562xp weight

[cus_deluxe]

its a fat pig no doubt, and i think thats what does it for people. 462 is light and a real zippy saw, but it kinda feels like a toy

 

[00wyk]

its a fat pig no doubt, and i think thats what does it for people. 462 is light and a real zippy saw, but it kinda feels like a toy

Although they do run strong, that weight is usually reserved for the 76-79cc class. I imagine BB top ends will be available eventually.

 

[huskyboy]

Although they do run strong, that weight is usually reserved for the 76-79cc class. I imagine BB top ends will be available eventually.

It is proven to outpower a larger 460 on the dyno stock vs stock by a significant amount. So why would displacement matter for your weight to displacement point? Just curious.

 

[MustangMike]

Mason, I think he is just trying to say that the frame seems robust enough to handle more displacement, which hopefully could translate to even more power.

 

[andyshine77]

It is proven to outpower a larger 460 on the dyno stock vs stock by a significant amount. So why would displacement matter for your weight to displacement point? Just curious.

Very well said. And let's not forget the bottom end is built like a 90cc saw. Going light has it's obvious benefits, as does making things a little overbuilt, it just depends which direction you want to go.

 

[00wyk]

It is proven to outpower a larger 460 on the dyno stock vs stock by a significant amount. So why would displacement matter for your weight to displacement point? Just curious.

Why wouldn't it? Why settle? Imagine how it would perform if it was 79cc instead.

 

[00wyk]

Mason, I think he is just trying to say that the frame seems robust enough to handle more displacement, which hopefully could translate to even more power.

Exactly.

 

[huskyboy]

Why wouldn't it? Why settle? Imagine how it would perform if it was 79cc instead.

Sure but you loose durability. The bottom end bearings are large enough and the cooling system seems to be effective... but could the crank and everything else handle the weight of the larger piston? 390xp is a good example... they changed the early 385xp black unlimited coil to a blue limited one on the 390xp for a reason... they knew the heavier piston put more strain on the crank if you revved it too high. Husky wanted to bulletproof the 572 platform... who knows maybe it is durable enough to handle a larger topend? Time will tell.

 

[00wyk]

Sure but you loose durability. The bottom end bearings are large enough yeah, but could the crank handle the weight of the larger piston? 390xp is a good example... they changed the early 385xp black unlimited coil to a blue limited one on the 390 for a reason.... they knew the heavier piston put more strain on the crank if you revved it too high. Husky wanted to bulletproof the 572 platform.

That's some speculation. Who is expecting a saw to last forever nowadays anyways? Those expectations are long gone.
In any case, why put less pressure on companies from a performance stand point? You only end up losing in the end.
You have a dog in the race, and it may be clouding your judgement.

 

[huskyboy]

That's some speculation. Who is expecting a saw to last forever nowadays anyways? Those expectations are long gone.
In any case, why put less pressure on companies from a performance stand point? You only end up losing in the end.
You have a dog in the race, and it may be clouding your judgement.

Cool. We’re all entitled to our own opinions here. No worries... carry on.

 

[pwheel]

I suspect that the beefier crank bearings and case design in the 572xp were intended to reduce the frequency of bearing/crank failures in the previous generation 372xp's and stand up to the increased power/torque, and wonder about heat management, vibration levels, reliability, and fuel economy if BB p/c's are added to the design. (Stihl operator chiming in from the cheap seats)