New Husqvarnas

Bushwhacker · January 18, 2005, 09:45:46 AM

I was just curious to see if anyone is using the new models Husqvarna put out. 455 Rancher or the 575 XP. Can they really replace the 55 R and 372 XP ?

Avalancher · January 21, 2005, 08:48:36 AM

someone here on the boards bought the new 575, and was not impressed with it at all. They thought it lacked the power of the old 372. Im sure it has something to do with all the emission controls that the government is implementing.

Avalancher · January 21, 2005, 08:51:16 AM

Here is the discussion on that saw

discussion

Woodcarver · January 21, 2005, 09:36:19 AM

I discussed the 455 with my Husky dealer when I bought my 353.
The dealer said he planned to wait a year before stocking the 455.

He said they were designed to run exceptionally lean to meet EPA emission requirement and he expected problems with them. He said his customers didn't need the aggravation and he didn't want the warrenty work.

hydro2 · January 21, 2005, 08:19:31 PM

I just bought a 353 and I really have not ran it much. I have a Stihl which I have had for years. How do you like the 353 and what do you think of the .325 chain?

Woodcarver · January 21, 2005, 09:47:36 PM

The 353 has been fine so far. It has good quick throttle response. The thing I particularily like about it is the lack of vibration. It is s m o o t h compared to my old sachs-domar 112.

It is cold blooded so far, a little hard to start when it's been sitting awhile. The dealer said it would be. He said he didn't want to set it richer out of the box because it would likely be too rich after the saw is broken in. He said to bring it back if it was still a problem after I had used it awhile and he would re-tune it. I've run three or four tanks of fuel through it. Probably not enough to break it in completely. I'll give it some time and then take it back if it is still a problem.

The chain seems fine. Just have to pay attention when I pick up a file to touch-up the chain, so that I use the right size file.

jokers · January 23, 2005, 09:36:43 AM

The 353 is built very well and priced quite reasonably compared to the other big brand.

The 575 isn`t the dismal failure that some initaily believed, in fact mine is running pretty strong right now. It takes some time to get them properly broken in and how you set it up so that you aren`t on the rev limiter is crucial. The 575 has good torque for it`s displacement and is exceptionally smooth running.

Russ

NewEnglandTreeSvc · January 26, 2005, 02:43:51 AM

I liked the 575 I got my hands on. A little heavier, but balanced quite nicely. Plenty of juice in the cut.

Liked it so much I went and ordered one.

sawguy21 · January 26, 2005, 05:33:45 AM

It will be a while before we see them. They were not even on the Canadian web site yet last time I checked. Our distributor is still well stocked with 55's and 372's

Bobcat_pa · January 27, 2005, 07:59:28 AM

Jokers:
I see the specs on the 575 show it is 1.5-2 lbs more than the 372xp. Does the new 575 really feel heavier, or does the weight distribution kind of hide this ? Do you think it is smoother & less vibs than the 372 ? I was at CCD about two weeks ago and had the opportunity to pick up the 372 & then the 575. I did this a couple of times and could barely notice any weight difference.
bob

Bobcat_pa · January 27, 2005, 08:03:19 AM

Jokers:

"and how you set it up so that you aren`t on the rev limiter is crucial".

Can you explain this a little more.
bob

Bushwhacker · January 27, 2005, 08:39:35 AM

From what I'm seeing on here, looks like instead of the 575 Rancher replacing the 55 Rancher, the 353 is doing it in that approximate size saw. Right?

lucky_cutter · January 27, 2005, 09:42:41 AM

1.5 - 2.0 pounds heavier looks like a huge step backward to me. A new carb and muffler can't make that much of a difference. What else did they do to make the 575 heavier ? Unless husqvarna learned to defy the laws of physics, that extra weight will be noticed by the end of the day

Bobcat_pa · January 27, 2005, 10:01:27 AM

Lucky:

I hear you, but with a 372xp in the left hand, and a 575xp in the right, and then some switching back & forth, I did not feel the weight increase . Both had 20" bars, with 72gl chain. I should have asked someone to put each on the scale to get a real weight in. I do think the 575xp has a little more weight distribution, and think the 372xp weights more than the Husky specs state.
bob

Hoop · January 27, 2005, 07:27:30 PM

I made the initial post on the shortcomings of the 575.

In my opinion, Husqvarna made a huge step backwards. Yes the 575 does have a good balance. Yes, its muffler is quieter. And if one is lucky enough to have a dealer that will fine tune it, the boat anchor may even perform up to the level of the 372.

AND yes, it weighs 1 1/2 - 2# more. To the average Joe lifting them in a shop, the weight difference is negligible.

Work 6- 8 hours in the woods carrying it around, and it feels like a box of rocks compared to the very capable 372 it replaced.
If I wanted to carry around a heavier saw all day, the 385 would be just the ticket.

The suits that came up with the 575 should be beaten within an inch of their lives. Of course, those engineers never had to use a saw all day, so they wouldn't have a clue to begin with.

rahtreelimbs · January 27, 2005, 08:07:36 PM

I know with the right mods the 575 will run right with a modded 372. The 372 weights are not true. The difference between to 2 saws from what I have been told is more like 12-14 ounces.

While the 575 is probably a decent attempt by Husky, I believe a better attempt could have been made,

Whatever happen to asking the guys that use these saws on a daily basis for input?

Seems to me that saws manufacturers would be better served by this approach.

Maybe I am just asking for too much.

lucky_cutter · January 27, 2005, 08:33:40 PM

No. your not asking too much rahtreelimbs. An automotive company called toyota asked what customers wanted and listened to them. They are soon to be the number three automotive company and that is no accident.

I also like Japans requirements for engineers. They must spend a couple of years getting their hands dirty before they are called engineers. I would rather have a good saw mechanic design the next line of saws.

jokers · January 28, 2005, 04:50:13 AM

QuoteWhile the 575 is probably a decent attempt by Husky, I believe a better attempt could have been made,...................Whatever happen to asking the guys that use these saws on a daily basis for input?

We might be premature in calling the 575 a dud. The 575 when properly modified doesn`t run with just any modified 372, but with an EHP372, which most saws in this displacement range will not. In fact there is not a saw out there short of the Dolmar 7900(larger displacement) that will run with the 575 when modified. That means no modified ms440s or ms460s will hang with it and the modded 385xp isn`t far ahead of it. Also don`t forget that no other saw manufacturers have yet fielded thier EPA phase two compliant saws. It will be interesting to see what`s in store for us from the other guys.

Another thing to consider is that the barrel has enough meat in it to easily bore it to around 85cc displacement which means that the 575 could be the platform for a 385xp replacement. Then we would have something to talk about, a much lighter 85cc Husky with lots of jam! Lookout Dolmar and your 7900!

From what I understand, Husky has put the 575 in the hands of some renowned sawyers including Cliff Helsel, who ran the saw for over a year before production started. I`m sure that Husky did not blindly invest all that money into R&D and production of a more expensive to produce cylinder without forethought and feedback from the field.

For everyone else who is not interested in modified saws, I believe that there is a valid correlation between stock saws and their modified potential. It`s always seemed to play out like that in my hands.

Russ

Bushwhacker · January 28, 2005, 07:11:55 AM

If the Mfg. stated weight of the 372 is incorrect, what can we base our belief of the Mfg. weight of the 375 being correct? Or does it matter?

jokers · January 28, 2005, 08:02:48 AM

Good question Bushwacker.

What matters most is how the saw balances and feels in hand but a heavy saw will still unnecessarily tire you too soon. We have weighed the 575 and all other saws in question on a very reliable scale. That`s how we know how much it weighs. You cannot rely too heavily on the ad men.

Russ

Bushwhacker · January 28, 2005, 08:38:34 AM

Jokers,I can agree with that. I''ve compared the weight differences on Husky and Stihl advertised wts. vs Madsen"s weight. There are differences on several models all right. I assume their scales are correct and they have no reason to distort the numbers.

Chris J · January 28, 2005, 11:02:42 AM

I might've missed this in another post, but has anyone weighed both the 575 & the 372XP? Either powerhead only, or outfitted identically (same bar length, type of chain, amount fuel, bar oil, etc)? If so, what is the actual weight difference?

Y'all be careful.

Bushwhacker · January 28, 2005, 11:25:47 AM

Nobody's commenting on the 455 Rancher so far. Maybe everybody's just keeping their 0ld 55 Ranchers or getting a 353 or something.

Ron Scott · January 28, 2005, 08:16:50 PM

I have a demo 575 on one of my jobs being used by a very high production sawyer. He's still not very exited over it. He would much rather run his 385XP.

He does like the extra fuel time though.

jokers · January 28, 2005, 09:56:06 PM

Ron,

to be fair you have to consider that the 575 gives up more than 10cc displacement and one horsepower to the 385. I can understand why he wouldn`t be wowed. Maybe the future will bring us a larger displacement saw on this chassis that will make the 385 obsolete?

Mucha_Nada,

I`m sorry but I don`t recall what the actual weights are. EHP probably knows off the top of his head. DozerDan and rahtreelimbs may also if you want to ask someone specifically.

Russ