older 026 muffler mod

Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

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

1stmale

ArboristSite Operative
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
130
Reaction score
6
Location
middle of the U.S.
I have an older 026 that I have been working on. This saw is at least 15 years old maybe older.

I have been reading here on as about modifying 026 mufflers and from what I am reading all the 026 mufflers have one hole in them

Mine has 4 .25" holes for a total opening size of .196"^2

attachment.php


Timberwolf has some great data on modifying a 260 pro muffler but what I am after is how much if any should I modify this muffler?

I was thinking about removing the material between the holes. This would give me a total area of .3"^2.

What do you think?
 
What's the area of the exhaust port at the cylinder wall? That'll tell you how much to open it.

Most say anywhere between 80% to 125% of port opening at cylinder wall... You could start with 80% and work your way up if needed.
 
Remove all the bridges between the holes, smooth the rough areas, clean, make sure you get all the metal chips etc. out. Reassemble. Make sure you adjust the carburetor for the change in flow rate.
 
I do not know how to measure the exhaust port at the cylindar wall. I cannot get my caliper in to measure it.

I read another post by timberwolf He had a chart and I think he measured the exhaust port at .375^2.

If I only take out the area between the holes I will only be at .3^2.

I will be using a mill to remove this material so I could go to a 3/8 bit and mill a 1.25" oval making a .438^2 opening that would be 115% of the .375 from timberwolf.

I would still like to know exactly how big the opening is on my saw however.

Any tips on how to measure it...
 
Last edited:
http://www.arboristsite.com/showthread.php?t=36541&highlight=80%+port

Read post #6... Different strokes for different folks.

There is years of exhaust mod info here, and each guy has his own magic port % number. In my first post, I was generalizing what has been posted here... Hence the 80%-100%.

That's also why I wrote 'some here'...

Guys I have watched with great admiration are (in no particular order):

blsnelling
Romeo
timberwolf
four paws
tree sling'r
etc
etc


Lot's of good info to be had with a search.

:cheers:
 
I do not know how to measure the exhaust port at the cylindar wall. I cannot get my caliper in to measure it.

I read another post by timberwolf He had a chart and I think he measured the exhaust port at .375^2.

If I only take out the area between the holes I will only be at .3^2.

I will be using a mill to remove this material so I could go to a 3.8 bit and mill a 1.25" oval making a .438^2 opening that would be 115% of the .375 from timberwolf.

I would still like to know exactly how big the opening is on my saw however.

Any tips on how to measure it...

Brad (blsnelling) told me an easy way to do it (Thanks again Brad)... Use spaghetti (uncooked ;)) bundled in your hand... It will form to the irregular shape of the port. Trace on paper, measure area.
 
I borrowed that idea from someone else. May have been Timberwold. TW did a rather scientific study of how large to open the muffler on a 026. The result was 125%-150%. Any larger and you may experience idle/usability problems. Keep in mind that this is the total area of all exhaust holes, not just the new ones you're drilling.
 
I borrowed that idea from someone else. May have been Timberwold. TW did a rather scientific study of how large to open the muffler on a 026. The result was 125%-150%. Any larger and you may experience idle/usability problems. Keep in mind that this is the total area of all exhaust holes, not just the new ones you're drilling.

I remember that TW 026 too... But wasn't that a fully mod'd 026 though?

I'll have to look again.
 
I borrowed that idea from someone else. May have been Timberwold. TW did a rather scientific study of how large to open the muffler on a 026. The result was 125%-150%. Any larger and you may experience idle/usability problems. Keep in mind that this is the total area of all exhaust holes, not just the new ones you're drilling.

I have read this thread

http://www.arboristsite.com/showthread.php?t=44816

I will measure my exhast port tonight when I get home and probably aim for the 125% just to be safe.

I will also be opening the exhaust flow dirrector to allow exhause to leave the front of the saw so as not to restrict the exhaust and make my modifications usless.
 
It looks like he had both but I am not sure. That is why I started this thread, to clear up the uncertainties for me.

Found it!

Stihl 260 muffler mod data, temp, sound level and preformance
Here is the data I measured during a muffler modification on my 260.

Saw is was new 3-4 tanks of gas, sharp .325 Stihl RS chain on a 16" bar.

Tempratures were measured with a digital lazer spot infared sensor. measuements were taken from the hottest area on the front of the muffler cover, and the hottest exposed area of the head which seemed to be just below the cooling fins on the bar side. Outside air temperature 5 degrees C.

Sound levels were measured using a calibrated digital sound meter, peak measurments were taken at 10 feet directly in front of the saw with both the saw and meter 3' above the ground (open field).

Cut times were 3 cut averages measured by stop watch on a 12" dry spruce.


The muffler modification entailed 5 steps.

1 stock
2 stock muffler redrill existing outlet to 7/16 and add one 7/16 hole
3 add one more 7/16 hole
4 join 3 holes and square opening to 7/16 x 1.5 inch plus file back and open deflector angle.
5 match exaust port to muffler

The test consisted of the folowing steps

1 measure temp with saw cold roughly 7 degrees C
2 start and idle saw for 2 min monitor temp until stable
3 measure idle sound level
4 cycle saw to full RPM 5 times and record max sound and rpm
5 cycle saw between idle and full rpm for 1 min and measure temp
6 cut 3 disks and measure temp
7 allow saw to cool befor next test

AND HERE IS WHAT I FOUND
-----------------------------------

Stock muffler opening 0.11 sqr inches
---------------------------

RPM 13450
Idle sound level 80.2 db
Max sound level 97.1 db
Idle temp muffler 64 C
Idle temp head 60 C
Cycle test temp muffler 119C
Cycle test temp head 68C
3 cut test temp muffler 183C
3 cut test temp head 105C
3 cut test time 8.5 sec


Muffler with two 7/16 openings total 0. 30 sqr inch
---------------------------------------

RPM 13650 +1.5%
Idle sound level 84.9 db +5.9%
Max sound level 99.5 db +2.8%
Idle temp muffler 62 C -3.2%
Idle temp head 58 C -3.4%
Cycle test temp muffler 89C -33.7%
Cycle test temp head 62C -9.7%
3 cut test temp muffler 164C -11.6%
3 cut test temp head 96C -9.4%
3 cut test time 8.0 sec -6.3%

Muffler with three 7/16 openings total 0.45 sqr inches
-----------------------------------------

RPM 13750 +2.2%
Idle sound level 87.1 db +8.7%
Max sound level 101.8 db +4.8%
Idle temp muffler 56 C -14.3%
Idle temp head 55 C -16.4%
Cycle test temp muffler 88C -35.2%
Cycle test temp head 62C -9.7%
3 cut test temp muffler 147C -24.5%
3 cut test temp head 105C -12.9%
3 cut test time 7.6 sec -11.8%

Muffler with one 7/16 x 1.5 inch opening total 0.66 sqr inches
--------------------------------------------------

RPM 14000* +4.1%
Idle sound level 89.9 db +12.1%
Max sound level 103.0 db +6.1%
Idle temp muffler 54 C -18.6%
Idle temp head 52 C -15.4%
Cycle test temp muffler 82C -45.2%
Cycle test temp head 61C -11.5%
3 cut test temp muffler 143C -28.0%
3 cut test temp head 85C -23.6%
3 cut test time 6.9 sec -24.6%

* mixture richer by a hair RPM = 14100 before adjustment

Exaust port matched and smoothed
---------------------------------------------

RPM 14050 +4.4%
Idle sound level 89.9 db +12.1% NC
Max sound level 103.0 db +6.1% NC
Idle temp muffler 54 C -18.6% NC
Idle temp head 51 C -17.6%
Cycle test temp muffler 82C -45.2% NC
Cycle test temp head 61C -11.5% NC
3 cut test temp muffler 143C -28.0% NC
3 cut test temp head 83C -26.5%
3 cut test time 6.7 sec -26.8%


Other Notes

My cutting tequnique may have improved over the tests, however I was cutting disks off towards the larger end of the log during the last few tests, so it probably equals out.

The air temprature was cool for the tests, the engine tempratue factors may well be more pronounced if the same tests were done during hot weather.

Even though the sound level data shows an increase of 12% idle and 6% maximum the real change in much greated due to the logarithimic nature of the db scale, the precieved change of a 10 db increase as in the saw idle measurments would be that the sound level has doubled.

Allthough the mixture seemed to be good at 14000 rpm I richened it to achieve 13800 when I was finished.

gains don't seem to be falling off too fast so I will likely open up the muffler a wee bit more in the future.

Data tables don't post well, I think I'l make it a text file and attach it next time.

Wife didn't think much of me spending most of the day making the chain saw louder! Just wait til I finish the 066. lol

Timberwolf
 
a little... maybe.


I bore three 5/16 or 3/8 holes

Assuming

3/8, that's 0.331 sq inch.
5/16 is 0.223

Your four 1/4 inch holes is 0.196.

Just run a 5/16 drill into each of your 4 holes... you'll end up with just over 0.3.
 
Brad, I think I borowed the spagetti idea from crofter.

From a flow prespective 4 small holes may be better than one. At one point I thought that a single big hole should flow better than several small holes of the same area. Came up with a good rational for this being that it's the edge of the hole that causes most resistance to flow so 4 small holes having a longer perimmiter must have more resistance to flow.

Four 1/4 inch holes = 0.196 in2 and has a perimiter of 3.14 inches

One 1/2 hole = 1.96 in2 but has a perimiter of 1.57 inches

So it would seem logical that one hole should flow more per unit area, but since then a flow bench has taught me otherwise, sucks to find I was dead wrong.

The thicker the orifice in relation to it's diamiter the more the hole looks like a smooth nozzel. A square edge hole in very thin plate will only flow 60% of what would flow through an ideal opening of the same area. So in the same way the smaller the hole in relation to the tickness of the muffler cover the more flow you get from a given area.

This making any sense?
 
Last edited:
Brad, I think I borowed the spagetti idea from crofter.

From a flow prespective 4 small holes may be better than one. At one point I thought that a single big hole should flow better than several small holes of the same area. Came up with a good rational for this being that it's the edge of the hole that causes most resistance to flow so 4 small holes having a longer perimmiter must have more resistance to flow.

Four 1/4 inch holes = 0.196 in2 and has a perimiter of 3.14 inches

One 1/2 hole = 1.96 in2 but has a perimiter of 1.57 inches

So it would seem logical that one hole should flow more per unit area, but since then a flow bench has taught me otherwise, sucks to find I was dead wrong.

The thicker the orifice in relation to it's diamiter the more the hole looks like a smooth nozzel. A square edge hole in very thin plate will only flow 60% of what would flow through an ideal opening of the same area. So in the same way the smaller the hole in relation to the tickness of the muffler cover the more flow you get from a given area.

This making any sense?


So is there anything to be gained by welding washers (or whatever) to the holes to gain thickness? I have been watching this one, as I am putting an 024 together with the same muffler.
 
Depends, likely a hole with a washer will flow a few % better than a simple hole cut in the face of the muffler. Given the exact same area. But 10 small holes of the same area may flow better than a washer.

No matter how well the holes flow the blowdown can be controlled by outlet area, but if you took the exhaust open too the limit with a single large hole, you might find that 4 or 8 smaller holes of the same total area would flow too much and make for poor low speed running.

I found as much as 25% difference in flow at a given area depending on just how the opening(s) were placed and shaped. Screens can make some pretty big differences too.
 
Brad, I think I borowed the spagetti idea from crofter.

From a flow prespective 4 small holes may be better than one. At one point I thought that a single big hole should flow better than several small holes of the same area. Came up with a good rational for this being that it's the edge of the hole that causes most resistance to flow so 4 small holes having a longer perimmiter must have more resistance to flow.

Four 1/4 inch holes = 0.196 in2 and has a perimiter of 3.14 inches

One 1/2 hole = 1.96 in2 but has a perimiter of 1.57 inches

So it would seem logical that one hole should flow more per unit area, but since then a flow bench has taught me otherwise, sucks to find I was dead wrong.

The thicker the orifice in relation to it's diamiter the more the hole looks like a smooth nozzel. A square edge hole in very thin plate will only flow 60% of what would flow through an ideal opening of the same area. So in the same way the smaller the hole in relation to the tickness of the muffler cover the more flow you get from a given area.

This making any sense?

So.... do you think I should leave it alone or drill the holes out to 5/16"

Then should I open up the deflector to allow exhaust to escape the front?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top