Uh Oh Husqvarna 395

[Beer Gut]

The one on top has the low top setup, the one on top has the HD

Got ya. So same saw bottom pick preferred for HD

 

[T.Roller]

Ahh. Ok. Which is preferable

That is all a matter of opinion. The original xp usually turns more rpm and is snappier while the xt has more torque. I personally like the original better.

 

[T.Roller]

Got ya. So same saw bottom pick preferred for HD

Some like them more some dont. I like the HD setup

 

[huskyboy]

1996ish...371xp(early version of 372 with single ring piston and front chain tensioner), 2000ish 372xp came out (two ring piston, same cylinder as 371xp and a side chain tensioner), 2007ish 372xpw offered (larger 51.4mm p/c wrap handle and big dawgs), 2011ish 372 xtorq (same cc’s as original oe 372, but strato and completely different cylinder/piston/intake tract. Can swap the old style cylinder on the xtorq though).

 

[huskyboy]

The oe 365 is just a smaller bore detuned version of the 372. Same basic chassis. Both closed and open port versions were offered depending on the year. The newer xtorq 365 is the same saw as the xtorq 372 but has a low top, one bucking spike and detuned.

 

[blsnelling]

Actually, you can tell the difference of an OE and XT 372 externally. One, the decomp on the XT is on top the cylinder, with a large boss in the plastic cylinder cover. Two, the recoil decal on the XT says XTorq.

 

[blsnelling]

The oe 365 is just a smaller bore detuned version of the 372. Same basic chassis. Both closed and open port versions were offered depending on the year. The newer xtorq 365 is the same saw as the xtorq 372 but has a low top, one bucking spike and detuned.

The only "detuning" that I'm aware of is baffles in the transfer covers.

 

[huskyboy]

The only "detuning" that I'm aware of is baffles in the transfer covers.

Yes sir, you are correct

 

[Chainsaw Jim]

View attachment 106032 View attachment 106033
No I see 2 different ones???

You are correct. The low top saw, which was also available in the high top version, is the original design with the decomp button on the clutch side of the cylinder, the high top filter saw in the pic is the x-torq with the decomp button on top of the cylinder. The top cover has a visible opening.

 

[RIDE-RED 350r]

The 372 has undergone some changes since it's inception and in some ways the current version is quite different than the original. You can put OE or XPW (75cc) top ends on an XT bottom end, but you cannot put an XT top end on the other bottom ends without modification. It's kind of like how many of the older 0xx model Stihls had some significant changes as they progressed like an 056 started out at what, 81cc and by the time it was called the Magnum II it was 90-something cc. Kind of like that, but not to the extent that displacement kept increasing.

The 372 XT can be made to run very well, my brother ported his and it was quite strong. He always said my ported XPW was stronger, but I didn't really see it that way. Needless to say, he has a ported XPW top end on his XT now.

 

[Beer Gut]

Might not go over the 24in bar on this saw because I have others with bigger. What would you guys recommend then for sprocket 8, 10?

 

[TreeLife]

I want a brand new 372. One day

 

[TreeLife]

Might not go over the 24in bar on this saw because I have others with bigger. What would you guys recommend then for sprocket 8, 10?

I always use a 7 pin on work saws. Mo torque.

 

[T.Roller]

Might not go over the 24in bar on this saw because I have others with bigger. What would you guys recommend then for sprocket 8, 10?

8 for work. That saw with just a 24 is a waste man

 

[RIDE-RED 350r]

Might not go over the 24in bar on this saw because I have others with bigger. What would you guys recommend then for sprocket 8, 10?

If you saw my 394 vid in the thread about "best 90-94cc saw" it's pulling an 8-pin with a 36" completely buried in solid hard maple. I guarantee a stock-ish 395 will pull an 8-pin on a 24" bar and laugh at it

 

[Wolverine]

8 for work. That saw with just a 24 is a waste man

I dunno, I wouldn't say waste. My 94 wears a 24 for firewood duty (8pin, rakers filed to load it up right). I don't regularly saw logs that require the 42". This red oak I harvested from state game lands. That combo cuts down on saw time tremendously. It ate down through wood like a light saber.


But it does pull long bars like a hoss.

 

[huskyboy]

If you saw my 394 vid in the thread about "best 90-94cc saw" it's pulling an 8-pin with a 36" completely buried in solid hard maple. I guarantee a stock-ish 395 will pull an 8-pin on a 24" bar and laugh at it

Stock 394 I have here laughs at a 28” 8 pin.

 

[huskyboy]

Might not go over the 24in bar on this saw because I have others with bigger. What would you guys recommend then for sprocket 8, 10?

Good combo for that saw for work would be a 32” reduced weight bar 7 pin.

 

[XP_Slinger]

Simplest and least expensive thing to do is keep the 24” on it and get an adapter from homelite410 so you can put one of your long Stihl bars on it should the need or want arise.

 

[T.Roller]

I dunno, I wouldn't say waste. My 94 wears a 24 for firewood duty (8pin, rakers filed to load it up right). I don't regularly saw logs that require the 42". This red oak I harvested from state game lands. That combo cuts down on saw time tremendously. It ate down through wood like a light saber.
View attachment 106191
View attachment 106190
But it does pull long bars like a hoss.
View attachment 106192

Yeah no thank you. If I'm using a 24" I'm definitely using a 70cc saw.