the same block as the 5, so fit with absolutely
no modifications.

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 11:00:05 -0400, "Worn Out Retread"
wrote:

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
...
Worn Out Retread wrote:
I am looking for a new snow blower and have discovered that the power
rating of the engines are no longer in "Horse Power" but in "Foot Pounds"
if given at all. Sometimes all that is given is the CC's of the engine.

Even the people selling these machines don't know what the "Horse Power"
ratings are so that old geezers like myself can understand what is going
on. Does anyone have any general rules regarding the conversion of Foot
Pounds or CC's to Horse Power?

Hi,
It is all matter of useful HP and useful torque. HP rating is often very
misleading. If Peak HP occurs near top rpm it won't be good. I'd pay more
attention to torque. I still remember what I was told when I was a kid.
Torque is how big a stump an engine can pull, HP is how fast.

That is the point of the question asked. I want to buy a machine of at least
the same power as the old machine but the system of measurement has changed
so that creates a problem that I have to solve before parting with my money.
You have the tools now.
torqueXrpm/5252=HP
The old engine was rated at 3600 RPM - universally. So your new engine
torque X 3600 /5252 is the rating of old engine that is equivalent.

If it is an OHV engine it will usually have a broader power range, so
will do MORE work than the old side valve equivalent, and on less
fuel.

wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 12:35:02 -0400, aemeijers
wrote:

Worn Out Retread wrote:
"Steve Barker" wrote in message
...
Worn Out Retread wrote:
I am looking for a new snow blower and have discovered that the power
rating of the engines are no longer in "Horse Power" but in "Foot
Pounds" if given at all. Sometimes all that is given is the CC's of
the engine.

Even the people selling these machines don't know what the "Horse
Power" ratings are so that old geezers like myself can understand
what is going on. Does anyone have any general rules regarding the
conversion of Foot Pounds or CC's to Horse Power?

the HP is really irrelevant. Don't worry about it.
I guess that you are only going to look at your machine and not actually
do some work with it. Work requires power and knowing what you have IS
important.
Lordy. Unless you are buying pro-grade gear, odds are it is gonna be an
MTD anyway, no matter what brand name is stuck on it. The same size
blower will have the same engine across all the house brands. Buy the
size you need, and move on. Almost always, it will be adequate. The
manufacturer has no percentage in giving themselves a bad reputation, so
they match them up pretty well. Don't lose sleep over it- life is too
short.
If a particular frame size is available with 3 engine options (which
is normal) buy the middle one for normal use, the big one for heavy
snow conditions, and the small one as an ornament. (or for light snow
conditions)

My old 26 incher was available as a 5, 8, and 10 hp.

Mine was a 5 HP Tec Sno-King and was adequate for normal blowing, but
stressed handling deep packed snow plough ridges. When I blew the 5 I
put on an 8, which was the same block as the 5, so fit with absolutely
no modifications.
You must be talking pro-grade from an equipment dealer. None of the
stores around here that are open evenings and weekends, offer any
choices in engine sizes. I'd wager the price at an equipment dealer is a
lot higher than at the big-box, as well. Of course, you are up in
Canada- I suspect there may be more of a market for heavy-duty stuff up
there. Around here in Baja Ontario (aka lower Michigan), anything over
15" shuts down the city for a day or two.

--
aem sends...

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 10:26:37 -0400, "Worn Out Retread"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:19:38 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:01:54 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:


"Worn Out Retread" wrote in message
...
I am looking for a new snow blower and have discovered that the power
rating of the engines are no longer in "Horse Power" but in "Foot
Pounds"
if given at all. Sometimes all that is given is the CC's of the engine.

Even the people selling these machines don't know what the "Horse
Power"
ratings are so that old geezers like myself can understand what is
going
on. Does anyone have any general rules regarding the conversion of Foot
Pounds or CC's to Horse Power?

Horsepower to CC is highly variable and not a good measure of power. My
cars have different engines. The 3800 cc is 190 HP but my 3300 cc is 234
HP. I suspect smaller engines are similar.


For the types of engines generally found on lawn equipment, comparison
of new engines and old engines of same brand and displacement is a
valid comparison. These are utility engines designed to run at optimum
RPM's while in use. A car engines is vastly different in it's
requirements.

If an old snowthrower with a 13 hp Briggs engine is 350cc, then a new
350cc Briggs powered snow blower will be about the same HP.
Unless the old 350cc 13hp Briggs is a "side valve" engine with 5.6:1
compression ratio, and the new 350cc engine is an overhead valve
engine with 11.5:1 compression ratio - which MIGHT be a 18HP engine.

Numbers just picked out of thin air, but the principal is there.

This is perfectly true. Engines of the same displacement can vary greatly in
power developed due to the ratio of diameter of piston to the length of
stroke, valve configuration, exhaust tuning and other factors.

But in THIS category of engines, that isn't generally a factor. Old
and new Briggs utility engines of the same displacement will also have
similar power characteristics.

You probably won't find a snowblower with a turbo option, and lowered
suspension, either.

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 15:05:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 22:28:39 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:36:45 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:19:38 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:01:54 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:


"Worn Out Retread" wrote in message
...
I am looking for a new snow blower and have discovered that the power
rating of the engines are no longer in "Horse Power" but in "Foot Pounds"
if given at all. Sometimes all that is given is the CC's of the engine.

Even the people selling these machines don't know what the "Horse Power"
ratings are so that old geezers like myself can understand what is going
on. Does anyone have any general rules regarding the conversion of Foot
Pounds or CC's to Horse Power?

Horsepower to CC is highly variable and not a good measure of power. My
cars have different engines. The 3800 cc is 190 HP but my 3300 cc is 234
HP. I suspect smaller engines are similar.


For the types of engines generally found on lawn equipment, comparison
of new engines and old engines of same brand and displacement is a
valid comparison. These are utility engines designed to run at optimum
RPM's while in use. A car engines is vastly different in it's
requirements.

If an old snowthrower with a 13 hp Briggs engine is 350cc, then a new
350cc Briggs powered snow blower will be about the same HP.
Unless the old 350cc 13hp Briggs is a "side valve" engine with 5.6:1
compression ratio, and the new 350cc engine is an overhead valve
engine with 11.5:1 compression ratio - which MIGHT be a 18HP engine.

Numbers just picked out of thin air, but the principal is there.

The principle is pretty gaseous as well. In the real world, the old
and new 350 cc engines will have about the same HP. Seen any snow
blowers with Briggs or Tecumseh engines that call for premium gas
lately? Ever?


You are blowing smoke. Because you don't know anything about engines.
My numbers were a bit high. A 20HP Intek is 8.8:1. A 25 HP Kohler
Command is 9:1, and the Briggs Animal runs 9.5, 9.7, or 10.0 :1
depending on class.


From Popular Hot Rod's tech pages:

Basics
Increasing the CR produces an increase in output throughout the rpm
range. It is also worth an increase in fuel economy. If a longer
duration cam is installed, raising the CR at the same time can be
worth even greater dividends than these two moves considered
separately. When the CR is raised, peak combustion pressures are
increased. As a rough rule of thumb, cylinder pressures are about 100
times what the CR is so, from a 10:1 engine, we would expect to see
about 1,000 psi of peak combustion pressure.

Cylinder pressures and output will increase as the CR is raised, but
what is less obvious is that the increase in compression also
increases the engines thermal efficiency. Thermal efficiency is a
measure of how effectively the engine converts heat into mechanical
power. To appreciate this it is better to consider the engines
expansion ratio (ER). This is the opposite side of the coin to the CR
and describes what is occurring as the piston moves down on the power
stroke rather than what happens as it moves up on the compression
stroke.


You are an idiot, Clare. Obviously I understand that engines can and
are built for different types of performance and different uses. We
are talking about SNOW ****ING BLOWERS, dimwit. They aren't high
performance racing machines. You could even know the horsepower of a
given displacement Briggs snowblower by knowing the horsepower of a 15
year old Tecumseh Snow blower engine of the same displacement. It
would be quite similar.

Popular Hot Rod! Bwhahahahaha!

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 16:24:41 -0400, aemeijers
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 12:35:02 -0400, aemeijers
wrote:

Worn Out Retread wrote:
"Steve Barker" wrote in message
...
Worn Out Retread wrote:
I am looking for a new snow blower and have discovered that the power
rating of the engines are no longer in "Horse Power" but in "Foot
Pounds" if given at all. Sometimes all that is given is the CC's of
the engine.

Even the people selling these machines don't know what the "Horse
Power" ratings are so that old geezers like myself can understand
what is going on. Does anyone have any general rules regarding the
conversion of Foot Pounds or CC's to Horse Power?

the HP is really irrelevant. Don't worry about it.
I guess that you are only going to look at your machine and not actually
do some work with it. Work requires power and knowing what you have IS
important.
Lordy. Unless you are buying pro-grade gear, odds are it is gonna be an
MTD anyway, no matter what brand name is stuck on it. The same size
blower will have the same engine across all the house brands. Buy the
size you need, and move on. Almost always, it will be adequate. The
manufacturer has no percentage in giving themselves a bad reputation, so
they match them up pretty well. Don't lose sleep over it- life is too
short.
If a particular frame size is available with 3 engine options (which
is normal) buy the middle one for normal use, the big one for heavy
snow conditions, and the small one as an ornament. (or for light snow
conditions)

My old 26 incher was available as a 5, 8, and 10 hp.

Mine was a 5 HP Tec Sno-King and was adequate for normal blowing, but
stressed handling deep packed snow plough ridges. When I blew the 5 I
put on an 8, which was the same block as the 5, so fit with absolutely
no modifications.
You must be talking pro-grade from an equipment dealer. None of the
stores around here that are open evenings and weekends, offer any
choices in engine sizes. I'd wager the price at an equipment dealer is a
lot higher than at the big-box, as well. Of course, you are up in
Canada- I suspect there may be more of a market for heavy-duty stuff up
there. Around here in Baja Ontario (aka lower Michigan), anything over
15" shuts down the city for a day or two.

Bought my Ariens from a local mom & pop commercial tractor store for
the same price as the big box stores.

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 17:06:26 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 10:26:37 -0400, "Worn Out Retread"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:19:38 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:01:54 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:


"Worn Out Retread" wrote in message
...
I am looking for a new snow blower and have discovered that the power
rating of the engines are no longer in "Horse Power" but in "Foot
Pounds"
if given at all. Sometimes all that is given is the CC's of the engine.

Even the people selling these machines don't know what the "Horse
Power"
ratings are so that old geezers like myself can understand what is
going
on. Does anyone have any general rules regarding the conversion of Foot
Pounds or CC's to Horse Power?

Horsepower to CC is highly variable and not a good measure of power. My
cars have different engines. The 3800 cc is 190 HP but my 3300 cc is 234
HP. I suspect smaller engines are similar.


For the types of engines generally found on lawn equipment, comparison
of new engines and old engines of same brand and displacement is a
valid comparison. These are utility engines designed to run at optimum
RPM's while in use. A car engines is vastly different in it's
requirements.

If an old snowthrower with a 13 hp Briggs engine is 350cc, then a new
350cc Briggs powered snow blower will be about the same HP.
Unless the old 350cc 13hp Briggs is a "side valve" engine with 5.6:1
compression ratio, and the new 350cc engine is an overhead valve
engine with 11.5:1 compression ratio - which MIGHT be a 18HP engine.

Numbers just picked out of thin air, but the principal is there.

This is perfectly true. Engines of the same displacement can vary greatly in
power developed due to the ratio of diameter of piston to the length of
stroke, valve configuration, exhaust tuning and other factors.

But in THIS category of engines, that isn't generally a factor. Old
and new Briggs utility engines of the same displacement will also have
similar power characteristics.

You probably won't find a snowblower with a turbo option, and lowered
suspension, either.
The difference between a side valve and overhead valve engine of any
displacement in any application is generally considerable.
It IS a factor, as anyone who is fammiliar with small engines will
know.

On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 16:24:41 -0400, aemeijers
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 12:35:02 -0400, aemeijers
wrote:

Worn Out Retread wrote:
"Steve Barker" wrote in message
...
Worn Out Retread wrote:
I am looking for a new snow blower and have discovered that the power
rating of the engines are no longer in "Horse Power" but in "Foot
Pounds" if given at all. Sometimes all that is given is the CC's of
the engine.

Even the people selling these machines don't know what the "Horse
Power" ratings are so that old geezers like myself can understand
what is going on. Does anyone have any general rules regarding the
conversion of Foot Pounds or CC's to Horse Power?

the HP is really irrelevant. Don't worry about it.
I guess that you are only going to look at your machine and not actually
do some work with it. Work requires power and knowing what you have IS
important.
Lordy. Unless you are buying pro-grade gear, odds are it is gonna be an
MTD anyway, no matter what brand name is stuck on it. The same size
blower will have the same engine across all the house brands. Buy the
size you need, and move on. Almost always, it will be adequate. The
manufacturer has no percentage in giving themselves a bad reputation, so
they match them up pretty well. Don't lose sleep over it- life is too
short.
If a particular frame size is available with 3 engine options (which
is normal) buy the middle one for normal use, the big one for heavy
snow conditions, and the small one as an ornament. (or for light snow
conditions)

My old 26 incher was available as a 5, 8, and 10 hp.

Mine was a 5 HP Tec Sno-King and was adequate for normal blowing, but
stressed handling deep packed snow plough ridges. When I blew the 5 I
put on an 8, which was the same block as the 5, so fit with absolutely
no modifications.
You must be talking pro-grade from an equipment dealer. None of the
stores around here that are open evenings and weekends, offer any
choices in engine sizes. I'd wager the price at an equipment dealer is a
lot higher than at the big-box, as well. Of course, you are up in
Canada- I suspect there may be more of a market for heavy-duty stuff up
there. Around here in Baja Ontario (aka lower Michigan), anything over
15" shuts down the city for a day or two.
The same machine was available with 3 different engines from
Canadian Tire and anyone who sold the Noma line of blowers.

Same was true of Sears equipment of the same time period.

MTD built snow blowers about 5 miles from my home and a good friend
was the Canadian parts manager. They built 3 differen blowers on the
same "chassis" - with the same auger - as well as several variations
with the same "chassis" and larger or smaller augers, each with
different power options as well.
This is going back a while, so the actual sizes and horsepower may
not be 100% accurate - But my memory for this stuff is generally
pretty good.
Small frame 20, 22, and 24 blowers, medium frame 24, 26, and 28"
blowers and large frame 28, 30, and 32 if I remember correctly.
Something like that anyway, and the 22 was avaialble as 3, 4, and 5
hp, on the small frame. The 26 was available as 5, 8, and 10 on the
medium frame. and the medium sized large frame was available as at
least a 10 and a 12.

The current situation with the "big box" stores may well have changed
(I'm talking Home Despot and WallMart and their ilk) but most lawn and
garden equipment dealers and large hardware companies still have more
options. At Canadian tire you still have the option of side valve or
OHV engines on the same frame with the same auger - or at least did
have for the 2008/2009 season. The lower priced unit had the old
side-valve engine. If it wasn't a holiday up here tomorrow I'd go
check out the displacement vs torque specs on the 2 different style
engines and put this to rest.

Well, for those who don't believe there is a difference and can't
understand why there is a difference, and have their minds already
made up, I guess it woudn't change anything - so why should I waste
the time or effort.