Ok, what do simple changes like "base gasket delete" builds give over a stock saw? Are the back yard builds actually producing power differences? Can a hobby / enthusiast with tweak & tune skills make simple changes to change how a saw runs? Or is it all a myth. Took a relatively stock Jonsered cs2172 as a "bench mark" and did a back to back to back cookie cut race against a few builds I have done over the years. A few takeaways from the experience..
1) The natural log "red neck" dyno tells you a lot actually...but the wood conditions are changing. SO if you go strictly by the numbers as if they are accurate you both get a skewed & inaccurate view AND miss a lot of other nuances. They do however give an idea of the changes. When running the saws the operator can tell. Watching YouTube cookie cut races only gives an impression but not a really scientific measurement from one saw to the next. In this video the wood changed significantly as I progressed up the log through a know and some softer wood. BUT if you both pay attention to the saw working and the times you certainly can see which saws pull harder than the rest...so while not scientify, it does allow me to prove a point. :)
2) In the end there was only one saw there that was so far off that it's really obvious both running and watching the video. The "Chinese Cases" under a really clean 48mm cylinder was way off the pace with the rest. I will do a follow video at some point as one very important take away I can CAN'T show with out a true dyno is the compression of these builds is the most important factor in how they perform one to the nest more than displacement. Something that is sometimes overlooked when everyone wants to see fancy porting and timing numbers. ( Actually in the follow up I was wrong here.....the compression was the same on the 48mm builds....didn't feel that way starting them, but it was. The difference between the builds are: one was built on chinese cases, the other OEM, and one had some simple mods I do on most X-torq or 48mm cylinders to help the transfers a bit. Will elaborate in a future video )
3) Simple mods done right do make a difference.
4) Have to concede to Bob's premise of the last few years... those 48mm cylinders are under rated. And also that "break in" matters.
Jonsered cs2172 ( Husqvarna 372xp X-torq ) vs. Jonsered cs2165 HTSS 48mm "Original Edition" Build - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAYBH5r_9MM)
I have trouble with log cutting tests. Mainly because consciously or unconsciously you could easily be leaning harder on the saw you think is more powerful. The only fair comparison would be some sort of hydraulic machine that clamped the saw and had adjustable, accurate down pressure. Too much human error the other way.
However, I do trust people I know that know saws and use them for half a day or days....and conclude that one saw outruns another. But just cutting cookies or a few logs.....I don't think so.
I compared a 2094 to the Husky 2100 that way....all day in Sugar maple. I had a surprise in all that, but not if you logically think about both saw designs.
Kevin
Kevin, please elaborate what the differences were that you found. Inquiring minds (like mine) want to know. 🧐
Because my friends just can't believe how good any of my saws cut, until I also sharpen their chain. Al and Willard have both been spot-on in that fact. 🤣
A little bit of a surprise to me was the compression on the two 48mm builds were the same but one of the 48mm's was much stronger than the other 48mm build. Differences?
1) One has my typical tweaks to the intake and lower transfers the other does not. (Stronger one "tweaked" )
2) One has a larger opening on the muffler outlet (Stronger one had a larger outlet )
3) One is built on Aftermarket cases vs. the other on OEM ( Stronger one on the OEM cases )
4) One has the "low top" air filter arraignment one has a high top 372 filter holder & filter ( Stronger one has the bigger air filter )
everything else was effectively the same, OEM cranks, X-torq carbs, X-torq ignitions etc.
Didn't check timing but assume the cranks/flywheels being OEM should mean they are close to the same right?
Speculate my tweaks to the cylinder OR the air filter on the one makes more of a difference than I had anticipated, because I can't believe that the difference in the mufflers or different cases would create as much of a difference as I felt in the test cuts. BOTH are way stronger than the stock 365 specials/ Jonsered 2165 ( I do have a stock unmodified other than base gasket delete 365 as a test mule in the shop )
AND I understand these are ALL samples of ONE.
OF course the big question is why these OE's run stronger than the stock 372 X-torq even though the XT has 15lbs more compression. And as a clue, when the typical mods I do to the XT's are applied, those X-torq's are as strong or stronger than ANY of the saws in this video. They really wake up (the X-Torq's do ) with a few changes, more on that in a future video. But I was surprised with the results of the compression test between the two 48's when juxtaposed to the cut time & feel. That one little 48mm build was more than I anticipated relative to the others as well. Little surprised the X-torq with the more compression didn't fare better. ( And U are welcome Bob )
More in a subsequent video to parse the differences and their effect :)
Follow Up On Jonsereds Video & Solo 603, BIG Saw! - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utpFvX-K3O4)
For everyones cookie cutter testing, I feel it would be more appropriate if you were to go straight down and let the saws and chain do the work.
That way you would show to everyone (yourself included) a much more "scientific" comparison. It also seems like you might be able to touch up the chain and see if that matters. My $0.02.
I'm contemplating doing a base gasket delete on a new-to-me 365 and a cylinder tweaking while I have it off. For the price it was sold to me, I cannot lose. If I fowl up, well, 372xp it turns into.
Problem with that "just let the chain work" is it doesn't demonstrate those saws with enough torque to put pressure and therefor speed the cut time. Another deal is the rakers and chain sharpening technic. I used to put time into getting a specific raker/chain sharpening for the different saws. The 51.4 could definitely pull more raker than the 48mm build. Both are running similar chain speeds so not being able to "meter" pressure would sell the 51.4 short. A more accurate measure is just run the saws using my feel as to how much they can "take" with the same bar and chain. That feel is an intangible, but I can get a lot more out of the saw than just letting it drop and cut. And some need RPM's some don't and a good operator can feel and adjust to the different saw, therefore show the true performance in that given situation vs. a dry drop approach that will favor a saw matched to the chain. So completely disagree with that premise. But this brings up the entire "Saw Setup" which includes things like sprocket , chain / raker , bar size etc. Another entire cabal. Rather use as consistent wood as possible with the same bar and chain. Same operator and technic from saw to saw. And recognize different operators will get different results, some will work better with one configuration vs another as well....all part of the mish mash of data which makes all of it subjective doesn't it. For me the 48mm 2165 build would be the best over a days work when thinking vibration, fuel usage, cut times weight...all blended in the mix. Followed by the 51.4 build. But that is my most humble opinion. Others might work better with other builds.
Touché
Quote from: Tacotodd on October 16, 2020, 06:57:02 AM
Kevin, please elaborate what the differences were that you found. Inquiring minds (like mine) want to know.
Because my friends just can’t believe how good any of my saws cut, until I also sharpen their chain. Al and Willard have both been spot-on in that fact.
Todd,
Well, the short story is that the stock Jonsered 2094 screams well over 14,000rpm if tuned properly. That was my first surprise. My Husky 2100 with the gov plugged runs a bit over 12,000rpm.
In the test, the 2094 pulled away in anything under 3' dia. But once buried in
over 3' dia the 2100 walked away from the 2094 with its superior torque. I have infinite respect for the 2100 because I used it professionally for easily a decade. But the 2094 is amazingly quick and a real workhorse. I really, really like that saw.
Both saws had 36" bars, .063 gauge, .404 skip-tooth square file chisel chain and they were kept
sharp the whole day.
The 2094 isn't exactly the Husky 394;more of its stroke is down in the case. But I suspect it would be a lot like comparing a Husky 2100 to a Husky 394(the saw that came out after the demise of the 2101.....along with the 3120).
Kevin
Hoping to pull my 2094 out next week, always a screamer. Did a video a few years back running it back to back with other "big" saws. It had a crap chain and was right there with well setup big saws...u could tell by it's sound that saw was running....right. But a great old video to continue the discussion of the nature of cookie cuts comparo's, I'll see if I can find it....
"Big Old Saws" Jonsered 920 , Jonsered 2094 , Husqvarna 372 52mm , Farmertec MS660 - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgcZMMznuhs)
B&C set ups are everything. If you're comparing saws like these, B&C should all be identical down to how you sharpen them.
Using a short bar on a large cc saw is pointless. Those saws are heavier and much more suited to large timber. Any number of fast, smaller cc saws will outshine them in smaller timber all day long.
And now there are two schools of thought on modding large cc saws;one is strictly for braggin' rights at a GTG. The other for actually using the saw all day for work.
Anything more than a mild woods port on a large cc work saw I see as redundant. Sure, you can make the saw cut faster and raise the rpm.....but you also raise the gas consumption. And that means a lot in the woods. Big cc saws are thirsty anyway and porting makes them worse so. So if you're runnin' through more gas, you'd better be doubling you work output and I just don't see that happening. And then there's potential longevity issues.....
With the Husky 2100, we never did anything more than muffler mods, plug the gov and hang on. I don't ever remember anyone complaining about time in cuts.
Kevin
Next couple of weeks will be taken with tweaking some large saws. The over 90cc set. A 2094, Solo 603, a few others. Possibly a 298 a newer version of the 2100. I have a bunch of over mature maple, HARD maple; in the 3ft diameter range to deal with.
As far as the cookie cut saw "testing" on the channel, always controversial. I'll yet again mention as I have have for decades; you get a sense, not a precise to the decimal point accurate measurement for these saw running them back to back in the same wood using the same bar and chain. Can use the cookie format to demonstrate enough of what I need to in a way most will understand. Most can see & hear enough to know what's going on if they run saws. I get comment after comment of folks watching and adding their cut...and usually its spot on. I've run those project saws quite a bit, the one (51.4) a couple of years now. AND all this little exercise did was tell me what I already knew but gave a representation that can be communicated to those truly interested in these projects across an internet medium. Could just say what I think to those interested or both say and show a little evidence. I choose the later, many will over analyze this for a variety of reasons. Spending huge amounts of money and time getting down to the tenth doesn't make the point any better than ball park as long as the medium can show enough for folks to see a tangible difference. I can tell u the actual difference are more than what came through in this video for these little builds. But enough came through plus analysis by me made the point I was trying to convey.
Point was a follow on to the 48mm build and how do they run relative to stock 372 x-torqs as a reference and does it make sense to toss them in favor of Aftermarket....and that was demonstrated as both OEM 50mm XT's and 51.4 OE's will run better for longer than any unmodified AM option. Whether is was 10 percent or 15 percent doesn't really matter, what does is those little 48's can be made to run certainly to the point it doesn't make sense to swap them out for a Aftermarket "Big Bore". A side point is they are a legitimate option for those who want to build a light & smooth running 65cc class saw from the X-torqs after they get to their end of useful life vs. going AM. And that was the genesis of this project. A "nudge" by Bob to make the point....and we certainly did.
What did change for me is starting this was simply to show how they run, but after building a couple I have moved to the thought they actually may have benefits other than simply salvage and cost over building with other cylinder options. Next test? Relative to the OE 50mm top ends.
And relative to the Bar & Chains certainly agree where the steel hits the wood is one of the biggest if not THE biggest factor .. why I ran both the ones that were on the saws AND then ran each saw with the exact same brand New bar and new "out of the box" chain across the saws...and repeated the swap for more cuts when it was obvious to me the wood had changed enough to skew the impression , to reset the standard.
For me, tweaking these saws is all about having some fun. And if you go too far down Hair Splitting Avenue the fun goes away. Same with time invested. "Simple tweaks" in my book only adds 45min to an hour to the time of a stock rebuild. Spending the whole day with a lathe and degree wheel is fine for anyone who wants to do that but I'd never go there myself.
This isn't a scientific study by a major university funded by a government grant. The micro second accuracy of results that some guys would like to see isn't gonna be there because it's impossible to boil out all of the many variables to acheive them. Who in their right mind would want to do that, and in the end, would the value of those results be worth all that effort? I'd rather be in the woods. Especially this time of year. :)
All comes down to the fact that "modding saws" has different definitions to different people. None of those definitions are wrong; they're just different.
The upcoming big saw party will include a 2100 and a Jonsered 111. Kevin constantly talking about his 2100's has me itching to drag mine out and make some noise with it. Hardly really ever have a reason to pull out the 100cc saws, so this will be a change of pace. Also have 32" and 36" .404 bars that I never use. Better to have them on a saw than hanging on a nail in the workshop. Have very little experience with .404. Sell some .080 gage loops to guys with processors, but that's all we see around here. Kevin, did guys run .404 or 3/8 out there on those big saws?
Bob, we always ran Oregon 68CJ which was .404, .063 gauge, skip-tooth, square file pro chain. I mean it wasn't even up for debate....that's what we ran. Now when I moved to the western slope of CO and got into 'cowboy' loggin', fallers were all over the map on what they used.
The saw shop owner in Montrose talked me into using 3/8" full comp and sold me a 36" bar with it. I used it for one day. I saw absolutely no advantage but many disadvantages running on the 2100. I still have the bar and the two loops of chain for it somewhere as a reminder.
I even ran the same .404 chain type on the 80 in .058 gauge. I used Jonsereds saws as my back up saws in CO and in smaller timber there.
It's my understanding talking to a few loggers that when the Jonsereds 900 series came out some of them used 3/8" chain so they had power to run longer bars. A logger friend of mine that worked at that saw shop in Montrose, let me use his new 910 for the day. They also totally rebuilt the 80 I was using. Other than being light, the 910 didn't set my world on fire compared to the rebuilt 80 I had. So.....I didn't rush down to their store and buy a 910. But then that 80 I have runs like no other 80 I've seen so far on YouTube.
In those famous PNW oriented Jonsereds ads with 'Denny', he was using a 910 with a 36" bar and probably 3/8" chain. But even when they were selling the 920, he was still shown with a 910.
And I found out from a Swede on another site that the 100cc 910's were real and sent to the PNW mostly. So my guess is that 'Denny' was using one of those and refused to give it up. That's the only saw I lust after and my Holy Grail saw. If anyone has one, I'll trade my nice 111S straight across.
Kevin