GBD
ArboristSite Operative
Those numbers was actually joke to make a statement:msp_smile: 25* is more realistic.
Sthil 044 transfer height
- Thread starter NPKenny
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
Those numbers was actually joke to make a statement:msp_smile: 25* is more realistic.
GBD
ArboristSite Operative
And your point beeing??? Originally I was offering an advise to an easy way to resque a cylinder with hopeless port layout. I would never have attempted to do anything myself on a chainsaw cylinder with 130* trasfer duration, but throw it in the bin.
My point is that 130° transfer duration works wonderfully in a 044/046.
tree monkey
Addicted to ArboristSite
you just don't understand do you
poor tr shape, tr to high, to wide without a bridge, all cause poor scavenging, witch leads to fuel wasted out the exhaust instead of making power
altering the ports to keep more fuel in the chamber will raise power and rpm and use less fuel
What I do understand is that the best running 044/046, even from the factory, have a short blowdown. I've demonstrated as much with my own work and testing. If you have another method that skins the cat another way, fine. But several of us have found what I say to be true, and have done the testing to prove it.
GBD
ArboristSite Operative
I didn`t I advised him to increase from 14.4 to 18.
tree monkey
Addicted to ArboristSite
like i said, those numbers work for race saws, but prove to be hard on fuel for a work saw
tree monkey
Addicted to ArboristSite
right here brad
I guess that I like my work saws to run more like a race saw then
Max RPMs in the cu,t in a saw that can work all day, is my goal. Whatever fuel it takes to make that power is fine with me. Fuel consumption is not a factor in my builds. I suppose it could be for some markets, but not mine.19-20 makes a lot more sense than 25, but it doesn't work for me like 16° does. And 16° is a conservative number, as my personal saw only has 14°.
GBD
ArboristSite Operative
We have obviously totally different targets with our modifications. My target is obtain massive torque peak in the 7500-8500 range and power to peak from 9000 to 9500rpm. To me it looks like you are targeting higher rpm`s.
GBD
ArboristSite Operative
But then you misread on purpose and used a quote concerning other engines to lie with.
GBD
ArboristSite Operative
Sorry, got a little carried away, there. I have never seen a chainsaw cylinder or other industrial type two-stroke cylinder with that kind of transfer duration in my life, so I couldn`t believe it was meant to be that way.
wigglesworth
Booned
Yep. Them early 44/46 cylinders sure are a bit different.
So you just did a widen up, and a bit more intake?
Hows she run now?
Naked Arborist
Hack from way back.
Here is a thought. Take your numbers at say 60% of the port width on both sides I & Ex. Then you get a advertized number of the overall port timing. I'd like to see how much different they are from one builder to another. This will give a more general timing number based on the port entry and exit shaping. The port shape IMO matters much more than the final opening and closing numbers. We all know that the roof is progressive on the exhaust and the same goes for the intake. Who has one apart in stock and ported trim of the same cylinders to see where your work ends up compared to the bone stock factory numbers. Now remember, you need to use the same exact cylinder to make the check accurate. I know the port shape down the runner wall and during entry be it a bowl or a hole makes a huge difference in torque, just sayin'... Don't forget to subtract or add back in whatever you shaved off the bottom of the jug, if anything. Check your numbers both ways. You might find something very interesting there when they are all compared to one another. I'll bet the advertized numbers are real close but the saws perform much different in the cut.
What brought me to this comparison is, we I them and they have changed cam shafts of the same exact advertized numbers on a given bump stick. They were in reality totally different cam shafts based on base circles, ramp rates and valve overlap. When coupled with the same combination they performed totally different in the same motor. Now I'm not talking about going from flats to rollers, that's another story. All other factors and parts were keep exactly the same in these test comparisons. What we found even more interesting in changing a few other parameters on the same setups like ignition timing, jets, baloney tube sizes and even fuel ratings is what the final out comes were. Ever so slight changes make all that much difference when coupled with "the right combination" for that head. I'm not talking about little gains here folks. I'm taking three to four tenths and better with thirty eight hundred pound plus rides in the tens on pump gas with mild motors. This may not relate directly to a saw but the same principals apply.
I think you guys are doing the same thing in a different way with port shapes and entry exit numbers. The thing I find most interesting is most never includes their actual ignition point number for that combination. The only way to know for sure where that is is to check it with a timing light after you center point the timing mark off of TDC. Changing the plug gap also plays into that equations every single time. Hell the plug type and nose extension changes the compression to.
So tell me how do you guys ever get a base line set in stone to work from???
Ever little change can make a huge difference in every single engine combo.
Here is a few for you to think about.
Does anyone run cut-open gap or center fire plugs?
Who indexes their spark plugs that have ground straps?
This is just changeable stuff nothing like port shapes and entries.
Who knows if that given chamber and saw likes its squish shot straight across the piston top?
Does anybody factor in tumble verses fall on the incoming fuel charge?
Who's the last guy to angle mill there squish band to the chambers center point at TDC?
Who knows where 90* off of swirl is on a give combustion chamber?
I hope this all makes sense to you guys. It seems to me there are way to many variables being missed here while you guys all pissing numbers at each-other and spitting vinegar about fuel consumption. Bury the hatchet, in someones head if needed but, get past the numbers game an get a base line standard PLEASE!
Sorry JPK to jack your tread with my rant. I can move it if you like. Apologies...
What brought me to this comparison is, we I them and they have changed cam shafts of the same exact advertized numbers on a given bump stick. They were in reality totally different cam shafts based on base circles, ramp rates and valve overlap. When coupled with the same combination they performed totally different in the same motor. Now I'm not talking about going from flats to rollers, that's another story. All other factors and parts were keep exactly the same in these test comparisons. What we found even more interesting in changing a few other parameters on the same setups like ignition timing, jets, baloney tube sizes and even fuel ratings is what the final out comes were. Ever so slight changes make all that much difference when coupled with "the right combination" for that head. I'm not talking about little gains here folks. I'm taking three to four tenths and better with thirty eight hundred pound plus rides in the tens on pump gas with mild motors. This may not relate directly to a saw but the same principals apply.
I think you guys are doing the same thing in a different way with port shapes and entry exit numbers. The thing I find most interesting is most never includes their actual ignition point number for that combination. The only way to know for sure where that is is to check it with a timing light after you center point the timing mark off of TDC. Changing the plug gap also plays into that equations every single time. Hell the plug type and nose extension changes the compression to.
So tell me how do you guys ever get a base line set in stone to work from???
Ever little change can make a huge difference in every single engine combo.
Here is a few for you to think about.
Does anyone run cut-open gap or center fire plugs?
Who indexes their spark plugs that have ground straps?
This is just changeable stuff nothing like port shapes and entries.
Who knows if that given chamber and saw likes its squish shot straight across the piston top?
Does anybody factor in tumble verses fall on the incoming fuel charge?
Who's the last guy to angle mill there squish band to the chambers center point at TDC?
Who knows where 90* off of swirl is on a give combustion chamber?
I hope this all makes sense to you guys. It seems to me there are way to many variables being missed here while you guys all pissing numbers at each-other and spitting vinegar about fuel consumption. Bury the hatchet, in someones head if needed but, get past the numbers game an get a base line standard PLEASE!
Sorry JPK to jack your tread with my rant. I can move it if you like. Apologies...
Last edited:
Yep. Them early 44/46 cylinders sure are a bit different.
So you just did a widen up, and a bit more intake?
Hows she run now?
Yep, exactly. I'm waiting for parts from the dealer to get this thing buttoned up, so I haven't started it yet. No before and after on this one. Classic saw in a box build.
Nothing wrong with this post...
