Why Can't Stihl......?

[MrWhoopee]

What's up with Stihl? With all of the other major saw manufacturers, the model number somehow tells you the approximate size (displacement) of the saw. Stihl? Oh Nooooo! Everytime someone mentions a Stihl model, I have to go look the d*!n thing up to find out what it is. WHY?

 

[Bigg_Redd]

For the longest time the model designations were the displacement in CIs.

056 = 5.6 CI

036 = 3.6 CI

Etc

Is that not the case any more?

 

[MrWhoopee]

For the longest time the model designations were the displacement in CIs.

056 = 5.6 CI

036 = 3.6 CI

Etc

Is that not the case any more?

Perhaps it is, that would never have occured to me. But why CI when Stihl was a German company and everyone else uses metric? My willie always looks bigger in metric!

After looking at this page
http://www.getsaws.com/S_specs.html

that would appear to be loosely correct, though hardly accurate (my 009L is 2.45 CI).
It still makes comparisons difficult, I'm just not that good at CI to cc conversion in my head.

Thanks, that helps.

 

[MasterMech]

And Husqvarna is any better? Granted the numbers are in the ball park, but far from being exact.

346XP (48, then 50cc)
562XP (59.8cc)
372XP (Several displacements over the years, one of which was 72cc IIRC)
576XP (73.5 cc)

and that's just the ones I can think of right now....

 

[MrWhoopee]

And Husqvarna is any better? Granted the numbers are in the ball park, but far from being exact.

346XP (48, then 50cc)
562XP (59.8cc)
372XP (Several displacements over the years, one of which was 72cc IIRC)
576XP (73.5 cc)

and that's just the ones I can think of right now....

You are correct, but the variation is generally less than 4 or 5 cc. My 009L is 2.45 CI, a theoretical difference of 1.55 CI (2.45-.9=1.55) which equals 25.4cc (more than half the actual displacement of 40.8 cc). I just want to be able to compare apples to apples without needing a computer or a lookup table.

 

[StihlHead]

If you want difficult, look at Stihl chain numbers. New, old and older part numbers, weird naming and numbering, etc. Then compare it to Oregon or Carlton, and the same chain is all over the map. I want simple labels, like safety/non-safety, full or semi chisel, and 3/8, .325, or 3/8 LP/picco. But that ain't the way that it is.

At least Stihl changes digits (but not always on small changes) when they change engine sizes and smog upgrades. And yes, CI is an old standard, but Europe was not always on the Metric system. Its like matress labels and names, designed to be confusing to the consumer.

 

[MasterMech]

If you want difficult, look at Stihl chain numbers. New, old and older part numbers, weird naming and numbering, etc. Then compare it to Oregon or Carlton, and the same chain is all over the map.

Yeah, Topic Micro? Topic Super? But I do prefer Stihl's nomenclature to Oregon's encyclopedia of alpha-numeric permutations.

 

[StihlHead]

I use mainly Stihl and Carlton chain. I have a few Oregon loops, but generally its too soft for my liking.

 

[Flatbedford]

For the longest time the model designations were the displacement in CIs.

056 = 5.6 CI

036 = 3.6 CI

Etc

Is that not the case any more?

Wow! I always wondered how they came up with the numbers.

 

[DanCorcoran]

Converting cl to cc isn't really difficult. One cl equals 10 cc, so you just move the decimal place over one.

 

[MrWhoopee]

Converting cl to cc isn't really difficult. One cl equals 10 cc, so you just move the decimal place over one.

Actually:
1 cubic inch = 16.387064 cc

multiply CI x 16 gives a good approximation. For an 044/440 4.4x16=70.4cc

Dan, something about your cabin looks familiar.

 

[DanCorcoran]

Sorry, when I saw cl, it thought it meant centiliter, not cubic inch. One centiliter is 10 cc (I've been using a syringe to feed a baby squirrel and it is marked with metric graduations...the syringe, not the baby squirrel).

And yes, I've often thought what good taste you have in cabins!

 

[DexterDay]

Yep... Stihl "was" (pretty close Stihl) always Cubic Inches.

Husq is pretty close.... But still no perfect match

Stihl is pretty close....

 

[StihlHead]

Well, some Stihl saws are a ways off, like the 290 which is 3.45 ci. and the 310 which is 3.6 ci. Oddly the 390 was in fact 3.9 ci. in that series. The 260 and 261 are both 3.1 ci. The 290 it started as the smaller 029 which was originally 3.3 ci. and the 260 started out as the slightly smaller 026 with 3.0 ci. but they were still a ways off. Then there are these saws that are way off: the 660 is 5.6 ci. and the 880 is 7.4 ci.

Inconsistent. On the low end, the saws are actually bigger, and on the high end the saws are actually smaller. The rest of their saws are 'pretty close' in ci. though.