The old log splitter thing again

studor · Oct 1, 2008

After looking at a number of splitters last year I settled on the the HF 24 ton with the Subaru engine. I read a number of stories on here about bad hydraulics but have had no problems and I am pretty confident that whatever breaks can be fixed. It has split everything I have thrown at it so far. Getting it here was a big problem (HF does not ship to Canada and the store won't order it without the money

) Assembly was a bit of a PITA (by myself with the aid of the fel on the tractor) and if you get one buy a 3/4" pipe elbow or flexible funnel to fill the hydraulic tank (which by the way does not hold 4.5 gallons). The engine has always started on the first pull and is relatively quiet for a 6.5 hp. I have used a couple of Troy built products (including the worlds most useless chipper/shredder

) and will say politely that they work but I have never in awe of either the quality or performance of their products -- JMHO -- good luck with your shopping

Steve

Flatheadyoungin · Oct 1, 2008

troy bilt of today is NOWHERE near what it was before MTD bought it.....

i used to work for a troy dealer and we were VERY proud of our products! when i seem the name "Troy Bilt" now at the big box stores, i feel shamed........

if you take an old GTX20 and set it next to a 20hp troy-mtd reject, it would blow most people's mind.......there was more metal in the gtx's hydro transmission than in the eintire riding mower of today....

rant done...

studor said:
After looking at a number of splitters last year I settled on the the HF 24 ton with the Subaru engine. I read a number of stories on here about bad hydraulics but have had no problems and I am pretty confident that whatever breaks can be fixed. It has split everything I have thrown at it so far. Getting it here was a big problem (HF does not ship to Canada and the store won't order it without the money ) Assembly was a bit of a PITA (by myself with the aid of the fel on the tractor) and if you get one buy a 3/4" pipe elbow or flexible funnel to fill the hydraulic tank (which by the way does not hold 4.5 gallons). The engine has always started on the first pull and is relatively quiet for a 6.5 hp. I have used a couple of Troy built products (including the worlds most useless chipper/shredder ) and will say politely that they work but I have never in awe of either the quality or performance of their products -- JMHO -- good luck with your shopping
Steve

Ford850 · Oct 1, 2008

Acohen100,
You are researching the same models I had originally researched, and then I looked into the TSC models made by Speeco. I would highly recommend you check out your local TSC if you have one. You will save much money and shipping costs and get similar or better products, IMO. I planned on buying a 30 ton model, then the 27 or 25, but ended up with a 22 ton model. It has a faster cycle time due to the smaller cylinder (great for the ram return stroke) and has never even bogged down on tough stuff. I would say the higher ton models might continue at a faster rate when the pump goes into the second stage while splitting, but I have had no problems at all.
The 22 ton model I have has the full length beam, unlike the half beams of the Troybilt and HF that I've seen.
Also the top of the beam/platform is 30 or 32" above ground, and I can split all day without getting a sore back. I like the built in rail to hold the logs in place too.
I think they are worth your consideration.

studor · Oct 1, 2008

Flathead
You are right -- I mispoke -- I should have properly said MTD, yardman etc -- their string trimmers, mowers etc now all seem to be "homeowner models" -- I think that means you buy the tool and then get someone else to do the work you should be able to do with it

studor · Oct 1, 2008

Ford850
The HF model has a full beam -- (and a mighty heavy beam it is when you try to lift it by yourself

) Ironically I tried to buy your model Speeco at our Canadian version of TSC when it was on sale -- out of stock and no rain checks -- and the floor model was assembled incorrectly and broken so they would not sell it!! -- and you still had to buy fluids. In comparison the customer service at HF was excellent -- they even loaded the crate on the pickup

. The speeco here had a Briggs engine if I remember ( but I would have bought it anyway) After that experience however I have not been back (and probably never will be to that store which is about 40 minutes out of my way.

)

acohen100 · Oct 1, 2008

What do you guys think about the engine issue. For roughly the same price I can get a Honda GCV 160cc (4.4hp) which is rated "residential/light-duty" on the Cub Cadet/Huskee/Speeco/Troy or I can get the Honda GX 200cc (5.5hp) commercial model on the Northstar.

Just looking at their cost you can buy the GCV for $160 discounted and the GX goes about $400. Seems like a pretty big quality difference there.

Just based on that one spec alone I think that I have to get the Northstar. Or is this a non-issue?

studor · Oct 1, 2008

I would definitely go for the bigger commercial engine -- having said that , look up Subaru Robin for complete info on the engine on the HF stuff.
Steve

Ford850 · Oct 1, 2008

As I said I started looking for the largest engine and cylinder, but ended up with a smaller Speeco model. An old farmer saw me looking at them at TSC and told me to save my money and buy the smallest one. He splits 10 cords per year or something along those lines, and has had one of the little speeco for many years. So I decided to try it and he was right. That little Briggs engine starts first pull every time and runs till it's out of gas without stuttering or bogging down. Due to the 2 speed pumps on these things, I really don't see the engines taking a load. They don't even slightly change their RPMs in the toughest of tough stuff.
If I had started with the bigger model, I would swear it was the best and I couldn't get by with a tiny 22 ton model. But since I got the little one I am pleasantly surprised. If you have extra money to spend, the commercial Honda will likely last longer. But I can afford to toss a replacement engine on mine a couple of times, if ever needed, and still be ahead. Keep in mind those high ton models have huge cyliders and need the bigger engines to run the bigger pumps. Look at the specs and you'll see they end up with slower cycle times than the smaller models. I've yet to have a log, crotch wood included, that I couldn't split.
I don't split that much wood though, probably 4 to 6 cords a year depending on my time. If you split a lot of wood, then bigger might be better.

acohen100 · Oct 1, 2008

Ford850 said:
If you have extra money to spend, the commercial Honda will likely last longer. ... Look at the specs and you'll see they end up with slower cycle times than the smaller models.

Thing is that they come out to about the same price, so extra money is not the issue. Also, the cycle time on the smaller model (Choice #1 above) is 19s and is actually faster on the model with the bigger engine (Choice #2) - around 15s I think.

I guess that I am answering my own questions here... I agree with you that bigger may not always be better in this case. I am more itnerested in quality. I do have a pretty hefty older model with an 8hp Briggs that gets stuck on knots and I am currently using it to split rounds that are around 35+" diameter...it struggles. So I would prefer to have the extra power for the same price - even if I only rarely need it.

CurtC · Oct 1, 2008

I'm currently going through this same process.

I looked at the speeco units at tractor supply tonight. The new 2008 model of the "28 ton" (Was 27 ton last year) has a couple of significant improvements IMO.

1) horizontal honda engine, with auto-throttle.. my understanding is that they will throttle up/down as needed.

2) the fitting to the tank are mounted at the top of the tank.. and the filter hangs below, so you can change the filter without draining the entire tank.

That said, the pumps on the new ones are NOT, as far as I can tell, Haldex pumps.. where they were on the last years model.

The thing that really bugs me about the troy-bilt versions is that they are not a full beam design.

CurtC · Oct 1, 2008

That harbor freight model has some pretty interesting things.. like that the hitch is mounted directly to the beam.. which is much stronger than the drawbar on the speeco units, but on the other hand, would require you to unhook from your tow vehicle to split vertically (which may or may not be an issue).

Of course if you go with the 30 ton HF model with the hydraulic log lifter.. who needs vertical splitting.

http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=96907 1599 seems like a pretty good price. Someone alluded to the quality of the Subaru/Robin engines but wasn't specific as to good or bad. Care to elaborate?

(Edit: Answering my own question, from what I can tell, the Subaru/Robin engines have an excellent reputation for quality/reliability)

I forgot to mention, on the 2008 speeco units, the horizontal honda engines have the exhaust facing the front.. rather than pointing directly at the beam (duh).

studor · Oct 1, 2008

I did not comment on the quality of Subaru engines cause I was responding to a concern about not finding them on the web.

I only have one in my "fleet" of spark plug machines and so far it has been excellent. I think the HF machine with the log lifter would be terrific but could not bring myself to spend 1/3 more in order to lift wood that I can roll into place

--- guess I'm just frugal. I do think the HF machine is a lot more for the money than the others and the engine was just another added feature

-- it is a tough decision cause I know that they all work and have little annoyances. I would buy the HF machine again though
Steve

SPYDERLK · Oct 1, 2008

Farmwithjunk said:
The wheels are the same distance from the rail surface in both vertical OR horizontal position. Not "less friendly" in EITHER position. The orientation to the wheels is all relative to the pivot point and where the axle is located front to rear. Done properly, like this one seems to be, there's no crowding issues at all. All things being equal, even if the wheels WERE closer to the rail in vetical position, that has no effect on the height of the wheels in regard to the height of the rail. As I mentioned, I don't like using the splitter in vertical position, but it's extremely handy to be able to do so when the need arises.

Another reason why I like the pivoting rail, it swings up out of the way of servicing the motor.

I dont see that you are addressing what I meant about the problem of the work station being crowded against the wheels when horizontal. The horizontal mode on all H/V splitters I have seen positions the splitter throat partially over the axle. This complicates, and interferes with, the operators space thereby eliminating optimum options that are particularly important when splitting horizontally with a moving wedge. At best an inconvenience to surmount. At worst a situation that increases hazzard.
larry

Farmwithjunk · Oct 2, 2008

SPYDERLK said:
I dont see that you are addressing what I meant about the problem of the work station being crowded against the wheels when horizontal. The horizontal mode on all H/V splitters I have seen positions the splitter throat partially over the axle. This complicates, and interferes with, the operators space thereby eliminating optimum options that are particularly important when splitting horizontally with a moving wedge. At best an inconvenience to surmount. At worst a situation that increases hazzard.
larry

Speaking as someone who actually HAS a splitter that works in both vertical and horizontal position, I'd have to say your theory isn't holding water. I see ZERO inconvenience, ZERO "increased hazzard".

The axle and wheels are UNDER the "tables" on each side of the rail, with the wheels slightly forward of the actual area where the splitting takes place. (and mine IS the "moving wedge" type) . There's absolutely no need for the operator's feet to be UNDER the splitter while in operation. On the particular splitter I have, (which is same/simular to most) the wheels aren't in the way in any shape, form or fashion. As I see it, the wheels may even prevent the operators feet from being under the splitter, LIMITING THE POSSIBILITY of a hazzardous situation as opposed to CAUSING one. After using a borrowed "fixed horizontal" model, owning a vert/horiz 3-point model, and now owning a vert/horiz "trailer type", I'm 100% convinced your theory may only apply to a poorly designed splitter, and, at the very least, none of them I've ever seen or used.

As I operate my splitter, my feet are generally (at least) 10" to 15" away from the wheels. Obviously those wheels aren't in the way even to the slightest degree.

In any event, regardless of how or where you situate the axle, the pivot point for a vert/horiz beam could be positioned anywhere you so desire with little or no concern as the it's orientation to the axle/wheels. With that, even if you have a particular "issue" with the wheels being in your way, a pivoting beam is still a very doable option. One that I simply would not be without. Obviously, by the simple fact that most all the splitters sold today are vert/horiz types, that's the opinion shared by the vast majority.

Ford850 · Oct 2, 2008

acohen100 said:
Thing is that they come out to about the same price, so extra money is not the issue. Also, the cycle time on the smaller model (Choice #1 above) is 19s and is actually faster on the model with the bigger engine (Choice #2) - around 15s I think.

I guess that I am answering my own questions here... I agree with you that bigger may not always be better in this case. I am more itnerested in quality. I do have a pretty hefty older model with an 8hp Briggs that gets stuck on knots and I am currently using it to split rounds that are around 35+" diameter...it struggles. So I would prefer to have the extra power for the same price - even if I only rarely need it.

I'll bet your hefty old model doesn't have a 2 stage pump. That's what gives these newer models the power without stalling the engines. It shifts down, slowing the ram speed (1/2 speed maybe?) and pushes right through. Most splitting is done in the higher speed, but that 10% of the time when it's needed, it slows down and gets the job down with no stalls or stuck logs. At least that's how mine works on the wood I split.
I used to have a huge old splitter. It took me twice as long to split and at the end of the day my back was killing me. Now I enjoy splitting wood.

Ford850 · Oct 2, 2008

CurtC said:
I'm currently going through this same process.

I looked at the speeco units at tractor supply tonight. The new 2008 model of the "28 ton" (Was 27 ton last year) has a couple of significant improvements IMO.

1) horizontal honda engine, with auto-throttle.. my understanding is that they will throttle up/down as needed.

2) the fitting to the tank are mounted at the top of the tank.. and the filter hangs below, so you can change the filter without draining the entire tank.

That said, the pumps on the new ones are NOT, as far as I can tell, Haldex pumps.. where they were on the last years model.

The thing that really bugs me about the troy-bilt versions is that they are not a full beam design.

The auto throttle is interesting. Some of the Northern Tool models have that. After I bought mine without that feature, I'm not sure I would like it anyway. If you split by yourself and have down time between each cycle it would be great. I rarely let the ram get to it's full return position (that's when they idle down), so it was not as valuable as I thought it would be. Depends on your process, and could be a great fuel saver for some people.

CurtC · Oct 4, 2008

I think I was wrong about the auto-idle throttle, I think the 'consumer' honda on the huskee is just a fixed throttle.

I ended up spending the extra for a 28 ton Huskee. I couldn't lay eyes on a Harbor Freight anywhere, and all the stores around here are 'backordered' with no idea when they'll get them.

The 28 ton had a few things going for it, IMO, over the 22:
- bigger base plate
- horizontal shaft Honda engine
- since it's a horizontal shaft, the pump is up out of harms way
- 31 qt hydraulic tank vs. 17
- haldex pump vs. no-name (I found one later serial # 28 ton that had the haldex pump on it, I couldn't find any pattern, some of the bigger 34 ton units didn't have haldex, some did. None of the 22's I've seen had a haldex)

anyhow, after a couple years of manual splitting and pining for a splitter, I finally have one...

I'll try it out tomorrow.

smfcpacfp · Oct 4, 2008

I do have the old log splitter - self built from scratch about 30 years ago - what a beast. I have learned a few things over the years and have a few modifications, primarily on the I beam. The engine is a Wisconsin built in the early 50's. Somebody mentions there unit starts first time everytime. I hadn't used this for 4 years and the last year or so it sat outside in the weather with no cover (I'm not very proud to say that). I put a new spark plug in it, and it started on the first pull. I was truly impressed. Anyway I have a nice new cover for it, and I plan to spruce it up next summer:

I want to thank Ductape for giving me an idea about handling the big hefty pieces (i.e., the lifting tongs and the FEL on my tractor):

SPYDERLK · Oct 4, 2008

smfcpacfp said:
I do have the old log splitter - self built from scratch about 30 years ago - what a beast. I have learned a few things over the years and have a few modifications, [[primarily on the I beam.]] The engine is a Wisconsin built in the early 50's. Somebody mentions there unit starts first time everytime. I hadn't used this for 4 years and the last year or so it sat outside in the weather with no cover (I'm not very proud to say that). I put a new spark plug in it, and it started on the first pull. I was truly impressed. Anyway I have a nice new cover for it, and I plan to spruce it up next summer:

I want to thank Ductape for giving me an idea about handling the big hefty pieces (i.e., the lifting tongs and the FEL on my tractor):

Yeah, I noted back when you 1st posted that the I beam is bowed. When I made mine I worried about torsion stresses on the beam and I split a length of 3" pipe and welded it back together down the center of the beams web. My beam is only 4x6" but has held its shape
over 25yrs.
larry