New Vs. Old ... Lathes

After a few hours of reading and searching and reading some more I have yet to find an answer to what I have asked many a machinist. Why buy a new $13,000 South-Bend when I can buy a 30 year old South-Bend of the same size for half the price? (All things being equal.)Have lathes really changed so much in the past generation to merit the price increase of buying new Vs. used?

Why buy a new meets specification (anything) when you can buy a 30 year old clapped out junker that doesn't meet specs for half price?

if you want a south bend , and have work to achieve.... a 30 year old Korean one is best,

16" X 6" South Bend 4, Geared Head, 1" 3-Jaw Chuck, Coolantm, 1985, 13213 Lathes, Engine - SurplusRecord.com

my 1966 , 16" us navy machine is not a clapped out hunker-junker . it may be flat belt
driven, and won't hog steel any better than a 14" Regal .. but it is a pleasure to run
and is quieter than my drill press . and very accurate.

if i had heavy parts to cut , i'd want a Monarch 61 , or a Pacemaker.

quick and agile is sometimes superior to having to crank the tailstock down the ways,
because it weighs 300#.

BK6BR said:

After a few hours of reading and searching and reading some more I have yet to find an answer to what I have asked many a machinist. Why buy a new $13,000 South-Bend when I can buy a 30 year old South-Bend of the same size for half the price? (All things being equal.)Have lathes really changed so much in the past generation to merit the price increase of buying new Vs. used?

Click to expand...

Lathes will last a long time if they are not used much . So age doesn't really mean anything, and I'd agree, that a 30 year old lathe is quite likely the functional equivalent of a brand new one, of the same make.

My two main manual lathes, both Summits, are 38 years old and I still think of them as near new (one I did buy brand new). They've got thousands of hours on and only have a trace of bed wear near the headstock (hardened bed way bars). Still cut as well, and as straight as they ever did. It is my understanding that brand new Summits may not even be as well made, or have less functional headstocks and quickchange gearboxes. A lathe like mine cost $30K equipped, 38 years ago, and was never considered to be top of the line. New budget lathes can be had for nearly the same price now, so, somewhere, something has likely been sacrificed in quality.

Engineers years ago knew already how to design a good quick change gearbox capable of cutting metric, inch, diametral and module threads. This is the type of thing that they will cut corners on to make a new lathe cheaper. So, beware. The few bucks you save now you may be cursing later as you redo and redo and redo the same gear changeovers to do something that should have been designed in for operator convenience.

Hardened bed ways are your best insurance for longevity of a functional lathe, so a new one has that potential advantage. An old lathe needs to be examined critically for bed wear, and I'd take a test cut with it, to see how straight it turned, or more importantly, how straight it could bore a hole for a depth of 4 inches or so.

If you are paying 50% of new cost for a 30 year old machine, you are paying too much! That said, a few people here might want to talk to you! The key to buying used machines is finding one in good condition, at the right price, I try to shoot for 10% or less of new cost, but I am cheap.

if you are paying 50% of new cost for a 30 year old machine"

WTF? are you comparing to ? a new chinese pos , vs a 1980's korean ($25-30k today)
how do you compare a new GrizzlY to an old Webb ?

tnmgcarbide said:

if you are paying 50% of new cost for a 30 year old machine"

WTF? are you comparing to ? a new chinese pos , vs a 1980's korean ($25-30k today)
how do you compare a new GrizzlY to an old Webb ?

Click to expand...

OP was asking about South Bends. I would not compare a new green bear to an older Webb, that would be like comparing a new Chevette to an old Corvette.

ok. a new rebadged C.O.S. , vs an older korean NAM-SEON .

if that'll make you feel better.

i've run one of them old 400's , and maybe not a whacheon , but still very inspiring .

I have a '84 16" Namseon and it's a great lathe, very accurate. I'd pick up another in a heartbeat if I needed it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

ripperj said:

I have a '84 16" Namseon and it's a great lathe, very accurate. I'd pick up another in a heartbeat if I needed it.

Click to expand...

Four friends of mine picked up a batch of some Korea-made Okumas. Made under license to an Okuma design, maybe ?

They were very nicely made, 15k apiece new, looked great.

I could turn circles around them with a This Finish Satisfies War Regulations Pacemaker.

Lots of those machines that look good are awful to run. The Okuma looked good, was accurate, but a miserable pos to operate. If you like light controls the Mori Seiki engine lathes were nice but personal preference is for the forties - fifties - sixties US standards.

You really gotta run it to see if you like it.

And the South Bends are cheezy pieces of shit but they punch way over their weight class. No effort at all to make parts on and the flat belt and plain bearings make nice roundness. That's why Crystal Lake isn't gear drive with Timkens.

Specs don't always tell the real story.

I routinely use lathes made in the 1930’s all the way to the 1990’s.

Depending on how is it was used or abused should define the price...

The 1930’s 36” Lodge & Shipley hasn’t been used a dozen time in years, but when I needed it.

It spun the 4000 lbs of casting and acted like nothing was there...

EmanuelGoldstein said:

Four friends of mine picked up a batch of some Korea-made Okumas. Made under license to an Okuma design, maybe ?

They were very nicely made, 15k apiece new, looked great.

I could turn circles around them with a This Finish Satisfies War Regulations Pacemaker.

Lots of those machines that look good are awful to run. The Okuma looked good, was accurate, but a miserable pos to operate. If you like light controls the Mori Seiki engine lathes were nice but personal preference is for the forties - fifties - sixties US standards.

You really gotta run it to see if you like it.

And the South Bends are cheezy pieces of shit but they punch way over their weight class. No effort at all to make parts on and the flat belt and plain bearings make nice roundness. That's why Crystal Lake isn't gear drive with Timkens.

Specs don't always tell the real story.

Click to expand...

wow! that's 'gotta be the most meaningless, fucked-up..., weirded reply to any "question"
i've ever seen here......GREAT .

i like it.

please make all of your remarks in the same fashion......

tnmgcarbide said:

ok. a new rebadged C.O.S. , vs an older korean NAM-SEON .

if that'll make you feel better.

i've run one of them old 400's , and maybe not a whacheon , but still very inspiring .

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I was replying to the OP's question, if you want to spend 50% of new price on a 30 year old SB, go for it, its really none of my business.

I would not trade my 1950s Cinci Tray Top for a new SB if offered straight up. It is truly that good, rock solid and as accurate as a laser. Plus it looks so nice with the beefy rounded corners. Now for an equivalent Pacemaker or Monarch...

I've run a lot of old lathes (I had a huge one made in 1910), and of course, many newer ones. Old lathes are great, to a point. I don't like the old threaded spindles, and most of them won't run very high RPM. I have an old Summit, which is accurate, but very noisy, slow, and has an oddball spindle thread that I can't find chucks for. It also has a weird 'built-in' tool post so you can't mount a standard dovetail holder. For less than $1000, it works fine for a home work shop lathe, though. At work I run a Kent Hardinge clone that is light years ahead of it.

tnmgcarbide said:

wow! that's 'gotta be the most meaningless, fucked-up..., weirded reply to any "question"
i've ever seen here......GREAT .

i like it.

please make all of your remarks in the same fashion......

Click to expand...

And PLEASE put "Spew Alert!" on your OWN responses to such James Joyce-ian "stream of consciousness" posts, eh?

MKTGFAECC!

(My Keyboard Thanks God For An Empty Coffee Cup!)

BK6BR said:

After a few hours of reading and searching and reading some more I have yet to find an answer to what I have asked many a machinist. Why buy a new $13,000 South-Bend when I can buy a 30 year old South-Bend of the same size for half the price? (All things being equal.)Have lathes really changed so much in the past generation to merit the price increase of buying new Vs. used?

Click to expand...

1) the answer is the same as when anyone buys something new, although imo a careful purchaser can find a quality used one in good shape with minimal wear.

2) your $13,000 SB is made in China (or maybe Taiwan) and may well be a piece of crap - the name was sold to a China importer, Maybe its not a piece of crap, I've not owned one, but the point is you are not comparing apples to apples, i.e. its not the same company and its not a traditional branded lathe made in the developed/western world, its an import commissioned by a party with history of supplying low end stuff.

I've always sought a best of class lathe in good shape and used as is or reconditioned it, but I get many aren't up for that. Just to give a sense of what that lathe would cost if built here to traditional standards, when Standard Modern stopped, that size lathe was the low 30,000's.....and they made things to a high standard (was in the plant many times, almost bought it). SM was no Monarch or DSG, but they were a good lathe made to a high standard

BK6BR said:

After a few hours of reading and searching and reading some more I have yet to find an answer to what I have asked many a machinist. Why buy a new $13,000 South-Bend when I can buy a 30 year old South-Bend of the same size for half the price? (All things being equal.)Have lathes really changed so much in the past generation to merit the price increase of buying new Vs. used?

Click to expand...

There are some used, older machines that are in fact worth more than many new lathes in the same size range, but they are hard to find. The effective life span of a manual lathe approaches 100 years if well used and maintained. Whereas CNC machines are usually replaced after 12 yrs. and scrapped after 20. Many of the quality machines made are much better than what is being sold today new. That kind of quality is not economical to produce today. That's not to say there aren't very nice lathes being made today, there is and they are probably good enough. Further, parts and service would be more available than older machines. The point is there is value on both sides of the argument.

My take on the subject is that older manual machines were expected to be a one time purchase for the small to medium shop. Should they need repair or reconditioning it could be done by a qualified vendor or sent back to the factory. All parts would be available if needed. Should there be a major crash or rigging accident the owner would have to decide whether a repair would be cost effective. The shop I worked in regularly sent out mills and lathes to be reconditioned. Many of the machines were 50+ years old when I started working there, and were still going strong when I retired. Even our local technical school regularly sends out older pieces of equipment to be refurbished or rebuilt.

Machines built today are not built with the same expectations. As mentioned the design life is usually less than 25 years. Even if the structural components were to last 50 years the electronic components would likely be obsolete within 10 to 15 years. Why build the structural components with an expected lifetime 5 times that of the electronics. In most cases when the electronic components fail or become obsolete the cost to replace them is prohibitive. More often than not the cost to refurbish a machine comes close to the price of a replacement machine. No manufacturer is going to go to the time and expense of designing structural components that are not cost effective to continue using.