Fetish

I think I read a page at Madsens about two years ago (I can't find it now) that said when they "power tune" (not a "hot-saw" either) a saw it not only runs stronger, but longer. There comments related to lower engine temps and balanced crankshafts producing a longer lasting saw, as well as more power. Thats what I remember them saying anyway, I don't know if they still do this stuff, it might be worth an E-mail. Web site: Madsens1.com
 
This guy works at C&L Supply in Campbell River BC. Was the biggest Husky dealer in Canada in the 90's. Will probably be again with his tuning skills. He has another company on the side. 250 287-2465, ask for Simon.
 
They will lose usefull life or simply put it won't last as long.
There are many ways to boost performance on a engine, turbine, pump and so on.
When you do this you are operating on top of the curve. Engineers have spent alot of time getting the best performance with the best reliability. The trade off with a stock engine is a decrease in performance. A increase in performance usually means a decrease in reliability. The more performance the less reliability.
 
Not necessarily true. Manufacturers of 2-stroke engines have to adhere to extremely stringent emissions regulations. Once out of the factory they can be modified to run much "happier" Simonized saws run cooler and longer. I have some HP specs for you. 385 XP stock 6.1 hp, Walkerized,6.8 hp, Simonized, 7.6 hp.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Would they mod a Stihl?

[/ QUOTE ]They are looking at the new MS650 as we speak. They have focused primarily on the Husqvarna 372 and 385. They have had a 575 for about 6 months but it is still hush-hush. Their 385, like I have stated previously, simply buries a Walkerized 395, despite the displacement disadvantage.
 
[ QUOTE ]
MS 650?

[/ QUOTE ]Yes, it will be out in 2 weeks, 85cc. It is Stihl's answer to the Husq 385. Also, regarding your HP question, the dyno they use is calibrated for BHP, (brake horsepower) 550 Ft.lbs/ sec or 745.6 Watts electrical. Incidentally it weighs 3 oz less than the MS660 and comes stock with 6.4 BHP (0.3 more than a stock 385 XP)
 
Mark, I thought you had the inside skinny on Stihl? What's going on here.
Sawmeister, what's the cost of these mods? US$
 
Stihl MS650

I very much doubt it's an "answer" to anything Husqvarna. As I understand, it's a smaller-diameter jug and piston on the MS660 chassis for a few bucks less.

Engineers take great care in providing the best balance possible between longevity/safety and power output, working within the ever-more-limited constraints they face regarding emissions. If they feel a saw making so much power requires so much material in the cases surrounding the crank bearings, what makes you think they were wrong? Sure, they could make the saws smaller and lighter for the same power output, but then they either {w,c}ouldn't warranty them long enough to suit most users.

Furthermore, and it may be different in Canada, but it's not "okay" to modify an EPA-approved product in such a way that it falls out of compliance. There evidently isn't much going on the way of (civil) enforcement at this time, but that doesn't make it okay. If you have a saw that's been so modified, you cannot legally use it on Federal property.

I want to say up front that I'm not a governmental-interference-in-my-life fan-boy, but here are some links of interest:

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/equip-ld.htm

and within that page a typically factoid-like document which contains the phrase "Tampering with a certified small engine is against the law." http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/f98025a.pdf

Glen
 
Additionally, even though it technically constitutes creating a new device which is subject to certification, many people make a business out of modifying stock chainsaws. Vist Ed Heard's nook over at ArboristSite.com for one very reputable example.

Glen
 
$240.00 Cad. So around $200.00USD. This porting work will SURELY be copied as it is not a patentable modification. Once you try this 385 you will be blown away. We are logging big wood here in BC as you all know. I have friends running 37" 404 on this machine and they all say it kicks ass. The other nice fact is that Simon ports every cylinder himself to within 0.01 mm so there are no variations in performance from saw to saw. Bob (Walker) used to do all the work himself as well (and did nice work) but now he has others doing it and I have seen extreme variations in porting dimensions. Simon is also a mechanical engineer and was a journeyman mechanic before he started his degree (At MIT I might add) Really nice guy to talk to as well. C&L's # is (250) 287-9231 if you wanted to call them.
 
Hi Glen, you are absolutely correct about the MS650. They have the same mounts (problem) as well. Stihl has not got a saw in that displacement range and developed this as a way to tip-toe around epa regulations. This is a delicate area right now. It works kind of like this: A certain amount of saws of failing emissions characteristics are allowable as long as a greater percentage of "environmentally friendly" saws are also produced. There was an opportunity in this displacement range so they did it as cheaply as possible by reducing the bore. The connecting rod/crank etc are all the same. (I'll probably get shot for imparting this info))ha ha.
 
In keeping with the tradition, Stihl has offered another model on the same chassis, but in reverse. Maybe they should've also held to tradtion and called it something like "MS660 Lesser".

I know what you'd meant, but saying they're "tiptoeing around" the regulations isn't quite right. Rest assured they're working entirely within them. Maybe you should've said "tiptoeing around in the regs". :)

Ed Heard has evidently already realized some great gains from the Husq 575, but he hasn't been able to help with the weight...

He also has reported great success with the MS200T, not to mention finding a relatively common (in his experience) with them regarding the fuel pump impulse routing.

Glen
 
The 575 is a really interesting machine. One intake tract has a butterfly valve but zero fuel delivery. It is like another carburetor with no venturi or main jet.They are making astronomical claims like "The 372 runs 22 minutes with x amount of gas, the 575 will run 55 minutes on the same amount. A typical internal combustion engine uses half a pound of fuel per HP per hour, small 2-strokes are considerably less efficient due to the nature of the engine and proportional windage losses for cooling, bearing friction etc. These claims make me shake my head sometimes. I really like Husqvarna saws but the reps are questionable at times.
 
I've misplaced it, evidently, but I'd picked up one of their product sheets when I ran a 575 at Louisville last summer. I'm pretty sure they were claiming 30% fuel reduction.

I spent a fair amount of time fondling the bits and pieces of the cutaway they had inside (as well the one for the 455) and did an extensive write-up on it over at ArboristSite.

Glen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom