Craftsman 3.7 18

Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Mornin FATGUY,
After fishing the valve out of tank I tried reinserting it into the hole in tank, but it was not a tight fit and would not stay. Tried sticking it into some fuel line and stuffing that into hole, but it leaks like a sieve through the valve. Think I may need a new valve.. in addition to finding out how it's supposed to be installed.
:confused:

Heres my 4000 the same as a 3.7, I thought it was clean till I pulled the cover to get pics of the fuel lines, glad I did theres a mess there, Im gonna do the lines on this one too. As you can see the tank vent is on the right and goes under the case. The fuel line is on the left and fits in a slot in the case then under and up to the inlet.
<a href="http://s729.photobucket.com/albums/ww294/joe25da/?action=view&current=saws.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i729.photobucket.com/albums/ww294/joe25da/saws.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
 
Last edited:
Much appreciated Joe!
My brother sees me working on it and doesn't get it. He just sees and old a$$ saw. Looking forward to getting it all back together and showin him what's what.
:cheers:
 
Ugh... either I'm doin sumthin wrong... or that valve is shot. Gas is still leaking. Going to see if I can replace valve. Found one for a Roper 3.7, hopefully that will fit, and solve the problem.
:givebeer:
 
vent line

i just finished fixin my red 3.7/18 saw like yours with the fuel line link kit from sears parts. do you have the little fitting with a small and a larger end? attach the fuel line tubing to the large end and feed the fuel in from the top of the tank where the vent line hole is. when the fitting gets to the hole it will fit tight and seal with line over the fat end. you will have to force it in. put another piece of fuel line on the small end sticking out of the tank. route that like in the picture and it should be ok.
 
i just finished fixin my red 3.7/18 saw like yours with the fuel line link kit from sears parts. do you have the little fitting with a small and a larger end? attach the fuel line tubing to the large end and feed the fuel in from the top of the tank where the vent line hole is. when the fitting gets to the hole it will fit tight and seal with line over the fat end. you will have to force it in. put another piece of fuel line on the small end sticking out of the tank. route that like in the picture and it should be ok.

Hey flhusa1,
Pretty sure the vent valve is no good. Not much resistance and seems same when blowing through either end. I've got a new one coming, and plenty of fuel line. Should do the trick.
Thanx for posting,
~Tom
 
I'm just guessing, but I have a feeling that the red ones were the earlier models. Seems to me I remember red Craftsman saw's before seeing grey one's.
Mark, think you hit the nail on the head.
I don't know about that. I have a red 3.7/18" Craftsman, but it's a Roper built, and it is a heck of a lot more modern looking than that gray saw, and mine has rubber mounted/anti vib front handle as well, but I don't really know... It's just a guess based on looks.
 
I don't know about that. I have a red 3.7/18" Craftsman, but it's a Roper built, and it is a heck of a lot more modern looking than that gray saw, and mine has rubber mounted/anti vib front handle as well, but I don't really know... It's just a guess based on looks.

I believe for the Poulan variety, that the red ones predated the gray ones.
 
I had 2 roper saws for a little while. Those were offered before the CVA poulans I believe. I dont know the weight of the ropers but the 3.7 CVA (poulan) weighs around 13lbs. The CVAs have a bigger, heavier clutch, (the ropers use a fiber material), the CVAs also have an anti-vibe system the the earlier ropers don't. Plus the Poulan saws are easier to work on, higher rpm, and a modern design. Not knocking the ropers. They were very well built saws and high compression too! I just preferred the Poulans.

Cool NY times quote btw!
 
I believe for the Poulan variety, that the red ones predated the gray ones.
I don't think the color had anything to do with the manufacturer, I'm sure it was dictated by Sears. But nevertheless, I was basing my comment on a picture of one of the real old saws someone posted. I'm pretty sure now that my saw is older than the gray ones you're referring to.
 
I've owned the blue and white Craftsman 3.7 made by Roper and I've owned the gray and black Craftsman 3.7 made by Poulan.

The 3.7 made by Roper was lighter in weight, better balanced and easier to handle than the 3.7 made by Poulan.

I had 2 roper saws for a little while. Those were offered before the CVA poulans I believe. I dont know the weight of the ropers but the 3.7 CVA (poulan) weighs around 13lbs. The CVAs have a bigger, heavier clutch, (the ropers use a fiber material), the CVAs also have an anti-vibe system the the earlier ropers don't. Plus the Poulan saws are easier to work on, higher rpm, and a modern design. Not knocking the ropers. They were very well built saws and high compression too! I just preferred the Poulans.

Cool NY times quote btw!
Well, since my post yesterday, my buddy bought a Stihl 046 and gave me his 044, and it weighs exactly the same as my 3.7, but is several levels above it when it comes to power, and is much more comfortable to use.
 
I don't know about that. I have a red 3.7/18" Craftsman, but it's a Roper built, and it is a heck of a lot more modern looking than that gray saw, and mine has rubber mounted/anti vib front handle as well, but I don't really know... It's just a guess based on looks.

Well I do know about that! Red ones first. Yeah right a horizontal Roper is more modern looking LOL

I've owned the blue and white Craftsman 3.7 made by Roper and I've owned the gray and black Craftsman 3.7 made by Poulan.

The 3.7 made by Roper was lighter in weight, better balanced and easier to handle than the 3.7 made by Poulan.

Yep lighter some, but no antivibe at all. The 3.7 Poulan will smoke it in the cut.

I'll argue the better balanced part all day long and into the night, but its your opinion.

You really should be comparing the Roper to a 306A. The weight will be really close then.

Well, since my post yesterday, my buddy bought a Stihl 046 and gave me his 044, and it weighs exactly the same as my 3.7, but is several levels above it when it comes to power, and is much more comfortable to use.

Whats your point in this post? Yeah the 044 is bigger, 20 years newer etc.

If you want to compare the 3700 to another saw, why dont you compare it to one of its own age and size. Like maybe a Mac 610 or a Homelite 360?
 
Last edited:
Well I do know about that! Red ones first. Yeah right a horizontal Roper is more modern looking LOL ?
Hmmm... That's odd, the wording you chose to use in this most recent post is quite contradictory to the wording in the post of yours in which I was replying to originally.

In your original post you said the following...

I'm just "guessing" , but I have a "feeling" that the red ones were the earlier models. Seems to me I remember red Craftsman saw's before seeing grey one's.
Displaying doubt throughout it's entirety.

Now you say "Well I do know about that!" even using an exclamation point, as if to be a smart ass.

Kind of an odd way to respond to a person considering the historical context of the discussion.

But anyway, without looking and without remembering the exact color, I had just remembered seeing this picture posted in this thread, and thougt that was the saw he was referring to.
attachment.php


And I already caught my mistake, as you can see in this response I gave before you even posted.

Well, since my post yesterday, my buddy bought a Stihl 046 and gave me his 044, and it weighs exactly the same as my 3.7, but is several levels above it when it comes to power, and is much more comfortable to use.








Whats your point in this post? Yeah the 044 is bigger, 20 years newer etc.

If you want to compare the 3700 to another saw, why dont you compare it to one of its own age and size. Like maybe a Mac 610 or a Homelite 360?
What's the point of my post? I find that an odd question as well, because I've said the same thing I said in that post to my best friend who is a logger, and to a few guys he works with, and every one of them knew exactly what my point was. It's pretty damn cut and dry... Are you even being serious? I don't really know if I should actually go into an explanation or not, because if you're just kidding I'd be wasting my time.

Though I suppose I could give a short explanation just in case.

My point is a couple different things. First of all, that since getting the new saw my interest has moved away from the old saw, since I don't really have much use for it any more. And this is partially why I mentioned the weight of the two saws... Why carry around a much less powerful and slower saw when it presents only limitations, and no benefits? the older say doesn't have a brake, doesn't have a full wrap handle, isn't as comfortable, and isn't as well balanced.

And also, these are the two saws I own... Why would I compare it to some other saw that I don't own, nor ever will own? The comparison I made relates to me personally, and effects me personally, it's not just some theoretical comparison for the hell of it, that has absolutely nothing to do with me.

That's my point.


If you are in fact serious in your questioning, I'll end in saying that taking advantage of our unique ability of advanced abstract thought as human beings, and using the concept of simple deduction and using basic reasoning skills, can be very helpful in eliminating the need to ask such questions.


Still I'm not completely sure as to whether you were being a smart ass or not, so let me know, and when I receive your answer, I'll adjust the nature of any of my future responses to you accordingly.
 
Last edited:
another old one

Well since this seems like the most current Craftsman thread, and may become a sticky, can anyone id this one?

It was my Dad's back in the '70's. It's a 3.7

attachment.php


attachment.php


under the air-cover is model no. 917,315472 17" bar, s/n #0015202

Thanks for any info.
 
Hmmm... That's odd, the wording you chose to use in this most recent post is quite contradictory to the wording in the post of yours in which I was replying to originally.

In your original post you said the following...

Displaying doubt throughout it's entirety.

Now you say "Well I do know about that!" even using an exclamation point, as if to be a smart ass.

Kind of an odd way to respond to a person considering the historical context of the discussion.

But anyway, without looking and without remembering the exact color, I had just remembered seeing this picture posted in this thread, and thougt that was the saw he was referring to.
attachment.php


And I already caught my mistake, as you can see in this response I gave before you even posted.










What's the point of my post? I find that an odd question as well, because I've said the same thing I said in that post to my best friend who is a logger, and to a few guys he works with, and every one of them knew exactly what my point was. It's pretty damn cut and dry... Are you even being serious? I don't really know if I should actually go into an explanation or not, because if you're just kidding I'd be wasting my time.

Though I suppose I could give a short explanation just in case.

My point is a couple different things. First of all, that since getting the new saw my interest has moved away from the old saw, since I don't really have much use for it any more. And this is partially why I mentioned the weight of the two saws... Why carry around a much less powerful and slower saw when it presents only limitations, and no benefits? the older say doesn't have a brake, doesn't have a full wrap handle, isn't as comfortable, and isn't as well balanced.

And also, these are the two saws I own... Why would I compare it to some other saw that I don't own, nor ever will own? The comparison I made relates to me personally, and effects me personally, it's not just some theoretical comparison for the hell of it, that has absolutely nothing to do with me.

That's my point.


If you are in fact serious in your questioning, I'll end in saying that taking advantage of our unique ability of advanced abstract thought as human beings, and using the concept of simple deduction and using basic reasoning skills, can be very helpful in eliminating the need to ask such questions.


Still I'm not completely sure as to whether you were being a smart ass or not, so let me know, and when I receive your answer, I'll adjust the nature of any of my future responses to you accordingly.



My you really put some effort in to this reply, I'll see if I can do it any justice, but you have set the bar pretty high. :laugh:

Did you ever study anything, and not know about something about it for sure, but then 1 1/2 years later, you really do know something about it?

Well that happend to me! Yep 1 1/2 years ago when I posted that, I wasn't completely sure but guess what? Yep I learned something. Yep I was right and I know display no doubt about it.

Now as to your points, they were not spelled out as well as you have come back to explain, there your opinion on what you want to use and thats fine, but your basically saying you want to use a newer saw, so why point out flaws in the older ones? Thats why they make new designs right?

At this point your post have me confused as to which 3.7 saw your even talking about.


As to being a smart ass? I try to help around here and I don't like that comment directed at me at all.


Now adjust that or not, I could care less.
 
To get back on track, I have a couple of the Roper built saws. If anyone wants them as a project let me know.

Craftsman38fromSteve001.jpg


I also have a couple of these 3.7's as well, though this is the only picture I could find. Both run well and one has the original case.

Craftsman37004-1.jpg
 
Back
Top