# Husqvarna 254xp or Husqvarna 55 closed port



## almondgt (Sep 17, 2013)

Which of the two saws mentioned below would you prefer to own? 


Husqvarna 254xp or Husqvarna 55 closed port top end


----------



## SawTroll (Sep 17, 2013)

Obviously the 254xp! :msp_smile:


----------



## almondgt (Sep 17, 2013)

SawTroll said:


> Obviously the 254xp! :msp_smile:



Why?


----------



## moody (Sep 17, 2013)

The 254xp has a little more zip in it's whistle. The 55 is a good saw but they were bad about plastics melting over exhaust and chain brakes used to get a little warm. But if you maintain the saw kept it tuned and clean they do just fine. The 254's are a fun little saw. A local dealer has one on his used rack that's been teasing me for a while.


----------



## SawTroll (Sep 17, 2013)

almondgt said:


> Why?



It is a much stronger saw, and not so much heavier. It also is a true pro saw, while the 50/51/55 were consieved as a "Rancher" family of saws from the beginning.


----------



## fearofpavement (Sep 17, 2013)

If you need piston/cylinder parts for a closed port 55... good luck with that.


----------



## sunfish (Sep 17, 2013)

*254xp*


----------



## almondgt (Sep 17, 2013)

Does anyone know the rated horsepower of the Husqvarna 55 closed port saws?
Both saws have 45mm pistons/cylinders....................and air injection


----------



## blsnelling (Sep 17, 2013)

SawTroll said:


> It is a much stronger saw, and not so much heavier. It also is a true pro saw, while the 50/51/55 were consieved as a "Rancher" family of saws from the beginning.



Even with the cp topend?


----------



## SawTroll (Sep 17, 2013)

blsnelling said:


> Even with the cp topend?



Afaik, that is what the question was about! Remember that the cp top end also is smaller.


----------



## moody (Sep 17, 2013)

blsnelling said:


> Even with the cp topend?



I've run both and the 254 isn't leaps and bounds faster but it's a noticeable difference. The real issue as stated above is finding a closed port 55


----------



## Eccentric (Sep 17, 2013)

SawTroll said:


> It is a much stronger saw, and not so much heavier. It also is a true pro saw, while the 50/51/55 were consieved as a "Rancher" family of saws from the beginning.



I agree. I'm also not a fan of the intake and impulse setup on the 50/51/55 series. Cheesy compared to what's on the 254XP.


----------



## blsnelling (Sep 17, 2013)

Is there much difference in weight?


----------



## SawTroll (Sep 17, 2013)

blsnelling said:


> Is there much difference in weight?



About halv a pound, and the 254xp is a much more capable saw. However, I don't really agree with those that consider it a 50cc saw.....


----------



## almondgt (Sep 17, 2013)

As per Acres site it appears the standard Husqvarna 55 saws are 32mm stroke with 3.3 hp and the Husqvarna 254xp has a 34mm crankshaft stroke with 3.9hp............I am assuming the specs to be accurate. The closed port Husqvarna is capable of a higher horse power ?.......? than the standard Husky 55. I don't imagine there is a radical power difference between the two saws.


----------



## almondgt (Sep 17, 2013)

SawTroll said:


> About halv a pound, and the 254xp is a much more capable saw. However, I don't really agree with those that consider it a 50cc saw.....



The Husqvarna 55 has the same size piston as the Husqvarna 254xp................What is the factor that makes you feel the 254xp is not in the 50cc class?:msp_smile:


----------



## SawTroll (Sep 17, 2013)

almondgt said:


> As per Acres site it appears the standard Husqvarna 55 saws are 32mm stroke with 3.3 hp and the Husqvarna 254xp has a 34mm crankshaft stroke with 3.9hp............I am assuming the specs to be accurate. The closed port Husqvarna is capable of a higher horse power ?.......? than the standard Husky 55. I don't imagine there is a radical power difference between the two saws.



The 254xp specs actually vere uprated to 3.0 kW/4.1 hp at some point, and an independant (and German) dyno test of late production ones showed 3.1 kW/4.2 hp.


----------



## SawTroll (Sep 17, 2013)

almondgt said:


> The Husqvarna 55 has the same size piston as the Husqvarna 254xp................What is the factor that makes you feel the 254xp is not in the 50cc class?:msp_smile:



It is 54cc, as it has a longer stroke (34mm vs. 32). The closed port 55 is 50.9cc.


----------



## moody (Sep 17, 2013)

To make it a little easier for folks to understand think of the 254xp like this.

Same weight as a Ms 261

And performance wise isn't far off of a 357xp.

IMHO the 254xp has a better range of power than the 357xp. Just a saw that's slipped through the cracks over the years. I can say more overlooked than underrated. You don't see many of them and the guys who have them don't like the idea of parting with them.


----------



## sunfish (Sep 17, 2013)

I wish I would have kept the 254xp I had...


----------



## Stihl Crazy (Sep 17, 2013)

254 beats the 55 hands down. Even the closed port 55 was below the semi pro saws. Listed as a landowner saw in literature up here. The 254 was not overlooked up North. It was the #1 selling saw in Canada for a several years.


----------



## almondgt (Sep 17, 2013)

SawTroll said:


> It is 54cc, as it has a longer stroke (34mm vs. 32). The closed port 55 is 50.9cc.



The Rancher 55 is 53.2 cc by the literature I have read.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Thus the closed port Husqvarna 55 should be the same

It seems the Husqvarna 55 closed port saw is being undervalued.................I conclude the Husqvarna 55 closed port saw runs on the heels of a 254xp just like the 254xp runs on the heels of a Husqvarna 61. So close in power that you would have to run em to know.


----------



## SawTroll (Sep 17, 2013)

almondgt said:


> The Rancher 55 is 53.2 cc by the literature I have read.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Thus the closed port Husqvarna 55 should be the same
> 
> It seems the Husqvarna 55 closed port saw is being undervalued.................I conclude the Husqvarna 55 closed port saw runs on the heels of a 254xp just like the 254xp runs on the heels of a Husqvarna 61. So close in power that you would have to run em to know.



Wrong - the 53.2cc of the Husky 55 is with the open port 46mm top end. The closed port one really is an EPA Version, and is 45mm/50.9cc.

Now there are 46mm closed port top ends that you could fit (from the P5500/PP325), but those are about as common as hens teeth on the market. Anyway, the power output is still nowhere close to the 254xp, but closer, at about 2.6 kW/3.6 hp.


----------



## SkippyKtm (Sep 17, 2013)

SawTroll said:


> The 254xp specs actually vere uprated to 3.0 kW/4.1 hp at some point, and an independant (and German) dyno test of late production ones showed 3.1 kW/4.2 hp.


While we're on this subject.... What are the primary differences between the 254XP and the earlier 254?
Its my understanding they didn't make a 254xp until 1992 (when the new style starter and the air injection were added). Was there any power difference between the two?
Makes me wonder why the didn't use the "XP" moniker on the earlier 254's, I believe they introduced the XP marketing term right around 1986...


----------



## almondgt (Sep 17, 2013)

SawTroll said:


> Wrong - the 53.2cc of the Husky 55 is with the open port 46mm top end. The closed port one really is an EPA Version, and is 45mm/50.9cc.
> 
> Now there are 46mm closed port top ends that you could fit (from the P5500/PP325), but those are about as common as hens teeth on the market. Anyway, the power output is still nowhere close to the 254xp, but closer, at about 2.6 kW/3.6 hp.



I feel good when I am wrong.......................I know then I am still able to learn something worth knowing. So I take it then that the Husqvarna 51 is a 50.9cc top end since it has a 45 mm piston assembly just like some of the Husqvarna 55's.


----------



## almondgt (Sep 17, 2013)

SkippyKtm said:


> While we're on this subject.... What are the primary differences between the 254XP and the earlier 254?
> Its my understanding they didn't make a 254xp until 1992 (when the new style starter and the air injection were added). Was there any power difference between the two?
> Makes me wonder why the didn't use the "XP" moniker on the earlier 254's, I believe they introduced the XP marketing term right around 1986...



I am sure the top ends are identical in most cases on the 254xp and the 254 but I did install a NOS 254 or 154 top end in a 254 saw some time back that had a dished piston and it had an identical NOS cylinder to the 254xp. The newer 254xp may have had a compression release but not sure on that note. 
Different clutch assemblies were used on the early VS the newer saws.


----------



## SawTroll (Sep 17, 2013)

almondgt said:


> I feel good when I am wrong.......................I know then I am still able to learn something worth knowing. So I take it then that the Husqvarna 51 is a 50.9cc top end since it has a 45 mm piston assembly just like some of the Husqvarna 55's.



Yep, but the 51 has an open port 45mm top end. The early EPA ones are 48.7cc (but in this case still open port, as far as I know).

The time frame of those early EPA versions with smaller top ends was *about *1998-2001, but there is some time since I looked into the details of it....


----------



## 272super (Sep 18, 2013)

The 254 xp had air injection vs the regular 254. As far as the closed port 55 vs 254xp, the 254 will easily outclass the 55 closed port in the power department ,plus it's just built better. Not a fair fight,though the 55 is a very good saw. 4.1 hp vs 3.4 hp sounds about right to me. No 55 closed port I've run ever wanted to make me give up my 254.


----------



## Tim Burr (Sep 18, 2013)

I have a 154SE 254SE, and a 254XP, and the only parts that don't interchange, are the the starter housing, and the starter pulley. The XP's pulley's have a longer "metal section" the part that catches the starter pawls due to the air injection. I found that out the hard way, but you can grind them down to make them work. This is also why the housing sticks out further. But the whole starter assembly will bolt up to a SE.

I would take the 254 over the 55 any day. My only gripe is Hyway, and Meteor don't make cylinders for them, so your choice is OEM $$$$$ or take a chance on chicom. On the plus side you can change the crank, and top end and turn then into 262's. Also a ported 154/254 will put a smile on face every time you run it. :chainsawguy:


----------



## Chris J. (Sep 18, 2013)

:msp_ohmy:

Y'all do realize that you're driving up the prices for used 254XPs?

:msp_tongue:


----------



## SawTroll (Sep 18, 2013)

272super said:


> The 254 xp had air injection vs the regular 254. As far as the closed port 55 vs 254xp, the 254 will easily outclass the 55 closed port in the power department ,plus it's just built better. Not a fair fight,though the 55 is a very good saw. 4.1 hp vs 3.4 hp sounds about right to me. No 55 closed port I've run ever wanted to make me give up my 254.



Actually the first couple of years (1991-1994?) the xp did not have air injection, and the starter and cover was the same as on the 254. I believe they never were marketed as SE btw, just 254 - but many (maybe all) said 254SE on the number plate - pretty confusing....


----------



## ncfarmboy (Sep 18, 2013)

IIRC there was a crank change back in the 154 early 254. Little end rod, piston pin and bearing were increased in size for later models. I'd have to go back in my SB for SN change. There is also a thin ring (1mm x 45mm) piston model in the 254. The last 254 I picked up is thin ring model. It is a real nice one Excellent LN very low hr.
Shep


----------



## almondgt (Sep 18, 2013)

ncfarmboy said:


> IIRC there was a crank change back in the 154 early 254. Little end rod, piston pin and bearing were increased in size for later models. I'd have to go back in my SB for SN change. There is also a thin ring (1mm x 45mm) piston model in the 254. The last 254 I picked up is thin ring model. It is a real nice one Excellent LN very low hr.
> Shep



I had forgotten about the thin ring version of the 254 saw. What year was your saw manufactured?


----------



## Eccentric (Sep 18, 2013)

*The AS Curse.....*



Chris J. said:


> :msp_ohmy:
> 
> Y'all do realize that you're driving up the prices for used 254XPs?
> 
> :msp_tongue:



Just like we've done with 242XP's, 268XP's, 281/281XP's, 2100CD/2101XP's, Poulan Pro 655BP's, Poulan 5200/5400/8500's, etc.........


----------



## ncfarmboy (Sep 18, 2013)

almondgt said:


> I had forgotten about the thin ring version of the 254 saw. What year was your saw manufactured?



1996 SN: 6331064 Black tag.
Shep


----------



## almondgt (Sep 18, 2013)

ncfarmboy said:


> 1996 SN: 6331064 Black tag.
> Shep



Is it possible the saw was manufactured in 1986 since the saw is a 254?


----------



## wcorey (Sep 19, 2013)

I have a couple of each, as well as a couple op55's and agree with the general consensus here that the 254 is the better saw all around.
Could say that the op55 is to the cp55, about what the cp55 is to the 254, power wise...


----------



## Tim Burr (Sep 19, 2013)

SawTroll said:


> Actually the first couple of years (1991-1994?) the xp did not have air injection, and the starter and cover was the same as on the 254. I believe they never were marketed as SE btw, just 254 - but many (maybe all) said 254SE on the number plate - pretty confusing....



Here is the plate on my 1987 254. All of the 254 pre XP starter covers I have seen didn't have SE on them, just "254". So you maybe right about the marketing.

View attachment 314911


----------



## SawTroll (Sep 19, 2013)

Tim Burr said:


> Here is the plate on my 1987 254. All of the 254 pre XP starter covers I have seen didn't have SE on them, just "254". So you maybe right about the marketing.
> 
> View attachment 314911



I actually *know* I am right about SE not being used in marketing - what I am not so sure about is that all the number tags said SE. :msp_wink:


----------



## SawTroll (Sep 19, 2013)

wcorey said:


> I have a couple of each, as well as a couple op55's and agree with the general consensus here that the 254 is the better saw all around.
> Could say that the op55 is to the cp55, about what the cp55 is to the 254, power wise...



Not really - the difference between the cp 55 and the 254xp is much larger!


----------



## spike60 (Sep 19, 2013)

ncfarmboy said:


> 1996 SN: 6331064 Black tag.
> Shep




It's going to be a 1986 if it's a thin ring, as I think the change from the 1mm to 1.5mm ring was 1987. 

Service bulletins said that you should not use the thin ring piston in the newer jug, but the thick ring piston could go either way. These thin rings are not the real thin rings that would be seen on early versions of the 162SE or Jonny 630 Super.

As Sawtroll mentioned, "XP" came before the change to air-injection. The air-injection change involved a couple of other items. The flywheel shroud changed, but they also changed the left side of the crankcase at this time. 

Early saws, 154's maybe, had a .7mm cylinder gasket that was changed to a 1mm gasket to drop the compression a little bit to improve the idling. A nice interesting fact about this family of saws is that while the 254 had the 1mm gasket, the 262 had a 2mm gasket. And a real quick way to bump the compression in a 262 is obviously to use the 1mm gasket from a 254. Can't skip the gasket in a 254 or 262 as far as I know, as the piston will slap the top of the combustion chamber. Only saw in this family that you can delete the base gasket is the 257. 

Back to the original question, the 254 is easily better than the 55CP. The 55CP cylinder is NLA from Husky, so unless you stumble on one, you can't build your own. I got what must have been one of the last 55CP kits that Husky had. Ordered one for a project that I built, and several months later tried to get another for a member and it supercedes to the open port Rancher jug. The 55CP runs nice, and really has some decent compression.

254's are not as common here as are many other saws, but do you notice how much the guys that own them like them? Those that have them have pretty strong feelings about how good they are, and that's a good barometer for judging a saw. I've got three 254XP's and one 154SE. Along with the Jonny 2055, they are a notch above the typical 50cc saw in bigger wood. Kind of halfway to the next class, and a bit of a sleeper. Much like the 555/2258 that not enough guys are paying attention to. :msp_rolleyes:


----------



## SawTroll (Sep 19, 2013)

spike60 said:


> ..... Much like the 555/2258 that not enough guys are paying attention to. :msp_rolleyes:



I don't really see any similarities there, as the 254xp wasn't a "lesser" version of anything! :msp_biggrin:


----------



## SawTroll (Sep 19, 2013)

ncfarmboy said:


> 1996 SN: 6331064 Black tag.
> Shep



It is unlikely that piston is the original one in that saw if it has a black tag. Someone likely put a NOS piston in there!


----------



## Tim Burr (Sep 20, 2013)

SawTroll said:


> I actually *know* I am right about SE not being used in marketing - what I am not so sure about is that all the number tags said SE. :msp_wink:



But,,,, do you know if jonsered had a "sister saw" for the 154, 254, 257, 261, or 262? Like the 625, 630, and 670, to the 61, 266, 268, and 272?


----------



## spike60 (Sep 20, 2013)

SawTroll said:


> I don't really see any similarities there, as the 254xp wasn't a "lesser" version of anything! :msp_biggrin:



To a certain extent the 254XP is, along with the 257, a lesser version of the 262XP. All were built on _roughly_ the same chassis. (I know about the crank difference) And using the conventional thinking here, (repeated almost endlessly by yourself and others :msp_wink, only the top saw on any given chassis is worth owning. So, in that sense, the 254 should be ignored by the perfectionists so the rest of us can find them at reasonable prices.


----------



## spike60 (Sep 20, 2013)

Tim Burr said:


> But,,,, do you know if jonsered had a "sister saw" for the 154, 254, 257, 261, or 262? Like the 625, 630, and 670, to the 61, 266, 268, and 272?



There were no Jonsered versions of the 254/257/262 chassis. Those market positions were filled by the 2055 and 630Super. The 2055 will run with the 254, and has much better AV. The 630 runs with the 262, but of course has some additional weight.


----------



## ncfarmboy (Sep 20, 2013)

almondgt said:


> Is it possible the saw was manufactured in 1986 since the saw is a 254?



It is probably a 1986 due to the fact it has a crank (metal gear) driven OP not a clutch driven OP. IIRC change to clutch driven was 1994. The reason I thought 1996 was black tag. 1987 and below should be silver tag YWWXXXX SN. IPL's show up to 2001 mfg.
Shep


----------



## SawTroll (Sep 20, 2013)

ncfarmboy said:


> It is probably a 1986 due to the fact it has a crank (metal gear) driven OP not a clutch driven OP. IIRC change to clutch driven was 1994. The reason I thought 1996 was black tag. 1987 and below should be silver tag YWWXXXX SN. IPL's show up to 2001 mfg.
> Shep



Just a little inaccurasy there - the tag should be "silver" on a 1986 saw, and black from 1987. 

The system changed a little again for 1997 (adding the full year in front of/over the number, and then it changed again around week 18 or so in 1999.....


----------



## SawTroll (Sep 20, 2013)

Tim Burr said:


> But,,,, do you know if jonsered had a "sister saw" for the 154, 254, 257, 261, or 262? Like the 625, 630, and 670, to the 61, 266, 268, and 272?



They did not, Husky kept these for themselves. :msp_smile:


----------



## SawTroll (Sep 20, 2013)

ncfarmboy said:


> 1996 SN: 6331064 Black tag.
> Shep





almondgt said:


> Is it possible the saw was manufactured in 1986 since the saw is a 254?



At least the tag and case is from 1996 (unless someone put an unoriginal tag on there, or changed the color of the tag). For all we know, the saw could of course have been rebuilt with parts from an older saw - you never know on a used saw....


----------



## SawTroll (Sep 20, 2013)

spike60 said:


> To a certain extent the 254XP is, along with the 257, a lesser version of the 262XP. All were built on _roughly_ the same chassis. (I know about the crank difference) And using the conventional thinking here, (repeated almost endlessly by yourself and others :msp_wink, only the top saw on any given chassis is worth owning. So, in that sense, the 254 should be ignored by the perfectionists so the rest of us can find them at reasonable prices.



I see your point, but maintain it was a little different with the 254 vs. 262! :msp_smile:

Opinions are like buttholes - everyone has one!


----------



## ncfarmboy (Sep 20, 2013)

SawTroll said:


> At least the tag and case is from 1996 (unless someone put an unoriginal tag on there, or changed the color of the tag). For all we know, the saw could of course have been rebuilt with parts from an older saw - you never know on a used saw....



My apologies it *IS *a silver tag which would make it 1986. I had my other one in my mind when I said black tag. Went to saw box and checked it. Memory is not always correct. Thanks ST for keeping us (me) straight.
Shep


----------



## kz1000 (Sep 20, 2013)

I'm working on a 254xp that I got for dirt, serial number 1450444 ( is that a 2001?) what other saw parts interchange when it comes to clutch, oil pump, clutch cover etc?:msp_mellow:


----------



## SkippyKtm (Sep 20, 2013)

kz1000 said:


> I'm working on a 254xp that I got for dirt, serial number 1450444 ( is that a 2001?) what other saw parts interchange when it comes to clutch, oil pump, clutch cover etc?:msp_mellow:



Nope, not a 2001, Its gotta be a 1991 (its a black tag, I assume?) The clutch cover (assuming it still has its original plastic tabbed one), is interchangeable with the early 262 and 154. Not sure on the other parts...
BTW, How much is dirt?


----------



## kz1000 (Sep 20, 2013)

SkippyKtm said:


> Nope, not a 2001, Its gotta be a 1991 (its a black tag, I assume?) The clutch cover (assuming it still has its original plastic tabbed one), is interchangeable with the early 262 and 154. Not sure on the other parts...
> BTW, How much is dirt?



I picked up a 254xp, 261xp and a 272xp that need a lot of work. The 261 fired when fogged, and the others, 254 (60psi) 272 (90psi) didn't. I pulled the jug on the 254 and put a used ring from my JD Q600F in it ( after a light mod) and it fired on the third pull. Need a lot of parts for it, oil pump, studs and a clutch. OK! i GAVE $40.00 FOR ALL THREE. :msp_tongue:


----------



## SkippyKtm (Sep 20, 2013)

kz1000 said:


> I picked up a 254xp, 261xp and a 272xp that need a lot of work. The 261 fired when fogged, and the others, 254 (60psi) 272 (90psi) didn't. I pulled the jug on the 254 and put a used ring from my JD Q600F in it ( after a light mod) and it fired on the third pull. Need a lot of parts for it, oil pump, studs and a clutch. OK! i GAVE $40.00 FOR ALL THREE. :msp_tongue:



Ahhh... NOW I remember... 
You're this guy:

*[url]http://www.arboristsite.com/chainsaw/244770.htm*[/URL]

*YOU SUCK!!!*:hmm3grin2orange:


----------



## MechanicMatt (Sep 20, 2013)

I offered him to double his money, ill even let him keep two of the saws! Some people :hmm3grin2orange:


----------



## kz1000 (Sep 20, 2013)

With the site problems, i can't even find the threads that I started. I am really sorry if I started something that I haven't replied to.


----------



## MechanicMatt (Sep 20, 2013)

Bud, im just busting your chops. But dead serious on the offer, PM me if you want to move one of those Orange saws down the road.


----------



## SawTroll (Sep 21, 2013)

ncfarmboy said:


> My apologies it *IS *a silver tag which would make it 1986. I had my other one in my mind when I said black tag. Went to saw box and checked it. Memory is not always correct. Thanks ST for keeping us (me) straight.
> Shep


 
Everything adds up then, 1986 was the last year for the "silver" tags, and 1987 the first for the black ones (except fot TOMOS made Huskys, but that is not relevant to this saw family).


----------



## SawTroll (Sep 21, 2013)

kz1000 said:


> I'm working on a 254xp that I got for dirt, serial number 1450444 ( is that a 2001?) what other saw parts interchange when it comes to clutch, oil pump, clutch cover etc?:msp_mellow:



Skippy is right, a 2001 saw would have read *01 *45*0*0444.


----------



## kz1000 (Sep 30, 2013)

I've had a lot of troubles getting into the site, so finally getting back to you. I added a 268 to the reset of those saws from the same source. The cover on it has a 300 year anniversary sticker on it. 1689 to 1989, I thought that it was pretty cool. I got some pictures of all the kids and here they are.:msp_smile: I sure am in need of some parts for them.


----------



## kz1000 (Sep 30, 2013)

Lost some of the pictures, try again.:msp_confused:


----------



## SawTroll (Sep 30, 2013)

kz1000 said:


> I've had a lot of troubles getting into the site, so finally getting back to you. I added a 268 to the reset of those saws from the same source. The cover on it has a 300 year anniversary sticker on it. 1689 to 1989, I thought that it was pretty cool. I got some pictures of all the kids and here they are.:msp_smile: I sure am in need of some parts for them.



Looks like the 268xp is from 1989 week 24, if I read the number tag right. That means the saw originally came with that sticker. They were on 1989 saws, and some very late 1988 ones. 

PS: The starter cover is of course not original to a the saw.


----------



## kz1000 (Sep 30, 2013)

You got that from the serial number? If so you might finally end my debate on what the other saw with the bad tag is, I think that it's a 257, but the tag is messed up. 710061? looks like an H:msp_smile:


----------



## spike60 (Sep 30, 2013)

kz1000 said:


> You got that from the serial number? If so you might finally end my debate on what the other saw with the bad tag is, I think that it's a 257, but the tag is messed up. 710061? looks like an H:msp_smile:



Which one are you unsure of? The saw pictured in Post #63 is a 254XP. You can get a glimpse of the cylinder, but the definitive item is the muffler. Definitely a 254 and not a 257.


----------



## kz1000 (Sep 30, 2013)

The muffler is why I thought that it was a 257, the 254 that I have with a good tag has a muffler that doesn't have the teeth, it also has a shaft driven oil pump. the one with the teeth in the muffler is clutch driven.:msp_confused:


----------



## SawTroll (Sep 30, 2013)

spike60 said:


> Which one are you unsure of? The saw pictured in Post #63 is a 254XP. You can get a glimpse of the cylinder, but the definitive item is the muffler. Definitely a 254 and not a 257.



Looks like a 254xp to me as well, but 710061 is too few digits to make sense of.

I'd like a closeup picture of the number tag, even if it is messed up!


----------



## SawTroll (Sep 30, 2013)

kz1000 said:


> The muffler is why I thought that it was a 257, the 254 that I have with a good tag has a muffler that doesn't have the teeth, it also has a shaft driven oil pump. the one with the teeth in the muffler is clutch driven.:msp_confused:



There was several different versions/editions of the 254/254xp. The starter cover of the one in post #63 indicates that the saw is not older than 1994 - provided it is the original one.


----------



## kz1000 (Oct 3, 2013)

Man! This is the first time that I have been able to get on in days. I really appreciate all of the efforts that the admin. has gone thru to cure the problems. 

I got the new bar and chain for the 268xp today and what a saw! I buried it in 16" pine and pulled on the dog without any affect on the saw speed. I'm not sure if it's a collector saw with the gold label or not, but really fun to run. I have the original clutch cover for it, but think that the wrap handle is off another saw. the adjuster for the chain brake is all of the way in and still sets off the brake if I sink the dog, only about an 1/8th of an inch from the handle to the adjuster nut.


----------



## nk14zp (Nov 20, 2013)

I have had my 254xp for a long time. And it's going to stay that way!


----------



## BigDee (Jul 6, 2014)

Tim Burr said:


> I have a 154SE 254SE, and a 254XP, and the only parts that don't interchange, are the the starter housing, and the starter pulley. The XP's pulley's have a longer "metal section" the part that catches the starter pawls due to the air injection. I found that out the hard way, but you can grind them down to make them work. This is also why the housing sticks out further. But the whole starter assembly will bolt up to a SE.
> 
> I would take the 254 over the 55 any day. My only gripe is Hyway, and Meteor don't make cylinders for them, so your choice is OEM $$$$$ or take a chance on chicom. On the plus side you can change the crank, and top end and turn then into 262's. Also a ported 154/254 will put a smile on face every time you run it. :chainsawguy:



TimBurr -- Please tell me how much precision is required to convert a 254 pulley for a 154, if you can. When I bolt up a starter assembly with the 254 pulley, I can feel it rocking on the axle, but barely. I'm thinking maybe a millimeter, maybe two, but I don't want to go too far. Any guidance? Thanks. Don


----------



## Agrarian (Jul 6, 2014)

I stand humble before all of you! I thought I knew a thing or two about this saw family but the stuff you're bringing up is incredible.


----------



## cheeves (Jul 6, 2014)

Have a closed port 55 and a friend has a 254. 254 is a better saw, but my cp 55 is very reliable! Use it for backup, and if I have it, never fail to come out of the woods with a load of wood!!


----------

