My guess would be that with improvements in ignition technology and engineering/manfacturing capabilities they realized that a saw with shorter stroke that made more rpms was just as durable, more powerful, faster and smoother. Amd could be made lighter.
You know that still holds today from '91. Same piston size, same stroke. Makes you wonder. Its got to be superior.
394/395 and 28 yrs stands for itself.
They went the other way with the 70 cc saws. Perhaps it is to do with emissions. They are still in the same EPA hand held family class if I am remembering correctly. (dam sure) 20cc and under, 20-50cc and 50 and up. class 4 being non hand held.
Not every model has to pass in the
family. So 50 cc and up is the family we are talking about which is called the averaging loophole.
Then they have banking and trading.
Banking is obviously when the family comes under quota. Then we have trading? They can buy the sticker that says meets EPA standards. They have to do it among each other though. They can not buy carbon credits throughout the word so if you are Husqvarna group and have 9 companies? then you don't have to reach out to your competitor I'm sure.
lots of wiggle room.
For the amount of big saws they are going to sell in comparison, They will build them the way they want.
I was just checking it out..the 394 is listing at 7.6kg/17.4Lb and the 2101 at 9.2kg/20.3Lb. That's a huge shaving in weigh if it's true. Big difference for falling. They were certainly popular saws . A fair bit more jam than the 288 and much lighter and smoother than the 2101. I would go into Walker's saw shop in the early 90's and they had rows of ported 272's and 288 and 394's with big snorkel pipes all ready to rock. It was cool. I was surprised they used the 272 for falling then. Some guys used it for thinning. I used 266 ported then the second one had a 272 top end. Its was pretty raced out...probably to shut my mouth..lol not really but they were both nonchalantly blank facing me and asking if that saw was any good at all haha That was scary with a 16" bar. I would free hand the rakes down 5 flat strokes back then with my ported 266, 50mm or my ported 262. Big mistake with that saw, it was sucking me in and spitting me out. I gave it another try and just then the big native guy that worked for me that ran around 250-260; walred by the bottom of my strip on the way to his. I looked down the hill at this giant packing his little 028 and I said. " Hey Roy!..You can use my new saw if you want?
I think the smaller diameter piston was related to emissions, thus the V10 truck engines vs the big block V8's. I believe surface area was deemed undesirable.
doesn't top ring contact surface area and travel after port closes? So that could make the surface area the same No? IDK If they say 1.5 " stroke then that must be start of compression to TDC ?
Same displacement should be same surface contact?
In the case of the 394/394 the piston stayed the same 56mm but the stroke was less by .070" so I just researched.
But yes the the 371 may not have come into production for 5 more yrs, I do understand it already exited. That is one example where they came down 2mm in piston dia and lengthened the stroke from the 272 and now again with the 572.
