David should know, he ran that saw for part of an afternoon last summer up at my place.272xp is a "goodun".
View attachment 343913
I ran a pile of your saws for a couple cuts each. My memory ain’t that good! What I have noticed is my 266s tend to lug well.David should know, he ran that saw for part of an afternoon last summer up at my place.
That was the saw you limbed and bucked up the fir with, and I seem to recall someone asking me if I remembered how a 6100 handled......I ran a pile of your saws for a couple cuts each. My memory ain’t that good! What I have noticed is my 266s tend to lug well.
I’m old.That was the saw you limbed and bucked up the fir with, and I seem to recall someone asking me if I remembered how a 6100 handled......
Mebbe. I'll say this, with a 28" bar and a well set up chain it kicked ass and took names. I stopped running it with a 24" after the chain pinched while I was undercutting a snag with the top of the bar. The tank handle hit my hip joint pretty hard, and if it had been a little more to the left..... 'nuff said.I’m old.I don’t think that fir was diametrous enough to test the limits of the mighty 272.
It has a 7 unless I'm playing at cookies. It's more of a RPM ripper (kevin built it for a cookie play saw for himself and then sold it to me). Outcut a 272 in speed yes, but I'm not looking for speed so much in a felling saw.
I think we're referring to the high rpm power band, like its making power in the 9-12 area , where as its more comfortable to make notches with a saw in the 7-10 thousand area.Why does speed keep a saw from being a felling saw?
I am a firm believer that upper transfer roof angle plays a big role in a saw's manners. I am pretty sure a 372 oe could be made to out-yank a 272 off the line with the bar in the wood...especially given the stroke advantage that the 372 has....and as @Stump Shot already mentioned, the 572 probably is even better since it has an even longer stroke than the 372.272 more torque than 372?I found the opposite to be true. The stroke of the 272 is 2mm shorter than the 372.
Damn your weakOK, having felled with the 288 a bit now, I like it...but she's a mite heavy, at least for the size of stuff I've been cutting. The goal is light weight, grunt off idle, and longest bar for cc. Which after messing with my 266s and researching 372 vs 272 makes me think 272. A video by hotsaws101 and this quote by Holmen tree on AS stuck out to me.
"Yes the old edition 372XP is touchy in the wood. When I switched from the older Stihls (066 064 044) I found the 372 only had good power at WOT. Let off the throttle a bit in the cut while felling with the bar buried and the chain would seize with chips jammed in the bar rails. (I have experienced the chips in the rails plenty myself)
Keep the 372 rpm high and it was a laser in any size wood the 22" b/c could handle.
Interesting thing I noticed when a few years later when I bought a 272XP which is 13 years older then my 2006 372XP. The 272XP cylinder design didn't have the top end only high power capability. But more like the modern 372XP X Tork power with some grunt also on the lower midrange revs.
Ideally the older 272XP power band may be more user friendly with room to modify the porting and compression for more top end power, but in the end buying a new 372XP XT EPA regulations rules."
Now, I have an XS 2166, and I'm getting to splitting hairs here, but I wonder how it compares to a 272 with a least a BGD, MM, etc. I think the 2166 is a bit heavier and I prefer the KISS of the 272 vs. strato. I did some experimenting weighing saws and see what I can hold out sideways in front of me arms extended as if reaching and cleaning out a face or starting a cut, and 266 with a LW 24" is the limit of what I could do very much. I can get the 2166 28" out there but it would wear me out. Heck I did it with the 288 and 32" heavy stihl bar...
A ported 181/281/288 will walk all over
I have a 920 it's neck and neck with my stock 288sA 930 Jonny super will give that 288 and the 064, a good run for their money.