Stihl MS 462 C-M vs. MS 500i Torque (Dyno Test)
The MS 500i has the larger engine and higher published maximum power: 79.2 cm³ and 5.0 kW, versus 72.2 cm³ and 4.4 kW for the MS 462 C-M. Those figures do not prove it makes more torque at every engine speed. A fair torque verdict needs comparable, documented dyno curves; without them, an exact winner would be guesswork.
A common myth is that more displacement automatically means more torque wherever you use the saw. It may point to greater output potential, but it does not show the shape of a torque curve or how a saw responds under a particular cut. If you are comparing two expensive professional saws, that difference matters.
I would not call either model the dyno torque winner without traceable test results from comparable setups. Instead, this guide separates verified specifications from what a controlled test would need to prove, then shows how to choose based on your work.
What the published specifications establish
Published specifications are useful for comparing engine size and rated power. They do not replace a torque test. STIHL lists the MS 462 C-M at 72.2 cm³ and 4.4 kW maximum engine power, and the MS 500i at 79.2 cm³ and 5.0 kW. These are manufacturer figures, not dyno measurements made for this comparison.
The 500i’s listed maximum power is 0.6 kW higher, about 14% above the 462 C-M’s listed figure. Its displacement is 7.0 cm³ greater, or about 9.7%. That supports a clear statement: the 500i has the larger engine and higher published maximum power. It does not tell us the torque each saw makes at a given RPM.
| Specification | MS 462 C-M | MS 500i | What it tells you |
|---|---|---|---|
| Displacement | 72.2 cm³ | 79.2 cm³ | Engine size |
| Maximum engine power | 4.4 kW | 5.0 kW | Published peak power |
| Engine management | M-Tronic electronic management with carburetor | Electronically controlled fuel injection | Different fuel-control systems |
| Common chain pitch | 3/8 inch | 3/8 inch | Check the fitted bar and chain |
| Torque curve from these figures? | No | No | Requires measured power and RPM data |
A peak-power number is not a torque curve. Peak power tells you the highest published power output, while a torque curve shows how turning force changes across engine speed. The two measures are related, but one does not reveal the other on its own.
What a valid torque dyno test must measure
A dyno measures engine output under controlled conditions. To compare torque fairly, both saws need the same test method and a documented RPM sweep. A number without the test setup, calibration details, and measurement point is not enough to establish which saw has more usable torque.
Torque can be calculated from measured power and engine speed:
Torque in N·m = 9,549 × power in kW ÷ RPM
The equation shows why power alone is insufficient. To calculate torque at a particular speed, you need power measured at that same speed. The published maximum-power figures do not provide the full RPM-by-RPM data needed to build either saw’s torque curve.
A credible comparison should disclose:
- Whether torque was measured at the crankshaft or calculated from measured power.
- Whether the saws were tested bare at the engine or with a bar-and-chain load.
- The dyno’s calibration and the correction standard used, if any.
- Fuel type and mix, engine condition, ambient conditions, and test settings.
- The RPM range and test procedure, including how repeat runs were handled.
These details matter because a loaded chain test includes the effects of the bar, chain, and cutting setup. A bare-crank test isolates engine output more directly. Both can be useful, but they answer different questions. Results from one setup should not be presented as if they describe the other.
I would also look for repeatable results, not a single peak reading. If conditions or equipment differ between saws, a small apparent advantage may come from the test rather than the engine. Without a documented, apples-to-apples curve, I would not report a numeric torque winner.
How to read the comparison for real cutting
A field cut tests the complete saw, not just its engine. Chain condition, depth gauges, bar length, wood, and cutting technique all affect the load. That makes field reports useful for judging work performance, but they cannot replace a controlled dyno test when the question is specifically about engine torque.
Consider two common work scenarios:
| Work scenario | What matters most | What the published specs support |
|---|---|---|
| Repeated cuts in large timber | Power under load, sharp chain, suitable bar and chain | The 500i has higher listed maximum power; no exact torque advantage is established |
| Mixed professional work where saw weight matters | Full saw weight with the chosen bar, balance, handling, and task | Compare the exact configurations; engine figures alone do not decide fit |
| A torque claim at a specific RPM | A documented power or torque curve at that RPM | The headline specifications are not enough |
| Comparing cutting speed in a particular wood | Matched saw setup and repeatable cuts in the same material | A field test can help, but must report its method |
Do not treat a longer bar as proof that a saw has more torque. A longer bar may suit a particular job, but it also changes the cutting setup and load. Check STIHL’s approval for the exact saw, bar, and chain combination, then compare saws with matched or clearly described equipment.
Both models commonly use 3/8-inch pitch chain. That does not confirm chain gauge, bar length, or drive-link count. Read the bar markings and check the saw-specific STIHL chart before ordering parts.
Which saw fits your workload and budget?
The practical choice is not simply “more torque” versus “less torque.” It is whether the specific saw, approved cutting setup, and handling characteristics match your work. The published figures favor the 500i for maximum power, but they do not settle every field-use comparison or prove a torque advantage at every speed.
If your buying decision depends on an exact torque difference, ask the seller or test provider for the full dyno curve and method. If no comparable curve is available, treat claims about a precise torque winner as unverified. Then compare the models using work you actually do, the bars you plan to run, and the complete configured saw weight from the relevant product information.
A useful decision process is:
- Choose based on output needs: The 500i has the higher published maximum power. That may matter for demanding work, but it is not a guarantee of faster cuts in every setup.
- Check handling in the intended configuration: Compare the saws with the bar and chain you expect to use, not just bare powerhead figures.
- Confirm approved bar and chain fit: Do not assume the same bar length, gauge, or drive-link count works on both models.
- Factor in engine management: The 462 C-M uses M-Tronic electronic engine management with a carburetor; the 500i uses electronically controlled fuel injection. Follow the model-specific manual for operation and service.
- Price the whole setup: Include the intended bar and chain package, required protective gear, and service support in your comparison.
Neither saw has a universal wood-hardness rating. Tree size, species, condition, site hazards, operator skill, and the approved cutting setup all shape the job. Felling, limbing, and bucking call for a site-specific assessment and suitable training, not a choice based on displacement alone.
Safe setup and fair field checks
A field comparison is useful when you want to understand how each saw cuts in a defined task. It is not a torque dyno test. Use the same wood and comparable, sharp chain setups, and record the details; otherwise, differences in the cut may reflect the setup more than the saw.
Before operating either saw, use a qualified operator and the PPE required for the work. This includes a helmet, eye and hearing protection, chainsaw-protective legwear, gloves, and suitable boots. Inspect the chain brake, throttle lockout, chain catcher, handles, fasteners, bar, chain tension, and oiling system.
Follow the exact model and market operator manual for starting, idle, and maximum-speed settings. Start on stable ground using the manual’s procedure, engage the chain brake for starting where specified, and warm the engine before loaded cutting. Confirm oil delivery and stable idle. Never rev the saw with the brake engaged or allow the chain to run at idle.
For a field comparison, record the bar and chain, fuel, wood, operator, cut method, and relevant conditions. Use a sharp, correctly tensioned chain. Keep the bar nose clear and do not force a dull or binding chain through wood. Contact between the upper quadrant of the bar nose and an object can cause rotational kickback, driving the bar rapidly upward and back. A chain brake does not make nose contact safe.
For fuel, follow the manual and use fresh, correctly mixed fuel or STIHL MotoMix as applicable. When mixing fuel for approved use, use STIHL two-stroke engine oil at 50:1. Do not run straight gasoline in a two-stroke saw.
Maintenance and shutdown notes for comparison
Maintenance affects the condition of a saw and the quality of any performance comparison. A poorly maintained or incorrectly set-up saw can distort the result. Stop the engine before cleaning or making adjustments, let it cool, and use the manual’s service instructions rather than universal tuning or chain-setting rules.
After a test or work session, remove debris and inspect the chain, bar, and sprocket. Check the air filter and oiling system, and note faults before the next use. Use the chain manufacturer’s depth-gauge specification and the exact saw manual’s idle and maximum-speed settings. Do not apply a universal raker clearance or tune by ear.
For storage and refueling, follow the model manual and local fire-safety rules. Consistent service records also help when comparing two saws: engine condition and chain sharpness should not be hidden variables in a performance claim.
Bottom line
The MS 500i leads on published displacement and maximum power. That is a specification-based comparison, not proof that it produces more torque at every RPM or cutting load. Without a traceable, same-method dyno test, there is no defensible exact torque winner to name.
For your purchase, use the 500i’s higher rated power as one relevant fact, then match bar and chain approval, handling, workload, and budget. If torque is the deciding metric, require a documented curve. If one is unavailable, do not let an unsupported single-number claim decide a $300–$700 purchase.
Frequently asked questions
Does the MS 500i have more torque than the MS 462 C-M?
Its published maximum power and displacement are higher. Those specifications alone do not prove greater torque at every RPM.
Which saw has more published power?
STIHL lists 5.0 kW maximum engine power for the MS 500i and 4.4 kW for the MS 462 C-M.
Can I calculate torque from maximum power alone?
No. You also need engine speed at the point where that power was measured.
Is a single dyno torque number enough to compare them?
Not without the RPM, test method, measurement point, and setup. A curve and documented conditions are more useful.
Are these figures from a comparative dyno test?
No. The 4.4 kW and 5.0 kW figures are manufacturer specifications, not results from a shared test reported here.
Do both saws use 3/8-inch chain?
They commonly use 3/8-inch pitch, but you must verify the fitted bar’s gauge, length, and drive-link count.
Does the MS 500i’s fuel injection prove it has more torque?
No. Fuel-system design does not establish a torque curve. That requires measured output data across engine speeds.
Which saw should I choose for large timber?
Both are professional-class saws intended for demanding work. Match the saw and approved bar-and-chain setup to the job, operator, and site.
Can a field cutting test settle the torque question?
It can compare complete saw performance in a defined task, but it does not isolate engine torque the way a controlled dyno test can.
What fuel mix should I use?
Follow the exact model manual. For approved mixed fuel, STIHL specifies two-stroke engine oil at 50:1; STIHL MotoMix may also apply.
(This article was written by one of our staff writers, Marcus Thorne. Visit our Meet the Team page.)
