How old is it? and what is the heck is a Magnum

[ryanparks]

Since I am new to this chainsaw business I do not know much about them. My first question is how do I tell how old the saw is when I am looking at used ones? (husky or Stihl) Second whats with all the different models, like Magnum, Super, Av Super, Pro, XP? What are those suppose to mean? Are older saws better than newer saws?

______________

because bigger is always better, I thought , now I am not sure??????????

 

[tony marks]

i prefer proven models no matter who makes it . sooner or later im going for the husky that i finally decide on.heard to much good on them . do know itll be a pro model.magnum ,super etc mean slightly improved power usually. pro and xp ,mean saw has the makings to stand daily work . or at least its suppose to.
i think the poulan pro is a play on the words pro. my problem with these is really just the cheap cutting set up they come with.
i owned the 260 and it worked fine except chain wanted to jump track
and that sorta thing . alas it was stolen.good luck looking for a saw.most o my saws were stolen so opted for a quick fix with a craftsman store return. little 36 cc 14 inch bar . cant fault it
ive since got the saws i prefer and more ,but im not a bit ashamed to be seen w this craftsman.later now

 

[davefr]

In the case of Stihl:

0XX - First model
0XX Super - Update to first model (more power and/or features)
0XX Super AV - Same as above + antivibration feature
0XX Magnum - Even more power than Super, usually the latest rev of the model.

Sometimes Stihl has a 0XX and 0XX PRO - Pro can include features such as compression release and intellicarb.

Late model Stihl's have side tensioners, see thru fuel tanks, and elastostart. Model numers are MSXXX.

Medium late model Stihl's have see thru fuel tanks.

Medium models have non see thru tanks

Early models lack chain brakes.

Maybe there's a way to determine year of manufacture from serial number but I don't know what it is.

Someone else can answer about Husky. I would guess XP means Xtreme Performance. (ie Pro saw).

 

[builder]

with stihl stay away from the odd number saws unless they're REAL cheap,those are the homeowner models,you can usually trust your eyes when guessing it's age,if it looks ancient it probably is.the best way I know of to determine how much life is left in the saw if it looks good and runs good is to remove the muffler(easy,couple screws) and look down the exhaust port,you can see the side of the piston,rings and bore that way,should be nice horizontal machining marks on the piston and bore should be smooth,if you see a lot of vertical scratches it's on it's last legs.hope this helps.

 

[davefr]

I forgot to answer your question about older = better.

IMHO, the best saws were made about 3-15 years ago. Material technology offered some very durable saws with significant weight savings components. This was also the era that gave us side tensioners, see thru fuel tanks, and some excellent air filtration. Chain brakes were std. and one of the best safety features ever.

Saws made today are going downhill due to the EPA. (ex: Catalytic convertors and non adjustable carbuartors.) Manufacturers also seem to be going too far in the plastic vs metal tradoff to save cost. In the future the EPA will insure saws don't run and OSHA will insure saws don't cut.

On the other hand, saws made well over 15 years ago were boat anchors. They were durable but boy they were heavy and unsafe.

 

[Dagger]

well put...mostly..

What Dave has just said is certainly very correct, to a certain extent..What is happening to this saw market is very interesting..
1st..ADVERTISING is mostly taken as gospel, so exaggerate on the advertising lit, fool with horsepower caculations..and you will be the biggest saw seller in no time...or...
continue to develop saws by user-profile surveys..this seems sensible...but

Horsepower in a caculated number..dynos measure torque boys, then we caculate horsepower..several ways to do this, and you cant compare manufacturer published HP figures on their lit with other manufactures,,unless you KNOW the method used to caculate HP..( and I promise you wont find that out!) I'm not talkin about the units of measure either, im talking about the formula used after torque is measured!
So just keep reading that advertising and literature and believing it..that why we in the biz pay more for it than R&D! ...by LONG way!

It is because of this by the way, that we have given you plastic flywheels and the crankshafts with reduced counter weights.. because those who use and BUY our products are profiled and surveyed..and they keep saying "lighter weight" and "faster".so to win the sales war...we need for everybody to think we have the "lightest weight", and "highest horsepower" saws, few other critera are ever mentioned. Never mind that they cant absorb torsional vibration more than previous models, and this alone will shorten their life. Saw weight/vs life reached somewhat of a pinnacle 3 to 5 years ago, until we start using different fuel probably, or untill someone invents a new affordable cylinder wall material. Titanium has been tried for crankshafts to save weight, but not currently feasable. From an engineers point of view, very few advances since, in my opinion, have not compromised durability..but they have helped sales..cant argue that!

Try this on and see how it fits.
"North America is the worlds largest saw market, and the users there seldom replace their equipment due to the number of hours used, but because of inadequate maintaince, or they simply believe somebody has something "better" and "faster" that they have ..so they get a new machine, either way, sooner than any other typical user in any other market".

Just so you all know...I DID NOT say this..I just repeated it!

I personally agree with Dave to such a point that I would say if I were to be told that Tomorrow...you are going to buy the last saw that you ever can buy..and your going to the moon..or what ever planet you boys are gonna log next, never to come back..I would search for a 3 to 8 year old saw..hopefully new-old stock!Or one based on that design technology..as several still currently produced are today..
It would not be quite as fast..or quite as light, but if Since I aint gonna get any advertising up there to tell me, I will never know the difference! AND it Might last as long as the job does!

Then, as a manufacturer, we have to deal with EPA, as Dave says, and they have ALL Internal Combustion engine makers working with durability/power issues due to their "leaner" requirements.

 

[slabberman]

G'day Dagger,

If I was heading off planet anytime soon, a Stihl 038 would be going with me, IMHO, one of Stihls best, a short way behind the 090 (big and heavy I know, but for the job intended, superb).
Great posts you do, by the way!
Cheers
Charlie.

 

[chainsawworld]

ryan,
stihl tried many ways to hide the year of manufacturing. sometimes the year was molded right in the power head you just had to find it. later they put it under the rear handle but it was a letter code. it would be either a letter in a sundial or letters around a sqaure with prick marks on the letter of the year. once you have the code the year is easy.
husky had the same sundial thing going for a while now they just put the year on the ID plate on the side of the saw. how ever husky did it at the time, the last two numbers of the year was printed right out.
protect yourselves; marty

 

[dbabcock]

Dagger,
I wasn't aware that there was any latitude in the conversion from torque to HP (in units of lb.ft. and SAE brake HP), namely:

HP= (Torque)(RPM)/5252.

European HP or PS is a DIN standard where torque is specified in Newton meters and DIN HP is usually slightly higher than SAE, but not much. For example, I have a car that's rated at 400 HP DIN and 394 HP SAE net. Torque is 500NM or 368 lb.ft. It would seem to me that there's no room for playing with the torque number and certainly not the standard coversion equality.

 

[eyolf]

Everybody plays around with torque and horsepoer figures...Just ask guys like the folks at Walker's saw shop...they can't repeat the performance figures that Husky publishes, for a number of reasons.

A story: in 1970, American car makers were at about the pinnacle of the performance race, and GM had lifted the 400 cubic inch cieling for cars with the "A" body...Olds 4-4-2, Poncho GTO, Chevy Chevelle SS454, etc. Buick engineers decided to make the 455 engine available in the Skylark/Grand Sport series. The 455 engine that made 360 h.p. 460 ft/lbs torque in the big comfy-cruiser Electra 225 only made 320 hp/410 ft/lbs torque in the Skylark. The stage I hot rod engine made it all the way back up to 350 h.p., and 420 ft/lbs. Buick stood a chance of cleaning up in (I think it was NHRA D/Stock) drag racing, as they would have been competing with lower-performance cars.

Mid season, the NHRA smelled a rat, and hired a dyno lab to test a couple of cars borrowed from dealers, and found that the Stage 1 was verty comparable to the rest...buick had published the figures for a lower rpm to make the car win...winners sell.
The NHRA disqualified them from competing that year in the sportsman classes, and the cars sold poorly.

***

For the most part, consider that a 4 cu in saw from company "H" will perform about as well as a similar one from Co "S"

 

[Dagger]

dbabcock...you said it

dbabcock
you said it in your post pard...the SAE HP conversion formula!
Thats the Society of Automotive Engineers formula..one of 5 that I know are used in the outdoor power equipment biz...and one of probably 9 or 10 used in power transmission industry!

there are actually more than that overall in the world.

here is some trivia for you guys to ponder...this will help

How was the 1st measurement of the then newly concieved word "horsepower" caculated?

This will be formula number one , lets say!



"Nothing is more fullfilling than excersizes of the mind"

 

[dbabcock]

Somehow I doubt that you're looking for James Watt watching horses lifting coal by the hour.
I have to go back to making chips now.

 

[eyolf]

Didn't you forget to mention the magic number...33,000?

Was that ft/lbs, or lb/ft?

How about boiler horsepower, from the days before gas engines replaced horses, when steam was replacing horses?

How many horsepower are going to waste as unused heat energy in your saw?

Do you know where your chainsaws...er, children are?

 

[kdhotsaw]

horsepower

hello dagger,
I think doug babcock has got you on the formula for figuring horsepower.the formula is as follows; torque times rpm divided by 5252= horsepower. this is universally accepted and used . now a engine mfg. can manipulate this to get any figure he desires, crankshaft hp or rear wheel hp, failing to give you the rpm a certain hp figure is calculated,or giving you a lower or higher figure than it actually is like they did in the 70's with the .454 chevy engines for insurance purposes. I think they listed certain 454 engines at 200 hp and in other models the same engine was 275 hp. The simple hp formula is still torque times rpm divided by 5252
horsepower is the estimate that a horse can lift 33,000 pounds of weight one foot in one minute (or 550 pounds one foot in one second). this was concieved by james watt about 200 years ago.
These guys on arboristsite are a lot more knowledgeable than you are willing to give them credit for. they all know that dyno's measure torque and that hp is calcuated off of the torque figures. we,ve had 4-5 seperate threads on this subject.
Please send us some of your not top secret hp formulas, we would all like to see them
ken kdhotsaw

 

[kdhotsaw]

horsepower

hello dagger,
I think doug babcock has got you on the formula for figuring horsepower.the formula is as follows; torque times rpm divided by 5252= horsepower. this is universally accepted and used . now a engine mfg. can manipulate this to get any figure he desires, crankshaft hp or rear wheel hp, failing to give you the rpm a certain hp figure is calculated,or giving you a lower or higher figure than it actually is like they did in the 70's with the .454 chevy engines for insurance purposes. I think they listed certain 454 engines at 200 hp and in other models the same engine was 275 hp. The simple hp formula is still torque times rpm divided by 5252
horsepower is the estimate that a horse can lift 33,000 pounds of weight one foot in one minute (or 550 pounds one foot in one second). this was concieved by james watt about 200 years ago.
These guys on arboristsite are a lot more knowledgeable than you are willing to give them credit for. they all know that dyno's measure torque and that hp is calcuated off of the torque figures. we,ve had 4-5 seperate threads on this subject.
Please send us some of your not top secret hp formulas, we would all like to see them
ken kdhotsaw

 

[Dagger]

YES!!!

Yes of course DB is right KD...somehow, it seems you have the impression I am defending the manufacturers for straying from the most widely accepted method for caculating horsepower..But in fact I am NOT..I would like to condem them for it,
On another thread i posted that in my employment experience.( I think it was the fuel mix).I parted with a certain scandanavian employer over ethical issues..it had to do with HONOR as far as I was concerned, you see, it is hard to turn an Engineer into a salesman because engineers are used to very solid, definitive things, and some sales management types(much like lawyers) construe these things in to grey areas that border on ..and sometimes completly cross over the line to deceit!..(But salesmen made more money there!)

Yes DB..as you already know I think ,the SAE orginazation adopted James Watts definitions of HP..., and to quote a certain old boss of mine.."I know of no law anywhere in any country that says we have to use this formula for horsepower"
Go back and read my posts again..Im simply trying to explain to you fellas that when you compare sales lit from different companies...the horsepower numbers are not dependable, as they are NOT all using the same conversion factors!
And KD..they are certainly not MY secret formulas..and I certainly cant tell you how many hundreds of ways they can be corrupted!
I belong to an engineering board similiar to this and perfectly good and honest engineers discuss all the reasons why they think that this modification or that mod to the caculations are valid. Thats where you should go..
I Believe that the manufacturers SHOULD use this formula..and then we could repeat there findings...sorta check up on them and see with some empirical data how our modifications affect their products with all the dynos we have at our disposal. But I also know that it will NEVER happen!
And I also remember those early 70's when not just Chevy, but ALL the american manufacturers altered HP ratings on their engines for insurance discount purposes. I remember that famous Expose' in a Hot-Rod mag on this subject..and I was in college then..and I took this into class to discuss it with the instructor in fact..You see it was sales driven!...their muscle cars were loosing sales because of very high insurance premiums..so they "decided" to use different formulas for HP calc's...to increase sales!
De Ja Vue pard ! its been happining in the saw world also..just the other way.. but for the same reason!
I didnt like it then..and I still dont!

and as far as me not giving enough credit to the members of the arborist board for their knowledge...hmmmm...where the heck did you get that ???
If in my posts somewhere i gave that impression..well its because im not a journalist..but I know that the written word can be interpreted somewhat differently by different readers.
I apoligize for my inability to convey my thoughts as accurately as I would like to, for all to understand.

 

[confused]

Dagger,

Schools are trying to work on that now. I am an engineering student and we are constantly writing technical papers instead of lame lab reports.

 

[Harley]

Dagger,

Are you refering to correction factors, or actual equations for computing HP from torque?