Firewood Showdown: MAC 10-10 A vs. STIHL MS290

[Michigan Muscle]

This thread caught my eye this morning and I must say it's very refreshing to see some young guys going on about some fresh saw discoveries. There are many examples of older saws kicking newer saws crankcases. When you fellas have the oportunity, try a Homey 925XL or a SP81 Mac. You'd be amazed how well an old early 60s' gear-drive saw will handle a long bar. Fine examples were made by Mac,Homelite,Poulan and others. This 10-10 vs. 290 is just the tip of the iceburg as they say.
Igpoe

Absolutely. I've actually played around with just about every "newer" Stihl, and quite a few Huskys. They do make great saws, but this was the first "side by side" comparisson I have been able to make. The 10-10 just flat out out-performed the 290. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Love the old muscle - and I always knew it was for a reason. hahaha

 

[zogger]

I really shouldn't worry, those Stihl, Husky guys are a little snobbish (I have both,too).They tend to look down on them old saws because they're HEAVY.I like them old Poulans, too.They were made close to where I live, so I'm kinda partial to them, but I would definetly check out that PM700 you were talking about.

I don't have any old macs, but my 245a poulan ain't heavy *at all*. It runs pretty darn good stock, no idea what a good porter could get from one.

 

[Michigan Muscle]

I don't have any old macs, but my 245a poulan ain't heavy *at all*. It runs pretty darn good stock, no idea what a good porter could get from one.

I'm looking into a 245A as we speak. It would be my first Poulan. I've heard so many good things about this model.

 

[zogger]

I'm looking into a 245A as we speak. It would be my first Poulan. I've heard so many good things about this model.

I don't know if it is still there, but its little brother, the 306a, was in the classifieds here the other day.

 

[roostersgt]

I have been reading this and have kept quiet so far, but I have to admit I am very skeptical. A 54cc dinosaur that spins around 9000 rpm and weighs an astonishing 15.7 pounds dry (PHO) is getting people fired up? I'm not from the "show me" state, but I'd have to see it to believe it could outcut a bigger cc saw, with 1/3 hp more that spins 13,200 rpm, if both had equally sharp chains of the same type. Sure it has grunt, but I seriously doubt any of my 029/290's slows down to 9200 rpm in the cut, unless I sat on it.

I like the vintage stuff and am really impressed with their quality and longevity, but they are what they are, obsolete. For the money you could get one for they are great buys, but comparing their performance? My Homelite is an exceptional saw and quite nifty, but I'd never try to compare it to a newer tophandle's performance. The Mac will probably still be running in another 40 years, if you can still find the wearout parts, whereas the plastic clamshell might only last another 10-20 before the plastic fails it. Interesting post, but keep in mind the saw weighs nearly 16 pounds dry.

 

[mountainlake]

I have been reading this and have kept quiet so far, but I have to admit I am very skeptical. A 54cc dinosaur that spins around 9000 rpm and weighs an astonishing 15.7 pounds dry (PHO) is getting people fired up? I'm not from the "show me" state, but I'd have to see it to believe it could outcut a bigger cc saw, with 1/3 hp more that spins 13,200 rpm, if both had equally sharp chains of the same type. Sure it has grunt, but I seriously doubt any of my 029/290's slows down to 9200 rpm in the cut, unless I sat on it.

I like the vintage stuff and am really impressed with their quality and longevity, but they are what they are, obsolete. For the money you could get one for they are great buys, but comparing their performance? My Homelite is an exceptional saw and quite nifty, but I'd never try to compare it to a newer tophandle's performance. The Mac will probably still be running in another 40 years, if you can still find the wearout parts, whereas the plastic clamshell might only last another 10-20 before the plastic fails it. Interesting post, but keep in mind the saw weighs nearly 16 pounds dry.

If your running your 290 at more than 9000 rpm in the cut your not cutting as fast as it will cut. Just about every vid on here saws cut the fastest with the engine loaded some not screaming. Steve

 

[Dan_IN_MN]

A few things to keep in mind when comparing saws and how they cut.

Condition of the engine..... (were both in good condition? good compression?)
Chain/bar condition. (were both chains sharpened the same? depth gauges same height?)
Carb tuning. A saw running too fat will not develop it's full power/RPM.
Person running the saw.... (how are they feeding the chain? over loading causing loss of RPMs?)

 

[redheadwoodshed]

I have been reading this and have kept quiet so far, but I have to admit I am very skeptical. A 54cc dinosaur that spins around 9000 rpm and weighs an astonishing 15.7 pounds dry (PHO) is getting people fired up? I'm not from the "show me" state, but I'd have to see it to believe it could outcut a bigger cc saw, with 1/3 hp more that spins 13,200 rpm, if both had equally sharp chains of the same type. Sure it has grunt, but I seriously doubt any of my 029/290's slows down to 9200 rpm in the cut, unless I sat on it.

I like the vintage stuff and am really impressed with their quality and longevity, but they are what they are, obsolete. For the money you could get one for they are great buys, but comparing their performance? My Homelite is an exceptional saw and quite nifty, but I'd never try to compare it to a newer tophandle's performance. The Mac will probably still be running in another 40 years, if you can still find the wearout parts, whereas the plastic clamshell might only last another 10-20 before the plastic fails it. Interesting post, but keep in mind the saw weighs nearly 16 pounds dry.

I am glad you feel that way!But having run both, I don't at all doubt the OP.

 

[redheadwoodshed]

I wonder were you got your specs on the 10-10.H.P. rating wasn't on Acres, and depending on which 10-10 is being discussed there is only a 2 cc difference.rpm ratings are only good if the saw is turning those rpm's.If it's buried in wood, torque is going to come into play and I think Mac has that one on the 291.

 

[homelitejim]

[video=youtube;Iq7bk6eS5vs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq7bk6eS5vs[/video]

I have had a few 10-10's until I tried the king daddy of the 10-10 world the SP81, and a newly acquired PM850. Now I only keep a few 10-10s for their electronics and side covers as spare parts for my 5 cube 10X saws. Be warned if you like the 10-10 do not run a PM850 you will never look at your 10-10 the same way again.

 

[Guido Salvage]

I don't have any old macs, but my 245a poulan ain't heavy *at all*. It runs pretty darn good stock, no idea what a good porter could get from one.

Hey porter....

[video=youtube_share;bksZ4Qu18kc]http://youtu.be/bksZ4Qu18kc[/video]

 

[roostersgt]

Did google search and got 10-10 specs from ehow website / thread. Its 54 cc 290 is 59cc. Those specs are for a fresh out of the box saw. My guess is the 290 was wore out and had a poorly set up and dull chain. If you push a saw tuned for 13,200 rpm's down to 9200 or so rpm's, you're going to burn up clutch/bar and chain.

http://vintagechainsawcollection.blogspot.com/2007/03/mcculloch-10-10-automatic.html

 

[cpr]

Did google search and got 10-10 specs from ehow website / thread. Its 54 cc 290 is 59cc. Those specs are for a fresh out of the box saw. My guess is the 290 was wore out and had a poorly set up and dull chain. If you push a saw tuned for 13,200 rpm's down to 9200 or so rpm's, you're going to burn up clutch/bar and chain.

Really? Then I better start ordering Husky clutches to replace all of mine. They're all tuned mid-low 13s and will go everywhere from 8400 to 10400 in the cut. They grunt the hardest at 9-95. My Macs are tuned by ear but will tach out at 9-10500 depending on model, but don't drop off nearly as much in the cut.

Haters gonna hate...

 

[mountainlake]

Did google search and got 10-10 specs from ehow website / thread. Its 54 cc 290 is 59cc. Those specs are for a fresh out of the box saw. My guess is the 290 was wore out and had a poorly set up and dull chain. If you push a saw tuned for 13,200 rpm's down to 9200 or so rpm's, you're going to burn up clutch/bar and chain.

13200 is the no load speed not the in the cut speed. Do a web search, the 290 is 56 cc and makes it peak power at about 9000 RPM, running any faster that 9000 rpm your losing cutting speed. There sure is a lot of chain speed hype everywhere. Also the MS290 is gutless for the 56cc it has as any good 50cc will outcut it. The 290 has a cheap open port cylinder while good 50 cc saw will have a closed port cylinder which make more power per cc most of the time. One exception would be the Dolmar 6400 which has a huge open port design . Steve

 

[Michigan Muscle]

I have been reading this and have kept quiet so far, but I have to admit I am very skeptical. A 54cc dinosaur that spins around 9000 rpm and weighs an astonishing 15.7 pounds dry (PHO) is getting people fired up? I'm not from the "show me" state, but I'd have to see it to believe it could outcut a bigger cc saw, with 1/3 hp more that spins 13,200 rpm, if both had equally sharp chains of the same type. Sure it has grunt, but I seriously doubt any of my 029/290's slows down to 9200 rpm in the cut, unless I sat on it.

I like the vintage stuff and am really impressed with their quality and longevity, but they are what they are, obsolete. For the money you could get one for they are great buys, but comparing their performance? My Homelite is an exceptional saw and quite nifty, but I'd never try to compare it to a newer tophandle's performance. The Mac will probably still be running in another 40 years, if you can still find the wearout parts, whereas the plastic clamshell might only last another 10-20 before the plastic fails it. Interesting post, but keep in mind the saw weighs nearly 16 pounds dry.

If 3 lbs. makes that big a difference to YOU (the 290 is 13 lbs PHO), then let the guys who get fired up handle the extra 3 lbs, and stick to the light weight stuff. As for your endless collection of Stihls (with 1 homie), maybe you should try a MAC before you add another one. I own a couple Stihls, myself - so I have the earned time with both ends of the "dinosaur" arguement. I'll tell ya why I get fired up about these saws - they were built to outlast a 1 year consumer warranty, and the old manufacturers didn't have to coax anyone into buying a 6-pack of 2-cycle oil to extend it another year. If your 290 is still cutting in 2052, let me know.

 

[roostersgt]

Don't mean to gore oxes. Just pointing out the obvious. FYI, I sold my Mac, twas way too heavy and slow. 3 pounds is way too much extra weight for a 3.4 hp 54 cc saw, way too much. That would put it at about 18+ with bar/chain, oil and mix. I'll stick to my overweight 290's thanks.

 

[Michigan Muscle]

[video=youtube;Iq7bk6eS5vs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq7bk6eS5vs[/video]

I have had a few 10-10's until I tried the king daddy of the 10-10 world the SP81, and a newly acquired PM850. Now I only keep a few 10-10s for their electronics and side covers as spare parts for my 5 cube 10X saws. Be warned if you like the 10-10 do not run a PM850 you will never look at your 10-10 the same way again.

I'll definitely look into one of those PM850's - but I'll never lose sight of my 10-10. A tool for every job.

 

[RandyMac]

I always get a chuckle out of these kinds of comparison threads. There are those who believe that anything new or a stihl has got to be better and will argue well beyond their scope of actual knowledge.
If you really want to roil the waters, put vintage stihls against North American saws of the same era.

 

[cpr]

I always get a chuckle out of these kinds of comparison threads. There are those who believe that anything new or a stihl has got to be better and will argue well beyond their scope of actual knowledge.
If you really want to roil the waters, put vintage stihls against North American saws of the same era.

Nah, the second half of that "race" would put me to sleep.

 

[roostersgt]

I always get a chuckle out of these kinds of comparison threads. There are those who believe that anything new or a stihl has got to be better and will argue well beyond their scope of actual knowledge.
If you really want to roil the waters, put vintage stihls against North American saws of the same era.

Never said better, just faster. No doubt the old school saws were made to last. You missed that.l happen to like the old clunky 028's. Built to last. Heavy too.