What's the lightest saw in the 40cc class?

[SilverBox]

My 242 is getting a bit worn and I want a new light saw with 13" bar. Just a saw to have in my car and be handy for small wood. I trust your judgement over the official weights of saws the companies comes up with.


J-red
Husky
Stihl
Dolmar
???

Regards John

I'm a bit late to this party, the lightest 40cc that I know of is the Solo 637T, Its about 7.5 pounds. Much lighter then any other (40cc) saw I've seen mentioned on this thread.

Edit: the 637 is really 40cc, not 35 or 33 or 37, like alot of other saws mentioned on this thread..

 

[blsnelling]

MS192T = 7.0 #
MS192 = 7.4 #
MS200 = 7.7 #
Redmax 3500T = 7.3 #

 

[SilverBox]

MS192T = 7.0 #
MS192 = 7.4 #
MS200 = 7.7 #
Redmax 3500T = 7.3 #

Dolmar has a little saw in this class and weight as well, but none of them are 40cc.

Dolmar ps-3410TH

7.1 lbs 34cc

 

[blsnelling]

dolmar has a little saw in this class and weight as well, but none of them are 40cc.

ps-3410 th = 7.1 #

 

[2000ssm6]

7.7? I think thats what my 192t weighs and my 3 yr old pretends he's cutting with, no chain of course. I looked at the specs and they have it listed as an occasional use saw at $629, wtf?

Your 192T is lighter but not built like a pro saw as the 200T. I'll have to check the Stihl site again, last I looked the 192 and 200 were listed as "pro" saws. They did this to steer homeowners away from the top handles due to their increased risk of danger when in careless hands. They do have that price listed wrong though, the 200T is $570 and the 192 is around $300 here.

 

[2000ssm6]

I'm clawing my eyes out now.:jawdrop:

 

[spiffy1]

Only getting a red X here!

 

[blsnelling]

I'm clawing my eyes out now.:jawdrop:

Doesn't look any worse than a MS200. All of these top handle saws retrofitted with a rear handle look rediculous. They sure are light though! Got to give them that.

 

[spiffy1]

Doesn't look any worse than a MS200. All of these top handle saws retrofitted with a rear handle look rediculous.

Now don't tell my wife that; she thinks her 200 is stylin!

 

[blsnelling]

Now don't tell my wife that; she thinks her 200 is stylin!

That's because of what she had to pay for it!

 

[spiffy1]

That's because of what she had to pay for it!

It cost the same as the 361; 5th annversary presents to each other!

Actually it is the light factor: she cant even get the rope out of the 361 with decompression, and if I hand it to her started it's like watching a cartoon of somebody catching an anvil!

 

[howellhandmade]

Your 192T is lighter but not built like a pro saw as the 200T. I'll have to check the Stihl site again, last I looked the 192 and 200 were listed as "pro" saws. They did this to steer homeowners away from the top handles due to their increased risk of danger when in careless hands. They do have that price listed wrong though, the 200T is $570 and the 192 is around $300 here.

I read on this site that at least some of the high cost of the 200T is due to liability load given its intended use. Not sure if that's true or if so why it doesn't seem to affect other manufacturers to the same degree.

Jack

 

[spiffy1]

If so they're making a killing on the 200 rear handle, and bleeding on the 192T.

 

[Taxmantoo]

So what is the litest 40cc saw? Where would a $140 John Deere cs40 be in this little horse race?

The CS36LE I weighed was about 1/4lb heavier than my 10532.

 

[HimWill]

I read on this site that at least some of the high cost of the 200T is due to liability load given its intended use. Not sure if that's true or if so why it doesn't seem to affect other manufacturers to the same degree.

Jack

I've heard that mentioned before,that the cost of the saw is jumped about $200 or so to pay for a "Product Liability Lawsuit" insurance policy.Works out to about $10 a year for a 20 yr. product life.On the face of it it does make sense,little top-handles aren't nicknamed "Knee-slashers" for nothing.

 

[spiffy1]

On the face of it it does make sense,little top-handles aren't nicknamed "Knee-slashers" for nothing.

That does make sense, but then I'm still perplexed:

If so they're making a killing on the 200 rear handle, and bleeding on the 192T.

 

[TraditionalTool]

How does the 336 run? I looked at em briefly and they looked kinda cool and goofy at the same time. If I remember right I seen the price and walked away. It's not a poulan engine I would assume being an xp.

The 336 is not an xp, but the 339 is. The price is a bit different. I picked up a NOS 336 for $359. The 339xp goes for $499.

The 336 runs well, but not completely broken in yet. I like the setup on it, it is very compact. Nice saw for my purpose. I just picked up a 359 to compliment it.

Regards,
TT

 

[SawTroll]

Doesn't look any worse than a MS200. All of these top handle saws retrofitted with a rear handle look rediculous. They sure are light though! Got to give them that.

The Huskys puts the hands a bit further away from each other than the rest of them - I like that!

 

[mountainlake]

Just got my Ryobi today, it's a gutless turd stock. Will report back after a muffler mod and retune. First I'll do some timed cuts against my MS170 and CS370. right now I don't think it will cut any faster than my 170. Steve

 

[HimWill]

Just got my Ryobi today, it's a gutless turd stock. Will report back after a muffler mod and retune. First I'll do some timed cuts against my MS170 and CS370. right now I don't think it will cut any faster than my 170. Steve

The "Kinder and Gentler" safety chain needs to go too.