What older model chainsaw has the most durable engine?

[sean donato]

Amen to that brother! I’m not a Poulan fan what’s either, as far as the current production of them. But would I rock a Poulan 245a from the 70’s? Absolutely! I’d take one of those any day over a Stihl ms290, ms291, 390, or a Husky 460, 465, maybe even a 365 too.

Again, knocking newer saws that fall into the same class as the 254a. Occasional use homeowner saw. Many would argue the 6 saws you seem to think are worse then the 245a are just as good, but hey, we're not supposed to be old vs new.

 

[sean donato]

I used to use a 245, a Remington 754, and a 5200 for several summers and winters pretty close to full time back in my early 20’s and I preferred them to anything in that time period’s current production that had anti vibe. That didn’t matter to me back then whatsoever because I was so pleased with their performance and torque. But fast forward a couple of decades and several surgeries later, I might prefer something like a 3400-5200 Instead. My current job has me using the diesel chipper far more than it does the chainsaw right now. The only times I actually need a saw is to mill down and quarter up tree trunks that are too big to feed in the Bandit 1890 chipper. But I still would prefer a torquey older saw than the garbage ms290 that I have to use at work. It starts up just fine and runs great for about half an hour and then it neuters itself by a good 25 percent and hates starting back up, and constantly leaking oil regardless of adjustment. Took it back to the Stihl dealer a few different times and none of the repairs ever held up long.

To which I replied...

A ms 290 isn't even a pro model of saw, nor should it be compared to one. Outside of nostalgia, and liking old saws I have no hankering, or need to cut with one all day. A model T was better then walking back in the day too.....

You’re funny! But I still like what I said better. Because I still feel the same way about the ms460’s I’ve run too. Just not built as solid. Or at least that’s how it feels to me.

I agreed, and pointed out a saw I though was built very well.

Yeah I would agree a 460 isn't a great saw, I'd much rather have a 462........

Nothing snarkey, misrepresented or whatever other such bs you're currently spewing.

 

[sean donato]

Grew up running dad’s old Super Mac (from 70’s) and them a new 268 in mid 90’s. That Mac was heavy and my hands throbbed the next day every time I ran it for any length of time. The 268 was like stepping up to a Cadillac from a Chevette.

I now have a 365, 460, and 562. 20” bars on all three.

Love my 460. Has been reliable and always starts easily. I’ve cut at least 400 face cord (133 full cord) with it and that’s felling, limbing and bucking. It is definitely underpowered for a 24” bar, but pulls a 20” well.

My biggest advice is ALWAYS use non-ethanol in your mix.

My 365 is 22 years old and still runs strong. Downside is it starts hard when not run for a month or more due to not having a primer bulb. But once it fires, it’s good to go.

Just got the 562 last fall. Love it so far, but not many hours on it yet.

None of mine are old, but I had to speak up for the 460. It’s been very solid.

This guy has basically the same opinion as mine.
Let us remind @HuskyShepherd2016
I’m definitely welcoming all kinds of opinions on my OP. But if anyone actually has some real data about build quality, of yesteryear vs today, please by all means share it.

Thank you everyone!

 

[sean donato]

Well, I was not suggesting that a 290 is a pro grade saw, (however the dealer here used the sales pitch that it was) I was just saying that I don’t really like it all in all. If it was worded like he thought that’s what I was saying, I’d appreciate it if he’d ask me ti clarify if that’s what I meant. Besides, respectfully, It’s not my fault that my area’s Stihl dealer here once upon a time, did have the 290 listed as a pro saw back when they were still in production. As badly as at performs after it warms up, I had a hard time believing that too.

And Sean’s analogy that a Poulan 245a is like preferring a model-t versus walking is badly off and I’m not gonna sit there and be ok with his attempts to try to publicly embarrass me. That analogy is like me saying that the 245a is only one step up from an axe or a hand saw. Ridiculous. I’ll be cool with him if he stops coming off like a one upper.

I bolded you're assumption that what u said was an attack on you, it wasn't at all. Merely a comparison of old vs new, just as you started this thread.

If you were to sit down and draw a line graph of the evolution of the chainsaw from the axe and the automobile from walking, from inception to the modern day- both the Poulan 245A and the Model T are both placed fairly close to the beginning of both lines, the 245A would be a long ways back from the MS290 (never a pro grade saw- Farm Boss yes- but not pro) and the MS460.

Bob understands

The MS290 & MS291 were Prosumer saws at best , much the same as the MS390 . Comparible to the Husquarna Rancher series saws 51 on through the 450 455 & 460 & 465 saws . Good firewood getters , no doubt . The 245A was another Shrevport L. Pioneer clone , a 70 cc class torgue monster . Old school saw , that was a very well made saw for its day. As was the Model T in its day . Neither one would put food on the table in todays commercial felling & transportation realm , is what he was trying to convey brother ! Many of us cherish our old antique or vintage saws , others not quite so much . That's ok more for us lol , right ?

So does north by northwest. It's a perfectly valid analogy.

Well, I’d like to get back on track if that’s ok.

Here is where you deflect.

 

[sean donato]

I sure am sad they stopped making the 465 husky! Please fill me in but I thought it was bass-ackwards that they kept the 55 and the 60. They should have discontinued the 55 and kept the 60 and 65 in my opinion.

The 465 husqy isn't new by any standards, but a very good saw by many standards. I wasn't paying padticular attention or I would have agreed and told you about my cousins love affair with his 465 husqy and how it has served him well for many years with no issues.

 

[sean donato]

Well there’s only one way to find out and it’s to bother them about it! If you don’t say anything to them, they’ll just keep on with their intentionally lower tiered insults of chainsaws, that once were some of the best wood cutting tools you could buy. Sure they’ll probably keep doing this regardless, but it at least let’s them know that there are people that see through the nonsense.

I'm not 100% sure whom this was aimed at, however I never said anything bad about older chainsaws, and had mentioned I own many vintage saws going back to the 60's, each for their own reasons, all nostalgic more then anything, But you feel free to interpret what I said however you want.

 

[sean donato]

I really was trying to keep this from being an old vs new thread because I really did not want to start any kind of hard feelings between folks. But I can’t control everything!

Your words not mine.
I’m definitely welcoming all kinds of opinions on my OP. But if anyone actually has some real data about build quality, of yesteryear vs today, please by all means share it.

Thank you everyone!

I like that! As far as what I like, is that I appreciate any saw old or new, if it’s built to last and serves us well. But the majority of my saws happen to be older too. I only said that earlier because there have been a few people come along trashing this thread because they hate all older saws and think they are all junk, and they’re offering nothing of any real value to the conversation, and then steering it off topic. If they hate older saws, this is not the thread for them.

The assertion that all old saws are junk is just short sighted and even ignorant in some aspects. They came to this thread missing the point of the whole thing. All I want to know is which older saws in the past people may have had the best experience with as far as its durability and reliability.

Or if their claims that all saws are junk is true, they sure did happen make junk that was really built to last back then versus today’s completely disposable junk that could easily been built with cheap communist labor and parts, but bear a made in USA or made in Germany or Sweden manufacturing plaque.

To be very clear bwalker, is the only one that said all old saws are junk, but you've said many, many time that all new saws are junk. Which isn't even close to being true.

 

[sean donato]

Newer ones have better speed, not as loud, and are not as vibratory. But they are built to be more disposable. That is not exactly short sighted. Besides. This thread was not intended for old versus new arguments. Why does this keep on coming up? It seems like you and maybe two others are the only ones trying to turn this thread that’s intended for vintage saw users into some kind of new versus old fight. With all due respect, take that some place else please.

I don’t know what part of that you don’t understand.

You said...
I’m definitely welcoming all kinds of opinions on my OP. But if anyone actually has some real data about build quality, of yesteryear vs today, please by all means share it.

Thank you everyone!
Edit: I can keep going, but I'm fairly sure I've gotten my point across. Which is very quite simply don't ask for opinions if you don't want them, and certainly don't keep accusing others of doing things they did not do.

 

[bwalker]

I bet the stihl 029/290 is just as durable or more so than those old clunkers.
Many guys get decades of use out of them if maintained and cared for. As a bonus they cut faster and with much less vibration than the old clunkers.
When Infirstbstarted logging my mentor talked about running macs and homelites in the 70's. He said they were garbage and when stihl and Husky came to town no one wanted them. I tended to believe him.

 

[Tony Mayhew]

I do have an older L65 that's a beast a couple guys on the forum gave me, one the power head the other a really nice used woodland pro bar. A lot of guys say this had a pretty durable engine and cut a bazillion cords of firewood.

I own one of those L65 Husqvarnas! And you are not kidding when you said it is a beast! Only thing I did was drill a couple of holes in the exaust pipe and man! Did that ever wake it up! Pretty impressive saw for a 1974

 

[david_fillman]

I was running my dad's and my grandfather's XL-12s back in the 1970s. My dad's still runs. I don't remember it ever needing any serious service.

I am a West Bend 610, 820 fanatic so I will suggest the iron bore 610s as being extremely durable. I squeaked several chrome bore 820s so I run a Root 610 iron bore now. The 820 engine came out in 1961 and is still available brand new. The 610 came out a year later and parts are harder to find. They were used by at least 5 different manufacturers.

 

[HuskyShepherd2016]

I was running my dad's and my grandfather's XL-12s back in the 1970s. My dad's still runs. I don't remember it ever needing any serious service.

I am a West Bend 610, 820 fanatic so I will suggest the iron bore 610s as being extremely durable. I squeaked several chrome bore 820s so I run a Root 610 iron bore now. The 820 engine came out in 1961 and is still available brand new. The 610 came out a year later and parts are harder to find. They were used by at least 5 different manufacturers.

As far as Iron bores, I really like Mcculloch’s for that very reason, those engines seem to last and last as long as they’re treated with the respect they need. They’re heavy and slow though. But the torque will definitely let you know it’s there.

The one thing I’m not so liking about quite a few of the Mcculloch’s though might seem picky. In fact it is. But I don’t like where they put the chain tensioner on the clutch cover. I really prefer the ones that are on the crankcase be the oiler. The 1-52 Mcculloch has that feature but the 1-53’s and the 200-250’s tensioners are on the clutch cover.

 

[North by Northwest]

Your words not mine.
I’m definitely welcoming all kinds of opinions on my OP. But if anyone actually has some real data about build quality, of yesteryear vs today, please by all means share it.

Thank you everyone!

To be very clear bwalker, is the only one that said all old saws are junk, but you've said many, many time that all new saws are junk. Which isn't even close to being true.

Ben did not live through the mid 60's or early 70's to appreciate the quality of the saws in that era . Were they heavier ? Some were . As for power , my 11-60 runs with my Husky 357 xp & my P20 has the same efficiency & is on par with my 346 xp . Pioneers were all magniesium chassis so weight was on par with todays Husky xp of same displacement. .My Pioneers all ran .404 chain which was awesome in cutting performance & sharpness retention in dirty wood . The 50,s Pioneers were boat anchors . Large cumbersome & slow . As were most Mac or other manufacturers of that era.There are other manufacturers that had quality saws in the 70's that would compete with 371 xp or 372 xp's of the 80's . However i agree with Ben & Sean , no saw from the vintage era can compete with todays saws in a commercial setting let along comfort of usage !

 

[HuskyShepherd2016]

Ben did not live through the mid 60's or early 70's to appreciate the quality of the saws in that era . Were they heavier ? Some were . As for power my 11-60 runs with my Husky 357 xp & my P20 same situation on par with my 346 xp . Pioneers were all magniesium chassis so weight was on par with todays Husky xp of same displacement . The 50,s Pioneers were boat anchors . Larce cumbersome & slow .

My appreciation for saws actually has a wide timeline. I’m not necessarily a hater of all new saws, despite the fact that there are quite a few newer ones that I’m not fond of because how quickly they’ve failed in my experience. No not all are like that but I feel I have to be more wary of that these days.

But at that note there are still great ones being produced. Cutting edge technology “no pun intended” that I’d gladly use all day every day.

But the modern day market is also flooded with box store lower end saws with lesser quality plastic parts and emissions features that smother them completely. And manufacturers and dealers are often trying to sell push them under the guise of being pro quality saws which isn’t fair.

 

[HuskyShepherd2016]

I bolded you're assumption that what u said was an attack on you, it wasn't at all. Merely a comparison of old vs new, just as you started this thread.


Bob understands

So does north by northwest. It's a perfectly valid analogy.

Here is where you deflect.

With all due respect, and I don’t mean any hostility either but you are misconstruing what I’ve been saying. I also re read this entire post every page and I did not say all new saws are junk. I said some of the Stihl’s like the 290, that are being inaccurately marketed as pro saws are inferior, and the box store saws of nowadays are not as good a quality.

Me saying I want to get back on track is not a deflection, and was not intended to be that whatsoever either. I just wanted to get back on track and there’s nothing wrong with that either because it was getting off into the weeds. I did ask about the data of the parts quality of old verses new, and the closest thing I got to that was a bunch opinions and no data and an analogy that was not near as accurate as you might think if it’s the 245a/Model T analogy. And you just hung around from that point on and laughed at me and whoever else and you haven’t offered anything up anything more than that. I wouldn’t go out of my way to do that to you.
I did not at all ever say that all new saws are all junk regardless of how you rebut.

I really don’t want to keep on with this because it’s not solving anything, that’s the biggest reason I said I’d like to get back on track.

 

[bwalker]

My appreciation for saws actually has a wide timeline. I’m not necessarily a hater of all new saws, despite the fact that there are quite a few newer ones that I’m not fond of because how quickly they’ve failed in my experience. No not all are like that but I feel I have to be more wary of that these days.

But at that note there are still great ones being produced. Cutting edge technology “no pun intended” that I’d gladly use all day every day.

But the modern day market is also flooded with box store lower end saws with lesser quality plastic parts and emissions features that smother them completely. And manufacturers and dealers are often trying to sell push them under the guise of being pro quality saws which isn’t fair.

I've never seen a manufacture push box store Poulans and the like as pro saws.
The only difference between the cold old days and today is people have the choice to buy less robust models for occasional use, where as they didn't back in the day.
When comparing apples to apples the new pro saws are more durable and perform many times better than the old stuff, period.

 

[HuskyShepherd2016]

You said...
I’m definitely welcoming all kinds of opinions on my OP. But if anyone actually has some real data about build quality, of yesteryear vs today, please by all means share it.

Thank you everyone!
Edit: I can keep going, but I'm fairly sure I've gotten my point across. Which is very quite simply don't ask for opinions if you don't want them, and certainly don't keep accusing others of doing things they did not do.

So I’m not allowed to reply to your opinion after you stated yours? If you think all older saws are junk that’s fine but you’ll also get counter opinions about that too, especially from someone who thinks there are great ones both old and new.

 

[HuskyShepherd2016]

I've never seen a manufacture push box store Poulans and the like as pro saws.
The only difference between the cold old days and today is people have the choice to buy less robust models for occasional use, where as they didn't back in the day.
When comparing apples to apples the new pro saws are more durable and perform many times better than the old stuff, period.

I’ve seen manufacturers over the years push some saws that are largely plastic as professional saws, when they are really farm and rancher at best.

Can you provide some data to go with that too though? I’m not asking that to disagree with you. Not asking to try to fight or argue, I’ve just used some really good stuff that’s older than I am, that can hang in there with the better stuff of today. If your experiences have not reflected that in any way then so be it. It is what it is. We’ve obviously had differing experiences. But I’m also interested in some of the more technical data too.

 

[Bob Hedgecutter]

This would be a 3-5 page thread- if it weren't for ego's.

 

[david_fillman]

As far as Iron bores, I really like Mcculloch’s for that very reason, those engines seem to last and last as long as they’re treated with the respect they need. They’re heavy and slow though. But the torque will definitely let you know it’s there.

The one thing I’m not so liking about quite a few of the Mcculloch’s though might seem picky. In fact it is. But I don’t like where they put the chain tensioner on the clutch cover. I really prefer the ones that are on the crankcase be the oiler. The 1-52 Mcculloch has that feature but the 1-53’s and the 200-250’s tensioners are on the clutch cover.

I did not know that Macs had iron bores. I deal more with minibike and go kart racers. There is a friendly rivalry (usually) between the Mac and West Bend guys. I applied what I learned from the West Bend guys to build a more powerful and reliable WB610. I also do flow bench and dyno testing on these engines.

My brother-in-law recently purchased an expensive Stihl saw that I assume is professional due to the price. I did not get to ask the model number. We were both helping my dad with a huge oak pile with some trunks over 3 feet in diameter. My 60 year old Root was out cutting his Stihl by at least a factor of 2. To be fair I have much more experience and I suspect he was running a dull chain. Back when I was cutting all day my record for sharpening was 8 times in one day. No point running dull chain.