(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/17725/PART_1383193720332%7E1.jpg)
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/17725/PART_1397269267704.jpg)
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/17725/PART_1397530551953.jpg) I was splitting some over sized doug fir logs with the old 288 running a 60" bar finished cutting from one side set the saw down and helped the other sawyer off load the stack of lumber on the sawmill onto a equipment trailer, hopped back on the cat and rolled the log right over the saw. The prognosis is not good with a cracked case so replacing the saw is a must.
I found two saws in the size range, one is a 281 ex eliminator and the other is a husky 2100. I am not real familiar with the comparisons of these saws. I need to run the 60" bar as it is my primary brake down of over sized logs for the sawmill.
The 288 seemed like it could use a bit more power but it was a 1988 model that had a lot of use over the years as two fallers had owned it before me.
How much difference is there in these saws?
That is too bad. :( When the saw is on the ground it goes beside a tree or something that I would have to run over first before getting to the saw. I have a place on my tractor that is right beside me. I have got on a few times,start the tractor,look down and go Oh Oh,no saw. Get back off and put it on the tractor.
2100 would be my choice for a 60" bar and splitting logs like that. There's no replacement for displacement. :D
It's a heavy beast to use for regular felling, but for milling it's one of the best.
Ian
I've only used a 2100 a couple of times. It cut pretty well. Might have cut better if it had a better chain on it. The guy that owned it said it would out cut his two 394XPs. If that's the case, then I would be impressed. I'm with Ian, the more cc's the merrier ripping. :)
A 60" bar really is way too much on all those saws, so among them bigger is better.
Quote from: SawTroll on April 17, 2014, 12:09:20 PM
A 60" bar really is way too much on all those saws, so among them bigger is better.
+1
There is a 2100 on CL near Scio. A 3120 would be better, but a 2100 is over 100cc. They are good old saws.
Quote from: mad murdock on April 17, 2014, 10:19:20 PM
There is a 2100 on CL near Scio. A 3120 would be better, but a 2100 is over 100cc. They are good old saws.
Just got a call back from the one in Scio it already sold to someone setting up a 4' Alaska mill running a 60" bar :(
The 281 is local, a size smaller then the 288, but about 15 years newer with light use over the years so should pull the chain about the same if not a little stronger.
Would like to find a 3120. Never the less I have over sized logs on the cut list and need to make halves :)
Well if the piston and cylinder is still good on your smashed 288, I'm almost positive that top end will bolt onto the 281 you're looking at.
New piston and rings + your 288 cylinder on the 281?
You said it was 15 years newer and light use and local.
Just a thought.
Well I got to looking around and found a 394 right here in the "For Sale" section at 124cc? I am hoping it should make splitting logs a whole new task. Check is in the mail looking forward to pulling shavings with it.
Have some over sized Maple scheduled for first week in May.
394 is 94cc.
Quote from: mad murdock on April 17, 2014, 10:19:20 PM
There is a 2100 on CL near Scio. A 3120 would be better, but a 2100 is over 100cc. They are good old saws.
They are 98.5cc, like some other so-called 100cc saws.
I love this story.........you know what they say how tough Aussie hardwoods are.
A 106cc 070 would also be a good choice and can be bought for a lot less then the 137cc 090.
Last pic is my 090 with 60" b/c sporting a .404 harvester chain.
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/21589/image0%7E13.jpg)
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/21589/anna_023-002.jpg)
True dat HolmenTree. Even an 075/076 can be had now and again for a bargain. I got my 075 for cheep, It would prolly do just as well as the 288, and could wield a long bar with skip chain, in Doug fir pretty handily.