Husqvarna 564xp (g) fuel inject

[bwgdog]

Tor R Thank you for posting the information . I am a senior and have some physical issues - one being hands ! Have you available the AV specs on the 564xpg ? Thank You Barry

 

[Ketchup]

I wonder what the stroke is? 500i is also a short stroke saw. From what they’re showing, the design looks very similar, though it appears to be strato.

 

[Tor R]

Tor R Thank you for posting the information . I am a senior and have some physical issues - one being hands ! Have you available the AV specs on the 564xpg ? Thank You Barry

564XPG:
Equivalent vibration level (ahv, eq) rear handle : 3 m/s²
Equivalent vibration level (ahv, eq) front handle : 3.3 m/s²

562XPG mk II:
Equivalent vibration level (ahv, eq) rear handle : 4.5 m/s²
Equivalent vibration level (ahv, eq) front handle : 4 m/s²

 

[Tor R]

I wonder what the stroke is? 500i is also a short stroke saw. From what they’re showing, the design looks very similar, though it appears to be strato.

I think they mentioned that the bore is like 70cc, so then it must be short stroke since it is 62cc.

 

[Ketchup]

I think they mentioned that the bore is like 70cc, so then it must be short stroke since it is 62cc.

My guess is 48mm bore x 34.5mm stroke = 62.43cc.

 

[emanuel]

564XPG:
Equivalent vibration level (ahv, eq) rear handle : 3 m/s²
Equivalent vibration level (ahv, eq) front handle : 3.3 m/s²

562XPG mk II:
Equivalent vibration level (ahv, eq) rear handle : 4.5 m/s²
Equivalent vibration level (ahv, eq) front handle : 4 m/s²

Sadly that will probably mean its gonna be sloppy as all hell with anything in the 25-28" range bar, and it will need aftermarket help like the 500i needs with anything over 28. I'd just rather wear gloves and have a stiffer saw tbh.

 

[Ketchup]

572 and 592 are super smooth. Hopefully it’s like that but better.

 

[el33t]

If I am not mistaken this is their first saw with a “feature” they call “short stroke engine”.

Short stroke engine
The short stroke engine design results in a compact product with low weight and low disturbance forces, enabling high performance and durability. This is achieved through a low cylinder, a short stroke length for the piston, a short connecting rod, a small crankshaft and, by that, a slim crankcase.


The bore/stroke ratio of 500i is 1.5607.
592 XP: 1.4103
572 XP (or 565) 1.2308.

 

[Tor R]

Sadly that will probably mean its gonna be sloppy as all hell with anything in the 25-28" range bar, and it will need aftermarket help like the 500i needs with anything over 28. I'd just rather wear gloves and have a stiffer saw tbh.

Maybe, but they have copied the antivib placement that the 592 has.
Maybe it is that the antivib system, with a short stroke, gives very good properties on the vibration specifications?

I personally like everything I read about the 564, perfect for everyone, certainly not.
The price tag is the only thing I don't like about it.

 

[Ketchup]

If I am not mistaken this is their first saw with a “feature” they call “short stroke engine”.

Short stroke engine
The short stroke engine design results in a compact product with low weight and low disturbance forces, enabling high performance and durability. This is achieved through a low cylinder, a short stroke length for the piston, a short connecting rod, a small crankshaft and, by that, a slim crankcase.


The bore/stroke ratio of 500i is 1.5607.
592 XP: 1.4103
572 XP (or 565) 1.2308.

Sounds like the marketing guys were talking to the engineers.
I believe 572 and 592 have a 39mm stroke. If 564 is 48/34.5, it would be closer to 592 at a 1.391 ratio but with a notably shorter stroke. 500i is more over square but I haven’t noticed it being high vibration. I have a couple hybrids that are similar ratio to 500i and they don’t feel bad either. I’ve run some 2series huskies that rattled me pretty hard. 272 and 288 have high ratios but less than 500i.

 

[Stump Shot]

Sadly that will probably mean its gonna be sloppy as all hell with anything in the 25-28" range bar, and it will need aftermarket help like the 500i needs with anything over 28. I'd just rather wear gloves and have a stiffer saw tbh.

28" is the maximum recommendation. Which after all, the saw is only in the 60cc class.
Here's what Husqvarna says about the subject...

"Ability to carry longer bars"​

"The powerful engine in combination with the large bar mount, a sturdy crankcase and sufficient chain oiling provides an ability to carry longer bars."

[th]

Recommended bar length, max​

[/th] [td]70 cm[/td]

 

[Woodpecker]

Sadly that will probably mean its gonna be sloppy as all hell with anything in the 25-28" range bar, and it will need aftermarket help like the 500i needs with anything over 28. I'd just rather wear gloves and have a stiffer saw tbh.

I think the vertical spring visible on the 564 points to why it shouldn’t be floppy. Only time will tell though.

 

[Tor R]

It's 60cc class, it's never been a goal, whether it's Husqvarna or Stihl, that they should shine in work with 28" bars, or perhaps more importantly, have a long life with 28".

It has the power, bar mounting and oil pump to handle a 28" bar, but not necessarily designed and built for it.

I'm most looking forward to seeing the IPL, comparing parts up to the 562 xpg mk II, if it has any parts from the mk2 at all, really very special if they launched the mk2, then come out with the fuel injection model so soon after, without sharing a few parts.

 

[bwalker]

It's 60cc class, it's never been a goal, whether it's Husqvarna or Stihl, that they should shine in work with 28" bars, or perhaps more importantly, have a long life with 28".

It has the power, bar mounting and oil pump to handle a 28" bar, but not necessarily designed and built for it.

I'm most looking forward to seeing the IPL, comparing parts up to the 562 xpg mk II, if it has any parts from the mk2 at all, really very special if they launched the mk2, then come out with the fuel injection model so soon after, without sharing a few parts.

Most of the world doesn't run long bars on 60cc saws.
To be honest I never understood why long bars and wrap handle bars were a thing until I moved west.
Our wood is extremely soft and the terrain is such that longer bars and wrap handles are a benefit in many cases.

 

[bwalker]

As for the comments on electronics. Honestly ai think they have the potential to be a good thing as it pertains to working on your own stuff. It woukd be nice if the OPE OEM's adopted a single system like the auto OEM's did with OBD2.

 

[Stump Shot]

I stumbled across this, thought I'd share...

 

[Funky sawman]

I think the vertical spring visible on the 564 points to why it shouldn’t be floppy. Only time will tell though.

Ahh like the old 394/ 395 design. Always liked that style of AV

 

[Funky sawman]

Most of the world doesn't run long bars on 60cc saws.
To be honest I never understood why long bars and wrap handle bars were a thing until I moved west.
Our wood is extremely soft and the terrain is such that longer bars and wrap handles are a benefit in many cases.

Finally you understand!!!!

 

[el33t]

Sounds like the marketing guys were talking to the engineers.

As usual.

I believe 572 and 592 have a 39mm stroke. If 564 is 48/34.5, it would be closer to 592 at a 1.391 ratio but with a notably shorter stroke.

They have.
It seems that, indeed, if they honestly state the displacement, this is the most likely pair of numbers. But here they are still far from 500i. For the 400.0, the cylinder diameter is 50mm, the piston stroke is 34mm, so the ratio is 1.4706, which is also quite a bit more. Unfortunately, I don't yet know what it looks like for the 400.1 (or 363).

I wrote about this (marketing or not) feature, because if the bore is indeed 48 mm, it still in relation to the stroke is not much compared to the 500i or 400.0. Even the 592 XP (or 288 you mentioned) has this ratio greater.
But here the most interesting comparison will be with the 400.1.

500i is more over square but I haven’t noticed it being high vibration. I have a couple hybrids that are similar ratio to 500i and they don’t feel bad either. I’ve run some 2series huskies that rattled me pretty hard. 272 and 288 have high ratios but less than 500i.

This is expected. This is what they also emphasize in the description of the "short stroke engine" (low disturbance forces).
A shorter crank length reduces the inertial force of the piston, with all other parameters unchanged, i.e. piston mass and RPM (still affected by the ratio of crank length to connecting rod length).

That is, for the same displacement, engines that are more oversquare should vibrate less. Of course, this involves some compromises.

EDIT:
Past examples:
272: 52/34 = 1.5294
394: 56/38 = 1.4737
246: 44/30 = 1.4667
And many others having the ratio greater than 1.4.
3120: 60/42 = 1.4286

 

[lehman live edge slab]

As usual.


They have.
It seems that, indeed, if they honestly state the displacement, this is the most likely pair of numbers. But here they are still far from 500i. For the 400.0, the cylinder diameter is 50mm, the piston stroke is 34mm, so the ratio is 1.4706, which is also quite a bit more. Unfortunately, I don't yet know what it looks like for the 400.1 (or 363).

I wrote about this (marketing or not) feature, because if the bore is indeed 48 mm, it still in relation to the stroke is not much compared to the 500i or 400.0. Even the 592 XP (or 288 you mentioned) has this ratio greater.
But here the most interesting comparison will be with the 400.1.


This is expected. This is what they also emphasize in the description of the "short stroke engine" (low disturbance forces).
A shorter crank length reduces the inertial force of the piston, with all other parameters unchanged, i.e. piston mass and RPM (still affected by the ratio of crank length to connecting rod length).

That is, for the same displacement, engines that are more oversquare should vibrate less. Of course, this involves some compromises.

EDIT:
Past examples:
272: 52/34 = 1.5294
394: 56/38 = 1.4737
246: 44/30 = 1.4667
And many others having the ratio greater than 1.4.
3120: 60/42 = 1.4286

I wonder if an offset rod like in a diesel would be any benefit to torque on a short stroke saw since all that it does is give it a more efficient angle to transmit force to the crank but maybe with that angle being changed it would increase vibration. I know an outboard clutch has some benifits but I still think they suck personally, also I’d someone is buying a saw to run a 28-32” bar all the time 60cc class isn’t their saw in any color.