Dealer says Husqvarna 550xp and 545 are junk

[svk]

I feel that since the release of the AT saws they have copped a fair bit of bad review but I have personally never had or seen any major issues with them and I even owned a early 2011 562

Most certainly they put out a few AT doozies earlier on but many folks including myself have had excellent luck. And like I have said in other threads (or may have said earlier in this thread as well), half of the people talking smack about AT are other brand fanboys who haven't even owned one.

 

[TBS]

It's like any other first run production model there are problems along the way because they can only test so much in the prototype stage then it goes into production. Once it gets to the consumer thats when the real testing beings and defects start showing up as people use the product. The Autotune and mtronic systems are the biggest change in chainsaws since the use of computers in the design process. For a dealer to make that big a of a generalization that tells me that they know how to work on the systems or just don't like the idea of a new technology on a saw.

I like what is being done. I'd like to try an Autotune or m-tronic setup on lesser saws like my ryobis just to see how they would work.

 

[svk]

It's like any other first run production model there are problems along the way because they can only test so much in the prototype stage then it goes into production. Once it gets to the consumer thats when the real testing beings and defects start showing up as people use the product. The Autotune and mtronic systems are the biggest change in chainsaws since the use of computers in the design process. For a dealer to make that big a of a generalization that tells me that they know how to work or just don't like the idea of a new technology on a saw.

I like what is being done. I'd like to try an Autotune or m-tronic setup on lesser saws like my ryobis just to see how they would work.

Well put.
On a side note after owning both MT and AT saws its interesting to see the differences. The AT saws fire quicker with the traditional choke but once warm the MT saw is so smooth. My 241 is the smoothest idling/running saw I've ever ran.

 

[Andyshine77]

It's like any other first run production model there are problems along the way because they can only test so much

I agree. However the issues continued for too long, I men when was the 562 introduced 2011? The implementation of the these saws was a disaster, Stihl did better, but far from perfect. At least they didn't have to redesign the the cylinder, piston, fuel system, case, crank, bearings, seals, clutch and housing covers, every few months.[emoji12]

 

[TBS]

Husqvarna essentially started for scratch with the 545, 550, 555, and 562. Stihl did much more subtle changes but the overall design is similar to older model except for the cover changes.

 

[Andyshine77]

Stihl did things the smart way, the upper management and engineers simply had a better development strategy. Stihl introduced their new models without the electronic controls. This did two things. First it allowed them to see how well each model worked in the field with long standing technology, if their was a failure it had nothing to do with the MT system. They removed that variable. Second, it allowed people who feared change and new technology, time to gain confidence in each model, and assured QC was in older.

Husqvarna did this to a less extent with the 575/576. Early on this model had bearing failures, which was nothing more than that. If that saw had AT on board, everyone including the engineers would be wondering if the AT system played a part. Besides the fact the AT 576 isn't a popular model, we sure haven't seen the ongoing drama with it.

This is pure speculation on my part, but my thoughts are. The big wigs within Husqvarna pushed products out the door against the advice of some within the company. I bet the big guys still blame those people who told them exactly what was going to happen. From the design, tooling, bad parts from suppliers to regular QC issues, the saw simply wasn't ready for mass production.

IMHO in the end Husqvarna forced out a completely new platform with a completely new technology, before anything was ready. I mean do you really think Husqvarna wanted you to have to set high idled every time you go to start the saw? I think not.

Again I know it sounds like I'm bashing Husqvarna, I am not! I'm just stating it how I see it.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

 

[TBS]

That is another thing that is rarely mentioned and that is very real possibility. Big wigs wanted it out there before it was ready.

You can't always buy out your competition.

 

[svk]

That is another thing that is rarely mentioned and that is very real possibility. Big wigs wanted it out there before it was ready.

You can't always buy out your competition.

Yep I'd have to say you are right.

Remember OMC and their Ficht technology? They were a total disaster and guaranteed the ultimate failure of the company. And unfortunately the average customer lost ten grand versus a few hundred.

 

[Chris-PA]

The 545/550/555/562 were not the first AT saws were they? They certainly were not the first strato saws. I think their problems have more to do with packaging, attempts to make a saw that was very small, light and powerful, and general quality control issues. There's no excuse for the transfer cover seals - it's just a gasket.

In general, my hunch is that few engineers at the saw manufacturers knew much about carbs - after all they buy these from other companies. It appears that they may not have fully taken into account the consequences of reducing unburned fuel in regard to cooling, especially in a compact high performance saw.

Also, the "more advanced" AT system used in the Husqvarnas is a much more complicated control scheme. Remember that the AT/MT system has no sensor other than rpm and the lean out test. To do a lean out test you momentarily lean the mixture and watch the rpm results, and from that you can tell if you were too lean or too rich. But you must be able to see the results clearly, and that is difficult if the rpm is varying for other reasons. I understood that the first versions of AT only controlled full throttle mixture, but now they can control the mixture at any throttle position.

Next, apparently they can control the idle speed - I have tried to figure out how they do this, but the only real possibility is by controlling idle mixture - and this is a potential problem because you are mixing two different things. Let's say that you have to adjust the idle to a lean setting to get the idle speed correct. Now suddenly the throttle plate opens. It's too fast to adjust for the moving throttle, and since the throttle plate is moving you cannot do a lean out test anyway - so you have to just leave the mixture where it is, or maybe just take a guess and arbitrarily enrich the mixture for acceleration. But what if this is not the correct mixture for acceleration? Then you get a bog. There is no way for the system to tell.

I've been working on carbs of various types for a long time, and I really cannot stand a fuel system that is inapable of controlling the mixture like the conventional saw carbs (nor an engine that misfires), so I applaud the attempt to fix this defect. I also find the whole control scheme of AT to be very clever, and elegantly simple. I just wonder if they've attempted to push such a rudimentary control scheme a bit too far.

 

[albert]

Your saws misfire? Your carbs. can't control the mixture. That's f'd up. Who works on your saws?

 

[SCHallenger]

The 545/550/555/562 were not the first AT saws were they? They certainly were not the first strato saws. I think their problems have more to do with packaging, attempts to make a saw that was very small, light and powerful, and general quality control issues. There's no excuse for the transfer cover seals - it's just a gasket.

In general, my hunch is that few engineers at the saw manufacturers knew much about carbs - after all they buy these from other companies. It appears that they may not have fully taken into account the consequences of reducing unburned fuel in regard to cooling, especially in a compact high performance saw.

Also, the "more advanced" AT system used in the Husqvarnas is a much more complicated control scheme. Remember that the AT/MT system has no sensor other than rpm and the lean out test. To do a lean out test you momentarily lean the mixture and watch the rpm results, and from that you can tell if you were too lean or too rich. But you must be able to see the results clearly, and that is difficult if the rpm is varying for other reasons. I understood that the first versions of AT only controlled full throttle mixture, but now they can control the mixture at any throttle position.

Next, apparently they can control the idle speed - I have tried to figure out how they do this, but the only real possibility is by controlling idle mixture - and this is a potential problem because you are mixing two different things. Let's say that you have to adjust the idle to a lean setting to get the idle speed correct. Now suddenly the throttle plate opens. It's too fast to adjust for the moving throttle, and since the throttle plate is moving you cannot do a lean out test anyway - so you have to just leave the mixture where it is, or maybe just take a guess and arbitrarily enrich the mixture for acceleration. But what if this is not the correct mixture for acceleration? Then you get a bog. There is no way for the system to tell.

I've been working on carbs of various types for a long time, and I really cannot stand a fuel system that is inapable of controlling the mixture like the conventional saw carbs (nor an engine that misfires), so I applaud the attempt to fix this defect. I also find the whole control scheme of AT to be very clever, and elegantly simple. I just wonder if they've attempted to push such a rudimentary control scheme a bit too far.

IIRC, the 576XP & the MS441 were the first two. I'm not sure which was actually first, or if they appeared simultaneously.

 

[Chris-PA]

Your saws misfire? Your carbs. can't control the mixture. That's f'd up. Who works on your saws?

Your saws misfire too, you just don't understand what is happening. What do you think 4-stroking is? It is a misfire from a mixture that is to rich to burn.

You are correct- the carbs cannot control the mixture because that is how they were designed. A normal carb uses an air corrector jet to keep the mixture correct, but this would not work with the all position carbs, so they just got rid of it.

 

[albert]

Please don't tell me what I don't understand.
What do you use your saws for, piss revving, or cutting wood?
Also, I think I explained to you about air bleeds and all position carbs awhile back. Seems like every other post of yours gripes about shity saw carbs.
Also you should bone up on AT systems and how they operate, before you spout off misinformation about sensors or lack of.
By the way, does it bother you that most fuel injected vehicals will misfire if pissed revved out of gear?

 

[Chris-PA]

Please don't tell me what I don't understand.
What do you use your saws for, piss revving, or cutting wood?
Also, I think I explained to you about air bleeds and all position carbs awhile back. Seems like every other post of yours gripes about shity saw carbs.
Also you should bone up on AT systems and how they operate, before you spout off misinformation about sensors or lack of.
By the way, does it bother you that most fuel injected vehicals will misfire if pissed revved out of gear?

Lol, simply making statements with no rational explanation is worthless. Kind of arrogant to think people should just accept you word.

Feel free to explain the function of air corrector jets on fix jet, fixed venturi carbs, but I studied their operation many decades ago so don't expect me to let slide any BS.

Also feel free to correct any errors in my explanation of how AT systems work - put up or shut up.

Under what rpm does this supposed 4-stroke high rpm efi misfire occur? What is the mechanism and how do you distinguish it from the engine management system limiting rpm? And of what relevance is it compared to a chainsaw which will misfire with only a slight increase in rpm that happens regularly in everyday operation?

 

[Andyshine77]

It is quite arrogant to think any of us understand more than the engineers working within any of these manufacturers. Get over yourselves gentleman. Their is way more to this than engineering, that's likely not the real issue.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

 

[Andyshine77]

IIRC, the 576XP & the MS441 were the first two. I'm not sure which was actually first, or if they appeared simultaneously.

I believe the AT576 was on the market first, the MTronic 441 fallowed soon after.

 

[Chris-PA]

It is quite arrogant to think any of us understand more than the engineers working within any of these manufacturers. Get over yourselves gentleman. Their is way more to this than engineering, that's likely not the real issue.

As an engineer, I would say don't put the engineers on that high of a pedestal as it is very rarely warranted. Nor would I blame all of the issues on them either.

 

[CoreyB]

Part of Husqvarna's problem is being so arrogant that they try and blame the customer instead of fixing the problems . I have had to argue with them more than once on a dressing problem. to many times bad or wrong mix is the excuse .
We had one saw burn up in the shop while the mechanic was trying to diagnose the problem . Husqvarna tried telling us it was fuel. however first thing we do is dump the fuel and use the husqvarna canned fuel. it was an air leak. needless to saw it hate having to argue with a company because they don't believe that their products can have problems. every manufacturer has a % of QC fails.

 

[svk]

It is quite arrogant to think any of us understand more than the engineers working within any of these manufacturers. Get over yourselves gentleman. Their is way more to this than engineering, that's likely not the real issue.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

Yes their engineers know more than probably 99.9 percent of outside folks. But they are often given imperfect conditions and demanded to create a product that is expected to be perfect. Happens all the time.

I.e. If R and D told upper management they need 4 months and X dollars to do something right. Management gives them 10 percent of budget and tells them to get the final product put out in a month. And if they don't get it completed they can expect to find a new job. Shortcuts are taken and you get the result of a OMC Ficht or early AT. Or as an older example the 350 Oldsmobile diesel with performance so poor that it that literally killed the idea of American made diesel cars forever.

 

[Andyshine77]

Or as an older example the 350 Oldsmobile diesel with performance so poor that it that literally killed the idea of American made diesel cars forever.

Had one in a Buick park avenue, replaced the heads every year or so, plus the other common issues, injectors, fuel pumps, glow plugs.[emoji33]