wolfman
ArboristSite Member
so what are you guys saying........that the Dolmar 7900 is an awesome saw and is the way to go?
440/460 vs. 372--another Husky vs. Stihl ?
- Thread starter wolfman
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
The 7900 is a great saw, but if I was buying right now my money would be on the 372 from Bills. That price is just too good.
jokers
Addicted to ArboristSite
I don`t know which "respective mfg. websites" Mike got his comparative info from, but if you go to Stihl USA Comparison chart you will see the weights and powers of the respective Stihl models listed in pounds and horsepower, numbers that the majority of us as Americans can relate to better than the metric figures posted by Mike. These figures are more illustrative than saying any item weighs x number of kg because a kg is roughly 2.2 pounds, therefore 1/10 of a kg is nearly equal to 1/4 pound. Sounds like Stihl marketing at it`s finest, Mike. Then when you go to the Husky USA Site you will see Husky figures in terms more familiar and illustrative to us. So from these two sites I have determined the following:
440Mag
Weight 13.5#(6.24kg)
Power 5.35bhp(4.0kw)
460Mag
Weight 14.4#(6.5kg)
Power 6.0bhp(4.5kw)
372xp
Weight 13.4#(6.1kg)
Power 5.4hp(3.9kw)
So what does this mean anyway? Not much other than a guideline as to what you should expect from these models compared to other size powerheads. These figures do suggest however that what everyone feels after running a 372 vs a 460, that the 372 is lighter, is true, and that the 372 and 440 are virtually identical in output power and not at all far behind the 460. We all should have already known this, so why are some people trying to cloud the issue with misleading numbers?
What you can`t decipher from looking at these comparisons is that the Dolmar 7900 is the king of this midsize saw class when all are stock. It outcuts the 372,440, and 460 and will pretty much hang with the 385, but weighs TWO POUNDS LESS. It`s just as smooth as the Husky and has air filtration which is comparable, which BTW is way better than what Stihl is fielding. I believe that you Stihl hold outs missed the boat by some measure when Husky raised the bar in low vibes and air filtration, and now you`re set to miss it again as Dolmar raised the performance bar in the 4-5 cube range.
Stihl saws aren`t junk by any measure, but the company has been resting on their laurels for too long. Anyone not stuck two decades ago is realizing this.
Russ
440Mag
Weight 13.5#(6.24kg)
Power 5.35bhp(4.0kw)
460Mag
Weight 14.4#(6.5kg)
Power 6.0bhp(4.5kw)
372xp
Weight 13.4#(6.1kg)
Power 5.4hp(3.9kw)
So what does this mean anyway? Not much other than a guideline as to what you should expect from these models compared to other size powerheads. These figures do suggest however that what everyone feels after running a 372 vs a 460, that the 372 is lighter, is true, and that the 372 and 440 are virtually identical in output power and not at all far behind the 460. We all should have already known this, so why are some people trying to cloud the issue with misleading numbers?
What you can`t decipher from looking at these comparisons is that the Dolmar 7900 is the king of this midsize saw class when all are stock. It outcuts the 372,440, and 460 and will pretty much hang with the 385, but weighs TWO POUNDS LESS. It`s just as smooth as the Husky and has air filtration which is comparable, which BTW is way better than what Stihl is fielding. I believe that you Stihl hold outs missed the boat by some measure when Husky raised the bar in low vibes and air filtration, and now you`re set to miss it again as Dolmar raised the performance bar in the 4-5 cube range.
Stihl saws aren`t junk by any measure, but the company has been resting on their laurels for too long. Anyone not stuck two decades ago is realizing this.
Russ
dozerdan
Addicted to ArboristSite
Those advertised weight and power figure are a lot like and income tax report. Figures don't lie but liars figure.
Does anyone actually have all of those saws so they can weigh them for us. I can weigh a 7900 and the 372 but I don't have any of the Stihls. I now that the Husky weight figure is way off base.
Later
Dan
Does anyone actually have all of those saws so they can weigh them for us. I can weigh a 7900 and the 372 but I don't have any of the Stihls. I now that the Husky weight figure is way off base.
Later
Dan
I have never weighed my 7900, but I do know that the 460 I had weighed exactly as advertised.
Ben, I guess I don't remember you ever talking about owning a 460...
I'd like to provide a little flesh to what Mike and Russ offered above.
Here's some data culled from the US <a href="http://www.usa.husqvarna.com/node1520.asp?id=19611&intLanguageId=7">Husky</a> and <a href="http://www.stihlusa.com/chainsaws/MS460.html">Stihl</a> sites, and the UK <a href="http://www.dolmar.com/uk/produkte/produkt_zeigen.asp?var_tabelle=prod_MotorsaegenBenzin&var_headline=Chain%20saws%20(gasoline)&var_id=1">Dolmar</a> site. I chose the UK site for the last because they use the metric figures there. I believe the metric figures are the more accurate in the sense that they are likely the ones "officially" used by all three manufacturers and any "American" figures given would represent less verity due to rounding errors in conjunction with conversion. Actually, I ignored the displacement figure from the Dolmar website and used the one from the manual since it's got another significant digit to work with, thus not short-changing the saw in the last category.<table border="1" frame="vsides" rules="cols" cellspacing="5" cellpadding="10%"><caption>Metric figures:</caption><tr><th>372XP</th><th>PS-7900</th><th>MS460</th></tr><tr><td>3.9_kW</td><td>4.6_kW</td><td>4.5_kW</td></tr><tr><td>6.1_kg</td><td>6.3_kg</td><td>6.5_kg</td></tr><tr><td>0.0707_l</td><td>0.0785_l</td><td>0.0765_l</td></tr><tr><td>0.64_kW/kg</td><td>0.73_kW/kg</td><td>0.69_kW/kg</td></tr><tr><td>55.2_kW/l</td><td>58.6_kW/l</td><td>58.8_kW/l</td></tr></table>
<table border="1" frame="vsides" rules="cols" cellspacing="5" cellpadding="10%"><caption>American figures:</caption><tr><th>372XP</th><th>PS-7900</th><th>MS460</th></tr><tr><td>5.23_hp</td><td>6.17_hp</td><td>6.03_hp</td></tr><tr><td>13.49_lb</td><td>13.89_lb</td><td>14.33_lb</td></tr><tr><td>4.31_in^3</td><td>4.79_in^3</td><td>4.67_in^3</td></tr><tr><td>0.388_hp/lb</td><td>0.444_hp/lb</td><td>0.421_hp/lb</td></tr><tr><td>1.213_hp/in^3</td><td>1.288_hp/in^3</td><td>1.291_hp/in^3</td></tr></table>
The "American" figures were obtained by conversion from the Metric values by myself and any discrepancy from published values would to me (as stated above) indicate publishing problems.
We see that in terms of power/weight, the Dolmar's got the high ground. Something I find interesting is that the MS460 has got the most power for each unit of displacement, and near as I can tell, that's industry-wide. So from the factory, it would seem, you can't get a tighter-wound saw than the MS460.
The Dolmar is currently the saw I'm jonesin' for the most, but other obligations are more obligatory.
Glen
I'd like to provide a little flesh to what Mike and Russ offered above.
Here's some data culled from the US <a href="http://www.usa.husqvarna.com/node1520.asp?id=19611&intLanguageId=7">Husky</a> and <a href="http://www.stihlusa.com/chainsaws/MS460.html">Stihl</a> sites, and the UK <a href="http://www.dolmar.com/uk/produkte/produkt_zeigen.asp?var_tabelle=prod_MotorsaegenBenzin&var_headline=Chain%20saws%20(gasoline)&var_id=1">Dolmar</a> site. I chose the UK site for the last because they use the metric figures there. I believe the metric figures are the more accurate in the sense that they are likely the ones "officially" used by all three manufacturers and any "American" figures given would represent less verity due to rounding errors in conjunction with conversion. Actually, I ignored the displacement figure from the Dolmar website and used the one from the manual since it's got another significant digit to work with, thus not short-changing the saw in the last category.<table border="1" frame="vsides" rules="cols" cellspacing="5" cellpadding="10%"><caption>Metric figures:</caption><tr><th>372XP</th><th>PS-7900</th><th>MS460</th></tr><tr><td>3.9_kW</td><td>4.6_kW</td><td>4.5_kW</td></tr><tr><td>6.1_kg</td><td>6.3_kg</td><td>6.5_kg</td></tr><tr><td>0.0707_l</td><td>0.0785_l</td><td>0.0765_l</td></tr><tr><td>0.64_kW/kg</td><td>0.73_kW/kg</td><td>0.69_kW/kg</td></tr><tr><td>55.2_kW/l</td><td>58.6_kW/l</td><td>58.8_kW/l</td></tr></table>
<table border="1" frame="vsides" rules="cols" cellspacing="5" cellpadding="10%"><caption>American figures:</caption><tr><th>372XP</th><th>PS-7900</th><th>MS460</th></tr><tr><td>5.23_hp</td><td>6.17_hp</td><td>6.03_hp</td></tr><tr><td>13.49_lb</td><td>13.89_lb</td><td>14.33_lb</td></tr><tr><td>4.31_in^3</td><td>4.79_in^3</td><td>4.67_in^3</td></tr><tr><td>0.388_hp/lb</td><td>0.444_hp/lb</td><td>0.421_hp/lb</td></tr><tr><td>1.213_hp/in^3</td><td>1.288_hp/in^3</td><td>1.291_hp/in^3</td></tr></table>
The "American" figures were obtained by conversion from the Metric values by myself and any discrepancy from published values would to me (as stated above) indicate publishing problems.
We see that in terms of power/weight, the Dolmar's got the high ground. Something I find interesting is that the MS460 has got the most power for each unit of displacement, and near as I can tell, that's industry-wide. So from the factory, it would seem, you can't get a tighter-wound saw than the MS460.
The Dolmar is currently the saw I'm jonesin' for the most, but other obligations are more obligatory.
Glen
I bought one from Mike Rupley about two years ago. I never got a chance to run it as it was damaged in shipping. I did weigh it though as there was some question at the time as to what the 460 really weighed. Some said it was actually lighter than advertised. It wasnt.
Glens.
Have you noticed that your converted HP #'s for the 372 do not jibe with advertising? Husky using a little deceptive marketing by using differant HP measuring methods for US ads. They also fudge the weight a little by not inlcuding falling dogs and something else I cant recall. Dolmar does this also fwiw.
Have you noticed that your converted HP #'s for the 372 do not jibe with advertising? Husky using a little deceptive marketing by using differant HP measuring methods for US ads. They also fudge the weight a little by not inlcuding falling dogs and something else I cant recall. Dolmar does this also fwiw.
Last edited:
Yeah, Ben. I've noticed the differences, which is why I said/did what I did above. We must all remember that shopping via specs isn't always the best way (ever hear a 40-Watt stereo amplifier that "played" much cleaner/better/louder than a 60-Watt one, for example?).
It should be noted too, that in the spec page from the Dolmar 7900 <a href="http://www.dolmarusa.com/upload/docs/995701222.pdf">manual</a> [6.9 MB PDF file] there's a note that the power values are those pertinent "For models without starting valve".
I'm not suggesting in the least that any of the manufacturers has got no shenanigans going on, but the Stihl values for power and weight, et al, do typically convert back and forth the closest of them all. And in terms of accuracy otherwise, it should be pretty easy to verify weight/capacity claims, but has anyone published the "standard" method of measuring power output yet? Likely that's a great factor.
It should be somewhat obvious that for the same amount of aftermarket work done to any group of saws, the one which came wound the tightest is going to return the least improvement. One doesn't have to be an elite engine builder to be able to look at one of the current Elux (pro) engines and say "Holy shi<i></i>te, that thing'll put out a lot more than it does out of the box!", and it's that very quality which causes me to have the most mixed emotions regarding them. Like back in the '80s when I was involved with motorcycle roadracing, the Hondas were the ones to get to just put on the track and do well, though the Kawasakis were favored by those who wanted to spend more first. It was nice of Kaw then and Husky now to offer the capability, but most of us just want to use the dang thing, don't we? BTW, I was a Honda fan...
I've attached the pertinent manual page for anyone on a modem who might be interested [5 KB PDF file].
Glen
It should be noted too, that in the spec page from the Dolmar 7900 <a href="http://www.dolmarusa.com/upload/docs/995701222.pdf">manual</a> [6.9 MB PDF file] there's a note that the power values are those pertinent "For models without starting valve".
I'm not suggesting in the least that any of the manufacturers has got no shenanigans going on, but the Stihl values for power and weight, et al, do typically convert back and forth the closest of them all. And in terms of accuracy otherwise, it should be pretty easy to verify weight/capacity claims, but has anyone published the "standard" method of measuring power output yet? Likely that's a great factor.
It should be somewhat obvious that for the same amount of aftermarket work done to any group of saws, the one which came wound the tightest is going to return the least improvement. One doesn't have to be an elite engine builder to be able to look at one of the current Elux (pro) engines and say "Holy shi<i></i>te, that thing'll put out a lot more than it does out of the box!", and it's that very quality which causes me to have the most mixed emotions regarding them. Like back in the '80s when I was involved with motorcycle roadracing, the Hondas were the ones to get to just put on the track and do well, though the Kawasakis were favored by those who wanted to spend more first. It was nice of Kaw then and Husky now to offer the capability, but most of us just want to use the dang thing, don't we? BTW, I was a Honda fan...
I've attached the pertinent manual page for anyone on a modem who might be interested [5 KB PDF file].
Glen
jokers
Addicted to ArboristSite
Jeez, it`s good to see you and all of your hypothetical horsesh!t back glens. You speak of running a newer Elux saw, which you can`t even remember which one it was, as if it were representative of all current Elux saws, and then feel qualified to say that Stihls offer the most right out of the box. Why is it then that I can take a brand new 372 and a brand new 460 and run them side by side and d@mn near beat the 460, which incidentally has over 9% greater displacement and more weight. All the extra horsepower must be the explanation for the 046s that busted their cranks at the flywheel. Let`s talk about fractional hp/dollar. Stihl might not even make the top five.
I could never credibly say that Husky marketing wouldn`t fudge anything, nor can you say that about Stihl, or anyone else for that matter. Let`s take them out to the woodpile and put the bs to rest. I already have by buying several of each and running them. Until you do something similar, your just talking out your butt.
BTW, I know something about some of your previously posted calcs in your attempt to feather your ego, why not accept a small amount of humility and admit that you often try to pass off rationalization above and beyond mere opinion, and emotion as sound reasoning.
Russ
I could never credibly say that Husky marketing wouldn`t fudge anything, nor can you say that about Stihl, or anyone else for that matter. Let`s take them out to the woodpile and put the bs to rest. I already have by buying several of each and running them. Until you do something similar, your just talking out your butt.
BTW, I know something about some of your previously posted calcs in your attempt to feather your ego, why not accept a small amount of humility and admit that you often try to pass off rationalization above and beyond mere opinion, and emotion as sound reasoning.
Russ
Glens, I might also add that your premise on the way husky saws respond better to mods and run better out of the box is flawed. They are better because they have a much better cylinder design and are undertuned from the factory.
Russ, I guess I've got to step back and read what I wrote from a fresh perspective. When I "penned" it and proofed it before submitting I didn't perceive anything confrontational about it. Guess I was wrong, huh?
I couldn't remember the model number. Didn't my description suffice? (in case anyone's wondering he's referring to a different, more recent thread) The only thing I represented it to represent was the current version of the smaller saw on that particular (372XP) chassis. I guess if you'd read what I wrote above the way I read it, you'd see where I said the 460 offers the most right out of the box in one area based on the manufacturers specifications which I also in the same breath (or maybe the following one) said should be taken with a grain of salt, and furthermore that making comparisons in only that manner was not wise. Do you really think I was defining and defending a position or are you merely having a bad day or could it be you just want to kick a little sand? Didn't you pick up on my implication that maybe the 460 design wasn't quite as capable as the others?
No ego feathering attempted, wanted, or needed; thank you. Do you see Russ, that you're validating a couple of my recent statements?
Ben; huh? I thought I clearly implied that they are under-tuned out of the box, relative to their design, and that is particularly why they respond so much better to (minimal) tweaking, as opposed to the other saw which is boxed closer to the max potential of it's design. It sounds like that's what you're trying to tell me...
Glen
I couldn't remember the model number. Didn't my description suffice? (in case anyone's wondering he's referring to a different, more recent thread) The only thing I represented it to represent was the current version of the smaller saw on that particular (372XP) chassis. I guess if you'd read what I wrote above the way I read it, you'd see where I said the 460 offers the most right out of the box in one area based on the manufacturers specifications which I also in the same breath (or maybe the following one) said should be taken with a grain of salt, and furthermore that making comparisons in only that manner was not wise. Do you really think I was defining and defending a position or are you merely having a bad day or could it be you just want to kick a little sand? Didn't you pick up on my implication that maybe the 460 design wasn't quite as capable as the others?
No ego feathering attempted, wanted, or needed; thank you. Do you see Russ, that you're validating a couple of my recent statements?
Ben; huh? I thought I clearly implied that they are under-tuned out of the box, relative to their design, and that is particularly why they respond so much better to (minimal) tweaking, as opposed to the other saw which is boxed closer to the max potential of it's design. It sounds like that's what you're trying to tell me...
Glen
ricksvar
ArboristSite Operative
Hi Glens,
So it seems you're saying Stihls are pretty well maxed as for as power is concerned and the Huskys are not.You seem to indicate that purchasing a saw that is peaked as for power to be gained from the powerhead is the better buy.After all most consumers buy saws to use them and are not concerned with trying to modify them for additional power.I tend to agree.If I'am not correct with your logic please correct me.
So then we must consider the ability of a saw to realize it's peak performance,power being fairly close even thought the Huskys are not peaked as for as potential.In my opinion this is directly connected to the amont of oil a powerhead is capable of delivering to the bar.
For example the MS260 has a 10.8 oz oil tank and is likely capable of deliveriing 80%(8.64 oz) of that volume to the bar using a tank of fuel.Stihl recommends a 16" bar for this saw,but can be fitted with up to 20" bar.On the other hand the MS460 has 11.2 oz oil tank.That's .4 oz larger then the MS260 oil tank.Stihl says this saw can be fitted with 16" to 32" bars.Let's say the MS460 oiler is also capable of delivering 80%(8.96 oz) of it's oil tank volume to the bar with a tank of fuel.My common sence tells me,which some people discard for brand loyality,that the MS460 is handicapped in it's ability to adequately oil longer bar applications.This is where the Husky and Dolmer pro saws excel or utilize their potential better than the Stihls with long bar applications.This is why a Husky 372xp(.89 pt oil tank volume/14.24 oz)with less power can cut as fast or close to a MS460 with more power.Considering the 7900 and MS460 are very close as related to hp this is why the Dolmer is faster.
I should note Husky has reduced oil tank volume from .89 pt to .84 pt on the new 372xp.
So as I see it specs don't tell "the rest of the story."
Rick
So it seems you're saying Stihls are pretty well maxed as for as power is concerned and the Huskys are not.You seem to indicate that purchasing a saw that is peaked as for power to be gained from the powerhead is the better buy.After all most consumers buy saws to use them and are not concerned with trying to modify them for additional power.I tend to agree.If I'am not correct with your logic please correct me.
So then we must consider the ability of a saw to realize it's peak performance,power being fairly close even thought the Huskys are not peaked as for as potential.In my opinion this is directly connected to the amont of oil a powerhead is capable of delivering to the bar.
For example the MS260 has a 10.8 oz oil tank and is likely capable of deliveriing 80%(8.64 oz) of that volume to the bar using a tank of fuel.Stihl recommends a 16" bar for this saw,but can be fitted with up to 20" bar.On the other hand the MS460 has 11.2 oz oil tank.That's .4 oz larger then the MS260 oil tank.Stihl says this saw can be fitted with 16" to 32" bars.Let's say the MS460 oiler is also capable of delivering 80%(8.96 oz) of it's oil tank volume to the bar with a tank of fuel.My common sence tells me,which some people discard for brand loyality,that the MS460 is handicapped in it's ability to adequately oil longer bar applications.This is where the Husky and Dolmer pro saws excel or utilize their potential better than the Stihls with long bar applications.This is why a Husky 372xp(.89 pt oil tank volume/14.24 oz)with less power can cut as fast or close to a MS460 with more power.Considering the 7900 and MS460 are very close as related to hp this is why the Dolmer is faster.
I should note Husky has reduced oil tank volume from .89 pt to .84 pt on the new 372xp.
So as I see it specs don't tell "the rest of the story."
Rick
Kneejerk Bombas
ArboristSite King
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2001
- Messages
- 36,971
- Reaction score
- 9,980
Nice arguement Ricksvar. 
What is the optimal oil output for a chainsaw and how do you come up with the figure? At what exact point is oil needlessly poured into the environment?
Using your arguementitive style, I contend that a 460 lasts longer than a 372, here's why. The 460 comes with an elastostart handle, the 372 does not. This must be because Stihl knows that the saw will be started many times over the next tens of years, while Husky assumes it's saw will be junk in just a few pulls of the cord, therefore no need to protect Husky sawers joints with a special handle.
What is the optimal oil output for a chainsaw and how do you come up with the figure? At what exact point is oil needlessly poured into the environment?
Using your arguementitive style, I contend that a 460 lasts longer than a 372, here's why. The 460 comes with an elastostart handle, the 372 does not. This must be because Stihl knows that the saw will be started many times over the next tens of years, while Husky assumes it's saw will be junk in just a few pulls of the cord, therefore no need to protect Husky sawers joints with a special handle.
I dont buy the oiler argument either. All the stihls I have owned have oiled fine.
I dont buy the Argument that Husqvarna thinks there saws will be junk after a few pulls.
Both of these saws are great saws and it just depends on your personal preferance. (Ie. Ford/Chevy)
I would like to run a Ported 460 and see how it would stack up against my PP372.
Hunter
Both of these saws are great saws and it just depends on your personal preferance. (Ie. Ford/Chevy)
I would like to run a Ported 460 and see how it would stack up against my PP372.
Hunter
jokers
Addicted to ArboristSite
I`m sorry Glen, but I feel that much of what you say is a contrived rationalization to support what you like, for reasons that seem to me to be unrelated to reality. I should just be more polite or a bigger man and just ignore you when posting like that but I`m not anywhere near that sort of perfection. The biggest factor in why I even bother to reply is because what get`s posted and goes unchallenged on this forum becomes fact on other forums and vice versa for those who lack experience or knowledge. I`ve seen probably hundreds of instances of topics being discussed on one forum, say this one, being similarly discussed on other like topic forums, often citing as fact opinions stated in the first forum. I want anyone to be doing that to have both sides of the story and more than a singular perspective.
BTW, in an odd sort of way it`s good to see you back. I`d wondered what happened to you but figured that our collective intelligence scared you away.
Russ
BTW, in an odd sort of way it`s good to see you back. I`d wondered what happened to you but figured that our collective intelligence scared you away.
Russ
jokers
Addicted to ArboristSite
Hunter, Take Mike with a grain of salt when he gets on his brand loyal soapbox. Are we to just assume that we haven`t really witnessed the experiences that we`ve had because someone disagrees?
You may get the chance to run an ehp ported 460 if we brush shoulders at one of the get togethers. You see, unlike some who put the 460 on a pedestal for praise, I have one, and it`s getting the special treatment from Ed. It had to because it wouldn`t cut with my Walkerized 346, LOL.
Russ
