Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Ingersoll\-Rand\s+108\s+vs\.\s+2131\s+impact\s+wrenches\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. Ingersoll-Rand 108 vs. 2131 impact wrenches (score: 1)
Author: Mike Lee - Team Banana Racing <mikel@ichips.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 16:08:11 -0800
Hi all, I'm shopping for a new impact wrench, as my old one is nearly useless. It's an old Rockwell Int'l. I don't know the spec's on it, but when it can't remove lugnuts, it's time is up (are these
/html/shop-talk/1998-11/msg00113.html (10,284 bytes)

2. RE: Ingersoll-Rand 108 vs. 2131 impact wrenches (score: 1)
Author: "Barre, Matthew LCDR" <MBarre@comdt.uscg.mil>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 20:30:46 -0500
I will be watching this with interest as I have been coveting a 2131 for some time. I have only heard great things about them. Best price I have seen lately is around $179 from Harbor Freight and A&I
/html/shop-talk/1998-11/msg00114.html (7,714 bytes)

3. Re: Ingersoll-Rand 108 vs. 2131 impact wrenches (score: 1)
Author: Susan and John Roper <vscjohn@iamerica.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 20:26:52 -0600
Mike, I don't know what size bulldozers you work on, but 600# will probably anything I own. I just replaced an old Rockwell 1/2" impact with an IR 1/2" rated at 375# max and on sale at A&I for $75. O
/html/shop-talk/1998-11/msg00115.html (11,739 bytes)

4. Re: Ingersoll-Rand 108 vs. 2131 impact wrenches (score: 1)
Author: Art Pfenninger <ch155@freenet.buffalo.edu>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 07:00:14 -0500 (EST)
I would go with the biggest one I could get. I have a Chicago Pneumatic CP-746 with 450 lbs max and have run into problems getting lug nuts off as well as a dog nut. I borrowed a 3/4" IR and had no p
/html/shop-talk/1998-11/msg00117.html (11,981 bytes)

5. RE: Ingersoll-Rand 108 vs. 2131 impact wrenches (score: 1)
Author: "Lin, Gary" <Gary.Lin@wang.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 14:10:51 -0500
Mike, as J Mills pointed out, 8-3/4 lbs. is a heck of a lot heavier = 4-1/2. Think about hefting that baby around even for a set of lugs, notwithstanding possibly lying on your back trying to hold it
/html/shop-talk/1998-11/msg00118.html (11,249 bytes)

6. Ingersoll-Rand 108 vs. 2131 impact wrenches (score: 1)
Author: Mike Lee - Team Banana Racing <mikel@ichips.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 09:39:28 -0800
Thanks for the pro's/con's of the 108 vs. 2131. The air supply isn't a problem for me, as I'll be moving up to a 60/80 gallon bad-boy over X-mas, but you raised a good point about how hefty the 108
/html/shop-talk/1998-11/msg00134.html (8,472 bytes)

7. Re: Ingersoll-Rand 108 vs. 2131 impact wrenches (score: 1)
Author: Chris Heerschap <Heerschap@eng.kns.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 14:02:30 -0500
With free shipping and mail-ordering, you don't have to live near a HF! I don't even know where they are. That is a good deal, it's supposed to be the same exact thing, and it looks like it. I think
/html/shop-talk/1998-11/msg00137.html (8,387 bytes)

8. Re: Ingersoll-Rand 108 vs. 2131 impact wrenches (score: 1)
Author: Kevin Sullivan <kevins@khoral.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 12:48:43 -0700 (MST)
That was me. The 231 is something of a classic. HF has what looks to be a copy of it in the Central Pneumatic brand for a little over half the price. $70. I was wondering if it was cheaper because it
/html/shop-talk/1998-11/msg00138.html (8,250 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 8
Page: [1]
This search system is powered by Namazu