IR 2235TIMAX VS Nitrocat 1250k
- Thread starter uglyjacko
- Start date
Unfortunately, after 27 years developing new products at Ingersoll Rand, I was let go in September due to a "restructuring". It was a pleasure providing assistance to all of the people that I interacted with in this forum. I have continued to read the board on a daily basis but moving forward, I will no longer be representing Ingersoll Rand.
Thanks,
Marlin
anndel
Well-known member
I have an Aircat Killer Torque 1150 and a Snap On MG725. If and when I wrench that needs an impact wrench, I almost always reach for the Aircat because it's more lighter, comfortable and quieter than the SO.
Not to mention it's more powerful too
Good review but why would he compare a regular length anvil tool to an extended tire tool version? The extended version reduces torque.
Finky198
Well-known member
If anything looking at the results of the test and marlins statement from above ^^^ I like woodstocksva videos all in all But it Really only proves one thing that if IR 2235 had a standard anvil making the test fair. It would without a doubt have beat the nitro cat in the test
Last edited:
If anything looking at the results of the test and marlins statement from above ^^^ I like woodstocksva videos all in all But it Really only proves one thing that if IR 2235 had a standard anvil making the test fair. It would without a doubt have beat the nitro cat in the test
No torque loss per ir website
http://www.ingersollrandproducts.co...-impactools/1-2-drive/2235-Series/2235timax-2
WhiffySpark
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2009
- Messages
- 6,252
It does. It may have the same "output" but they extended anvil eats up torque. Of course I have no scientific proof, only experience
Same principal of flip sockets and 3 inch extensions
Finky198
Well-known member
Woodstock already showed torque loss In Other videos it a proven fact that extending a shaft reduces torque it's basic physics. Are you really that dumb do you not understand that changing any variable will have an equal and opposite reaction not including things like heat friction ect
Most of the Brands statics and claims are inaccurate any way they only test in optimal conditions estimating and providing Favorable figures in order to drive sales
You're also arguing Marlins point (a past employee of IR ) who claims that it is a torque loss
Last edited:
Finky198
Well-known member
OMG you really are that the numbers and test not accurate we've already proven that it was not an equal fight you can't compare an extended and to a standard Anvil gun and call that fair
Here's Marketing lesson 101
1195 ft/lb doesn't sound as good as 1200 ft/lb does it.
nor does Down rating the torque rating on extended Anvil gun it would be bad for sales so they do Something called "estimated torque" or advertised torque...
And nice pic you can't even read it
the numbers and test not accurate we've already proven that it was not an equal fight you can't compare an extended and to a standard Anvil gun and call that fair Here's Marketing lesson 101
1195 ft/lb doesn't sound as good as 1200 ft/lb does it.
nor does Down rating the torque rating on extended Anvil gun it would be bad for sales so they do Something called "estimated torque" or advertised torque...
And nice pic you can't even read it
Last edited:
RedneckWelder
Well-known member
Oh good god people. Both the Nitrocat and the 2235 are damn strong 1/2 guns. I have a Nitrocat at work and love it and so do my coworkers that all have one. If the 2235 had been out when I got the Nitrocat I may have chosen it and been just as happy.
Finky198
Well-known member
I'll take that as a compliment. 
Every manufacturer lies about there products
Its called marketing
Every manufacturer lies about there products
Its called marketing
Last edited:
Finky198
Well-known member
No problem man no hard feelings
Daniel's testing shows a 1% difference between the tools. Any given model of impact is going to have at least a 10% swing in performance over a large sampling of tools. The testing of extended vs non-extended will show a difference in the average when testing a large enough sample, however, it was not enough to differentiate in the rating of the tools in the catalog (although more than 1%). Daniel has done a nice job with the test, however, for the sake of having the most valid experiment possible, in the future, it would make sense to eliminate as many variables as possible. I have no vested interest in the results, just pointing this out.