Moving from Warco WM180 to a Myford ML7B ?

Dear all

I have the chance of changing to a (used obviously) ML7B from my first lathe which is a Warco WM180. Would I be excited or disappointed? The Myford is big enough for what I typically do, but I like insert tooling - would the Myford be fast enough?

Thanks all

Kevin

What are you expecting the Myford to do better?

I wouldn't want to lose the variable speed, bolt on chucks and larger spindle bore for a very similar work envelope. And I certainly wouldn't pay for the backward step

Might not matter to you Kevin but I turned down a good Super7 recently mainly because I'm metric. That disadvantage, plus the cost, and the fuss of swapping out an existing lathe which already does what I want put me off. Pity really, I knew the machine's history and would have jumped at it when I was a beginner and added a DRO.

Dave

+1 on that. I think it'd be a sideways move at best, unless the Myford's very tidy and there're a lot of accessories with it that you don't have for the Warco.

[This posting has been removed]

I have always hankered after a Myford; particularly the super 7B myself, but they are always priced in the 'silly money' bracket, so my first lathe was a Clarke C500 combi which did ok initially. I have ended up with a WM250V-F lathe & a WM 16 mill which I bought at the Harrogate exhib' back in 2012 for a good package deal, & with the express approval of the finance director. Both have served me fine to date especially with the variable speed on both machines & the larger bore on the WM 250 so from my perspective I can only comment on Warco's equipment, at the end of the day it's your choice.

George.

More or less everything? Can you be more specific Barrie? I doubt you could tell the difference in a blind test between a 12.7mm diameter rod turned on a Myford ML7 and another turned on a Warco 180.

My recent play with a Myford indicated that although it certainly looked and felt better than Chinese lathes the actual performance was similar. Plenty of good things to like about Myford, but there are negatives too: a single-phase motor - adequate rather than smooth or powerful, fixed speed, screw-on chuck (dubious reverse), small bore spindle, and not good with carbide due to low speed and a bendy gap bed. Also plenty of opportunity for hidden abuse over the years - lubricated with grease rather than oil, missing gear teeth, poor maintenance and dodgy electrics etc.

Dave

[This posting has been removed]

The major difference is the abilty to swing 10" in the gap and 20" between centres. The back gear helps to deal with the large diameters. The other plus for the Myford is the availability of accessories and/or kits and plans to make them yourself. These things may or may not be important to you.

R

That's not my experience. Of course it depends upon the material and insert, but in some cases you do not get a good finish unless running at high spindle speeds. Likewise some materials will give a good finish with small DOC, others will not. Have a read of this thread:

**LINK**

Andrew

[This posting has been removed]

Kevin, I'm a relative newcomer, but here's my input:

Comparing a club workshop "Chinesium" lathe (which I've used a bit) vs my similar sized home Myford ML7 good/very good condition, the Myford is just better built throughout. Full stop.

As I've learnt from the chaps on here, plain metal mass counts for a lot in terms of resistance to flexure, rigidity etc. The Chinesium lathe I mentioned was just a tad flimsy and 'fold up sheet' like. The Axminster ones I fiddled with in their showroom were mediocre in my opinion too.

Yeah the spindle bore aint great and the white metal bearings are inferior to modern designs, but there's a reason they're the 'old guard' for model engineers (yes the prices of some Super 7 are stupid)!

Buy the Myford and keep the Warco as well. Give the Myford a good try out. Then sell the Warco.

Edited By Hopper on 10/04/2019 05:18:43

Many thanks all!

I am indeed doing what Hopper suggested. Getting the Myford and keeping the Warco.

I am treating myself to find out what all the fuss about old Myford lathes is about. If I don't like it after all, then someone else will certainly fancy trying it out!

Kevin

Good move, Kevin ... "Go Compare"

and please do share your findings..

MichaelG.

Well done!

One thing to look at when comparing these two lathes is the width of the bed ways in comparison to the centre height.

The Myford has a 3-1/2" centre height above the bed, and the bed ways width is 4-1/2". So the triangle between the bed ways and spindle is wider than it is high. This gives good stability for the carriage and cross-slide through to the cutting tip.

Some Chinese lathes I have looked at seem to be the other way round. The bed is narrower than the centre height. This results in the opposite, a triangle that is higher than it is wide, and thus inherently relatively unstable. That is why some Chinese lathes tend to look as if the cross slide and top slide are artificially perched up a bit higher than necessary. But it does give them that extra swing they like to emphasize in the sales brochures.

Would be interested to know the WM180 bed width in comparison. The added rigidity of the bigger Myford is not just due to mass but also this design feature perhaps.

And it's not just a pet theory of mine. One of the design criteria for top-line toolroom lathes is that the bed is wider than the centre height. They tend to go to the opposite extreme, the chuck looks like they mounted it an inch or two lower than they could have done.

Look forward to hearing your thoughts as you "acclimatize" yourself to the new machine.

Aluminium is very forgiving, especially if using CCGT inserts. I turn mostly steel, cast iron, stainless steel and bronze/brass. For some of those materials speeds, feeds and DOC are important, and statements regarding them are definitely not a fallacy.

Andrew

Edited By Andrew Johnston on 10/04/2019 11:03:51

This controversy can go on for ever - the above isn't a decisive hit. My WM250V has, as its model no. suggests, a CH of 125mm. Bed width is just a bit more at 130. I wouldn't imagine the WM180's materially worse.

My Myford Speed 10 had a CH of 3 1/4" and a bed width of 3", so if that's a design rule, Myford didn't stick by it.

.

Geometrically [rather than materials-wise] Myford was in good company, using that bed profile: **LINK**

http://www.babinmachine.com/index.php?HARDINGEDV59

MichaelG.

Problem is the Hardinges went too far as it needs a lot of effort to move the tailstock on something like an HL-V due to stiction, have even read of some owners extending the carrage rack and adding a handwheel to the tailstock so they can move it.