Powermatic VS Jet same EVS and Motor

[Bret Schaffner]

I talked to Tech Support for Powermatic /Jet today, I was asking question about the Powermatic 3520B
Then off hand I ask if the Jet 1642evs-2 had the same motor and Inverter as the Powermatic 3520B, he said yes so I started asking a comparison of the Jet to the Powermatic, beds leg (Cast Iron) etc… after a while I ask if the only different was the “Bells and whiles he said Yes the Powermatic had everything they could think of Added other than that they were the same.

So with that in mind I guessing the bed /leg must be thicker accounting for the 440# vs the 3520b @ 630 with the jet having 7" more bed ???
For those for you who have turned on both what do you think?
Comparing the Jet 1642 EVS-2 to the Powermatic 3520B

[Jim Burr]

JMHO...but I'd opt for the extra 2" swing on the 1642...more weight too.

[Bruce Stangeby]

I have both the Jet and Powermatic lathes. There is no comparison between the two. The powermatic has 2" of extra swing as Jim stated but the weight and structural strength of the Powermatic wins every time.

[Bret Schaffner]

JMHO...but I'd opt for the extra 2" swing on the 1642...more weight too.

Opps meant the 1642evs-2

[Dennis Ford]

The Jet 1642 is a nice lathe but it is like a 1/2 ton pickup compared to a 3/4 ton truck. The Powermatic is a lot more lathe.

[Russell Eaton]

I had both for a while. I turned a lot more on the PM just because the extra weight let you turn out of balance pieces at a higher speed. The Jet for sold for the new PM 4224b otherwise I would still have it.

[Bret Schaffner]

Looking at the PM 3520B or saving an extra $1350 by getting the 1642 EVS-2 and the out board turning stand which would put the differance at around $900ish

[Greg Bender]

Brett,
like several other's have said, I too had both and there is a real difference between them. The 16/42 is a great lathe but the 3520 is just better in alot of areas. If your buying new ,get the 3520 now, it will not be cheaper next year. And you know you will eventually be getting one. We all do!
Good luck either way
Greg

[Bret Schaffner]

Brett,
like several other's have said, I too had both and there is a real difference between them. The 16/42 is a great lathe but the 3520 is just better in alot of areas. If your buying new ,get the 3520 now, it will not be cheaper next year. And you know you will eventually be getting one. We all do!
Good luck either way
Greg

I'm in Cary NC I see you in Morrisville

[Mike Peace]

I have turned on both and bought the PM. The PM is heavier and beefier with a bigger swing. Stronger banjo and tailstock. The spindle has 3 bearings vs 2 for the Jet. It is a better lathe and you get what you pay for. Whether the benefits are worth the additional cost is a value judgement that will vary from turner to turner. If you can afford the PM and you turn regularly especially larger pieces, I doubt if you will have any regrets getting it over the Jet.

[Thom Sturgill]

I have turned on both and bought the PM. The PM is heavier and beefier with a bigger swing. Stronger banjo and tailstock. The spindle has 3 bearings vs 2 for the Jet. It is a better lathe and you get what you pay for. Whether the benefits are worth the additional cost is a value judgement that will vary from turner to turner. If you can afford the PM and you turn regularly especially larger pieces, I doubt if you will have any regrets getting it over the Jet.

The bearing issue was one I was going to mention. I believe the powermatic bearings are sealed - the Jet are not. I replaced mine with sealed units.

Think about the essentials of a lathe -
- motor (same)
- spindle and bearings
- bed weight
- swing and
- bed length.
The Powermatic wins or ties on everything but bed length.

[Reed Gray]

Hmm, didn't know about the bearing difference. That alone would be worth the extra money, especially if you are thinking production.

robo hippy

[John Keeton]

I am short in height, and weigh around 160. While in good shape, I am approaching 65 years of age. I remove the tailstock quite often for various reasons, and there is a significant weight difference in the two tailstocks. Even moving it along the ways requires much more effort on the PM. That is an advantage in one sense, but for me, it is a definitive disadvantage.

Most all of my work is artistic vs. functional, and rarely over 8-9" in diameter. I will do the occasional bowl, but the 16" swing of the Jet is more than enough for the bowls I do. If that changes, I would rig up an outboard setup for the Jet. I have, at times, turned an out of balance blank, but with ballast on the Jet, I have not experienced any difficulty doing so. I do try to bandsaw or chainsaw the blank into a fairly manageable piece prior to turning.

I have turned on both, and I have no doubt the PM is a better lathe. While I could afford either, I chose the Jet. I guess it is as simple as - the Jet does all I need to do, does it very well, is easy for me to use, and does it for less money. For me, that is enough.

That said, I do feel everyone has different needs, and it may be that you have not turned enough to realize your needs. If that is the case, and you can afford it, then the PM is clearly more lathe. If the cost differential and tailstock weight are not an issue for you, then perhaps you should go with the PM.

[Jack Mincey]

I've turned on both a lot. While both are good lathes the PM being better in most everyway except for removing the tail stock the Jet has one feature that is lacking a great deal in my opinion. The banjo is to short to lock down very well when turning larger pieces. It works OK on small projects but when one has to slide it out for larger bowls or forms it lacks the length needed to lock down secure. This one weakness use to drive me nuts when I used it while one of my students where using a PM right next to it. Jack

[Robert Henrickson]

I have turned on both (although my 1642 is the 1½ HP model). I would heartily second all of both John’s and Jack’s comments.

An absolutely crucial consideration is what you intend to turn, or think you may, as John noted. I bought the 1642 5-6 years ago when I had been turning for less than a year on a mini and had only a hazy idea as to what I might ultimately want to turn. It was plenty of lathe for what I knew I wanted to do and was far more affordable – an important consideration since at that time I also was not sure just how committed to turning I was and would be. The 1642, as my grandfather would have said, has done nobly.

I would particularly endorse the comments on the banjo. I have found that the length of the 1642 banjo is a serious inconvenience or worse when turning items well within the nominal 16" swing of the 1642. I turn a fair number of things (disks to platters to bowls) with diameters 12-14" or greater – I have managed several which were more than 15½” on my 1642. With these larger diameter pieces, whatever their depth, the length of the banjo base becomes an aggravation or worse since it can be very difficult to lock it down securely, if at all. I would say that more than 14" can become problematic.

The greater swing of the 3520 would allow you to turn larger diameters without having to remove the object being turned in order to move the banjo from one side of the item to the other. As long as the item is held in a chuck (and is not too heavy or awkward), this is only a minor aggravation. Although the nominal swings are 16" vs 20", if you factor in the height of the banjo base, the unobstructed swing where you can move the banjo from one side of the item to the other without removing the chuck from the headstock, is roughly 12" vs 15".

That said, my turning in the last several weeks has been primarily spindles from 1 x 1 14 stock. Even a mini lathe would be adequate. Yet my next things will be based on 14-15" disks.

The weight of the 3520 tailstock is indeed an important consideration; the 1642 tailstock can be moved with one hand/arm. Yet the 3520 weight has its advantages, just as the overall weight of the 3520 does. There is much greater stability and less vibration with large or irregular blanks. The 1642 definitely needs ballast if large and/or out of balance items are to be turned.

Depending on what you intend to turn, bed length could be a critical factor. I have turned chair legs where the greater bed length of the 1642 was absolutely essential. This is the only instance I have encountered in my turning in which the stock 3520 would be inadequate compared to the 1642 (although the problem could be solved with the addition of the bed extension to the 3520).

Although the question does not arise in choosing between the 1642 and 3520, after 5-6 years turning on the 1642, I would be very unlikely to buy a lathe which did NOT have a sliding headstock. Not having to lean across the bed when turning a bowl, yet being able to turn a long spindle, have become a crucial consideration for me.

I have no regrets about having bought the 1642; sometimes it would be nice to have a 2 hp motor on it, but the great majority of the time the 1½ is plenty.

In the end, I would heartily repeat John’s final comment:

That said, I do feel everyone has different needs, and it may be that you have not turned enough to realize your needs. If that is the case, and you can afford it, then the PM is clearly more lathe. If the cost differential and tailstock weight are not an issue for you, then perhaps you should go with the PM.