592XP info and a surprise

[Funky sawman]

that old teuck still has the original engine and carb has never been rebuilt and fires right up as soon as gas gets to the carb. when it sits the gas runs out of the carb

Yep, trademark of a Rochester quadrajet

 

[pbillyi69]

i wish i had the time money and a space to take it down to the frame and restore it

 

[Woodwater]

Here it is normal. You will very rareley see a logger in the woods with a longer Bar then 20''. Only if bigger size trees to cut.

with a 18'' Bar yo can Cut a Tree with 28'' diameter easy..

 

[davidwyby]

Here it is normal. You will very rareley see a logger in the woods with a longer Bar then 20''. Only if bigger size trees to cut.

with a 18'' Bar yo can Cut a Tree with 28'' diameter easy..

I once felled two trees around 40”. I used a 24” saw on one and a 42” on the other…the 24” was ok but a lot of fiddling around…same with the bucking. Of course the 42” was heavy but I could have used a 36” LW

I also once felled a 30” tree with 14”…it seems faster easier and more efficient to me to make all the cuts from one position with a bar that reaches thru…


@Finnlogger?

 

[Woodwater]

If you make Tree services at House's you take longer Bars. Of course it is easyer to cut big sized Trees with that and Tree services here do that too. But if you only walk around in the Forest. A shorter Bar is the way to go here. Better handling.

I run on my ported 550 husky mostly a 13'' bar ,325 with 8 pin when i have to limb and such things. That makes fun.

 

[pbillyi69]

here most of the loggers have 32" bars as their standard

 

[RI Chevy]

Here it is normal. You will very rareley see a logger in the woods with a longer Bar then 20''. Only if bigger size trees to cut. with a 18'' Bar yo can Cut a Tree with 28'' diameter easy..

Thank you for the insight. Just a tale of 2 different worlds. Lol

 

[Woodwater]

Yes 2 different worlds lol. but we also have big trees here..

 

[RI Chevy]

Nice job! I've watched this video a few times. Big trunk for sure.

 

[davidwyby]

I could see if you needed the bigger saw for felling but also had to limb with it (in the forest, one saw) a shorter bar would make sense...I could not limb with a big saw long bar.

 

[pwheel]

Here it is normal. You will very rareley see a logger in the woods with a longer Bar then 20''. Only if bigger size trees to cut.

with a 18'' Bar yo can Cut a Tree with 28'' diameter easy..

Makes sense to me for a 70cc saw, but I still can't see the logic of driving a 20" b/c with a 90cc saw, given the extra weight and fuel consumption of the powerhead.

 

[Ketchup]

Big powerhead/short bar can be nice on a landing. You can force a couple cuts on a dull chain when you’re in a hurry.

Limbing with a long bar sucks and is dangerous. Much easier to throw a chain or lose you balance. For logging I like 24”. I have a 22” GB that I’m starting to like as well. For flopping big trees in the city it’s 28” and 42” most days. I’m not fond of 16” bars. Lots of kickback and stooping over.

 

[RI Chevy]

All good points guys. All up to the user. I am with the 70cc, 20" bar school.of thought. Just my take on the issue.

 

[Maintenance Chief]

60cc 20" ,that saw should cut just as fast with that size bar, just my philosophy.

 

[huskihl]

A few were interested in a comparison to a 395. Here’s what I’ve got. 592 is lighter, basically the same weight as a 390. Not sure how much more a 395 weighs. The 395 oils better. The 592 av carries this old GB bar well. It’s not remotely close to a lightweight bar. The chain is .404 chisel and is fresh off the round grinder. Normal 55/25/0 grinder angles. Rakers at .035”. Wood is about 150 year old sugar maple from someone’s front yard in town. Not great comparison wood because of the twist, burls, knots, etc, but it’s what I’ve got that will challenge most any saw.

 

[pbillyi69]

it looks like the new saw cut faster to me. how did they compare in feeling was the 392 as torqy as the 395

 

[Catbuster]

That 592 sure seems to hold RPM well. I want to see what happens when it has two more feet of bar on it, though. That was always where a 395 walked away from anything around its displacement. Not that it was surprising, it was the spiritual successor to the 2100, which was a special saw to run long bars on by its reputation across the west coast.

 

[huskihl]

it looks like the new saw cut faster to me. how did they compare in feeling was the 392 as torqy as the 395

Peak torque on the 592 is probably higher, but the 395 is a bit more forgiving. I felt like I could lift on the handle relatively equally once the bar was completely buried, but the 395 would lumber through a tough spot better with an aggressive chain

 

[huskihl]

it looks like the new saw cut faster to me. how did they compare in feeling was the 392 as torqy as the 395

I made a couple cuts with a 28 inch bar as well. Both saws were within any reasonable amount of error. I would say they cut pretty equally ported. I believe the 592 is faster in stock form

 

[pbillyi69]

i would think that the 395 would have an advantage just because it a bigger saw. are they both ported?