Carry both - the bottle takes up a little room and is much quicker to use - until you have no under axle clearance - then its time for the hi lift.
The Jackall is a bit better made IMHO - to stop a 'runaway jack' tie the handle to the rack in the vertical position with a short bungee or chord.
To store, so it actually works when you need it -
A light spray of wd40 then clingfilm it top to bottom before putting in a decent canvas bag - if you live in the nice soggy UK try putting in a silica dessicant bag or 2 - ones that you get with electrical appliance packing in with it - they absorb moisture a treat.
Takes a few minutes - but its easier than stripping and cleaning the corrosion/sand from the rack and mechanism when you are up to your axles and its raining.....

------------------
Ex RAF Regt, Ex Dragoman, LRE Instructor,
LR 90 300 Tdi Overlander
Suzuki DR650 Overlander
..and Bloody Nice Bloke!

__________________
Cheers
Grif

'11 KTM 450 EXC
'09 Suzuki DR650
'00 Discovery Series 2 V8
'95 Defender 90 300 Tdi Overlander
http://gipperstravels.blogspot.ca

I've looked around for more info on this, and can't find any, A.B. Can you recall any links?
Regards,
Michael

__________________
Michael & Sandy
http://www.expeditionoverland.com

Try http://www.equip-raid.fr/resultats.p...e_catalogue=91 and get the credit card ready, ouch!
My Jackall is more often used to wrestle Mich XZLs off the rim (is it me or are they really, really tight?)
I can see the theoretical advantage of lifting a car right up, slipping a sand ladder under a tyre and then lowering the car onto it but I've never needed to. IMHO a good hydraulic jack is essential for overlanding (repairs etc.) but I was happy to have the reassurance of the Jackall; it's heavy to have both though.

Thanks, Luke.
Not much of a hi-lift jack, for your 600 Euros, is it? Less than 2ft of lift, and a 2-ton maximum capacity, as far as I can see. And at 18kg it's no lightweight either. I don't really see why it would be ANYT better than a fully mechanical hi-lift. (I thought the big advantage of a hydraulic version would be that it would be proof against dirt, like a bottle jack).

Still, it's a nice idea

Michael...

__________________
Michael & Sandy
http://www.expeditionoverland.com

Except for the very high price, the hydro jack isn't that bad. The one I saw was 1 meter high (3 feet) which is only a few centimeters shorter than the shortest hi-lift and the 2 ton capacity is only 1/3 ton less than that of the hi-lift. So I think it would be good for the physically challenged as its much easier to use. Having said that, I wouldn't pay that much money for it .

------------------
A.B.

OasisPhoto.com – Images from the Magical Sahara.
ShortWheelbase.com – Jeep preparations.
Coordinates Converter – Lat/Long <-> UTM Conversion Tool.

__________________
A.B.
OasisPhoto.com – Images from the Magical Sahara.

On the subject of lifting from low height when working on my 101 (hapily not under it) the ground gave way under one axle stand, the others all gave way under the strain along with two bottle jacks and the 3 ton vehicle ended up sat on its diffs on my mum and dads drive. Spectacu;lar and potentially lethal.

The only jack I could get under the bumpers to start lifting it back up agin was the highlift. Took two of us 2 hours!!

lesson is leave some wheels on the motor.
It had been on the stands for 2 months with no probs, possibly caused by recent heavy rain. Also sometimes only a highlift will do.

andy

landy 101fc camper
daihatsu fourtrack
landy 110

__________________
1990 Landcruiser H60. Full rebuild completed 2014

What kind of ground was it?



------------------
A.B.

OasisPhoto.com – Images from the Magical Sahara.
ShortWheelbase.com – Jeep preparations.
Coordinates Converter – Lat/Long <-> UTM Conversion Tool.

__________________
A.B.
OasisPhoto.com – Images from the Magical Sahara.

Hmm, my Jackall is rated to 8000lbs, more than 3.5 tonnes. Maybe you should upgrade? Looking at the pics, I can't see why they couln't make the hydro any length, just by making the track longer (as they do with th hi-lifts of other types).

M...

__________________
Michael & Sandy
http://www.expeditionoverland.com

I can't tell you why in scientific terms, but the longer the track the less it's load capacity. At least that what the hi-lift guys are recommending in their documentation. The full carrying capacity is only at 48”.

------------------
A.B.

OasisPhoto.com – Images from the Magical Sahara.
ShortWheelbase.com – Jeep preparations.
Coordinates Converter – Lat/Long <-> UTM Conversion Tool.

__________________
A.B.
OasisPhoto.com – Images from the Magical Sahara.

The loss of load capacity with height is to do with a horrible formula (invented by Euler) used to calculate which way a beam will buckle as a function of length and load. The manufacturers don't say it but below the 48" the jack will take proportionally more load, up to the point where there's no beam exposed (a useless position) where the load capacity is limited by the shear limit on the pins (around 15 tonnes).
To cover themselves, most manufacturers put a safety factor of around 5 on their products; I've used my Jackall on the rear end of the chassis rail to lift my 5T camper when the bottle jack dissappeared into some dodgy tarmac while changing a wheel in France... Right at the top of the beam! It was scary and waved around a lot because the other side was almost off the ground but it worked.
Sorry, I spend a lot of my working life fighting with buckling theory.

Intuitively, it makes sense that the track is more prone to buckling when the load and the fulcrum are far apart. And practically, anyone who has bent the track of their hi-lift will notice that it happened near full stretch.

However, that issue is almost entirely a function of the track construction, rather than the ratcheting mechanism (unless the mechanism does something strange). That being the case, it would seem that mechanical and hydraulic versions would be on an even footing regarding the maximum lift height. In other words, if there is a drop-off in capacity related to lift height, it should be similar for both versions.

I have to say that I can't see from the catalogue picture any reason why the track construction of the Hydro should be any flimsier than that of the mechanical jacks, which would imply that their lower quoted capacity is due to the mechanism.

If I win the lottery, I'll order one and give a full report!


Incidentally, I assume that the capacities quoted for conventional hi-lift jacks are based on ideal conditions. In real life circumstances, my Jackall and Hi-Lifts have all struggled to lift one end of a loaded vehicle (bearing, say, 2.5 tonnes out of a total of 3.5?), bowing the track visibly, even along the tall I-beam axis. (Swinging with all my weight on the handle seems contrary to good H&S practice too). I'm not sure I'd have the bottle to put 3600kg on it!

Regards,

Michael...
www.expeditionoverland.com

__________________
Michael & Sandy
http://www.expeditionoverland.com

It looks as though the Jackall is marginally higher rated, 8000lbs compared to 3.5 tonnes, although certain sites say the 3.5 tonne Hi-Lift is capable of up to 6+ tonnes; Have you tried 2 hi-lifts, is it feasible?

Looks as though there's a 60" version available too.


------------------
Mark

__________________
Mark

It's been done but from a safety point of view better not to get more than one corner off the ground at once.
My Jackall has had the back end of my 5T Iveco off the ground, took myself and three Ghanans swinging on the handle though (from UNDERNEATH the handle for safety reasons)
The garage didn't have a decent trolley jack; we lowered it onto a couple of engine blocks to do the work though
Strong jacks allright, but I'd have got by without one.
L

Hi !!!

Today I had an idea about lifting vehicles , with the convenience /versatility of a hi-lift and the easenes /safety of hydraulic gear :

BODYWORK HYDRAULIC KITS !!!!

Not sure how they are call in English. They are just a hydraulic set , with the lever operated -pupm linked to the hydraulic piston via a 3-feet flexible hose. (no need to be Under the vehicle any more) .

The piston comes with an assortment of 1/2feet , 1feet , 1.5 feet , 2 feet , 3 feet extension bars - so all lifting ranges are covered- ,etc.. , a nice wide base , and an assortment of "endings" (sphere , flat , big flat base , etc) ,

It is intended to panel beaters to straighten-up bent bodyshells , but -to my surprise- I have used it to lift my 5 ton truck with the utmost easeness !!!. As the piston is telescopic , any jacking length (up to 6 feet!) can be atained ! . The piston itselfs moves around 1.5 feet. The whole thing is rated 10 (Ten !!) tones ... and Its sold in most of europe for about 100 Euros (so in UK should be around 200 !! ).

Pros :
1 Cheap!
2 Really easy to action .Anyone could lift a 10 Tonner with this.
3 As the pump is remote , there's no need to pump near/under the vehicle.
4 There's not that Hilift kickback thing when lowering .

5 Instead ,lowering is as easy as turning a knob.

6 as the set comes with telescopic extension , jacking lenghts of up to 3 (5?) feet can be done

7 The usefull movement is of not less than 1.5 feet (not that bad ,probbably same as usefull range in hilifts

8 the whole set comes in a nice box , packed , and is much frienlier to use than hilifts

And that is .

Oppinions ?

Javier. (Madrid_Capetown).

Sorry , This is what I mean

http://www.machinemart.co.uk/product...0&r=2053&g=107


BR Javier