543 will be a flop

[moody]

Or don't as you may pee your pants

I cut a lot of Osage Orange which you would feel at home cutting Matt. I clean my filter a lot throughout the day. I took the filter off and there was more dust in the saw than on the filter.

The mix was fresh before it was poured into the crank case. This was simply because the filtration system is good right?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[MCW]

I cut a lot of Osage Orange which you would feel at home cutting Matt. I clean my filter a lot throughout the day. I took the filter off and there was more dust in the saw than on the filter.

The mix was fresh before it was poured into the crank case. This was simply because the filtration system is good right?

Good filtration with big fat chips in a perfect world. I'm hearin' ya, I'm hearin' ya...

Husqvarna aren't though...

 

[moody]

Good filtration with big fat chips in a perfect world. I'm hearin' ya, I'm hearin' ya...

Husqvarna aren't though...

I love Husqvarna saws as much as anyone. But I've started to look at Stihl because of the filter. I'd rather not have a saw fail because of a $10 filter.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[Chris-PA]

Ok, so I've been doing some geek stuff.

As one of the big draw cards of the 241 is it's fuel efficiency and the amount of timber it can put on the ground I started to look for some figures to support it.

It isn't straight forward - husqvarna post fuel consumption as g/kWh, with no reference to revs. Stihl don't post anything, but it has been tested by those pernickity germans. They have also tested a Husky 550, but not the 543. So some extrapolation is required.

Husqvarna 550 -

Posted by Husqvarna - http://www.husqvarna.com/ca/en/products/chainsaws/550-xp/#specifications

Fuel tank volume 17.58 fl oz / 0.52 lit
Fuel consumption 446 g/kWh


Tested by KWF - http://www.kwf-online.de/deutsch/pruef/pruefergebnisse/aagw/motorsaegen/6384_12e.pdf

Fuel consumption
max. power 420 g/kWh
max. torque 477 g/kWh

So, with this as a reference, the Husqvarna figure is roughly half way between the tested figures recorded by KWF.

Husqvarna 543 -

Posted by Husqvarna - http://www.husqvarna.com/ca/en/products/chainsaws/543-xp/#specifications

Fuel tank volume - 14.2 fl oz / 0.42 lit
Fuel consumption - 467 g/kWh


Stihl 241 -

Tested by KWF - http://www.kwf-online.de/deutsch/pruef/pruefergebnisse/aagw/motorsaegen/5957_11e.pdf

Fuel tank volume - 12.5 fl oz/ 0.39 lit
fuel consumption
max power 378 g/kWh
max torque 404 g/kWh

Even taking into account the larger tank on the 543, it doesnt look like it will go as far as the 241. In fact the 241 should be able to do (very roughly) 10% more work per tank.
It will be interesting to see how this bears out in the real world, but I doubt we will ever know as there are too many variables, and it would take a test like MCW did with the 241 vs 550 to get even the slightest idea. As a large percentage of AS chainsaw users would mod the muffler or get their saw ported, it quickly becomes farce anyway.

The two major causes of unburned fuel out the exhaust of a saw are scavenging losses and the poor fuel mixture control of the carbs. Strato does a good job on the first, but that leaves the carb. Without AT/MT the best you can do is to set it so it is just right under max load, but that means it will be rich to very rich everywhere else. In reality, to be safe you end up having it be a bit rich even under load. More fuel wasted out the exhaust simply has to add up to more fuel used. I'm hoping they put AT on the 543.

 

[woodchipper95]

You're exactly right mate. While Stihl's HD2 and the Dolmar HD setup have gone to dry paper elements that will keep everything at bay Husqvarna have persisted with a flocked material that you can throw a golf ball through.
I won't post pictures again comparing my 241C and 550XP's intake tract but it was pretty clear which filter material was the crappiest. The little Stihl had way more hours on it than the 550XP but the difference in filtration ability was glaringly obvious. The 550XP's intake was literally caked with dust - real dust and wood dust. The 241's intake was spotless.
When you're cutting softwoods and pulling 1" chips the filtration on the 550XP is adequate. When you get into dry, dusty hardwood then it's game over for the Husky. I've had to run filter oil on my 550XP which stops the fines but makes the filter block up in 10% of the time.

NOTE: I've just had to reply for the 1000th time on my Youtube videos where peanuts have said "You need to sharpen your chain" due to the dust. They obviously can't read as in the description I clearly stated it was brand new Stihl chain and Australian hardwood produces a lot of dust...

I have two air filters for my 545 one they claim to be warm and the other cold. If I have my cold air filter on there is definitely dust in the intake if I have my warm air filter on I see no dust at all in the in take. What temperatures should I use which?

 

[moody]

I have two air filters for my 545 one they claim to be warm and the other cold. If I have my cold air filter on there is definitely dust in the intake if I have my warm air filter on I see no dust at all in the in take. What temperatures should I use the warm and the cold?

Use the warm filter. I refuse to use the black winter filter.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[weedkilla]

I'm obviously not sure, but I think the answers are more complicated than that.
In husqvarnas professional range, both the highest consumer per work unit and the lowest consumer are both auto tune saws. That's right, a 3120, 395 and 390 all produce more power for a given unit of fuel than a 562.

Is this because the manual carb saws are tuned lean for emissions testing? Quite possibly, but don't believe that autotune is a magic cure all.

 

[woodchipper95]

Use the warm filter. I refuse to use the black winter filter.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Mine are both yellow, the warm air filter has a paper like feel and the cold one has a nylon type feel. I think I will use the warm air filter as well since it seems to work better at doing what it should.

 

[moody]

Mine are both yellow, the warm air filter has a paper like feel and the cold one has a nylon type feel. I think I will use the warm air filter as well since it seems to work better at doing what it should.

Nylon usually comes in black around here. Use the felt

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[Chris-PA]

I'm obviously not sure, but I think the answers are more complicated than that.
In husqvarnas professional range, both the highest consumer per work unit and the lowest consumer are both auto tune saws. That's right, a 3120, 395 and 390 all produce more power for a given unit of fuel than a 562.

Is this because the manual carb saws are tuned lean for emissions testing? Quite possibly, but don't believe that autotune is a magic cure all.

It's certainly not - all it can do is adjust the mixture to keep it correct. You can get the mixture correct with a non-feedback carb, but only at one load point (air velocity). It has to be off (rich) at all other points, and that has to decrease fuel efficiency in the real world.

All the other characteristics of the engine are still there and determine the efficiency of the design. It would be useful to compare an AT and non-feedback version of the same saw, and to do it over some long term cutting tests that includes more than just running under full load.

 

[Franny K]

snip
As one of the big draw cards of the 241 is it's fuel efficiency and the amount of timber it can put on the ground I started to look for some figures to support it.

It isn't straight forward - husqvarna post fuel consumption as g/kWh, with no reference to revs. Stihl don't post anything, but it has been tested by those pernickity germans. They have also tested a Husky 550, but not the 543. So some extrapolation is required.

Husqvarna 550 -
Tested by KWF - http://www.kwf-online.de/deutsch/pruef/pruefergebnisse/aagw/motorsaegen/6384_12e.pdf
Fuel tank volume 17.58 fl oz / 0.52 lit
Fuel consumption
max. power 420 g/kWh
max. torque 477 g/kWh


Stihl 241 -
Tested by KWF - http://www.kwf-online.de/deutsch/pruef/pruefergebnisse/aagw/motorsaegen/5957_11e.pdf

Fuel tank volume - 12.5 fl oz/ 0.39 lit
fuel consumption
max power 378 g/kWh
max torque 404 g/kWh

and it would take a test like MCW did with the 241 vs 550 to get even the slightest idea. As a large percentage of AS chainsaw users would mod the muffler or get their saw ported, it quickly becomes farce anyway.

I am pretty sure MCW has stated the saw in his comparison, the husky one, was ported. Chain difference in both kerf and energy to get and keep going around surely would effect things. Thanks for finding all the data, I gave up looking for the stihl 241 fuel volume, stock to stock from the numbers, well look and see what you think.

 

[computeruser]

I do not see the relevance of this saw without RevBoost in the pro saw world... Being a small saw this saw was obviously attended to be a limbing saw (rear handle obviously). It also has no AutoTune which is fine because some people do not like it (Not sure why). Someone please tell me why they made this saw?

There are no viable contenders in the US market presently for a saw that is "just right" with a short ~13" bar, running .325" chain, for thinning, trimming, bucket work, etc., and the supply of clean 238/242s has pretty much dried up. I get the whole "My 550xp can do it better" argument, but that argument consistently fails to identify what the "it" is that we're talking about. For small diameter thinning, habitat work, invasive tree/shrub removal, things like that, you simply don't need 346xp/550xp power levels to get the job done. What you do need is a light saw, a fast-revving saw, that is pro-quality in terms of durability, that ideally shares some degree of parts/bars commonality with the larger saws, and that acts like a scalpel more than a light saber. If the 543xp can achieve most or all of those goals, it will be a success.

Now it seems clear that this is not going to be a mass-market model, but its reach will probably be bigger than the 339 ever managed, if only because it looks like a "normal" chainsaw. I don't expect this to be a popular homeowner/firewood saw, either. But who cares? There are other models suited to that purpose and to that market. We need to remember that the incessant fixation here on super-high-power saws, on big displacement saws, on racing in 8x8" cants of poplar or pine, on HP per $, it isn't wholly representative of real-world uses of saws, or the concerns of the people who use them regularly and/or professionally.

I know I'm looking forward to buying the 543xpg when it arrives. If I can save a bit of weight compared to my 346xpg for winter work, or some wear and tear on my 238se and 242xp, why not add a 543xp to the team?

 

[KenJax Tree]

My 550xp has a yellow nylon filter


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ktoom]

There are no viable contenders in the US market presently for a saw that is "just right" with a short ~13" bar, running .325" chain, for thinning, trimming, bucket work, etc., and the supply of clean 238/242s has pretty much dried up. I get the whole "My 550xp can do it better" argument, but that argument consistently fails to identify what the "it" is that we're talking about. For small diameter thinning, habitat work, invasive tree/shrub removal, things like that, you simply don't need 346xp/550xp power levels to get the job done. What you do need is a light saw, a fast-revving saw, that is pro-quality in terms of durability, that ideally shares some degree of parts/bars commonality with the larger saws, and that acts like a scalpel more than a light saber. If the 543xp can achieve most or all of those goals, it will be a success.

Now it seems clear that this is not going to be a mass-market model, but its reach will probably be bigger than the 339 ever managed, if only because it looks like a "normal" chainsaw. I don't expect this to be a popular homeowner/firewood saw, either. But who cares? There are other models suited to that purpose and to that market. We need to remember that the incessant fixation here on super-high-power saws, on big displacement saws, on racing in 8x8" cants of poplar or pine, on HP per $, it isn't wholly representative of real-world uses of saws, or the concerns of the people who use them regularly and/or professionally.

I know I'm looking forward to buying the 543xpg when it arrives. If I can save a bit of weight compared to my 346xpg for winter work, or some wear and tear on my 238se and 242xp, why not add a 543xp to the team?

Very well said and very very true. I really enjoy my ms241c and can't wait to pick up a 543xp.

 

[blsnelling]

Performance not at all. Build quality is as good as anybody.

So you are saying that a 600P is as good as a 562XP, MS362, or MS361? An 8000 is the equal of a 372XP, 390XP, MS461, or MS660? A 500P is as good as a 550XP or MS261? It's OK to believe in a product, but claiming it to be more than what it is does a disservice to both yourself and the product. Echo makes a good product for a good value, but they are not as refined or as robust as a Stihl or Husky pro saw. Let the saw stand on it's own merits. Don't set it up for failure or disappointment.

 

[moody]

So you are saying that a 600P is as good as a 562XP, MS362, or MS361? An 8000 is the equal of a 372XP, 390XP, MS461, or MS660? A 500P is as good as a 550XP or MS261? It's OK to believe in a product, but claiming it to be more than what it is does a disservice to both yourself and the product. Echo makes a good product for a good value, but they are not as refined or as robust as a Stihl or Husky pro saw. Let the saw stand on it's own merits. Don't set it up for failure or disappointment.

I said that the build quality is as good. Read my post again.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[ktoom]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For some reason my old post that KenJax quoted, isn't showing up for me when I quote it…anyways

The stock chain for a 241 is PS3 and not PM… my typo

Since these video's, I had gotten a lot of nay sayers complaining that my chain was dull. I got news for you guys, it wasn't lol. I re-sharpened and cut again with the same results.

Once some of the snow melted, I made it back out to the wood pile 2 weeks ago. Except this time the 550xp had a .325 setup with Stihl RS chain and the 241 has PS(same as RS) chain. The 550xp also got a nice muffler mod. I opened up the stock port and fish gilled the front of the muffler.

Once I got cutting, the 550xp felt better with the .325 setup, but both saws still felt like they performed the same for me. Im still trying to figure out where the 550xp "feels" it has an edge on the 241? BIgger wood probably. Then again, you can burry the 241 bar in anything and it chews like a rabbit animal lol.

 

[ktoom]

2 months ago, I serviced 2 550XP's that we use at work. I could not get over how much dirt was in the plastic intake. I had to take it off the saw and give it a good cleaning. For the amount of cutting that we do, it shouldn't have looked like that lol. Both saws are only a year old. The air filter's were both yellow, but it had the nylon and not the felt. Going to replace them with the felt in the spring.

I put a small amount of grease on the male end of the air filter, just hopping that it can make a difference too. Thats the same thing I do to my dirt bike air filters before I put them on.

 

[zogger]

I said that the build quality is as good. Read my post again.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

I only ever ran a 36" on my cs8000 and it cut quite well and had zero problems oiling that bar. I felled and bucked 30" plus oak and hickory with it. Never tried it, but am in no hurry to put a 36 on the 371xp I have now, and no way on my old 365sp. That 365sp (pure stock) was a very good shape good running saw, but even with just a 28 it was over taxed and didn't oil it well.

I have a poulan 505 (Jred 2083) now, I would say the echo and poulan are very comparable, in my hands, cutting what I cut, with the exception of the oiler, the echo was better plus had the manual oiler option. Power wise, about a wash in perceived power, I don't know what the paper specs are.

Echos are built fine and are pro saws, IMO. They don't have autotune or mtronic, but work as advertised for their CC class. Also way easier starting over any other brand I have tried with one exception, stihl mtronic 441, which was two pulls to running every time.

I have never run any husky autotune so can't comment.

 

[Franny K]

I'm obviously not sure, but I think the answers are more complicated than that.
In husqvarnas professional range, both the highest consumer per work unit and the lowest consumer are both auto tune saws. That's right, a 3120, 395 and 390 all produce more power for a given unit of fuel than a 562.

Is this because the manual carb saws are tuned lean for emissions testing? Quite possibly, but don't believe that autotune is a magic cure all.

Kind of going off topic, I have wandered around Nebraska test data for utility and row crop tractors and it seems the horsepower hours per gallon is higher for larger engines. I generally am looking at stuff 10 to 15 years old. I did notice that the auto tune comparison stihl 241 vs husky 550 was the other way around, smaller is more efficient. Nebraska test gives the same results in different measurements as well.