All true @sean donato. The old wives tales just won't end.
The other thing is all modern, certified oils are at least partially synthetic. The idea that synthetic oil is so great it prohibits break in is laughable.
Why do "Chinesium" chainsaws need a richer oil mix?
- Thread starter Chucksta
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
The other thing is all modern, certified oils are at least partially synthetic. The idea that synthetic oil is so great it prohibits break in is laughable.
I hope you are joking or, for example, Husqvarna used such "lower, softer quality" components in the past.
An excerpt from a 1990s manual, where they still allowed four-stroke engine oil.
A slightly later manual:
And here is a fairly recent one.
Stihl service manual (017, 018):
Stihl service manual (010, 011):
An example from a fairly recent Zenoah's manual:
That’s a very good point. I suppose I am thinking why it’s a good idea to run more oil, rather than less in machines that don’t have very good QC and lower quality parts. The reason they recommend more oil is as a couple others have already mentioned is probably the quality / type of oil that may be ran to cover all their bases.
Miss Jane XU from farmertec says "Our chainsaws are legal, Don't worry"
So there it is in writing straight from the horses mouth. You guys don't have to worry about these legal issues anymore.
So there it is in writing straight from the horses mouth. You guys don't have to worry about these legal issues anymore.
Hermio
Addicted to ArboristSite
There never was one from the moment I got it new. Only the dealer would have had a chance to peel it off, and I don't know any reason why they would do that.
Every one I've played with at several dealers had had the certification table on it, it's also easily spotted on every picture you can bring up on Google images with the tank handle in the shot. The dealer should have noted it missing and replaced it. It's not a "can't be there, oh well" sticker. In the case of new sales
Hermio
Addicted to ArboristSite
Well, I don't have an explanation for that.
That would be the first Stihl I have seen without such a sticker.
The explanation is someone removed it or it's in a different location on the saw.
They have a certificate number if they are certified.
Well, then. If Miss Jane Xu is in the house then no worries!
R Goldsmith
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2024
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 3
Some Chinese stuff is good, some not , most Chinese rubber is not good, looks like it is getting better? I've used some Chinese parts that were great some went right in the scrap bin, now these company's are advertising "professionally built" maybe that means some quality control. Now, service life of 50 hours, that's a reality check, what can we do? Use the best oil and lots of it! And look at what the pros are buying, I don't see them flocking to these cheap saws, there is usually a reason for something being inexpensive, if you buy a KIA, live in a manufactured home, buy your shoes at Walmart, ride a Ural motorcycle, you will learn about the difference in quality at some point.
JoshNY
ArboristSite Operative
The 50 hours is the length of time the emissions system is certified to stay in specs.
NOT the life of the saw.
NOT the life of the saw.
AFAIK.. and please feel free to correct me, the 50 hour vs 300 hour rating, has got to do with emissions compliance. Sure ..it speaks to build quality, and materials used in bores, rings, pistons, etc..
But, how many of us have saws that are "Pro" quality, that have many, many times more than three hundred hours on them?
And we still use them, and they still run great.
But, how many of us have saws that are "Pro" quality, that have many, many times more than three hundred hours on them?
And we still use them, and they still run great.
Ahhh ... beat me to it by 30 seconds.. lol..
Let's be clear here. On the EPA website where EPO grabbed the data base snippet from its lists "useful life" under column H which is where the 50 hours figure comes from.
Farmer tech has zero emmissions compliant saws for 2023,2024 FWIW.
As it was already written here, this "useful life" specifies the period for which the engine must meet the requirements for emissions. Or a more precise quote:
The period during which engines are required to comply with all emission standards that apply. The useful life period is five years or a number of hours of operation, whichever comes first.
This "useful life" is not necessarily indicative of the quality and durability of the engine. It is chosen by the applicant for certification. Generally, it is not in his interest to choose a higher classification (more requirements). There are 3 of them:
Light Use - 50 hours
Medium Use - 125 hours
Heavy Use - 250 hours
For deliberate selection of the wrong category by the applicant, there is a risk of revocation of certification. To be precise, I will quote on the basis of what the applicant should choose a category:
(1) Surveys of the life spans of the equipment in which the subject engines are installed.
(2) Engineering evaluations of field aged engines to ascertain when engine performance deteriorates to the point where usefulness and/or reliability is impacted to a degree sufficient to necessitate overhaul or replacement.
(3) Failure reports from engine customers.
(4) Engineering evaluations of the durability, in hours, of specific engine technologies, engine materials, or engine designs.
The period during which engines are required to comply with all emission standards that apply. The useful life period is five years or a number of hours of operation, whichever comes first.
This "useful life" is not necessarily indicative of the quality and durability of the engine. It is chosen by the applicant for certification. Generally, it is not in his interest to choose a higher classification (more requirements). There are 3 of them:
Light Use - 50 hours
Medium Use - 125 hours
Heavy Use - 250 hours
For deliberate selection of the wrong category by the applicant, there is a risk of revocation of certification. To be precise, I will quote on the basis of what the applicant should choose a category:
(1) Surveys of the life spans of the equipment in which the subject engines are installed.
(2) Engineering evaluations of field aged engines to ascertain when engine performance deteriorates to the point where usefulness and/or reliability is impacted to a degree sufficient to necessitate overhaul or replacement.
(3) Failure reports from engine customers.
(4) Engineering evaluations of the durability, in hours, of specific engine technologies, engine materials, or engine designs.
As I have written here before, presence on the list means compliance. If you don't believe it, you can compare the data with that required by law. Of course, this system is based on trust with the EPA's system of inspections of the applicants.
thompsoncustom
ArboristSite Guru
Hey people usually have to pay extra not to meet these silly EPA standards so if they don't that can only be a good thing.
