Moving from Warco WM180 to a Myford ML7B ?

Was merely pointing out a valid comparison point in a thread about the comparison between the two particular lathes raised in the OP. No controversy (or pugilism) intended.

Edited By Hopper on 10/04/2019 13:11:03

That Hardinge is a small production turret lathe by the look of the final pic. It does appear to have a narrower bed than Hardinge's toolroom lathes. They are quite wide by comparison, although probably not as wide as DSG toolroom lathe beds, size for size.

If your ant a Myford their other options than the 7 series have a look at the 254 I do like mine.

Indeed, the emphasis on a Hardinge, as with Swiss and cam autos, is *usually* going to be towards small diameter bar work with more axial than radial action - otherwise there's no point in the multistation capstan tailstock. A general-purpose lathe would normally aim for more versatility, at some potential cost in speed.

[This posting has been removed]

True!

For comparison:

WM180 = 70kg
Myford ML7 = 84kg
WM240 = 110kg
WM250 = 125kg
WM280 = 210kg

In terms of capacity, Myford beats the WM180, and Myfords gap bed gives the otherwise heftier WM240 a run for its money.

Myfords old fashioned gap bed is a bit of a problem. Chinese lathes are of more modern design and their beds are comparatively heavier and more rigid. Not sure prismatic beds are better than flat beds in practice, but modern kit certainly favours prismatic ways.

Very true that Far Eastern machines look boxy and tinny compared with Myford's curvy solidity, but maybe the weight is more sensibly distributed on later designs. Chinese headstock and bed are heavy, whilst the control box and guards are light, mostly sheet metal. Although the castings on and around the Myford's headstock look good, I don't think they add anything to the lathe's performance. Note that Myford's best lathe, the excellent 254, looks far more like a Chinese machine than an Super 7.

I'm delighted Kevin has decided to buy the Myford and keep the WM180. What's really needed rather than opinion and theorising about specifications is a side-by-side comparison of the two machines in action, it would make an interesting article!

Even better would be a blind test. I'm fairly confident that most people could not tell the difference between a random set of parts made on Myford lathes mixed with the same parts made on Far Eastern machines. Blind tests are excellent at proving medicines really work rather than being placebos, or that one HiFi amplifer is better than another, and at embarrassing wine experts who cannot tell the difference between fine wines and modest supermarket offerings when the only clue is taste.

Humans are badly flawed judges; if we believe something it's almost impossible to change our minds. However daft the opinion. Because emotion overrides logic so easily, it's much better to anonymise the data and ensure the judges don't know what they're looking at.

Dave

I don't think there is any problem with either machine making components within its capacity, the difference is in the capacity and the ease of use and, perhaps, feel. The original question referred to an ml7B (i.e with a gearbox) which might make the Myford more convenient than a wm180.

Rod

I (and others) reckon the 254 was a long overdue myford update to the Raglan 5” (Myford stopped production of that in the early 1970s). I’ve not seen a 254 in the flesh but the differences seem mainly to apply to the spindle speed control/selection and more continuous lubrication. The variable speed of the Raglan being, presumably, too expensive and the lubed gear box and apron of the 254 better than the QCGB and apron lube of the 5”.

Interesting that model nomenclature was similar to that of the Raglan lathe - the centre height only being metric on the 254. I don’t expect that the 254 apron is as sweet as that of the 5”, mind!

Clearly the oldest 254 lathes would be around 15 years younger and more ‘modern’ than the Raglan, but I reckon most potential 254 users would not miss out if the bought a good 5” - particularly with a huge cost saving over a second hand 254!

There are many who consider the Raglan as the best of the Nottingham offerings - the later 5" was, and still is, an effective lathe. The earlier Little Johns were just as loveable once you get used to their, sometimes, quirky behaviour. The benefit in my eyes is the one piece headstock and bed casting which makes them of proverbial 'brick out house' strength. The replaceable hardened steel bed shears makes renovation a straight forward task, the previously mentioned 'triangle' of CH to bed width comes good at 5.125" (CH) to 6.170" (BW) and the all up weight is impressive at 195kg for the LJ's and around 210kg for the 5", both weights quoted are without the factory supplied sheet metal stands which could easily double up as 'armour plate' gun turrets!

Timken taper roller bearings to class C6 for the headstock, separate power feed shaft and leadscrew (the leadscrew being dis-engageable when not in use), good sized clear dials, a plethora of accessories, some accessories interchangeable with Atlas 10-F lathes (vertical slide, toolposts), Imperial to metric threading via a simple 52T x 44T intermediate changewheel system (no need for 127T gears), a variable speed drive system on expanding/contracting cone pulleys (still in use on both of mine despite the use of a VFD) which with the 7:1 back gear gives a total indirect / direct speed range of 35rpm through to 2000 rpm (or more with the VFD).

The quirks are numerous but all are understood, probably the biggest problem to look for is a bent spindle combined with missing teeth on the bull gear. This may have been caused by one of two things - delinquent 'yoofs' from class 4B or the drop gear which sits on and outboard of the bull gear shaft seizing on the shaft through lack of lubrication, and resulting in the bull gear 'self engaging'. Virtually every LJ I have seen has had some similar problem in this area, I rebuilt mine with a new EN40B nitrided eccentric shaft and I run a needle roller bearing in the drop gear.

I am sure that you are right about the 254 was an attempt by Myfords to replace the Ragaln 5", and probably they took some design influence from the lines of the Emco Super 11, which happens to be another fine machine, but again one with some peculiarities! I find the lack of toolpost height on the Super 11 its biggest drawback, which then restricts the tooling to 1/2" shank which seems a little on the weeny side for a 5 1/2" CH lathe. Myfords probably priced the 254 against the Super 11 which probably 'fatally wounded' it in the market place. I am fortunate to have 3 Raglans (2 x MkII LJ's - 1 x CG, 1 x QCGearbox; and 1 x 5" QCGearbox) and a Super 11 - I would not hesitate to recommend the Raglans or the Emco.

Well, OR, you've made your attachment to your machines clear enough, but you've also described enough of their idiosyncratic drawbacks - including some potential knockouts - to make it clear they're pretty much the same as most other machines that have ever been on the market. Nothing is ever perfect, nor ever can be. I can remember looking over a DSG in my 20s and thinking it overrated and riddled with collision risks, though I can't remember the detail of it.

I think the truth of it is that any of us who use our machines for a broad range of work learn to exploit their strengths and dodge their weaknesses, and the experience of doing that gives us confidence in them.

IMO what comes out yer shed's a lot more important than whatcha got in there.

Totally agree with Mick B1, also a lot depends on the persons abilities turning the handles.

+1

As it was put to me about fifty years ago - the mechanical fault with most lathes is the nut behind the topslide!