Was the Echo CS-7310P a fad or is anyone running them?

[mainer_in_ak]

I'll tach this thing in the wood, once that husq x light 32" bar gets here.

Saw doesn't need the squish band cut, the intake duration doesn't need changed and I dare say the uppers need no change.

A quicker volume transfer to the secondary lowers is all I think is needed.

I don't think transfer flow is the issue. It's that low exauhst roof and squish. She's pig rich at 13,100 rpms.

I like the upper transfer port layout: all sorts of air velocity at staggered degrees. Not like a husq 372 that has big fat sluggish transfer tunnels that need more time to feed the uppers.

On this 6 upper transfer port crazy business:

All sorts of directional flow!
The primaries shoot straight across the piston top angled toward intake. The secondaries are angled up towards the combustion chamber.

Becuase of this 6 small transfer port feed, I don't think raising the upper transfers is as critical as a husq 372.

Then the saw runs forever on a tank of fuel: 50 mins of continously cutting.

Saw doesn't need strato ports.

 

[Outdoors]

I recently bought a ported 7310P. Not gonna name the builder, I have around 4 tanks through it and I have no complaints at all. Its a strong saw, is it 572xp 372xp or ms462 worthy? We will see.

 

[bwalker]

2 lowers into 3 uppers if anything would have less velocity than a a 372 style layout.

 

[lehman live edge slab]

2 lowers into 3 uppers if anything would have less velocity than a a 372 style layout.

I’m thinking this is a layout to avoid needing to have a stratto design to meet the current emission standards. Split the charge up delay the entry of it and aim it to keep it from going out the muffler. But some of the rumors I was hearing is they are working with Stratto design now because this isn’t enough anymore for the next standards. This is just what I’m thinking from various things I’ve been hearing and may be completely off base also.

 

[EFSM]

I’m thinking this is a layout to avoid needing to have a stratto design to meet the current emission standards. Split the charge up delay the entry of it and aim it to keep it from going out the muffler. But some of the rumors I was hearing is they are working with Stratto design now because this isn’t enough anymore for the next standards. This is just what I’m thinking from various things I’ve been hearing and may be completely off base also.

They've got an excellent strato design in the 9010 blowers that makes crazy power. I guess we'll see if they can stuff that into a saw. It's a different game to build a strato piston to take 14,000 rpm's.

 

[Woodwackr]

I just want a piston from one

 

[mainer_in_ak]

2 lowers into 3 uppers if anything would have less velocity than a a 372 style layout.

Few more observations:

The transfer cap geometry, combined with the small transfer tunnels, all is much tighter than a 372. Also, the lower transfers are smaller too.

Those secondary upper transfers are very small.

Lotta case volume underneath them lower transfers.

No joke, a 4 inch pull on the starter rope and the saw fires up. I dunno it's it's the ignition or how quickly the saw can feed fuel to the cylinder, or both?