Husqvarna 50/51/55 repair thread.

[DrewXT]

@ray benson

Ray only had a manual for the 55... I reckon the only difference is the choke mechanism, but would like a manual to be able to confirm

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Stump Shot]

Ray only had a manual for the 55... I reckon the only difference is the choke mechanism, but would like a manual to be able to confirm

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

There's one in the first page of the Husqvarna manual thread in the manual section under chainsaws.

 

[ray benson]

There's one in the first page of the Husqvarna manual thread in the manual section under chainsaws.

That version is the only one I have. It covers the 50, 50 Special, 51, and 55

 

[Stump Shot]

That version is the only one I have. It covers the 50, 50 Special, 51, and 55

Worked for me.

 

[PogoInTheWoods]

Any chance anyone has a shop manual for them?

For convenient reference...

 

[Tor R]

Do you guys think that without the spark screen that exhaust is leaking out the seam where the solid part of the screen would cover? Kinda lines up with the burned areas.

I think you are spot on with the deflector issue Dan, if it was me I would just wield a longer deflector on.
You probleby has to bend the deflector here and there so it doesnt hit the brake flag, them US deflectors has little space for the brake flag

 

[RIDE-RED 350r]

Well, this morning I ordered the Husky 55 top end kit from HL Supply for..... drum roll please..... $12.60! LOL! Gonna wrap it up and put it under the tree for my boy as the 55 project is "his". I'm curious to see how it works. I'm pretty certain it is an open port design, as far as I know there is only one AM cylinder kit offered in closed port and the kit I ordered isn't it. HL Supply has a heck of a sale going on right now. I wasn't planning on buying any 55 parts just yet, but for 13 bucks I couldn't resist!

 

[PogoInTheWoods]

They have the Meteor quasi closed port top end super cheap today, too. May hafta snatch one up just to have on the shelf.

 

[wcorey]

And also the perportedly nearly identical Hyway kit for $30 less than the meteor.
Piston/rings in the Meteor I'd trust more but their cylinders don't always have a stellar rep...

Has anyone done a head to head comparo between either of these and a stock cylinder (op or cp) by now?

http://www.hlsproparts.com/Husqvarna-55-51-cylinder-and-piston-assembly-p/h30055-w.htm

 

[PogoInTheWoods]

There has been a ton of conversation and comparisons with neither the Meteor or the Hyway being a true closed port design. The Meteor was out there as a quasi closed port 46mm alternative way before the Hyway came along (which appears to be a knock off of the Meteor).

I'd take the Meteor all day over the Hyway if they were priced the same, but there's a reason they aren't. I've frankly been disappointed by Hyway stuff in general lately. The last three kits I've bought all had problems and needed major grinding..., one just to work at all for a 357xp due to the piston skirts being so bulky they actually hit the crank. I've never encountered a bad Meteor top end kit or piston.

OEM, Meteor, Hyway​

​

But back to the 55. Here is a general comparison between a Meteor 'closed port' 46mm cylinder for a 55, a Husky open port, and a Husky closed port. Notice the nice compact combustion chamber on the Meteor. It'll pull 160psi even with the excessive squish these cylinder designs all have. Also look at the port in the pic of the Hyway cylinder in the link above. Pretty much speaks for itself.

 

[wcorey]

So how do they run?

 

[PogoInTheWoods]

The strongest stock 55 I've built so far had a Meteor quasi top end and ran an 18" 3/8's setup. Can't deny the compression of those kits. 'Course compared to what is probably a legitimate question since the only other one close was an OEM open port cylinder with a Meteor piston. No complete OEM saws to compare to. I did just build one with a NWP open port top end that seems pretty strong. Decent casting but the plating was thin at the exhaust port. Nice $60 kit otherwise.

Truth be told though, there has to be some pretty obvious casting problems with these kits to notice a major performance difference between one or the other of em out of the box. Initial compression after a few heat cycles and long haul performance is where the proof of quality really lies. And I've heard more than once that the OEM open port runs just as good as the OEM closed port. That said, I do have a good OEM closed port top end I'm saving for a rainy day just to compare for myself one of these days.

 

[RIDE-RED 350r]

That Meteor "quasi closed port" has lowers like a 346, 357, 372, etc etc. That config has been common on 2-stroke bikes for quite a long time.

I notice the OEM closed port has lowers like a 288, 394, etc. I think that in the strictest sense the Meteor cylinder using the lowers of the 357 etc design would also be a closed port setup, just a bit different than that of the OEM 55 closed port, 288 and 394.

 

[wcorey]

As Pogo mentioned, this subject has been hashed over a few times in the past, hasn't always resulted in a concensus but we at least end up on the same page, lol.

To me the thing is just plain old closed port by most definitions, with the asterisk being that it's kind of a half assed design.

This is because (regardless of whether being bottom or side fed) instead of the transfers having that nice efficient 'out and around' curve, it's just a straight up wall like the stock open port.
Then with the addition of the partition that is potentially more of a blockage than anything the benefit seems a bit sketchy or at best a wash. Thing is it doesnt appear the depth of the port was increased to go out further around the partition so the cross section of the port is decreased.

But then I haven't run one so who knows, maybe they're on to something...

 

[RIDE-RED 350r]

Well the thing to remember too is that bigger isn't simply always better when it comes to transfer size/area. Maintaining good transfer velocity is important too and it can suffer if transfer volume/area is too large for your displacement and case capacity to adequately support. Those partitions in the Meteor transfers may actually be an improvement over an OEM open port???

It sure would be cool to see some apples to apples comparisons

And I do wonder if the style of closed port lower transfers found on the Metoer kit, bikes, etc is an improvement in actual transfer function or if it is a method of giving the piston more support compared to the 55 CP or 394 design, or even a way of getting away from windowed pistons in favor of pistons with more "meat" in their design??? My 1985 Honda 250r's sport transfers of that design and let me tell ya, they RUN. But admittedly, there is also quite a bit more going on in those cylinders in terms of porting too as compared to saw cylinders...

 

[RIDE-RED 350r]

Well, my $12.60 55OP top end kit arrived from HL Supply today. It came in a box labeled "Warhawk" and of course is Chinese in origin. It actually doesn't look half bad. Thought you guys might like a peek.

 

[RIDE-RED 350r]

One more

 

[smokey7]

I am drawing a blank on what saws ive used warhawk jugs on. If i am recalling correct i have used them a few times. Im thinking a ts400 likely husky 350s as well as 450/455 saws too. Aside from some port chamfering they all worked as they should've. I think these are a notch above farmertec. The Chinese seem to have most open port jugs figured out pretty good.

 

[RIDE-RED 350r]

This is the first time I've had a Chinese cylinder of any kind in my hand. IMHO the port chamfering doesn't look too bad, I might put a stone to them just a tad though. Intake and exhaust ports casting looks pretty good too. One thing I notice is the plating doesn't seem to overlap into the port windows like I've seen on OEM Husky cylinders, so that's why I might stone them just a bit more. I'll be curious to see what the timing and squish comes out too, silly as it may be on this particular piece.

 

[PogoInTheWoods]

Plating is more than than likely chrome vs. nikasil on one of those. Touching up the bevels should be fairly smooth unless it starts to flake. Sure won't be as hard as nikasil. And believe it or not, stock OEM squish can be in the .060 range so don't be surprised if you need to double twist .032 solder to measure anything. LOL Combustion chamber looks nice and compact, tho. Should make up for the excessive squish and still pull around 160psi with a base gasket.

How does the piston look?