Ranger RFJ2TX vs. AC Hydraulics DK13HLQ
06-07-2007, 12:10 AM
#1
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ranger RFJ2TX vs. AC Hydraulics DK13HLQ I currently have a Craftsman aluminum jack which I'm really not liking lately. I'd like to get a nice high quality jack that will not have any problems easily lifting my WS6 and could lift it decently high if need be.
Originally I was thinking I'd want something nice and long so I oculd lift from the K-member or rear pumpkin, but after I soon get SFC's I figure I could also just lift the car by each side which may be easier vs. front to back.
I've seen the AC Hydraulics DK13HLQ raved about time and time again, but it's price is pretty steep and is the only thing holding me back. Upon researching the AC jack I came across the Ranger RFJ2TX which has very similar specs for less than 1/2 the price of the AC unit
From pics, which I could be wrong, one clear advantage I can see with the AC vs. Ranger jack is that the AC unit stays at a low height for quite a bit (one site qoutes about 16"), while the Ranger unit ramps up right away just after the saddle. Is that really worth more than twice the price (another $325!)???
Anyone have experience with these jacks? Particularly the Ranger RFJ2TX?
Below is a link to each and specs:
Ranger RFJ2TX
$250
Capacity: 4000 lbs.
Min. Height: 3.5"
Max. Height: 31.5"
Frame Length: 37"
Width: 14.5"
Weight: 117 lbs.
AC Hydraulics DK13HLQ
$575 (ouch!)
Capacity: 2900 lbs.
Min. Height: 3.1"
Max. Height: 29.2"
Frame Length: 32"
Handle: 37.4"
Frame Height: 6.3"
Width: 18.9"
Weight: 84.7 lbs.
Originally I was thinking I'd want something nice and long so I oculd lift from the K-member or rear pumpkin, but after I soon get SFC's I figure I could also just lift the car by each side which may be easier vs. front to back.
I've seen the AC Hydraulics DK13HLQ raved about time and time again, but it's price is pretty steep and is the only thing holding me back. Upon researching the AC jack I came across the Ranger RFJ2TX which has very similar specs for less than 1/2 the price of the AC unit
From pics, which I could be wrong, one clear advantage I can see with the AC vs. Ranger jack is that the AC unit stays at a low height for quite a bit (one site qoutes about 16"), while the Ranger unit ramps up right away just after the saddle. Is that really worth more than twice the price (another $325!)???
Anyone have experience with these jacks? Particularly the Ranger RFJ2TX?
Below is a link to each and specs:
Ranger RFJ2TX
$250
Capacity: 4000 lbs.
Min. Height: 3.5"
Max. Height: 31.5"
Frame Length: 37"
Width: 14.5"
Weight: 117 lbs.
AC Hydraulics DK13HLQ
$575 (ouch!)
Capacity: 2900 lbs.
Min. Height: 3.1"
Max. Height: 29.2"
Frame Length: 32"
Handle: 37.4"
Frame Height: 6.3"
Width: 18.9"
Weight: 84.7 lbs.
06-07-2007, 07:27 AM
#2
I have had a DK13 for almost 10 years now. Still works the same today as it did 10 years ago.
In looking at the specs comparing the 2 units and applying them to what I've experienced with the 13, I'll throw in my 2 cents.
The price difference is significant. Wow!
Advantage Ranger
The Ranger has a significantly higher rated capacity. My 13 falls short in my cases when working on my race trailer and tow rig.
Advantage Ranger
Heights and lengths are comparable enough to make it a wash. But, read on ...
no advantage
I don't see a frame height advertised for the Ranger. The DK13's frame just barely clears a lowered F-Body's rocker panels and a Trans AM's rear bumper cover. It can just squeeze between the air dam and front tire under the front fascia as well. In the picture, the Ranger looks pretty tall, so taking advantage of all that reach might not happen.
The handle on the 13 is rather short and takes some effort to jack up the car. My handle was made from plastic and split the first week I got it. I've had a pair of hose clamps holding it in place ever since.
Width of Ranger is SIGNIFICANTLY narrower than the 13. And when you have the car jacked up over 2 feet, like when changing a trans or rear diff, the 13's saddle and lift frame can get a little wobbly. I can only imagine the Ranger being a LOT worse because of the narrower stand. This would concern me.
Advantage DK13
Not sure why the Ranger is 30lbs heavier. Probably due to the heavier load rating. In any case, at 85 lbs, the 13 can be a handful wheeling it around in the shop. It doesn't spin around like a conventional jack and you just don't pick it up and move it a couple inches sideways. I can see where the additional weight would make the jack even less user friendly.
Advantage DK13
Now after all that ... if I had it to do over again ... the Ranger looks like a great choice. But I have a relatively smooth shop floor and am pretty careful when I jack stuff up.
It has been EXTREMELY annoying to have to round up another jack in order to raise my Bronco off the ground. I was bitterly disappointed in the DK13s capacity. It has never failed me on the F-cars, but when called upon for some heavy duty, I was disappointed.
HTH
In looking at the specs comparing the 2 units and applying them to what I've experienced with the 13, I'll throw in my 2 cents.
The price difference is significant. Wow!
Advantage Ranger
The Ranger has a significantly higher rated capacity. My 13 falls short in my cases when working on my race trailer and tow rig.
Advantage Ranger
Heights and lengths are comparable enough to make it a wash. But, read on ...
no advantage
I don't see a frame height advertised for the Ranger. The DK13's frame just barely clears a lowered F-Body's rocker panels and a Trans AM's rear bumper cover. It can just squeeze between the air dam and front tire under the front fascia as well. In the picture, the Ranger looks pretty tall, so taking advantage of all that reach might not happen.
The handle on the 13 is rather short and takes some effort to jack up the car. My handle was made from plastic and split the first week I got it. I've had a pair of hose clamps holding it in place ever since.
Width of Ranger is SIGNIFICANTLY narrower than the 13. And when you have the car jacked up over 2 feet, like when changing a trans or rear diff, the 13's saddle and lift frame can get a little wobbly. I can only imagine the Ranger being a LOT worse because of the narrower stand. This would concern me.
Advantage DK13
Not sure why the Ranger is 30lbs heavier. Probably due to the heavier load rating. In any case, at 85 lbs, the 13 can be a handful wheeling it around in the shop. It doesn't spin around like a conventional jack and you just don't pick it up and move it a couple inches sideways. I can see where the additional weight would make the jack even less user friendly.
Advantage DK13
Now after all that ... if I had it to do over again ... the Ranger looks like a great choice. But I have a relatively smooth shop floor and am pretty careful when I jack stuff up.
It has been EXTREMELY annoying to have to round up another jack in order to raise my Bronco off the ground. I was bitterly disappointed in the DK13s capacity. It has never failed me on the F-cars, but when called upon for some heavy duty, I was disappointed.
HTH
06-07-2007, 09:27 AM
#3
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mitchntx
I don't see a frame height advertised for the Ranger. The DK13's frame just barely clears a lowered F-Body's rocker panels and a Trans AM's rear bumper cover. It can just squeeze between the air dam and front tire under the front fascia as well. In the picture, the Ranger looks pretty tall, so taking advantage of all that reach might not happen.
Once I have SFC's (very soon) do I really need something that long or to jack the car up from the k-member/rear at all???
The SFC's would be just as easy (if not easier), they'd get the car up just as quickly and be a good solid spot for jacking and jack stands.
I'll try to find the height on the Ranger unit and take some measurements under the car to see where it'll stand relative to fitting under the car, etc.
My main reason for a long reach jack like these two units may just be the fact of how high they can lift (30"!) vs. the reach itself, once my SFC's are on the reach really shouldn't be as much of a concern. The height is great because I've definetly ran into the problem of my current Craftsman aluminum jack not lifting nearly as high as I'd like and really falling short.
Originally Posted by mitchntx
Now after all that ... if I had it to do over again ... the Ranger looks like a great choice. But I have a relatively smooth shop floor and am pretty careful when I jack stuff up.
06-07-2007, 10:02 AM
#5
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mitchntx
That reach means height. Can't have the height and not the reach.
Since installing SFCs, it's all I use to jack the car. Place the jack mid-door and lift away.
Since installing SFCs, it's all I use to jack the car. Place the jack mid-door and lift away.
07-20-2007, 01:59 PM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by cobrakillerta
I think I'll just have to save the $325 and go with the Ranger RFJ2TX!
07-21-2007, 06:20 PM
#7
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by lattehiatus
Any feedback on how the Ranger RFJ2TX performs? Being on a limited budget, I like the idea of using AC 3000N jackstands with the Ranger RFJ2TX. IMHO, the stands are much more crucial when it comes to safety, so I would rather skimp a little on the jack as opposed to the jackstands.
