HH 187, HH 210, and Ironman 230

[Dan]

I Spent part of my past Saturday evening running all three units with an .035 ER70S-6 and C-25. I went with an .035 wire, because my original intention was to run all three on 3/16" flat bar. However, since I had about a half-dozen short lengths ( about 3" long) of 1 1/2" X .120 wall square tube and a couple feet of 1/8" X 3" flat bar, I end up turning these into a simulated joint of a vertical leg (.120 wall tube) being attached to an 1/8" thick foot pad. I turned the 3/16" into horizontal T joints.

To keep the comparison of all three as accurate as possible, I ran the same roll of .035 Forney wire on each unit. Historically, this roll of wire tends to produce a crisp style arc that wets out well. I will mention, I did try a 12" spool of L-56 on the IM 230. I couldn't get a consistent stable arc from this wire. This is not a normal characteristic of the IM 230. Earlier in the day I had thrown three 8" spools of wire into the metal bin at the recycling center. If I had ran the L-56 before going to the recycling center it more than likely would have ended up in the metal bin too.

The HH 187 and HH 210 produced a similar peppy style arc( good combination of soft and crisp mixed together), with real good weld puddle wet out, and a low spatter level. More than likely due to its wire speed tracking circuitry, the 187 tends to produce a slightly cleaner arc. The 187 also tends to have a little wider wire speed dial range for a chosen tap. When dialed in properly the arc of both Handler units likes to buzz along right on the leading edge of the weld puddle. For the 3/16” T-joints, depending on how hot of a weld you want or need, the HH 187 produced very good results with taps 5 & 6. For the same material thickness and joint design, you use tap #5 on the HH 210, which is similar to tap #6 on the 187. On the .120 wall to 1/8” material both Handler units performed nicely when set to tap #4. As nice as both Handler unit perform, they’d both be a very difficult unit for me to ever part with.

To me, the Ironman 230 produces a slightly lazier short circuit transfer arc ( lower frequency short circuit transfer arc) then the HH 187 and HH 210. I guess a better way to state it might be that the IM 230 produces a slightly softer arc. The IM 230 weld puddle wets out a touch quicker than the weld puddle of either Handler unit. On the 3/16”, tap #6 of the IM 230 produced a clean smooth arc, with very good weld puddle wet out, and even a touch lower spatter level then the Handler units. The IM 230 performed equally well on the 1/8” range material too. I will point out, on longer weld beads on the 3/16” material, the gun assembly that Hobart chose to go with on the IM 230 would cause an occasional corruption of what was a very clean arc.

[Sberry]

Nice write up, wish I had the ambition. I have some neat projects lately but just don't have the time to take pics right now.

[crawler]

Nice write up Dan. So does it mean you like the softer arc of the IM230 over the HH187 and 210 units?

Charles

[Steve W]

Dan, thanks for the very nice write up. Very interesting infromation. How would you compare the MM 210 to the IM 230? I thaught the gun on the Ironman would be just like the Miller 250 gun, but sounds like you had a little feeding issues with it. Great job
Thanks, Steve

[Dan]

Originally Posted by crawler

Nice write up Dan. So does it mean you like the softer arc of the IM230 over the HH187 and 210 units?

Charles

Charles, I was reluctant to use the wording "softer arc" to discribe the arc characteritics of the IM230, because even though the arc is a little softer then the Handler 187 and 210 arc, it isn't near as soft as the MM 251 arc. The IM 230 has a hint of crispness to its arc.

Honestly all three produce good arc characteritics, very good weld puddle wetout, and a light spatter level, so performance wise they are all three pretty good. My favorite out of the pack though is the HH 187. Understand though, there isn't really that big of difference between the three units; which, is why I have to continually us the word "slight", or some other wording that means just barely, when discussing these units.

[Busydad]

Dan, have you personally used or have any opinions on the Miller 211 compared to the HH187 or HH210? Thanks.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Steve W

Dan, thanks for the very nice write up. Very interesting infromation. How would you compare the MM 210 to the IM 230? I thaught the gun on the Ironman would be just like the Miller 250 gun, but sounds like you had a little feeding issues with it. Great job
Thanks, Steve

Steve, my original plan during my field testing of the IM 230 was to have a MM 210 VS IM 230 comparison. This phase of the test lasted a total of about 2 hrs. After this time frame, it became obvious that any further time spent in this comparison was useless. The MM 210 is a good unit. Set up with an .030 wire, it is very nice unit on 1/8". How well it performs with an .030 wire on 1/8" is the main reason I have held onto the unit for so long.

In the end though, on any material thickness beside 1/8" the MM 210 had no chance of being as good or better then the IM 230. Especially on 3/16" or 1/4". The 12 V taps give the IM 230 the advantage of having more than one V tap that works well on these two material thicknesses. Also on 3/16" and 1/4" the IM 230 produces a cleaner arc (very light spatter) with noticably better weld puddle wet out.

A few other areas were the IM 230 is better then the MM 210 are:

1. Arc starts
2. The ability to run both an .030 and .035 solid wire well
3. .023 low end with C-25


Hobart didn't go with the M-25 gun on the IM 230. The gun they chose to go with has a stiffer cable then any gun I 've previously used. If you have to make any significant movement, it seems the stiffness of the cable helps increase the possibility of feeding issues- arc inconsistencies. I've ran the IM 230 with the 12' M -25 gun from my MM 210 and saw an improvement in overall arc quality. I'm definitely displeased with Hobart's current gun being supplied with the IM 230. To give possibly a better understanding of the info I provided in this paragraph, I'll point out that I can normally run 2" - 3" long weld beads without any issue. The feeding issue ( arc inconsistency) seem to show up when I push the weld bead length out to 4" plus. Of course I hope you understand this is not an everytime occurence. Discussing this, I realize it has been several months since I last ran the IM 230 with the M-25 gun. I'll have to give the gun a try again this upcoming weekend tp refresh my memory on how well the unit performs with this gun compared to the Hobart gun.

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by Dan

Steve, my original plan during my field testing of the IM 230 was to have a MM 210 VS IM 230 comparison. This phase of the test lasted a total of about 2 hrs. After this time frame, it became obvious that any further time spent in this comparison was useless. The MM 210 is a good unit. Set up with an .030 wire, it is very nice unit on 1/8". How well it performs with an .030 wire on 1/8" is the main reason I have held onto the unit for so long.

In the end though, on any material thickness beside 1/8" the MM 210 had no chance of being as good or better then the IM 230. Especially on 3/16" or 1/4". The 12 V taps give the IM 230 the advantage of having more than one V tap that works well on these two material thicknesses. Also on 3/16" and 1/4" the IM 230 produces a cleaner arc (very light spatter) with noticably better weld puddle wet out.

A few other areas were the IM 230 is better then the MM 210 are:

1. Arc starts
2. The ability to run both an .030 and .035 solid wire well
3. .023 low end with C-25


Hobart didn't go with the M-25 gun on the IM 230. The gun they chose to go with has a stiffer cable then any gun I 've previously used. If you have to make any significant movement, it seems the stiffness of the cable helps increase the possibility of feeding issues- arc inconsistencies. I've ran the IM 230 with the 12' M -25 gun from my MM 210 and saw an improvement in overall arc quality. I'm definitely displeased with Hobart's current gun being supplied with the IM 230. To give possibly a better understanding of the info I provided in this paragraph, I'll point out that I can normally run 2" - 3" long weld beads without any issue. The feeding issue ( arc inconsistency) seem to show up when I push the weld bead length out to 4" plus. Of course I hope you understand this is not an everytime occurence. Discussing this, I realize it has been several months since I last ran the IM 230 with the M-25 gun. I'll have to give the gun a try again this upcoming weekend tp refresh my memory on how well the unit performs with this gun compared to the Hobart gun.

Thanks Dan for the infromation. We can definitely tell how much hard wok you put into all of the testing. I hope you know how much I and others enjoy reading about the results you get. That blue MM 210/212 is a awesome machine, very user friendly. But I was curious how the IM 230 stacked up against it.
Thanks again, Steve

[usmcpop]

I still think Dan has a little box of perfect weld beads. They are magnetized and he just sticks them on there for the pictures.

[ace4059]

Pop,
Dont speak too soon, I havent seen any pics with this thread.

[FarmBoy9205]

Dan,
Thanks for the review article. I am looking for a good Mig welder with a good duty cycle and have been reading the info on the IM 230. It looks like an excellent machine on paper but I have been unable to get my hands on one to test it. My budget is limited so I can not afford a $3000+ mig machine. Any suggestions in a nice mig under $2500? I need a fairly decent duty cycle and ability to handle some thick stuff. I do repair work on foresty and farm equipment and need a welder that can handle 1/2" plate. I am trying to ditch a old homemade stick machine. Only welds AC but 230amps at 100% duty cycle. Problem is it is big as a small refrigator and weights over 350lb. I do have a lite duty DC stick that is used on all but the heavy stuff.
Thanks,
Jim

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Busydad

Dan, have you personally used or have any opinions on the Miller 211 compared to the HH187 or HH210? Thanks.

Sorry, I haven't ran a MM 211. Based on feed back I received from a few different sources it does sound like the unit has the potential to be pretty good. The HH 210 is a real nice unit; however, with Miller's current cash back offer the cost of the MM 211 isn't much more than the HH 210. Keeping this in mind, the 7 tap design of the HH 210 does a good job of covering the output range the unit is design to cover; however, if you're interested in having fine control over adjusting the unit in, the variable control of the MM 211 would be a better option. I really have no need for the 120V option the MM 211 provides, but if you would it's an advantage the HH 210 doesn't offer.

I have no need to weld aluminum with a spoolgun. Most of my welding at home occurs on 1/4" and thinner mild steel. For this application, at a hobbyist level, if the sticker price of a HH 187 better fit my budget, I'd have no regrets going with the HH 187. For my mild steel needs, the 7 tap design of the HH 187 does a very good job of covering the out put range the unit is designed to cover. I logged quite a few hours ion on a MM 180, PM 180C , and HH 187. Out of the three, for my needs, I prefer the HH 187.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by FarmBoy9205

Dan,
Thanks for the review article. I am looking for a good Mig welder with a good duty cycle and have been reading the info on the IM 230. It looks like an excellent machine on paper but I have been unable to get my hands on one to test it. My budget is limited so I can not afford a $3000+ mig machine. Any suggestions in a nice mig under $2500? I need a fairly decent duty cycle and ability to handle some thick stuff. I do repair work on foresty and farm equipment and need a welder that can handle 1/2" plate. I am trying to ditch a old homemade stick machine. Only welds AC but 230amps at 100% duty cycle. Problem is it is big as a small refrigator and weights over 350lb. I do have a lite duty DC stick that is used on all but the heavy stuff.
Thanks,
Jim

Jim, you won't be able to find a Ironman 230 yet. The Ironman 230 I've been running, is a field test unit. 45% duty cycle at 200 amps, and the ability to output at least 25 load volts @200 amps, make the Ironman 230 a fairly robust unit for a hobbyist shop or small farm. However, I feel the unit maybe a little undersized for your application. I'm feeling a 250 + amp unit would be a better fit.

In the 250 + amp range, keeping with in you price range, this unit is appealing to me.

http://products.esabna.com/EN/home/a...E_275_compact_

100% duty cycle @ 200amps means you'd have no trouble welding 1/4" all day long.

ESAB just recently introduced this unit. I've owned a ESAB Migmaster 250 (ESAB still make it too) for several years and have been pleased with it.

A Millermatic 252 or Lincoln PM 255 Xlt would be a couple other options to consider too.

[Busydad]

Thanks, Dan.

[FarmBoy9205]

Dan,
Thanks for the help. I am not welding a lot of 1/2" but need the ability to weld it sometimes. I know the IM230 is not for sale yet. Hobart has a office less than 2 hours from me. I tried all I could to let me test it out. Unfortunately I could not get anywhere with it. I prefer to try before you buy if possible. Currently I have 2 stick units and a older HF MIG with 4 amp settings. It does ok but to low a duty cycle to do what I need even on thin stuff. I am looking to get one good unit ans sell the rest. Again thanks for pointing me in the right direction.