Saw Modz

i was running it wide open but from what Jack says, i should put the deflector back on. the deflector is the first piece you take off, then the screen then a small outlet hole behind that is what i opened up. prob start small with opening the outlet hole.
 
Open up everything under the deflector. Leave it on. The deflector send the exhaust the way it needs to go. It's the easiest route and all the saw really needs.
 
You don't need to, but you can. The more you open it the more you push the boundary. On AS there pages long threads about the right size opening and everybody is feels like they are right. It's a bit crazy, but what really matter is whether or not the performance boost from opening up under the deflector satisfies your need for power. You can push the limit, no deflector with that huge hole is definitely pushing the limit. When the limits get pushed it get hard on the saw. My own opinion and what I do with my saws is to keep it moderate.
 
Two-cycle engines normally require an expansion chamber exhaust system, tuned to the part of the power band where the engine is ported to produce the most horsepower (or torque, depending on what you're using the engine for) and they need more backpressure than a similar displacement four-cycle engine. Of course, this isn't practical for small engines on power equipment, but you'll see them on racing saws. If you reduce the back pressure too much on a 2-stroke engine, it will run worse, not better. Chainsaw engines are choked back, using a variety of methods including the muffler design, to meet EPA standards. If we want increased performance, we sacrifice some of that. When you use a chainsaw as much as we do, the low emission saw might end up throwing out more bad gas if it is forcing us to run the saw twice as long due to poor performance. We also can't always just use a bigger, stock saw to do the job (such as while in the tree)... so arborists and firewood cutters tend to go for performance and the EPA be damned. The EPA isn't the devil, the sale of these tools with small 2-stroke engines is through the roof, with most of the sales going to people who don't require this extra performance. They're just doing what they gotta do, and so are the OEM engineers.

If you do mods to the saw, it is best to go conservatively (as Jackjcc said) so that you don't end up having to buy a new muffler and starting over.
 
Two-cycle engines normally require an expansion chamber exhaust system, tuned to the part of the power band where the engine is ported to produce the most horsepower (or torque, depending on what you're using the engine for) and they need more backpressure than a similar displacement four-cycle engine. Of course, this isn't practical for small engines on power equipment, but you'll see them on racing saws. If you reduce the back pressure too much on a 2-stroke engine, it will run worse, not better. Chainsaw engines are choked back, using a variety of methods including the muffler design, to meet EPA standards. If we want increased performance, we sacrifice some of that. When you use a chainsaw as much as we do, the low emission saw might end up throwing out more bad gas if it is forcing us to run the saw twice as long due to poor performance. We also can't always just use a bigger, stock saw to do the job (such as while in the tree)... so arborists and firewood cutters tend to go for performance and the EPA be damned. The EPA isn't the devil, the sale of these tools with small 2-stroke engines is through the roof, with most of the sales going to people who don't require this extra performance. They're just doing what they gotta do, and so are the OEM engineers.

If you do mods to the saw, it is best to go conservatively (as Jackjcc said) so that you don't end up having to buy a new muffler and starting over.
I felt pressured to "like" your last post cause you are looking so damn scary these days :frio:
 
. I've had a couple of them woods ported, but it's a waste of $... Can't change the compression on a clamshell design crankcase.

View attachment 35325

Its not impossible to change the squish/compression on a clamshell engine...its just that most builders deem them not worth the effort.

cut squish band jsut like a normal cylinder

cut base just like a normal cylinder

fly cut the bearing pockets deeper....that is where most builders decide they either cant do it, dont wanna do it, or it isnt worth doing.

chris-pa did a bunch of mods to a poulan or craftsman clamshell saw including cutting base, cutting squish, bearing pockets, ported it, and even went as far as printing plastic inserts for the case to try crank stuffers for a little extra power. very interesting reading when he did all that
 
That clamshell build was awesome. Bit more work there then with the pro saws.
The bearing pockets are a ten minute job with mill and Chris managed to do them without a mill IIRC so honestly I'm not sure why builders are so scared of them. Even if you don't want to do that you can always weld a pop-up (I'm not a fan of this method or of popups in general) which has been done on many models for years
 
And the fact that the rest of the clamshell saw is all plastic. Some are well built, but a ported clamshell just doesn't have the appeal of a ported pro saw.
 
If someone is willing to pay.... It's worth it. I could argue it's not worth paying to have someone paint up a 7910 and install graphics but you got paid to do it.
I would have to agree with you. He threw the money at me, so I did the work, lol.

As a rule of thumb though, the clamshell saws are much more time consuming to work on and have many more restrictions to what can be done with them. Add to that, there's more work available out there than I could ever do. So, from a business point of view, it just doesn't make sense to work on them. Besides, where's the PSP value in a ported clamshell ;)
 
Imagine porting a echo 355t. Ported that saw would cut circles around a 201t or 200t..... And you would have the same money in it as just buying a stock 201. Sounds like a win to me.
The only top handle saw I've ported was a 200T and that was years ago. It was my own saw. At that time, I didn't find enough gains to justify what the cost, so never offered it for sale. Most of these top handle saws run really well with a simply muffler mod and usually some timing advance. I always thought that was a great value for the users and have stuck to that. That's not to say that they wouldn't respond well to porting. I just think it would be a hard sell to spend $930 for a ported 201T, or even $300 on top of whatever a 355 costs!
 
355t is $349 list but I sell em for just a shade over 3. That's $600 in a saw that would stomp a $650 saw plus parts are much cheaper for the echo when the inevitable 50 foot fall comes or a groundie straight gases it. Just pointing out that it's not such a dumb idea to port a clam shell as it looks from first glance
 
Just pointing out that it's not such a dumb idea to port a clam shell as it looks from first glance
I'm not saying it's dumb, but that it doesn't make sense for me to do them from a business point of view. If someone has one and wants to port it, have at it. It will respond to porting just like any saw. It's not as easy to bump compression, but I find port timing and shape to be more critical to performance anyway. And if you are going to invest that $300 in a saw, I just think it makes more sense to do so to a pro saw. Again, that's just from a business point of view, not that they won't respond favorably. They will.
 
Chainsaw mods are like genetics when growing a plant.
The better the genes of the seed, the more you can expect from the plant.
Clam shells do port ok however, they do take longer and gains are sometimes not impressive.
 

New threads New posts

Kask Stihl NORTHEASTERN Arborists Wesspur TreeStuff.com Teufelberger Westminster X-Rigging Teufelberger
Back
Top Bottom