Palax combi m1 and m2 differences

[John Shutler]

As above can anybody tell me the differences between the m1 and m2. Thanks

john

[andy cobb]

I've got a mk1, a good basic machine in my opinion, 

on the mk1 its manual In feed onto a rocking saw bench, which is fine for smaller timber or billets.

i think the mk2 had a belt I feed but could be wrong.

think the out feed conveyor is longer on the mk 2 as well 

[Wood wasp]

Different splitter trip design and swinging conveyor on mk2. Possibly other differences that I can't remember. 

Edited December 15, 2017 by Wood wasp

[Billhook]

Mk 1 has one piece conveyor which has rubber belt, very tall for transport and storage

 

 

 

Mk 2 has folding conveyor, revised splitter, and maybe easier adjustment if static knife.  Looks like a sorted Mk 1 from the niggles point of view

 

It will all come down to price in the end as the Mk 1 has done everything I needed with no problems since 1996 when I bought it off Jas Wilson for £2500

 

[andy cobb]

I think when I manage to save enough pennies for a second hand posch 350/360 I'll probably still keep the Palax for smaller timber, it's a good basic machine with very little that can't be fixed in the field with basic tools and a little mechanical knowledge.

[timbernut]

Don't know the difference, but I have a mk2 combi mobile (about 5k in 1999) and it doesn't have belt infeed or swinging/folding out feed conveyer. Still goin strong after 18yrs. I do remember the next model on had buttons on the rocking bed

[Billhook]

I don' t  know about Andy Cobb and Timbernut, but the reason I have never felt the need for an upgrade from the Mk 1is that I like to feel the force of the saw blade entering the wood, which can be very different on different timber and I do not like the idea of automatic feeds and automatic chainsaw/blade operation.

The manual feed is quite easy and keeps me warm enough whereas sitting operating levers or switches does not on these cold frosty days.

Also I can put through very bent lengths of timber and because I now operate the splitter ram on a foot pedal rather than the auto lever, I can cut half a dozen say 3 -6 inch diameter logs without the splitting knife and just use the ram to occasionally push them onto the conveyor.  In this way the machine is much quicker than the auto ones which need to go through a cycle every time.

The additional benefit is that when a log falls sideways into the splitting chamber, which it inevitably does on occasion, then it is easy to straighten.  On auto it would be driven sideways into the splitter which stopped the machine and caused a lot of hassle.

 

[timbernut]

Yep I agree with all the above, I did away with the auto trip cos I kept bending it with big rings we cut by hand n chuck in. I really don't like chainsaw blades on processors: noisy n slow compared to circular saw. I'd only replace it with a new machine if I could have one almost identical but with folding/swinging out feed.

[farmboy3]

what is the maximum diameter you can put through these machines,I know the palax website says 10 inches but can you get away with slightly larger?

[John Shutler]

All good info, thanks fellas

the mk1 I was interested in has now sold but going to get a mk2 instead