# price of MS 192 vs. MS 170.......what gives???



## bilrus61 (May 3, 2011)

Went to my local Stihl dealer today and priced some top handle saws. The MS 192 came in at $319.00 and the rear handle version with the same engine was....<drumroll> $179.00. They spec out at exactly the same power/displacement. They both are made in USA with imported and domestic parts. They both look to be the same build quality. I know they are weak underpowered saws but I'm just wanting a pruning saw for my apples and pear trees. 4 inches will be the biggest limb I think I would ever cut with it so the low power is offset by the lighter weight of the MS192. Is there something in the MS192, some higher quailty innards, that accounts for the fact it is $140.00 more than its rear handled twin the MS170?


----------



## jeepyfz450 (May 3, 2011)

the 192 is an arborist saw. designed specifically for climbers or bucket trucks. they up the price because they can and people will pay it.


----------



## SPDRMNKY (May 3, 2011)

the spec guys will be along soon

until then here's $0.02 on the 170

I run em' commercially. I flush cut massive amounts of brush and invasive, so can't see tearing up a more expensive saw. Just swap out to a 0.050" bar and chain, remove the spark arrestor, and cut away.

If you're pruning is from the ground, you'll be happy with the 170. If you're gonna spend a lot of time off the ground, the extra control in a top handle is worth it. The diff in price is what keeps me from getting a T saw right now.

Cheers!


----------



## Muffler Bearing (May 3, 2011)

This could get interesting FAST!!

opcorn:


----------



## SawTroll (May 4, 2011)

Muffler Bearing said:


> This could get interesting FAST!!
> 
> opcorn:



Not at all, as both obviously are POS...:bang::bang:


----------



## jus2fat (May 4, 2011)

Quote Originally Posted by bilrus61 View Post
Went to my local Stihl dealer today and priced some top handle saws. The MS 192 came in at $319.00 and the rear handle version with the same engine was.... $179.00. They spec out at exactly the same power/displacement. They both are made in USA with imported and domestic parts. They both look to be the same build quality. I know they are weak underpowered saws but I'm just wanting a pruning saw for my apples and pear trees. 4 inches will be the biggest limb I think I would ever cut with it so the low power is offset by the lighter weight of the MS192.


First off your dealer is shafting you on the price of the ms192T.
The price with 12" bar should be $299.95 -- and no more.
The $319.95 is for a 16" bar which you certainly don't need.
The 12" bar would be perfect for what you want to do

Now the specs...the ms170 weighs 8.6 lb with 16" bar
ms171 weighs 9.5 lb with 14" bar
ms192T weighs 7.0 lb with 12" bar
Same motor
The real deal (besides weight) is the top handle allows you to
pick the saw straight up with one hand and use with one hand
I don't recommend using it this way!!!...But I admit to doing it.
Sort of a " do as I say...not as I do" kinda thing .
If I'm on a ladder pruning...I'd rather have one hand on the ladder
You can't do this with the 170 or 171...they're two hand saws.
Even if you can lift one...the balance really sucks and dangerous.

The tree companies don't much buy this saw...they buy the 200T
Most are bought by homeowners like you using it for light work.
You can usually find a very nice slightly used one Ebay for $200.
But... no warranty and always better to buy new if you can.

Yeah..you're definitely paying a premium for the top handle design...
But it is what it is and the resale price would be higher if you for some
reason wanted/needed to do that.

Hope this helps!!

J2F


----------



## opinion (May 4, 2011)

The 170 is about 8.6 lbs, the 192 T is about 6.9 lbs. Top handle configurations will always cost more money. The 192 T uses spring AV, the 170 rubber. The 192 T has side tensioning, the 170 has front tensioning. The air filter on the 192 T is better than the 170. The 192 T(C) has an "easy2start" feature, the 170 doesn't. The 192 T has tooless caps, the 170 does not. This is why they cost more.


----------



## JustinM (May 4, 2011)

opinion said:


> The 170 is about 8.6 lbs, the 192 T is about 6.9 lbs. Top handle configurations will always cost more money. The 192 T uses spring AV, the 170 rubber. The 192 T has side tensioning, the 170 has front tensioning. The air filter on the 192 T is better than the 170. The 192 T has tooless caps, the 170 does not. This is why they cost more.


 
I agree with what you're saying here although...



jeepyfz450 said:


> the 192 is an arborist saw. designed specifically for climbers or bucket trucks. they up the price because they can and people will pay it.


 
...I also think this is spot on too. 

There are some differences between those saws as well pointed out by opinion, but the biggest difference is the market. They (Stihl) can charge more because the top handle is aimed at a specific market.

FWIW, 192 can be had on ebay pretty cheap. Ive seen some mint looking ones go for arounr $150 B-I-N.


----------



## TreeClimber57 (May 4, 2011)

SawTroll said:


> Not at all, as both obviously are POS...:bang::bang:


 
Agreed. We had one.. not any longer. In its brief life with us, which was about 6 months.. it had 3 carburetors changed (all under warranty). They finally did get it running sort of half decent.. but still a POS. At that point I sold it.

How many ways can one spell POS..


----------



## TreeClimber57 (May 4, 2011)

jus2fat said:


> The tree companies don't much buy this saw...they buy the 200T


 
You got that right.. we did try one to see what it was like.. Not even 10% of the 200T. Embarrassed to take it up a tree frankly.


----------



## miking (May 4, 2011)

I've had mine for about 2 years now with no issues to speak of. I wouldn't consider it underpowered at all if you remember its intended use, which is light trimming of branches under ~ 4-6". Now a guy that does subcontracting for me is on his 3rd 170 in about the same time frame, and that saw really is a piece of junk.


----------



## TreeClimber57 (May 4, 2011)

miking said:


> I've had mine for about 2 years now with no issues to speak of. I wouldn't consider it underpowered at all if you remember its intended use, which is light trimming of branches under ~ 4-6". Now a guy that does subcontracting for me is on his 3rd 170 in about the same time frame, and that saw really is a piece of junk.


 
Well.. being a devils advocate here:
a) why does Stihl list it as an arborist saw and not a home owners one?
b) why does Stihl show it as being able to use a 12" to 16" bar? (same in fact as it shows for the 200T)

It actually has - supposedly - only 0.4HP less than the 200T - yet the 200T will pull the 16" bar (not necessarly with ease but it will do it). IMHO it is a wannabe arborist saw.. and nothing more.


----------



## jus2fat (May 4, 2011)

miking said:


> I've had mine for about 2 years now with no issues to speak of. I wouldn't consider it underpowered at all if you remember its intended use, which is light trimming of branches under ~ 4-6". Now a guy that does subcontracting for me is on his 3rd 170 in about the same time frame, and that saw really is a piece of junk.


 
I bought mine used from a Stihl dealer in Michigan.
Takes in trades (in the slow winter season there) and goes through them..fixes..and then sells 'em on Ebay.
Several years old...and I have no idea of repair history of saw.
He guaranteed me it had been checked out throughly and said he
would give me back my $$ including shipping if not satisfied.
It's still working great...and it's just great for branches and pruning and basically that's all it's meant to do--light stuff.

Like anything..a good running one is a treat and a bad one sucks.

J2F


----------



## opinion (May 4, 2011)

TreeClimber57 said:


> Well.. being a devils advocate here:
> a) why does Stihl list it as an arborist saw and not a home owners one?
> b) why does Stihl show it as being able to use a 12" to 16" bar? (same in fact as it shows for the 200T)
> 
> It actually has - supposedly - only 0.4HP less than the 200T - yet the 200T will pull the 16" bar (not necessarly with ease but it will do it). IMHO it is a wannabe arborist saw.. and nothing more.


 
a) Liability, marketing. More prone to injuries using a top handle because it's harder to control. Technically it is an arborist saw by being top handled, just not commercially built.
b) You can use a 16" but obviously it's not reccomended. If you must use a 16", I'd suggest using the .043 gauge.

You know, the 192 T is quite useful. Lot of the tree service companies use these because it's really light and powerful enough to cut off the small branches in a tree. The 200 T is sometimes overkill with the power and the weight when a 192 T will handle it.


----------



## jus2fat (May 4, 2011)

TreeClimber57 said:


> Well.. being a devils advocate here:
> a) why does Stihl list it as an arborist saw and not a home owners one?
> b) why does Stihl show it as being able to use a 12" to 16" bar? (same in fact as it shows for the 200T)
> 
> It actually has - supposedly - only 0.4HP less than the 200T - yet the 200T will pull the 16" bar (not necessarly with ease but it will do it). IMHO it is a wannabe arborist saw.. and nothing more.



I'm with ya all the way...you really pretty much said it all!!!
NO way it's even in the same league as the 200T...I own both!!

But for clean-up branches and light pruning...it's hard to beat...
but it damn sure ain't no professional arborist saw!!!
More for homeowners, landscapers and gardeners...etc...imho

J2F


----------



## TreeClimber57 (May 4, 2011)

jus2fat said:


> But for clean-up branches and light pruning...it's hard to beat...
> but it damn sure ain't no professional arborist saw!!!
> More for homeowners, landscapers and gardeners...etc.


 
Well, I guess it does have a place.. as it does sell. Would not want to try doing a full removal job with it though  The main issue I had was the reliability though.. and it may have been just that particular saw (although never have figured out why it took 3 carburetor replacements to get it running right -- seems pretty shabby on the QC side).


----------



## jus2fat (May 4, 2011)

TreeClimber57 said:


> Well, I guess it does have a place.. as it does sell. Would not want to try doing a full removal job with it though  The main issue I had was the reliability though.. and it may have been just that particular saw (although never have figured out why it took 3 carburetor replacements to get it running right -- seems pretty shabby on the QC side).



The 200T has had many problems as well...I think I read that there have been 16 different carbs put on that saw stock...??

Oh and for what it's worth...(laugh with me)...it's not known as QC (quality control) any more...
it's now..QA (quality assurance)
Trust me...I spent 16 years in it for an international company.
When they made the change..I asked...WHY..."well it sounds better"!!
In other words..it would sell the product better..with the "assurance" tag.

J2F


----------



## TreeClimber57 (May 4, 2011)

jus2fat said:


> The 200T has had many problems as well...I think I read that there have been 16 different carbs put on that saw stock...??



Before the 200T was the 020T.. trying to recall if there was any significant carb changes there. Most of the parts are interchangable.

I have 200T's that are several years old, and the most recent one I picked up last November. From a carb perspective all the 200T's I have are same.

Now I do have an older 200T.. seen a lot of hours use.. and it did have a new carb put on it a year ago as it was not giving the power it should. But now back to where it should be and running fine. 

I seriously doubt they have put many different carbs on the 200T.. having said that the carb is one item on it that does tend to need replacing perhaps sooner than other parts (but only after hundreds of hours of use). In my experience at least.

I have never had a defective carb.. shop changes it and it runs. On the 192T the shop changed it.. same issue.. changed it again.. same issue.. how does that figure?


----------



## jus2fat (May 4, 2011)

Check these threads out...my source(s) of info for sooo many carbs statement
will only take a minute unless you want to read more... 

http://www.arboristsite.com/baileys/144870.htm

1) list all carbs for 200T. Apparently there have been 16 variations. 
per the "carbitooter thread...

http://www.arboristsite.com/chainsaw/145024.htm

J2F


----------



## SawTroll (May 5, 2011)

Small carbs are notorious for creating problems, this is not just a Stihl issue.


----------



## leeave96 (May 5, 2011)

Get the MS170 if you don't need a top handle saw. The MS192 is a rip-off (as is the MS200). Find yourself an Echo CS-341 for dead solid reliable top handle saw and a CS-360 if you want a more modern, speedier saw - which I think there is a thread on this site saying they might be marked down in price to make way for a new - likely cleaner EPA version.

Good luck,
Bill


----------



## D&B Mack (May 5, 2011)

Correct me if I am wrong here, but there is a rear handle version of the 192 available, and I believe it is more money than the top handle version. Comparing the 170 and 192, as previously stated, is apples to oranges since the 192 has the newer, and "better", technology than the 170.


----------



## imagineero (May 5, 2011)

I've owned and used both the 192t and 200t in every day use as a full time tree worker. I used to use the 192t and really liked it a lot. Aus trees are no laughing matter either, our eucs are plenty strong. I climb with a 200t now, and I like it a lot... I still use the 12" bar because it makes for a bit more confidence in snap cuts, you can really buzz them off. By the time I'm needing a 16" bar, I move up to a bigger saw. I don't chunk down spars with my T saws. Some guys say the extra bit of reach is handy, but I tend to think that reaching out and cutting with the tip of an extra long bar while up in a tree using a top handle saw (probably one handed if you've really reaching) is just asking for trouble. You're well and truly in kickback territory there. I just get close, and make the cut safe. There are days when my wrist mises the lighter weight of that 192. You dont always need a super powerful saw, and I'd rather carry the smallest possible thing up in the tree.

Shaun


----------



## miking (May 5, 2011)

D&B Mack said:


> Correct me if I am wrong here, but there is a rear handle version of the 192 available, and I believe it is more money than the top handle version. Comparing the 170 and 192, as previously stated, is apples to oranges since the 192 has the newer, and "better", technology than the 170.


 
Mine is the rear handle version, the 192c, and I stand by my statement that is is not a bad little saw if used for what it's designed for. The 200 is its bigger brother and there is really no comparison between the two, but the OP's comparison was with the 170, and the 192 is lightyears ahead of that saw.


----------

