The Craftsman 28826 has the B+S Vtwin 24hp, 725cc engine.

The Craftsman 28834 has the Kohler single cylinder 20hp 597cc engine.

Both are the same price, other wise they both have almost the same specifications are essentially the same mower from what I can tell.

My yard is pretty much a flat, 1 acre bermuda lawn with few obstacles and a slight incline. I am 6'6" tall and 260lbs. I'm thinking the bigger engine would serve me better...

I always go for twins if I have a choice, smoother running IMO.

anyone else?

the only 28834 my sears had has been sitting out for at least a year, it's rusted out, someone tried to apply wax to all the dark plastic and it's all white now. it looks terrible.

I could go with the 28836 (22hp kohler) but no one around here has it in stock. So off to Lowes I go. What do you think about their extended warranty. I normally don't get it, but aren't mowers a little more prone to repairs than most other "tools."

Bill

I have two mowers - one is a 2048 Scotts (20HP Briggs - v-twin ) and the other is a 10HP Sears (10 HP techumsa)...

Currently i have no complaints with either unit - I use my sears as a utility machine for pulling motorcycle trailers, boat trailers, and utility trailers for moving stone and firewood as well around my and my neighbors properties ... (I have some steep inclines on my property - I weigh 210 lbs). The scotts is my lawn mower...

heres my thought on the question ...

While I like the scotts - the little sears / techumsa motor really has what it takes to make me smile! (especially considering - that i don't have a mower deck for it).

What I really like about the little 10hp sears is this ... 1) its nice and simple to work on. 2) Its nice and small. 3) Its light and nimble. 4) Its reliable the 10hp motor should be dead by now... 5) Its great on gas !!! i fill it up and Its a nibbler on gas compared to the 20 HP twin in the scotts... That makes me very happy...

Im not a person who feels bigger is always better...

I will also tell you this - when that little sears hits the incline in my yard with a full load of wood in the back yard - it is the tires that spin in the dirt - it is not the engine which is struggling to get up the incline... And I say to myself ... "think about it - its a 10 HP motor..." thats plenty - and honestly ... 10HP is enough for me...

So if I were in your shoes - with a mostly level lot (im sure its not as bad as mine)... id be going with the smaller motor... It will do what you ask of it...

With gas prices out of control - I think you will be happier with the smaller motor... (Just keep your oil changed)...

Good luck to you.

So many bad mouthed it, and it WAS a lil less abuse tolerant than the 11 hp brigs that replaced it, but tons of those 10/36 LTs were going good 10 years after the abusers and mis-maintainers had killed theirs!

But I was "given" the unit to use for the grunt work around the properties.

since my property is rough and has lots of inclines the little sears (which had the mower deck destroyed) was the perfect mule for a life of hard labor... frankly the 20HP scotts could not do half of what the 10 HP sears does ... Its too bulky, turns like a battleship, and has no clearance with the deck attached to it ...

So Im blessed with that little 10 horse tech motor/sears ... It doesnt smoke, knock...

But what I was really trying to share with the group was ... that single cylinder 10 HP motor really chugs and I would not have purchased a 20 HP scotts 2046 (used for $250) if I knew then what I knew now... (i bought the scotts before the sears was given to me). I would not hesitate to go with a smaller engine rider - I like to keep my lawn cut and i dont need a big amount of HP to cut it...

Im sure there are a bunch of people who can justify having the biggest engine available - i cant...

I use the sears all year long and its nice that I have only filled it up just a 2-3 times since last thanksgiving... It never once left me wishing i had more power... (in fact I could probably get by with less power (and better gas usage)...

good luck all

He didn't really have any concrete numbers (for example hours per gallon) but commented that the single cylinder seems to be significantly better on fuel consumption.

Although neither of us are qualified to declare why (we thought we were qualified while we "sipped" away on a 12 pack) We kinda thought that you could chalk it up to to at least two reasons...

1) The single cylinder engine had a smaller displacement - although its interesting to note the displacement of that single cylinder was significantly larger than one of the cylinders of his twin...

2) The single cylinder motor is operating at a slower RPM setting versus the twin... It seems the twins will run at a higher RPM, smoother because there a twin, and in my/his case quieter than a single cylinder ... So I could see people spinning the twins faster than the single cylinder which is just "plunking" along and generating gobs of torque to get the job done... Thereby seemingly "sipping" gas...

Anybody out there - have any thoughts or additional reasons on the gas usage subject?

Second, in response to the question of fuel usage. Almost every single and twin used for tractors/mowers are set, via the governor, at 3600 RPM (plus or minus 100). So unless you manually turn down the throttle they are all going to be turning at close to the same speed. And you should never run the engine at less then full speed unless you are sitting still. Hydro pumps, blade tip speed, etc are all engineered to work best at full throttle and you will help keep the engine from building up carbon. One of the main reasons that a twin will use more fuel is the additional cylinder. The size is not as important as the addition of another cylinder. Plus many twins have a 2 bbl carb.

And lastly, somebody mentioned oil consumption in a B&S. Read the owners manual and you will discover that B&S do use oil. The "normal" consumption rate is rather high. Briggs engines do tend to use oil but as long as you keep the level checked, it doesn't really hurt anything. They do tend to carbon up quicker then others.

"And you should never run the engine at less then full speed unless you are sitting still. Hydro pumps, blade tip speed, etc are all engineered to work best at full throttle and you will help keep the engine from building up carbon."

I did NOT say that running an engine at less then full throttle will build up carbon. There will be normal carbon buildup in any of the engines used in lawn and garden equipment. Lugging a tractor around at lower engine speeds for an extended period of time will build up MORE carbon then if it is run at full throttle, especially under a load such as with the blades engaged.

If you feel a need to run your engine at 2800 instead of the factory set 3600 then that's your choice. While I am far from being some type of know it all, super mechanic, I have been working on this type of equipment/engines (at 3 different businesses that deal in various brands such as Snapper, Toro, Exmark, Lawnboy, Scag, etc) for about 18 years so I have seen a thing or two.

So if you believe that running an engine at 2800 instead of 3600 is better, then I guess it is I that is all ears.

It's dynamite and is a real work horse.

Just last week I moved 10 yards of gravel up a 12% grade driveway and I had the trailer loaded.
It worked like a charm.

One thing I wish it did have is Posi-traction.
The Husqvarna would have been my second choice.
I found JD's that size and comparable power were just a little to pricey..........

The engine manufacture usually puts drain hole on each side or even three sides depending on the Tractor it's going in to which side the drain will be located.