STIHL MS 400

[rumatt]

For what it's worth my new 462 was 13 lbs 3.4 oz on my scale.

I don't understand why Stihl claims it's 13.0. 3.4 oz isn't a but deal but why are they understating the weights?

I think the 462 was originally spec'd at 13.2 and they reduced it to 13.0. That makes it even weirder.

 

[MustangMike]

Do we know it's a 1/2 lb lighter? pics of both saws on a scale with fuel and oil?. Until then we really don't know IMHO. I agree 60cc saws are all most will ever need, but lots of good options in 60cc often for a whole lot less.[emoji111]

I've had my 10 mm 044 since Dec 92. I just replaced the starter rope for the first time this year (really the rope was fine, the elastostart portion of the handle broke, so it still worked, but no elastostart).

Luckily, I stocked up on some elastostart rope handles from Mark earlier this year, so (as a former Boyscout) I was prepared!

My point is (re the MS 400), as my Dad used to say: "Quality will be remembered long after the price paid is forgotten." I honestly don't remember what I paid for my 044, but it still runs great and I have confidence my 462 will last just as long. They are (IMO) both great saws!

 

[Philbert]

For what it's worth my new 462 was 13 lbs 3.4 oz on my scale.
I don't understand why Stihl claims it's 13.0. 3.4 oz isn't a but deal but why are they understating the weights?

Maybe gravity is not as strong in Stuttgart?

Philbert

 

[MustangMike]

Very Strange … it still says 6 Kg, (which is 13.23 lbs), but then they round to 13 lbs!!!

I believe the 13.2 was correct, and correlates to the 6 Kg.

(It must be the new climate change … in water it weighs less!!!)

 

[andyshine77]

Maybe gravity is not as strong in Stuttgart?

Philbert

Lol. I'm thinking just a mistake.

250-300 less would make the 400 very attractive for many.

Here is a 462 and 562 both with fluids.

 

[MustangMike]

OK, but which 562? One of the older lighter ones that had case leak problems (5 bolt case) or a newer (current model) 6 bolt case?

The new ones are heavier than the old ones.

 

[Evansaw]

Calm down I never sad whether or not the 400 was going to be a good saw, how should I know, I bet it will be just fine. However if the saw has about the same weight as a 462, the only reason to buy one would be to save some cash. On top of that I just am not a fan of most 60cc saws, especially the modern ones. And most don't have a clue what a ported saw is or the fact they even exist.[emoji111]

not angry bird buddy no worries

 

[Evansaw]

Lol. I'm thinking just a mistake.

250-300 less would make the 400 very attractive for many.

Here is a 462 and 562 both with fluids.

I have to wrongfully go by the factory claimed numbers (as we are all numbers obsessed these days) and compare the new 400cm with the "legendary",for many, Husky 372. So it seems that 400 achieved 372 power in less cc's and in less weight. Not sure what's 372's torque but 400 claims 4.1nm as pictured above. So for many many people it would be a good one saw choice. Hey maybe Husqvarna owners gonna buy it.
will see soon

 

[andyshine77]

OK, but which 562? One of the older lighter ones that had case leak problems (5 bolt case) or a newer (current model) 6 bolt case?

The new ones are heavier than the old ones.

6 bolt case.

 

[huskyboy]

 

[Cobby08]

You keep that up you'll be banned...

 

[MustangMike]

562 must hold less fluids … likely will result in less wood cut. While a larger displacement saw may be thirstier, it will also likely cut faster.

The 462 does not feel heavy at all to me fully fueled, but I will admit that when I got from it to my MMWS 261 Ver II, it feels so light I have to remind myself that it is still a dangerous saw … just feels like a toy compared to the 462!

 

[andyshine77]

562 must hold less fluids.

Less fluids than what? A 462? I wasn't starting anything about what is lighter, more powerful or whatever, just providing the facts for reference, anything else is just silly and for fanboys to argue about.

The 400 is the best saw ever made, long live the 400![emoji23]

 

[RI Chevy]

This is about the new STIHL 400.
Let's keep it on track here guys...please.

 

[MustangMike]

Was not looking to make an argument about it, just stating if the dry weight is close to the same, and one saw is heavier fully fueled, it stands to reason it must hold more fuel. And, I would expect a 70 cc saw to hold more fuel than a 60 cc saw.

I too was also just "providing facts for reference".

 

[USMC615]

I say both the *b-wordes weigh 20 lbs each...anybody wanna fight about it...

 

[Philbert]

I say both the *b-wordes weigh 20 lbs each...anybody wanna fight about it...

Quit your bellyaching!


'New One-man POWER SAW. . . Weighs only 25 lb., develops full 3 hp.'
$295.00 in 196(?) money.
(Elmer Fudd hunting attire, sold separately)

Philbert

 

[full chizel]

So the discussion of the weight of a saw is just as touchy as the oil you use in it?

 

[Philbert]

So the discussion of the weight of a saw is just as touchy as the oil you use in it?

We got it so good with the current saws, the 'old timers' would call us a bunch of ____________.

It is still fair on a forum like this to get into details, but it helps to maintain some perspective.

Phiblert

 

[USMC615]

Quit your bellyaching!

View attachment 203521
'New One-man POWER SAW. . . Weighs only 25 lb., develops full 3 hp.'
$295.00 in 196(?) money.
(Elmer Fudd hunting attire, sold separately)

Philbert

...'only 25lbs'...make a man out of ya real quick back in the heyday humping that animal around all day!