Huskybill
Addicted to ArboristSite
There’s a video of the new 592xp vs 395xp using the exact bar and chain speed cutting. The 395 was .9 seconds slower. Don’t sell the 395 Xp just yet. I’m not going to give up my 2100’s just yet.
Husqvarna 592xp vs 395xp timed cutting
- Thread starter Huskybill
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
The one variable that no one will ever know..the tune vs autotune. Was the tune on the 395 set to maximize the cutting in wood?
That 592 is loud. They had one, and the non auto tune version at the Paul Bunyan show. The Husky guy said something about stainless steel muffler. I am talking like 15 feet away.
Derf
Addicted to ArboristSite
The 592 will definitely have the upper hand in terms of fuel economy, it’s a strato engine design with gen 3 autotune. But there’s no replacement for displacement, and you have to match the saw to the wood. A 562xp would outrun a 395xp in small wood. A 572xp could outrun a 395xp in medium wood. And a 592xp will edge out a 395xp in large-ish wood. But at some point the wood will get big enough that a 395xp will outrun all of them. It just has more grunt, and more potential to port/modify for gains.
Huskybill
Addicted to ArboristSite
In small wood I run shorter bars with 8t, 9 t, 10 t rims depending on cc’s. In my younger days the 2100cd (99cc) with a 16” or 18” bars would tear up anything in its path. Standing 15”/18” red oak felled and bucked up in 50 minutes a full cord +. Same saw at the fair speed cutting 8 cuts in 17.5 seconds. Of course I was in the woods before all limbered up already. Time is money.
I’m building a 2100 right now. The cylinder is ported and she’s screaming but I need the shorten the piston and port the cylinder transfers more. And advance the timing. I’ll let my boys try this one.
I’m building a 2100 right now. The cylinder is ported and she’s screaming but I need the shorten the piston and port the cylinder transfers more. And advance the timing. I’ll let my boys try this one.
- Joined
- May 13, 2014
- Messages
- 709
- Reaction score
- 674
That was a lot of 4 stroking and lack of cutting, while in the cut... but we are here to critique right? Also the 592 sounded louder? Both sounded good.
arborist
ArboristSite Operative
- Joined
- May 13, 2009
- Messages
- 396
- Reaction score
- 134
Why would both saws be virtually tied if the new saw has a whole horsepower rating higher than the previous gen 90 cc saw? Where's the extra pony going, if it's not going into cutting the wood, clearly and obviously much faster?
Huskies site clearly shows them as being 395 = 6.6 hp and 592 = 7.6 hp. Not true ratings, just marketing then? How could another whole pony, go virtually unnoticed like in the video? Why wouldn't the 592 clearly and obviously out cut the old saw? I just work with saws, not on 'em, so I don't understand. There's no way I'm alone in not understanding this though lol. I could understand them cutting near identical if it were just .3 or .4 hp difference or something but a whole whopping hp and it's still cutting basically the same as the old saw? I don't get it.
Huskies site clearly shows them as being 395 = 6.6 hp and 592 = 7.6 hp. Not true ratings, just marketing then? How could another whole pony, go virtually unnoticed like in the video? Why wouldn't the 592 clearly and obviously out cut the old saw? I just work with saws, not on 'em, so I don't understand. There's no way I'm alone in not understanding this though lol. I could understand them cutting near identical if it were just .3 or .4 hp difference or something but a whole whopping hp and it's still cutting basically the same as the old saw? I don't get it.
Area under the hp and torque curves. Although the 395 makes less HP, the curve is wider over a larger range of RPMs
arborist
ArboristSite Operative
- Joined
- May 13, 2009
- Messages
- 396
- Reaction score
- 134
Ok, but put it even more simple for me. I don't have the chainsaw guru perspective, if you will. From my perspective, as tree service owner, how will the 592's added 1 hp make me more money than the 395xp older gen 90cc saw with it's proven longevity and reliable record? I don't see it making me more per hour if I can't see it cutting wood any faster.
Basically, from my perspective, I'm just seeing all risk (unproven saw) with no reward (a much faster saw than it's predecessor). Am I missing something?
Flippy caps, side tensioner, better fuel economy, more ergonomic, handles better, better AV...
As far as longevity, who knows, but the average cut time would be better with the 592 on wood similar to the wood in the video because of some of the items I listed above.
That being said, I agree with what the guy says at 7:00 in the video.
592 has a steeper yet narrower power curve, hence it will do a little bit better with shorter bars. If you were running a 60 inch bar all day, I would probably want the 395
+ side tensioner
+ side tensioner.
At least it takes the same wrench to adjust it lol
The 395 is like a 2.75 series saw, the 394 is a 2.5 series.
It's about time they made a 90/95 that I'd buy rather than the stihl options, not that I really need one lol.
The 395 is still a beast for milling or longer bars, just need a side tensioner conversion, will a 592 clutch cover fit it
.
Anything will fit if you hit it hard enoughThe 395 is like a 2.75 series saw, the 394 is a 2.5 series.
It's about time they made a 90/95 that I'd buy rather than the stihl options, not that I really need one lol.
The 395 is still a beast for milling or longer bars, just need a side tensioner conversion, will a 592 clutch cover fit it
Nice that the 572 cover fits all the 365-375 saws as well as the jred versions.
My experience so far it’s a 572 on steroids very smooth, but my 394 has it on torque end of it I believe .
I haven’t had a chance to run mine yet, but she sure looks purdy though…
I will report back after 20 or so lodgepole pines at 10,000 feet.
JQ
I will report back after 20 or so lodgepole pines at 10,000 feet.
JQ
Similar threads
