would YOU buy a 562xp?

Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
And here I must disagree on several technical points my friend. Both AT and strato are new technologies and are specifically related to either 2-stroke engines or these all-position fuel systems on o p e. Zenoah's unfortunately named strato has nothing to do with the stratified charge systems employed on 4-stroke automobiles in the 1970's. With those the fuel mixture was "stratified", or non-mixed, at the time of combustion. These stratos keep the fuel separated from the air in order to delay the arrival of fuel into the combustion chamber as long as possible, reducing losses out the open exhaust port, but the mixture is supposed to be well mixed at the time of ignition.
I will correct you the first mentions of stratified three valve system with a patent is supposed to be from 1918! Of course they were never like the system implied today in two strokes, but the principle has already been existant for quite some time!

I think Husqvarna blundered into several unintended consequence in their attempt to gather several new technologies and solve some very long standing major emissions problems concerning 2-strokes and these lousy fuel systems. The industry had been stagnant for decades, and there were bound to be some problems playing catch up at that pace. First, I think they didn't realize just what all the effects of all that excess fuel hanging around were (i.e. cooling). Second, I think they lost sight of the reality that even the AT fuel system is still crude and grossly inaccurate when not in closed loop, and that's a large part of the time - and they tried to dial it down too tight. Last, I think they misjudged the problems involved with rolling out the first new technology in many decades to the dealer and service network. Still, I give them credit for actually trying to solve the problems, with what are simple and elegant technical solutions - rather than just slapping on a cat.
And here again I am much more critical! We are talking about multi millionen dollar companies with, I am convinsed, pretty large lab complexes. And these companies are supposed to be unable to produce a sufficient product? I am sorry but that is for me unacceptable and I will tell you why. I have friends in buisnesses where products are designed and produced and the procedure is quite simple. Simpilfied first the managment detects the need for a new product, then they determine what a product must be able to perform and then they deside how fast it has to come to the market and last they deside what it can cost. After all these steps the product is launched and problems are a clear indication of cheapo short cuts! This has nothing to do with the engineers but completely with the number crunchers.

Further if we have the chance for a seldom glimpse of real world lab results, I believe they should not be ignored! I undersand that most of our discussions are strictly theoreticle so I like quoting this publication.
http://www.shindaiwa.de/presse/motorsaegentest.pdf
These great new technologies are sometimes a bit overblown in my eyes. Why do I say this? Because in above publication the classic stupid two stroke dolmar 420 consumes less fuel than the strato husqvarna 445 and extremely close to the strato stihl 251. So what is going on here? I have no idea but I have the impression that at least a company is trying to get the most out of existing technology.

7
 
My 562xp is my only saw. I bought it new in Feb 2015. Unlike some people I have a lot of hours on mine as I used it everyday at work for a year.
That being said, the saw does some things well. the saw runs really well. Very smooth, once you get it started it runs hard.
Cold starts not really a problem 3-5 pulls and you're off. Hot starts, 1-3 pulls.
The warm start issue does exist and is extremely annoying when your saw won't start after your lunch break. If you give it one pull of choke, then a few pulls no choke it will start most of the time

The outboard clutch is stupid and inconvenient. Having to take the clutch of to change the sprocket rim is a pain in my ass.
The "chip flap" does nothing and I'm not convinced it exists because it's always gone within 2 throws of a chain.
Tank shield is plastic when it should be aluminum.
As for the air filter, mine has always worked just fine.

Would I buy a 562 again? No.
Does it run well? Yes, very. after you get it started
I'd buy a used/new saw regular carb like a 361 or 440 /husky equivalent. A lot cheaper and a lot simpler. Have it tuned by a professional or learn how to do it yourself.
 
I will correct you the first mentions of stratified three valve system with a patent is supposed to be from 1918! Of course they were never like the system implied today in two strokes, but the principle has already been existant for quite some time!
I'd like to see that patent as I find some of the old ideas to be interesting. I have my Grandfather's copy of the 1920 edition of the Modern Gasoline Automobile and there are lots of good ideas in there (it's a bit overdue from the Columbus OH public library). Still, if the patent wasn't related to scavenging losses in a 2-stroke it's really not related.

And here again I am much more critical! We are talking about multi millionen dollar companies with, I am convinsed, pretty large lab complexes. And these companies are supposed to be unable to produce a sufficient product? I am sorry but that is for me unacceptable and I will tell you why. I have friends in buisnesses where products are designed and produced and the procedure is quite simple. Simpilfied first the managment detects the need for a new product, then they determine what a product must be able to perform and then they deside how fast it has to come to the market and last they deside what it can cost. After all these steps the product is launched and problems are a clear indication of cheapo short cuts! This has nothing to do with the engineers but completely with the number crunchers.
I think that's a bit of the fantasy view of how big corporations work. In reality the larger the corporation the more incompetence and dead wood must be dealt with. You'd think the visionary marking types would see the future trends (OK, as an engineer and product designer I hope you appreciate how hard it was to type that), but in reality that's rarely the case. Keep in mind this was an industry that basically cranked out the same stuff for decades. Even though emissions had been regulated in other industries for a long time, they preferred to fight the limits rather than develop solutions. Then suddenly they had to come up with solutions fast, and you got all the usual cheap, quick crap that was tried in other industries and didn't work there either (limiters, etc.).

The fuel systems were made by a couple of outside companies, and I suspect the engine designers rarely thought about the awful mixture control problems. When they had to deal with emissions the carbs were one of the two major problems. I might have gone for a non-electronic, non-feedback carb that could hold a mixture, but it would have been physically larger and might have cost more than AT. And it would have been a major problem to tell people how to tune it, as it would not have 4-stroked or had a limiting high rpm you could use to set mixture. Anyway, they went with strato and later added feedback carbs, and drastically reduced wasted fuel. It probably worked great in their tests, but for the first time ever in a saw they no longer had the extra safety margin provided by that extra fuel. I'd bet they were not expecting E10 and its vapor lock issues when they got started, plus a lot of other environmental issues specific to some regions.

Further if we have the chance for a seldom glimpse of real world lab results, I believe they should not be ignored! I undersand that most of our discussions are strictly theoreticle so I like quoting this publication.
http://www.shindaiwa.de/presse/motorsaegentest.pdf
These great new technologies are sometimes a bit overblown in my eyes. Why do I say this? Because in above publication the classic stupid two stroke dolmar 420 consumes less fuel than the strato husqvarna 445 and extremely close to the strato stihl 251. So what is going on here? I have no idea but I have the impression that at least a company is trying to get the most out of existing technology.
You've linked to that report before, and I have downloaded it and tried to read it as best I can. I made a spreadsheet of the main data on power, fuel consumption and emissions to look at the numbers more closely. Basically, most of the data calculates out pretty closely from the measured values, but I still have some problems with the data presented:
  1. The smallest displacement Dolmar makes the most power
  2. The Husky and Stihl strato saws actually used the least fuel per run time.
  3. However, the Husky made less power, so the fuel used for the mechanical energy delivered was less for the Dolmar.
  4. This is curious because a cat does absolutely nothing to reduce fuel use, and almost certainly reduces power. Therefore without the cat the smallest displacement saw should have an even lower specific fuel consumption.
So basically the test would indicate that Dolmar has managed to make a smaller saw produce more power with less fuel using a traditional carb and 6 open transfers - but it still needs a cat to pass emissions. Why? It uses less fuel per mechanical energy delivered, so surely less is wasted? According to the data, at full load it emitted 11% more HC after the cat, but the specific fuel consumed to make that power was supposedly 6.7% lower?

Then too, these tests were supposedly done on Stihl's dynos in early 2012 - surely Stihl would have seen that they were wasting their time and money on silly strato schemes and feedback carbs. Wouldn't they be dropping that expensive nonsense and moving to cats and conventional porting? It's been 4 years......
 
Cats were an aweful bandaid to meets new epa compliance. Designs using cats are way behind the eightball. Thank god we have strato tech, its a near winner for all.....even from a performance perspective.
Especially when combined with a fuel system that cannot hold a constant fuel air mixture. I don't mind them in concept when used to clean up just that last bit from a fuel system that is already accurate - except I think the high temperatures are inappropriate in such a compact hand-held device.
 
I have one for over 2 years now......Hmmm. I see many complains.....I don't have any.
This spring I cut over 20 cords with 28" bar, big oaks, 30-35 cross cuts. The only time I stop when I was need gas and bar oil.
After fill up 1st pull start. Was 2 or 3 times when I have to give a 2nd pull. But that was me not the saw.
I would buy a other one? Ooo yes!!! Best saw I ever have. But I would not turn my back on all my Stihl saw's.
Stihl's are naturally good saw's but Hasquvana did something extraordinary with this 562XP.
I never have the chance to use one but they say the MS 362 C-MQ is up with the 562XP
Here are some spec:
MS 362 C-MQ Specifications
DISPLACEMENT 59.0 cc (3.6 cu. in.)
ENGINE POWER 3.5 kW (4.69 bhp)
POWERHEAD WEIGHT 5.9 kg (13.0 Ibs.)
FUEL CAPACITY 600 cc (20.3 oz)
CHAIN OIL CAPACITY 325 cc (11.0 oz.)
OILOMATIC® CHAIN 3/8" RS3
GUIDE BAR LENGTHS* (Recommended ranges) 40 to 63 cm (16" to 25")
STIHL ROLLOMATIC®
POWER SOURCE Gas
******************************************************************************************************************
562 XP®
Engine specification
Cylinder displacement 59.8 cc
Cylinder bore 1.81 inch
Cylinder stroke 1.42 inch
Power output 4.7 hp
Maximum power speed 9600 rpm
Fuel tank volume 21.98 fl oz
Maximum recommended engine speed 14000 rpm
Fuel consumption 494 g/kWh
Idling speed 2800 rpm
Spark plug NGK CMR6H
Electrode gap 0.02 "
Ignition system SEM DM61
Ignition module air gap 0.01 "
Torque, max. 3.65 Nm/8100 rpm
Fuel tank volume 1.4 US pint
Lubricants
Oil tank volume 0.7 US pint
Oil pump type Adjustable flow
Oil pump capacity 6-15 ml/min
Vibration & noise data
Equivalent vibration level (ahv , eq) front / rear handle 2.4/3.1 m/s²
Sound pressure level at operators ear 106 dB(A)
Sound power level, guaranteed (LWA) 118 dB(A)
Cutting equipment
Chain speed at max power 69.9 fts
Chain speed at 133% of maximum engine power speed 92.85 fts
Recommended bar length, min-max 15"-28"
Bar mount Large
Overall dimensions
Weight (excl. cutting equipment) 13.01 lbs

562xp vs ms362cm both ported


Good luck.
 
Cutting some 10" to 20" maple up the hill yesterday ... was using my 421 on the smaller sticks and tuning it after recent muff mod, but hit a rock, so pulled out my 562xp and realized once again, how great a saw this is. My 2013 562 with the newest 2016 cylinder and piston starts so easy even hot now, it's great. Fingers crossed it stays good from here. Love running this saw and could not work happily without a 60cc any more.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top