OutdoorKing Repair Forum Forums Repairs and Maintenance Questions on Engines Questions On Victa Two Stroke Engines Victa 2 Stroke Powertorque Engine - Fuel Consumption

Hi All

I've got a Victa 2 Stroke Powertorque (late 90s commando mower)

Seems to run okay but seems to use a lot of fuel.

I've looked on the forum but I can't really see anywhere where anyone says a Victa 2 Stroke 160 cc powertorque and says if you run it for 1 x hour it uses XX fuel.

i.e. something like 1 hour of use is 1 litre of fuel usage.

What does everyone else get from their powertorque Victa ?

Thanks
Edward

Hi Ted12,
one drawback I've noticed is their heavy fuel consumption compared to a four stroke mower.

I have a Victa Tornado from about circa 2010 with a Briggs and it only requires the lower part of the tank to be full of petrol for it to complete my small front lawn (20 m² approx) and nature strip out the front.

The way they scavenge air and fuel, necessitates sine unburnt fuel going out the exhaust. I've been told that 20% of the fuel supply goes out the exhaust unburnt.

The two strokes only really excel in extreme stuff and sloping ground where oil starvation doesn't affect them. They are generally more durable as long as they aren't straight fueled.

Hi Ted,
I have never heard anybody talk about it they get the job done and that is all that matters to most people

G'day Ed Mf and Norm,

Yep the Victa 2 stroke uses a lot of fuel ,I would use over a tank and a bit when cutting long grass for one hour.

Probably is 1 litre for 1 hour.

Cheers
Max.

I don't have a direct measurement but this is my experience:

over 140sqm (which takes me around 45 minutes at my pace) I will go through around 600ml of fuel (generally closer to 550)

I recently took the back to dirt before a topdress and the front down relatively violently - I used 3l over 350sqm (which included taking the verge from 4 inches tall to dirt (210ish sqm))

You can expect more fuel usage from the 2-strokes.

However, they are, in my view, the best option for a push lawnmower on any decent size lawn, particularly with undulations.

I use both 2 and four strokes but the two strokes are significantly lighter and maintenance is much more straightforward. The four strokes are good for self propelled applications and ride-ons where their weight is less of a factor. The 2 strokes don’t need oil changes and can be run on sloped ground without being concerned about oil starvation. The weight saving means I’m less fatigued and can cut with more accuracy. The fatigue reduction means I’m working more within my capacity and make fewer mistakes.

With all the rain we’ve had I’ve left the ride-on in the shed because it slides on slopes and sinks into the sodden soil. I’m only using my big deutcher self-propelled where the turning circles can be large and sufficiently gentle to avoid making a muddy mess. The Victa two strokes, on the other hand, just glide over the surface without digging in. They’re light enough that I can push them up and down the hills all day and I can ignore oil starvation.

Thanks guys, I enjoyed reading all the comments

A Briggs 375 or similar flathead with the air cleaner above the carburetor weighs less than a Victa 2 stroke as they're an aluminium block vs cast iron.

Powertorque is a great engine, but they will go through more fuel.
I have the impression that the Victa full crank two stroke
with the older metal carburettor like the G3 and prior were better on fuel than the G4 plastic carby the rest got until production ceased.

I might have used one of the Briggs engines you mention MF but I don’t remember it. Probably like my experience with the Honda four strokes: nothing to complain about, a good motor but I find the two stroke better on a push mower.

Most of mine are full cranks with g3 carburettors. I have one full crank on a g4/LM and have kept one powertorque engined mower. The full crank motor feels stronger to me. I haven’t done any sort of scientific testing to prove it though.

I have a few early 70’s utilities and these are extremely light weight. I’m actually quite fond of the 125cc model, there’s a certain sweetness to that engine. In my applications I don’t use substantially less fuel with a 125 than with a 160 though. I haven’t noticed the powertorque using more fuel than the full cranks but that doesn’t mean there’s no difference in fuel consumption, probably just that it’s not notable in my setting.