# jonsered 2055 turbo



## Ah_ciD (Jul 31, 2007)

just got a jonsered 2055 turbo from a buddy... this thing is new... mabey had 2 tanks ran through it sofar .. i am wondering if anyone can tell me more about this saw? is it a real turbo?? whats the fuel mixture?? whats this saw worth new? why cant i find any information on it in english?? i know this is alot to ask on a first post but i have never heard of jonsered... my current saw is a poulan wild thing i bought for 85$ factory reconditioned... so let me know anything u know it owuld be greatly appreciated.... oh and where can i get a manual for this darn thing?opcorn:


----------



## RED-85-Z51 (Jul 31, 2007)

As best I can tell its between 55 and 60 cc's.

As far as I know, "turbo" was just a name, with no actual turbo charger. 

How do you like your Wildthing?


----------



## HiOctane (Jul 31, 2007)

No,its not a turbo,its just a small air duct along the flywheel connecting the air to get some more fresh air in the air filter area and supposedly keep your air filter cleaner too.The initial fuel mixture about 0ne turn out each and you adjust the Hi to keep it bubbling ,almost "singing right"unloaded.She was worth around 775,00 Cdn if i rememeber correctly.She was a very good performer and revver for his size,a bit better than a Husky 254 performance wise.They had a bad habit of leaking oil betwwe the "case separation"at the front close to the bar studs.They improved the crankcase later on this one.Also,when the chain derailed ,it was easy to have a leak after because chain"ate" the case easily.But overall,its an excellent saw.More [URL="http://www.acresinternet.com/cscc.nsf/ed1d619968136da688256af40002b8f7/bd85a13b73c2c3bc88256d01001acdc9?OpenDocument"] here.[/URL] and [URL="http://weborder.husqvarna.com/order_static/doc/JIPL/JIPL1998/JIPL1998_I9800038.pdf"]here[/URL]


----------



## spike60 (Jul 31, 2007)

There were 3 saws in this family. The 2055 was the last, and replaced the 2051. They were both screamers. 14,500 for the '55, and 14,800 for the 51. While the 2051 was actually 51CC, the 2055 is 53CC. Both of these were the "pro" versions, and they were kind of pricey. 

The 3rd model in this group was the 2054, which was the more popular due to the fact that it was around $100 less that the other 2. The 2054 actually came in 2 displacements; originally 53CC when it came out, and then 48.7 CC starting in 1998. I don't think it was produced very long after that, so there aren't too many of the smaller ones out there. There were some confusing things happening with displacements with Jonsereds around this time. The 2083II, dropped down from 82CC to 77CC; so why wasn't it called the 2077 again? I have no clue if there is any difference between the actual 2077 and the 2083II. 

Since your saw has been sitting, check for oxidation in the metal fuel tank. You may want to rinse and flush it a couple of times and certainly change the fuel filter.

These saws had quite a bit of Partner influence, but I'm not sure that there was a particular Partner model that is the same. (Sawtroll, I need help here!!) I'm pretty sure there were no Husky versions of these saws.


----------



## SawTroll (Jul 31, 2007)

Spike is totally right, the 2055 replaced the 2051, and was a "hot-rodded" 2054, which was basically the same saw as the Husky 55 a and Partner 540.

They all owe their "genes" to the basic Partner 5000/500/5500 design.....:greenchainsaw: 

It does *not* perform as well as the Husky 254xp, and has *no relation * to it.


----------



## ray benson (Jul 31, 2007)

The only info I ran across -

Displacement 53.2 cc
Power 2.8 kW (3.8 hp)
Weight without bar and chain 5.2 kg
Noise level 109 dB(A)


----------



## Ah_ciD (Jul 31, 2007)

thanx guys you info has been very helpfull... i found some more info... i understand there was a 2055 a 2055W and a 2055 W CAT... i know the W was a heated handle but i could not figure out wht the CAT meant. 775$ wow i think i made a good deal on this one... but id does leak oil i am noticing... runs graet tho i havent found any wood yet.


----------



## clearance (Jul 31, 2007)

Welcome to the site Acid. You mean it leaks oil when its sitting? No big deal, most do.


----------



## Ah_ciD (Jul 31, 2007)

i figured it was just bar oil.... HiOctane thanks for the links the exploded view is a godsend!!


----------



## SawTroll (Aug 1, 2007)

The CAT designation refer to a CAT muffler, not what you would want.......


----------



## dipole (Aug 2, 2007)

*2051/2054/2055*

These are a great design. In use they were as good as a husky 254 for softwood limbing except they proved to be a bit too brittle to put up with the hardship.
As Jonsered, Husky and Partner are all part of the electrolux group many parts were shared like ignition modules, cylinders and pistons, bars, chains, screws and bolts across the saws.

The Jonsered used a forced air induction system. It was a RAM air type system as opposed to a Turbo and the saw used to scream at huge revs which made it perfect for softwood. The air was pumped in from the flywheel and without the covers on the engine it wouldn't work half as well. Both Partner and Husky have similiar ram air systems on some of their saws.
The 254 was the better saw due to it's durability. A good forestry worker would probably be more productive with the 2051 but it would fall to pieces earlier. The Partner 540 was also a very nice saw but never screamed to the same RPM and partner 5000/5500 form had vapour lock issues which were partially addressed on the carb of the 540 but as the fuel tank was part of the engine body vapour lock issues would always be present.


----------



## SawTroll (Aug 2, 2007)

dipole said:


> These are a great design. In use they were as good as a husky 254 for softwood limbing except they proved to be a bit too brittle to put up with the hardship. ....




The Husky 254 (and the earlier 154) was a much better and sturdier design, and a true 54cc with longer stroke and more power. 

The 2055 was _sort of _comparable, as it was the closest Jred for weight and power, but by no means _as good_. 
I would _not_ say that the 2055 was a _great_ design, it was a powerful version of a pretty good, but somewhat troubled basic design.

You are basically saying it was great, and next you are telling why it it actually wasn't that great........


----------



## dipole (Aug 2, 2007)

It was a fabulous saw whose merits weren't obvious to loggers who expected to be able to get three years out of a saw they should have been replacing every 18 months.
I'm saying it was a lovely saw that would scream to the heavens and with an 11" inch bar on it was exactly what any softwood forestry worker wanted.
It was a generation ahead of the 254 in design terms but too brittle for 
people who treated their tools like dirt and expected the saw to put up with the abuse they gave to their 254s as routine.

If you want to talk about durability then yes the 254 was a better saw provided you were willing to put up with anti-shock rubbers needing constant replacement.
I never thought the 2054 and 2055 were as good as the 2051 as they had watered down the original design ideology of the 2051 in much the same way as the husky 262 was never as good a package as the 254 despite having more displacement.


----------



## spike60 (Aug 2, 2007)

dipole said:


> I never thought the 2054 and 2055 were as good as the 2051 as they had watered down the original design ideology of the 2051 in much the same way as the husky 262 was never as good a package as the 254 despite having more displacement.




I agree that the 2051 is the best of the 3. (I've got a 2054 which is the milder of them all).

But how does the 262 fall short of the 254?


----------



## dipole (Aug 2, 2007)

spike60 said:


> I agree that the 2051 is the best of the 3. (I've got a 2054 which is the milder of them all).
> 
> But how does the 262 fall short of the 254?


Because it was not a 254 and not a 266. It was somewhere in the middle and didn't do anything more for the loggers I met than a 254 could.


----------



## SawTroll (Aug 2, 2007)

spike60 said:


> I agree that the 2051 is the best of the 3. (I've got a 2054 which is the milder of them all).
> 
> But how does the 262 fall short of the 254?



Good question!



dipole said:


> Because it was not a 254 and not a 266. It was somewhere in the middle and didn't do anything more for the loggers I met than a 254 could.



As far as I know, the 262xp actually has more power than the 266xp, at higher rpms, and is lighter (but heavier than the 254)........ 

The 268xp has the same power output rating as the 262xp, but still is heavier, and not quite the rpms of the 262.

The only thing I don't like with the 262 is the outboard clutch, but that is what the 266 and 268 have as well.

....but I admit I have never run a 266/268xp.


----------



## dipole (Aug 3, 2007)

SawTroll said:


> Good question!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nothing in those stats relates to real world usage. For softwood loggers the 262 couldn't do anything special that the 254 wasn't already able to do but you had to pay a price premium.
the 266 had more grunt and was in a different market. The 262 just cannibalised 254 sales for 254 owners who thought "this 254 is great, just imagine how much better the 262, with a few extra CC, will be" and then take possession to find it doesn't do anything better than a 254.
The 262 was a marketing exercise and little more.


----------



## SawTroll (Aug 3, 2007)

dipole said:


> Nothing in those stats relates to real world usage. For softwood loggers the 262 couldn't do anything special that the 254 wasn't already able to do but you had to pay a price premium.
> the 266 had more grunt and was in a different market. The 262 just cannibalised 254 sales for 254 owners who thought "this 254 is great, just imagine how much better the 262, with a few extra CC, will be" and then take possession to find it doesn't do anything better than a 254.
> The 262 was a marketing exercise and little more.



Dipole, I think you are pretty much alone with your wiew on this issue, the 262xp is held in very high esteem in North America and Scandinavia, as one of the best Huskys ever to be made.  

...but every market and application is different......


----------



## taplinhill (Aug 3, 2007)

*Jonsered 262XP*

Did Jonsered have an equal to the 262XP? Maybe the 630? I know the 266/268 were like the 670's. I never used or even saw a 262XP in my neck of the woods, and 630's were somewhat rare. This was 266/268/670 country.


----------



## dipole (Aug 3, 2007)

Jonsered 625 and 630 were a fair bit heavier than a 262 and rev'd lower.
630 was supposed to be a pro-spec version of the 625
Because they were the same as a Husky 61/66 a lot of loggers started using them on account of being a lot cheaper than the Husky while offering the exact same reliability. The 254 was much more expensive than the 61/66 so even though it was the saw the forestry workers should have been buying they bought the 61/66 and once they got over their brand bias Jonsered 625/630 instead.
These forestry workers never got proper training so it wasn't as though they were getting optimal efficency in their working day anyhow and couldn't see how wrong tool choice led to reduced output. I'm speaking about Ireland here, not Scandinavia where forestry workers actually know what they are doing.


----------



## SawTroll (Aug 3, 2007)

taplinhill said:


> Did Jonsered have an equal to the 262XP? Maybe the 630? I know the 266/268 were like the 670's. I never used or even saw a 262XP in my neck of the woods, and 630's were somewhat rare. This was 266/268/670 country.



Nope, they never did - Husky kept their best designs for themself, at that time (254 and 262xp).

The 630 was basically the much older and heavier 162se. The 162 was a pretty good saw in its time (1976), but the later 262xp (1990) was lighter and had more power, and the 625 was basically the 61, a "demoted" 162se.


----------



## taplinhill (Aug 3, 2007)

SawTroll said:


> Nope, they never did - Husky kept their best designs for themself, at that time (254 and 262xp).
> 
> The 630 was basically the much older and heavier 162se (a pretty good saw in its time, but the later 262xp was lighter and had more power), and the 625 was basically the 61.



Thanks SawTroll! I have a 61 and 625 and knew they were close, and never thought my 630 was anything too special. The way people are talking about the 262XP it must have been a pretty good saw. I hope I cross paths with one someday!


----------



## dipole (Aug 4, 2007)

If you want to know exactly how close the 625, 630, 670, 61 66 and 266 were you should look at the parts lists for these saws. Practically all the part numbers were the same because they used the exact same Electrolux Part numbering system for Partner, Husqvarna and Jonsered. 
Husqvarna dealers at the time said inferior materials were used in the Jonsered as a way of justifying the higher sticker price but the parts lists suggested otherwise.
Saw quite a few 61/625/630/266 mutants built up from the cadavers of old saws.


----------



## SawTroll (Aug 4, 2007)

dipole said:


> If you want to know exactly how close the 625, 630, 670, 61 66 and 266 were you should look at the parts lists for these saws. Practically all the part numbers were the same because they used the exact same Electrolux Part numbering system for Partner, Husqvarna and Jonsered.
> Husqvarna dealers at the time said inferior materials were used in the Jonsered as a way of justifying the higher sticker price but the parts lists suggested otherwise.
> Saw quite a few 61/625/630/266 mutants built up from the cadavers of old saws.




Yep, that is true!

Btw, the Jred versions usually were rated a bit higher than the corresponding Huskys for power, and the _were_ differences that could explain it...... opcorn:


----------



## nmurph (Jan 18, 2012)

I wanted to bump this thread up for some of the newer members. It contains lots of good info about Jred/Husky saws. 
Thanks Niko and Bob for the info.


----------



## SawTroll (Jan 18, 2012)

nmurph said:


> I wanted to bump this thread up for some of the newer members. It contains lots of good info about Jred/Husky saws.
> Thanks Niko and Bob for the info.



I have learned a bit more after I posted in this thread, not all that info is 100% correct......:biggrinbounce2:


----------



## greendohn (Jan 18, 2012)

my first saw was a 2054. (that was about 1996,maybe) i loved that little saw. 

i'm convinced the "turbo" did keep the air filter cleaner than say,,the other brands that my buddy was using. his saw was quite a bit older though.


----------



## SawTroll (Jan 18, 2012)

greendohn said:


> my first saw was a 2054. (that was about 1996,maybe) i loved that little saw.
> 
> i'm convinced the "turbo" did keep the air filter cleaner than say,,the other brands that my buddy was using. his saw was quite a bit older though.



Just another name on the "Air Injection" cleaning system! 

You are right that it works though. :msp_smile:


----------



## nmurph (Jan 18, 2012)

Niko, here's your chance to correct the errors. I did notice that you mentioned a dislike of outboard clutches.


----------



## SawTroll (Jan 18, 2012)

nmurph said:


> Niko, here's your chance to correct the errors. I did notice that you mentioned a dislike of outboard clutches.



Yep, my opinion on that has changed a bit with time, after I really started to look deeper into it.....


----------



## nmurph (Jan 18, 2012)

I used to think the outboard clutch made chain replacement more difficult. I have learned that if I lay the saw on the starter side, put the chain around the sprocket and splay it out, then lay the bar on and put the chain on the end and work it toward the clutch end, I can install it about as fast as I can with an inboard clutch.


----------



## Somesawguy (Jan 18, 2012)

My dad has one, and he likes it well enough. It did have an issue with the choke not closing all the way which made for hard starting. Other than that, it's been trouble free. He keeps saying it doesn't have as much power as his old Homelite 350, but I haven't compared the specs.


----------



## mountainlake (Jan 18, 2012)

nmurph said:


> I used to think the outboard clutch made chain replacement more difficult. I have learned that if I lay the saw on the starter side, put the chain around the sprocket and splay it out, then lay the bar on and put the chain on the end and work it toward the clutch end, I can install it about as fast as I can with an inboard clutch.



Same here except I tuck the bar under the clutch then slip the chain on, fast and easy. Steve


----------



## nmurph (Jan 18, 2012)

mountainlake said:


> Same here except I tuck the bar under the clutch then slip the chain on, fast and easy. Steve



Yes, slide it under, slip the chain on the tip, then pull it taut and drop it on the adjuster stud. It is better to start with the adjust too far in if you are swapping chains/bars.


----------



## SawTroll (Jan 18, 2012)

nmurph said:


> I used to think the outboard clutch made chain replacement more difficult. I have learned that if I lay the saw on the starter side, put the chain around the sprocket and splay it out, then lay the bar on and put the chain on the end and work it toward the clutch end, I can install it about as fast as I can with an inboard clutch.



Exactly what I have done, as far back as I can remember - I have never stated* that *is an issue!


----------



## treesmith (Jul 20, 2013)

left a 2055t and a 262xp in the uk when I emigrated, the 2055 is history now which I'm starting to regret... it was a cracking saw and revvvvvved! It leaked oil slow and steady but airfilter never needed cleaning. One day a farmer filled it with heating oil somehow and it still started and hit half revs with smoke pouring out the exhaust, after a flush it ran fine. I hate other people touching my saws!


----------



## Stihl Crazy (Jul 21, 2013)

spike60 said:


> I agree that the 2051 is the best of the 3. (I've got a 2054 which is the milder of them all).
> 
> But how does the 262 fall short of the 254?



For me (and many in my area) the 262 fell short of the 254 in the areas of weight and perceived durability. 
When used as a pulp saw the 254 was superior. Wood is smaller here than many areas. Throw a steady diet of firewood in the mix then things swing in the favor of the 262.

As for durability, they got a bad rep here from guys chasing rpm. Word spread among cutters and the 262 dropped from favor. 

As previosly stated that series of Jon were good saws in their own right, just behind the 254/262 Huskies. 

Art, Old Iron Logging


----------



## increasing (Nov 17, 2022)

Jonsered 2055 Turbo video in an old forum thread …


----------

