Old pre EPA chainsaws

woodhog73 said:

I was reminded today how much I still like old saws and how well they run.

So I don't hardly ever pinch a bar these days , it's rare as I think I'm skilled enough to avoid it. And usually I do but I was bucking some red oak today on a downed tree in the woods and I had it happen. So I went to grab my smaller modern saw to cut out my big saw.

Instead I figured what the hey I'll give the old Stihl 031 some exercise. It hasn't been run in over a year. Fired up right away. Smokes more than a room full of guys smoking cigars until it's warm.

Although we are talking about a 50cc saw these things have massive torque. The saw refuses to bog down even though it's lucky if it's pulling 9500 rpm ( didn't put a tack on it) these saws were not screamers. It was made in the late 1970s . It's pulling an 18 inch bar with 3/8 full chisel on it. It's sloooow cutting but man it just does not bog. Great rescue saw. I don't use it often there is no chain brake. It gives the impression as though while it's slow, it's also not working very hard and could go on for hours like that.

Everytime I think I should sell this old thing, days like today remind me why I like it so much. And not because it's a Stihl cause I almost exclusively purchase Husky /Jonsered saws.

Anyone else have an old saw that refuses to give out ? I may start running this thing more often.

Click to expand...

I have worked on chainsaws for over 50 years and buy repair and sell. I will buy older Craftsman, Homelite, Polen but not newer models. With modern saws it has to be Makita/Dolmar, Echo, Husqvarna and Stihl--in that order.
I have several older saws but the one I bought new in 1980 is a Craftsman (Roper) 3.7 and it has more torque then saws bigger then it is. With a chainsaw, torque is your friend--not high RPM, and I have to agree with whar you suggest, that older saws have more torque-for their size-- then modern saws.
Lots of people will argue but, in most cases, they have not run an older saw in years--if ever!
What I don't like is their weight and the lack of chain brake on some and difficulty of working on some.
When I cut big wood, I grab the Craftsman or a Makita although I have other modern saws.

I haven't put in much time with the older saws, but I have a few that I picked up just because they were too cheap to pass by. When I got a Homelite Super E-Z Automatic going the first time, I was amazed at the punch of such a small package. I wasn't used to seeing full-size 3/8" chain on a 41cc saw, but it can pull it.

I also have a huge 1050 automatic. The one and only thing I've done with it is to mill a 7' by 26" honeylocust trunk. It's very loud and so heavy that I wouldn't want to carry it around as a bucking saw or (egads!) actually fell trees with it but, hung from a Granberg contraption it proved to be both mild-mannered and relentless.

I have to wonder if torque at lower rpms is related to engine displacement. I couldn't help but think of the first new boat I bought back in 1976, with an Evinrude 75HP outboard engine. That engine was a three-cylinder, 50 cu.inch block that started its life cycle some years before as a 50HP engine. With carburetion, they found a way to stuff more gas into it at higher rpms to get the extra HP out of it at top rpms. That was fine for top boat speed at WOT and light load, but lousy at low rpms, where you need pulling power to haul a water skier up out of the water. Two years later I upgraded to a 100HP four-cylinder Evinrude, with fully double the displacement. That block was the same for the 85, 100, 115, and 140 HP models, with just a difference in carburetion. What a difference that doubling of displacement made in low end torque and pulling power! Is the OP's comment about the old chainsaw engines basically the same thing?

I have ran an stihl 090g the thing is a monster. Pure torque never bogs down. My friend who has many gear driven saws, was cutting a large diameter oak when he realized he wasn't making anymore progress he stopped and saw the teeth on the chain were all gone. A steel bar in the tree tore all them off, the saw never bogged down. Older saws were built to last and to run I just don't like the no chain brake. The manual oiler you get used to, and even the weight.

Jonsereds 70e, 70cc, 20" bar 3/8" full chisel chain. No chain brake

McCulloch 10-10 auto, 52cc, 16" bar 3/8" full chisel chain, no chain brake, no trigger safety, straight stack muffler, by far my favorite saw and a Husqvarna 266xp, 66cc, 18" bar 3/8" full chisel chain. This one actually has a chain brake lol circa 1987.
All my saws are old lol, but they cut like a mother.

Jon1270 said:

I haven't put in much time with the older saws, but I have a few that I picked up just because they were too cheap to pass by. When I got a Homelite Super E-Z Automatic going the first time, I was amazed at the punch of such a small package. I wasn't used to seeing full-size 3/8" chain on a 41cc saw, but it can pull it.

I also have a huge 1050 automatic. The one and only thing I've done with it is to mill a 7' by 26" honeylocust trunk. It's very loud and so heavy that I wouldn't want to carry it around as a bucking saw or (egads!) actually fell trees with it but, hung from a Granberg contraption it proved to be both mild-mannered and relentless.

Click to expand...

I just finished

Jon1270 said:

I haven't put in much time with the older saws, but I have a few that I picked up just because they were too cheap to pass by. When I got a Homelite Super E-Z Automatic going the first time, I was amazed at the punch of such a small package. I wasn't used to seeing full-size 3/8" chain on a 41cc saw, but it can pull it.

I also have a huge 1050 automatic. The one and only thing I've done with it is to mill a 7' by 26" honeylocust trunk. It's very loud and so heavy that I wouldn't want to carry it around as a bucking saw or (egads!) actually fell trees with it but, hung from a Granberg contraption it proved to be both mild-mannered and relentless.

Click to expand...

I just finished a Homelite Super E-Z Automatic that a friend found in an old tool shed. Saw appeared to have been in storage for, who knows how many years. Since I knew the quality of Homelite, back in the day, I agreed to check out. The fuel tank was unbelievable at how it was corroded with stale gas. The saw had decent compression but was tight turning. It had electronic ignition and fire was good. I tore the engine down and could not find piston rings. I found a used cylinder because, although the cylinder was not galled and the piston cleaned up without issue. I had to modified a set of Dolmar 100 rings because Homelite had square ends that butted against the piston ring pins. A slow and tedious procedure that I don't want to do again! I had to rebuild the carb and I started it yesterday and it ran flawless.
Easy to see why these were one of the most popular homelite saws years ago.
My friend was very happy to add it to his collection.

We have an old 041av that has cut tons of wood and we still use. I have a 031av and while old saws, they refuse to give up.

woodhog73 said:

I don't know what a 1050 automatic is but if it's milling wood it must be big

Click to expand...

Yep, 100 CCs. My saw, but not my workbench:

Stihl 011AVT - Got as a nonrunner and fixed carb/fuel lines. It was missing kill switch but wires and computer PS switch work fine. Good little saw. I tend to grab it first for small jobs. Circa 1980.

dougand3 said:

Stihl 011AVT - Got as a nonrunner and fixed carb/fuel lines. It was missing kill switch but wires and computer PS switch work fine. Good little saw. I tend to grab it first for small jobs. Circa 1980.

View attachment 174177

Click to expand...

Back when I was about 13 years old---70 now---, I would go to junk yards and buy old chainsaws, lawnmowers or what ever they had and work on for resale. Made a lot of spending money back then.
I remember buying several 2 stroke lawnmowers, even a gasoline washing machine with foot start, and remember buying and old chainsaw that weighed about 30 pounds that had a wrap up pull cord with a float type carb. It had a rotating bar because saw had to be held somewhat level when felling and cutting up. I think it was a McCulloch but might have been a Sears.
Built a go-cart with two McCulloch MC10 chainsaw engines. That thing would FLY--wonder I hadn't been killed!
Like a lot of things--wish I still had them.

I have an old Remington PL4 that I have owned for a lot of years. I don't know what cc it is but I ran a 16" bar and I cut very well, if you could stand the noise.

Ok I still use my Dads Stihl 020. I have a 16 " bar on it......I can't kill it. I don't get into much big stuff here. Usually up to 18" max. I use it for 80% of my work. I also have an 015 that still winds out. I think the adage " don't make them like they used to" applies.

Have been burning wood since around 1980 when I bought my 031 with a 20 inch bar. It has cut between 5 and 6 cords of wood every year since. Changed it to electronic ignition from points a couple of years ago and put a rebuild kit in the carburetor. Besides one bar, chains, and odds and ends, it has been a workhorse. Used it yesterday to work up a dead cherry that was 24 inches at the base. Does seem to be getting heavier though, added a top handle saw recently to help with the small stuff.

DickRussell said:

I have to wonder if torque at lower rpms is related to engine displacement. I couldn't help but think of the first new boat I bought back in 1976, with an Evinrude 75HP outboard engine. That engine was a three-cylinder, 50 cu.inch block that started its life cycle some years before as a 50HP engine. With carburetion, they found a way to stuff more gas into it at higher rpms to get the extra HP out of it at top rpms. That was fine for top boat speed at WOT and light load, but lousy at low rpms, where you need pulling power to haul a water skier up out of the water. Two years later I upgraded to a 100HP four-cylinder Evinrude, with fully double the displacement. That block was the same for the 85, 100, 115, and 140 HP models, with just a difference in carburetion. What a difference that doubling of displacement made in low end torque and pulling power! Is the OP's comment about the old chainsaw engines basically the same thing?

Click to expand...

There are primarily 2 things at work. Low-end torque vs high-end HP is largely a part of cylinder and port dimensions/design/timing/etc. The largest factor is the balance between bore size & stroke. Shorter stroke can give a higher max HP but less torque on the bottom end; longer stroke will give more torque.

The other thing at work is the "emissions" of the saw. Make no mistake, the most torque/HP come when the saw is running just a tad bit rich. More recent emissions regs say that can't happen and that the saw must be closer to stoichiometric (perfect mix of air & fuel). So a newer saw is hampered by the air-to-fuel ratio (AFR) which is either fixed or has a limited adjustment carb and then they throw a catalytic muffler on that restricts exhaust flow further hampering the engine's ability to produce torque and properly scavenge (technical term regarding engines) during operation.

ETA, All my saws are non-catalytic. My MS170 was not fully adjustable before swapping the carb. My 034 (recently given to me by my father) is the oldest saw I have. I don't know for sure how old it is but it had to have been made shortly after they started putting brakes on them. It has a brake but dad has had it ever since I was a child (I don't remember a time that dad didn't have it). Of all of them I think the 034 is my favorite because it has sentimental value. I didn't really need another saw but it really means something to have that one in my hands running (or sitting on the shelf).

CountryBoy19 said:

The largest factor is the balance between bore size & stroke. Shorter stroke can give a higher max HP but less torque on the bottom end; longer stroke will give more torque.

Click to expand...

I can't claim any expertise in the fine points of engine design, but I've read things to this effect before, and so was surprised to find that the bore and stroke numbers for the 031 and 026 are identical.

Oh, I know there are big differences. I haven't puttered with an 031, but I have disassembled an 041 and it's very different from the more modern saws I'm accustomed to.

My father still runs his 039 not sure on the year I know it was purchased brand new for him and I was just a kid. Still runs amazing to this day it cuts about three to five cords a year since bought. Saw won't die, he has a newer 361 bought for him new but he always goes back to the 039. I agree with earlier statement they were built to last.

Some months back I was handed a ball of oily sawdust wrapped around a Homelite 150. After scraping off many cubic inches of that oily crud (made good fire-starters), cleaning out the tank and making some basic repairs and upgrades (spark-arrester & bucking spikes), it runs like new. The chain was fiended, but rather than toss it I gave it a few filing sessions, and now it's properly dangerous.

A homie 150 with 16" bar is super-light, great for hiking deep into the woods. Serious power for 43cc- makes a stihl 250 look anemic. I just got a replacement 3-shoe clutch to replace the fragile 2-shoe. This saw was made between '71-73 and I'm betting it'll survive me. Noisy little beast though.

I freshened up a well-used one for a bud a few years back. Still runs great. He likes it. Some sneer at 150s- ignorance or jealousy. Not me.

My 1969 Mac 1-10. Dad bought it new and I've had it since 1974. Ran it a little bit tonight and man is it loud! Cuts real good yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I bought a 20" bar and chain for my old Remington PL4 that I posted above. It cost more than the saw is worth, but what the hay. It only turns 9500rpm's but man it has the torque. Have to really try to bog it down.