GardenKit

Marcus,Aspen does indeed produce 99% less harmful emissions than pump petrol, and petrol really is bad healthwise, have no doubts. The problems associated with petrol have been known for a long time and action has been taken by governments to minimise the hazard. It started with trying to remove petrol pump attendants from the forecourt as they were experiencing a higher than average amount of health issues, and then, to protect the self serving customer the pumps were designed to remove the vapour whilst filling. Then the cars themselves were fitted with catalytic converters to trap and burn of the harmful substances from the exhaust, a job which the cat does very well producing the clean burn that the government want. Without these actions the world would now be a much more polluted place. (Some countries are still pretty bad though) Sure, if we could run all our cars on Aspen then the atmosphere would be super clean and the catalytic converter could be redundant. But the reality is that, as Alkylate Fuel is produced from the left over gases at the top of the distillation tower and cracking plant there is only a small percentage of Alkylate fuel produced in comparison with normal petrol. In simple terms, you have to produce petrol in large volume to produce Alkylate in small volume, and that petrol does have to be used in road transport. And of course, don't forget that the Alkylation process is quite expensive compared with normal production of petrol. So why not have cats on small equipment? Well some engines do have cats and no doubt more will follow. But having clean emissions is only one of the benefits of Aspen. Other benefits are found in the engine before the exhaust, such as the clean burn in the upper cylinder which prevents the build up of carbon on pistons and valves. Spark plugs stay clean and lubricating oil does not become black, extending engine life, this is a fact. And, even before the fuel gets to the engine there are still benfits to be found, such as the lack of solvents which prolong the life of rubber, plastic and soft metals in the fuel system. And not to forget the extended storage life of Aspen over petrol. A win-win situation on every aspect, except the effect on your pocket. Hope this answers your question. Ps, can't help on US prices.

The latest figure released by the Anglo American Oil Company (UK distributor of Aspen Alkylate fuel) reveals that the volume of Aspen fuel sold in the UK during 2017 was a staggering 29% up on the 2016. It just goes to show how many more users are converting to this fuel and finding the benefits. Our own sales have increased and 10,000 litres were sold just in the small area of East Devon, giving this area the highest concentration of Aspen users in the UK. Time to get on board guys!

There is no doubt that the best thing would be to run it on Aspen, after all the fuel will always be fresh and clean. In addition the upper cylinder and exhaust will stay in perfect condition and free from carbon, and even more advantageous is the fact that the oil will stay clean. The atmosphere you work in when feeding the chipper will be much more pleasant also. In short, a win-win situation, but as said before, these benefits come at a price. Only you can decide if the benefits are worth the cost to you.

I know this thread has run its course now, but the question over where they are made has played on my mind and I needed to confirm it for my own sake, so I made contact with someone I know inside the ALKO organisation. For anyone who is interested (I doubt there are many!) this is the answer I received. "Alko do produce the 500 series (T5) and 600 (T6) as well as the side discharge tractors, and will continue to do so under the Stihl branding. Viking produce the small riders and small platform tractors in their own N Austria factory" So, in the case of Stihl123, his T5 is in fact an ALKO tractor, which is a good thing. Its a very capable unit and spares are readily available from the many ALKO dealers in the UK, as well as from Stihl.

Beat this

Could it maybe just factual reporting that may interest some of the population? Or did the guy that fitted the seal vote for the party that you did not!

How the heck can a small trickle of water be a political issue?

I am sure you will get on very well with it Mr Stihl, well done for buying it. Which model is it? After a bit more research today I found that I was in fact correct after all. Viking tractors were first made by GGP and then by ALKO in their Austrian factory. I verified this by comparing the IPL's for Viking, Alko and GGP. However, I have yet to find common models to the newest Viking models, so it could be that they are in fact now made by Viking themselves. My quest for knowledge continues, but at least I know that my earlier statement were, to some degree, correct.

Thanks for that Harry, I have to admit to being misinformed on that subject. I have long held that belief but cannot actually remember where I heard it. I also apologise for having mislead any other readers of these posts. Most of what I have posted is, however, factual.

True up to point, some of the smaller John Deeres were made by GGP at one time, but that all stopped several years ago and they are all now John Deere's own product. All Honda ride on product is GGP with Honda power plants. Once again, true up to a point, but the JD X100 range is no better than the GGP product, and in someways not as good. Whilst the JD warranty is reasonable and customers are usually satisfied, there is sometimes a bit of 'discussion' between the dealer and JD to get a warranty passed. And JD are quite slow to process the warranty. And the warranty is only 2 years (domestic) GGP on the other hand, offer 5 years on many of their products and their warranty really is second to none. They seldom quibble with the dealers decision and warranty is approved and paid within 24 hours. Absolutely superb company to deal with. And GGP parts backup is certainly the best in the business. Products such as Viking and Honda though, have their warranty handled by their respective brands and so may not be as good or as quick as dealing with GGP. Incidentally, although I say GGP (Global Garden Products), the company has now changed its name from GGP to Stiga, so all the variants are now technically made by Stiga. I have been a John Deere dealer, as well as a Stiga dealer for over 20 years, so speak from first hand experience. I have however just dropped the JD franchise in favour of expanding my stock of Stiga product as over the last few years Stiga and Mountfield have accounted for over 80% of my sales, and very little of my warranty.

Its all very well to say that, but which range of John Deere do you mean? The X100 range is going to be very similar in spec, quality and price to many of the Viking range, and the X300 range will be similar to the top end Vikings. Of course the X500 and X740 range do excel, but at a price. The Viking ride ons are generally mid range machines and are not made by viking, but outsourced from companies such as GGP and ALKO.

How did you get on with it?

This is almost right, but what really happens is this. Rubber and plastics contain chemicals to keep them supple and prevent them cracking, and there are many different qualities of rubber and plastic. The solvents contained in pump petrol permeate the rubber and wash out the chemicals, but this tends not to matter too much, as the solvents themselves keep the rubber supple whilst slowly dissolving it. If you remove the petrol and dry store the machine, the rubber dries out and cracks. This happens anyway on machines using solely petrol. If you replace the petrol with Aspen, which contains no solvents, the rubber can also 'dry out' despite being wet with Aspen, so machines which have used petrol for a long period could suffer when converted to Aspen, but problems are easily prevented, or overcome, by replacing the pipes and diaphragms. The newer fuel pipes and diaphragms are now made to better withstand the stronger solvent that is found in petrol, namely ethanol, which makes short work of hoses on older and cheaper kit, and these should not suffer at all on conversion to Aspen. And, as Dilz says, these problems are not found in Sweden because everyone uses Aspen anyway, the only machines that suffer are those taken over by the Brits!

We cannot really judge this case just from hearing the story told by the OP, however reasonable it sounds. There are always two sides to the story and we have not heard the dealers case, and suspect we never will. On the issue of very pale coloured Aspen, I had a similar experience with a customer a few years ago. Despite my very comprehensive explanation of what Aspen2 was, the customer still did not quite understand and passed the can of Aspen on to the gardener without any explanation at all. The gardener assumed the Aspen2 to be some new form of 2 stroke oil and carried on to mix it at 50:1 with petrol. The result was of course an engine siezure. When I checked the fuel I found it to be petrol with just a hint of yellow and after asking the right questions we got to the bottom of the matter.

It would be just like using too small a file Beau, and you would have less of a radius just as you say. Would this be problem? probably not, to be honest. But why not use the correct tool for the job?

You need just 2 sizes to cover all common chains. 3.2 deals with 3/8 lp and .325 4.7 deals with 3/8 and .404. Simples!

Strange, I admit. But true. Many Aspen users will never go back to petrol even if means leaving the job. But it also means most make sure they have adequate supplies on hand.

Your posts never bore us Paul. You have been missed.

I find a lot of my Aspen customers now charge an extra £20 on their jobs, even it they don't use a full can. Generally their customers have no problem with this. If their customer queries the charge they explain thats its environmentally friendly and better for their health too, and it seems that most have no issues with this. The interesting thing is that they never used to charge the £6.00 for the petrol they used, so effectively they are actually making a little bit of money by charging the £20 as the Aspen is only £12 more than the petrol.

I have do admit that the £20.18 is a bit over the top, as the RRP for 2T is £18.98. I do understand why some dealers mark up the price though, its simply because they feel the margin is otherwise too low. I feel its bit short sighted of them though, its difficult enough selling at the RRP. yet alone at £1.20 more, they can however sell less than me and make the same end of year profit. With regards to the fumes. The chemical makeup of Aspen undoubtedly leads to less fumes as any user of Aspen will testify. Its only those who have not tried it that will dismiss the claims. And I do know plenty of users who would stop the job if they ran out of Aspen rather than revert to petrol. They just make sure they keep adequate stocks of Aspen to see them through the job, its not difficult. Maybe one day you will give it a try Granted, it would be great if it were cheaper, but I do not see it happening yet. Even though nationwide sales of Aspen are rising at considerable rate, we are still far short of the volumes needed to reduce costs by any significant amount. But at least the rise in sales has so far enabled price increases to be avoided, the same RRP has been in place for over 3 years. Buy buying a 'bulk' supply of 54 cans you could get the price down to £3.10 inc vat per litre, which is 2.5 times the price of petrol. Or even as low as £2.97 per litre should you buy 2x200l steel drums.

Looks like maybe someone had had a go at spark plug thread restoration or helicoil fitting and not removed the swarf?

Guess the signal from your router is not strong enough to reach the phone and there is no mobile date coverage (or mobile data is not switched on)

Sorry, I have no doubt that you have the bits on your screen, but I seriously doubt that they come from within the Aspen can. As I have said, I have decanted 100's of gallons of this stuff and never seen any impurities. I have also visited the Swedish plant and seen the blending and bottling process which is virtually clinically clean. But you also know that I am a bit of an Aspen geek, so I am keen to find what your particles are and where they are coming from. Having an opened can back from you is not really going to prove anything as, after all, once opened anything can fall in. And of course, sods law says if you let us have a full can it will be as pure as the one I filtered this morning. Can I suggest that you get a new plastic funnel and line it with a filter paper (coffee filter will do) and pour the contents of a new can through it, just as I did this morning, into another empty can. Do it one go and do it in a clean draught free room. If you catch anything, fold the filter paper and seal it into a resealable food back and post it to me. I will get it to Axel who may be able to send it to the Swedish Lab for evaluation. The labs there are incredibly well equipped with two full time chemists who continually test the product.

Very fair, well balanced comments there Bill

I have been pondering on this since last evening and decided to check for myself this morning. In the absence of filter paper I used a brand new echo air filter with the centre hole plugged, and squished into a new filter funnel. Took a brand new can of Aspen 2, gave it a good shake and poured slowly through the filter, not allowing it to go over the sides. Before and after pictures show no contamination, just a slight discolouring from the 2t oil. This has put my mind at rest about the purity of Aspen, but does not explain Old Woodchips observations.