Exophysical
ArboristSite Lurker
I've been running a 365 X-torq as my main saw for 12 years now, still bone stock which seems to be something of an irregularity. This spring I found a good deal deal on a new 565 and picked it up, after putting a few tanks of fuel through it I figured I'd give a comparison.
I'll answer the usual "Why not a 72?" question, cause I know its coming. First off is that in Canada, when I got my 365 the savings were fairly substantial. That has changed for the X-torqs, but the 565 ended up about $300 cheaper than either '72 model. The second is that I'm convinced the down tuned 70cc saws last longer and tend to be easyer on chain/ bars. The two main expenses I want to overcome when heating with wood are the cost of the saw, and truck fuel. I want a saw that will last as many years as possible, and I dont want to go home with a half full truck because of equipment problems. IMO theres a darn good reason that every generation of the Husky 65 has earned a good reputation as a firewood saw, and I cant see any reason the 565 will be any different.
The work I've done with the 565 was turning a mix of green 12-20" birch/ poplar into firewood, some frozen some not, which is my typical use. The 565 is running a 28" bar and skip tooth vs the 365's 20/ full comp, and the 565 isnt broken in while the 365 is. Even with the differences the 565 has a broader powerband, better low end torque, and better throttle response. I'm not implying its snappy like a current XP saw, but it beats the XT version. Having run a few over the years, my general impression is that its similar to a stock 372 XT.
The XT does oil better, but I think the 565 is oiling well enough for the 28" bar. Somewhat surprised that the 565's fuel consumption is worse. It might be the 28" bar or because its not broken in yet, or possibly I was just expecting too much from the AT system, but at this point the 565's a bit thirsty compared to the XT. Its also a tad heavyer, for me it isnt something I notice actually working with the saw, but hoisting the heads I can feel a bit of a difference. To be fair, IMO both saws are too heavy to make an ideal limbing saw, especially with a 28" bar, but thats not really what I purchase a 65 for. For felling/ bucking firewood both are great saws, but the 565's throttle response and power band do make it a bit better performer. Only time will tell how it fares in the reliability department, being a detuned 70 I'm optimistic.
I'll answer the usual "Why not a 72?" question, cause I know its coming. First off is that in Canada, when I got my 365 the savings were fairly substantial. That has changed for the X-torqs, but the 565 ended up about $300 cheaper than either '72 model. The second is that I'm convinced the down tuned 70cc saws last longer and tend to be easyer on chain/ bars. The two main expenses I want to overcome when heating with wood are the cost of the saw, and truck fuel. I want a saw that will last as many years as possible, and I dont want to go home with a half full truck because of equipment problems. IMO theres a darn good reason that every generation of the Husky 65 has earned a good reputation as a firewood saw, and I cant see any reason the 565 will be any different.
The work I've done with the 565 was turning a mix of green 12-20" birch/ poplar into firewood, some frozen some not, which is my typical use. The 565 is running a 28" bar and skip tooth vs the 365's 20/ full comp, and the 565 isnt broken in while the 365 is. Even with the differences the 565 has a broader powerband, better low end torque, and better throttle response. I'm not implying its snappy like a current XP saw, but it beats the XT version. Having run a few over the years, my general impression is that its similar to a stock 372 XT.
The XT does oil better, but I think the 565 is oiling well enough for the 28" bar. Somewhat surprised that the 565's fuel consumption is worse. It might be the 28" bar or because its not broken in yet, or possibly I was just expecting too much from the AT system, but at this point the 565's a bit thirsty compared to the XT. Its also a tad heavyer, for me it isnt something I notice actually working with the saw, but hoisting the heads I can feel a bit of a difference. To be fair, IMO both saws are too heavy to make an ideal limbing saw, especially with a 28" bar, but thats not really what I purchase a 65 for. For felling/ bucking firewood both are great saws, but the 565's throttle response and power band do make it a bit better performer. Only time will tell how it fares in the reliability department, being a detuned 70 I'm optimistic.
