stihl engine sizes?

Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

cobey

Addicted to ArboristSite
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
4,088
Reaction score
4,924
Location
pittsburg, KS
I am not a stihl saw owner, but like learning about all saws, but 017 or 090 even MS whatever,
doesnt really let you know how many CC's the engine is, just wondered if there was a full list of stihl
saw part #'s with matching engine sizes? thanks Cobey :msp_thumbup:
 
I am not a stihl saw owner, but like learning about all saws, but 017 or 090 even MS whatever,
doesnt really let you know how many CC's the engine is, just wondered if there was a full list of stihl
saw part #'s with matching engine sizes? thanks Cobey :msp_thumbup:

Here's a current list, not the all-time one it seems you seek, of MODEL #s: www (dot) ganos (dot) com/chainsaws.htm

Funny reading their power ratings, in a fictional sort of way. Some glue-sniffing?
 
I think originally that the sizes were supposed to represent cubes like 028 = 2.8 cubes. But with supers, magnums, and later models, They seemed to have gone away from it. Kinda hard to equate a 390 Stihl to a 390 Husky since the Husky is a pro saw and way bigger. Just the opposite occures with the 460 Stihl and 460 Husky. It might confuse a new buyer until figured out. If you really want to get confused try figuring out the old Mac and Homelite numbers. How did Mac come up with 797? And why would an 890 or 895 be smaller?
 
I think originally that the sizes were supposed to represent cubes like 028 = 2.8 cubes. But with supers, magnums, and later models, They seemed to have gone away from it. .......
No, there were exceptions from such a "rule" from the beginning of the number system! ;)
 
One Was On the Nose

I am not a stihl saw owner, but like learning about all saws, but 017 or 090 even MS whatever; doesn't really let you know how many CC's the engine is, just wondered if there was a full list of stihl saw part #'s with matching engine sizes? thanks Cobey :msp_thumbup:
Cobey, the closest one of them all (model number indicative of engine displacement) was the Stihl MS 361.

3.61 cu. in. = 59.16 cc.

I do not think any model numbers of any saw Stihl ever made are closer than that, but I could be wrong. You asked an interesting question that will tax the mind of all enthusiasts.
 
Cobey, the closest one of them all (model number indicative of engine displacement) was the Stihl MS 361.

3.61 cu. in. = 59.16 cc.

I do not think any model numbers of any saw Stihl ever made are closer than that, but I could be wrong. You asked an interesting question that will tax the mind of all enthusiasts.

What does the maths say on the 044 and 046?

Also, the "1" in 361 doesn't really count, as it is there just to distinguish the model from the 360 (that was 61.5cc).....:msp_smile:
 
Anyway, it is purely coinsidential when the numbers are close to adding up with the cui, as most of them aren't even close. They do indicate the order of size though, within the same generation of basic models - but then there is the Supers and Magnums........
 
What does the maths say on the 044 and 046?

Also, the "1" in 361 doesn't really count, as it is there just to distinguish the model from the 360 (that was 61.5cc).....:msp_smile:
How could it possibly "not count"? The displacement of the MS 361 is 59.0 cc.

3.61 cu. in. = 59.16 cc.

The model number of no other Stihl engine is closer than that. Forum, correct me if I am wrong. Troll cannot do it. Perhaps someone else can. Try using Excel.
 
How could it possibly "not count"? The displacement of the MS 361 is 59.0 cc.

3.61 cu. in. = 59.16 cc.

The model number of no other Stihl engine is closer than that. Forum, correct me if I am wrong. Troll cannot do it. Perhaps someone else can. Try using Excel.

you are correct in your maths but the correlation between the two are pure coincidence,the 1 in 361 is like an evolution number
 
you are correct in your maths but the correlation between the two are pure coincidence; the 1 in 361 is like an evolution number.
I agree and never said otherwise. Model numbers generally increased with engine displacement, using some sort of a conversion factor. That's about all we can say. Eventually one model number, the MS 361, hit the the displacement almost on the head, dividing the model number by 100 to equal the displacement in cubic inches.
 
At least Stihl's numbering system is sequential in relation to the saws size (029 is smaller than 044). I may be wrong but I haven't noticed an correlation in saw size and model number in Husqvarnas lineup. 455 is smaller than a 395xp, but a 359 is close to the 455 and half the saw of the 395xp.

After you spend some time on here you will start to get familiar with them. I just remember the 026 (50cc), 036 (60cc), 044 (70cc), 066 90cc), and 088 (120cc.) Any model will be close enough to one of those so I can identify off the top of my head. And on the old models (0XX instead of MSxxx) even numbered saws were the "Pro" models. Homeowner saws are 025, 029, 031 etc. Pros are 026, 028, 034 etc. Not true anymore with 261, 361, 461 Pro models.
 
At least Stihl's numbering system is sequential in relation to the saws size (029 is smaller than 044). I may be wrong but I haven't noticed an correlation in saw size and model number in Husqvarnas lineup. 455 is smaller than a 395xp, but a 359 is close to the 455 and half the saw of the 395xp.

After you spend some time on here you will start to get familiar with them. I just remember the 026 (50cc), 036 (60cc), 044 (70cc), 066 90cc), and 088 (120cc.) Any model will be close enough to one of those so I can identify off the top of my head. And on the old models (0XX instead of MSxxx) even numbered saws were the "Pro" models. Homeowner saws are 025, 029, 031 etc. Pros are 026, 028, 034 etc. Not true anymore with 261, 361, 461 Pro models.

Heheheheh. They changed the 361 to the 362 and the even number procedure died. The 460, 650, 660, and 880 never were odd numbers. Perhaps what they should have done was never start the "homeowner" vs. "professional" series in the first place.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top