scooby074
Well-known member
Looking to replace a worn out and cracked testlight, been my goto for 15 yrs, but the clear plastic body has a hairline crack and is clouded and stained, probably from years of brakeclean.
Im curious about the SnapOn EECT400 "digital" tester vs a traditional incandescent bulb tester like the EECT4H vs a powerprobe.
I like the convenience of the coil cord on the eect400 and low draw "computer safety" factor although Ive never had a problem using a traditional light. A voltage readout could be handy too I suppose.
Ive seen next to no discussion on GJ about the eect400. Wonder why?
The traditional eect4 is just that traditional. The light we all know.
The PP3 or 4. The most expensive option by far. Having a combined meter and testlight could be nice (PP4), but I have a quality meter that I regularly use so I dont really need that function. PP has a nice long cord which is both good and bad. Digging out and putting away the PP would also be a lot of work compared to a testlight. I also dont really need it to inject power because I have sets of long test leads I use for that. The PP would be an all in one unit, so the PP is more convenient in that sense.
I guess the PP isnt really comparable to a simple testlight, so maybe its not a fair comparison and it has a place of its own??
Im leaning digital, mostly for the coiled cord, plus I still could dig out my old incan when needed and I have a standalone meter, test leads, and test loads
If you had to pick one of the 3 what would you pick?
Im curious about the SnapOn EECT400 "digital" tester vs a traditional incandescent bulb tester like the EECT4H vs a powerprobe.
I like the convenience of the coil cord on the eect400 and low draw "computer safety" factor although Ive never had a problem using a traditional light. A voltage readout could be handy too I suppose.
Ive seen next to no discussion on GJ about the eect400. Wonder why?
The traditional eect4 is just that traditional. The light we all know.
The PP3 or 4. The most expensive option by far. Having a combined meter and testlight could be nice (PP4), but I have a quality meter that I regularly use so I dont really need that function. PP has a nice long cord which is both good and bad. Digging out and putting away the PP would also be a lot of work compared to a testlight. I also dont really need it to inject power because I have sets of long test leads I use for that. The PP would be an all in one unit, so the PP is more convenient in that sense.
I guess the PP isnt really comparable to a simple testlight, so maybe its not a fair comparison and it has a place of its own??
Im leaning digital, mostly for the coiled cord, plus I still could dig out my old incan when needed and I have a standalone meter, test leads, and test loads
If you had to pick one of the 3 what would you pick?
Last edited:

