Husky 394/395 thread

[huskyboy]

Doug fir is 660 on the Janka hardness scale, Sugar maple on the other hand is more than twice as hard at 1440 on the same test. Softwood does load a saw well, but it’s not as much effort to cut as hardwood generally.

 

[Moparmyway]

@Moparmyway runs 8 tooth .404 for work on 394/5

Ayyeee. Your not making sense now.

I run a 36” full comp setup with 8 tooth 404 on all my 90cc saws. The 394/395 and 661 are way ahead of any of the others.

 

[RI Chevy]

Your saws are very strong Kevin!

 

[srcarr52]

Be interesting to see how it would handle a 5’ bar in our Doug fir out here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm sure they would run a 5' like a champ. I ran a 42" semi-skip, square ground 3/8 on my old 394's. I now have a 395 that I use the 42" on but they have pretty similar power. I have a 50" .404 skip setup that I like to run on my 298 or 2100, the AV of those old giants seems to hold the long bars better.

Comparing two 394's with a 42" bar.

 

[srcarr52]

I run a 36” full comp setup with 8 tooth 404 on all my 90cc saws. The 394/395 and 661 are way ahead of any of the others.

Full comp 36" = too many teeth to grind!

 

[rattler]

Both saws look very strong Shaun.

 

[huskyboy]

I'm sure they would run a 5' like a champ. I ran a 42" semi-skip, square ground 3/8 on my old 394's. I now have a 395 that I use the 42" on but they have pretty similar power. I have a 50" .404 skip setup that I like to run on my 298 or 2100, the AV of those old giants seems to hold the long bars better.

Comparing two 394's with a 42" bar.

That high top might be helping the performance of the other saw in the video? Never was impressed with the low top 394 filter... same filter as the 60cc class 262 and lets fines past without grease. I think they make optional “hard” spring mounts for the 394/5 as well?

 

[huskyboy]

Something to contribute to this thread, I think a 394 stock runs better than a 395. More torque. Modified is a little different story. The 395 has the slight edge from what I’ve experienced. It really comes down to who ported it and how they ported it I guess.

 

[srcarr52]

Something to contribute to this thread, I think a 394 stock runs better than a 395. More torque. Ported is a little different story. The 395 has the slight edge from what I’ve experienced. It really comes down to who ported it and how they ported it I guess.

I've never really ran a stock one of either. I can get a little more RPM out of a 395 but the 394 does have a little more grunt when you are close to stalling it. The 394 would be a more forgiving work saw.

 

[huskyboy]

I've never really ran a stock one of either. I can get a little more RPM out of a 395 but the 394 does have a little more grunt when you are close to stalling it. The 394 would be a more forgiving work saw.

I think that sums it up pretty good

 

[huskyboy]

Two clutches that came on these saws. It’s pretty obvious which one is better (the later model 394/5 one with heavier duty springs that is thicker width). The thinner one is a late model 288/early 394 clutch. I tried both on my ported 395 just for kicks to see if there was any difference. The thinner clutch slips a little easier and isn’t as aggressive. More noisey at idle too. They both work ok, I just think on a ported saw the heavier duty one is nicer. I bet either one would be a nice upgrade on a 2100/288 with the single spring clutch.

 

[srcarr52]

Two clutches that came on these saws. It’s pretty obvious which one is better (the later model 394/5 one with heavier duty springs that is thicker width). The thinner one is a late model 288/early 394 clutch. I tried both on my ported 395 just for kicks to see if there was any difference. The thinner clutch slips a little easier and isn’t as aggressive. More noisey at idle too. They both work ok, I just think on a ported saw the heavier duty one is nicer. I bet either one would be a nice upgrade on a 2100/288 with the single spring clutch. View attachment 139025View attachment 139026

I always run the newer style 394/5 clutches on 288's and 2100's. Even AM ones are decent.

 

[Skeans1]

I'm sure they would run a 5' like a champ. I ran a 42" semi-skip, square ground 3/8 on my old 394's. I now have a 395 that I use the 42" on but they have pretty similar power. I have a 50" .404 skip setup that I like to run on my 298 or 2100, the AV of those old giants seems to hold the long bars better.

Comparing two 394's with a 42" bar.

I know they will pull a 5’ bar just meant that ported one. I haven’t noticed any issues with the AV with the long bars 42+ yet time will only tell though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[huskyboy]

I was studying the 394 ipl and apparently on the 1996 one they made a optional “jungle” version with a 3120 clutch being one of the differences, which is even larger. It didn’t get equipped with a chain brake (the brake band probably didn’t fit over the larger clutch drum). I guess if one were building a race saw it might be a good upgrade? They usually remove chain brake handles anyway. Maybe a dedicated milling setup could benefit too? I haven’t had a problem with the standard clutch working it hard with normal work however.

 

[Dub11]

I was studying the 394 ipl and apparently on the 1996 one they made a optional “jungle” version with a 3120 clutch being one of the differences, which is even larger. It didn’t get equipped with a chain brake (the brake band probably didn’t fit over the larger clutch drum). I guess if one were building a race saw it might be a good upgrade? They usually remove chain brake handles anyway. Maybe a dedicated milling setup could benefit too? I haven’t had a problem with the standard clutch working it hard with normal work however.

I'd like to see a side by side pic of the 2.

 

[dustinwilt68]

Time to start building saw #4, this saw will be getting a lot of new parts including the cases, tank, all covers, have to figure out how to use the 395 carb box on this 394 yet, bearings come installed in the new cases btw.

 

[dustinwilt68]

I have the crank installed using the Mattyo tool, OEM gasket and I also installed the plastic oil line and ID plate from the old cases.hust waiting for the ultra sonic cleaner to finish up the bolts and stuff.

 

[srcarr52]

Time to start building saw #4, this saw will be getting a lot of new parts including the cases, tank, all covers, have to figure out how to use the 395 carb box on this 394 yet, bearings come installed in the new cases btw.

You can't use a 395 carb shelf with a 394 cylinder, there is no place to catch the throttle cable sheath.

Using a 394 case with a 395 carb shelf is no problem, but you have to use the 395 cylinder, carburetor and intake boot.

 

[XP_Slinger]

You can't use a 395 carb shelf with a 394 cylinder, there is no place to catch the throttle cable sheath.

Using a 394 case with a 395 carb shelf is no problem, but you have to use the 395 cylinder, carburetor and intake boot.

Is a 372 cable holder too small to fit to the carb on a 394/5? Probably is, just a thought

 

[huskyboy]

I'd like to see a side by side pic of the 2.

The “jungle” ipl states the 3120 (jungle) clutch to be 82mm and the 394 clutch to be 76mm. Here’s the jungle parts page of the 394 ipl... it also shows the optional “hard” av mounts... https://www.partstree.com/parts/husqvarna/saws-chainsaw/394-husqvarna-chainsaw-1996-01/jungle/