Older Saw theory

[djohn]

It is all in the engineering. Things used to be over engineered. Now the engineering is more scientific and if a 2000 hour service life is desired then that is what it is engineered to last. In the old days if they wanted it to last 2000 hours they might use materials that last 4, 5, 6, 7k hours.

 

[djmercer1]

It is all in the engineering. Things used to be over engineered. Now the engineering is more scientific and if a 2000 hour service life is desired then that is what it is engineered to last. In the old days if they wanted it to last 2000 hours they might use materials that last 4, 5, 6, 7k hours.

i agree, while the truck posts were off topic but still on point a little.

my grandfather was as navy man(wwii, hmrn) and he always said the the germans had the best engineered equipment. he also said that if they ever made cheaper gear that would only last for the expected life, not forever as the panzer was designed, in battle they probably would have had much more success in the war.

the point to the saws is that provided you didnt buy a lemon, older equipment typically would have a much larger factor of safety in failure because of the attitude and pride in craftsmanship when it was made, and also engineering capabilities of the time.

my father has an old homelite super 2(i think, top handle with 2 triggers), while the saw was cheap in its day(comparable to the poulans today) it is much better made and still runs today after doing much more work than any 30-40 cc saw of today. i have no doubt that my craftsman/pp wont last nearly as long even though of similar intended use.

dave

 

[cjk]

It is all in the engineering. Things used to be over engineered. Now the engineering is more scientific and if a 2000 hour service life is desired then that is what it is engineered to last. In the old days if they wanted it to last 2000 hours they might use materials that last 4, 5, 6, 7k hours.

I believe you are correct.
The engineers I work with are constantly hounded to make parts cheaper yet still last through the warranty period. They test stuff to failure and if it takes too long you can cheapen it up some and retest till you get it to last just long enough with the cheapest part possible.

Another area that contributes to the new products is assembly. They are designed for easy, fast, simple assembly. There most likely are no grey haired old experts in lab coats assembling most products with great skill and care. They get slapped together as fast as possible to save labor costs. When a bottle neck in the line is found, engineering will redesign that process to simplify it and speed up that station. Then the next. They are not concerned with servicability or repairs.

Another thing is products today are lighter and more powerfull. We demand it as customers so to be competitive they must improve the product or go out of business.

 

[mountainlake]

And thanks to the EPA most new saw are adjusted on the edge of burning down. More than once I've read on here that the plug was almost white and it runs fine when adjusted with a tach to specs. (for how long). Steve

 

[Lakeside53]

The older saws called for more oil mix, and did not burn as hot or clean, thus all the smoke. More lubricant in the crankcase. Todays saws are so restrictive with EPA that they burn much hotter to keep the smoke down and burn all the fuel they can. Anything that burns hot will eventually burn out.

but.. they made a lot of carbon which is a killer in engines... Heat? not seeing any decrease in life of say an old pre epa 026 or a new MS260, 066 verses 660, 044 verses 440 etc...


I'd guess a 660 has a longer life than an 056... for one they don't vibrate to pieces.

 

[2dogs]

I much prefer the performance of modern saws over the older saws. The chain speed is much higher and regardless of the torque numbers the modern saw cuts faster. A faster cutting saw is safer in bigger trees. Todays saws are much lighter and easier to use all day long than older saws. Yes the engine turns at a much higher RPM but that is a good thing. Maybe they won't last as long in years but especially for the pro that doesn't matter as much as performance. Give me a 361/357 size and weight saw with the power of a 460 turning at 15,000 RPM and I will be very happy even if that saw will "only" last a few years.

 

[scotclayshooter]

modern manufacturing has to be better with all the cnc stuff now.
just remember the carry on years ago with running in an engine, keeping the revs down and not using full power and having to change the oil after the first 500 miles
and now the engines are nearly run in from new
sometime your bored cut open an oil filter and see how much metal is in there much much less than you got with older style engines

 

[super3]

About all i've got are old saws,2 041s, 2 076s,they are well used and still have a long way to go

 

[mountainlake]

Sure hear about a lot of newer saws burning down while still young around home and on here. Some have good reasons some are just too lean. Steve

 

[kevlar]

I'd guess a 660 has a longer life than an 056... for one they don't vibrate to pieces.[/QUOTE]



I don't agree with that statement my dad's falling saw was the 056 magnum he ran it for about fifteen years or so. I sell new 660 to the pros every year. I also think leaded fuel helped those old saws out.

Kevlar

 

[pioneerguy600]

Soooo, this is my theory and I'm interested to see what everyone thinks and get some input... I've been doing alot of thinking about the older saws lately and how they just seem to last and last. I know they are heavier, don't have near the power to weight, they smoke alot, harder to get parts for, and just in general aren't built like the new saws for making wood cutting much easier. With this in mind, what exactly makes them last so long? I doubt the metals used back then were superior to todays. I also don't think the engineering was any better at all. Most of the same basic designs used 40 yrs ago are the exact same as today, 2 strokes in general are this way... Decomp and air filtration are really the only huge differences, and maybe a little bit with the bearings and whatnot, i.e. the 3 piece crank design and all. That all being said, what made them last longer. What caused those saws to last 30+ yrs vs. the ones that only last around 10 or so. The big thought in difference that comes to mind is the speed. None of the older saws turned 13000 rpms. Alot of them turned only like 8 or 9000. Even 11-12000 was alot for them... I think the speed is the key to what makes them fail so much sooner. I could be wrong here, but think of a diesel. A high revving diesel dies at 5000 rpms, some more, but not a whole bunch more. Look how long they last, 1/2 million miles isn't uncommon for them at all. Does this sound feasible?? This being said, if one were to tone down a saw, say from 13,000 to 11,500 would it make it last longer and give it greater torque?? Or would it just bog it down and make it doggier than it is compared to the old torque monsters??? This is where I'd like EVERYONES input... What do you guys have for me on this subject??? Am I way off base here??? Tell me whatcha think. Good or bad... This is a VERY interesting subject for me...

opcorn:

Hi I own, repair/restore and operate a lot of vintage saws, I also own and operate new era saws. The oldest saws I operate are 1948 model Titan 200 and my favorite IEL AB. also many 1956 to 1965 era chainsaws of various makes. These were big cc. saws or they have transmissions which kept the rpm down around 5500-6000 rpm, they have great torque but burned a lot of gas and smoked some. They would clog there exhaust ports quickly and score there pistons if the ports were not cleaned regulary.
However if they were maintained properly they have worked 45 years for me ,they still run and cut good but have been replaced by lighter, more compact ,better balanced,cleaner running,faster cutting using less fuel and oil and less fatigue on the operator the greater the productivity. Now that said the older saws were over engineered with regards to metal thickness, aluminum cylinders with cast iron liners, sand cast magnesium bodies , covers,fuel tanks and air filter covers etc. The chain bars were hard tip then and weighed nearly double what a new sprocket tip bar weighs today but the chain turned slower and the manual oilers used to put out a lot more oil which gave the bars good life if the operator did not skimp on oiling.
So my opinion only is the older saws were made heavier and slower , they were not as clean burning and wasted oil and were harder on the operator but would last indefinitely if properly maintained as mine have but they fell out of favour as the lighter faster cutting saws came on the market. As all things seem to be heading toward disposable commodities these days for various reasons but mostly toward being cost efficient and competing on a world market engineering is constantly challenged to keep manufacture of the machines easier to assemble,( not service ) make them lighter( not last longer ) and keep the costs competitive with other manufactures( the competition). Also have the EPA on there cases to burn cleaner at higher temps and add catalytic mufflers which are known to be restrictive making saws run hotter and in turn causes metals to wear more rapidly.
As seen through my experience Pioneerguy600

 

[40YearHomelite]

don't think it's been mentioned yet in this thread (if it has, i apologize) - internal engine forces increase tremendously as RPM's increase due to the reciprocating nature of the piston engine. just think how hard that piston is being yanked every time it changes direction...

 

[milkie62]

I would have to say the best truck in the industry was a 3/4 ton Chevy or GMC built in 1987 with a 350 V8.Fuel injection was simple,room to work on in engine bay,parts were reasonable,and a ton of aftermarket hop-up parts available.BIGGEST plus was locking hubs ------ very simple 4wd sysytem....Everything now has to many bells and whistles and does not get any better mileage than 20 years ago.

 

[pioneerguy600]

I would have to say the best truck in the industry was a 3/4 ton Chevy or GMC built in 1987 with a 350 V8.Fuel injection was simple,room to work on in engine bay,parts were reasonable,and a ton of aftermarket hop-up parts available.BIGGEST plus was locking hubs ------ very simple 4wd sysytem....Everything now has to many bells and whistles and does not get any better mileage than 20 years ago.

Hi Mike; I agree on the GMC 3/4 TON truck as I still run my 1979 3/4 TON 4 WD every day and have used it constantly for every day use from the day I bought it new in Aug of 79. It now has 706687. thou km on and going strong, never let me down ever.

 

[ciscoguy01]

Yep

I would have to say the best truck in the industry was a 3/4 ton Chevy or GMC built in 1987 with a 350 V8.Fuel injection was simple,room to work on in engine bay,parts were reasonable,and a ton of aftermarket hop-up parts available.BIGGEST plus was locking hubs ------ very simple 4wd sysytem....Everything now has to many bells and whistles and does not get any better mileage than 20 years ago.

Man your tellin' me. I'd rather have the old locking hubs any day. The damned push button 4wd were VERY unreliable when they were first out. At 80000 on my Ford Explorer I was on my 3rd Transmission and needed new solenoids for the 4wd on it, to the tune of $600 for the electronic ones on that model... Simple is best. My old Jeep at 200+ thousand I just started having a problme with the vacuum system, and found out it's not even that. It's actully the gear connecting ring is worn a bit. I just disco'd it and connected it full time so the front axle is always locked in. At well over 200,000 the old jeep still runs like a champ and the 4wd is still as reliable as ever, even with the problem it would just jump out for a sec once in a while, no biggie but I like things perfect...

eh?

 

[Stihl 041S]

Dude, you got to quit with the Valleygirl Speak

Soooo, this is my theory and I'm interested to see what everyone thinks and get some input... I've been doing alot of thinking about the older saws lately and how they just seem to last and last. I know they are heavier, don't have near the power to weight, they smoke alot, harder to get parts for, and just in general aren't built like the new saws for making wood cutting much easier. With this in mind, what exactly makes them last so long? I doubt the metals used back then were superior to todays. I also don't think the engineering was any better at all. Most of the same basic designs used 40 yrs ago are the exact same as today, 2 strokes in general are this way... Decomp and air filtration are really the only huge differences, and maybe a little bit with the bearings and whatnot, i.e. the 3 piece crank design and all. That all being said, what made them last longer. What caused those saws to last 30+ yrs vs. the ones that only last around 10 or so. The big thought in difference that comes to mind is the speed. None of the older saws turned 13000 rpms. Alot of them turned only like 8 or 9000. Even 11-12000 was alot for them... I think the speed is the key to what makes them fail so much sooner. I could be wrong here, but think of a diesel. A high revving diesel dies at 5000 rpms, some more, but not a whole bunch more. Look how long they last, 1/2 million miles isn't uncommon for them at all. Does this sound feasible?? This being said, if one were to tone down a saw, say from 13,000 to 11,500 would it make it last longer and give it greater torque?? Or would it just bog it down and make it doggier than it is compared to the old torque monsters??? This is where I'd like EVERYONES input... What do you guys have for me on this subject??? Am I way off base here??? Tell me whatcha think. Good or bad... This is a VERY interesting subject for me...

opcorn:

You have got to build your cred guy. If you are wrong admit it. You do all this wood cutting and saw rebuilding but in 3 years you haven"t noticed you are using 50 ga in a 58 bar? a lot of 48" trees? oh and you don"t seem Cananadian either. Read what people post in answer to your questions. just slow down lad.

 

[spike60]

One aspect of this discussion that has to be kept in mind is that there will be "survivors" of any model saw from 30 years ago. And the more popular the saw, (XL12, 031, Mac 10-10, for instance), the more survivors you'll find. Of all those survivors, some will have led a hard life, and many will have only seen light duty. (check the sprocket) Those that have done a lot of cutting over the years were probably owned by someone who knew where the air filter was, and was the kind of guy who is inclined to take care of his tools.

Durability of materials beyond the engine itself, like the 041 that was run over by a truck, was sacrificed long ago in the pursuit of lighter weight, so that trade off must be considered intentional. Look at how the 575 and 441 were criticized for their respective weight gains.

I think that Cisco's original post about RPM's being one of the most important differences is correct. Not just in the numbers themselves, but in the sense that the saws today are all running on the edge, at the max, or what ever. That wasn't the case years ago. It wasn't all about chain speed. The analogy someone made about a race motor vs. a street motor was a good one. It might be that the pursuit of maximum performance for the pro cutter, where speed is important in every cut, could also be considered another intentional trade off. So with the older saws, the primary design parameter might have been durability, where today the primary parameter is performance. And we all pretty much have that same mind set. All of the X vs Y comparisons here are about performance, not which saw lasts the longest.

Mountainlake's point about the EPA having all of the new saws tuned to within an inch of a heart attack is another bullseye, and believe me, we will be talking more and more about this. The new stuff runs so lean and so hot, that there is almost no margin for error. Bad gas, dirty filter, wrong plug: Bang! Just going from a cj6y to a cj7y can toast a saw. They are very unforgiving.

Now, there were a lot of older models that were prone to early failure as well. Usually a design flaw such as putting too big a cylinder on a given chassis resulting in too much heat or stress on the lower end. Similar to todays "get as much as we can out of it" thinking. A Stihl guy told me that the hottest 056's were like that. Homelite did a similar thing by putting a bigger cylinder on the usually bulletproof XL-12 frame; fins clogged up, got hot, bang. Some models came out with early weaknesses that were corrected in later models.

Talk to an old timer about some of the older saws, and even on some of the better ones, you will find that when they did fail, they usually experienced the same type of failure. But then there were those saws, like the 041 and some older Jonsereds, that were so right that they usually wouldn't break unless the owner abused them. And the power was truly different. It is easy to say that the Jonsered 70E is "way too heavy" for a 70CC saw. But if you cut with one and didn't know the size, you would be guessing it was around 80cc.

I read a lot of history, so I guess it's natural for me to be interested in the older saws. Plus it's something different from what we see in the shop every day. I like the sound of the 041's and old Mac's, and for a guy cutting his own firewood, these saws are still viable tools IMO. I'm not a guy who has to have the newest, lightest, fastest, smoothest, mostest. I don't think life has to go by any quicker than it already is. Nor do I think that something should be discarded just because something newer comes out. (In a pro environment, the vibration, weight, safety stuff makes the new saws the obvious choice however.)

This thread sort of gives me the itch to go out and make some noise, but it's too cold, and the ground is covered with wet snow that turned to ice. I think the only wood activity today will be burning it!

 

[berryman70]

all good points spike, you're right about the more popular saws still being in use because there were so many sold, I still own a 031, 041, & a homelite xl all still usable. good post

 

[glenn31792]

RPM’s alone don’t have much to do with how hard a saw’s motor is working.
You must factor in the stroke. This gets you to a figure called
“Piston Speed In Feet Per Minute” .
One other thing to keep in mind is the crank. Spinning a pressed together crank
at close to 15k rpm is getting a bit high.

This is very true also-
Mountainlake's point about the EPA having all of the new saws tuned to within an inch of a heart attack is another bullseye, and believe me, we will be talking more and more about this. The new stuff runs so lean and so hot, that there is almost no margin for error. Bad gas, dirty filter, wrong plug: Bang! Just going from a cj6y to a cj7y can toast a saw. They are very unforgiving.


2005 harley Davidson cvo fat boy
Twin cam harley motor came out a few years ago.
compared to -
2004 Honda 599
599 honda motor came out in the early 90’s (old technology)

hd 1690cc 103 ci 98mm B x 110.8 mm S - 5500 red line
Honda 599cc 36.53 ci 65mm B x 45 mm S - 13,000 red line

Hd 75 hp 84 ft lbs tq
Honda 84 hp 43 ft lbs tq

Hp per ci
Hd .73
Honda 2.3


Torque per ci
Hd .81
Honda 1.17

RPM at 65 mph
Hd 2800
Honda 5000

Piston speed in feet per minute at 65 mph *
Hd 2030 fpm
Honda 1475 fpm
Care to guess what motor is working wayyyy harder than the other one?

Piston speed in feet per min at red line*
Hd 3996 feet per min
Honda 3835 feet per min
Even at 13,000 rpm honda’s 599 motor is not stressed as hard as the
harley loafing around at only 5500 rpm.

 

[berryman70]

Even at 13,000 rpm honda’s 599 motor is not stressed as hard as the
harley loafing around at only 5500 rpm.

I'd still rather be loafing around on a Harley, Sorry just had to say that