7900/7910 Killer?

[SmellyPirateHooker]

Yeah ...it takes fuel to make power ... if a gallon of fuel/mix is say $5 and I use 2 gal with a stocker that’s $10 for “x” amount of wood cut ... now with ported saw I use 2.5 gal which costs me $12.50 and in return I get “x+30%” of wood cut ... 30% more wood for $2.50 - that’s a deal I’ll take everyday and twice on Sunday

Obviously you are right, that's why the rest of us keep on porting! Fact of the matter is, it works out. Per gallon of fuel, my modded 288 with a bigger driver cuts more wood the my cs620, and not because the 620 is horrible on fuel. And the 288 is not only heavily modded but also much bigger. I'm already on the way to changing that and I explicitly picked the cs620 to do this.

Keep sawing slow and using fuel. I'll keep grinning using my saws.

 

[FWANK WIZZO]

Yeah ...it takes fuel to make power ... if a gallon of fuel/mix is say $5 and I use 2 gal with a stocker that’s $10 for “x” amount of wood cut ... now with ported saw I use 2.5 gal which costs me $12.50 and in return I get “x+30%” of wood cut ... 30% more wood for $2.50 - that’s a deal I’ll take everyday and twice on Sunday

Man, you sound smart.

 

[SawTroll]

It took Stihl only 18 years or so to match their competitors power to weight ratio, not bad . . .

462 is old news, 500i is new tech with specs that have been around for two decades - both are overpriced and over hyped.
View attachment 678562

Don't worry, I don't really care about Stihl vs Dolmar (or any other brand for that matter).
Makita is doing a great job killing off the large frame Dolmar's without Stihl's help.

Well, specs still is (and was) just that, and not to be trusted - it should be safe to sa that we know that the weight specs of those Dolmars weren't true.
How much off they were seems to vary a bit though, and it may well depend on when the saws were made. There are indications that late ones are heavier than early ones.

Many saw models (from different brands) have gained weight during the production run, and this isn't always reflected in adjusted specs. Some times the specs are adjusted shortly before the model is replaced by a new one…..

 

[wde_1978]

Well, specs still is (and was) just that, and not to be trusted - it should be safe to sa that we know that the weight specs of those Dolmars weren't true.
How much off they were seems to vary a bit though, and it may well depend on when the saws were made. There are indications that late ones are heavier than early ones.

Many saw models (from different brands) have gained weight during the production run, and this isn't always reflected in adjusted specs. Some times the specs are adjusted shortly before the model is replaced by a new one…..

This will not be any different on Stihl's newest additions.
Look at the first 462 videos, small single bucking spike, small standard clutch cover.
Shortly after the same saw sports large dual bucking spikes and a wide clutch cover (that's what I am aware to have changed).
Have the specs been corrected?
I doubt it, nor do I care as I don't whine over a single lbs of weight difference.

Lets face it, all manufacturers utilize the same tactics.

From my point of view other than possibly the Solo 681 there is no true Dolmar PS-7900 killer!
I am referring to the original initial non SLR muffler & 13.5k rpm turning 7900 release and fully stock saws.

 

[Frank Rizzo]

From my point of view other than possibly the Solo 681 there is no true Dolmar PS-7900 killer!
I am referring to the original initial non SLR muffler & 13.5k rpm turning 7900 release and fully stock saws.

hmmmm , how bout a ripper 064 eh ?

 

[KiwiBro]

Why didn't Dolkita give markets that don't have EPA rules a 79xx that breaths better, exhausts better and has the unlimited coil?

 

[Frank Rizzo]

Why didn't Dolkita give markets that don't have EPA rules a 79xx that breaths better, exhausts better and has the unlimited coil?

True that ! I don’t own one nor have run one but hear they are “hot out the box” ... Is it just rumor or did some dolkitas fail epa regulations a few years back ?

 

[SawTroll]

This will not be any different on Stihl's newest additions.
Look at the first 462 videos, small single bucking spike, small standard clutch cover.
Shortly after the same saw sports large dual bucking spikes and a wide clutch cover (that's what I am aware to have changed).
Have the specs been corrected?
I doubt it, nor do I care as I don't whine over a single lbs of weight difference.

Lets face it, all manufacturers utilize the same tactics.

From my point of view other than possibly the Solo 681 there is no true Dolmar PS-7900 killer!
I am referring to the original initial non SLR muffler & 13.5k rpm turning 7900 release and fully stock saws.

They certainly do when it comes to add-ons and options (those are never included, unless the inclusion is specified). Also, the configuration that seems "standard" in a given area may include options that aren't included in the weight specs - typically larger and/or twin dawgs, and/or HD air filter systems.

When it comes to the truthfulness of the weight of the basic powerhead (without any options) the picture is more blurred - it seems to vary (more or less unsystematically) how true they are with all brands (and some times even during the production run of a model, as already commented on).

Some times the weight specs actually are true, as long as there are no options or ad-ons involved.

 

[wde_1978]

hmmmm , how bout a ripper 064 eh ?

I am not a Stihl guy, but I believe the 064 is in a higher cc class, like 90ish cc.
I don't know how the 064 compares to the PS-7900 weight wise.

I think the 046 is comparable to the Dolmar PS-7900, and the 044 compares to the Dolmar PS-7300 - in both cases the Dolmar has some cc advantage over the Stihl competition.

Yesterday, Dolmar PS-7310 noodling beech with 36" 3/8" B&C fully buried - she's a beast.

 

[blsnelling]

IMHO, it's not about that number of cuts per tank. It's about the number of cuts per hour. Does the saw make YOU more efficient? Who cares if it takes a little more fuel? That's never been part of my consideration.

 

[Frank Rizzo]

I am not a Stihl guy, but I believe the 064 is in a higher cc class, like 90ish cc.
I don't know how the 064 compares to the PS-7900 weight wise.

I think the 046 is comparable to the Dolmar PS-7900, and the 044 compares to the Dolmar PS-7300 - in both cases the Dolmar has some cc advantage over the Stihl competition.

Yesterday, Dolmar PS-7310 noodling beech with 36" 3/8" B&C fully buried - she's a beast.
View attachment 678943

The 064 is almost 85cc ... also I believe you can put a 066 jug or a 066 big-bore giving you almost 92cc and up to 99cc ... properly done it wood most likely “slay” the 7900 albeit a bit heavier

 

[Andyshine77]

I ran both the 462 and 572 back to back over the weekend.

 

[K Mueller]

I ran the 372oe over the weekend

 

[cuinrearview]

I ran both the 462 and 572 back to back over the weekend.

I've only ran the Stihl. What did you think Andre?

 

[blsnelling]

I ran both the 462 and 572 back to back over the weekend.

And? You can't just leave us hanging like that!

 

[challenger]

Chisel chest [emoji16]

Get Brett Weir I said!

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[porsche965]

I ran both the 462 and 572 back to back over the weekend.

Buying both? That's fair.

 

[Frank Rizzo]

 

[Andyshine77]

Well I thought I'd really fall for the Stihl, that did not happen. Yes the 462 is lighter and physically smaller, but it has really wobbly poor feeling AV and maybe the ballance is off too? it simply did Not feel right to me at all, almost cheap feeling [emoji44]. Did they go too far saving weigh? Time will tell I suppose. The power was there with both saws, but in my hands the 572 was like glass, very refined power and far superior AV IMHO. I even stopped to check to see if something was loose on the 462. I believe it had a 28" bar hanging off of it, felt too long for the saw, not power wise, just feel. I spoke with the owner of both saws, and like myself "maybe do to the hype" we both were expecting to be taken by the Stihl, we agreed at this point in time the opposite happened. I'd like to get more run time on both saws.

The way I see it the 462 is more of a short bar saw with a bunch of power, so I could see it being popular in Europe and less popular with loggers in the states that run longer bars. I always had a bit of apprehension with running a long bar on such a small compact power head. The AV and ergonomics just weren't there for me.

Take this for what it is, I only ran each saw for a short period of time, and most of what I said is subjective.

[emoji111]

 

[rwoods]

Somehow I missed the 572 Saturday. 462 sure was light. Just picked it up, didn’t run it. I spoke briefly with Tree Monkey who said they appear to be fine saws. Haven’t seen or heard anything that would remove it from my wish list. However, I am not expecting it to run like an 80 cc saw.

Ron