High Quality Chainsaw Bars Husqvarna Toys

462 To Replace 60cc Saw?

Dub11

Saw R skeery
GoldMember
Local time
7:20 AM
User ID
2014
Joined
Oct 21, 2016
Messages
34,438
Reaction score
146,038
Location
Kansas
Country flag
These are Brad's weights from his thread before running and first fill up.


13, 4.6oz and 15 2.2oz.
About 2 1/2 oz short of 2 lb in fluids.
Stihl Technical data has it as 6kg.
That's 13.2 lb
1.6 oz to a point × 2 = 3.2 oz [ 13, 3.2oz ]
They rounded off to the closest point of a kg which is 6.0kg


I would have figured over 2 lb in fluids.
Water weight would be about 2 1/2 lb. Looks like it's 20% less. than water weight
Funny how they give the oil tank in volume at 340 cc (cm3) and the fuel as simply .72 which is a liquid measurement. which would be normal.
---------
Enough of that BS
More BS..lol

So your bar length will depend on the depth and pitch as well.

I owned three 20" Oregon bars at the same time back in the day and all three different lengths. 2 were 3/8,72 dl and there was a quite a length difference in them. The third was .325, 72 dl that I changed to 3/8 eventually.

That must of been one skinny .325 bar. They are usually 78 or 81 dl from husqvarna or Stihl.
 
Last edited:

MarcS

Pinnacle OPE Member
Local time
7:20 AM
User ID
1161
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
302
Reaction score
1,242
Location
West Central WI
Country flag
Another reason it’s too bad Husky canned Jonsered...much like the 2260 is a lighter 562 they could’ve released a slimmed down 572 in red and black, made it 80cc and called it the 2280... What a cool saw that would’ve been eh?
 

andyshine77

Pinnacle OPE Member
Local time
8:20 AM
User ID
3830
Joined
Aug 17, 2017
Messages
1,254
Reaction score
5,629
Location
Cincinnati, OH
Country flag
562 full of fluids.

0ef8b3ec7e33203333167209b53bd0e6.jpg
 

Dub11

Saw R skeery
GoldMember
Local time
7:20 AM
User ID
2014
Joined
Oct 21, 2016
Messages
34,438
Reaction score
146,038
Location
Kansas
Country flag
Another reason it’s too bad Husky canned Jonsered...much like the 2260 is a lighter 562 they could’ve released a slimmed down 572 in red and black, made it 80cc and called it the 2280... What a cool saw that would’ve been eh?
Yes very much so. Hell I'd take a Redmax GZ8000....
 

~WBF

Thecallofthewildanswered1989-2017[PAID IN FULL!]
Local time
12:20 PM
User ID
9014
Joined
Mar 15, 2019
Messages
667
Reaction score
2,424
Location
Uk
So they were all different length but yet all 72 dl?
No who said that?...lol Not exactly.
Read on...
About 12 year ago I used them on my walkerized 357. I am not really familiar with .325 driver count and made the assumption it was 72 DL as that bar was the shortest of all three. I figured the count was the same and that was the reason the bar was shorter. Dub is right. I guess it was 81 DL .325
78 DL sounds familiar but that is/WAS a 22" , 3/8 Husqavna I believe?
Out of the two original 3/8 72dl, the one was about an 1" 1/4 - 1" 1/2 longer and the one I converted was about a half inch shorter than the middle one and the 3/8 dl count ended up either 70 or 71?
All classed as Oregon 20" in the same time period. I will at least say that and I am not even lying this time. :)



That must of been one skinny .325 bar. They are usually 78 or 81 dl from husqvarna or Stihl.
Yeah you are right for sure. I pretty much know the gear that I ran which is not a wide variety of knowledge in the whole realm of things in the chainsaw world.
I'm sure the only reasons I bought it was that's all they had and It was just over $40 and usually about $68 range.
They are all the narrow k095 mount so the medium length one would have been a bit fatter in areas but looking at them individually you would think you are buying the same bar.
I used it for slashing and felling in the oil patch a lot with a wrap handle and the one I put the 3/8 on was a bad investment in the end. I was fine swapping bars between the two longer ones but that half inch shorter was something I never got used to the distance while speed falling small dia.
A had to shorter the chains too, obviously.
 

Dub11

Saw R skeery
GoldMember
Local time
7:20 AM
User ID
2014
Joined
Oct 21, 2016
Messages
34,438
Reaction score
146,038
Location
Kansas
Country flag
No who said that?...lol Not exactly.
Read on...
About 12 year ago I used them on my walkerized 357. I am not really familiar with .325 driver count and made the assumption it was 72 DL as that bar was the shortest of all three. I figured the count was the same and that was the reason the bar was shorter. Dub is right. I guess it was 81 DL .325
78 DL sounds familiar but that is/WAS a 22" , 3/8 Husqavna I believe?
Out of the two original 3/8 72dl, the one was about an 1" 1/4 - 1" 1/2 longer and the one I converted was about a half inch shorter than the middle one and the 3/8 dl count ended up either 70 or 71?
All classed as Oregon 20" in the same time period. I will at least say that and I am not even lying this time. :)




Yeah you are right for sure. I pretty much know the gear that I ran which is not a wide variety of knowledge in the whole realm of things in the chainsaw world.
I'm sure the only reasons I bought it was that's all they had and It was just over $40 and usually about $68 range.
They are all the narrow k095 mount so the medium length one would have been a bit fatter in areas but looking at them individually you would think you are buying the same bar.
I used it for slashing and felling in the oil patch a lot with a wrap handle and the one I put the 3/8 on was a bad investment in the end. I was fine swapping bars between the two longer ones but that half inch shorter was something I never got used to the distance while speed falling small dia.
A had to shorter the chains too, obviously.
72dl .325 would be an 18" bar. Bit I have seen some manufacturers makes some funky choices. Like for instance Dolmar has an 18" 3/8 k095 but its 64 dl versus the typical 68dl you find. But if there is a 20" 72dl .325 out there I wouldn't mind having it. Would probably make a real handy limber.
 

MustangMike

Mastermind Approved!
Local time
8:20 AM
User ID
338
Joined
Dec 30, 2015
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
35,919
Location
Brewster, NY
Country flag
Which version 562 is that? The older 5 bolt case or the newer 6 bolt? I think the new 6 bolt is supposed to be the same weight as a 462 - dry. Of course, if the 462 holds more fluids, you don't have to fill it!!!
 

~WBF

Thecallofthewildanswered1989-2017[PAID IN FULL!]
Local time
12:20 PM
User ID
9014
Joined
Mar 15, 2019
Messages
667
Reaction score
2,424
Location
Uk
Which version 562 is that? The older 5 bolt case or the newer 6 bolt? I think the new 6 bolt is supposed to be the same weight as a 462 - dry. Of course, if the 462 holds more fluids, you don't have to fill it!!!
My longest race was three weeks Falling and bucking next to another Faller so I find it beneficial to fill the saw up. haha. The races are fast in comparison to the disputes. Fun though.
I will post the 562 fueling specs.
I know the 372 is .77 litre and oil is .42 litre. That's 770 ml and 420ml
If you want to go from liquid to volume capacity then it is simply called CC (cubic centimeters) or cm3
So a milliliter is the equivalent liquid measurement that fills a cubic centimeter.

You no when your engine is too hot?
When your displacement is now measured is ml
Ok that's a bad metric joke of mine.
 
Last edited:

andyshine77

Pinnacle OPE Member
Local time
8:20 AM
User ID
3830
Joined
Aug 17, 2017
Messages
1,254
Reaction score
5,629
Location
Cincinnati, OH
Country flag
Which version 562 is that? The older 5 bolt case or the newer 6 bolt? I think the new 6 bolt is supposed to be the same weight as a 462 - dry. Of course, if the 462 holds more fluids, you don't have to fill it!!!
Newer 6 bolt. The 562 runs a long time on a tank, less displacement remember.

Looks like 21.92oz of fuel and 11.8oz of oil.

562 dry.

c97007218c1cc58b1261070b75cfbabc.jpg
 
Last edited:

~WBF

Thecallofthewildanswered1989-2017[PAID IN FULL!]
Local time
12:20 PM
User ID
9014
Joined
Mar 15, 2019
Messages
667
Reaction score
2,424
Location
Uk
Holy chit, I worked up a sweat.
That was hard to find the liquid fuel capacity of the 562 in ml. The main one just had oil.
So .331 ml oil and .651 ml fuel.
The 572 .350ml oil and 700 ml (.7 litre)
372 basically at .42L oil & .77 L fuel.
The 572 has about 1/11 less fuel or about 9% but a longer stroke now so possibly better milage? 140ml less g&o too so it should be a bit lighter that the 372 X torq
Oil equals half the fuel it seems.
462 was 340 ml and 720 ml (.720 litre)

I would have to look into the ml per min
of oil flow with the 572 & 462.
I believe the 572 was the same as the 372 at 21ml /or CC a minute for easy conversion. About 2.5 CM to an inch so 7.5 cm to square inch 7.5 × 2.5 = 18.75 for Cu in. Probably around 18.5 ml to fill a cu in.
for 372 and I'll have to double check but I believe the 572 also.

It has two minutes less run time with max oil than it did...if in fact it does run 21 ml per min. I never completely maxed my 372 oiler out even with 36" bars or you can run out as activities change.
Math says maxed out/max rev you get about 21 min run time with 372. A fast gas tank would be 25 minutes on load.
The 562 oil maxes at 15 ml per min
 
Last edited:

N8TE

Pinnacle OPE Member
Local time
7:20 AM
User ID
9301
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
542
Reaction score
2,879
Location
South Dakota
Holy chit, I worked up a sweat.
That was hard to find the liquid fuel capacity of the 562 in ml. The main one just had oil.
So .331 ml oil and .651 ml fuel.
The 572 .350ml oil and 700 ml (.7 litre)
372 basically at .4 L oil & .8 L fuel.
Oil equals half the fuel it seems.
462 was 340 ml and 720 ml (.720 litre

I would have to look into the ml per min
of oil flow with the 572 & 462.
I believe the 572 was the same as the 372 at 21ml /or CC a minute for easy conversion. About 2.5 CM to an inch so 7.5 cm to square inch 7.5 × 2.5 = 18.75 for Cu in. Probably around 18.5 ml to fill a cu in.
for 372 and I'll have to double check but I believe the 572 also.
It have the longer stroke does the 572 over the 372 so it has I/8 less fuel than it did. It may even be a tiny bit lighter than the the xt? with 140 ml less g&o.
It has two minutes less run time with max oil than it did...if in fact it does run 21 ml per min. I never completely maxed my 372 oiler out even with 36" bars or you can run out as activities change.
Math says maxed out/max rev you get about 19 min run time with 372. A fast gas tank would be 25 minutes. You would have to have everything wide open
The 562 oil maxes at 15 ml per min
Haha ....wow, solid work! I'ma take your word for it!
 

huskyboy

Sorta a husqvarna guy...
Local time
8:20 AM
User ID
1352
Joined
May 30, 2016
Messages
10,025
Reaction score
43,448
Location
Ct
Country flag
Holy chit, I worked up a sweat.
That was hard to find the liquid fuel capacity of the 562 in ml. The main one just had oil.
So .331 ml oil and .651 ml fuel.
The 572 .350ml oil and 700 ml (.7 litre)
372 basically at .4 L oil & .8 L fuel.
Oil equals half the fuel it seems.
462 was 340 ml and 720 ml (.720 litre

I would have to look into the ml per min
of oil flow with the 572 & 462.
I believe the 572 was the same as the 372 at 21ml /or CC a minute for easy conversion. About 2.5 CM to an inch so 7.5 cm to square inch 7.5 × 2.5 = 18.75 for Cu in. Probably around 18.5 ml to fill a cu in.
for 372 and I'll have to double check but I believe the 572 also.
It have the longer stroke does the 572 over the 372 so it has I/8 less fuel than it did. It may even be a tiny bit lighter than the the xt? with 140 ml less g&o.
It has two minutes less run time with max oil than it did...if in fact it does run 21 ml per min. I never completely maxed my 372 oiler out even with 36" bars or you can run out as activities change.
Math says maxed out/max rev you get about 19 min run time with 372. A fast gas tank would be 25 minutes. You would have to have everything wide open
The 562 oil maxes at 15 ml per min
Wow thanks for the info. The 572 is better on fuel than the 462 or 372 in my experiences so far. Interesting. Seems to oil as good as a 372 does, clutch looks the same... probably the same pump? I’ll have to look at the part number in the IPL.
 

ABarrick

TacomaTRD98 on AS
Local time
8:20 AM
User ID
913
Joined
Feb 19, 2016
Messages
523
Reaction score
2,646
Location
Newville, PA
Country flag
Wow thanks for the info. The 572 is better on fuel than the 462 or 372 in my experiences so far. Interesting. Seems to oil as good as a 372 does, clutch looks the same... probably the same pump? I’ll have to look at the part number in the IPL.
My only gripe with 462 isn’t the fuel economy, it’s that it won’t empty the darn tank. Both mine start starving for fuel and “run out” with about 1/4 tank left. The molded fuel hose doesn’t allow the pickup body to lay flat on the bottom of the tank. They will empty the tank if run on the side when falling or stumping, but when bucking, they run out prematurely.
 

Dub11

Saw R skeery
GoldMember
Local time
7:20 AM
User ID
2014
Joined
Oct 21, 2016
Messages
34,438
Reaction score
146,038
Location
Kansas
Country flag
My only gripe with 462 isn’t the fuel economy, it’s that it won’t empty the darn tank. Both mine start starving for fuel and “run out” with about 1/4 tank left. The molded fuel hose doesn’t allow the pickup body to lay flat on the bottom of the tank. They will empty the tank if run on the side when falling or stumping, but when bucking, they run out prematurely.

So the heat of the meat has nothing to do with the angle of the dangle?
 

MustangMike

Mastermind Approved!
Local time
8:20 AM
User ID
338
Joined
Dec 30, 2015
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
35,919
Location
Brewster, NY
Country flag
I have not noticed that problem with mine, but will keep an eye out for it.
 

00wyk

Here For The Long Haul!
Local time
12:20 PM
User ID
4606
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
1,613
Reaction score
9,215
Location
Ireland
Country flag
Which version 562 is that? The older 5 bolt case or the newer 6 bolt? I think the new 6 bolt is supposed to be the same weight as a 462 - dry. Of course, if the 462 holds more fluids, you don't have to fill it!!!

168941111.dkBbXBJA.jpg


I also have this, but I dunno who weighed it:

154581445.N6BaJg3R.562xpweight.jpg
 
Top