D
Deleted member 83629
Guest
the cs-490 uses a K216 bar mount and the cs-500 uses a D176 mount.
Husqvarna 550xp vs echo cs490
- Thread starter chevyforlife21
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
SawTroll
Information Collector
Well - there is an obvious reason that Echo doesn't state them in the US - but they have to do it elsewhere.
Also, even their "best" saws feels like the plastic is very fragile, with sharp edges that is prone to break (it happens).
7sleeper
Addicted to ArboristSite
Well all this number worshiping kind of reminds me that the exhaust numbers from VW are also impeccable...Well - there is an obvious reason that Echo doesn't state them in the US - but they have to do it elsewhere.
Also, even their "best" saws feels like the plastic is very fragile, with sharp edges that is prone to break (it happens).
I see it the same!Put'em in the cut. Tells you all you need to know. Paper specs mean BS to me.
7
And some are much worse than others!
Try a Dolmar PS-421 and a Stihl MS250, both rated at 2.9 hp, and see the difference in wood, not paper.
lasmacgod
ArboristSite Operative
The old CS-500 may have used the D176 mount, but both the CS-490 and current production CS-500 use the K216 mount. For a broader selection of bars, the K041 mount works perfectly well. The difference is that on the K216 mount, there is a dedicated oiler hole in the bar, which doesn't line up up all that great, in addition to oiling through the hole for the bar adjuster. The K041 is the same bar mount, minus the dedicated oiler hole. Just take a look at the illustrations for the two bar mounts in the Oregon catalog and you'll see what I am most likely failing to explain.
In short, on the CS-490 and the current iteration of the CS-500, both the K041 and K216 bar mounts work with no modification.
lasmacgod
ArboristSite Operative
I got curious and just went over the IPLs for the CS-490 and CS-500 published on echo's website. There are many different part numbers between the two, enough so that I didn't get too detailed on the comparison. In short, the starter assembly, air filter cover, crankcase, clutch cover, front handle, oiler, rear handle, stock bar, and muffler all had different part numbers.
Piston, cylinder, air filter, clutch, clutch drum, and carb were all the same if I recall correctly.
As to specific differences, I didn't get too detailed. I would guess that the assemblies are all interchangeable in their entirety, but the individual parts within an assembly may not be.
It amazed me how many parts were different. It seems to me that it would make the parts supply chain unnecessarily complex.
Piston, cylinder, air filter, clutch, clutch drum, and carb were all the same if I recall correctly.
As to specific differences, I didn't get too detailed. I would guess that the assemblies are all interchangeable in their entirety, but the individual parts within an assembly may not be.
It amazed me how many parts were different. It seems to me that it would make the parts supply chain unnecessarily complex.
Idahonative
Addicted to ArboristSite
I agree HP numbers don't mean much. Everyone focuses on HP numbers because that is what manufacturers use to convince people (who don't know any better), which saw they should buy based on "power". This concept is misleading at best (are you listening @SawTroll?).
I have watched your vid comparing your 590 and your ported 361 many times. Although I don't want to inject that vid here as a matter of arguing what saw is this or that, I do want to bring it into this conversation as we are talking about the "power" of a saw. You know far more about saws than I ever will but IMO, talk of "power" should be more about torque than HP and there is no better example of this than your 590 vs. 361 vid.
It is surprising to me as many times as that vid has been posted, re-posted, and posted again on this forum, not a single person has mentioned the difference in the way those two saws cut. Overall, they aren't that far apart in "cut times" which is obviously amazing considering the 590 is a homeowner saw. But even more amazing (IMO) is the "cut rate" of the two saws. The 361 being very fast at first, then slowing, and the 590 being totally consistent throughout the cut. The 361 benefits from the momentum of the higher rpm's but only until the chain slows and torque takes over.
Listen and watch the 361 cut. It clearly revs higher and for about the first 1/4-1/3 of the wood, launches at a noticeably faster rate than the 590. But after that, it slows to a "cut rate" that is the same or slower than the 590. Watch the 590 and you will see the "cut rate" is very uniform from start to finish. Not so with the 361. Why? I believe it has everything to do with torque. Although the 590 has less HP and lower rpm's, it cuts very close (overall) to that ported 361 because of it's high torque.
Another good example would be the 600p that Brad ported. Watch how consistent it is throughout the cut:
People like SawTroll love to talk about HP and how saws like Echo's are crap because the HP is low and Echo doesn't like to publish numbers. It is without a doubt, complete BS. No better example of this than a homeowner saw giving a ported pro saw all it can handle.
Idahonative
Addicted to ArboristSite
You need to educate yourself on the differences of HP and Torque. This may come as a surprise to you but torque is what gets the work done and that applies to a lot of things around the world, not just chainsaws. My 400 hp Dodge Cummins will pull a 20,000 lb. trailer but a 400 hp gas engine struggles with 1/3 that weight. Why? My 400 hp Cummins puts out 800 ft/lbs. of torque...the 400 hp gas engine puts out half that. Get it?
Idahonative
Addicted to ArboristSite
TORQUE, moving an 8,000 lb. truck:
Idahonative
Addicted to ArboristSite
Did I mention TORQUE gets the work done?
BTW: What the heck is HP?
BTW: What the heck is HP?
SawTroll
Information Collector
Power is a function of torque and rpm, there isn't any "magic" going on. When a saw has less hp at a given rpm, that is a direct result of it having less torque at that rpm.
Low end torque isn't very interesting on a chainsaw, unless you are using a too small saw for the task. Cutting will be slow anyway.
Without HP torque means nothing. 10,000 pounds of torque at one rpn wont get you anywhere fast. You can't simply say torque is where it's at, if you do you lack the basic fundamentals. torque + rpm = HP.
Idahonative
Addicted to ArboristSite
HP = Torque x RPM ÷ 5252
Idahonative
Addicted to ArboristSite
You remind me of someone who used to be a member here. Did your previous username use to be peter399?
Correct you have to have both. HP is the amount of work an engine can preform. Torque is the amount of force on a rotating axis. Again you can't separate the two.
Idahonative
Addicted to ArboristSite
Agree.
Idahonative
Addicted to ArboristSite
Remember without RPM's all the torque in the world still won't preform a task.
Andre, I agree with you. I didn't mean literally that ONLY torque mattered. I was being a bit obnoxious with the use of the word (and my posts) because everyone on this site is obsessed with stated HP numbers. My goal was to bring attention to the word, not that it was the one and only thing the mattered when discussing power.
EDIT: BTW, I would love to see you do the same comparison (590 vs. 361) in bigger wood. I don't believe there would have been much difference between those two saws because of the 590's higher torque.
SawTroll
Information Collector
No - I don't have a former user name, but I remember Peter.
SawTroll
Information Collector
Again, the 590 will have less torque at the rpm that is interesting, as reflected in the hp numbers.
