ArboristSite.com Sponsors


How many SuperSplit owners?

Sandhill Crane

Sandhill Crane

AS Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
2,801
Location
Saugatuck, Michigan
I have a SS-HD; new 04/26/2014 payed $3,313. (not sure if that included shipping)
No longer have a hydraulic splitter.
I would estimate 70 cord per year. Last year I had a touch of pneumonia in the fall and the cooler dry air got me coughing a lot. Only did 40 cord earlier spring 2019. Other years I sold sixty five to seventy cord and put 6-8 cord in the wood shed for personal use. Anyway, close to 500 cord total thru this machine so far.
EDIT: Dec. 2018 I repowered it with a Honda GX 200. The original Subaru was leaking fuel at the carb. I left it with a shop for repair (a week and a half turn around), and walked out with the Honda so I could keep splitting. The Subaru is sitting on the shelf and probably just had a stuck float. Nothing against Subaru.
Mods: High density molecular phenolic whatever; forklift tubes; and four-wheel wagon mod with removable tongue.
(I think I've actually run one hundred cord thru it this year for the first time.)
 
sevensandeights

sevensandeights

ArboristSite Member
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
98
Location
Erie, PA
SS-HD with the Honda engine and standard size work table for me. I've had it a little over a year. I bought it from a tree service that was getting into the firewood business. Claimed they ran it for one season and did about 50 cords. They moved on to a full-blown processor. I have processed about 30 cords with it so far.

Sold my 25 ton County Line splitter after I got the SS. I will never go back to a non-commercial hydraulic.
 
panolo

panolo

Seldom right...Always opinionated!
Joined
Oct 14, 2016
Messages
1,085
Location
Central MN
I think I have had my HD for 3 years. No mods. I still have my DHT hydraulic and do use it as I split at a couple different places and the SS will stay at the main site. Don't really count how much I split but somewhere between 25-40 cord a year depending on ambition. This year will be closer to the 40. No repairs so far.
 
mijdirtyjeep

mijdirtyjeep

ArboristSite Operative
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
340
Location
West Michigan
SS owner here with a Subaru Robin EX17 engine. I have owned it for 5yrs and bought it used when it was about 5yrs old. Still have an old hydraulic with a 6.5hp HF motor. It does not get much use anymore except for nasty pieces.
 
sirbuildalot

sirbuildalot

ArboristSite Guru
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
938
Location
New England
I have a J model SS I bought in early 2012. I'd estimate I've split around 120-130 full cords with it in those 8 going on 9 years.

I do not have a hydraulic unit, but my father and brother do. I've used several hydraulic units in the past, both commercial and residential, but I prefer the Kinetic splitters.
 
sirbuildalot

sirbuildalot

ArboristSite Guru
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
938
Location
New England
I have never ran a kenetic splitter so I ma sure there is something that makes people like them so. Is it just the speed, or not having to mess with oil and hoses.
For me it’s speed, simplicity/less parts to break, light weight/easy to move around, better on fuel as smaller engine than a big commercial hydro of similar speed, and no hydro fluid to deal with.
 
Sandhill Crane

Sandhill Crane

AS Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
2,801
Location
Saugatuck, Michigan
For me it is the ergonomics of re-splitting at pocket height with a straight back. The table height; the access to both sides to balance the days work on the body; the rhythm at a nice pace, even flow; the fuel savings. I can easily push it around by hand, and store it in a small foot print.
 
Ol' Brian

Ol' Brian

ArboristSite Operative
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
466
Location
Southwestern Illinois
For me it’s speed, simplicity/less parts to break, light weight/easy to move around, better on fuel as smaller engine than a big commercial hydro of similar speed, and no hydro fluid to deal with.
How can a hydraulic splitter have more parts to break? The only part I've ever had to replace on my hydraulic splitter has been the lovejoy coupling... other than that, a hydraulic should be totally maintenance free for years and years.
 
sirbuildalot

sirbuildalot

ArboristSite Guru
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
938
Location
New England
How can a hydraulic splitter have more parts to break? The only part I've ever had to replace on my hydraulic splitter has been the lovejoy coupling... other than that, a hydraulic should be totally maintenance free for years and years.
Just in hydraulic components you have a tank, hoses, pump, cylinder, and control valve at a minimum. Many splitter owners leave their machines outside, so cracked hoses aren’t uncommon, neither are hydraulic leaks. You guys can’t say kinetic splitters are too expensive for how simple and lightweight they are, but also say hydraulics are just as basic and simple. Most Supersplit owners I know personally not on the internet have done almost zero to their machines in 20,30, plus years of ownership other than replace a roller bearing.
 
Ol' Brian

Ol' Brian

ArboristSite Operative
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
466
Location
Southwestern Illinois
Just in hydraulic components you have a tank, hoses, pump, cylinder, and control valve at a minimum. Many splitter owners leave their machines outside, so cracked hoses aren’t uncommon, neither are hydraulic leaks. You guys can’t say kinetic splitters are too expensive for how simple and lightweight they are, but also say hydraulics are just as basic and simple. Most Supersplit owners I know personally not on the internet have done almost zero to their machines in 20,30, plus years of ownership other than replace a roller bearing.
LOL, I sure can!! ;) Get the stratospheric price of a SS type machine down to the tropospheric price of a Hydraulic, and I think then maybe you have an argument.:cheers:

Maybe more parts, but those parts typically do not fail or cause any problems. I can change a hydraulic hose in 5-10 minutes... change a pump in 30 minutes... I can change out 2 pumps for the price of one pinion gear, probably less... and I can change out the pump twice in less time than it will take you to change your pinion gear once. I can change out a hydraulic filter in 1 minute. I can change hyd oil every 20 years... routine maintenance. Tank? Meh. Cylinder? Meh. Valve? Meh. Keep your filter changed, cylinder, valve, pump, all should last a lifetime if you have a high quality machine. If you have a Chinese machine, I don't know, jury is still out for me. And, I have no roller bearings to worry about. Anywhere. No centrifugal clutches to burn up or wear out. No belts to break, shred, or slip. No bearings to grease, or fail. No pillow blocks to crack and break. No rack or pinion gears to bust teeth off of. No worries about a sliver of wood jamming something up and taking the machine out of comission until it is cleared. No springs to break. No lubrication required anywhere. No linkages to get out of adjustment. Just check the engine oil, put gas in it, and split wood.

And best of all, If I can get a piece of wood to the splitter, there's a 99.99% chance I can split that piece of wood.

In 20 years of running my hydraulic machine, who knows how many cords of wood, I've only had to replace 1 lovejoy coupler, and that was because the manufacturer used one that was undersized for the application it was in, and it wore out. Replaced it with the properly sized coupler, and it has been running trouble free for probably 17 years now. No hoses have needed to be replaced, all are still in like new condition because I store my machine inside. Granted, my machine does have a leak, it does have a very very small leak where the high pressure hose from the pump enters the valve... it causes dust to gather around that fitting, and every once in a while I will see a drop of hydraulic fluid drip from it. What am I going to do about it? Absolutely nothing. I might need to add a quart of hydraulic fluid every couple of years... NBD. I replace my hydraulic filter every 2 years, and add a quart or so of hydraulic fluid to make up that loss and the tiny amount I lose with the seep I have. I did have to replace the Briggs engine on mine because it sat unused for 2 years and the tank/carb rusted. It was not economically feasible to repair it, so it now has a Predator on it. But, that risk is equal on any machine with an engine.

I will give it to you that the kinetic should be easier to start in very cold weather because you don't have the cold oil to get moving while you try to get the engine running. +1 for the kinetic. I've watched tons of videos on kinetics on YT... still not convinced that in the real world, or at least they way my wood operation works, that it would be any faster than my hydraulic splitter. Maybe marginally...maybe... like over the course of a day... with "average" wood here in the midwest, maybe a dozen more splits? Tough, stringy knotty wood, I'll take the hydraulic, no decision to be made there. On all the YT video "side by side comparisons", they all put the younger experienced guy or gal on the kinetic, and then they put Grandpa on the hydraulic after showing him how the splitter works just before they start the camera recording.... Yeah, the kinetic kicks butt. :rock2:

Where the kinetic can shine is if you or your helper have your wood all perfectly staged, lined up right so you can grab it and run it through the machine bang bang bang. Yeah, you can make them look really fast. But it takes a lot of time to stage all that wood and get it ready for the show. Real world is a different story. One man pulling off of a pile and running the machine at a non-superhuman, sustainable pace... who wins? Who paid a lot more money to split the same wood only marginally faster?

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have one, I'd love to play with one. But I haven't seen a YT video yet that proved they were superior. Just different. And they do LOOK like they're faster.:barbecue:
 
fiasco

fiasco

ArboristSite Operative
Joined
Aug 10, 2007
Messages
219
Location
the woods of southern NH
Just a homeowner duffer who throws 4-5 cord through a Vigilant every winter...my dad had a SuperSplit back in the early 80s with a 3hp B&S engine in the days before the lever actuator instead of the white plastic knob. We did 4-5 cord a year of rounds to throw through a Tempwood and Vigilant. Even would rent it out a little bit on the side. You needed a crew of at least two quick workers stacking to keep up with the splitter even with me running it at age 10.

With a little thought about placement of gnarly wood, it would go through almost anything in a few whacks. He sold/permanently loaned it to a neighbor and it was lost in a garage fire. Amazingly I DID recently find the OEM knob for it in a box of random stuff my dad dumped on me (I had replaced it with the shift knob from a Fiat 124 sport coupe because the threads matched, and it was then a 5-speed!).

In a perfect world, I'd have an electric SS with a nice table in the yard, with my White/MTD 33-ton 420 Predator hydro as a big-round vertical breaker and backup machine.
 
sirbuildalot

sirbuildalot

ArboristSite Guru
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
938
Location
New England
The title of the thread was how many Supersplit owners. Then someone asked why you prefer a kinetic splitter. Not sure why you chose to try and turn it into a kinetic vs hydraulic thread. If you think a $999 TSC with a 15-18 second cycle time is as fast as a Supersplit, then the splitter isn’t the problem. Whatever floats your boat though brother. The only hydraulics they will keep up to a kinetic cost 2-3 times as much. I’ve used 2 different brand kinetics and at least a half dozen hydraulic splitters from a Husky homeowner model to a Speeco, to a commercial American splitter, to a Timberwolf TW 5 and a TW6. The TW’s kept up, but like I said my friend paid around three times what a Supersplit cost for each one of them. He sold the TW5, and purchased the TW6. This guy is a commercial tree company who sells 500 plus cords a year. Guess what??? He also bought 2 Supersplit J models and splits most of the wood with them. The Timberwolf only gets used to break down big blocks. Hopefully that’s real world enough experience.
 
Ol' Brian

Ol' Brian

ArboristSite Operative
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
466
Location
Southwestern Illinois
The title of the thread was how many Supersplit owners. Then someone asked why you prefer a kinetic splitter. Not sure why you chose to try and turn it into a kinetic vs hydraulic thread. If you think a $999 TSC with a 15-18 second cycle time is as fast as a Supersplit, then the splitter isn’t the problem. Whatever floats your boat though brother. The only hydraulics they will keep up to a kinetic cost 2-3 times as much. I’ve used 2 different brand kinetics and at least a half dozen hydraulic splitters from a Husky homeowner model to a Speeco, to a commercial American splitter, to a Timberwolf TW 5 and a TW6. The TW’s kept up, but like I said my friend paid around three times what a Supersplit cost for each one of them. He sold the TW5, and purchased the TW6. This guy is a commercial tree company who sells 500 plus cords a year. Guess what??? He also bought 2 Supersplit J models and splits most of the wood with them. The Timberwolf only gets used to break down big blocks. Hopefully that’s real world enough experience.
Well, if you go back and reread what was actually posted, I just asked how a hydraulic could have more parts to break. Then you said "you guys can't say...", so I showed how "us guys" could say... and then backed it up by contrasting comparable hydraulic parts to comparable kinetic parts. I don't think anyone asked why one would prefer a kinetic splitter. You can go back and actually read the posts, I because I did say how I thought a hydraulic could keep up if you'd like, I don't need to rehash it here. You are just wanting to argue cycle times I think... and looking solely at cycle times, there absolutely is no argument that a kinetic is faster... but in the big picture cycle time is a very minor contributor over a day's time with a 1 operator system. I have yet to see anyone prove me wrong, and I'm hoping they will. Because then I'll have justification for spending the money on a kinetic, rather than just wanting one.

Sorry if I popped anyone's balloons, just wanted to bring some parity to the "You guys can't say..." statement, because "us guys" certainly can say. At the end of the day, we all still get the pile of wood split. Enjoy what you have, be thankful that you have it, whether it is hydraulic or kinetic. That's what matters.:chop:
 
muddstopper

muddstopper

Addicted to ArboristSite
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
5,387
Location
mountains of nc
Well, if you go back and reread what was actually posted, I just asked how a hydraulic could have more parts to break. Then you said "you guys can't say...", so I showed how "us guys" could say... and then backed it up by contrasting comparable hydraulic parts to comparable kinetic parts. I don't think anyone asked why one would prefer a kinetic splitter. You can go back and actually read the posts, I because I did say how I thought a hydraulic could keep up if you'd like, I don't need to rehash it here. You are just wanting to argue cycle times I think... and looking solely at cycle times, there absolutely is no argument that a kinetic is faster... but in the big picture cycle time is a very minor contributor over a day's time with a 1 operator system. I have yet to see anyone prove me wrong, and I'm hoping they will. Because then I'll have justification for spending the money on a kinetic, rather than just wanting one.

Sorry if I popped anyone's balloons, just wanted to bring some parity to the "You guys can't say..." statement, because "us guys" certainly can say. At the end of the day, we all still get the pile of wood split. Enjoy what you have, be thankful that you have it, whether it is hydraulic or kinetic. That's what matters.:chop:
I think the part about why people like their kinetic splitter was directed at me.
I have never ran a kenetic splitter so I ma sure there is something that makes people like them so. Is it just the speed, or not having to mess with oil and hoses.
With that said. I am strickley a hydraulic splitter guy that has never ran a kinetic splitter. Hydraulic works for me as a homeowner, not a reseller of firewood. My personal thoughts about the which is better is based on a bias one sided experience of using wood splitters. I asked the question because I wanted to know the answer. I prefer hydraulics because that is what I know. If speed is the only reason to own a kinetic splitter, that is simply a ignorant answer. No doubt about it, a hydraulic splitter can be built that will be a ton faster than a kinetic. I attribute the cost of a fast hydraulic versus a kinetic would be a big deciding factor. I'll give the nod to the kinetic for cost. Weight, well a big fast hydraulic is certainly going to out weigh the kinetic, I'll concede that also. When you come back to speed, a hydraulic will bust thru those big knotty rounds in one pass while a kinetic might take 2 or 3 strokes to get the job done, speed might be thrown out the door if all you have to split are big knotty crotch rounds. A hydraulic will also split 4-5-6 pieces at a pass which could also effect actual production per hr in the favor of the hydraulic machine. Maintence of either type of machine will play a big part on keeping the machine operating. As said, proper maintenace will keep a hydraulic machine running a long, long time. I suspect The same can be said for kinetic machines. Since I have never operated a kinetic, I dont know what wears out or the cost of replacement parts so I am not going to say which might be cheapest. Anyways, instead of slamming a kinetic machine, especially if you dont own one, Maybe a person should listen to the Kinetic owners instead of preaching the merits of owning hydraulics. I asked my question of owners of kinetic machines, I already know what I need to know about a hydraulic machine.
 

CUCV

ArboristSite Guru
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
626
Location
Stratham, NH
I've been running SS for 30ish years. I started running a J model for a local firewood company before I could drive. I bought a J model when I was around 16, added another flywheel, moved the motor down to axle height, changed the engagement mechanism and made the rack slide between beam flanges on cam followers. I currently have a SS SE which is fantastic but you really notice the extra weight over the J model. I also have an electric J model that I may sell soon. Then I have an SS that I built with SE flywheels, diesel engine and small 4 way box wedge. It has been a never ending project with kids, job changes, new home and new workshop. I hated the diesel fumes so I purchased a gear reduced Honda but I found it got dropped in shipping, the case cracked and I noticed to late. I've welded the case and hoping the splitter gets to the top of the project list soon. When I did have it running, it can split a cord of 16" long wood in 15 minutes... then I spend 15 minutes mucking around to split the next cord.
I also have a TW5. It is a true workhorse but can't touch the productivity of the SS for the wood I like to produce. I resplit at least half the pieces that go thru the 6 way wedge so it really doesn't help productivity. I'm very thankful for what it does splitting big nasties but it always leaves me wishing for something better. I'd love to have a Eastonmade, I believe they address the issues I have with the TW5.
 
Top