Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
difference between 1065 and 2001 spartan machines Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • difference between 1065 and 2001 spartan machines

    Just to satisfy my curiosity...

    Can anyone that has used one or the other or both please explain the key differences between these machines?

    rate it vs. a K-7500?

    I see that the 2001 has an aluminum drum, single belt and the motor is reverse from the 1065?

    Thanks,

    Chris

  • #2
    Re: difference between 1065 and 2001 spartan machines

    The 2001 one has an electric brake that will stop the drum when you take your foot of the pedal. It takes some getting used to. Like if you are caught in a tight blockage and you stopped the machine while under torque, to relieve the torque you have to put the Forward-Neutral-Reverse switch into neutral and then step on the pedal.

    The nice thing is you can remove the drum easily on the 2001 so you can break down the machine to get it into tighter areas. Another advantage is if you run into long runs a lot you can keep a spare drum on the truck, so you can switch out drums to add extra cable.

    Compared to the 1065 I always felt it was awkward, and at times I had a hard time getting all the cable back into the drum where the 1065 operated more smoothly and rarely I ever had any issues getting all the cable back into the drum. I feel its due to the guide arm they used on the 2001 it is a tight radius compared to the 1065. It looks a lot like the same inner drum and guide arm on the 300.

    If I had a choice between the Ridgid 7500, Spartan 1065, Spartan 2001, and lets toss in the Ridgid 750 ... here is a list as to my first pick to last #1 being the first pick.
    1. Spartan 1065 (this machine is tried and true will always work the way it was designed to)
    2. Ridgid 750 (Ridgid missed the boat on this one. I really like it. It just needed an inner drum or cage to help prevent the cable from coming out the front of the machine between the arm and drum and maybe 2" wider to help stabilize it more)
    3. Spartan 2001 ( I think Spartan came out with this just to make something new. I am really unimpressed. In the early years they had lots of issues with the electric break)
    4. Ridgid 7500 ( I used this machine a few times, it works well but I am unimpressed. The autofeed does not work as good as the one on the K-750 But it is easer to repair. I would only use this one if the above models where not available.)
    Ron Hasil Lic #058-160417
    A-Archer Sewer & Plumbing specializing in:
    Tankless Water Heaters | Drain and Sewer Cleaning
    Sump and Ejector Pumps | Backflow RPZ Testing

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: difference between 1065 and 2001 spartan machines

      having used the 750 and 7500 for close to 25 years and the 1065 for just 2 jobs

      i'll put it into this order.

      #1 7500. the stair climber are 10 times better than the 750 skid pads and the auto feed is a better design than the 750. it also is more stable than the 750, but less stable than the 1065. 1065 and 7500 are both gear reduced motors. loading rollers and 45 degree tilt is the best going inner drum prevents flips.

      #2 the 1065, biggest drawback is the weight and the steel drum. the auto feeder is a better design than the 7500. a steel drum is not only heavy, but it rusts and can easily dent if not properly handled. the 45 degree tilt requires the pipe legs to be inserted into 4 locations. loading wheel is a cumbersome accessory too.

      #3 the 750 is more of a non commercial style machine. the stair climber skid pads are a joke. good luck on brick steps not a bad first machine, but not a machine for full time pros either.

      2001 i've only looked at but never operated. so i can't comment.

      rick.
      phoebe it is

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: difference between 1065 and 2001 spartan machines

        I can only say that the 1065 is a serious power snake the motor changes it's sound as it gets bogged down and you know to back off or back up. The 2001 I have not used don't like the whole drum brake thing but it is rated at more cable length vs the 1065. I have not used a 7500 but would give one a try if one comes up for sale near me (if ron leaves the washington state snakes alone)
        Seattle Drain Service

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: difference between 1065 and 2001 spartan machines

          I have never had a 1065 drum rust. I own six 1065 machines the oldest being around 50 years old. The only thing replaced on it has been brushes and bearings for the auto feed. Drum is still in solid shape.

          As for the 750 being a non-pro machine, my dad has ran one for 10 years before he retired, my best friend Mike ran one for close to 20 years and loves it. I really likes the fact it fits into places where the 1065 and the 7500 have a hard time getting into. His chief complaint is if the cable does not roll up proper it does get unstable, but he has not had that problem in years since we been using SSC 3/4" IC cable. I also ran a 750 with double wound .66 cable, now that was a root killing machine. I feel the 750 autofeed feeds the cable in and out better than the 7500 auto feed, but it is a pain to change the bearings in compared to the 7500's feed. As for stair climbers, if Ridgid put belt type on there like spartan uses and the 7500 uses it would be better.

          Originally posted by PLUMBER RICK View Post
          having used the 750 and 7500 for close to 25 years and the 1065 for just 2 jobs

          i'll put it into this order.

          #1 7500. the stair climber are 10 times better than the 750 skid pads and the auto feed is a better design than the 750. it also is more stable than the 750, but less stable than the 1065. 1065 and 7500 are both gear reduced motors. loading rollers and 45 degree tilt is the best going inner drum prevents flips.

          #2 the 1065, biggest drawback is the weight and the steel drum. the auto feeder is a better design than the 7500. a steel drum is not only heavy, but it rusts and can easily dent if not properly handled. the 45 degree tilt requires the pipe legs to be inserted into 4 locations. loading wheel is a cumbersome accessory too.

          #3 the 750 is more of a non commercial style machine. the stair climber skid pads are a joke. good luck on brick steps not a bad first machine, but not a machine for full time pros either.

          2001 i've only looked at but never operated. so i can't comment.

          rick.
          Ron Hasil Lic #058-160417
          A-Archer Sewer & Plumbing specializing in:
          Tankless Water Heaters | Drain and Sewer Cleaning
          Sump and Ejector Pumps | Backflow RPZ Testing

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: difference between 1065 and 2001 spartan machines

            Originally posted by Cuda View Post
            I can only say that the 1065 is a serious power snake the motor changes it's sound as it gets bogged down and you know to back off or back up. The 2001 I have not used don't like the whole drum brake thing but it is rated at more cable length vs the 1065. I have not used a 7500 but would give one a try if one comes up for sale near me (if ron leaves the washington state snakes alone)
            7500 has the same type of gear reduced motor. it too will slow down and build up torque. very easy to tell what's happening with the load.

            rick.
            phoebe it is

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: difference between 1065 and 2001 spartan machines

              ron the 750 has a poor front foot stance. it used to rock and roll while under torque.

              the 7500 is a little better with the solid rear foot pad.

              i found that the 7500 had a much better auto feed than the 750.

              the 7500 is way more commercial and user friendly than the 750.

              i've had 5 750's and presenty still own 3 including a 12 volt one i converted. 1/2 h.p 12 volt 40 amp motor.

              the 7500 i still have 2. other than wearing out a guide tube, it's still perfect.

              what cable do you prefer.
              a 3/4'' innercore or the .66 magnum cable?

              rick.
              phoebe it is

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: difference between 1065 and 2001 spartan machines

                I have been considering buying the magnum .66 cable because then my 1065 would hold more in one shot. But I use the 1065 for 6" and up lines and am concerned it isn't as tough as 3/4 ic. And how come on drain cables direct they only sell it in 50ft lengths.
                Seattle Drain Service

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: difference between 1065 and 2001 spartan machines

                  50' is all they show even on spartans site.

                  it might be how it's wound and can only be made in 50' sections?

                  it might be a way to salvage 1/2 a cable if you tweak 1 section?

                  the book shows 3- 50' sections, 1- 10' anchor cable and a 2' leader
                  = 162' capacity.

                  not sure as to why it's only a 50' section.

                  ron

                  rick.
                  phoebe it is

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: difference between 1065 and 2001 spartan machines

                    The magnum or double wound cable can do 6" lines easily. The reason it is in 50' sections is so it can transmit the torque quicker. The inner core is attached the the ends and the double windings are welded to the ends. Since they are limiting the Lean to 50' the outer core can torque quicker as the inner core tries to unwind quicker, so the cable gets good an stiff in the sewer line. A 100' Lean you would lose the benefit of the cable torquing up fast enough to its job.

                    AS for which I like better. To be honest I like the 3/4 IC better mainly because I can make a field repair if the need ever arises. Where the magnum cable if one of the outer windings breaks, the cable is unusable. Also the magnum cable needs to be oiled regularly to keep the inner core cable in good shape. If the inner core cable breaks anywhere it can not preform as it was designed. Its advantages are its 40% lighter, and you can carry more of it in a machine. Also it torques up quicker making cutting roots a faster job. You just have to remember that it does torque faster, if you wind it up like you do your 3/4" cable you will snap it from over torquing.
                    Ron Hasil Lic #058-160417
                    A-Archer Sewer & Plumbing specializing in:
                    Tankless Water Heaters | Drain and Sewer Cleaning
                    Sump and Ejector Pumps | Backflow RPZ Testing

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: difference between 1065 and 2001 spartan machines

                      Originally posted by Swade Plumbing View Post
                      Just to satisfy my curiosity...

                      Can anyone that has used one or the other or both please explain the key differences between these machines?

                      rate it vs. a K-7500?

                      I see that the 2001 has an aluminum drum, single belt and the motor is reverse from the 1065?

                      Thanks,

                      Chris
                      The 1065 is top dog among the three, in my opinion, proven, rugged dependable. I used almost exclusively 3/4" hollow core for years no problems.

                      I ran a 2001 demo model a few times when they first came out, hated the drum brake, didn't run one since.

                      I'm using a K7500 with 11/16 hollow core now, and I'm pretty happy with it. I don't think the k7500 has enough drum to carry 100 feet of 3/4 to hard to get it in and out, it should push in and out easily by hand. That's its biggest drawback. Otherwise it's just fine, and I like it's narrow drum to fit through narrower doors than the 1065.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X