592XP vs Ported 2100 Husqvarna

[@DaveyBlue32]

Love your stuff dude, keep kicking butt!!!

[@cajun3197]

Hard to tell without a side by side comparison sometimes

[@DaveyBlue32]

Sounds like he was right there on the rev limiter? When he twists it into the wood he has a lot more room to increase the chains rake depth and aggression as there’s a lot of power not getting used in the 592? 2100 has that strong stroke and I it’ll definitely hang with the bigger sprocket and shorter bar party… they pull hard! LMFFAO!!!

[@jamiedalluge9472]

Totally agree with your thoughts on n dyno results vs real cutting results

[@erikdbriggs1]

This would be a perfect opportunity to film a compression test of the same 2 saws again, Boedy! Keep up the good work 👍

[@crazyfeller5704]

👍👍questionable about goop of any kind for a carb block. Expansion rate difference and non machined surfaces seem like it would be an issue.

[@Houseworksaws]

394 carb has the internal impulse since the 394 uses a intake block like the 2100..is why I recommend it

[@novicelumberjack]

I gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up.

[@shawncaudill424]

I would love to know the thoughts on the 394/395 carburetor

[@coreycorp7048]

Does you’re 2100 still have the governed carb on it?Check the ring end gap on the rings , thin rings make good compresion when there fresh.

[@thomaslindroos1667]

If you keep the throttle pinned free revving, will it keep fourstroking or will it start rushing and overrevving like my 272. I suspect an leak in the fuel line on my saw

[@aaronpowell4885]

Actually kinda dig the shirt👍🏻 I thought the 592 seemed faster aswell, until the side by side! That 2100 is very respectable but totally agree, should be faster considering what's done. Yep, I saw the thumbs aswell.

[@novicelumberjack]

Wifey got me the shirt as birthday gift. She's awesome.

[@ragercrepair9301]

I'm wondering how much bigger the 394/395 carbs are compared to the one that's currently on it. I agree the piston and rings could really be an issue but it seems to run and idle quite well without weird issues like a low compression issue. Of course you might really be onto something with the single thick ring. I agree the fuel like size could hold you back too. I'm curious as hell to see what you figure out!

[@mitchzenobitrees]

Man they're fast!

[@novicelumberjack]

Yeah, they're alright. Something is not quite right with the 2100 though. It should be faster than it is. I'll get it straightened out though.

[@richhoffman432]

Have you done a leak/pressure test?

[@julianlaustsen1991]

where is the sandvik bar from? swedish engineering company iirc

[@wheelchairhillbilly]

It looks like you were cutting through a massive knot on all the final 592 cuts, which could explain why it slowed down. Are you going to try porting the 592 at some point?

[@novicelumberjack]

Sure, the knot REALLY slowed it down, but saws are slower with some heat in them. I probably won't port the 592. I rarely ever use it, and when I do it is always something huge and it performs flawlessly. Best and most powerful big saw I have ever had. If I'm not using it for hard work, like milling with a 36" or longer bar, then I am using it to test with in which case, I'm probably comparing something to one of the fastest production saws ever. And it is good that it is stock.

[@jonathanhensley8685]

There’s more in the 2100 for sure. I’m in favor of a large carb. 394 carb is non-EPA Solid intake 395 is EPA rubber intake boot not sure if the Venturi is different though. Brake cleaner is best for air leak. It’s gonna be 👍🏼

[@ToddAdams1234]

WHAT IF you were to file your rakers down considerably more than 40?

[@dubbssawshop]

The 2100 is def holding its own. The 592 is a beast and it took its lunch money. 👍🏻 Use Brake Clean for the leak test, its easier on the rubber parts.

[@Super-Dave-Outdoors]

If your fuel line with the filter included as a restriction can flow more than 180ml per minute then your fuel line is not a restriction. Air mass per minute converted to grams(picked 14k as an RPM), air mass in grams divided by 12(overly rich AFR)= grams of fuel per min ÷ .770(fuel density per ml) = approximate fuel consumption per min Used a lot of rounded figures to intentionally overestimate consumption.

[@russmontiethii863]

Id like to see rpm of 592 in cut, the 2100 have more inertia takes longer to slow down in rpm? Idk

[@novicelumberjack]

Well, we know for sure it was less than the 2100. I think it's pretty clear to say, the 2100 actually has more power, now something is happening to it and it loses some power and drops rpm in the cut, but obviously it was still high enough to beat the 592xp. So I think the 2100 felt slower because I was so aware of it dropping from 10,800 rpm down to 9,500 rpm. Whereas the 592xp held 10,000 rpm or so all the way through and so it felt faster.

[@jamesedwards6269]

That 592 looks sweet though.

[@novicelumberjack]

It is. I have no desire to modify it. It is exactly what I need it to be, and that is pretty dang awesome.

[@stevenkinnison8044]

I watched Dubb’s Saw Shop video he did with a ported 592xp and it was a very wicked saw.

[@novicelumberjack]

Yeah I saw that too. Dubb does great work.

[@jesseharmon1466]

Yup the thumb came up in the video that's funny

[@Aprenticefalconer]

No replacement for displacement

[@michellatour150]

If anyone knows of a direct fit / minimal mods required larger carb that would fit on a 50cc Echo 490 / Shindaiwa 491 please chime in, Thanks!

[@novicelumberjack]

Why do you want a bigger carb for that saw? The stock carb will support over 6 hp, so unless you are looking to go higher than that, you'd just be wasting your money and probably losing power.

[@Super-Dave-Outdoors]

The 4910 carb is a different part number than the 490 carb but it isnt a restriction on either saw. No power to gain from a carb swap unless you have something crazy done to it. The 490 has 4° less ignition advance than the 4910/501/492 platform so you CAN pick up some power there.

[@michellatour150]

Thanks for the info, it's warmed over but certainly not a high strung build. I've already advanced the timing via the Woodruff key.@@Super-Dave-Outdoors

[@michellatour150]

Good point, didn't realize it had that much potential. @@novicelumberjack

[@DaveyBlue32]

Single ring gives a full wash down per stroke and the twins don’t get oil washed each stroke and over heat and ware out quickly!!! Get a new piston and just cut your lower ring groove for a nice thick or actually “regular” ring…. They think you’ll have a higher compression with the twin and better performance but it’s not really necessarily true and they don’t last long and go to the bottom quickly!!! Duke’s moly for that 2100…56mm? Bore is probably $30 bucks apiece!!!! Get out your scale partner!!! Just that reduction in your rotational mass will increase your overall power output by a solid 20% or more!!!! I just got done a 088 that went insanely crazy stronger!!!! No it probably won’t work for the same amount of total work hours but who cares I’ll get two more and change it out yearly!!! LMFFAO it is just $30 bucks apiece!!! 32:1 and open that big beeeooothc up!!! She’ll blow your head off the top of your ears with just the weight removed from your rotational mass, brother!!!! I’m just a mega fan of that Duke’s moly’s… pop-topped if it’s an option !!! And I still scratch the window with my pick to see if I can shave the bottom off and just leave the freeporting line !!! Smooth my interior design and all material off and rounded over everything with a wet piece of 1000 grit sandpaper and warm sink wash!!! As light weight as possible!!!! Put them on your scale and then see what they run like and start looking at that piston weight and you will be hand sanding on one for every saw it’s available for if you want the most power for the easiest amount of work!!! And they are super inexpensive so they are just a cheap little mod for the additional torque load and power!!! Reduction of your parasitic drag and rotational mass is an increase in your torque and overall power output!!!! I’m just going to be playing with the thing here and there are I’ve got no interest in working it for 6 hours a day all week milling so I might realize that I’m not going for intimate power… then possibly the heavier piston might add quality and longevity to the engine but I’m not afraid to rebuild it and I’m crushing on a Duke’s in the 088 and it’s fine so I’m going power until the piston fails! I believe that the lighter weight option and the 32:1 oil and the single ring piston setup is far superior and it’s going to last much much longer and it’s just crazy better on multiple fronts!!! Wobble… Changing direction’s… drag…. Total rpm range…. But I run only a Hyway coil from hls on most saw’s too!!! LMFFAO. Unlimited isn’t really unlimited in the OEM’s

[@eurokid83]

Don’t make ‘em like they used to eh?

[@timberandtools]

Suprised it really beat it by a decent margin.

[@novicelumberjack]

I was too. The 592xp is no joke. It'll run with or even beat most people's ported 660's.

[@timberandtools]

@@novicelumberjack they’re a good saw for sure

[@prestonfreeman8443]

Put a 7 pin sprocket on it and it will be faster

[@tedneitzel]

2100 beat it but only by a second. That's not much so I agree should be more. That 2100 should be at least 2 seconds faster I would think? 5.93 4.83 yea should be more with your work to it. Couldn't imagine that 592 ported!!

[@novicelumberjack]

Something is amiss. I'll figure it out!

[@russrtspooling7702]

lol if that was a stihl he would have been talking so much shit but his 592 got beat my an old 2100 that clearly is a better saw.

[@lukereynolds9907]

😂👍