Husky EPA 55 really a Husky 51?

[Kenskip1]

Hello gentleman, I have a 1999 Husky EPA 55. While going through the web I discovered the 1999 saw has the same bore (45mm) and Stroke(32mm) as the non EPA Husky 51. In reality the EPA Husky 55 is A Husky 51. Is this correct? I am now awaiting for a piston ring for a Husky 51! Perplex, Ken

 

[gatkeper1]

Same saw different bore
45mm for the 51, piston ring #503 28 90-11
46mm for the 55, piston ring #503 28 90-14

 

[SawTroll]

Interesting.
Dozerdan once posted about the 55 EPA with the 45 bore/51cc engine on another forum, and I have to admit that I though he had his info mixed up.
As I found no trace of such a version of the 55 EPA in the OM's on Huskys web-site. All the 55 EPA manuals I looked up listed the bore as 46 mm.
Obviously, I wasn't looking close enough!

Does it make the saw a Husky 51?
Imo it depends on wheter they did something to make the 51 cc engine perform like the 53.2 cc version usually does, or not.
If they didn't, the saw should have been sold as a 51, as that model number existed and used the 45 mm bore engine.

What is the power listing in your manual?

 

[buck futter]

A guy I work with that had a 55 and I don't know if it was a epa model or not but it was a 55 not a rancher. Anyway he was cutting lost compression and the culprit turned out to be the ring. His dealer ordered a 55 ring and it wasn't right some how he figured out that it was the same as the 51 in early years. His dealer told him that this was husky could get rid of surplus parts. So I have heard of this but you must consider it was third hand information to me.


Lucky
AKA Buck

 

[SawTroll]

I also have to say that I find the move to smaller displacement to comply with EPA a bit out of line, if they wanted to keep the performance of the earlier saws.
If they used the 51 engine and wanted to keep the performance up, it would have to be ported better than earlier and/or have a larger carb - and I don't think that would be EPA friendly.:bang:

Lately they have just done the opposite with the 45cc (as opposed to 39 cc) 338xpt "california", and by replacing the 49 cc engine of the 350 with a downrated 52 cc engine from the 353........:bang:

In both cases;
Same power, probably more EPA friendly.

Of course there is a lot of factors than I don't know a sh*t about, so the above post may be way off - just my uneducated thoughts...