Silicone dielectric grease should be spread a thin film on ground connections, been using it for 12 years. It assures you of a good ground connection.
Update. This machine Burns two freaking gallons an hour. That is double what the 690 Burns so about an extra $100 to $120 a week in fuel. if I replaced all the machines that’s an extra $700 or $800 a week in fuel maybe not the greatest option
2 Likes
Wow @Innocentbystander !! I thought those efi machines were supposed to be fuel efficient. maybe because its brand new ??
1 Like
Disappointing. But like @Hotshot said maybe its not yet “learned” since its new. Hard to say.
1 Like
I think it’s doubtful it will reduce its usage by half though, even 25% is probably optimistic
Just asking because I don’t know nor do I own a 690, but how does it do 1 gal/hr or better when it’s rated at 1.77 gal/hr?
1 Like
My vendor had the same question. 1.77 gallons per hour is not a real world number.
1 Like
Fuel consumption will vary depending on how hard you’re working it. If you’re just washing houses and condos at low pressure, you’re really not pushing the machine at all, and should have much lower fuel consumption than rated.
2 Likes
I wonder if you got a lemon. Honda is pretty good at what they do, and they put a lot of testing into products before releasing them to the public. I don’t think they’d claim that it’s more fuel efficient than its predecessor, if they didn’t have the data to back that up. I think something’s wrong with your machine, or it has a particularly thirsty break-in period.
1 Like
That sucks 
690 running the SC all day will go through 13 gallons of fuel on a long day. Can’t imagine double 
Won’t be getting one of them no time soon. Wonder since the pump is 10 gpm it is bypassing the extra water working it harder? If it is 10 gpm I might have read it wrong!
See, there’s the rub. They aren’t claiming it’s more efficient than the 690. They are saying it’s more efficient than other engines with the same horsepower at the same rpm. It’s is actually burning ore or less what the specs state. But, the 690 is supposed to burn 1.7 gpm and I have run them for a decade with a 1 gpm average.
Not sure, I’m bypassing about a quart a minute, just a trickle.
1 Like
A 690 is what, 22 or 23 hp? And the igx800 is 24 or 25? Seems like under a similar load, the newer motor should perform almost the same as the older, less advanced motor.
Something’s not adding up, to me. 
I agree. About 12 years ago my landa guy told Briggs if they couldn’t come up with a solution to leaking valve covers they could take every machine out of his inventory and he would never sell another one. He made the same call to Honda today and told them if a rep wasn’t in his office before noon tomorrow to show them how to diagnose them and explain the fuel consumption the same would apply to them. I’ll be using diesel before you know it lol.
1 Like
Ask them how they measure fuel economy, I’m certain it’s measured as a bare motor with nothing bolted to it to load it up, there’s plenty of things that could be bolted up to these motors with varying degrees of load and they just give the bare bones numbers. Bit like how vehicle manufactures quote numbers at the engine and not at the wheels where it counts after transmission, driveshaft, diff and wheel loss, there wildely different when measured on the dyno.
Exactly the same on my 690’s Right at 1 gal per hour. What you get for being a traitor to our beloved 690s, lol.
1 Like
Fuel consumption has to be measured under some kind of load. Just like fuel consumption for cars; they have to do a series of tests that mimic real world conditions. (Otherwise, every manufacturer would put the car up on a lift with the cruise set at 45, and just let it run for a few hours 
)
1 Like
I’m just trying to help my friend out and give some feedback. I’m definitely a 690 fan but until the embargo crap is changed our someone sneaks into china and gets some, ain’t nobody going to have one
They’re trying to do away with carburetors all the way around, surprised they haven’t mandated it sooner.
1 Like
They are 2 metrics that are the same (fuel consumption) measured under different principals, fuel consumption in a vehicle is measured at the amount of petrol/diesel used for a specific distance taking into account engine size, speed, rolling resistance, weight etc amongst other factors, on a stationary engine those core limitation don’t apply, you have the fuel consumption at “rated power” that power is 24.8hp at 3600rpm that is where Honda’s fuel consumption numbers come from I believe, you add a pump (load) outside of Honda’s metrics bore x stroke x rpm and the fuel consumption changes. I don’t believe Honda measures fuel consumption based on anything particular that is bolted to an engine in testing as it’s a multi use engine designed for various applications that have different load factors, they provide the engine we size it up to our needs.
1 Like
