Stumpys Customs
Stumpbroke
I've got a Husky 268SE ( Closed port ) and a piston for an open port 268. Will the open port piston work in a closed part cyl?
I've got a Husky 268SE ( Closed port ) and a piston for an open port 268. Will the open port piston work in a closed part cyl?
I've got a Husky 268SE ( Closed port ) and a piston for an open port 268. Will the open port piston work in a closed part cyl?
So...another wrench in the pile. I have been looking at photos of pistons and reading everything i can about theProbably not - at least not well!
Just for the record, I would like to know the serial number of that 268se, as there aren't many of them around - I suppose it is a 1987 one, but want to know for sure!
It is the same saw as the 268xp, anyway.
It is old, but the subject matter seemed spot on for my question. Obviously the piston is fine for this Mahle cylinder. And i will bolt the HS224a to my hawged out intake block and intake runner. I t already runs way strong even with the hs163, which has a modified venturi.This is an old thread... lad.......you're Lil Red Barn kit is a Gilardoni or Gilardoni clone as are the piston in the pics from Huztl...any 266/268/272 variation will make a 61 run like never before!!! But if you have a 266 OEM the piston it will be pretty much full skirt or not as your pics.....the difference is in the cylinder...the 268 Mahle has way better intake runners/transfers than the 266......the 268XP Mahle cyl will make the most power of any of the 50MM sets........ hands down....and ported with the squish set to .020" will simply amaze you........
learning, as i have one of the xp specials with mild scorring on the piston, it will need to be replaced at some point...........
Well troll, which piston is correct? Its starting to look like either is fine.The 268 Special is the same saw as the 268XP, but made after the 272XP replaced the 268XP.
At about the same time, the "streight" 268 appeared, with the same open port Gilardoni as the earlier 66, and a lower power output.
I finally found a thread on here that answers the questions. This problem has happened to others. The closed sided piston is intended for Open Port cylinders, but will "work" in a closed port cylinder. I also found a picture of the Jonsered 670 champ cylinder, It has quite a port job from the factory compared to the 266xp cylinder. I think this port job combined with the large intake runner adds .4 hp over the 266xp. I also learned that the Jonsered 630 super used the same style full circle/skirt piston design as the 266xp. (48mm jons vs 50mm husq). 630 superII rated at 4.3 hp and the husky rated at 4.5 hp. With the correct old style windowed piston and a wild port job similar to a 670 champ, this old 61 should scream right along while making at least 4.7 hp??? I was hoping to add a full horsepower over stock 61 trim. (3.9 hp) To be honest, it runs pretty friggin good with the wrong piston in the right cylinder.The piston will depend on the bore. no matter which saw you have. I think the bore was different.
Were there any 61 ranchers with the closed port jug??
I finally found a thread on here that answers the questions. This problem has happened to others. .
The closed sided piston is intended for Open Port cylinders, but will "work" in a closed port cylinder. I also found a picture of the Jonsered 670 champ cylinder, It has quite a port job from the factory compared to the 266xp cylinder. I think this port job combined with the large intake runner adds .4 hp over the 266xp. I also learned that the Jonsered 630 super used the same style full circle/skirt piston design as the 266xp. (48mm jons vs 50mm husq). 630 superII rated at 4.3 hp and the husky rated at 4.5 hp. With the correct old style windowed piston and a wild port job similar to a 670 champ, this old 61 should scream right along while making at least 4.7 hp??? I was hoping to add a full horsepower over stock 61 trim. (3.9 hp) To be honest, it runs pretty friggin good with the wrong piston in the right cylinder.
I agree, after even more searching, youtube this time, I found video showing a real 268xp cylinder, it was WAY different than the 670 champ jug. The transfer inlets on the 268xp look to be 30% larger than 266xp. so, i agree with you troll. The 266 jug will not likely make 4.9 hp, but it Does make 4.5 hp without porting so 4.7 is within reason.That is the obvious part of the answer, and the most important one.
If the 670 champ is ported like a 268xp (would make sense based on the power specs), it isn't possible to duplicate that porting on a 266 cylinder. There simply aren't enough metal at the critical place (the sides, over the transfers).
I agree, after even more searching, youtube this time, I found video showing a real 268xp cylinder, it was WAY different than the 670 champ jug. The transfer inlets on the 268xp look to be 30% larger than 266xp. so, i agree with you troll. The 266 jug will not likely make 4.9 hp, but it Does make 4.5 hp without porting so 4.7 is within reason.
Thanks for the Photo Rattler362, I assume that is a 268xp. The jug i have must be early judging by the intake style and smaller transfers. Both the 670 and 268 look to have larger radius curves in the transfer port along with increased volume. the 372 jug is even more pronounced. It's like they started to copy dirt bike cylinders, transfers are much larger and have a bridge inside them. Any how, i will listen to the Trolls advice and keep the port work small. I dont want to make the saw useless. I will upload a cut test video after installing the OEM style piston.Don't focus only on the inlets (and outlets) - but I am sure. The capasity matters, and you have to know what you are doing. If you don't know, leave the job to someone that does.
Enter your email address to join: