Thread: 4-stroke lawn mower?

Well, I don't think I'll ever buy a 2-stroke mower ever again! I serviced my new mower on Saturday and it wasn't difficult or particularly messy (I'm used to servicing cars anyway) and it's a small price to pay for the lack of noise and ease of start.

My neighbor borrowed it on Sunday to cut grass two feet tall and he loved it. It certainly has a lot more power than the old one, and a lot more than I'll ever need.

Originally Posted by kman-oz

I'm only looking at used gear, not new. There is a fair selection of used 4-stroke Masport, Victa and Rover gear around which are my primary interests presently.

An interesting observation here, the more popular brands seem to be holding their value a little better in the used market, but without feature backup. Comparing a couple of used Victa's with used Rover's produces some interesting findings. With the same low-power B&S engine, the Rover will have a sturdier catcher, alloy base, larger cutting diameter, four folding blades and a greater height adjustment. In terms of features it seems like a no-brainer, but I've used Victa gear all my life without incident.

Better the devil you know, or does the Rover really represent better value?

I realise you've already bought so this is somewhat redundant.

Had both. Rover I'd call medium quality, not the best but ok. Victa's newer stuff is lower end. MTD are the bottom end. Maspost probably about the same quality point to victa. Honda and older cox were the top end of ride on's, but after cox got taken over the quality went through the floor. Greenfield were always inferior to cox, probably about rover quality but I'd not own one, prefer the rover.

So for garden stuff generally:

Top quality is stihl, honda, shindawa,old cox

Next is husvana, rover, greenfield

Next is victa, masport

last is mtd

all based on my experience, others will no doubt differ.

Interesting observations Damian. I'm particularly interested in why you rate Victa relatively poorly. Being most familiar with Victa gear I find this opinion at odds with my own.

Purely as a topic for conversation I find the Victa to be of very good quality for a domestic appliance. Moreover, as a commercial appliance my old mower suffered considerable abuse and neglect and still lived to a good age. To my mind 'appropriate quality' in a domestic mower is the sum of usability and longevity; both of which the old Victa had in spades. As a commercial device it would have rated poorly for various reasons.

The new 4-stroke Victa is a lot more usable, though I can't speak for longevity of course.

Out of curiosity, on what qualities do you make your assessment?

Like most people I've had a few victas over the years. Generally they need repairs more often and produce a lesser quality of cut.

The self propelled rover I mentioned before has been mowing a good 300-400 sqm of my lawn for about 8 years with 1 set of blades, top ups of oil occasionally and tanks of fuel. The choke stopped working properly so I'd occasionally use aerostart to fire it up but otherwise no serivces nor repairs in that time. Note I bought it second hand and well used.

I've never known a victa to run that long with that sort of use without some sort of maintenance. They are light, but give an inferior cut and don't start as easily.

I'm not knocking victas, but if you park two mowers next to each other and examine them there are clear points of difference beyond "features".

I just finished buying a new car. Love toyotas, but I drove the rav, crv, vitara, xtrail, overlander, tiguan and the forester and the differences were demonstrable. All can be had in basic manual for about $32k. The Suzuki was cheap, the mitsubishi was just plain awful, the xtrail was nice to drive and great luggage area but the old model is known to blow transfer cases, the VW and Toyota rode like buckboards and the toyota had shocking seats. The honda was ugly and uninspiring.

I bought the subaru. No doubt someone else would make a different choice, but the sub' rides like a car corners nicer than the nissan looks easier to service, it just ticked all the boxes. I wasn't looking for a 4b and don't really like them but to get a wagon that towes that was the cheapest option.

The point is you see just as many ravs and crv's and xtrails on the road as foresters, so clearly either those people didn't try everything or they have a different criteria/opinion to me.

Anyway the point is if your only mowing a small yard flat grass occasionally a victa is probably fine, but spend 5 years with a victa and 5 years with a honda (or 6 months mowing professionally) and you see a difference. Note however there is a price difference so you have to weigh value for money. Also for a given make not every model/year is the same in performance.

So it's just an opinion as I said based on my experience.

I think you guys are all missing the point here. I have a Rover and its great. Now what I need from a mower is foolproof and easy to start and the Rover is just that. It doesnt need fancy fuel. It always starts first pull and its not so hard to pull. The wife seems to have no issues at all.

Originally Posted by rrobor

I think you guys are all missing the point here.

I don't think so. The key issue is appropriateness for the task at hand, and reading the replies from damian and yourself I reckon we're all in agreement actually. The qualities that make the Rover valuable to you are the same that make the Victa valuable to me. Damian's perspective is different because he has a greater area, perhaps. Or because the grass grows more vigorously in QLD?

I use the hand-powered cylinder mower for nine months of the year because I like the excersice. The petrol mower gets used almost exclusively in Spring when the hand mower just doesn't cut it. In this regard a $200 Victa is probably still over-kill. The old rusty (free) 2-stroke was perfect until it stopped working.

Originally Posted by rrobor

The wife seems to have no issues at all.

Sugar. Does she have a sister ?

I think also we're all in agreement. I had victas for years and was happy. The second hand rover was cheap and demonstrably better, but it was probably demonstrably dearer new, so then you get down to $ vs performance.

With regards ride ons rovers were $100's cheaper than cox when cox were good. A rover might last 10 years and a cox a lifetime, but it's a personal decision which to buy.