Husky spec PDF draft (Bill's saw shop specs)

Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

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

mbrick

ArboristSite Guru
AS Supporting Member.
Joined
May 13, 2014
Messages
709
Reaction score
674
In light of the recent outages on Bill's saw shop site while they transition ownership (inspired by this thread), I decided to create a PDF list of the Husqvarna saw spec sheet since I reference it so often. I can do the same for Stihl if desired.

This is a draft while I gather feedback, once it is ready I can post again as a sticky. (What's the process to do this?)

I think it will have to be a PDF as I can't post an HTML table.

Attached the first draft.
-I added in the most common saws on the first page. I then left some duplicates on page 3 so it is still in model order. Does this make sense? So it is in order of 3, 1, 2 from Bill's.
-Optimized printable layout. Should print the whole page properly on nearly all printers
-General feedback on readability
-I was surprised the 346XP specs were incorrect... also added the N.E.
-Could not confirm max rpm for 550/562
-I added a torque column
-Is k.W. power column adding any value? I may remove and leave HP only.
-Is it valuable to add the year a saw was first released? (not sure I have room)

Thanks...
 

Attachments

  • Husqvarna specs Rev A.pdf
    76.7 KB · Views: 752
In light of the recent outages on Bill's saw shop site while they transition ownership (inspired by this thread), I decided to create a PDF list of the Husqvarna saw spec sheet since I reference it so often. I can do the same for Stihl if desired.

This is a draft while I gather feedback, once it is ready I can post again as a sticky. (What's the process to do this?)

I think it will have to be a PDF as I can't post an HTML table.

Attached the first draft.
-I added in the most common saws on the first page. I then left some duplicates on page 3 so it is still in model order. Does this make sense? So it is in order of 3, 1, 2 from Bill's.
-Optimized printable layout. Should print the whole page properly on nearly all printers
-General feedback on readability
-I was surprised the 346XP specs were incorrect... also added the N.E.
-Could not confirm max rpm for 550/562
-I added a torque column
-Is k.W. power column adding any value? I may remove and leave HP only.
-Is it valuable to add the year a saw was first released? (not sure I have room)

Thanks...
That is awesome, I always did like the years.

Thanks, Brian
 
....
-General feedback on readability
-I was surprised the 346XP specs were incorrect... also added the N.E.
-Could not confirm max rpm for 550/562
-I added a torque column
-Is k.W. power column adding any value? I may remove and leave HP only.
-Is it valuable to add the year a saw was first released? (not sure I have room)

Thanks...

-KW numbers actually are more useful than hp ones, as there are two different hp numbers (hp(m) and hp(i)) in use currently, and the Husky hp specs (other brands' as well) are a mix of both. As an example, the 560xp and 562xp are 3.5 kW, which is 4.8 hp(m), but 4.7 hp(i) (there are many other exemples in the chart). There is a differense of slightly less than 2% , beween the different hp scales. The expressing bhp currently is meaningless, as both hp(m) and -(i) are bhp.

-The kW number for the 555 is correct, but the correct hp number is 4.2 (not 4.3), on both scales, when only one desimal is used.

-The rpm listed for the 444 is the max power rpm, not the recommended max.

-Readability is fine.

-I believe max rpm was listed as 14k for both the 560/562 and 550 initially.
 
-KW numbers actually are more useful than hp ones, as there are two different hp numbers (hp(m) and hp(i)) in use currently, and the Husky hp specs (other brands' as well) are a mix of both. As an example, the 560xp and 562xp are 3.5 kW, which is 4.8 hp(m), but 4.7 hp(i) (there are many other exemples in the chart). There is a differense of slightly less than 2% , beween the different hp scales. The expressing bhp currently is meaningless, as both hp(m) and -(i) are bhp.

-The kW number for the 555 is correct, but the correct hp number is 4.2 (not 4.3), on both scales, when only one desimal is used.

-The rpm listed for the 444 is the max power rpm, not the recommended max.

-Readability is fine.

-I believe max rpm was listed as 14k for both the 560/562 and 550 initially.
Sawtroll, thanks for the great feedback. Give me a bit to make a few updates...

Ok, I will not remove the kW numbers. I was wondering why not all of the kW were 0.746 of the hp, maybe that has something to do with it.

I added in a bunch of kW data that was missing. Will try to find more.

Hmm, will have to think about how to add the RPM alongside torque. Maybe torque isn't that useful after all.
 
The hp number for the 390xp should be 6.5 hp(m) or 6.4 hp(i). 6.3 is the hp(m) number for the 385xp.

Btw, the German PS is the same as hp(m).
 
The hp number for the 390xp should be 6.5 hp(m) or 6.4 hp(i). 6.3 is the hp(m) number for the 385xp.
Btw, the German PS is the same as hp(m).
Which format are the majority of husky hp numbers? I would prefer hp(m) so it's *0.746... I think I will list 6.5 since it matches PS.

Actually, as I find kW numbers it will confirm the hp listed is hp(m).
 
Which format are the majority of husky hp numbers? I would prefer hp(m) so it's *0.746... I think I will list 6.5 since it matches PS.

Actually, as I find kW numbers it will confirm the hp listed is hp(m).

Yes, I agree. It is mainly the 500 series saws that are rated in hp(i) by Husky in the US - but in your list the NE 346xp is as well, while it usually was listed at 3.7 hp(m).

Afaik, hp(i) is what used to be called SEA netto in the US.

Btw, calculating one decimal kW numbers into two decimal hp numbes is a risky "sport" - and will be slightly misleading. ;)
 
Rev. B attached.

-Filled in more missing data, made corrections SawTroll pointed out
-I can't fit both year introduced and torque. Also could not find much data for introduction years so I am not going to add it.
-Would max power rpm be worth listing instead of torque?
 

Attachments

  • Husqvarna specs Rev B.pdf
    78.4 KB · Views: 121
The specs of the 372xp still are messed up. Also, there were 3 different versions, all with different specs.

- Classic (non strato) 71cc version: 3.9 kW/5.3 hp (some documants say 5.4 hp), 13.4 lbs (lowtop - the HD setup adds some).

- 75cc version (US only, 2006-2009): 4.0 kW/5.4 hp (Wrap handle and HD standard).

- 372 xp x-torq (71cc): 4.1 kW/5.6 hp (heavier, but I don't recall weight spec).


There is a 365 x-torq as well. Same engine as the 372xp x-torq, but with restrictons in the transfers, to reduce power output.

The 268xp is missing from the list, 67cc, 3.5 kw/4.8 hp.
 
Great undertaking and great feedback so far. To post it as a sticky just make the post in the chainsaw stickies sub forum.


I did notice some duplication between page 1 and 3. Other than that I guess just mentally it is easier to search if the model numbers are listed by increasing value (eg model 36 first and 2100 last)
 
The specs of the 372xp still are messed up. Also, there were 3 different versions, all with different specs.

- Classic (non strato) 71cc version: 3.9 kW/5.3 hp (some documants say 5.4 hp), 13.4 lbs (lowtop - the HD setup adds some).

- 75cc version (US only, 2006-2009): 4.0 kW/5.4 hp (Wrap handle and HD standard).

- 372 xp x-torq (71cc): 4.1 kW/5.6 hp (heavier, but I don't recall weight spec).


There is a 365 x-torq as well. Same engine as the 372xp x-torq, but with restrictons in the transfers, to reduce power output.

The 268xp is missing from the list, 67cc, 3.5 kw/4.8 hp.
Rev. C attached.

-Added 372xp classic, US, x-torq, updated weights
-Had 365 x-torq on page 3
-Added 268xp. Hard to find specs, was rare it appears
 

Attachments

  • Husqvarna specs Rev C.pdf
    76 KB · Views: 77
Looking really good[emoji106]

I notice you have a weight increase on the OE vs NE 346xp. Not sure what that is attributed to but might want to verify that with SawTroll.

Also, might want to look up and add the T540 (top handle), aka 540XPT.
[ -Edit- Oh, there it is, way at the bottom. I wasn't expecting to see it there, which leads to my next point...]

Also, not sure why some of the 3-series is on page 1 (346xp, 372xp, etc) and some on page 3 (351, 353, 365, 359, etc). If you were separating the pro-saws from the homeowner saws I get moving that block, except you put all the 4-series (consumer grade) on page 1, and the 5-series on page 1 has both pro and consumer level saws. (Maybe consider putting all the 3-series together, followed by the 4 series, then the 5-series). If you're trying to keep the current models up front with past models at the back, then a lot of the 3-series needs to move down (you can't get a 346xp anymore for example).

I understand that the ordering is a difficult task, and it looks like unlike a webpage with one long table you're trying to keep groups together on the same pdf page.
 
I was struggling with the ordering as well. I will go back to numerical order entirely for next Rev.
Since it will be viewed as pages and not a webpage like you suggested, I tried to place the most common saws on the first page. (For people comparing the 346xp with a 550xp for example, 562 to 372, etc.). I think in the end it will be more confusing how I have it currently, so I will switch back.

346OE weight at 10.6lb. Grabbed the NE weight from husky's site and it says 11.02lb, owners manual says 5kg=11lb. I'll wait for Sawtroll's confirmation there.

I also found conflicting information on the 346 stroke, but better sources and the manual state 32.5mm. The decimal often gets truncated?

Thanks for the input!
 
As this is about specs, and not the truth, 10.6 vs 11.0 are the correct numbers for the 346xp. The input on the truth regarding the OE is anything from 10.6 (DLG/KWF tests) up to 11.2 (posted by realiable people on here). On the NE, they are pretty constant at 11.2.

A lot in the list would have to be adjusted, if it was to be about the truth, so aiming for that on a list this comprehensive would be a major effort.
 
SawTroll, is the 550xp (spec at 10.8lbs) lighter than the 346xp (11.02 lbs) with the autotune computer, more complicated carb, and stuff?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The power specs of the 575xp was 4.o kW/5.4 hp, not 5.7 hp.

The power specs you have listed for the 266 are the ones used on late production SE (from some time in 1985) and the XP (from late '86 or '87. Those had a larger carb than the earier SE saws, and made .1 kw/.1 hp.
 
SawTroll, is the 550xp (spec at 10.8lbs) lighter than the 346xp (11.02 lbs) with the autotune computer, more complicated carb, and stuff?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

According to some sourses, the true weight is pretty much the same.

KWF found it to weight slightly less though, 5.0 kg/11.0 lbs.
 
Back
Top