hp/displacement editorial - food for thought

Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

16:1mix

Addicted to ArboristSite
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
2,835
Reaction score
4,364
Location
Central Iowa - USA
Some food for thought...

As I was reading a thread here concerning saw hp/lb I thought about the performance rating of modern saws in terms of hp/displacement. I'll use the Husqvarna 346xp for my example since it is a hot little saw for it's size. The Husky web site gives the 346xp a hp rating of 3.4 with a cylinder displacement of 2.7 cubic inches. That yields 1.26 hp per cubic inch. For contrast lets compare that performance level to that of some older machines. I fancy antique tractors, lets use a John Deere model "B" (circa 1942) for the first example. The "B" has 175 cubic inches of cylinder displacement and produces about 18 hp at 1000 RPM. This gives us .102 hp/cubic inch, a fraction of the performance of our little chain saw engine!

It took the auto industry until the mid 1950's to build an engine that would produce 1 hp/cubic inch. I believe it was the fuel injected Chevrolet Corvette with a 283 that cracked the record but I might be mistaken.Current passenger car and heavy truck engines that are in service today fall far below the level of performance that our favorite saws are operating at.

Sooooo, in conclusion....As a whole the chainsaw designers and engineers of all stripes have all done an excellent job in building high performance engines that have exceptional durability and light weight characteristics in a small, hand held package. If you fail to appreciate this then its time to run one of my vintage saws like the Mall or the David Bradley for a few hours! :greenchainsaw:

Enjoy!
:popcorn:
dave
 
Last edited:
when comparing saws and cars you should take note that chainsaws are 2-strokers, which produce alot more power for given displacement than 4-strokers...


anyway, carry on
 
It took the auto industry until the mid 1950's to build an engine that would produce 1 hp/cubic inch. I believe it was the fuel injected Chevrolet Corvette with a 283 that cracked the record but I might be mistaken.Current passenger car and heavy truck engines that are in service today fall far below the level of performance that our favorite saws are operating at.

I don't know what sort of cars you have in your area but a bog standard Toyota Corolla is 1800cc = 109 cubes and has a HP rating of 126 HP or 1.15 HP/cu in

The Mazda RX8 rotary is 1300 cc/79 cu in is 232 HP = 2.92 HP/cu in (9000 rpm)

If the rotary Mazda engine was scaled down to 100cc you would have a 17.9 HP engine!
Now that would get thru your slabs pretty quickly.

All this is available in a show room without going to any sort of racing engine technology.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
when comparing saws and cars you should take note that chainsaws are 2-strokers, which produce alot more power for given displacement than 4-strokers...


anyway, carry on

Well my ol' car (1994 Volvo 945 T+) makes 200hp out of 2.3 litres (gasoline w. Turbo) how does that relate...
 
Chainsaw numbers aren't all that impressive when you consider a Yamaha YZ85 dirt bike is putting out a little over 24hp out of an 85cc engine...Versus a mere 6.5hp from an 85cc husky 385 or Stihl MS650...Or consider a YZ125..36hp stock,a good tuner can get a little over 40hp out of one..Then compare that to a 3120 husky or a MS880 Stihl...120cc's..8.5hp
 
Well, that is topping out a little over my Hemi, its 1 hp per C.I.

I like round numbers :hmm3grin2orange:
 
I knew 16:1 mix was going to get jumped on for the horsepower to cu inch comparisons with hot cars and bikes but I can tell you that todays saws sure put out a lot more power and a third of the weight that they were 50 years ago. Whole heck of a lot more dependable too. You dont have to loosen a ring and turn the carb any more when you want to run the saw for felling instead of bucking either!:hmm3grin2orange: :chainsawguy:
 
The Mazda RX8 rotary is 1300 cc/79 cu in is 232 HP = 2.92 HP/cu in (9000 rpm)

If the rotary Mazda engine was scaled down to 100cc you would have a 17.9 HP engine!
Now that would get thru your slabs pretty quickly.

Why scale it down??


It is all in how you make the horse power not how much you have.......
 
Chainsaw numbers aren't all that impressive when you consider a Yamaha YZ85 dirt bike is putting out a little over 24hp out of an 85cc engine...Versus a mere 6.5hp from an 85cc husky 385 or Stihl MS650...Or consider a YZ125..36hp stock,a good tuner can get a little over 40hp out of one..Then compare that to a 3120 husky or a MS880 Stihl...120cc's..8.5hp
Take a look at the intake and exhaust systems on a YZ85 and YZ125 compared to a 385, MS650, 3120 and MS880. That's why chain saws (and similar equipment) can't make the horsepower that other types of two cycle engines are capable of making. The engines are built to work with the smaller more restricted intake and exhaust systems. ;)
 
my old 87 Chevy truck with a throttle body injected 305 can be compared to a 2-stroke. It burns enough oil that it probably is 50:1. Factory it made new 185 hp. Where am I at on that motor?:sucks:
 
Its not the developed Hp so much as...

the ability to sustain a given speed.

If you take two saws running the same bar, chain, sprocket, and displacement, but one is tuned for peek power at 9000rpm and the other at 8000rpm: the 9000rpm saw will develop more Hp (or motive energy=speed) and therefore cut faster, but the 8000rpm saw will be capable of pulling a longer chain while sustaining the same speed (torque).


when comparing saws and cars you should take note that chainsaws are 2-strokers, which produce alot more power for given displacement than 4-strokers...

A 2 stroke car would be fast on the flat, but a 4 stroke could overtake it on the hills.
 
Avoiding all the HP vs. torque issues...:bang: I still can't understand why a manufacturer hasn't figured out a compact tuned exhaust system. Maybe the weight of a pipe would counter nearly doubling the HP?
Does increasing the HP increase wear equally? Maybe the manufacturers are following the KISS rule?
I'm not disappointed with the power I have now but a 10hp 372 would be fun to run!
Ian
 
I think the higher developed Hp is suited to limbing applications, but probably has more to do with EPA reg.s today.:fart: :rolleyes: :blush: :eek:
 
Avoiding all the HP vs. torque issues...:bang: I still can't understand why a manufacturer hasn't figured out a compact tuned exhaust system. Maybe the weight of a pipe would counter nearly doubling the HP?
Does increasing the HP increase wear equally? Maybe the manufacturers are following the KISS rule?
I'm not disappointed with the power I have now but a 10hp 372 would be fun to run!
Ian
What possible reason would a manufacturer have to incorporate a tuned pipe on a saw? Disadvantages:
  1. added weight
  2. added space
  3. critical set up conditions
  4. ugly
  5. added cost

Further factor in the consideration that much more power is available from engine design through timing and porting. What manufacturer in its right mind would want a tuned pipe on a saw?
 
I still can't understand why a manufacturer hasn't figured out a compact tuned exhaust system. Maybe the weight of a pipe would counter nearly doubling the HP?
Well sir,if you really get down to "brass tacks" a pressure can mufller is somewhat like a tuned pipe.If you ran a true resonance tuned pipe on a saw for a week you would be stone deaf.Those things will rattle you from the top of your head to the tips of your toes when they hit the sweet spot.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top