Why do "Chinesium" chainsaws need a richer oil mix?

Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Actually up untill a few years ago the usa manuals said the same thing for "severe use situations."

One of the more fun things I got to do while being a diesel mechanic was running in engines on the dyno and performance testing. Rings need dynamic load to seat properly and quickly. It's very easy to see on the dyno, power output increases, hp and torque curves jump up, it's a fairly quick thing to happen on the dyno. Saw just cutting wood don't see nearly the consistent load you get on a dyno, so it takes longer.
The synthetic vs Dino oil has been bs for the past 20 years or so. Dino oil is so refined these days some of it is even classed as a synthetic. Won't effect break in period much if at all. It's all about the load on the rings in a 2 stroke, there's nothing else to wear in.
All true @sean donato. The old wives tales just won't end.
The other thing is all modern, certified oils are at least partially synthetic. The idea that synthetic oil is so great it prohibits break in is laughable.
 
Because quality of components is lower, softer etc. 2 strokes are already oil deprived with these modern ratios. More oil helps longevity

I hope you are joking or, for example, Husqvarna used such "lower, softer quality" components in the past.
An excerpt from a 1990s manual, where they still allowed four-stroke engine oil.

1715324089919.png

A slightly later manual:

1715324271708.png

And here is a fairly recent one.

1715324553026.png

Stihl service manual (017, 018):

1715324763044.png

Stihl service manual (010, 011):
1715324874528.png

An example from a fairly recent Zenoah's manual:

1715325047270.png
 
I hope you are joking or, for example, Husqvarna used such "lower, softer quality" components in the past.
An excerpt from a 1990s manual, where they still allowed four-stroke engine oil.

View attachment 1176150

A slightly later manual:

View attachment 1176152

And here is a fairly recent one.

View attachment 1176156

Stihl service manual (017, 018):

View attachment 1176157

Stihl service manual (010, 011):
View attachment 1176158

An example from a fairly recent Zenoah's manual:

View attachment 1176159
That’s a very good point. I suppose I am thinking why it’s a good idea to run more oil, rather than less in machines that don’t have very good QC and lower quality parts. The reason they recommend more oil is as a couple others have already mentioned is probably the quality / type of oil that may be ran to cover all their bases.
 
There never was one from the moment I got it new. Only the dealer would have had a chance to peel it off, and I don't know any reason why they would do that.
Every one I've played with at several dealers had had the certification table on it, it's also easily spotted on every picture you can bring up on Google images with the tank handle in the shot. The dealer should have noted it missing and replaced it. It's not a "can't be there, oh well" sticker. In the case of new sales
 
Every one I've played with at several dealers had had the certification table on it, it's also easily spotted on every picture you can bring up on Google images with the tank handle in the shot. The dealer should have noted it missing and replaced it. It's not a "can't be there, oh well" sticker. In the case of new sales
Well, I don't have an explanation for that.
 
Miss Jane XU from farmertec says "Our chainsaws are legal, Don't worry"
So there it is in writing straight from the horses mouth. You guys don't have to worry about these legal issues anymore.
Well, then. If Miss Jane Xu is in the house then no worries! 😄
 
Some Chinese stuff is good, some not , most Chinese rubber is not good, looks like it is getting better? I've used some Chinese parts that were great some went right in the scrap bin, now these company's are advertising "professionally built" maybe that means some quality control. Now, service life of 50 hours, that's a reality check, what can we do? Use the best oil and lots of it! And look at what the pros are buying, I don't see them flocking to these cheap saws, there is usually a reason for something being inexpensive, if you buy a KIA, live in a manufactured home, buy your shoes at Walmart, ride a Ural motorcycle, you will learn about the difference in quality at some point.
 
AFAIK.. and please feel free to correct me, the 50 hour vs 300 hour rating, has got to do with emissions compliance. Sure ..it speaks to build quality, and materials used in bores, rings, pistons, etc..
But, how many of us have saws that are "Pro" quality, that have many, many times more than three hundred hours on them?
And we still use them, and they still run great.
 
As it was already written here, this "useful life" specifies the period for which the engine must meet the requirements for emissions. Or a more precise quote:

The period during which engines are required to comply with all emission standards that apply. The useful life period is five years or a number of hours of operation, whichever comes first.

This "useful life" is not necessarily indicative of the quality and durability of the engine. It is chosen by the applicant for certification. Generally, it is not in his interest to choose a higher classification (more requirements). There are 3 of them:
Light Use - 50 hours
Medium Use - 125 hours
Heavy Use - 250 hours

For deliberate selection of the wrong category by the applicant, there is a risk of revocation of certification. To be precise, I will quote on the basis of what the applicant should choose a category:

(1) Surveys of the life spans of the equipment in which the subject engines are installed.

(2) Engineering evaluations of field aged engines to ascertain when engine performance deteriorates to the point where usefulness and/or reliability is impacted to a degree sufficient to necessitate overhaul or replacement.

(3) Failure reports from engine customers.

(4) Engineering evaluations of the durability, in hours, of specific engine technologies, engine materials, or engine designs.
 
A lot of data there. But I did not see a column stating explicitly "EPA compliant." The 50 hour service life is rather concerning, though. I would expect more than that from any pro saw.

As I have written here before, presence on the list means compliance. If you don't believe it, you can compare the data with that required by law. Of course, this system is based on trust with the EPA's system of inspections of the applicants.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top