50-60cc Chainsaw Comparison

[morten]

Your "power to weight" numbers are turned upside down - and you seem to assume that the specs are always correct and accurate. This is far from the case in reality though

 

But unless you have better quality information that is publicly available, that is the best comparison that can be made. Do you have such information available?

 

I made a similar comparison of power/weight etc for pro-type saws some time ago, which is available here: http://bit.ly/chainsaw-data

[Frett]

Thanks for your input everyone!

 

Of that list I've only used a 560xpg before, it was cracking. My interest mainly came because when I thought about getting my own, I was dismayed at the price of the thing, so wanted to see what else was out there. It's amazing how cross some people get when you hint you may stray from the Stihl/Husky fold!

 

On reflection I agree comparing heated to non heated was unfair and perhaps unnecessary; 200g or so doesn't make much difference in the hand but shows up on a sheet like this negatively.

 

Thank you very much for sharing that spreadsheet Morten, much neater than mine!

 

On the efco saws:

 

I have had/fixed a few.

 

I find 5.5kg very hard to believe. They are old skool, solid saws.

 

The 62cc saw is a lowish rpm firewood grinder built for longevity, not comparable to pro forestry saws. The 56cc efco is ace.

 

 

This is interesting, as it runs against everything else I've read? I'm not saying you're wrong, but it seemed to me that if it was either way it was that the 156 was a detuned version of the 162, given the same weight/capacity statistics elsewhere. Actual in-hand experience is better than conjecture though!

 

I'd be most keen on trying the Dolmar, the Solo and the Efco models. Only the Dolmar has heating though.

[Adamam]

This is interesting, as it runs against everything else I've read?.

 

Maybe the Efco saws have changed? The 'power sharp' bit is new; I assumed (from pictures) that the saw is exactly as it has been for many years now, but possibly it has had an internal redesign?

 

I just checked the older literature and that also claims 5.5kg, which (as I said) genuinely surprises me as I would have guesses quite a bit heavier. My experience is that the 56cc saw is an absolute screamer, very much like the old Husky 254xp, and that the 65cc saw is an unkillable grinder, but as I say maybe there's a difference with the 'Powersharp' saw. Looks exactly the same though.

 

Weak areas are the design of the air filter and the magnesium brake cover which is a bugger doe cracking if abused. Other than that, they are super!

[SawTroll]

So it puts the efco on top? I would not mind trying one , had an oleo Mac which is the same brand and could not fault it on performance but hopeless getting spares.

Back to the 560 though,looks like if you went to fr Jones as you did with the other saws you would of saved £50 +

 

Those Efco models are know for "optimistic" specs, and the weigh is for unheated ones, while many of the other saws in the sheet are heated.

 

The result is misleading, but the 162 still had a good power to weight ratio.

[SawTroll]

But unless you have better quality information that is publicly available, that is the best comparison that can be made. Do you have such information available?

 

I made a similar comparison of power/weight etc for pro-type saws some time ago, which is available here: http://bit.ly/chainsaw-data

 

I have more correct info on many of the listed models - but not the complete picture with good enough reliability. I would never publish such a shart, even though I have made similar ones for my own use in the past.

 

One more thing, the listed power to weight ratios contain more decimals than the input - so they would be misleading to some degree even if the input was true. Further calculations on already rounded off numbers is risky business....

[SawTroll]

On the efco saws:

 

I have had/fixed a few.

 

I find 5.5kg very hard to believe. They are old skool, solid saws.

 

The 62cc saw is a lowish rpm firewood grinder built for longevity, not comparable to pro forestry saws. The 56cc efco is ace.

 

 

The 5.5 kg isn't true, and not the power output either.

 

The "ace" used to be the 62cc version though, not the 56cc one. The slowpoke you refer to likely is the 165, that is nowhere in the same class as the 162, despite slightly more cc (not 65 though)?

 

I don't think the 162 still is a current model, for emission regulation reasons?

[josharb87]

Interesting tables, I was surprised at Mortens figures as it puts the 362 only 300g heavier than a 560, yet i recently got a new 560xp, purely because the 560xpg i handled in the local shop felt about 1kg lighter than the 362! (aswell as being a lot smaller) Goes to show numbers don't mean everything!

[wyk]

But unless you have better quality information that is publicly available, that is the best comparison that can be made. Do you have such information available?

 

I made a similar comparison of power/weight etc for pro-type saws some time ago, which is available here: http://bit.ly/chainsaw-data

 

Where did you get your weight specifications? I have yet to see a manufacturer weight spec that was close to the actual weight of the saw ready to cut without bar and chain. Most are wildly optimistic. Niko and I get our information from the data we collect on another site by actually weighing the complete power heads themselves.

 

I host the images here: Neal Murphy's Chainsaw Weight Gallery Photo Gallery by WYK at pbase.com

[SawTroll]

Interesting tables, I was surprised at Mortens figures as it puts the 362 only 300g heavier than a 560, yet i recently got a new 560xp, purely because the 560xpg i handled in the local shop felt about 1kg lighter than the 362! (aswell as being a lot smaller) Goes to show numbers don't mean everything!

 

The 560xp is much lighter than the MS362, more than the 300g that the specs show. The most important difference is that the 560 is a much more nimble and well handling design though, and performs better as well in the real world.

[SawTroll]

Another thing is that manufacturers weight specs tend to vary with what sourse you look up/at, and power specs only tell what is supposed to happen at one point in the powerband.