372Took it hard

[Jughead]

From what I understand about strato's intended design, I don't believe they increase fuel economy by overall just plain less fuel. An engine of "X" bore by "Y" stroke operating at "Z" RPM is still going to need roughly the same amount if fuel actually present in the combustion chamber to run properly and without burning down... Aside from some obvious exceptions (relatively minor) when throwing different/modified port layout into the mix..They send less wasted unburned fuel out the exhaust than a conventional design. In other words, the savings isn't from skimping on the fuel being actually used and therefore the bottom end getting less lubrication, it is due to losing less fuel out of the exhaust that is an inherent function of a non-strato (conventional) port design.

Be happy with your stratos fellas, sooner or later regulations will be so stringent that the only design that will be in compliance will be 4-stroke. The day is coming.

i figured we would have already seen 4 mix stihls.

 

[RIDE-RED 350r]

i figured we would have already seen 4 mix stihls.

It's not far off... they have them in their weedeaters..

Unless they can really shrink down the direct fuel injection tech, you will see it. But I wouldn't count DI systems out all together.

 

[5000+]

From what I understand about strato's intended design, I don't believe they increase fuel economy by overall just plain less fuel. An engine of "X" bore by "Y" stroke operating at "Z" RPM is still going to need roughly the same amount if fuel actually present in the combustion chamber to run properly and without burning down... Aside from some obvious exceptions (relatively minor) when throwing different/modified port layout into the mix..They send less wasted unburned fuel out the exhaust than a conventional design. So given that, the only influence for better or for worse on the amount of lubrication your bottom end gets is the fuel/oil ratio you choose to run.

In other words, the savings isn't from skimping on the fuel being actually used and therefore the bottom end getting less lubrication, it is due to losing less fuel out of the exhaust that is an inherent function of a non-strato (conventional) port design.

Be happy with your stratos fellas, sooner or later regulations will be so stringent that the only design that will be in compliance will be 4-stroke. The day is coming.

Yes, but on a conventional 2 stroke the fuel mix that is lost out of the muffler also went thru the bottom end.

 

[Jimmy in NC]

It's not far off... they have them in their weedeaters..

Unless they can really shrink down the direct fuel injection tech, you will see it. But I wouldn't count DI systems out all together.

Already in place...look up TS500i. Great machines.

 

[Jimmy in NC]

From what I understand about strato's intended design, I don't believe they increase fuel economy by overall just plain less fuel. An engine of "X" bore by "Y" stroke operating at "Z" RPM is still going to need roughly the same amount if fuel actually present in the combustion chamber to run properly and without burning down... Aside from some obvious exceptions (relatively minor) when throwing different/modified port layout into the mix..They send less wasted unburned fuel out the exhaust than a conventional design. So given that, the only influence for better or for worse on the amount of lubrication your bottom end gets is the fuel/oil ratio you choose to run.

In other words, the savings isn't from skimping on the fuel being actually used and therefore the bottom end getting less lubrication, it is due to losing less fuel out of the exhaust that is an inherent function of a non-strato (conventional) port design.

Be happy with your stratos fellas, sooner or later regulations will be so stringent that the only design that will be in compliance will be 4-stroke. The day is coming.

Nailed it. Actually with a strato engine in my logic, the charge in the bottom end is more fuel to air as same amount of fuel but half the air is from the strato port. Anyone else follow?

 

[idiotwithasaw]

Nailed it. Actually with a strato engine in my logic, the charge in the bottom end is more fuel to air as same amount of fuel but half the air is from the strato port. Anyone else follow?

This is why I'm thinking they put stuffers in their strato saws, with most of the air bypassing the case there is no need for such a large volume down below. I wonder if anyone has tried to shoehorn some stuffers in a 455 or other homeowners strato saw. Wonder if there would be any noticeable gains to make it worth it?

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

[RIDE-RED 350r]

This is why I'm thinking they put stuffers in their strato saws, with most of the air bypassing the case there is no need for such a large volume down below. I wonder if anyone has tried to shoehorn some stuffers in a 455 or other homeowners strato saw. Wonder if there would be any noticeable gains to make it worth it?

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

I can think of at least one non-strato saw that has stuffers..... 357xp

 

[lwhaples]

Found the oil hose like this. Makes sense,as to why the saw was covered in burned on crud.

 

[DSS]

Already in place...look up TS500i. Great machines.

The Fastenal rep was telling me about an oil injected cutoff saw they sell. I was busy and not really paying attention so I can't remember the brand name. This was a year ago or more.

 

[Jimmy in NC]

The Fastenal rep was telling me about an oil injected cutoff saw they sell. I was busy and not really paying attention so I can't remember the brand name. This was a year ago or more.

Wait I'm supposed to listen to the sales pitches? Sheez....we only pay them attention when they bring food...and even then not long.

 

[XP_Slinger]

I can think of at least one non-strato saw that has stuffers..... 357xp

And 1 strato that doesnt...the 372.

 

[Keith Gandy]

From what I understand about strato's intended design, I don't believe they increase fuel economy by overall just plain less fuel. An engine of "X" bore by "Y" stroke operating at "Z" RPM is still going to need roughly the same amount if fuel actually present in the combustion chamber to run properly and without burning down... Aside from some obvious exceptions (relatively minor) when throwing different/modified port layout into the mix..They send less wasted unburned fuel out the exhaust than a conventional design. So given that, the only influence for better or for worse on the amount of lubrication your bottom end gets is the fuel/oil ratio you choose to run.

In other words, the savings isn't from skimping on the fuel being actually used and therefore the bottom end getting less lubrication, it is due to losing less fuel out of the exhaust that is an inherent function of a non-strato (conventional) port design.

Be happy with your stratos fellas, sooner or later regulations will be so stringent that the only design that will be in compliance will be 4-stroke. The day is coming.

Or use a oil that migrates from the fuel more easily. Klotz leaves the bottom soakin wet even @ 50:1

 

[Keith Gandy]

Yes, but on a conventional 2 stroke the fuel mix that is lost out of the muffler also went thru the bottom end.

But it didnt migrate from the fuel and stay in the bottomend and do its intended job