The MS 400 C-M chainsaw has been designed with professionals in mind, offering STIHL’s highest performance in the 60cc class. More displacement, more power, more torque, only a small weight increase compared to the MS 362 C-M and an outstanding power to weight ratio.
The MS 400 C-M chainsaw has been designed with professionals in mind, offering STIHL’s highest performance in the 60cc class. More displacement, more power, more torque, only a small weight increase compared to the MS 362 C-M and an outstanding power to weight ratio.
The new 2-MIX engine provides 4kW of power,compared to 3.5kW in the MS 362 C-M, as well as more torque – 4.1 Nm vs 3.5 Nm. These increases come from larger displacement of 66.8cc, which is a 14% increase compared to the MS 362 C-M. The magnesium piston is also 14% lighter than the aluminum piston in the MS 362 C-M, helping ensure rapid acceleration.
Thanks to these intelligent design features, the MS 400 C-M has an impressive power-to-weight ratio of 1.45 kilograms per kilowatt, making it ideal to use when working in the forest, especially over prolonged periods. The powerhead on it’s own weighs 5.8 kg. In addition to the new 66.8 cc engine, the MS 400 C-M features STIHL’s latest M-Tronic 3.0 technology which has STIHL’s simple re-calibration procedure and an improved HD2 filter, which all help deliver optimum performance from the saw at all times.
The chainsaw also features Elastostart technology that enables effortless starting of the tool. Designed for forestry and arb professionals, the MS 400 C-M can be used for a range of applications, including felling, de-limbing and cutting timber down to size.
Additional information
Weight
N/A
Dimensions
1 × 1 × 1 cm
Bar Length
16" / 40cm, 18" / 45cm, 20" / 50cm
Brand
Stihl
1 review for STIHL MS400 C-M
Rated 4 out of 5
Michaell1975 –
I just received my 400CM a couple days ago. I have not had time to do any extended cutting, but because there is very little input about this saw from actual users, I decided to post now and again at a later date after more time with the saw.
I immediately modded the muffler for better flow, but that’s all I did. I used a 24″ b+c with Husqvarna C 83 X Cut chain on a reduced weight Sugi Hara bar. As all reviews, these are my opinions. I’ve owned two 362CM’s, and even though it appears the 400 is built on the 362 chasis, it ( 400CM) puts the 362’s to shame in many ways. I’m reviewing with out of the box performance shy the muffler modd. Not a saw with 10 hours run time. Hopefully the 10 hour run time review will be soon.
I’ve run the 462 572XP 562XP , modded saws, etc.
The one thing that struck me most about the 400 performance is its torque. The torque of this saw is very obvious. And since it’s in a realitivly small package, is more astonishing yet. The saw has excellent compression. I didn’t check the squish yet, but my guess is Stihl has it tight right out of the box. My saw did not have a spark screen over the oem outlet. I added a 3/4″ ID round port.
The saw has very good power, but probably needs several hours run time to come around to its true potential.
For a Stihl, the AV is good. I was pleasantly surprised. The AV is however a bit loose. Or mushy IMO. Also, holding the saw sideways and pulling up and down on the rear handle causes a fair amount of lateral movement with the reduced weight 84dl Sugi bar. For a pro doing a lot of limbing, maybe not so good. For a firewood cutter such as myself, no big deal.
The AF system seems okay, but again that never was one of Stihls strong points. After about 15 minutes cutting, I removed a fair amount of dust/chips from the carb box area.
The saw starts and restarts good.
For those interested whether Stihl finally put a decent oiler on the 362 series saw, my impression to that question is yes. I cut dry oak rounds and with the oiler maxed out, it kept up well. It also passes a spray test well.
Composite front handle naturally. A metal handle with soft rubber like the 462 would be welcome.
My saw was also missing the metal fuel tank guard plate to protect from a ” jumped chain “.
Anyone familiar with these saws knows the small clutch cover although light, is very fragile and does poorly at protecting from the clutch area. I installed 11386480400 tall NW clutch cover for safety, strength, and better chip management. I also installed the 362 OEM heavy spikes ( inner and outer ) and roller catcher.
The complete muffler appears to be an exact match to the 362.
The bigger clutch cover and spikes added a bit of weight, but not not noticeble to me.
Although the 400 weighs just slightly less than the 462, to me, the saw is noticably smaller in physical dimension With both saws ( 400 and 462 ) wearing 84dl lightweight bars full of oil and gas, the 400 seems a fair bit lighter to me. It may be perception only, buy that’s my opinion.
The question I ask myself is where is the .6 extra hp from a 46? With only 5.5 extra cc’s of displacement?
The 400 appears to me to be a bit more of a longevity saw than its big brother 462.
As I said, I didn’t cut much, but what I did cut, it seemed as if the fuel tank went down fast.
Overall the 400 seems to be a well built saw with much thought and attention given to good fitment and overall very good quality of workmanship.
I gave this saw a four star initial rating with the possibility of my follow to go either direction. However, after my first impression I believe it to be more likely to go up rather than down.
I like my 462, but there is definitely a place in the line up for the 400 IMO.
Performance wise, after this saw is broke in, my guess is that with a 24” or smaller bar, there will be little separating a 400 from a 462.
I’m glad I bought this saw, and at this point I am not at all hesitant to recommend it to anyone seeking a quality 60cc class saw.
It’s my oppinion this saw performs a bit better than the factory horse power numbers would lead you to believe.
I encourage more owners to give their oppinion of this saw so potential buyers are well informed.
Long-term filter system (pre-separation) / cartridge filter HD2
Bumper spike
Steel claw
Cylinder
Chrome
Oil tank volume cm3
325
Sprocket
Ring sprocket
Anti vibration system
Standard AV-System
Filler cap
Tool-free filler cap
Starting system
ElastoStart / Recoilless Ignition / single-lever control / decompression valve
EPA Certified fuel consumption l/h
2.265
CO2 g/kWh
656
1) Without fuel, without bar and chain
2) Unfueled, with guide bar and saw chain
3) K-factor according to DIR 2006/42/EC = 2.5 dB (A)
4) K-factor according to DIR 2006/42/EC = 2m / s ²
Michaell1975 –
I just received my 400CM a couple days ago. I have not had time to do any extended cutting, but because there is very little input about this saw from actual users, I decided to post now and again at a later date after more time with the saw.
I immediately modded the muffler for better flow, but that’s all I did. I used a 24″ b+c with Husqvarna C 83 X Cut chain on a reduced weight Sugi Hara bar. As all reviews, these are my opinions. I’ve owned two 362CM’s, and even though it appears the 400 is built on the 362 chasis, it ( 400CM) puts the 362’s to shame in many ways. I’m reviewing with out of the box performance shy the muffler modd. Not a saw with 10 hours run time. Hopefully the 10 hour run time review will be soon.
I’ve run the 462 572XP 562XP , modded saws, etc.
The one thing that struck me most about the 400 performance is its torque. The torque of this saw is very obvious. And since it’s in a realitivly small package, is more astonishing yet. The saw has excellent compression. I didn’t check the squish yet, but my guess is Stihl has it tight right out of the box. My saw did not have a spark screen over the oem outlet. I added a 3/4″ ID round port.
The saw has very good power, but probably needs several hours run time to come around to its true potential.
For a Stihl, the AV is good. I was pleasantly surprised. The AV is however a bit loose. Or mushy IMO. Also, holding the saw sideways and pulling up and down on the rear handle causes a fair amount of lateral movement with the reduced weight 84dl Sugi bar. For a pro doing a lot of limbing, maybe not so good. For a firewood cutter such as myself, no big deal.
The AF system seems okay, but again that never was one of Stihls strong points. After about 15 minutes cutting, I removed a fair amount of dust/chips from the carb box area.
The saw starts and restarts good.
For those interested whether Stihl finally put a decent oiler on the 362 series saw, my impression to that question is yes. I cut dry oak rounds and with the oiler maxed out, it kept up well. It also passes a spray test well.
Composite front handle naturally. A metal handle with soft rubber like the 462 would be welcome.
My saw was also missing the metal fuel tank guard plate to protect from a ” jumped chain “.
Anyone familiar with these saws knows the small clutch cover although light, is very fragile and does poorly at protecting from the clutch area. I installed 11386480400 tall NW clutch cover for safety, strength, and better chip management. I also installed the 362 OEM heavy spikes ( inner and outer ) and roller catcher.
The complete muffler appears to be an exact match to the 362.
The bigger clutch cover and spikes added a bit of weight, but not not noticeble to me.
Although the 400 weighs just slightly less than the 462, to me, the saw is noticably smaller in physical dimension With both saws ( 400 and 462 ) wearing 84dl lightweight bars full of oil and gas, the 400 seems a fair bit lighter to me. It may be perception only, buy that’s my opinion.
The question I ask myself is where is the .6 extra hp from a 46? With only 5.5 extra cc’s of displacement?
The 400 appears to me to be a bit more of a longevity saw than its big brother 462.
As I said, I didn’t cut much, but what I did cut, it seemed as if the fuel tank went down fast.
Overall the 400 seems to be a well built saw with much thought and attention given to good fitment and overall very good quality of workmanship.
I gave this saw a four star initial rating with the possibility of my follow to go either direction. However, after my first impression I believe it to be more likely to go up rather than down.
I like my 462, but there is definitely a place in the line up for the 400 IMO.
Performance wise, after this saw is broke in, my guess is that with a 24” or smaller bar, there will be little separating a 400 from a 462.
I’m glad I bought this saw, and at this point I am not at all hesitant to recommend it to anyone seeking a quality 60cc class saw.
It’s my oppinion this saw performs a bit better than the factory horse power numbers would lead you to believe.
I encourage more owners to give their oppinion of this saw so potential buyers are well informed.