stihl 661 v husky 390

[TimberCutterDartmoor]

Had a 390, hated it; twas smooth tho but 661 for me next time.

[WoodED]

Yes it is a tad heavy but is a good solid saw,

 

 

Sent using Arbtalk Mobile App

[MattyF]

Not knowing much anything about the makita / dolmar I thought you would of gone for there equal ?? I don't really get 80 cc saws I'd rather carry the weight and go for a 90 or stick with a 70cc

[Eddy_t]

Not knowing much anything about the makita / dolmar I thought you would of gone for there equal ?? I don't really get 80 cc saws I'd rather carry the weight and go for a 90 or stick with a 70cc

 

The 385 was the predecessor of the 390, in fact, all but the cylinder and piston are the same

 

 

Sent using Arbtalk Mobile App

[MattyF]

I had a 288 for a good few years happily running a 32" bar .. Against the 395 I sold it ... Just did not see the point in having it there when put against the 395 .. For what I needed it for any way ,but if your working in plantations that requires that cc I can but, the ones I did only required a 60cc saw and for the odd occasion a 70cc saw. The bigger saws were just a stop gap for tree work and the 395 proved its worth ... Of course a 3120 or 880 would be better bit in a tree they handle badly !!

[WoodED]

Not knowing much anything about the makita / dolmar I thought you would of gone for there equal ?? I don't really get 80 cc saws I'd rather carry the weight and go for a 90 or stick with a 70cc

 

The Makita Dcs9010 is 90cc

 

 

Sent using Arbtalk Mobile App

[MattyF]

Is that the saw you just brought??what do you recon ???

[WoodED]

I think it's a good solid saw with plenty of grunt, it isn't a new one though, I'm happy with it,

 

 

Sent using Arbtalk Mobile App

[SawTroll]

As above; wrong figures on the two saws: 390 is 4.8kW, 661 is 5.4kW !!

 

661 is the more powerful!

 

fyi the 395 is 4.9kW !

 

I agree with staying With the kW specs, as a mix of hp(m) and hp(i) numbers will be confusing.

 

There is something odd with 395 specs, as Husky, the original spec was 5.2 kW, and I don't really know why they say 4.9 in some documents.....

 

Anyway, max power output is just a "snapshot" of one point of the power curve, so it is far from the full story.....

[Eddy_t]

I agree with staying With the kW specs, as a mix of hp(m) and hp(i) numbers will be confusing.

 

There is something odd with 395 specs, as Husky, the original spec was 5.2 kW, and I don't really know why they say 4.9 in some documents.....

 

Anyway, max power output is just a "snapshot" of one point of the power curve, so it is far from the full story.....

 

That's what I mean, just giving max power is useless, even with the German forestry thing, it's still useless, the power curves are far more useful as it gives a better idea across the rpm range, who ever pushes the saw right down to mid-low rpm for max torque?

 

 

Sent using Arbtalk Mobile App