Reed cage assembly

[mcycle12]

I was able to pick up another Homelite 330 to replace the one I bent when a tree fell on it. The Homelite gods must like me, because there was one in the Philadelphia Craigslist for only a little more than I paid for the one I just bent.

Upon getting it home and looking it over, I concluded that it has more time on it than my first saw. There is more wear around the anti-vibration mounts. The seller had said that the intake boot was shot, and of course it was when I opened up the saw. There is not a lot left to salvage on the bent saw; both the top and bottom housing are shattered. The crankshaft is bent. The bar and chain are also bent.

At least the carburetor and boot from the old saw are still good. And of course all the gaskets and lines I just replaced will be used again. When I got into the reed valves I noticed that the saws had different assemblies. The passageways drilled into the assembly are different, and the reeds themselves seem to be more exposed.

Does anyone know if there is an advantage to one assembly over the other?


Bent saw and replacement


Replacement saw


Reed assemblies


Reed assemblies

[tommyhnavix]

Very interesting

You can scroll down here and find some 330 parts lists and maybe research when the change occured. I would think if you compared the UT or serial numbers of the two saws the one with the higher number is probably newer and it should have the possible new and improved reed set up.

www.mymowerparts.com/pdf/Homelite-Parts-Manuals-For-Chain-Saws/

Karla 48 knows a lot about these saws and may answer your question.
Tom

[mcycle12]

Thanks for the cool link! I was using the little diagrams in my chainsaw repair manual for reference. Those PDF files are a lot better.

My first saw is UT10540. This is the one that has more of the reed covered by the "Retainer-Reed valve," as the manual calls it.

The second saw is a UT10592. I assume it is a newer saw because of the higher number.

It's interesting to note that I checked the part number for the retainer throughout the model run and it was the same for them all: 93836B.

My thought is that my first saw was an early production model. It has the lowest UT number in that 330 Model list on the manual page. Maybe there was a change in the design due to some problem.

I reinstalled the retainer shown in right hand side of the picture in my original post. Note part of the old, petrified carb boot still attached in that picture. ;D

[mcycle12]

I spent a little time in the garage this afternoon putting the boot and carburetor on the second saw. I noticed that the first saw, UT10540 has the thick rings, but the second saw, UT10592 has the thinner rings. The muffler was different too.

The bar on the newly purchased saw needed a little grinding/filing to get it back in shape. The chain had obviously been run loose for a long time. Speaking of the chain: I can't see how anyone was cutting with this thing. Some of the cutters looked almost new, while others were filed down to nearly nothing. This thing must have really been cutting pretty ragged. I was able to salvage the nearly new sprocket from the squashed saw. I found a decent chain from my collection. That's all good to go.

It fired up first pull when I poured gas down the carb. Did that a couple more times and it ran on it's own. It sounds healthier than the first saw. No time to cut with it today.

I'm encouraged by the way this whole event worked out. I'm going to start working on the 925 now.