jonsered 2055 turbo

just got a jonsered 2055 turbo from a buddy... this thing is new... mabey had 2 tanks ran through it sofar .. i am wondering if anyone can tell me more about this saw? is it a real turbo?? whats the fuel mixture?? whats this saw worth new? why cant i find any information on it in english?? i know this is alot to ask on a first post but i have never heard of jonsered... my current saw is a poulan wild thing i bought for 85$ factory reconditioned... so let me know anything u know it owuld be greatly appreciated.... oh and where can i get a manual for this darn thing?opcorn:

As best I can tell its between 55 and 60 cc's.

As far as I know, "turbo" was just a name, with no actual turbo charger.

How do you like your Wildthing?

No,its not a turbo,its just a small air duct along the flywheel connecting the air to get some more fresh air in the air filter area and supposedly keep your air filter cleaner too.The initial fuel mixture about 0ne turn out each and you adjust the Hi to keep it bubbling ,almost "singing right"unloaded.She was worth around 775,00 Cdn if i rememeber correctly.She was a very good performer and revver for his size,a bit better than a Husky 254 performance wise.They had a bad habit of leaking oil betwwe the "case separation"at the front close to the bar studs.They improved the crankcase later on this one.Also,when the chain derailed ,it was easy to have a leak after because chain"ate" the case easily.But overall,its an excellent saw.More [URL="http://www.acresinternet.com/cscc.nsf/ed1d619968136da688256af40002b8f7/bd85a13b73c2c3bc88256d01001acdc9?OpenDocument"] here.[/URL] and [URL="http://weborder.husqvarna.com/order_static/doc/JIPL/JIPL1998/JIPL1998_I9800038.pdf"]here[/URL]

There were 3 saws in this family. The 2055 was the last, and replaced the 2051. They were both screamers. 14,500 for the '55, and 14,800 for the 51. While the 2051 was actually 51CC, the 2055 is 53CC. Both of these were the "pro" versions, and they were kind of pricey.

The 3rd model in this group was the 2054, which was the more popular due to the fact that it was around $100 less that the other 2. The 2054 actually came in 2 displacements; originally 53CC when it came out, and then 48.7 CC starting in 1998. I don't think it was produced very long after that, so there aren't too many of the smaller ones out there. There were some confusing things happening with displacements with Jonsereds around this time. The 2083II, dropped down from 82CC to 77CC; so why wasn't it called the 2077 again? I have no clue if there is any difference between the actual 2077 and the 2083II.

Since your saw has been sitting, check for oxidation in the metal fuel tank. You may want to rinse and flush it a couple of times and certainly change the fuel filter.

These saws had quite a bit of Partner influence, but I'm not sure that there was a particular Partner model that is the same. (Sawtroll, I need help here!!) I'm pretty sure there were no Husky versions of these saws.

Spike is totally right, the 2055 replaced the 2051, and was a "hot-rodded" 2054, which was basically the same saw as the Husky 55 a and Partner 540.

They all owe their "genes" to the basic Partner 5000/500/5500 design.....:greenchainsaw:

It does not perform as well as the Husky 254xp, and has no relation to it.

The only info I ran across -

Displacement 53.2 cc
Power 2.8 kW (3.8 hp)
Weight without bar and chain 5.2 kg
Noise level 109 dB(A)

thanx guys you info has been very helpfull... i found some more info... i understand there was a 2055 a 2055W and a 2055 W CAT... i know the W was a heated handle but i could not figure out wht the CAT meant. 775$ wow i think i made a good deal on this one... but id does leak oil i am noticing... runs graet tho i havent found any wood yet.

Welcome to the site Acid. You mean it leaks oil when its sitting? No big deal, most do.

i figured it was just bar oil.... HiOctane thanks for the links the exploded view is a godsend!!

The CAT designation refer to a CAT muffler, not what you would want.......

2051/2054/2055

These are a great design. In use they were as good as a husky 254 for softwood limbing except they proved to be a bit too brittle to put up with the hardship.
As Jonsered, Husky and Partner are all part of the electrolux group many parts were shared like ignition modules, cylinders and pistons, bars, chains, screws and bolts across the saws.

The Jonsered used a forced air induction system. It was a RAM air type system as opposed to a Turbo and the saw used to scream at huge revs which made it perfect for softwood. The air was pumped in from the flywheel and without the covers on the engine it wouldn't work half as well. Both Partner and Husky have similiar ram air systems on some of their saws.
The 254 was the better saw due to it's durability. A good forestry worker would probably be more productive with the 2051 but it would fall to pieces earlier. The Partner 540 was also a very nice saw but never screamed to the same RPM and partner 5000/5500 form had vapour lock issues which were partially addressed on the carb of the 540 but as the fuel tank was part of the engine body vapour lock issues would always be present.

dipole said:

These are a great design. In use they were as good as a husky 254 for softwood limbing except they proved to be a bit too brittle to put up with the hardship. ....

Click to expand...

The Husky 254 (and the earlier 154) was a much better and sturdier design, and a true 54cc with longer stroke and more power.

The 2055 was sort of comparable, as it was the closest Jred for weight and power, but by no means as good.
I would not say that the 2055 was a great design, it was a powerful version of a pretty good, but somewhat troubled basic design.

You are basically saying it was great, and next you are telling why it it actually wasn't that great........

It was a fabulous saw whose merits weren't obvious to loggers who expected to be able to get three years out of a saw they should have been replacing every 18 months.
I'm saying it was a lovely saw that would scream to the heavens and with an 11" inch bar on it was exactly what any softwood forestry worker wanted.
It was a generation ahead of the 254 in design terms but too brittle for
people who treated their tools like dirt and expected the saw to put up with the abuse they gave to their 254s as routine.

If you want to talk about durability then yes the 254 was a better saw provided you were willing to put up with anti-shock rubbers needing constant replacement.
I never thought the 2054 and 2055 were as good as the 2051 as they had watered down the original design ideology of the 2051 in much the same way as the husky 262 was never as good a package as the 254 despite having more displacement.

dipole said:

I never thought the 2054 and 2055 were as good as the 2051 as they had watered down the original design ideology of the 2051 in much the same way as the husky 262 was never as good a package as the 254 despite having more displacement.

Click to expand...

I agree that the 2051 is the best of the 3. (I've got a 2054 which is the milder of them all).

But how does the 262 fall short of the 254?

spike60 said:

I agree that the 2051 is the best of the 3. (I've got a 2054 which is the milder of them all).

But how does the 262 fall short of the 254?

Click to expand...

Because it was not a 254 and not a 266. It was somewhere in the middle and didn't do anything more for the loggers I met than a 254 could.

spike60 said:

I agree that the 2051 is the best of the 3. (I've got a 2054 which is the milder of them all).

But how does the 262 fall short of the 254?

Click to expand...

Good question!

dipole said:

Because it was not a 254 and not a 266. It was somewhere in the middle and didn't do anything more for the loggers I met than a 254 could.

Click to expand...

As far as I know, the 262xp actually has more power than the 266xp, at higher rpms, and is lighter (but heavier than the 254)........

The 268xp has the same power output rating as the 262xp, but still is heavier, and not quite the rpms of the 262.

The only thing I don't like with the 262 is the outboard clutch, but that is what the 266 and 268 have as well.

....but I admit I have never run a 266/268xp.

SawTroll said:

Good question!



As far as I know, the 262xp actually has more power than the 266xp, at higher rpms, and is lighter (but heavier than the 254)........

The 268xp has the same power output rating as the 262xp, but still is heavier, and not quite the rpms of the 262.

The only thing I don't like with the 262 is the outboard clutch, but that is what the 266 and 268 have as well.

....but I admit I have never run a 266/268xp.

Click to expand...

Nothing in those stats relates to real world usage. For softwood loggers the 262 couldn't do anything special that the 254 wasn't already able to do but you had to pay a price premium.
the 266 had more grunt and was in a different market. The 262 just cannibalised 254 sales for 254 owners who thought "this 254 is great, just imagine how much better the 262, with a few extra CC, will be" and then take possession to find it doesn't do anything better than a 254.
The 262 was a marketing exercise and little more.

dipole said:

Nothing in those stats relates to real world usage. For softwood loggers the 262 couldn't do anything special that the 254 wasn't already able to do but you had to pay a price premium.
the 266 had more grunt and was in a different market. The 262 just cannibalised 254 sales for 254 owners who thought "this 254 is great, just imagine how much better the 262, with a few extra CC, will be" and then take possession to find it doesn't do anything better than a 254.
The 262 was a marketing exercise and little more.

Click to expand...

Dipole, I think you are pretty much alone with your wiew on this issue, the 262xp is held in very high esteem in North America and Scandinavia, as one of the best Huskys ever to be made.

...but every market and application is different......

Jonsered 262XP

Did Jonsered have an equal to the 262XP? Maybe the 630? I know the 266/268 were like the 670's. I never used or even saw a 262XP in my neck of the woods, and 630's were somewhat rare. This was 266/268/670 country.

Jonsered 625 and 630 were a fair bit heavier than a 262 and rev'd lower.
630 was supposed to be a pro-spec version of the 625
Because they were the same as a Husky 61/66 a lot of loggers started using them on account of being a lot cheaper than the Husky while offering the exact same reliability. The 254 was much more expensive than the 61/66 so even though it was the saw the forestry workers should have been buying they bought the 61/66 and once they got over their brand bias Jonsered 625/630 instead.
These forestry workers never got proper training so it wasn't as though they were getting optimal efficency in their working day anyhow and couldn't see how wrong tool choice led to reduced output. I'm speaking about Ireland here, not Scandinavia where forestry workers actually know what they are doing.