0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Here is the Ebay photo of the one I sold... (man, it is really hard to get photos posted on this site!)
If you are referring to the old all-metal TH 020 AV, I would have traded it, but not for an Echo. I would have taken a 310 or a 192T or a good used 044 or something like that. I had one that I sold on FleaBay last year, and I got about $200 for it. That was above top dollar from what I have seen others sell for, but two guys were bidding it up and the winner wanted to replace his old prized 020 AV that he had had for over 20 years. He emailed me after he got the saw in the mail and was almost crying with joy. It was in great original condition, all the paint was there with its original old style Stihl logo Picco bar. I got it from a guy that had it in his motor home and used it once a year when he went camping. My biggest problem with it was that Stihl dealers are no longer stocking parts for them. I had to cluge together some fixes, and the carb screws were worn to the point that it did not hold a tune well. They are pretty heavy and vibration prone, and IMO they do not really compare to the later model 020T or 200T saws. If you want a classic, keep it. But as far as using for tree work or cutting, the new saws are better. Here is the Ebay photo of the one I sold... (man, it is really hard to get photos posted on this site!) (Image hidden from quote, click to view.)
Well get the farm boss whatever that is and keep the trim saw too .You can find parts for anything ever made if you look hard enough .Most Stihl dealers can get the parts or most of them if they order them .If not you always have flea bay or Scott,a sponser on this site(chainsawR ) That little old saw will do just fine .It won't keep up with a modern MS 200T but it doesn't cost 600 bucks either .
I'm sorry but yesterday evening it was impossible for me to see the picture you putted. I live in a forest on the Alps and I use mobile connection for internet and yesterday it was snowing and the connection here was very slow... now I see it.
Page created in 0.145 seconds with 19 queries.