Dennisthemenace
ArboristSite Operative
Any ideas on what would occur if the divider in the intake boot and cylinder were removed, de-strato'd so to speak?
462s not holding up, carefull commercial users
- Thread starter jquirk
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
As with so many things these days they are being designed to be unserviceable by anyone other than the OEM & their paid up franchise members. Personally I think the waste this creates is disgusting... no wonder some people turn to the Chinese clones...
Fatherwheels
Addicted to ArboristSite
Back at the STIHL booth at the State Fair. Different guys. Just as evasive. ‘Did not hear of it’. ‘I’m just a sales guy’. (Showed them the photos) ‘Probably was a materials thing’.
:-(
Philbert
:-(
Philbert
saxman
Addicted to ArboristSite
In the past 50 years or so I’ve bought and ran lots of saws of all brands. I purchased a new NS462RCM last September and had a big oak job in October. I was amazed at the power/weight ratio on it new out of the box. I was and am impressed with the 462. Just my experience with my saw
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm amazed at the abuse my saws have taken when full time logging for profit, maybe you used them more as a lever than what is considered acceptable.
As an all Stihl guy, I won't hesitate for a minute to say that Stihl is being, shall we say to be polite, "less than forthcoming." I have no illusions about today's Stihl being above any other big manufacturer in terms of disclosure on engineering shortcomings. "Say I'm old fashioned, say I'm over the hill," but that's why I love owning and working on the old Stihl classics.
Huskybill
Addicted to ArboristSite
Yeah, they don’t have to advertise it. But denying something usually blows up much worse in the end. And if a customer asks a straight, direct question about it, they are expecting a straight, direct answer in return.
Philbert
Philbert
They took the general motors approach.
What casting numbers are visible, on any saw with out disassembly of some kind ?
I know McCulloch would stamp over bored cylinders under the GD fuel tank on the cylinder flange!
Last time I checked my collection of saws I think the old L77 Husqvarna made in Yugoslavia was the only one I could have maybe? seen the cylinder casting on .
My only concern would be , does the new p/c swap to anything else for a kick a$$ hybrid!
I know McCulloch would stamp over bored cylinders under the GD fuel tank on the cylinder flange!
Last time I checked my collection of saws I think the old L77 Husqvarna made in Yugoslavia was the only one I could have maybe? seen the cylinder casting on .
My only concern would be , does the new p/c swap to anything else for a kick a$$ hybrid!
awful knawful
ArboristSite Operative
So it's ok to hide this from the consumer?
Two saws side by side, new style and old, you'd be ok buying the old style?
You'd be ok being sold the old not knowing there's an improved version?
The problem is all the Nancy-boys complaining about saws being too heavy, so they make em lighter by removing metal.
I didn't make a judgement either way. Just pointing out why they did it. Standard practice in industry btw.
And no, I wouldn't buy the old version.
JustPlainJeff
ArboristSite Operative
"Nancy Boy"? So, when someone gets older, and doesn't have the muscle that they once might have had, or have developed some sort of physical ailment and needs or prefers a lighter saw they're a Nancy Boy?
In that case I would run a smaller saw than 70cc.
JustPlainJeff
ArboristSite Operative
True. And I've heard people say they prefer a lighter saw for most of their work (I'm one of them), but I also don't hear people complaining that "the 462, or the 500i or 881 is too heavy. I just hear them say they grab their lighter saws if they don't need to lug the heavier weight around. I've got both, a 462, and a 261. 90% of the time, I grab the 261 because it suits the work I'm doing, and don't need to carry around the extra weight of the 462 when doing what I'm doing. I've never heard people say "they should make the 881 lighter". And even if someone did, so be it, that's their opinion. I don't need to talk smack about whatever their opinion is. Whatever their opinion is is their business, not mine.
"Nancy Boy" refers to the forum heroes that piss about the paper specs of saws (particularly the weight) rather than how they actually feel and cut. If you gripe about a saw's listed dry weight being 1 ounce heavier than a competitor's, you are probably just being pissy for no reason and are a "Nancy Boy". If you are an older gent that doesn't feel like dragging out the 2100 you used while logging in the 80's to cut up little blowdowns and want a lighter saw, that's different.
JustPlainJeff
ArboristSite Operative
I get your point. That makes sense.
Yes and thank you, this was what I meant (if anything), and not attacking anyone that needs a lighter saw for physical reasons. My comment was primarily meant for a laugh since most of my saws are 40 - 60 year old boat anchors with no regard for weight.
Like Woodslasher said, it gets down to looking a little better on paper than a Husky 572XP or whatever is the same category, and the internet warriors that want to brag about the best and lightest. At some point, quality and durability suffer.
