And the 550 is about 15% faster than a 261 and 346. Ported the two huskies are similar
Help Support Arborist Forum:
Back when I had a 272 I ran it against an 038 Magnum, I didn't have a 044 at that time to compare, the husky was faster. I was told by an old timer at the saw shop the Huskys were hot rods, but the Stihls would hold up better.
I don't buy that stihls hold up better.
@sean donato does, I believe.
yeah I have a few of them, pre husqy, post husqy and one clone. They were better before husqy bought them imo. Getting hard to find parts for the pre husqy ones. Newest I have is a gz4350 aka 543xp. It replaced the gz4000, which replaced the g3800. Also have a neojunk clone of the 4350. Not impressed with it. Stratto port in the intake was blocked off via a gasket, exhaust port was half the size of the gz4000, transfer ports were timed different from the real 4350. It ran, but not well. Ended up getting an oe cylinder for it. Other wise it's been OK. Was ~200.00 and a gz4350 could be bought for $350.00 at the time. From other buying the clones they seem to be hit and miss and I'd wager every single one of them needs some work. Most of them are based off the pre stratto saws too. Even worse they are poor copies with various displacement based off smaller cylinder design, which doesn't always translate to better performance.
Good points Ben , i agree .
Like really bad.. I gave my woods ported 026 to my old man and kept the 346xp for myself.
Yet guys that have never ran a Husky will wax on about how good their 026/260's and what junk Husky saws are... you can't fix stupidity.
Only within sled engines . CCW was the parent company for Kioritz which along with Zenoah were trying to even the playing field against Polarís & the liquid Fugi triples . Both Zenoah & Kioritz were sucessful in the Merc , Chaparrel & Rupp sleds . Later Scorpion & Arctic Cat ran Kioritz engines in their twin track factory sleds. The Japan motors dominated the sled racing in the late 70's through early 90's . Pretty decent saw engines also for a short period also .
Kioritz = Echo.
Didn't Rupp Nitro's have Zenoah motors?
Kioritz , Shindawia & Merged to become Echo that we now recognize today . Parent Company Yamibiko today . Absolutely , Zenoahs ( orginally Xenoahs) powered the liquid cooled Nitro's & previously CCW in their performance aircooled sleds!
Especially since the 372 has a larger tank than the 462: 770 vs. 720 ml.
Thank you for the anecdote.
MS 462 test stand results: max. power 406 g/kWh, max. torque 467 g/kWh, Stihl specification 401 g/kWh
372 XP X-Torque Husqvarna specification 426 g/kWh
I'm sorry, but without pointing to source documents I will treat such statements as old wives tales, plenty of which circulate on this and other forums.
And why would they single out exactly Stihl? There were quite a few more manufacturers in the market...
Moreover, Komatsu Zenoah's stratified scavenging was also not the only one developed at the time.
John Deere/EMAK tried another method of stratified scavenging called Compressed Air Assisted Injection or Stratified Charge Injection (CAAI/CWI) - US Patent 6,273,037.
Husqvarna (formerly Electrolux) only acquired the OPE part of Komatsu known as Komatsu Zenoah. The price was about JPY 18.2 billion ($155m). Komatsu is still around and manufactures many large machines such as trucks, excavators etc. (including forestry harvesters, forwarders etc.), which are used around the world.
Here we are talking about fuel efficiency, not absolute performance. A machine can be a turd but have very good fuel economy.
A BSFC map, rather than a torque/power curve, would be obviously ideal. Random example:
But assuming we are running two strokes at WOT something like this for 357 XP would be good enough:
q = SFC
Note that there are no dramatic differences in the value of q between the point for which torque takes its maximum value and the point corresponding to the highest power. The same is shown by the measurement results published for these two most important points (500i being an infamous exception).
Regarding MS 261 vs. 550 XP (Mark II). You can laugh at her, but as expected based on the specs, I don't see any significant difference between the two. Echo on the other hand...
As I see it, this has devolved into another Stihl vs. Husqvarna, which doesn't really matter here.
The actual original question was whether strato saws need more oil in the mix to provide sufficient lubrication for the bearings. And that's because of the difference in fuel consumption to do the same work. I wrote that this fuel consumption is actually not that much different between strato and non-strato saws, although on average the introduction of stratified scavenging engines has probably reduced this consumption. On the other hand, other “improvements” were introduced gradually, which also found their way into non-strato engines.
For example, in the first 2 Komatsu Zenoah engines that used their idea they also changed the shape of the combustion chamber, the location of the spark plug, used a modern CDI module. They were also allowed to run leaner.
All of this resulted in reduced exhaust emissions measured according to rules set by environmental agencies, reduced fuel consumption, reduced maximum engine power and torque, increased engine temperature (and thus higher NOx emissions).
The real motivation for the introduction of engines with stratified scavenging was the looming deadlines for agencies like CARB and EPA to introduce new emissions requirements that engines without the aid of a catalytic converter would be unrealistic to meet.
OK. Another example. Results taken from a test conducted for various “cheap” chainsaws.
Stihl MS 181 (strato 1.5 kW): 360 g/kWh (Stihl spec. approx. 370 g/kWh)
Dolmar PS-35 (non-strato 1.7 kW): 460 g/kWh
Solo 643IP: 486 g/kWh
Husqvarna 135 (strato 1.5 kW): 597 g/kWh (Husqvarna spec. 652 g/kWh)
Efco MT 3500 S: 619 g/kWh
Echo CS-310ES: 643 g/kWh
For comparison a Zenoah G375AVS/G370x/G380x "clone" from the same test: 753 g/kWh
Husqvarna 135 is not some exception when it comes to saws sold under this brand by Husqvarna AB.
A few examples (all Husqvarna provided specs):
Husqvarna 130: 725 g/kWh
Husqvarna 135 Mark II: 725 g/kWh
Husqvarna 435 Mark II: 652 g/kWh
Husqvarna 440e Mark II: 513 g/kWh
Husqvarna 445 Mark II: 481 g/kWh
Husqvarna 450 Mark II: 504 g/kWh
OK. Let's see how the bottom of the line sold in the EU and US under the name Husqvarna performs.
Husqvarna 120 Mark II (1.4 kW): 428 g/kWh.
Sounds pretty reasonable... But let's see how it performs in practice out of the box. Ouch, it's probably so lean that it's virtually unusable.
I've never seen such a problem with a Stihl out of the box, which can also be seen in these videos.
Stihl specs:
MS 170 2-Mix 372 g/kWh
MS 180 2-Mix 377 g/kWh
MS 171 415 g/kWh
MS 181 370 g/kWh
MS 211 368 g/kWh
MS 241 364 g/kWh
Unfortunately, I don't yet have the data of the new Stihl turds series (162, 172, 182, 212).
Of course, Husqvarna's “pro” chainsaws are comparable to Stihl's in every way. Those at the bottom of the range are something of a curiosity. Although they are probably no worse in terms of the specifications considered here than other brands anyway.
I really recommend trying something from the 1139 series if one likes low fuel consumption. I know it doesn't get a lot of respect here, but I kept smiling seeing how rarely I had to refill while preparing firewood.
Zenoah = Redmax in the US. Unfortunately, Husqvarna has stopped selling chainsaws under Redmax name. Husqvarna 543 XP is a Zenoah design manufactured in Japan.
Zenoah G45xx/G50xx/G52xx and G375AVS/G37xx/G38xx have been basic design solutions from Chinese manufacturers sold for at least 20 years. It also has the greatest availability/price of parts.
No, Kioritz and Shindaiwa merged to form Yamabiko.
Echo is the name of Kioritz's distributor in America, where they used to sell equipment under the name Kioritz Echo, and later just as Echo.
Echo and Shindaiwa brands are sold worldwide. Kioritz also in Japan.
https://www.yamabiko-corp.co.jp/kioritz/products/category/contents_type=15
The 543xp/gz4350 was discontinued last year. Parts are already getting hard to get for it. Also, not all zenoah saws were made in Japan. The t435 for example had at least the first run made in China. Which is pretty standard for zenoah on some of their saws. The gz400 was like this as well as several other "lesser" models.
It is still listed as available for sale in Japan. But it's possible that it's only available so long as there's enough stock. Another possibility is that it will be sold only in the Japanese market.
Zenoah in Japan had interesting chainsaws not seen elsewhere (maybe in Asia) until recently, such as RC620(0) with a gear-changing attachment designed for root cutting.
True. It's very possible that Komatsu Zenoah early involvement in China determined that Chinese OEMs began producing versions of Zenoah products that became something of a commodity. Additionally, I have Taiwan/PRC made Jenn Feng/Talon and MTD/Techtronic/Ryobi chainsaws that have quite a few parts with the Zenoah logo.
I would suggest to you that running the machines for a period of time tells you alot more than bench tests. With that said the fuel economy of strato saws in my expierenace is indeed much better.
The court case/ruling I referred to is absolutely true. As Insaid if you dig enough you can find it.
K-Z had strato charging and electronic controlled carbs tightly controlled with multiple patents which made it very tough to design around.
The Deere system you mentioned never worked all that well from what I gather.
And no **** carb and the EPA were behind strato charging. The main emmission a 2 stroke can't control is unburnt HC IE fuel in the exhaust. When you control that via strato charging that also makes your fuel economy much better.
The other thing I wpuld say in regards to Redmax is that I have zero expiereance with Redmax branded and Redmax designed saws. I have alot of expiereance going back many years with their BP blowers,trimmers, edgers, etc. They make phenomenal equipment. Very high quality, simple, easy to work on and great performance in the field.
