Husqvarna 372xp Original Edition vs. 372xp Current Edition "X-Torq" Saws.

[weimedog]

They are completely different saw designs, share the names and superfluous "support" stuff like chain brake guts, pull starters, bar oil pumps etc. But little else....

A common question see talked around as if they are the same, even similar saws. Figured while I have a junk pile that has to be turned into running saws I could do a few video's articulating the major differences...first video some of the more obvious parts. ( Subsequent video's on running characteristics, ignition differences, weight, and other observations running them side by side. )

Husqvarna 372xp X-Torq"vs. Original Edition. Some Differences in Parts + Assembly Notes - YouTube

[wild262]

    Good morn. Weimedog;  This is the video I have been hoping to see from you.  I'm fixing to start on a couple of 372's shortly.  Thanks a million for pointing out the differences.  As always, I love watching your videos and the vast knowledge from you & Bob on the subject of saws in general.  I like to tinker as well.  Mainly with Huskys, and a few Stihls.  Love the Jonnies too, esp. the older ones.  Sure wish I lived a bit closer to you guys, as I would be delighted to met you folks.   Were all the same age and old school about a lot of the same things, motorcycles, chainsaws, small farm operation, ect.  We would have a lot of fun together.          Watching the weather, it looks like your getting hammered by a bad nor-easter up there.  We don't get those of course in NE Missouri.  But once in a while we get a dousy of a snowstorm, mostly in spring.    Best just hunker down and stay inside till it ends.  Go opportunity to make a new video or to isn't it?  Bet your doing that right now.  I've rambled enough, but thanks again to you and Bob for sharing your knowledge and ideas and keep them coming.  I'm a big fan! 8)

[Spike60]

We are in the 14-20 inch forecast for today's storm, but from what I'm seeing, we are going to be getting the low side of that. Still, a foot is a decent storm to run the old Ariens in.

Original 372 is one of the best saws designs ever made. Walt and I differ a little bit on how far the XT has strayed from the original though. I think it's pretty close; he thinks they kind of ruined it. Did take me a while to warm up to the XT myself. But a 372XT is better than no 372 at all.

[weimedog]

I think where we differ is simply terminology. You call the 372xp XT a...372. I don't, its a 372 X-Torq. A completely different saw! See? Make sense? And I like the 372xp better. Not that the 372xp X-torq is a bad girl...just the 372 is ...better.  8)

[starmac]

The way I see it, all 372's are good, just some are mo better.
I have always heard that the original xp's are better, is that a power curve thing, rpm thing, and do you consider it to be a longevity thing?

[wild262]

We are in the 14-20 inch forecast for today's storm, but from what I'm seeing, we are going to be getting the low side of that. Still, a foot is a decent storm to run the old Ariens in.

Original 372 is one of the best saws designs ever made. Walt and I differ a little bit on how far the XT has strayed from the original though. I think it's pretty close; he thinks they kind of ruined it. Did take me a while to warm up to the XT myself. But a 372XT is better than no 372 at all.
        Wow!  The last time we had that much was about 3 yrs ago in Feb.  I believe it was 16" and drifted due to high winds.  I had to feed my 15 head of cows with square bales on a wooden toboggan.   Terrible day.  I feel for you guys.     Regarding the 372's, I have never run any of them.  I got these two out of a trade deal.  One a original old style, and other is the XT.  The later has a bad crank bearing on the clutch side.  Closest I've ran to it is a 272xp.  Have 2 of them.  I hear the 372's are a heck of a saw.  Guess I will find out, huh.

[wild262]

I think where we differ is simply terminology. You call the 372xp XT a...372. I don't, its a 372 X-Torq. A completely different saw! See? Make sense? And I like the 372xp better. Not that the 372xp X-torq is a bad girl...just the 372 is ...better.  8)
                                                                                                                                                                          

I tend to see that terminology as you do Walter.  Easier for me to keep track on which one were talking about.  Never ran either yet.   So does the X-torq have more low RPM torque, or just a lower curve?

[ButchC]

372, 372 XP, 372 XT, 372 Ex Torq, did they make a 372 Ex Wife too?
I got a 576 because it's less confusing??? ;D

[Woodcutter_Mo]

 Good video, I didn't know there were that many differences between to 2 versions of the 372.

[wild262]

         I think there power may be out due to the storm there having in the northeast since there not answering there posts :-\.   Quite a storm up there.

[mike_belben]

Ive been porting saws (well, anythingg with ports really) for about 14 years.  The one time an X torq came to me i tore it down,  looked real hard, studied up on theory of operation which ive since forgotten and said no, i dont wanna mess this up.  Put it back together with a muffler mod and retune.  

The standard saw, i dont care what brand, is pretty straight forward and porting them is not much different than a banshee, blaster, moped or outboard.  Sorta one size nearly fits all.  Yeah you can refine it to tweak timing and overlap a little different by model or dimensions, maybe it makes more power for real or maybe its only in your head or ear.. that 1* difference in blowdown that makes sense on paper.  

short of a dyno.. Who is to say?  You ever see a chainsaw dyno?  Probably not outside of a manufacturer.  There is no chainsaw nascar or prostock or indy to pay for the equipment.  Cutting cookies on vid with a stopwatch is about as scientific as saw hot rodding gets which is better than nothing, i admit.  

The X torq jug is complicated enough that when i looked inside i said to myself, ill mess up 5 of these before i make it any better.  This aint like the 50 other jugs ive ground on.  So i leave them 100% alone.

[Nate Fether]

372, 372 XP, 372 XT, 372 Ex Torq, did they make a 372 Ex Wife too?
I got a 576 because it's less confusing??? ;D

If you buy the first four you get Xwife model for half your stuff......What a deal.

[HolmenTree]

I really liked my old edition 372XP, main reason why it was the first Husqvarna I ever bought. Very versatile saw from sporting a 16" to 24" b/c.


 

[Maine logger88]

I might be the odd man here but I like the xt saws better than the early saws. The ones I've had the xt had better power and seemed to bog less wot with the bar buried. I also like the fact that I can save 200 bucks by getting a 2166 and making it a 2172 for no money just a little time. 

[HolmenTree]

Yes the old edition 372XP is touchy in the wood. When I switched from the older Stihls (066 064 044) I found the 372 only had good power at WOT. Let off the throttle a bit in the cut while felling with the bar buried and the  chain would seize with chips jammed in the bar rails.
Keep the 372 rpm high and it was a laser in any size wood the 22" b/c could handle.

Interesting thing I  noticed when a few years later when I bought a 272XP which is 13 years older then my 2006 372XP.  The 272XP cylinder design didn't have the top end only high power capability. But more like the modern 372XP X Tork power with some grunt also on the lower midrange revs.

Ideally the older 272XP power band may be more user friendly with room to modify the porting and compression for more top end power, but in the end buying a new 372XP XT EPA regulations rules.

But later this year of 2018 we have the new Husqvarna 572XP available to buy.....Then all we can do is then is say good bye to the 372XP, so the experts say. ;)

[weimedog]

Think the 372xt hangs around for a bit ( probably because they are still in the warehouses) and the 576 goes away..:( I liked the 576's. AND to draw fire.... I can't argue with the saws capabilities. They are heavier than the OE's. Since I've had the 390's w/ light bars  in the truck, for me for the weight & vibration addition vs. OE...just run a 390. Especially with the longer bars. Just my opinion and what I in fact do so don't bother me with numbers.. I do have a variety of XT's as well. So now the work saws in the truck are (2) 562's, a "Home built" 560 for the smaller stuff, and 390's right now. Suspect the 572 will turn all that upside down...but I've got way too many saws...and those 562's are doing everything I need..and I like them. Took me a while to warm up to them.

Two projects on the bench though, building a 441 same as I did the 562's with a increase in compression and a few tweaks to the intake and transfers. And going back to restoring a 375 (372xpw)  with the torque oriented XPW top end with a little compression jump. Goal is to keep the weight down with a light B&C and some other things. even though those Oregon laminated aluminum cored bars aren't "pro" rated or "pro" level strong for bore cutting, think one of those setups will grace both the 441 and 375.

Now please stop the snow so I can get the time to finish these things..

[HolmenTree]

I kept my 562XP as I had some people waiting in line for it.
Going to need it for my tree service spring startup in a month or so when our snow finally vaporizes. BTW the majority of our snow blows in from a Colorado low and a Alberta  Clipper.  :D

I got the MS261CM handling the 50cc chores with a 16-18".
562XP will be running a 22" Windsor Speed Tip in .325 23RS chain.
My 1992 066 Arctic Mag will come out of retirement and sport it's original 28" ES bar.

I'm putting my also retired 1986 064AV back into service . I'll swap its race ported cylinder with 084 carb for a 1995 066 P/C. Will run a 20" .050  bar on it with Oregon 50AL. 404 chisel bit chain.
It will be a super lightweight 90cc powerhouse of a tree service saw, weighing under 14 1/4 lbs powerhead only.

562XP will then be a backup until when the MS462C shows up and hopefully the MS500i shortly after.

[Spike60]

576 goes away with the arrival of the 572. 372XT will continue to be manufactured for a year as the 572 gains acceptance, so it should run through 2019 and that will be it. I glad they are doing it that way, as I don't have to guess as to how many 372's I should bulk up on before it goes away.

Personal opinion: From the experience with the prototypes I had, I think the market changeover to the 572 is going to happen pretty quick. Yes, there will be those "I don't want a computer on the saw" guys, but most are anxious for the new one. Guys who tested them say it's no comparison and they are hounding me with the "when's it gonna be here" questions. And we sell so many 562's that there's a lot of guys who really want the next size up. Going to be fun when they get here. 8)

[HolmenTree]

Husqvarna 572XP looks like a very impressive saw. I mentioned in my last post about a MS462C and MS500i.....but I'm not ruling out a "Official 572XP/MS462C test".
Would be fun in my day to day Tree service adventures :laugh:

I always think YouTube videos of cookie cutting saw comparison is just down right silly.
But for entertainment here's one posted 2 weeks ago from somewhere in Europe. 572XP versus 372XP.

HUSQVARNA 572XP vs 372XP - YouTube

[starmac]

It does sound like these newfangled computerised saws are working out well. I also know it doesn't matter, we will be forced to go with them in due time, and that time is coming up shortly, so I got to ask you guys that have been messing with them a question.

Some of us old reprobates keep our stuff forever, I mean I still use a 266se, when I could have and probably even should have replaced it with a 372 years ago, how do you see the electronics holding up 20 or more years down the road?
Myself I keep things forever as long as it works, but wince I don't have that many years left using a saw, it is sort of a mute point, but there will be other guys like me that would, if they hold up.

[Spike60]

I agree that cookie cutting is pretty silly, and proves practically nothing. Yet it's amazing how much weight people put in them. I also find myself in complete agreement with your earlier 272/372 post, so I've made an appointment with my doctor to make sure I'm OK. :D

Your tests are indeed interesting, and well done with lots of details, but I don't know about applying the word "official" on any of them.   Nothing all that official when comparing a single example of each saw. What happens, and has happened forever on these sites, is that guys tend to apply whatever happens on one such comparison to every single saw on the planet. That's another downside to the cookie racing. If X beats Y, then guys think every encounter has the same result.

Your test ended with the 261 being the clear winner, which is fine as that is the one you preferred, based on your experience with them. (not to mention the first 550 was a complete lemon) But it's a matter of your preference more than it is any measurement of test data.

At about the same time you were conducting your test, a large tree company near me bought 24 550's as they preferred them to the 261's they had tried. Does their opinion carry more weight than yours does, because they are a big company? No, I wouldn't say that at all. It's still just a matter of preference. The regional manager was up here last week. Lots of storm damage and he had 50 guys and 20 bucket trucks in the area. Came in for supplies and wanted to grab a few more 562's. In the conversation he says, "I'm not a big Stihl fan. I've always been a Husky guy." It's safe to assume that some of his 50 guys would rather run a Stihl, but the boss is a Husky guy and that's what he buys.

Most of us would have to confess to a little bias in our opinions, and I'm certainly guilty myself. Saw brands, truck brands, maybe even Skippy vs Jif. But these saws are all so good that the hair splitting hardly matters.

 

[Spike60]

It does sound like these newfangled computerised saws are working out well. I also know it doesn't matter, we will be forced to go with them in due time, and that time is coming up shortly, so I got to ask you guys that have been messing with them a question.

Some of us old reprobates keep our stuff forever, I mean I still use a 266se, when I could have and probably even should have replaced it with a 372 years ago, how do you see the electronics holding up 20 or more years down the road?
Myself I keep things forever as long as it works, but wince I don't have that many years left using a saw, it is sort of a mute point, but there will be other guys like me that would, if they hold up.

That's REAL good question. And it needs a little thinking cause there aren't any Auto-Tunes that have been around as long as the 266SE. (I have a couple 266's myself.) Could be like any other electronic component, such as the coils in a 266. Most will probably last a real long time, with the occasional screw up. So far the evidence is that I can hardly think of a single AT module failure. Some need to be reset but they really don't fail. The coils in the AT saws are a little more complicated than older saws, and they are connected to the module. The days of a coil with just one wire are over I guess. But even though they are more complicated, the failure rate is no different, and truthfully it's lower than what I see on 372's and the homeowner saws. There have been a bunch of coil changes/updates. I think the 550 is on something like it's 5th coil? :laugh: But the changes were due to improving the starting and running characteristics, not a failure type of issue. There's a lot more to a coil these days than spark or no spark. There's advance curves and start curves and what not. The 576 AT has to be closing in on 10 years and they have been fine. So there's really nothing out there yet to indicate that there will be problems with this stuff down the road.

[starmac]

Good info and insight Spike.  As far as the changes made so far, that is to be expected when they are trying to get a handle on new technology. Like I said It doesn't matter that much for my own use, heck I am getting to where I am having a hard tome starting the 266, so it's days are numbered, through no fault of it's own. It would be nice if they came out with electric start, that has no bulk or weight. lol

[Maine logger88]

Good info and insight Spike.  As far as the changes made so far, that is to be expected when they are trying to get a handle on new technology. Like I said It doesn't matter that much for my own use, heck I am getting to where I am having a hard tome starting the 266, so it's days are numbered, through no fault of it's own. It would be nice if they came out with electric start, that has no bulk or weight. lol

Something like ski doos shot starting maybe?

[starmac]

I have just heard a little about skidoos system, and not 100% sure how it works. My skidoo is electric start, but it is a lot bigger starter than my 4 wheelers and I have modified it to use a full size battery, sure wouldn't work for a saw. lol

[Maine logger88]

There's a few vids on you tube showing how it works basically it has a capacitor that collects the energy while running then when the start button is pushed it uses the magneto as a starter motor. It would only with efi engines the etec engine  starts on only a third of a revolution of the crank. Also you have to pull start the first start of the day or if the sled sits for over a half hour. My ski doo has the regular electric start as well I don't do enough extreme riding that I need the weight savings. But on a saw in the future who knows?

[knuckledragger]

I've never held a x-torq in my hand, so I can't speak intelligently about it. However, my old XP is a real blue collar saw, durable and tenacious. I can't imagine the x-torq changing my opinion of the XP. At one time, if someone were to tell me you can have one saw and one saw only for the rest of your life I would have chosen my 044av. Now I'm not so sure. I may choose my 372xp. The x-torq would have a hard time convincing me otherwise, but I am looking forward to obtaining one from the grave yard so I can go through the saw.

[HolmenTree]

Knuckledragger, I totally agree the 044AV the one saw to own .
I owned both a 1989 044AV and a old edition 372XP which I just sold both of them a few weeks ago.
I hated to see the 044 go more then the 372. That 044 was a good fast compact saw. So simple to operate and work on.

[wild262]

I agree that cookie cutting is pretty silly, and proves practically nothing. Yet it's amazing how much weight people put in them. I also find myself in complete agreement with your earlier 272/372 post, so I've made an appointment with my doctor to make sure I'm OK. :D

Your tests are indeed interesting, and well done with lots of details, but I don't know about applying the word "official" on any of them.  Nothing all that official when comparing a single example of each saw. What happens, and has happened forever on these sites, is that guys tend to apply whatever happens on one such comparison to every single saw on the planet. That's another downside to the cookie racing. If X beats Y, then guys think every encounter has the same result.

Your test ended with the 261 being the clear winner, which is fine as that is the one you preferred, based on your experience with them. (not to mention the first 550 was a complete lemon) But it's a matter of your preference more than it is any measurement of test data.

At about the same time you were conducting your test, a large tree company near me bought 24 550's as they preferred them to the 261's they had tried. Does their opinion carry more weight than yours does, because they are a big company? No, I wouldn't say that at all. It's still just a matter of preference. The regional manager was up here last week. Lots of storm damage and he had 50 guys and 20 bucket trucks in the area. Came in for supplies and wanted to grab a few more 562's. In the conversation he says, "I'm not a big Stihl fan. I've always been a Husky guy." It's safe to assume that some of his 50 guys would rather run a Stihl, but the boss is a Husky guy and that's what he buys.

Most of us would have to confess to a little bias in our opinions, and I'm certainly guilty myself. Saw brands, truck brands, maybe even Skippy vs Jif. But these saws are all so good that the hair splitting hardly matters.

     Very good post Spike.  You hit the nail on the head.  Sure wish I could explain myself like you do.  Wiemedog does to, but sometimes takes "the long way around the barn" :D                 You can 2 NEW identical saws, same mix, tune, B&C, same 10x10 wood, and have a fast one and a slower one.  Even experienced this with newly "broken in" saws.  So what gives!  But nevertheless, I've done it, and still do on occasion, just for fun, but not to prove anything really.         Thanks to this video and others, I completed a successful build on a X-torq.  Had the ceramic bearings as I suspected.  Many thanks to all.

[Spike60]

wild262, I hope Walt catches that "long way round the barn" post!  :D  I think sometimes the only thing that gets us to stop talking is when the battery in the camera runs out.

And you add a VERY good point to the discussion: If you compare 2 identical saws, one will likely beat the other. So what conclusion do you draw then? Many pro guys will own several examples of the same model saw throughout it's production run, which is often 15-20 years. Most will say that one of them was the best of the bunch, or that one of them wasn't as good as the rest.

[weimedog]

I did , its funny... The video I just posted could literally be.. a posting "cool saw" and a picture..

[Grandpa]

I agree, cutting cookies has nothing to do with cutting in the real world, but a lot of guys make a big deal out of it.

Walt may "take the long way around the barn", but there is a lot of information in his ramblings. He and Spike make a good team with their different approaches.

Also, Walt, if you see this, a while back you made a video called bars, cut locations and different worlds. That was probably the best saw related video I have ever seen. I didn't comment on the video but should have. Thanks.

[weimedog]

Thank you. Speechless..

[wild262]

      Hea Walt,  Just want you to know I wasn't making fun of you when I said that about "around the barn bit".   ;)  I don't want you to change a thing with regards to your video making.  Your very complete and you cover every angle.  Yes, you and Bob make a very good team.  So don't stop what your doing, and on behalf of myself and many others on these chainsaw sites, WE DO appreciate the time, and efforts you guys put forth in making all these for our enjoyment and education.   I can't wait to see your next one  .

[mike_belben]

I hope i didnt ruffle any feathers mentioning cookies.. Im too new to know who each of you are and what yall're up to.  Im not sure which videos are being discussed.  


Cookie cutting would be a fine test if we could control for temp and humidity and knots.  Its a poor mans dyno.  I like hotrodding saws for the sake of hotrodding but i dont think it really puts much more wood on the trailer for most of us.  I like a quick saw but if i finish a cut 3 seconds faster i just look around and pick my nose for 5 extra seconds anyway. 

[Grandpa]

No ruffled feathers here.

[HolmenTree]

I made 3 cookie cutting videos a few years ago and the first and last I ever made.
Only for demonstration minus the stop watch. But I did have consistent wood (except for 1 long knot).
But to prove anything with the stop watch you need everything including saws, bars, chains shown being changed over for the test throughout the video.
Here's my attempt demonstrating a 7 tooth small bore .325 rim sprocket and Stihl 23RS chain on my Husqvarna 562XP.

2012 Husqvarna stock 562xp with 325 chain - YouTube

[XP_Slinger]

That's a good question but it can only be answered in time.  Personally, I think the AT systems are going to be pretty dang reliable.  While AT may complicate DIY trouble shooters like many of us here, it simplifies day to day operation and provides truth data for how the engine is running when servicing is needed by a dealer.  I'm excited to see how the 572 does in the long run, a lot of lessons learned from the 562 were applied to the 572.  Im also very happy they built the bottom end so tough.  6203 bearings and a full circle crank, mama husky pulled out the stops on that one.  The carb vs AT discussion reminds me of when fuel injection was introduced on vehicles in the 80's.  Many scoffed at the new tech not willing to give up their carbs.  And now the fuel injected auto industry is producing muscle cars that would make a big block chevelle from the 60's tuck tail and run.   Saws are in the throttle body injection stage but port injection is rapidly approaching with the 500i.  Exciting times.

[XP_Slinger]

Oops, sorry fellers.  Apparently I didn't refresh the page before responding

[knuckledragger]

I came into this world 1960 on a U.S.M.C. base hospital in North Carolina. Impressionable young man in the late '60s early '70s. Muscle car years. I was one that didn't care for throttle body or electronic ignitions. I was wrong because I wasn't educated. The point is, electronic ignition and fuel injection are the best thing that could've happened to anyone purchasing a vehicle. I suspect one will be able to say similar things bout chainsaws in the very near future.

[O.R.Birr]

I've been curious about this too.  I bought the Hulzfforma version of the 372XP X-Torque only because the XP version was sold out.  It broke down so much I named it The Incredible Holtz. Now the crank went out after a year so I decided to tear it down and study it.  This gen XT saw uses a divider in the intake to seperate fuel rich air from leaner air.  The leaner air in theory goes into an upper intake port in the head (unless you're holding the saw on it's side). This air is used to push out exhaust fumes after combustion.  The piston has recesses in it that work with ports in the block like a valve.  The heavier air goes into the crankcase as usual to lubricate the bearings.  The new 572XP X-Torque's look pretty much the same, except they use a seperate intake port with fresh air for the top port, bypassing the carb altogether making it lower in emmissions (I read 20% from previous models on a website).  It also has a different crankshaft.  There are other differences I'm sure, but these are the main ones.  I would like to try the new 572 X-Torque just for the reason that I have mild asthma from time to time and I feel pretty crummy after using a saw for more than 4 hours. Not to mention the new saw gets 0.4 hp more. Supposed to run cooler too from all the air channels cast into the block.  They must be a pain to cast and machine because of this.  Must be why I don't see much aftermarket rebuild cylinders for these.

[Sprinter]

This may be way off topic But, after 50 years of electrical/electronic industrial experience
I have come to realize that if your new gadget gets through threw startup it's probably okay.
If it gets through the shift it is good. At some point you will wonder how you lived without.
And you will never look back.
Any of you ever tried using the Model A spark advance? Or mechanical brakes?
As for saws, my 562 has been pronounced dead by at least 3 mechanics but it still fills
my woodshed. Thanks to my hard head.
Feel fee to call me hard headed but I don't give in easy,

[weimedog]

Not to be a wet blanket but some dissection's and clarification's might be welcome SO many assumptions made with the concept that because a Huztl had an issue, the OEM design it was copied from will as well. That is so far off, I don't even know where to begin. I think the first thing is you have to disconnect any relationship between how any of the Huztl 372's run and their Husqvarna originals.

To the Huztl 372 class saws first:

They are clones and come from two completely different sources. The g372 is from one and the g372xp and g372xt another. Of those three, the g372 had come in the best configuration and with a few tweaks could be made to work. The XT was the worst. Both the XP and XT have a "squarish" handle that is no where near as nice as the g372's and certainly not as nice as the OEM. My g372xt's was so bad I eventually threw it in the trash and put a used 372 OEM handle on it. The two problems with those squared handles from a functional perspective had to do with the internal throttle parts sticking and not allowing the saw to get to idle and the antivib springs not being as stiff or even the right length. That had NOTHING to do with the Husqvarna original design or X-torq as a concept. Had everything to do with a lousy copy and manufacturing.

Also with the g372, the intake "spigot" casting was a little long creating a fit issue that really was pretty easy to file off and solve. Also the rubber parts were typical Chinese and needed to be replaced with OEM PDQ.  And there were little things like the bar oil slot that were off slightly but in general the kit or the g372 could be whipped into a running saw.

Both the g372xp and xt were harder to get running right and I did video's of that and not interested in rehashing it in typed posting. Especially the g372xt, I ended up replacing the handle assembly with OEM, ignition and carb. Also gutted the intake port, boot, and filter holder. It runs well now but I just got sick of all it's junk parts to the point I lost interest in anything from that source....end stop period. Those g372xp & xt clones were poorly done. Especially when you contrast those two against clones like the first g372, the Joncutter 5800, and the g660 which are scary how well they are done. Especially the 660 and g5800.

Now to the OEM 372xp "X-Torq" to OEM 572 analogy. They are completely different designs as well. The 572 is a product of experience with both X-torq designs and Autotunes. The early 372's had issues, not going to start an argument with my best bud but they did. Husqvarna worked them out and the current offerings of the last couple of years are much better to the point I haven't seen any come in built later than 2017 other than skidder crush, so they are solid now as well. The 572 has A much more mature design with focus on durability. Starting with larger main bearings than a 372 to well thought out heat management they really nailed it with a focus on durability vs. spec "sheep" marketing with simply weight & hp "ratings". The 572 is in another class to the point I don't get why anyone would consider the 372 XT in the same price class over a 572. Wish those XT's would just slide off into history gracefully and leave us with the memories clouded with the good stuff brought into the saw world with the Original edition 372's Just my opinion, others will have a different view I'm sure.

[weimedog]

A updated video from the OP, 

Husqvarna 372xp X-Torq vs. Original Edition vs. Aftermarket, JPS 372 Build Part 1, "Main Bearings" - YouTube

[weimedog]

Holzfforma g372xt trials and tribulations along with what the channel's , mission last year relative to X-Torq's....funny looking back because part of the results of that focus on 372XT has driven me BACK to old metal saws! 

Holzfforma g372xt "Modded", The Beginning & A Channel Focus Review For First Time Viewers - YouTube

[Firewoodjoe]

I just took a xtorque out of the box today. I'm quite happy with it compared to the earlier versions I've tried. I was against them until I looked at this one for a year then tried it. It's a 2019. And how is that 572 to fix on the tail gate?

[weimedog]

372's of any variety are among the easiest to work on saw designs ever ( Also the X-torq's are easiest to mod as well as a side note )....have to give them that! Haven't seen many of the newer ones other than simple maintenance things as they are now proving to be solid saws. I haven't had to do anything other than clean air filters and change chain/sprockets on the 572's either so honestly don't know how hard it is to tear them down. I guess eventually I'll find out if I still working on saws when they get to the end of their service life. But that's the point....not just me but what I have heard is they are solid and rarely have issues. One thing is for certain, it's easy to plug them into CST and the information available is useful both to the user and mechanic. Plug in right up on top....takes a minute to get there and find out how that saw is both running and what it's life is really like. Can't get any of that kind of information from any 372.

[Firewoodjoe]

I can't get any kind of plug in on my tailgate either lol  i dont take my saws to a mechanic. Time is money and well money is money. I like keeping it not paying someone. And the dealer is not close by. I have many 71/72xps still in service. Other than some minor stripped holes it can generally all be fixed. I just don't see how a saw that is more money to buy and more money to get repaired will make me more money. I really hope they don't every stop making the 372. And just Incase I keep buying them whenever I can. Just from my point of view I guess. 

[weimedog]

I can't get any kind of plug in on my tailgate either lol  i dont take my saws to a mechanic. I really hope they don't every stop making the 372. And just Incase I keep buying them whenever I can. Just from my point of view I guess.

I get that, and the other guys who really like the 372's XT's are the ones who like to grind on cylinders. Transfer caps and the simple 372 layout make them a winner there & they can be tweaked to RUN.


As to the tail gate thing.....I'm not seeing what you would expect to have to do on a 572 that is easier on a 372, you will never have to tweak the carbs.... both need the filters changed , bar sprocket and chain swapped around. WHAT would u expect to have to do on the tail gate on a 372 u couldn't do with a 572? I can rip a 372 down to bearings and build it back up as fast as anyone, but would not likely do that on a tail gate. The ONLY thing I can see is parts swapping ignitions, cylinders and carbs from a junk pile parts saw ... and even then a "used" flashed carb and ignition from a parts saw 572 ( When they begin to wear out )doesn't need to be done at the dealer. And the firmware on those 572's has been stable for a while now....no need for that.

Intake boots, throttle cables, Fuel lines, filters, parts swapping...handles / plastic....what?

And in the actions speak louder than words column, my main saws are a Jonsered 2175 ( 2171 with an 51.4 xpw top end ) and a tweaked 2165 48mm Original Edition, not an X-torq saw. Both derivatives of 372's....and I have a 572 as well. I just LIKE the Original Edition 372 based Jonsered better. Simple as that. Another "subjective" opinion. But can't argue they are technically better to live with than a 572.

[Firewoodjoe]

Well I will admit I've never worked on one. But you said plug in. Can you swap parts without retuning? And as far as what I fix on the tail gate. Everything. What's the difference between a tail gate and a work bench? I'm in the woods all day. The tail gate is my work bench. Then when I come home I generally back up to the shop and work on the tail gate anyways. My point is at some point you need that plug in right? Do they need retuned after break in? After a accident hit smashed and you have to swap parts? When it needs a rebuild? I don't know. Maybe they are simple. 

[weimedog]

Hey I haven't had to do much of anything on 572's either, but have a LOT of time digging through 550's and 562's.

Don't really need the plug to swap parts from one "set up" and running saw to another with the 572's. The only time you need the plug is if you buy a new carb/ ignition set and it needs to be flashed once.  BUT I like my old junk pile builds, its what I do; so I get it. But like I said.... I can't build an argument that defines the old saws I like as a better solution for a pro than the 572's. I'm all ears if some one can. I can't. As much as I want to rationalize my choice on saws being OE's ...its down to I like them, not that there is a technical reason that makes any true sense. For me that's enough so how can I argue a different choice for someone who got to the same place? And if you have a dealer who will plug in for cheap, you can learn a lot about your operation and the saws' health that is sometimes really valuable. I do hear horror stories of dealers who charge $100 bucks to bless you with their system & knowledge....have rip offs in every business. I'm certain there are dealers out there where u can send the carb/ignition set both to get the "report" and have them flashed for a reasonable charge if folks are in the Alaska out back set.

[Real1shepherd]

Once you get versed in working on saws....nothing wrong with duplicating the same model and/or stocking up on parts. If that model works for you and you really like it, you don't need ten other models to get work done.

There's a lot to be said for favoring a few models and just stocking up. How many times in here, have you read where someone really regretted getting rid of so-and-so model saw(s)?

I remember making a 'safety' box of parts that could fail on my pro Huskies and 98% of the time something in that plastic, waterproof box would save the day. If a crummy takes you up to a job site, there's no 'tailgate' to work off....you're on your own. I still have stuff packed and ready to go.....never seem to get away from that mentality.

Kevin

[O.R.Birr]

Swapping cranks on 372's.  If you swap a 372XP crank into an XT saw, you'll need to order the piston pin bearing with it because the bearing is bigger on the 372XT.  The 327XP bearing is 12mm id, 15mm od and the 372XT is 12mm id and 15.8mm od.

[weimedog]

Another little clarification is I assumed ONE ( there are others I am sure ) of the reasons the X-torq concept was purchased and developed from a Japanese design concept was about emissions. Just my assumption as I don't have insight to their thought process. A little more straight air added at the right place at the right time allows for a more complete combustion of the unburnt gases before exiting to the atmosphere. And the 372 X-torq was a design to allow that technology to be grafted onto the old 372 cases and saw "package" to extend the look & life of that series with minimal changes to the rest of the saw, at least that's my assumption as why else would that be intentionally done to a saw as well developed as the OE version? The market reception for the designed from the bottom up X-torq 575 had something to do with this as well is a speculation of mine as they went over like a led balloon around here. Observant folks will recognize the 575/576 had an early version of the transfer port & intake layout now familiar with the 550/562 and now 572. Fact is the XT has been sold and developed to the point they are solid saw anyway whether I like the OE's better or not. 

The divided intake allowed the saw to look externally similar enough to the OE many to this day think a 372 is a 372 without understanding the magnitude of the design changes. SO why I designate them ( it just me ) as OE and XT versions.

One of the mods I have done over the years is to "gut" the intake divider. For me originally is was to allow the gas/oil mix to wash therefore lubricate the back half/intake side of the piston as I would see more wear there on the ones I was tearing down. Kept that out of the video's for a while then finally after that became a standard approach rolled out the concept. Funny thing ( guess it depends on your humor ) was with the early ones, the PTO side bearing pockets often went before the shinny intake side of the piston took out a top end , for that matter not sure I have seen a X-torq top end fail. Ever.

So why continue doing that? Because the other benefits of that approach that began to be demonstrated like better idle characteristics and combined with some other mods better power. The down side is fuel usage.

And with the newer 372 X-torq's  Husqvarna evolved other things that make the news ones run quite well stock as delivered taking away one of the primary reason I did that modification. 

I still do that mod on the hobby X-torq's as combined with some other changes it makes for a really strong saw. Back to the Farmertec/Huztl XT. For those who want to get into the cylinder grinding game on the Aftermarket clone 372 variant's, the XT version probably is the best place to start as you can pull the transfer caps and get to the upper transfers with a dremel tool. BUT those clones will not last as long tweaked. Not that it matters. And they won't last as long as the OEM variants regardless what s done to them.

[weimedog]

What I did to the Holzfforma 372xt ..because as delivered it ran like a POS

Holzfforma g372xt "Modded", The Beginning & A Channel Focus Review For First Time Viewers - YouTube


Tweak And Tune the Modded Holzfforma vs a mostly stock OEM 372xp "Original Edition" Saw Build 
Holzfforma g372xt "Sorted Out" (Modified) vs. Stock Build 372xp Original Edition - YouTube

[O.R.Birr]

Does anyone know about ignition module differences?  I've seen an ignition for sale on hlsupply that starts with part #588 for the X-Torque.  They list for $20 more than the XP version.  I spoke with a Husky dealer that said the X-Torque has a digital module while the XP has something else.  
Meanwhile, I used a cheapo ignition for an XP and it ran fine for several months.  Anyone have any light to shed on sparko-matic thingamicbobber.

[Spike60]

Oh boy. If I didn't have a business to run, I would happily spend the whole day correcting the many errors and misconceptions in this thread.  

What a lot of people, (including my best friend), struggle with is that the original 372 has and is still being produced, along with the XT version. Most of the changes and updates to the chassis over the years since the XT's came out apply to BOTH versions of the saw. There are obviously exceptions, like the piston change to the XT's in early 2011. But for the most part, the changes were the usual updates/improvements to a saw chassis that is on the market for a bunch of years. Many misconceptions are derived from having a 2004 OE and a 2018 XT in front of you and referring to the differences as OE vs XT. They are more properly identified simply as differences between older and newer versions of a long running chassis. Even that run of bad cases 7-8 years ago was shared with the OE's. IPL's can be misleading if you do not have access to what numbers a part may have superseded to. There are a hilarious number of crankshaft part numbers over the years. But there is only one crank available for the entire chassis whether you want one for a brand new 372XT or a 2002 362 XP. It's just so easy to draw the wrong conclusion if you don't have the whole picture in front of you.

For example, they do not use a different needle bearing as posted here. That needle bearing is the same for for a bunch of saws going back to the 61's and includes other chassis like the 359 and 576.

Ignitions do get complicated. There have been plenty of coils since they went away from the non limited coils way before the XT ever arrived. Due to the OE and XT having different no load RPM ratings, that has necessitated different coils throughout the years of concurrent production. (and different length plug wires) To answer OR's question, both "current" coils are digital advance curve items. The XT coil also has an updated start curve that corrects the "misfire" that could occur when using the deco valve. There's so much more going on with coils now besides spark or no spark. The original large radius non limited coil is still available for guys that want it. It's kind of still being use in the 455/460, and although it will work in a 372, technically it's for the small radius flywheel models like the 346 and 357. The newest 372 OE coil is great, if you want to pay for it, ($125!), but the XT coil works great on an OE saw. Just need to be careful that the longer wire doesn't short out on the cylinder fin.

Not saying I'm the smartest guy in the room, (that could be Walt, though it pains me to admit it ). But I have access to all of the service bulletins and IPL updates, (and actually read them), and frequently have conversations with senior tech people in both the US and Sweden. So, I'll just say a little better informed than most guys. And I couldn't count the number of these saws, both orange and red, that have gone back and forth over my counter in the last 20 some years. But to say these saws are "completely different designs" is "completely wrong".  8)

[Tacotodd]

Bob, and to think, Walt (I think) speaks very highly of you. If he didn't, he wouldn't have you to conduct his different "saw college" videos.

Just MY impression, and humble opinion. I just like his videos, and a few other peoples as well.

I could give them some mention, but this probably isn't the place for that.

[Spike60]

I'm speaking highly of him as well here. He'll get the humor, even though you didn't. We've been needling each other over these 372's for years.  :D

And I certainly disagree with plenty of guys, not just picking on Walt.  Just tons of bad info out there on these saws. And the aftermarket saws only add to the confusion. 

[Tacotodd]

10-4, you are correct (I didn't get the humor of it, but now I do). I always enjoy you 2 giving each other "the business" over the saw world stuff. After all, it's highly educational and informative.

I'll take my lumps like a man and don't mind it, when I deserve it! Case made and humble acceptance of them. 

Always good to see you here Bob!

[Spike60]

Yeah, he likes to stir it up and then laugh at my reaction.  

[Tacotodd]

Almost a u-tube Abbot & Costello.  8) Who's on 1st!

[weimedog]

Yeah, he likes to stir it up and then laugh at my reaction.  

:  

I did get the "nudge" ;D....so I'll bite; here goes:

But they are different designs. The very definition of a design defines all the bits and pieces. A 365 OE vs. 372 OE has minimal differences and since they are in the same "class" or "family" of saw, we say that and acknowledge they are different. They even have a different set of part numbers for the 48mm cylinder and related pieces....hence a different model in the same "class" or chassis of saw. Similar enough in cylinder "design" with the closed quad ports and all we can rationalize that THEY are the same "design" but they really aren't...they even can use the same carburetor Right??
THEN the 575 came along, then the back lash...then the 372 X-Torq after the OE was designated to be discontinued.
The entire X-torq concept is a different design than the more conventional 372 OE's two stroke designs before it.  Not only from the the new cylinder design and balance issues introduced  by that goofy tall piston with the big channels in the side to help it "Strato" to the taller plastic to accommodate that taller system. It's like saying as car models change that the design remains the same. Maybe in the marketing world trying to sell a model number its true, but in reality a 2000 era Dodge Durango , is rather different than the subsequent model, a different design. A "Hemi" is a "Hemi" right? Try swapping part from a 5.7 to a 426! Try stuffing a 50mm X-torq piston into a 372 OE cylinder. Any one think the Suzuki RM250 of the 1990's is the same design as the RM250 of the 2000's? Same model evolved into a different design.
Same thing. To maintain a "model" recognition the 372 number will live on another couple of years, but only a sales person would rationalize how its the same design saw as the 371 or quad port 372's prior to 2010 because some parts swap and they look the same Who does that really matter? And why would it matter? Husqvarna trying to sell into the really strong "372" market as that saw was well "designed" and many just want a new one. So why not "design" a new saw using as much as possible from both the parts bin AND look and feel with the same model to till that field. Good business. Doesn't make it the same "design".
It's like the argument over on face book where a dude is trying to argue a Husqvarna 394 is the same saw in Orange as a Jonsered 2095.... same concept some parts carry over, does that mean they are they same "design"? Of course not. And in my old world if a part had a different drawing number, it was a different design by the very definition as the drawing of a part was the design.

And I didn't even use the "NYLON" snag ....

How is that? :D :

[Real1shepherd]

The 394 is more like the 2094.....and the 395 is more like the 2095. But....the stroke of the 2094 and 2095 is lower in the case than the 394 & 395. That makes them actually quite different and not completely swap-able with parts.

So....the Jonsered saws in these examples are not exactly the same as their orange counterparts. Other Jonsered saws were identical to Husky except for the tanks and handles.

Kevin

[weimedog]

I have the 2094 and most of a 2095, Work on the 395 series pretty frequently. Different design saws that as I mentioned might share a part here and there. The Husqvarna ( in my most humble opinion ) with its gas tank / handle as a modern saw has is a generation ahead of the Jonsered with the bar oil and gas in the cases....very little actually crosses between the two.

[Spike60]

Pretty good my friend.

But, I was getting ready to watch a movie. Do I have to win this debate tonight, or can it wait until tomorrow?

Briefly, same saw, different top end and intake. Bottom end the same, as all changes over the years were received by BOTH OE and XT designs as the saws were, and are, produced concurrently. It's not all about the cylinder in my book. Granted, the cylinder is "completely different", but NOT the rest of the saw. It's not the current HEMI we both have vs the old 426, it's our HEMI vs the 6 cylinder that is available in the same, and current, chassis.

But really, old vs new and OE vs XT are 2 "completely different" discussions, and we are kind of bleeding the 2 together and likely causing some confusion. (with us as well as anyone reading our drival) Remember the 16 fin vs the 20 fin flywheel deal?

[Tacotodd]

Yeah, I'm going with this same type of discussion with my Husky dealer right now. Even though he has been to their "school" it's sad when someone off of the street is now showing him just a few of the things that I have learned from over on this site.

And it's funny what he calls me as far as well received names. He and I both know that they are in fun, but unless you know our background with each other, then you'd think that we were at each others throats! He learns from me and I buy from him. How's that for a symbiotic relationship? Because we both have fun and learn from each other!

Before I got into chainsaws, I used to sell him car/truck/heavy equipment parts and pieces. Now I buy a bunch of saw stuff from him. Now we have just swapped who is on what side of the counter. That's how life goes. But we both like it. He never beat me up on prices and I don't beat him up. I know that he has bills to pay and I enjoy hanging out there. He even feeds me occasionally for lunch.

Life is good!

[weimedog]

Briefly, same saw, different top end and intake. Bottom end the same, as all changes over the years were received by BOTH OE and XT designs as the saws were, and are, produced concurrently. It's not all about the cylinder in my book. Granted, the cylinder is "completely different", but NOT the rest of the saw.

Top end, Carb, Intake Boot, Filter Holder, Choke Lever, all new designs. The Taller designed Top Cover, Handle bar, Chain Brake Handle...LOOK the same but are DESIGNED for the 1/2 inch taller X-torq cylinder. Kind of like the mustang's trying to get back to the "retro" look from the 60's. Just a different body.

And true some of the new parts retro back...like different ignition that rev limits at 13300 instead of the 13500 or more required to best setup the OE 50mm different designed cylinder, Can even blend the "different" carb to the OE's. Different choke level...different crank can be argued as an upgrade. But it's more because like the 51.4's they aren't building the OE spare parts if the XT's are "good enough", or like with the similar looking covers the BIGGER new versions are so much larger they easily encompass the older parts, BUT there is a huge gap between the cylinder and top cover because that new cover was DESIGNED for the taller X-torq cylinder. And may effect cooling and air flow across the smaller cylinder that wasn't designed in concert with that now taller cover. Things like the flywheel where an actual upgrade to address cooling issues, but the top coves & things weren't concieved in that upgrade spirit, they were "designed" for a new cylinder concept called X-Torq.

Wow start adding it up there isn't a lot that hasn't been "updated" ( changed, designed to be the XT vs. OE ). And to most the "heart" of a piece of power equipment is how it burns gas/air to make power, and that is the cylinder design....which is completely different between the XT and OE.

I think it would be fun to try and list the parts that are the same. Not the cases! They will accommodate the OE but were DESIGNED for the longer flange of the XT....so lets try that direction. What parts are the same?
Oil pump & hoses ( NOW different with Latest design), worm gear, chain brake parts, Pull start, Flywheel, Seals NOT bearings , Spark plug? Decomp? , That support plate or bracket under the carb. Tank handle, Throttle trigger and assembly... side cover. And then how many of those retro of OTHER saw models..like Bar oil mechanism & chain brake stuff to the 385/390's, decomp. Using Spikes logic the 390 is now the same design and same saw as the X-torq. Because I can "blend" these and other things like the pto side cover, ignition, even carb if ur clever back to a 385/390.

What this is goes along with the argument how many hairs does it take for u to loose before you are considered bald? Bob's saying because the X-torq and OE 372 use the same screws, have the same model number and look the same, they are the same SAW. I'm saying that even though they are similar and have the same model number they are different designs. Back to the RM250 analogy. I would say we are well past the "hair lose" stage and approaching the bald point.


We are making progress... ALL in fun I hope or I would stop in an instant.

[weimedog]

Hemi 

[weimedog]

HEMI