Splitter question

The two options are usually a trunnion mount vs. a clevis mount.

My understanding is that it's all about reducing costs. The clevis mount requires a full beam and therefore a larger piece of steel. It's not only the Chinese companies that do this (see Brave log splitters).

A while ago, Troy-Bilt did have a cylinder failure issue at the trunnion. It has been addressed.

I consider the full beam as extra protection for the cylinder, so I favor the clevis mount.

My Canadian made Wallenstein/Surge Master is a trunnion mount.

Wallenstein makes very good splitters.

I like mine and have no reservations owning a trunnion mount.

I think I have actually read someone say trunnions are better due to the reduced chance of unwanted sideways forces on the cylinder - but I'm not sure about that part. Although I can sort of picture it.

I don't think one can make generalizations, but the way my Harbor Freight beam splitter is balanced makes it not easy to lift to vertical.

my experience is that everything from China is designed for minimum cost with the aim of hitting a price point at retail, with a made up disposable brand name.

( I inherited a POS compressor, 3-4 parts were combined in one cheapened die cast part. Compressor rolled over, broke the 10ct part, and because of the design couldn't be repaired. Landfill).

Specific design approaches aside, I wouldn't by anything I want to last that was made in China.

I guess I'll add my answer to the OPs question - no.

Any of the common designs are fine if competently executed. I wanted a 22 ton vertical or horizontal unit because it is lighter and easier to move by hand, especially in snow or off pavement. However when I went to Lowes they had a 27 Ton Try-bilt unit for about $850 out the door. It is a trunnion mount. It is enough heavier that I would not want more wieght.

I couldn't magna flux the weld integrity, but I did take a good look at the welds before I bought the unit. I'm happy with it. I don't often split in the vertical position unless the rounds are larger, say 20" plus.
Mike

A trunion mount uses two large pins to hold the cylinder in position. Unless this area is beefed up it has often shown to be a weak point.
There is a third style which is used by Wallenstein and a few others that have a solid front mount and short beam that is very strong. The benefit of this design is much less flex of the beam.

I have a Ariens spliter that has the trunnion set up and have no issues at all. I would be more worried about it being a poorly made China import. I for one have not heard of a single issue with the Wally, Ariens, Gravely, or other brands that have been using this set up for YEARS. I would think there would have been story after story on here if it were a bad design.

I prefer the clevis mount because future repairs and parts are universal and easier to find. That said, lots of folks here have the trunion and are ok with it.

Caterpillar bulldozer blades have been trunion mounted for many many years. As long as its welded up good I have no problem with a trunion mount. I have personally put D8 trunions through a lot of torture on a daily basis and they have not failed, but then again Caterpillar is not making log splitters either

zzr7ky said:

Any of the common designs are fine if competently executed.

Click to expand...

Exactly right. If engineered properly, either mount will last for years and serve you well. The trunion mount will be light because of the lack of full i beam, but can still be a strong and lasting option.

The problem is exactly what gerry said

gerry100 said:

my experience is that everything from China is designed for minimum cost with the aim of hitting a price point at retail,

Click to expand...

99% of the stuff from China is not engineered or designed with quality, workmanship, replacement, or lasting service in mind. It is designed to hit a price point.

I think even a clevis design from China would be less reliable than a trunion design from the USA.

Trunion