New Stihls: Corrections, Alterations, or Errors?

[jrb34]

So I'm looking at the new 2004 Stihl catalog and I see some unheralded differences between this year and last year. Some are obvious copy-editing errors--the MS250 now weighs 4.6kg or 10.3 lbs, while the MS250C weighs 4.7kg or 10.1 lbs; could be New Math, I suppose. (and the MS250C appears to have sprouted a decompression valve in the comparison chart this year.)

But the MS260 now lists 50.2cc (3.06ci) displacement at 3.5 bhp, while last year's MS260 was 48.7cc (2.97ci), also at 3.5 bhp. So has the 2004-model MS260 gotten bored out? Or was a typo from last year corrected (or initiated) this year?

The MS270 stays the same at 49.6cc, but drops from 3.5bhp to 3.35 bhp. Typo, change, or confession?

The MS280 seems to have gone from 54.0 to 54.2cc displacement, dropping bhp from 3.75 to 3.6. Again, typo, change, or confession?

The point to all this editorial dithering: has Stihl quietly changed the engines on the old reliable MS260, as well as on the new MS270/280?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[tony_marks]

these saw companies try so many gimmicks ,,i dont even pay attention to heir specs.. a better way is pickit up ,get a feel for it ,see how she runs.. and decide if it fits your hand and your needs.
jmo of course

[SasquatchMan]

Does it make my ms290 any lighter for this year???

[Blue9R]

jrb,

My guess is that Stihl is fine tunning the emissions on all these models to meet the 2005 EPA 2 cycle exhaust requirements.

The HC & NOX levels for 2005 are only 1/2 of what was acceptable in 2004.  So most 2 cycle small engine OPE manufacturers are under the gun.

Some engines will gain cc's, some will loose horsepower as the porting is adjusted to help meet mandatory emissions levels.

[Minnesota_boy]

It would be nice to see some info on how to undo these changes to get the power back to what it was.  With the small number of chainsaws in use worldwide, I wonder if the EPA is attacking the wrong set of engines.  Might be better to attack the large SUV's as the total change in HC and NOX would be greater.  Maybe a little less politically correct though.

[SasquatchMan]

Much easier to insist that the environment is being destroyed by chainsaw and ATV smoke than by cars.  Typical of North American culture - even with the solution right in front of our faces, we choose to target some goofy thing.  

[Sawyerfortyish]

I wonder if other countries like Japan are this fanatical about emissions  :-/. Whats things like in Canada?

[oldsaw-addict]

Wouldnt attacking the SUV market put a few of us in a bit of a jam as far as transportation? I'd rather see them go after the morons that take their little crap piece cars and try to look cool with all manner of engine mods, or they could just make america like japan and melt the car engine after 4K miles and put in a new one. Actually that would be a very expensive thing to do in the USA, a thing like that would most likely put most of us in deep financial trouble. Its so typical of the american govt to target some rediculous thing or other instead of gettign under the hood and gettign some oil on their hands/AKA getting into the job and DIRTY.

[SasquatchMan]

Our air per person ratio is pretty high, so we tend to follow along on whatever the US EPA sets out, being too lazy to generate our own guidelines.  And every once in awhile some asthmatic weiner tries to ban wood-burning stoves and we stone him to death...

[VA-Sawyer]

I'd almost bet that smoking causes more pollution than chainsaws.  I can see the tighter standards for outboards...after all, that oil goes straight onto the water. I could almost see it on weedwackers because there seems to be a zillion of them.   I really wonder how many chainsaws run more than 25 hrs per year. I would be suprised to learn that there are more than 5,000 "working" ( 25 + hrs per week) chainsaws in the whole US.
VA-Sawyer

[Sawyerfortyish]

Sasquacthman That stoneing idea sounds ok with me when can you start . We need all the help we can get down here

[redpowerd]

allthough outboards seem more pollutant w/o the middleman. all that stuff gets into h20. ever drink rainwater?

[Oregon_Rob]

Our air per person ratio is pretty high, so we tend to follow along on whatever the US EPA sets out, being too lazy to generate our own guidelines.  And every once in awhile some asthmatic weiner tries to ban wood-burning stoves and we stone him to death...

Let me know if you run out of stones, i will ship you some more!

[SasquatchMan]

We recycle.  

It's only if the big ones break into gravel and pebbles that we need to import, and of course Korean and Chinese stones are much cheaper to ship in (though the quality of the wiring is dubious).

There was a village near mine that tried to outlaw woodburning... all the burners freaked out and the law was scrapped.  Self-sufficient people must scare the govt or something...

[Blue9R]

Take a look at this link, it is the type of "factual information" that the "greenies" spread around to support the campaign against small engine emissions.

http://kanat.faculty.jsc.vsc.edu/student/towne/lawnmower.htm

While my viewpoint is, yes, proportionally, small engines generate high levels of pollutants, and yes, the manufacturers should apply technology to clean up the exhausts, this issue is way over blown.

The California CARB board has targeted 5% as the reduction amount of total emissions that will be obtained by contolling small engine emissions.

I think in reality, after we reach 2010 & all the reduction plans have taken effect, the actual figure will be much closer to 1%.

[dozerdan]

Hi

I totally agree that we need to work on cleaning up the environment. I do feel that the government should take care of the major problems before they should even consider the small ones.
How many saws does it take to equal one space shuttle launch, jet flight or train engines? Its OK to spend our tax dollar to fly the president to Camp David for the week end. Does air force one have to meet EPA standards?
Later
Dan


How come we choose from just two people to run for president ! and 50 for Miss America?