They burn less fuel and meet the new emissions regs. but how are they doing it , what is the design , is it all in the carb or some mods. to the cylinder .And do they still use a cat. Sorry if I missed this in previous posts .
Last edited:
Husky x-torque design ?
- Thread starter chugbug
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
Check out this thread. http://www.arboristsite.com/showthread.php?t=149464
CGC4200
Addicted to ArboristSite
strato charged
I have a Husqvarna 435, I don't think it has a cat, It looks to be a sign
of the times; deal with it or fix an old saw.
All of the saw makers have jumped on the clean air/turbo wagon now, even
Stihl & Dolmar, not an EPA issue, just less air cleaner maintenance.
I have a Husqvarna 435, I don't think it has a cat, It looks to be a sign
of the times; deal with it or fix an old saw.
All of the saw makers have jumped on the clean air/turbo wagon now, even
Stihl & Dolmar, not an EPA issue, just less air cleaner maintenance.
mikefunaro
Addicted to ArboristSite
xtorque is a strato engine
There are multiple means of intake, where clean air is injected midway
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycaWg8bz93o
air filtration is the "air injection"
There are multiple means of intake, where clean air is injected midway
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycaWg8bz93o
air filtration is the "air injection"
mikefunaro
Addicted to ArboristSite
see description of youtube video for brief description
mikefunaro
Addicted to ArboristSite
To the OP, stratified engines give you emissions that don't require a CAT, at least at current requirements.
mweba
Addicted to ArboristSite
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IY7zQKw4qsQ?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IY7zQKw4qsQ?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
SawTroll
Information Collector
"X-torque" mainly is a marketing bluff, to sweaten the bitter "pill" of the heavier strato saws - no sign of any extra torque has been found in independent dyno tests!
2000ssm6
Stihl User
X-torq is the name for the new engine design, not a marketing bluff, LOL. It's huskies version of a strato engine, copied after the 441.:biggrinbounce2:
mweba
Addicted to ArboristSite
huh? Did red max make the 441?
SawTroll
Information Collector
You always forget the parts of the story that you don't like - Husky made "strato" saws long before the 441 came out, and that one has several features that are bluntly copied from Husky saws!
2000ssm6
Stihl User
You always forget the parts of the story that you don't like - Husky made "strato" saws long before the 441 came out, and that one has several features that are bluntly copied from Husky saws!
The failed 575?
SawTroll
Information Collector
LOL, Husky has owned Zenoah/Redmax for some time - Stihl can't use their patents without paying Husky for it! :biggrinbounce2:
2000ssm6
Stihl User
I don't think they did, the 441 has the wrong colors if so.
Redmax was the first design I believe. Not sure if they didn't get the patentes right, Stihl just had the chance to market it better.
The failed 575?
Whats wrong with the 575? any and all issues have been resolved, hence the 576. A few bearing issues, not a biggie, a first run production saw that needed alittle tweaking. Have yet to have a later production 575 come into the shop, other than for owners looking for air filters and bars and chains.
2000ssm6
Stihl User
Why should they? Stihl leads the market as it is with their own stuff....
2000ssm6
Stihl User
The whole saw was just a failure, maybe not that may issues but a failed attempt none the less. Don't rush the product if the homework isn't done. Intorducing the 576 was their solution, seems to be working.
SawTroll
Information Collector
The failed 575?
...that the 441 basically is a copy of.....
The 575 sure wasn't perfect, but only some of the first ones were really bad, as far as I know.
You sure left your original statement in a hurry, without defending it - better go back and delete it then!
