HW 2-ton jack review (new production)

[beuford]

I recently purchased a Hein-Werner HW93642 floor jack from Northern Tool ($319 + free delivery). Seemed like a good deal at the time. According to Northern Tool it shipped direct from the manufacturer, which was confirmed by the shipping label on the packaging. Direct shipping was important to me because I had heard horror stories about some companies shipping these with marginal shipping vendors and insufficient packaging resulting in a damaged jack or leaking of the hydraulic fluid.

Unfortunately, direct ship didn't help. The packaging and/or shipper handling were still poor, and the jack arrived in a damaged cardboard box containing broken foam packing elements, all soaked with hydraulic fluid. The cardboard box appeared to have been repaired mid-shipment, as one end had a second layer of new cardboard to cover the oil-stained original box. The jack seemed to be completely empty of hydraulic fluid and did not work at all upon receipt. I had to go to the store and buy hydraulic fluid and fill the jack before it would operate.

The jack itself is a mixed-bag. For instance, the vent screw is an interesting idea, but because it screws into the thin metal housing of the pump cover it didn't have much thread area to begin with. The threads of the vent screw hole seemed to be partially stripped upon receipt, and I had to be very careful when reinstalling the vent screw to prevent stripping the threads further. Not good...

Also, the jack does not sit level; the left front wheel is ~1/8" off of the ground. In addition, the jack flexes easily towards that wheel (even after the wheel contacts the ground), but not the other direction. It just doesn't feel solid.

I also noticed that the hydraulic unit has mounting points that are machined/cast too long, as if they are for the heavier steel panels used in the 3 ton model of this jack. In most floor jacks the hydraulic unit bolts securely to the side frame panels, acting as a structural component that prevents spreading of the side frame panels when the jack is under load. However, in the 2 ton jack the mounting points extend through **and past** the side frame panels by about 1/16" to 1/8". There are bolts and washers on each of the mounting points, but they do not contact the side frame panels and so do nothing but plug the bolt holes in the mounting points. The result is that the side frame panels can flex outward if sufficiently loaded. A more correct way to mount this hydraulic unit would have been to a) machine the mounting points so that they do not protrude past the side plates, or b) use spacers so that when the hydraulic unit bolts are tightened their force is applied to the side frame panels. I'll try to attach a photo of this condition for your review. I'd be curious if older Walker jacks are built the same way, or as I described instead.

On the plus side, the cast lift arm and saddle mount are really stout. The lift arm does not fill well within the frame, though; it moves back and forth along its hinge bolt quite a bit. The total movement (including that of the saddle cradle) is a little over 1/4" at the saddle end. My old imported jack barely moves.

Also, the release valve control is very smooth; you can lower a vehicle at pretty much any speed you want. Jacking up the car, though, is a slow and painful process; from 0 to full lift (unloaded) takes 40 pumps (!!).

All in all, I don't think I would buy this floor jack again. I'd rather look for an older USA-made floor jack to rebuild. The current HW production is better than the cheap imported floor jacks, but not enough so to warrant the price. Also, in my humble opinion the company has taken steps to cut costs - in production and shipping - that further erode the value.

It's a nice jack, but for me the value proposition just isn't there. However, that's just my opinion - your mileage may vary.

Beuford

 

[Skin]

The current HW production is better than the cheap imported floor jacks.

Most would disagree. Nothing wrong with a Chinese floor jack from a reputable manufacturer. I like my Sunex 2-ton aluminum and the Daytona's are immensely popular and very well received. The hydraulics just aren't quite as good as old US units but how many people are going to repair a $150 floor jack?

You spent a premium for an import jack poorly assembled in the US with a mis-aligned wheel and no quick pump feature. That's not better.

 

[Hiball]

Thanks for the review... I’d be interested in the frame wall thickness to see if there was actually a move to shed some weight, thus it’s allowing the hydraulic unit mounting shoulders to extrude. In regards to it causing flex, unlikely as the majority of the forces in play are parallel to the frame rails at that point. The older Walker units used shoulder bolts to harness that force, versus having shoulders on the block protrude into the frame. I suspect if it bothered you, one could find a appropriated sized washer to take up some slack between the frame and the lock washer/bolt.

In regards to the single pump system, it’s tried and true and in today’s world where the majority of today’s vehicles are low to the ground it becomes a moot point. In the hydraulic world simplicity wins in the longevity department .. Case and point the earlier single pump quick lift jacks where prone to fail because of too many working parts, the quick lift Feature was almost always the first part to fail. The Majority of today’s quick lift jacks utilize twin pumps, with one being larger to push more oil, thus bring the lift arm up faster. It’s not a New design by any stretch of the imagination, Walker introduced it 75+ years ago.

Unfortunately for 9xxxx series jacks and any premium jack supplier in the 2-3 ton range, they obviously are trying to compete in a overcrowded market with unsustainable price point, thus they have off shored some parts and QC/Dated design is suffering. The majority of Today’s consumers don’t care about rebuilding there jack, they want the newest color and flashiest name available. On The plus side, if one does care about those things, it’s $30 bucks to reseal your jack yourself when the time comes.

The only thing keeping the current HW product line alive is that it’s under the umbrellas of one the biggest hydraulic companies out there.. Shinn fu. It would surely fail under its own merits in today’s market.

Thanks for the Review.

 

[driz]

Ill stick with my HF jacks. They are as straight as they need to be and don’t need more than 10-15 pumps to get up there. They really all do the same thing and I trust them as far as I do the best ones. About as far as a career politician..


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Two Speed]

it shipped direct from the manufacturer, which was confirmed by the shipping label on the packaging. Direct shipping was important to me because I had heard horror stories about some companies shipping these with marginal shipping vendors and insufficient packaging resulting in a damaged jack or leaking of the hydraulic fluid.

Unfortunately, direct ship didn't help. The packaging and/or shipper handling were still poor, and the jack arrived in a damaged cardboard box containing broken foam packing elements, all soaked with hydraulic fluid.

Manufacturers packaging is to keep dust out, and most of their product leaves wrapped on a skid. No individual hands handling it and dropping it multiple times to its destination.

 

[Treeman]

Sad. This thread and numerous bad reviews on Amazon is giving me second thoughts about my planned purchase of the 3 ton unit. It's portrayed now as just an overpriced Chinese made jack.

 

[beuford]

The hydraulics just aren't quite as good as old US units but how many people are going to repair a $150 floor jack?

Me....

Beuford

 

[beuford]

Thanks for the review... I’d be interested in the frame wall thickness to see if there was actually a move to shed some weight, thus it’s allowing the hydraulic unit mounting shoulders to extrude.

I don't think that's the problem. It's apparent to me that the frame wall thickness is different between the 2 ton and 3 ton models, and what I think has happened is that they have consolidated the parts for these so that the cast hydraulic base is the same for both models. For the 3 ton the base would fit correctly; for the 2 ton it would not (as I have described).

In regards to it causing flex, unlikely as the majority of the forces in play are parallel to the frame rails at that point.

Correct, for the jack hydraulic unit forces. However, the forces from the supported load are transferred to the ground through the side frame plates, which could distort from the load. However, with the 2 ton limit of this jack I think that the other through-bolts (including the massive lift arm pivot) will likely prevent this for the 2 ton jack. Still, it annoys we when something is clearly not "right"; the bolts for the hydraulic unit should force the side frame plates against the hydraulic unit. As assembled, the bolts do nothing but fill the holes in the hydraulic unit casting.

The older Walker units used shoulder bolts to harness that force, versus having shoulders on the block protrude into the frame. I suspect if it bothered you, one could find a appropriated sized washer to take up some slack between the frame and the lock washer/bolt.

I agree on all counts; my beef is that they could have done the same at the factory so that I did not have to.

In regards to the single pump system, it’s tried and true and in today’s world where the majority of today’s vehicles are low to the ground it becomes a moot point. In the hydraulic world simplicity wins in the longevity department .. Case and point the earlier single pump quick lift jacks where prone to fail because of too many working parts, the quick lift Feature was almost always the first part to fail. The Majority of today’s quick lift jacks utilize twin pumps, with one being larger to push more oil, thus bring the lift arm up faster. It’s not a New design by any stretch of the imagination, Walker introduced it 75+ years ago.

Again, I agree on all counts. Simplicity was one of the reasons I purchased this jack. However, in another thread (I'll try to find) others have said this same jack took 19 pumps to go from full down to full up. Mine takes 40(?!?).

Unfortunately for 9xxxx series jacks and any premium jack supplier in the 2-3 ton range, they obviously are trying to compete in a overcrowded market with unsustainable price point, thus they have off shored some parts and QC/Dated design is suffering. The majority of Today’s consumers don’t care about rebuilding there jack, they want the newest color and flashiest name available. On The plus side, if one does care about those things, it’s $30 bucks to reseal your jack yourself when the time comes.

The only thing keeping the current HW product line alive is that it’s under the umbrellas of one the biggest hydraulic companies out there.. Shinn fu. It would surely fail under its own merits in today’s market.

Thanks for the Review.

Thank you for your comments.

I really like a lot of the features of this jack, and if it did not have the deficiencies I described I'd be happy to recommend the product. I just can't believe that it would be difficult or costly to go the extra mile and produce a really outstanding jack.

Beuford

 

[beuford]

Ill stick with my HF jacks. They are as straight as they need to be and don’t need more than 10-15 pumps to get up there. They really all do the same thing and I trust them as far as I do the best ones. About as far as a career politician..

I understand. I purchased one of the HF "Daytona" jacks and was quite impressed with the build quality. However, the o-ring based jack piston seal kind of turned me off. It will work well, but may require more frequent rebuilds. Strange that they used a cup seal on the pump, but not on the jack piston...

Beuford

 

[beuford]

Sad. This thread and numerous bad reviews on Amazon is giving me second thoughts about my planned purchase of the 3 ton unit. It's portrayed now as just an overpriced Chinese made jack.

Actually, I wouldn't go that far. Overall, the quality of the components looked pretty good. I believe that the hydraulic assembly would fit the thicker frame of the 3 ton properly, eliminating my complaint about that on the 2 ton model. The added rigidity of the frame coupled with the hydraulic unit casting becoming part of the structural system would also address other concerns.

If you get a 3 ton, please review it for the issues I've noted. I'd like to see if the 3 ton was built any better.

Beuford

 

[Hiball]

I don't think that's the problem. It's apparent to me that the frame wall thickness is different between the 2 ton and 3 ton models, and what I think has happened is that they have consolidated the parts for these so that the cast hydraulic base is the same for both models. For the 3 ton the base would fit correctly; for the 2 ton it would not (as I have described).


If you could get me the dimensions as requested, I have the ability to verify it against a various generations of the jack


Correct, for the jack hydraulic unit forces. However, the forces from the supported load are transferred to the ground through the side frame plates, which could distort from the load. However, with the 2 ton limit of this jack I think that the other through-bolts (including the massive lift arm pivot) will likely prevent this for the 2 ton jack. Still, it annoys we when something is clearly not "right"; the bolts for the hydraulic unit should force the side frame plates against the hydraulic unit. As assembled, the bolts do nothing but fill the holes in the hydraulic unit casting.

Correct, The main pivot arm/shaft handles the majority of the forces at play.


I agree on all counts; my beef is that they could have done the same at the factory so that I did not have to.

No complaints here


Again, I agree on all counts. Simplicity was one of the reasons I purchased this jack. However, in another thread (I'll try to find) others have said this same jack took 19 pumps to go from full down to full up. Mine takes 40(?!?).



Thank you for your comments.

40 seems excessive and not normal based simply off the displacement of the pump cylinder as it equates to cylinder size. The jack is designed to operate at maximum Efficiency while under the vehicle, thus to get the best results the handle needs to almost be parallel to the floor on the downstroke. Obviously I’m just going off memory, but I will get a actual count next time I’m at the shop.

I really like a lot of the features of this jack, and if it did not have the deficiencies I described I'd be happy to recommend the product. I just can't believe that it would be difficult or costly to go the extra mile and produce a really outstanding jack.

Beuford

Fair review

 

[beuford]

Quote:
Originally Posted by beuford
I don't think that's the problem. It's apparent to me that the frame wall thickness is different between the 2 ton and 3 ton models, and what I think has happened is that they have consolidated the parts for these so that the cast hydraulic base is the same for both models. For the 3 ton the base would fit correctly; for the 2 ton it would not (as I have described).


If you could get me the dimensions as requested, I have the ability to verify it against a various generations of the jack

The dimension is 1/4", including the paint/powder coat. However, I am not suggesting that the plate thickness has changed over the years for the 2 ton jack. Instead, I am suggesting that the 2 ton and 3 ton units now share the same hydraulic unit casting, and that's why the bolts for the 2 ton do not tighten against the frame side plates (My assumption is that the plates are thicker on the 3 ton). I believe that the older hydraulic units were different between the 2 and 3 ton units, and that the 2 ton hydraulic casting was designed to work with the thinner side plates of the 2 ton jack.

I would be interested in hearing about differences in the hydraulic units for the older models (do they bolt tight to the side frame plates?).

Correct, for the jack hydraulic unit forces. However, the forces from the supported load are transferred to the ground through the side frame plates, which could distort from the load. However, with the 2 ton limit of this jack I think that the other through-bolts (including the massive lift arm pivot) will likely prevent this for the 2 ton jack. Still, it annoys we when something is clearly not "right"; the bolts for the hydraulic unit should force the side frame plates against the hydraulic unit. As assembled, the bolts do nothing but fill the holes in the hydraulic unit casting.

Correct, The main pivot arm/shaft handles the majority of the forces at play.

I think I've been misunderstood. Yes, the main pivot shaft will prevent frame spreading, but it also tranfers the load to the frame plates. The frame plates, however, have nothing to prevent them from collapsing by folding over like a parallelogram. That's what bolting the hydraulic unit to the side frame plates would prevent, much like a shear wall in a building. That's why this is a concern for me. None of the through-bolts - including the pivot shaft - will prevent this if sufficiently loaded.

40 seems excessive and not normal based simply off the displacement of the pump cylinder as it equates to cylinder size. The jack is designed to operate at maximum Efficiency while under the vehicle, thus to get the best results the handle needs to almost be parallel to the floor on the downstroke. Obviously I’m just going off memory, but I will get a actual count next time I’m at the shop.

Here is a link to the forum post where a user states that his HW 2 ton takes only 19 strokes to full rise:
https://www.garagejournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=369958&highlight=HW93642

Beuford

 

[Fulcrumz]

Most would disagree. Nothing wrong with a Chinese floor jack from a reputable manufacturer. I like my Sunex 2-ton aluminum and the Daytona's are immensely popular and very well received. The hydraulics just aren't quite as good as old US units but how many people are going to repair a $150 floor jack?

You spent a premium for an import jack poorly assembled in the US with a mis-aligned wheel and no quick pump feature. That's not better.

About a year ago I decided I needed to replace the floor jack I sold when I moved across country. I was looking at a used Snap-on FJ300 for around $250 on Craigslist, and the new Daytona yellow jacks. Neither one really impressed me, and the more I read about either of them, the more I understood that Shinn Fu has essentially taken over most of the market when it comes to floor hydraulics. The metal was thin gauge, the hydraulics were cheaply made, and it struck me more as a three year life-cycle than a permanent purchase.

The inconsistent build Beuford found with his HW93642 doesn't surprise me. The reviews on Amazon were middle of the road.

All in all, I don't think I would buy this floor jack again. I'd rather look for an older USA-made floor jack to rebuild. The current HW production is better than the cheap imported floor jacks, but not enough so to warrant the price. Also, in my humble opinion the company has taken steps to cut costs - in production and shipping - that further erode the value.

The majority of Today’s consumers don’t care about rebuilding there jack, they want the newest color and flashiest name available. On The plus side, if one does care about those things, it’s $30 bucks to reseal your jack yourself when the time comes.

how many people are going to repair a $150 floor jack?

As it turns out, I started hunting around locally for an older jack that might be a better alternative to these Chinese jacks. I found four of the older Snap-on YA700 jacks (which are also 93642) with the cast letters that were still made in USA. There is a tremendous difference in the build quality between them and any of these newer Chinese variants of the 93642. I spent the time to restore each of them. I'm actually in the process of finishing the fourth one now.

The same discussion can be had about USA made vises. Why take the time to restore them when you can pick up one from Harbor Freight for $50? In the same hunting around I've acquired 5 Wilton bullets, and restored them too (5" to 8" jaws).

Soon these quality tools will completely disappear. A year ago I picked up a same as new 2012 1755 Tradesman off eBay for $120. Now they're well over $400.

Truth is it's hard to find quality tools these days.

 

[beuford]

Update:

I've been trying to find out why the jack is "twisted" (the front left wheel is about 1/8" from the floor when the jack is unloaded). I'm stumped.

The jack levels out when under load, so I placed it under a small load and re-tightened its bolts. I thought that perhaps it had been assembled while "twisted", resulting in its uneven stance. Alas, no change.

I checked what dimensions I could, but didn't find anything out of the ordinary. All I can think of is that the mounting points for the hydraulic unit are slightly off (either on the side plates or on the hydraulic unit casting itself), which would cause the two frame side plates to be rotated with respect to one another. This would cause the condition I see, but cannot be checked without removing the hydraulic assembly - something I'm not inclined to do. However, based on the dimensions of the jack these holes would only need to be off by 0.015 inch to produce the results I see.

There is some flex when loaded (the side plates move a little with respect to the hydraulic unit casting), probably due to the lack of function for the hydraulic unit mounting bolts. As I noted earlier, these do nothing but plug the bolt holes in the hydraulic unit because they do not contact the side frame plates. Interestingly, the drawing from the latest manual (on the HW web site) shows the hydraulic unit mounting bolt/washer seating against the side frame plate:

http://www.heinwerner-automotive.com/Owners Manual/HW93642 2TonServiceJack/710


Anyway, it seems to work fine - at least for the small loads I've encountered so far (1/2 ton or so). Still, so would have a HF jack. A little miffed at myself for paying $350 (delivered) for this jack, but at least it functions (and is rebuild-able).

C'est la vie.

Beuford

PS: Confirmed several times that 40+ full stokes are required to fully raise the jack. Jack has been bled, and is properly filled with hydraulic fluid. It does seem (according to a review of the last few manuals for this model) that the hydraulic pump changed from a packing to a U-cup design, but unless they also changed the diameter of the piston I don't see how this could account for such a large change

 

[Fulcrumz]

Update:

I've been trying to find out why the jack is "twisted" (the front left wheel is about 1/8" from the floor when the jack is unloaded). I'm stumped.

The jack levels out when under load, so I placed it under a small load and re-tightened its bolts. I thought that perhaps it had been assembled while "twisted", resulting in its uneven stance. Alas, no change.

I checked what dimensions I could, but didn't find anything out of the ordinary. All I can think of is that the mounting points for the hydraulic unit are slightly off (either on the side plates or on the hydraulic unit casting itself), which would cause the two frame side plates to be rotated with respect to one another. This would cause the condition I see, but cannot be checked without removing the hydraulic assembly - something I'm not inclined to do. However, based on the dimensions of the jack these holes would only need to be off by 0.015 inch to produce the results I see.

There is some flex when loaded (the side plates move a little with respect to the hydraulic unit casting), probably due to the lack of function for the hydraulic unit mounting bolts (as I noted earlier, these do nothing but plug the bolt holes in the hydraulic unit because they do not contact the side frame plates).

Anyway, it seems to work fine - at least for the small loads I've encountered so far (1/2 ton or so). Still, so would have a HF jack. A little miffed at myself for paying $350 (delivered) for this jack, but at least it functions (and is rebuild-able).

C'est la vie.

Beuford

PS: Confirmed several times that 40+ full stokes are required to fully raise the jack. Jack has been bled, and is properly filled with hydraulic fluid.

It's usually in the rear casters. You can shim them on the bottom with a machine washer of about 1/16", and that solves the front wheels not being on the ground at the same time.

 

[beuford]

Ok, more information...

Here is a picture of an old Lincoln 93642 2-ton floor jack. Note that the bolts that secure the hydraulic unit appear to be fully seated, and rigidly secure the side frame plates to the hydraulic unit.

In the current HW version of this jack (the one I own) the bolts/washers that "secure" the hydraulic unit do NOT tighten against the side frame plates because the cast mounting points extend BEYOND the outside surface of the plates.

Also, as noted in many pictures available on line, the back of the current version includes a cross-bolt that serves to hold the rear of the frame plates together. The old version in the photo above does not have this bolt because the hydraulic unit served this same purpose.

In my opinion this indicates that HW might know about the issue with the current hydraulic unit, and has dealt with it by adding the rear cross bolt. However, as I noted before, I do not believe that this is as strong/rigid as the old way (securing the side frame plates securely to the hydraulic unit casting).

FYI.

Beuford