Husqvarna 435 vs Echo CS-370/CS-400

[Cliff R]

Did some timed cuts today between these three saws, in a Cherry tree I took down. The timed cuts were made in material approximately 14" in diameter.

The Husqvarna 435 is stock, put about half a dozen tanks thru it so far. It has a 16" bar with .325" semi-chisel chain.

The CS-370 is intake/muffler modded only, with a 14" bar and low-pro 3/8" chain.

The CS-400 is stock, with a 16" bar and low-pro 3/8" chain.

All chains were razor sharp, and saws finely tuned right before the cuts, and fully warmed up with a few test cuts.

I started with the CS-370, and made 5 cuts in 67 seconds.

The CS-400 made 5 cuts in 71 seconds..

The Husqvarna 435, 58 seconds.

The 435 was actually at a slight disadvantage, as I had to bypass a BIG knot in the log and move to a slightly larger diameter area, as I couldn't get 15 cuts in the section after the knot. The Husqvarna runs noticably faster and has more power. I would have guessed it to be the winner before making the timed cuts.

The CS-370 surprisingly outran the larger CS-400. When I first purchased the CS-370 I did some minor porting on the intake system ahead of the carb, and removed the catalyst and opened up the muffler some. It helped it out considerably, at least enough to outrun the CS-400. The chain wasn't quite as good as the one on the CS-400 either, but it is running less of it with the 14" bar.

Without doing any timed cuts, just evaluating the saws by weight, power, anti-vibe, chain speed, lugging power, etc, the Husqvarna 435 is the winner in every catagory. The Echo's run noticably slower, but pull harder at lower rpm's, and the 3/8" low pro chain cuts a smaller cross section, and gets thru the material surprisingly fast. I don't think either of the Echo's would have faired as well as they did pulling the same .325" chain that the Husky was using.

At this point I have no idea how well the 435 is going to hold up in long term service. It is a far cry from a "Pro" saw with it's clamshell engine design, but the power to weight ratio is excellent. It's good to see that Husqvarna has put some effort into the low cost small displacement saw market. The last time I tried a small Husqvarna was a new 141, and it was a TURD in comparison to the 435.......Cliff

 

[Kunes]

i love my little 435.

 

[wigglesworth]

I have heard nothing but good about the 435, and this post is yet another.

 

[catman963]

I have heard nothing but good about the 435, and this post is yet another.

I have read so much good stuff about these little saws - I really wanna try one for myself!! I just dunno how I can "explain" to the wife, that I really need a 4th saw in the lineup :dunno: :help:

 

[wigglesworth]

I just dunno how I can "explain" to the wife, that I really need

I quit trying to explain it.

 

[mountainlake]

Did some timed cuts today between these three saws, in a Cherry tree I took down. The timed cuts were made in material approximately 14" in diameter.

The Husqvarna 435 is stock, put about half a dozen tanks thru it so far. It has a 16" bar with .325" semi-chisel chain.

The CS-370 is intake/muffler modded only, with a 14" bar and low-pro 3/8" chain.

The CS-400 is stock, with a 16" bar and low-pro 3/8" chain.

All chains were razor sharp, and saws finely tuned right before the cuts, and fully warmed up with a few test cuts.

I started with the CS-370, and made 5 cuts in 67 seconds.

The CS-400 made 5 cuts in 71 seconds..

The Husqvarna 435, 58 seconds.

The 435 was actually at a slight disadvantage, as I had to bypass a BIG knot in the log and move to a slightly larger diameter area, as I couldn't get 15 cuts in the section after the knot. The Husqvarna runs noticably faster and has more power. I would have guessed it to be the winner before making the timed cuts.

The CS-370 surprisingly outran the larger CS-400. When I first purchased the CS-370 I did some minor porting on the intake system ahead of the carb, and removed the catalyst and opened up the muffler some. It helped it out considerably, at least enough to outrun the CS-400. The chain wasn't quite as good as the one on the CS-400 either, but it is running less of it with the 14" bar.

Without doing any timed cuts, just evaluating the saws by weight, power, anti-vibe, chain speed, lugging power, etc, the Husqvarna 435 is the winner in every catagory. The Echo's run noticably slower, but pull harder at lower rpm's, and the 3/8" low pro chain cuts a smaller cross section, and gets thru the material surprisingly fast. I don't think either of the Echo's would have faired as well as they did pulling the same .325" chain that the Husky was using.

At this point I have no idea how well the 435 is going to hold up in long term service. It is a far cry from a "Pro" saw with it's clamshell engine design, but the power to weight ratio is excellent. It's good to see that Husqvarna has put some effort into the low cost small displacement saw market. The last time I tried a small Husqvarna was a new 141, and it was a TURD in comparison to the 435.......Cliff

Looks like Husky is getting their numbers a little mixed up compared to the past, the 435 is 40.9 cc not the 35 or 36cc saw I'd have thought. Open the clogged up muffler on the CS400 and it should be close I ran a Husky 455 the other day that cut nice, seems like their new Xtra torque engine have a way nicer powerband. Steve

 

[Cliff R]

The CS-400 will not have near the high rpm power of the 435. They use some weird porting designed to develope strong mid-range power, not strong high rpm power. The little Husky really loves to rev, and makes decent torque, but it can be stalled out pretty easily in comparison to either of the Echo saws.

When you look at chain speed vs cutting power, the 435 made almost one more full cut in comparison to the Echo saws, and as mentioned, it was in a wider part of the log I was testing.

If I did my math right that's 14 percent faster than the CS-370, and 19 percent faster than the CS-400.

Yes, the 435 is a 41cc saw, not 37 like it says on the box.......Cliff

 

[mountainlake]

The CS-400 will not have near the high rpm power of the 435. They use some weird porting designed to develope strong mid-range power, not strong high rpm power. The little Husky really loves to rev, and makes decent torque, but it can be stalled out pretty easily in comparison to either of the Echo saws.

When you look at chain speed vs cutting power, the 435 made almost one more full cut in comparison to the Echo saws, and as mentioned, it was in a wider part of the log I was testing.

If I did my math right that's 14 percent faster than the CS-370, and 19 percent faster than the CS-400.

Yes, the 435 is a 41cc saw, not 37 like it says on the box.......Cliff

The 435 has 13% more cc's than the 370, but then there's different chains and wood and the 435 isn't muffler modded but I don't think Huskys are too clogged up to start with. Steve

 

[Cliff R]

Both of the Echo saws run perfectly, but they are somewhat "boring" in comparison to running the 435. As we see from the results, the 435 is considerably faster in 14" material. It's advantage is even more significant in smaller material. It's a very fun saw to operated, amazingly fast, light and nimble. The Echo's are OK, but much slower in engine rpm's and chain speed. They are good saws, but not overly impressive anyplace. So far I'm really liking the 435, we'll see how it holds up in long terms service, I've never had a single problem one with any of the Echo saws that we use, and they see a LOT of use!.......Cliff

 

[Kunes]

Looks like Husky is getting their numbers a little mixed up compared to the past, the 435 is 40.9 cc not the 35 or 36cc saw I'd have thought. Open the clogged up muffler on the CS400 and it should be close I ran a Husky 455 the other day that cut nice, seems like their new Xtra torque engine have a way nicer powerband. Steve

on the box my saw is supposed to be a 37cc 435.

 

[Cliff R]

Yep, the box mine came in says 37cc, but it says 41cc right on the saw beside the serial number.....Cliff

 

[Kunes]

Yep, the box mine came in says 37cc, but it says 41cc right on the saw beside the serial number.....Cliff

why must they confuse me like that. do you know what the HP number is? i think i read around 2.2

 

[Gizzard]

why must they confuse me like that. do you know what the HP number is? i think i read around 2.2

2.2 Hp is correct.

Good report, Cliff R. I looked the 435 over again today....I had to purchase some home repair stuff so still waiting to purchase the saw. With the CS-370 I have, it was one of the first ones made do you know if from the start they all had catalyst? I haven't took muffler off mine to look inside it.

 

[cbshtr]

So if you were buying only one of these saws in this power and price range which one would it be? Also, just out of curiousity why is it so bad to buy from one of the big box stores? I stopped by one shop and they said they thought Stihl built a better saw but it is hard to beat the Echo warranty. He gave me a guestimate on the Echo 370 at 2.5 HP and the 400 at 3 HP. He also said Stihl measures their cc's differently from everyone else. What gives? Finally is 2.2HP for the Husky 435 really accurate since the info on the box is not accurate?

 

[Kunes]

So if you were buying only one of these saws in this power and price range which one would it be? Also, just out of curiousity why is it so bad to buy from one of the big box stores? I stopped by one shop and they said they thought Stihl built a better saw but it is hard to beat the Echo warranty. He gave me a guestimate on the Echo 370 at 2.5 HP and the 400 at 3 HP. He also said Stihl measures their cc's differently from everyone else. What gives? Finally is 2.2HP for the Husky 435 really accurate since the info on the box is not accurate?

id get the 435...i have one...lowes has replaced mine once already cause it kept breaking but the new one is solid. and it was after 30 days, still has a 2 year warranty no disadvantage really.

 

[huskystihl]

I'd like to run one against my 211. It's rated at 35 cc's and 2.3 hp with good torque and a high rever as well. I looked at the husky and was surprised by the quality. My dad has a 370 and the 211 walked all over it, not even close.

 

[weimedog]

I happen to like my little 440e, its a really nice little saw (as I have posted before)....whats the difference between the 440e and the 435? Specs look suspiciously close..only the rated HP (2.4HP for the 440e vs. 2.2 for the 435) and price really look diffferent!

 

[Cliff R]

I ran the 435 again today for about 2 and half tanks, then it started "bogging" down, and simply refused to keep running. I was not happy, and just tossed it aside and finished up the job with the 55.

All the way home I had thoughts of having to take the carburetor apart, fuel line(s), tank venting, bad coil, etc.

Once back to the house I removed the top cover and just looked it over. I found that the spark plug wire was pulled tightly against one of the fins on the jug and had been rubbing pretty hard on it. I wasn't sure that this was the problem, but I moved the wire away from the fin and the saw immediatiely stopped bogging down. I cut with it for a few minutes and it ran flawlessly. Hopefully that's all it was?

While I was looking the saw over, I noticed that it appears to have a two stage carburetor. The lower section contains the choke and primary throttle plate. It has a secondary throttle plate that is activated about 1/3 throttle and greater. Haven't seen anything like this before, but I don't work on a lot of the newer saws.

I'm curious enough now that I'll have to pull the carb off and check it out to see how it operates?......Cliff

 

[gr8scott72]

He also said Stihl measures their cc's differently from everyone else.

lol

How can you measure ccs differently. That sounds like salesman bs.