Loscaldazar
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2013
- Messages
- 2,385
Link to spreadsheet for those who want to look at the data themselves:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fgoUv-S26lc_KQ3MxNfGZE02Zgv2MuQ0DC57nCcRiiQ/edit?usp=sharing
I did a comparison of similarly priced units at Harbor Freight. The competitors were:
72" Bottom Box by itself ($1000)
56" Top and Bottom Box ($1080)
44" New (top, bottom, and one side box)- $950
44" Old (top, bottom, and one side box)-$850 (although no stock anymore)
Prices were set based on the most common prices these are sold at (with no tax, since that will vary with location). Sometimes the coupon deals will be worse, sometimes better. I tried to be fair in assigning prices. You can always just take the price current divided by the cubic inches or square inches to get a current comparison.
I assumed the new 72" and 56" are the same dimensions as the old ones. From what it looks like, that is true. The 44" is of course significantly different. If the new 56" and 72" are not the same as the old, please let me know I can edit the chart.
I calculated both cubic inches and square inches since these two different measurements are important for different types of storage. I value square inches over cubic inches (lots of pliers/wrench/socket/etc low profile organizers), but if you have a lot of large power tools or blow molded cases, cubic inches may be more important for you.
Quick Summary:
New 44" > Old 44"/56" > 72"
The old 44", new 44", and the 56" are all about the same $/cubic inch. Less than a fifth of a penny (that's $0.002) separate the three. So for the best value in cubic inches, all three are tied.
By nearly a full penny ($0.01), the new 44" is the best value for $/square inch. Not a huge difference, but noticeable.
The 56" and old 44" are again essentially tied for $/square inch. A tenth of a cent ($0.001) separates the two.
The 72", by a small amount, has the least value in terms of price/sq. in. However, that means it is only about half a penny ($0.005) worse than the others in $/cu. inch. That's not a really large amount.
It doesn't look so good when comparing square inches for the 72". Not including the top surface area, the 72" is three cents/square inch ($0.03/sq in) more expensive than the other options.
Including the top work space in it, causes the 72" to be $0.01/square inch more expensive than the 56" and old 44", while being $0.02/sq. in worse than the new 44". In both cases, the 72" manages to be the worst value out of them all.
So what to get?
Well, get what you think will work best for you. But, here's my take...
I think the 56" top and bottom are personally the best value. For just a slight premium over the 44" you get the locking drawer slides. I have the old 44" and desperately want the drawer latches. They aren't the greatest (Menard's master force is way better), but still nice to have. You also might be able to add the side boxes for the 44" to the 56" since they are now both 22" deep (probably to the 72").
The 44" is nice if you don't have the money to drop $1000 on a tool box right now. You can, over time, add parts onto it as needed. It can also have a second side box added to it and you can another 1600 square inches/5700 cubic inches of storage. with two side boxes, however, it is no longer moveable, and the 72" with a 56" top chest will offer greater storage and still be mobile.
If you're after a tool box that will double as a work bench space, the 72" is absolutely the best option. The 72", of course, also has the most expandability. You could throw a 56" top chest and gain nearly 5000 square inches/15000 cubic inches. It also has better casters, and it is one large tool box if you prefer that over several smaller toolboxes.
The greatest take away from this is that there really isn't a massive difference in value between these tool boxes. They all have different benefits, so it's really more about what drawer arrangement you like and what you are after (slowly expanding, large work surface, drawer latches, etc). I'm fairly sure the 7 drawer side cabinet should fit on all 3 since they are all 22" deep now. Would like confirmation of this first though.
Hope this helps
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fgoUv-S26lc_KQ3MxNfGZE02Zgv2MuQ0DC57nCcRiiQ/edit?usp=sharing
I did a comparison of similarly priced units at Harbor Freight. The competitors were:
72" Bottom Box by itself ($1000)
56" Top and Bottom Box ($1080)
44" New (top, bottom, and one side box)- $950
44" Old (top, bottom, and one side box)-$850 (although no stock anymore)
Prices were set based on the most common prices these are sold at (with no tax, since that will vary with location). Sometimes the coupon deals will be worse, sometimes better. I tried to be fair in assigning prices. You can always just take the price current divided by the cubic inches or square inches to get a current comparison.
I assumed the new 72" and 56" are the same dimensions as the old ones. From what it looks like, that is true. The 44" is of course significantly different. If the new 56" and 72" are not the same as the old, please let me know I can edit the chart.
I calculated both cubic inches and square inches since these two different measurements are important for different types of storage. I value square inches over cubic inches (lots of pliers/wrench/socket/etc low profile organizers), but if you have a lot of large power tools or blow molded cases, cubic inches may be more important for you.
Quick Summary:
New 44" > Old 44"/56" > 72"
The old 44", new 44", and the 56" are all about the same $/cubic inch. Less than a fifth of a penny (that's $0.002) separate the three. So for the best value in cubic inches, all three are tied.
By nearly a full penny ($0.01), the new 44" is the best value for $/square inch. Not a huge difference, but noticeable.
The 56" and old 44" are again essentially tied for $/square inch. A tenth of a cent ($0.001) separates the two.
The 72", by a small amount, has the least value in terms of price/sq. in. However, that means it is only about half a penny ($0.005) worse than the others in $/cu. inch. That's not a really large amount.
It doesn't look so good when comparing square inches for the 72". Not including the top surface area, the 72" is three cents/square inch ($0.03/sq in) more expensive than the other options.
Including the top work space in it, causes the 72" to be $0.01/square inch more expensive than the 56" and old 44", while being $0.02/sq. in worse than the new 44". In both cases, the 72" manages to be the worst value out of them all.
So what to get?
Well, get what you think will work best for you. But, here's my take...
I think the 56" top and bottom are personally the best value. For just a slight premium over the 44" you get the locking drawer slides. I have the old 44" and desperately want the drawer latches. They aren't the greatest (Menard's master force is way better), but still nice to have. You also might be able to add the side boxes for the 44" to the 56" since they are now both 22" deep (probably to the 72").
The 44" is nice if you don't have the money to drop $1000 on a tool box right now. You can, over time, add parts onto it as needed. It can also have a second side box added to it and you can another 1600 square inches/5700 cubic inches of storage. with two side boxes, however, it is no longer moveable, and the 72" with a 56" top chest will offer greater storage and still be mobile.
If you're after a tool box that will double as a work bench space, the 72" is absolutely the best option. The 72", of course, also has the most expandability. You could throw a 56" top chest and gain nearly 5000 square inches/15000 cubic inches. It also has better casters, and it is one large tool box if you prefer that over several smaller toolboxes.
The greatest take away from this is that there really isn't a massive difference in value between these tool boxes. They all have different benefits, so it's really more about what drawer arrangement you like and what you are after (slowly expanding, large work surface, drawer latches, etc). I'm fairly sure the 7 drawer side cabinet should fit on all 3 since they are all 22" deep now. Would like confirmation of this first though.
Hope this helps
