Recent content by wickmar

That's exactly the range I run 90% of the time. Rarely ran either the 565 or 160 at 2800 except when I needed maximum boom performance.

My 565 was essentially identical to the 160. Makes me wonder why the 160 wasn't sign. lighter with its thinner metal in many places?!

I've owned both and immed. noticed that the 160 has thinner guage metal on most panels such as engine housing and body panels. The main consequence of this is when backing and accidentaly “kissing” a tree with the door to the engine compartment, I have to realign the door by loosening the...

Anyone care to compare the old LX 565 with the L 160??

I owned a new LX565 years ago and gave it a run for about 15 years, but did not put a lot of hours on it. No real problems. Then two + years ago, I bought a new L170 which is nearly comparable. Immediately noted the decreased thickness of nearly ALL metal used in its construction from boom to...