# Stihl quick chain adjuster



## oneoldbanjo (Nov 29, 2007)

I am sure this has been discussed before - however I can't seem to get the "search" option on this site to work for the last few days. I am expecting that I will be buying a new MS361 in the not too distant future. I have a choice of the standard bar mount with two nuts and a side adjusting screw - and my trusty factory supplied "scrench". I also have the option of a quick adjust for very little additional cost.

Is the tool less quick adjust a good thing - or just another gimmick that doesn't function as nice as it looks. I expect I will follow everyone's recommendation and get a 20" bar.


----------



## bcorradi (Nov 29, 2007)

Check out this thread


----------



## Log Splitter (Nov 29, 2007)

LOL! Do your search using QCA. Lot's of stuff has been written already.

Some really respectable people here like the QCA.

I consider it an attempt to fix a problem that does not exist.

QCA Disadvantages - 1) Hard to accurately adjust chain if you are picky about tension, 2) Hard to turn the thumbwheel when the gears get filled up with debris, 3) You have to remove a small screw (that's easily lost) and change everything over if you want to flip the bar, 4) real loggers would never use a QCA on a 361. 

QCA Advantages - 1) Uh, uh, uh.....

opcorn:


----------



## Lakeside53 (Nov 29, 2007)

hmmm... before you all trash the "Quick Adjust", that on the 361 is not the same as the 180->250... 

We has to buy a bunch last year in the big wind storm, and I was pleasantly surprised how well it worked. Would I spend the money on it? na.. but.. it does work real well. Chain tension is not an issue if you live outside of Norway., and in any case, it's easy to obtain exactly what you want.


----------



## Log Splitter (Nov 29, 2007)

Thanks for setting me straight on the 361 QCA being a different design than the one on my 180, Lake. I did not know that. I owe the dealer that sold me my 361 an apology for my reaction when he asked me if I'd like to consider a saw with that feature.

Does it work as well as the regular side adjust chain tensioner? 

And I think I gave the guy from Norway the idea that it's hard to achieve proper chain tension with the QCA on another post several weeks ago. I'm picky about chain tension, but that's just me....

I really need to let this go, don't I.


----------



## Lakeside53 (Nov 29, 2007)

The QCA on the 361 is magnesium and well made... it has to be to hold a 25/28 bar...

I thought it was pretty good.. No real time on it but... the customers liked it - a couple were pro's - and they still run it.


----------



## dustytools (Nov 29, 2007)

Lakeside53 said:


> The QCA on the 361 is magnesium and well made... it has to be to hold a 25/28 bar...
> 
> I thought it was pretty good.. No real time on it but... the customers liked it - a couple were pro's - and they still run it.



I am by no means a pro but I have used mine quite a bit since I bought it back in April and have had zero problems out of it. Truthfully I was a littly "iffy" about it at first but it has grown on me. It poses absolutley no problems when flipping the bar or tightening the chain.


----------



## Just Mow (Nov 29, 2007)

It is a better design for a larger saw as Lakeside has said. The true professionals out there will balk about it because it is not traditional but it does work well for what it is intended to do.


----------



## stevethekiwi (Nov 29, 2007)

workshops love them too


----------



## COLD_IRON (Nov 29, 2007)

I have a QCA on my 361, so I'll add my 2 cents.

Overall, it works pretty good. However debris can clog the small teeth in the mechanism, which is easily fixed by pulling the sprocket cover off and turning the gear manually (only takes an additional 3 or 4 seconds). Also it is a little harder to clean, but it does what it says, and I don't have to carry the tool around all the time. Flipping the bar or changing bars isn't that hard either, only takes a minute.

Personally, I think Stihl needs to do a redesign so that the teeth don't clog up, or teeth aren't involved in the mechanism.


----------



## pgg (Nov 29, 2007)

The gimmicky, crappy, plasticy, trouble prone, sticky, thumb wounding, inaccurate PITA older stihl style quick chain adjust BS gadget is something the stihl chainsaw design team invented as a laugh just to aggravate otherwise mild-mannered people..  :blob5:


----------



## oneoldbanjo (Nov 30, 2007)

Thanks - I have never really had any problem with the standard adjusting method. I keep the scrench with my bottle of bar oil and adjust when needed. I have also started to keep a small brush with the bar oil bottle so I can brush the sawdust/chips away from the cap - I just flushed out the oil tank and was surprised how many pieces of wood were in there (11 years worth).

I suppose the decision to get the new 361 with or without the QCA will depend on what the dealer has in stock when I go to buy the saw.


----------



## nikocker (Nov 30, 2007)

*Works Great*

I have a fairly new (since September) MS 361 with the QCA and I have to say after getting used to it (took 5 minutes) is the best thing since slice bread. Quick simple and accurate chain adjustment. And flipping the bar is a snap.

I've not had the teeth clog to the point where adjustment is a problem. I've run about 12 tanks of gas through the saw so far, changed the chain 4 times and flipped the bar twice.

No reason not to get it as far as I'm concerned.

Al


----------



## Gumnuts (Nov 30, 2007)

Log Splitter said:


> QCA Disadvantages - 1) Hard to accurately adjust chain if you are picky about tension, 2) *Hard to turn the thumbwheel when the gears get filled up with debris, *3) You have to remove a small screw (that's easily lost) and change everything over if you want to flip the bar,
> QCA Advantages - 1) Uh, uh, uh.....
> 
> opcorn:



+1 
Have found the same thing.Personally think the old design could be improved.Where the standard chain adjuster screw is .Would be cool to have something like a knob or finger tensioner nut /something like- but low profile.........................
ie , Stihl part # 1109 660 0500.Could be attached with a mini press snap lock like on pressure hose fittings.Snap lock to replace head of the screw to turn the tensioner either way.This would dispense with the need for screw driver adjusting it / much the same principle as the new but placed where the standard adjuster is at present.Leaving the knob in place for tension adjusting but removable when chain sprocket cover needs to come off.
* Really like the idea of the new tensioner but for how it gums up making hard to turn.*- poor design me thinks.

Just .02c on a warm night down-under.


----------



## Lakeside53 (Nov 30, 2007)

oneoldbanjo said:


> I suppose the decision to get the new 361 with or without the QCA will depend on what the dealer has in stock when I go to buy the saw.



I'd tell the dealer which version you really want... and make him bring it in.


----------



## SawTroll (Nov 30, 2007)

oneoldbanjo said:


> Is the tool less quick adjust a good thing - or just another gimmick that doesn't function as nice as it looks.



Stay away, the standard adjuster on the 361 is really nice!!!

Accurate adjustments is not allways easy with the "Quick" version, at least not on the 250C.

It adds some weight as well......


----------



## Erick (Nov 30, 2007)

.


Don't listen to him get what you want.  :fart:  



:jester:


----------



## oneoldbanjo (Nov 30, 2007)

I stopped by the dealer at lunch time - they have the basic model in stock. It would take only 2-3 days to get the quick adjust model in. I have a fellow coming over tomorrow morning to look at my 029 - let's hope he likes it and I can get some "361 seed money". I will be at the Stihl dealers doorstep by the afternoon!!!!!


----------



## SawTroll (Nov 30, 2007)

Log Splitter said:


> LOL! Do your search using QCA. Lot's of stuff has been written already.
> 
> Some really respectable people here like the QCA.
> 
> ...



Yes, that's about it - very good post!!! :rockn: :rockn:

Took some weight off my back......

From another tread;



SawTroll said:


> I don't *hate* it, but I sure don't like it! :greenchainsaw:
> 
> Cheap trick, that has made a lot of "homeowner class" saws worse and heavier than they had to be - and it discourages proper maitenance.
> 
> They don't work too well either on the three saws I have been into (all MS250c), accuracy is the culprit.


----------



## Log Splitter (Nov 30, 2007)

I wondered when you would weigh in on the discussion, SawTroll. For a minute I thought you'd hung me out to dry. 

One thing I forgot to add to my original post - If you do have the QCA and the thumbwheel becomes hard to turn, the screwdriver end of a scrench can be used to push on the thumbwheel and get it to turn.   

I told Lake I'd try to let it go, but's it's more fun not to!


----------



## Lakeside53 (Nov 30, 2007)

Log Splitter said:


> I told Lake I'd try to let it go, but's it's more fun not to!



Especially with Troll stuck under his bridge. He's never even seen a 361 QCA, LET ALONE USED ONE.


----------



## oneoldbanjo (Nov 30, 2007)

Sorry....I didn't mean to get things stirred up.

Hypothetically.....If one were to purchase a 361 with the Quick Chain Adjuster and didn't like it - is the conversion back pretty simple? Meaning the purchase of a normal cover, the normal nuts and studs, and the adjustment screw and post for the bar?


----------



## XJWoody (Nov 30, 2007)

Hypothetically yes, easy to retrofit back to NCA (normal chain adjuster) but at some cost. Does the QCA cost more than the normal up front? Might could recoup a little hypothetical cash selling the QCA parts, but probably not all.

Now for a Friday evening hijack...  
Since it seems the battle lines are clearly drawn over the QCA vs NCA...





































Who has used a 361 or 441 with the "Q" rear handle chain brake interlock?


----------



## SawTroll (Nov 30, 2007)

Lakeside53 said:


> Especially with Troll stuck under his bridge. He's never even seen a 361 QCA, LET ALONE USED ONE.



That is true, just 3x 250c ones, and neither worked well - and I hardly believe that the debris/accuracy problem is particular to that model......:jawdrop:


----------



## Log Splitter (Nov 30, 2007)

XJWoody said:


> Who has used a 361 or 441 with the "Q" rear handle chain brake interlock?



Somebody here has one and wrote up a review. I tried to find it using the search feature but struck out. As I recall, the guy did like the Q feature on his saw. Perhaps you might want to start a new thread asking about it.


----------



## bcorradi (Nov 30, 2007)

XJWoody said:


> Who has used a 361 or 441 with the "Q" rear handle chain brake interlock?



I have it and I actually like it. I thought it was a little gimmicky at first, but I have yet to have any problems with it. A lot of times I have my son and daughter near by when I'm cutting and I like the added safety of having it.


----------



## OLY-JIM (Nov 30, 2007)

*SawTroll:*



SawTroll said:


> That is true, just 3x 250c ones, and neither worked well - and I hardly believe that the debris/accuracy problem is particular to that model......:jawdrop:



Troll, I assume that all who would use a chainsaw would also prefer to have their chains adjusted appropriately and accurately. Personally, if I felt that I had an inaccurate adjustment; I would not continue to cut with the saw until I had corrected the problem. With this being said, exactly what is your quantifiable measure of chain adjustment accuracy that makes you think the QCA is incapable of achieving. 

In truth, I know its a matter of feel, ect...but...if I can achieve an accurate adjustment with the QCA...why is it that you cannot? This is a serious question and not an attempt at sarcasm.

I know that your two biggest complaints with this feature are the assertions that it discourages proper maintenance and chain adjustment accuracy. As hard a I try; I cannot assign credibility to the discourages maintenance argument (my personal experience prevents me from doing so), however, you may indeed have a point with the accuracy assertion. I feel that I achieve a very accurate adjustment myself, but perhaps your assessment is based on different standards of measure. Please elaborate on how you feel the QCA fails in this regard? 

OLY-JIM


----------



## Lakeside53 (Dec 1, 2007)

+1.. no... +5

As I read this thread, we have one old troll that's never seen one saying it sucks, and a handful of guys that actually own one saying it works fine... hmmmm..


As for "accuracy".... sure.... that big zone between tight and too loose is hours of cutting (beyond initial movement in the first few minutes)....


----------



## nikocker (Dec 1, 2007)

*I Say Again -It's Great!*

I don't know where all the negative comments on the QCA on the MS 361 are coming from. If you don't own one and don't use one --- DON"T SPECULATE on how bad it must be, or how heavy it is, or how inaccurate it is. 
I'm here to tell you it works great!!! 

Because it's so easy to use, you almost find yourself MAINTAINING proper tension on a more regular basis. You can do it literally in less than 5 seconds!

Own it -use it - then comment. 

Jesus I got pumped - and I'm really a Husky guy.

Al


----------



## Log Splitter (Dec 1, 2007)

Sounds like we're starting to argue politics or religion here. No point in doing that.

I stand corrected on thinking the MS 361 QCA is the same design as the one on my 180. It's not, so I don't have a clue if it works better or not. That said, my 361 does not have QCA (my choice when I bought it), and if I bought another one today it would not have the QCA either. 

I don't want a QCA because I don't think that it has any advantages over the standard bar mount. For me, the QCA (on my 180) makes chain adjustment harder, not easier. Others disagree, they should buy the QCA and will enjoy using it. 

Both opinions should be expressed when somebody asks what we think, not to try to persuade the other side, but to give the person asking the question some logical reasons to make his decision either way.


----------



## OLY-JIM (Dec 1, 2007)

Log Splitter said:


> Sounds like we're starting to argue politics or religion here. No point in doing that.
> 
> I stand corrected on thinking the MS 361 QCA is the same design as the one on my 180. It's not, so I don't have a clue if it works better or not. That said, my 361 does not have QCA (my choice when I bought it), and if I bought another one today it would not have the QCA either.
> 
> ...



Absolutely!


----------



## SawTroll (Dec 1, 2007)

Log Splitter said:


> ....
> Both opinions should be expressed when somebody asks what we think, not to try to persuade the other side, but to give the person asking the question some logical reasons to make his decision either way.



Well said!!


----------



## nikocker (Dec 3, 2007)

*I Agree*

I think it's great to hear both sides of any issue - however the original poster was specific as to model of saw (MS361 with the QCA) and yet most of the people disuading him from that choice were people with absolutely NO experience with that particular saw combo!

So how can mere speculation to the advantages /diadvantages of a feature be truely helpful to the person with the question?

Al


----------



## SawTroll (Dec 3, 2007)

nikocker said:


> I think it's great to hear both sides of any issue - however the original poster was specific as to model of saw (MS361 with the QCA) and yet most of the people disuading him from that choice were people with absolutely NO experience with that particular saw combo! ....



Look again - he actually asked if it was a gimmick or not - and hadn't made up his mind yet, if he wanted it.

In my book, it will always remain a gimmick, and just another thing that may fail sooner or later....

...and another solution to a non-existent problem.


----------



## oneoldbanjo (Dec 3, 2007)

Well I sold my 029 on Saturday and am just minutes away from going to the dealer to buy a new 361.....and I still haven't decided which model to buy. They have a 361 without the QCA sitting on the shelf ready to go - but they did say the QCA model is only about 2-3 days away......and there is so little daylight after work that I don't cut any wood weekdays anyhow and wouldn't need the saw until this weekend anyhow.

I have never had any trouble with the standard bar mount and always keep a scrench with the oil and fuel bottles - so taking a moment to tighten the chain using the normal methods is not a big problem. I do have a 192T for the little stuff and it uses a single nut for the chain - so I will always have a need for the scrench.

I will probably have to just make a decision when I go to the dealer...see if they have an opinion........or I could get the QCA and give you my opinion based on actually owning and operating one?


----------



## nikocker (Dec 3, 2007)

Troll - 

That's true, but you don't own the QCA. Have you used one or is your opinion merely that - - - an opinion???

As far as a solution to a non-existant problem - what about misplacing a scrench or worse yet losing it while out in the woods. Why are so many replacement screnches painted flourescent orange!?! 

With the QCA you don't need the scwrench - it solves that problem! 

You may call it a gimmick - I call it a useful feature.

Al


----------



## OLY-JIM (Dec 3, 2007)

*Hhmm?*



SawTroll said:


> Look again - he actually asked if it was a gimmick or not - and hadn't made up his mind yet, if he wanted it.
> 
> In my book, it will always remain a gimmick, and just another thing that may fail sooner or later....
> 
> ...and another solution to a non-existent problem.



It may always remain a gimmick in your mind...it doesn't change the fact that you're offering personal opinion on something that you have not used and have no real world experience on in regards to the MS 361. 

Truthfully, the man would be fine regardless of what decision he makes...I know this based on personal experience and by having used both chain tentioning systems on this saw model. I would personally recommend the standard system, although, the QCA works just fine and can be very handy...I've experienced absoutely no shortcomings with mine (I still wish I had the standard). I simply fail to see how your arbitrary remarks are helpful to anybody, in any capacity. 

We are all free to express our humble opinions and on occasion; to strongly express them. I enjoy reading your opinions Troll, however, sometimes I feel compelled to question your motivation in regards to some of your opinions that are being expressed. It seems that you are under the impression that if something is not to your liking, then that certain something is not suitable for anybody...and this is simply not the case. If you don't like it...great...say so...don't buy it...move on...but, please don't offer false testimony. :deadhorse:


Best Regards,
OLY-JIM


----------



## nikocker (Dec 3, 2007)

*Now that's WELL said!*

+1 OLY-JIM

Al


----------



## Triton (Dec 3, 2007)

I have used a stihl QD system on a small saw (can't remember which) and hated it! tensioning is really awkward, and cleaning it is a pain (I try to clean my saws at the end of every day). The mechanism looks flimsy; the grub screw worked loose on the one I was using, and has to be removed to turn the bar over. The whole thing just seems to add a layer of complication to a system that works just fine: how much trouble is it really to undo two nuts with a scrench???

I saw a 361 with QD on ebay and was thinking about getting it and converting to standard, but when I phoned stihl R&D they told me the two types of cover cannot be interchanged; the whole saw is the QD type.

Just my thoughts on the subject....


----------



## oneoldbanjo (Dec 3, 2007)

Well I just returned from buying my new MS361...without the QCA. I used the $ 30 it would have cost to help buy a case, and my first chisel chain, and a 3/8" file kit. Thank you all for helping me to decide to sell my 029 and buy this saw....it will sure make for a lot more fun when cutting my firewood.


----------



## nikocker (Dec 3, 2007)

*Congrats!!*

You're gonna love the MS361!

Al


----------



## OLY-JIM (Dec 3, 2007)

*New Saw!*



oneoldbanjo said:


> Well I just returned from buying my new MS361...without the QCA. I used the $ 30 it would have cost to help buy a case, and my first chisel chain, and a 3/8" file kit. Thank you all for helping me to decide to sell my 029 and buy this saw....it will sure make for a lot more fun when cutting my firewood.



I think you'll like the 361 a lot! Congratulations on your new saw and good cutting!

Best Regards,
OLY-JIM


----------



## SawTroll (Dec 3, 2007)

oneoldbanjo said:


> Well I just returned from buying my new MS361...without the QCA. I used the $ 30 it would have cost to help buy a case, and my first chisel chain, and a 3/8" file kit. Thank you all for helping me to decide to sell my 029 and buy this saw....it will sure make for a lot more fun when cutting my firewood.



Congrats, good choise!!!   


Forgot to say earlier, the QCA helps collect more noodles under the clutch cover when ripping wood from the side as well..... 

It is a couple of years since I last used a QCA-infected Stihl.....


----------



## OLY-JIM (Dec 3, 2007)

Triton said:


> I have used a stihl QD system on a small saw (can't remember which) and hated it! tensioning is really awkward, and cleaning it is a pain (I try to clean my saws at the end of every day). The mechanism looks flimsy; the grub screw worked loose on the one I was using, and has to be removed to turn the bar over. The whole thing just seems to add a layer of complication to a system that works just fine: how much trouble is it really to undo two nuts with a scrench???
> 
> I saw a 361 with QD on ebay and was thinking about getting it and converting to standard, but when I phoned stihl R&D they told me the two types of cover cannot be interchanged; the whole saw is the QD type.
> 
> Just my thoughts on the subject....



First post...welcome aboard!


----------



## Lakeside53 (Dec 3, 2007)

SawTroll said:


> Congrats, good choise!!!
> 
> 
> Forgot to say earlier, the QCA helps collect more noodles under the clutch cover when ripping wood from the side as well.....
> ...



For the last time (sure) you've never used a QCA on a PRO saw; you a have no idea how well it works or if it does in fact "collect more noodles".


----------



## spike60 (Dec 3, 2007)

These devices may work fine, but I just don't subscribe to the whole "tooless" concept. I agree with Troll and a couple other posters that this is pretty much the answer to a question nobody asked. "Tooless" is a gimmick that appeals to the brainless. By the way, what's the replacement cost of a side cover with one of these goofy ideas vs. that of a standard one?

I mean, how complicated is a scrench? If you can't use a screwdriver, you shouldn't be using a chainsaw.


----------



## Lakeside53 (Dec 3, 2007)

spike60 said:


> . By the way, what's the replacement cost of a side cover with one of these goofy ideas vs. that of a standard one?
> 
> I mean, how complicated is a scrench? If you can't use a screwdriver, you shouldn't be using a chainsaw.



I guess Stihl anticipated your question -the QA side cover is the same price as the standard cover... Doesn't include the drive gear ($38) but I've never seen a bad one, ever...


It sure is useful if you forgot your scrench - oh - brainless


----------



## Just Mow (Dec 3, 2007)

Lakeside53 said:


> I guess Stihl anticipated your question -the QA side cover is the same price as the standard cover... Doesn't include the drive gear ($38) but I've never seen a bad one, ever...
> 
> 
> It sure is useful if you forgot your scrench - oh - brainless



I guess there are a lot of brainless people out there considering the other saw manufacturers are copying it as fast as they can.


----------



## bcorradi (Dec 3, 2007)

spike60 said:


> These devices may work fine, but I just don't subscribe to the whole "tooless" concept. I agree with Troll and a couple other posters that this is pretty much the answer to a question nobody asked. "Tooless" is a gimmick that appeals to the brainless. By the way, what's the replacement cost of a side cover with one of these goofy ideas vs. that of a standard one?
> 
> I mean, how complicated is a scrench? If you can't use a screwdriver, you shouldn't be using a chainsaw.



Spike your too old fashioned . I don't think stihl is in another world on this concept. Look at today's modern vehicles, I doubt anyone asked for keyless entery either, but it is sure handy when you don't have your keys isn't it? Why power windows, manual crank windows seemed to work fine?


----------



## 2000ssm6 (Dec 3, 2007)

bcorradi said:


> Spike your too old fashioned . I don't think stihl is in another world on this concept. Look at today's modern vehicles, I doubt anyone asked for keyless entery either, but it is sure handy when you don't have your keys isn't it? Why power windows, manual crank windows seemed to work fine?



Heck, most autos have a push button start now.


----------



## COLD_IRON (Dec 3, 2007)

spike60 said:


> These devices may work fine, but I just don't subscribe to the whole "tooless" concept. I agree with Troll and a couple other posters that this is pretty much the answer to a question nobody asked. "Tooless" is a gimmick that appeals to the brainless. By the way, what's the replacement cost of a side cover with one of these goofy ideas vs. that of a standard one?
> 
> I mean, how complicated is a scrench? If you can't use a screwdriver, you shouldn't be using a chainsaw.




I chose the QCA so I don't have to carry the swrench around. I bought my saw for work in rough terrain where tripping and falling in heavy brush is a very real hazard and I'd rather not have my body stabbed by a screwdriver or some other tool. Does that make me brainless?

Oh, and I have operated older screw tension saws too, and I've had the adjustment screws bend and slip, throwing the chain off. Had to finish that job by taking a screwdriver and jamming the bar forward as much as possible then tightening the nuts (ended up being a problem with the bar).

Personally, I think both systems have their flaws.


----------



## Lakeside53 (Dec 3, 2007)

bcorradi said:


> Spike your too old fashioned . I don't think stihl is in another world on this concept. Look at today's modern vehicles, I doubt anyone asked for keyless entery either, but it is sure handy when you don't have your keys isn't it? Why power windows, manual crank windows seemed to work fine?





Hmmm.. My truck is a stick shift, manual windows, key entry with key start. Don't even have a light in the glove box (who keeps gloves in there anyhow?). Gimmicks I say, and just worthless trinkets. :monkey: 

:greenchainsaw:


----------



## 04ultra (Dec 3, 2007)

Lakeside53 said:


> Hmmm.. My truck is a stick shift, manual windows, key entry with key start. Don't even have a light in the glove box (who keeps gloves in there anyhow?). Gimmicks I say, and just worthless trinkets. :monkey:
> 
> :greenchainsaw:




Sorry to hear that Andy.........................It must be an upper midwest thing having all the toys ................It suck's when it 90 out side and the A/C is on and by accident you bump the heated seat button.......  









.


----------



## bcorradi (Dec 3, 2007)

Lakeside53 said:


> Hmmm.. My truck is a stick shift, manual windows, key entry with key start. Don't even have a light in the glove box (who keeps gloves in there anyhow?). Gimmicks I say, and just worthless trinkets. :monkey:
> 
> :greenchainsaw:


Most of my trucks don't have all those new fangled features either lol . Just be happy yours has that "once gimmicky device" the "key start".


----------



## 49KB-2 (Dec 3, 2007)

Lakeside53 said:


> Hmmm.. My truck is a stick shift, manual windows, key entry with key start. Don't even have a light in the glove box (who keeps gloves in there anyhow?). Gimmicks I say, and just worthless trinkets. :monkey:
> 
> :greenchainsaw:



Same here. I searched around until I found mine. Manual tranny, floor shifted T-case, manual hubs, manual windows/locks, even rubber floormats and vinyl bench seat. Was hard to find, but very worth it.


----------



## bcorradi (Dec 4, 2007)

04ultra said:


> Sorry to hear that Andy.........................It must be an upper midwest thing having all the toys ................It suck's when it 90 out side and the A/C is on and by accident you bump the heated seat button.......
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I bet you don't have toe venting on the floorboards of your truck. My 78 has that, but it sucks when you accidentally cover up the hole with your foot when its 90 out. I seem to remember to keep my foot over it in the winter when its -20 out, except in between shifts.


----------



## Lakeside53 (Dec 4, 2007)

04ultra said:


> Sorry to hear that Andy.........................It must be an upper midwest thing having all the toys ................It suck's when it 90 out side and the A/C is on and by accident you bump the heated seat button.......
> 
> 
> 
> ...



lolol no AC or heated seats either...


I HATE it in the wife's car -damn power windows, power mirrors, keyless and all the widgets you could [not] want, but I really hate the HEATED SEATS. Take's me about and hour of sweating before I figure it out. Brainless... I guess..


----------



## 04ultra (Dec 4, 2007)

Lakeside53 said:


> lolol no AC or heated seats either...
> 
> 
> I HATE it in the wife's car -damn power windows, power mirrors, keyless and all the widgets you could [not] want, but I really hate the HEATED SEATS. Take's me about and hour of sweating before I figure it out. Brainless... I guess..





Been there done that many times........Or when I use my wifes keys, her key fob is set for driver #2 and your knees darn near break the dash..  



.


----------



## Lakeside53 (Dec 4, 2007)

04ultra said:


> Been there done that many times........Or when I use my wifes keys, her key fob is set for driver #2 and your knees darn near break the dash..
> 
> 
> 
> .



uh oh.. it's one of those "guess your weight" cars... lolol


----------



## spike60 (Dec 4, 2007)

COLD_IRON said:


> I chose the QCA so I don't have to carry the swrench around. I bought my saw for work in rough terrain where tripping and falling in heavy brush is a very real hazard and I'd rather not have my body stabbed by a screwdriver or some other tool. Does that make me brainless?
> 
> Oh, and I have operated older screw tension saws too, and I've had the adjustment screws bend and slip, throwing the chain off. Had to finish that job by taking a screwdriver and jamming the bar forward as much as possible then tightening the nuts (ended up being a problem with the bar).
> 
> Personally, I think both systems have their flaws.



OK, I'll admit the brainless comment was a bit out of bounds. I was thinking of the type of customers who I see in my store that get excited about these no tool gimmicks. They really do make me nervous, and you wonder if they will be back missing a limb but adding a lawyer.

Your reasoning is completely valid, and considering the amount of screnches that get lost in the woods........................


----------



## spike60 (Dec 4, 2007)

bcorradi said:


> Spike your too old fashioned .



Yeah, you got me pegged on that one bc!


----------



## Lakeside53 (Dec 4, 2007)

spike60 said:


> .
> 
> Your reasoning is completely valid, and considering the amount of screnches that get lost in the woods........................



I was thinking about that... I bet we sell 500 screnches a year... at $5 a pop ( not Stihl..). I bet most of them get lost log before the woods


----------

