CLEARCUT meets the 500i

[MG porting]

^^^^^This; some a little more than others. The videos also show them hauling ass in the cut, idling great, and excellent throttle response. I don't see what the problem is. There are some variances between saws at WOT---so what!!!

Who runs a saw wide open with no load for any amount of time? Don't answer that question. Maybe the saw is programmed to provide more fuel at wide open throttle for a reason; I bet you guys can think of 1 or 2.

Lol. Best answer going to!!!!

 

[CLEARCUT]

^^^^^This; some a little more than others. The videos also show them hauling ass in the cut, idling great, and excellent throttle response. I don't see what the problem is. There are some variances between saws at WOT---so what!!!

Who runs a saw wide open with no load for any amount of time? Don't answer that question. Maybe the saw is programmed to provide more fuel at wide open throttle for a reason; I bet you guys can think of 1 or 2.

As a production timber faller here, you cut a lot of brush out of the way of the trees, and a lot of small trees as well, so a saw that spools up a bit is nice. Small alder and maple, you want a saw that has some zip to it. My 500i in stock form did not do that at all.
And burning a tank of gas in 15 minutes in nicer trees is a little excessive. We don’t want to have to pack more gas than necessary on some of the ground and conditions we work in. The dogged-in power was nice, but combine the fuel usage, lack of zip, (at least in stock form) and the extremely sloppy AV, I’ll choose a 461 or other saws over it. Maybe it’ll be better when it is released here. I just look at things as a production timber faller in the PNW, so I see things differently than other saw users.

 

[HYPERSAWS]

It almost sound like it limits rpm with fuel rather than spark? Kind of like governors on older carbs.

In stock form yes

 

[sawmikaze]

This stihl bashing is hurting my feelings.

 

[HYPERSAWS]

As a production timber faller here, you cut a lot of brush out of the way of the trees, and a lot of small trees as well, so a saw that spools up a bit is nice. Small alder and maple, you want a saw that has some zip to it. My 500i in stock form did not do that at all.
And burning a tank of gas in 15 minutes in nicer trees is a little excessive. We don’t want to have to pack more gas than necessary on some of the ground and conditions we work in. The dogged-in power was nice, but combine the fuel usage, lack of zip, (at least in stock form) and the extremely sloppy AV, I’ll choose a 461 or other saws over it. Maybe it’ll be better when it is released here. I just look at things as a production timber faller in the PNW, so I see things differently than other saw users.

Well said

 

[XP_Slinger]

As a production timber faller here, you cut a lot of brush out of the way of the trees, and a lot of small trees as well, so a saw that spools up a bit is nice. Small alder and maple, you want a saw that has some zip to it. My 500i in stock form did not do that at all.
And burning a tank of gas in 15 minutes in nicer trees is a little excessive. We don’t want to have to pack more gas than necessary on some of the ground and conditions we work in. The dogged-in power was nice, but combine the fuel usage, lack of zip, (at least in stock form) and the extremely sloppy AV, I’ll choose a 461 or other saws over it. Maybe it’ll be better when it is released here. I just look at things as a production timber faller in the PNW, so I see things differently than other saw users.

Unbiased, non-snarky, real world perspective...thank you. Glad your saw is running better.

 

[CLEARCUT]

This stihl bashing is hurting my feelings.

 

[rogue60]

This stihl bashing is hurting my feelings.

Don't forget the sloppy loose spring AV lovers they must be looking for there blankie after reading this thread lol

 

[94BULLITT]

And burning a tank of gas in 15 minutes in nicer trees is a little excessive.

Now that it has been ported, it will burn more gas.

 

[drf256]

Any Idea on the hours on the unit? I'm really curious if these are programmed to run pig rich for x amount of hours or if this is just the way the cookie crumbles on these.

My thoughts as well.

 

[XP_Slinger]

My thoughts as well.

That or the ultra fat piss rev is a protective measure like a limited coil. The saw sounds good in the wood, I really don’t hear a problem when it’s cutting.

 

[Chainsaw-57]

Good Afternoon,

Post #353 showed fuel consumption at maximum horsepower for the 661, 2.8lh and 500, 3.0l/h.

The 661 was tested with 18" bar and the 500 with 25" bar.

My little pea brain says the 500 was probably working much harder with 25" than the 661 with 18".

Maybe I am totally wrong.

Larry. HOS

 

[XP_Slinger]

Good Afternoon,

Post #353 showed fuel consumption at maximum horsepower for the 661, 2.8lh and 500, 3.0l/h.

The 661 was tested with 18" bar and the 500 with 25" bar.

My little pea brain says the 500 was probably working much harder with 25" than the 661 with 18".

Maybe I am totally wrong.

Larry. HOS

My pea brain agrees.

 

[CLEARCUT]

Good Afternoon,

Post #353 showed fuel consumption at maximum horsepower for the 661, 2.8lh and 500, 3.0l/h.

The 661 was tested with 18" bar and the 500 with 25" bar.

My little pea brain says the 500 was probably working much harder with 25" than the 661 with 18".

Maybe I am totally wrong.

Larry. HOS

It could have been working harder for sure...I’m just going off of using the saws here with a 32” bar. Other setups and conditions could alter things for sure. But here, with the 500, 661, and 461, it would go in that order of fuel efficiency. I have found the 461 to be one of the best overall for efficiency for what we do.

 

[CLEARCUT]

This is part of my strip...an example of why I like a saw that has at least some zip, and good fuel mileage. I don’t want to move my camp too much, lol.

 

[CLEARCUT]

The less gas we have to pack on ground like this, the better.

 

[CLEARCUT]

I think the 500i will be a great saw for some. As an example, @HYPERSAWS really likes it. Personally, it just wasn’t for me due to a few things that we have discussed. I feel more productive with a 461 than the 500. It may cut slower, but it goes longer, and has a much tougher AV system. And I don’t have to worry about the technology aspect, although mtronic has treated me well. Some people will say the opposite, and feel more productive with the 500.
Anyways, my rambling is over.

 

[HYPERSAWS]

I think the 500i will be a great saw for some. As an example, @HYPERSAWS really likes it. Personally, it just wasn’t for me due to a few things that we have discussed. I feel more productive with a 461 than the 500. It may cut slower, but it goes longer, and has a much tougher AV. And I don’t have to worry about the technology aspect, although mtronic has treated me well. Some people will say the opposite, and feel more productive with the 500.
Anyways, my rambling is over.

Yes I do like the 500i but I do agree with @CLEARCUT a saw with better fuel economy on bad ground is better if the trees are small. If I am cutting big wood I want a 395 or 661 with "RAW GRUNT". The job we are cutting now is perfect for a good old 461

 

[~WBF]

Good Afternoon,

Post #353 showed fuel consumption at maximum horsepower for the 661, 2.8lh and 500, 3.0l/h.

The 661 was tested with 18" bar and the 500 with 25" bar.

My little pea brain says the 500 was probably working much harder with 25" than the 661 with 18".

Maybe I am totally wrong.

Larry. HOS

Well Larry it's open for discussion.
I say as long as the max power speed is met and maintained then that's all that counts. I assume this would have been done on a dyno first. They never said size of wood or how many teeth were in the cut? For all we know the 500I had less teeth in the cut? I don't see any relevance in relation to this test. They just need to create the right amount of resistance so does it matter how you come about it?
So is the 500 working harder? It definitely takes less resistance? It needs to reach & maintain 500 more rpm with approx 4.5 less hp.

 

[Ozhoo]

Good Afternoon,

Post #353 showed fuel consumption at maximum horsepower for the 661, 2.8lh and 500, 3.0l/h.

The 661 was tested with 18" bar and the 500 with 25" bar.

My little pea brain says the 500 was probably working much harder with 25" than the 661 with 18".

Maybe I am totally wrong.

Larry. HOS

Saws were being tested at maximum power, so bar size has nothing to do with fuel consumption.