Huskyboy meets 500i

[ammoaddict]

Wait till you boys get my age, you'll get used to handling floppy tools.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

 

[cus_deluxe]

Wait till you boys get my age, you'll get used to handling floppy tools.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

sorry for your loss

 

[ammoaddict]

sorry for your loss

Thanks. I might have to get me some of those stiffer rubber buffers.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

 

[Woodslasher]

i can hardly even be considered a hack, but i think just about any modern 5 cube is gonna be floppy with 32” bar. 281/288 with stiff rubbers, not so much. thats the cost of spring smoothness i think

My 372 W with the stiffer tanks springs seems to handle a 32 pretty well, on the bench it doesn't feel floppy but I still need to field test it. Maybe someone needs to make one of those dog mounted spring setups a la 281/2100 for the 3 series Huskies. As for Stihls, this 461 a FS faller I know on another forum uses seems to handle a 36 just fine so it must just be the really modern Stihls that're floppy.

 

[dustinwilt68]

It's the same basic av compound setup they use on there 60cc saws, not a fan, but they do pull well, thirsty for sure, and the filter is well, less then adequate to most, but they sell like hot cakes, most loggers in my area seem to like them, but like Mason they usually run a 20-24" on them, so the av isn't really an issue to them, fuel and filter and price are what I hear complaints about the most.

 

[whitesnake]

If only pulling a 20-24" why not just run a 462? Maybe I'm the crazy one I dunno.

 

[dustinwilt68]

If only pulling a 20-24" why not just run a 462? Maybe I'm the crazy one I dunno.

Not crazy, that's what I prefer. But 500i does have a good bit more torque, booth are solid saws.

 

[huskyboy]

So no more tank guard to protect from thrown chains on the 500i I noticed. The 462 has one... as did the 461, 460 and 440. Even the 572 has one, I liked that since the 372 did not have one. They must’ve done away with it on the 500i to save weight? It’s not a big deal, just something I wanted to point out.

 

[huskihl]

So no more tank guard to protect from thrown chains on the 500i I noticed. The 462 has one... as did the 461, 460 and 440. Even the 572 has one, I liked that since the 372 did not have one. They must’ve done away with it on the 500i to save weight? It’s not a big deal, just something I wanted to point out. View attachment 298158

I bet that’s a solid area with no fuel in it. There are a couple holes and a screw right behind there

 

[Infinitejest]

That's where the control module doohickey lives. The 500 I just retired doesn't have a mark in that area, and it saw plenty of kicked chains playing in cedar. I do have the full wrap roller chain catcher, which probably helps negate violent chain throw.

FYI, the chip deflector is super thin on these saws, even with the full wrap clutch cover. Doesn't take many chain throws till you're chewing into the posts that hold the flap in place. I bought a few flaps and just fill the gouges in with Shoe-Goo as necessary.

 

[huskyboy]

That's where the control module doohickey lives. The 500 I just retired doesn't have a mark in that area, and it saw plenty of kicked chains playing in cedar. I do have the full wrap roller chain catcher, which probably helps negate violent chain throw.

FYI, the chip deflector is super thin on these saws, even with the full wrap clutch cover. Doesn't take many chain throws till you're chewing into the posts that hold the flap in place. I bought a few flaps and just fill the gouges in with Shoe-Goo as necessary.

That’s some good points there, I bet the roller catcher makes a difference. I’m surprised the east coast version of this saw gets a metal chain catcher.

I bet that’s a solid area with no fuel in it. There are a couple holes and a screw right behind there

Doesn’t the control module live there? I imagine it’s not a cheap part.

 

[huskyboy]

I’m wondering now if the fuel usage is exaggerated by the rather small tank capacity? That control/ignition module does take up a lot of space that would be normally used for fuel...

 

[dustinwilt68]

Pic so others can see what guys are talking about

 

[huskyboy]

Pic so others can see what guys are talking about View attachment 298176

Thanks Dustin

 

[Sagebrush33]

I’m wondering now if the fuel usage is exaggerated by the rather small tank capacity? That control/ignition module does take up a lot of space that would be normally used for fuel...

Stihl's specs show the 500 holding a bit more fuel. I believe the rumors to be true. The 500i is indeed a pig.

 

[Infinitejest]

I’m wondering now if the fuel usage is exaggerated by the rather small tank capacity? That control/ignition module does take up a lot of space that would be normally used for fuel...

That's what I figure. Takes up a pretty good chunk of what would normally hold gas. They do improve a few minutes with break in. Which does take a while.

 

[huskihl]

Doesn’t the control module live there? I imagine it’s not a cheap part.

Yep. Was just comparing the thickness of a gas tank to that area on the 500. Looks thicker than most tanks are right there

 

[Sagebrush33]

The 500i is indeed a pig.

Doesn't mean I don't want one.

 

[deye223]

Add around 770 mil fuel I don't think it's a pig when you look at what a 390 XP holds

 

[andyshine77]

After some run time I noticed fuel economy improved a bit. I rather have plenty of fuel going through her than being on the lean side, although out in bush the less fuel you burn the less you have to carry.