Powermatic and Jet Tablesaws

[Rick Gifford]

I am curious about something. Powermatic and Jet are made by the same company. The Powermatic TS has the cast bases that greatly reduce vibration. The Jets are steel cabinets.

Sticking to these two tablesaws, does anyone has insight to differences in quality?

Most all will say The PM is the better saw, but just exactly what is this based on.. I doubt the motors are different but maybe I am wrong. XACTA fences and the PM fences look the same quality.

If you can add something to this please do.

I ended up buying the ShopFox jointer rather than the Grizzly due to the ShopFox was local for me. I know it is said the SF is the upper line of the Grizzly, but no input there on why that one is so. Maybe along the lines of the Black & Decker vs Dewalt tools.

Back to the tablesaws, maybe someone has experience with both and can shed some light on this one.

[Peter Quinn]

Never seen a PM table saw with a cast base. Welded steel cabinet just like most cabinet saws. When I bought my PM 66 about 4 years ago I looked pretty close at jet. PM comes with a baldor motor, one of the best around, jets had an import. PM has a massive 150# cast iron trunnion to increase stability, jets is lighter and smaller. Otherwise in the dark you'ld be hard pressed to tell the two apart.

A 3 HP motor is a 3HP motor...till they die..which the baldors generally don't, so maybe you get a few more years out of the PM?

[Jason Beam]

The PM2000 has a cast iron base, with built in retractable wheels for moving it around.

To be clear: The PM and Jet machines are not made by the same company. They are two separate companies altogether. These two companies are owned by the same parent company. That sounds like splitting hairs but it's an important distinction. B&D has owned Dewalt for more than 30 years, but Dewalt has always been kept separate. Same kinda thing.

Why is the PM better than the Jet? Well there are lots of reasons. The motors are NOT the same, for sure. The castings aren't all the same, either. PM castings are almost always thicker and usually stronger. PM tools tend to have larger, more durable bearings, too. These three things alone make a higher quality tool. The PM quality control standards, I suspect, are a bit tougher than on the Jet side of things, too.

That's not to say Jet makes bad tools, though. You just asked why PM was better. :)

[Rick Gifford]

Yup, I asked why PM was better. Thanks for the input. I should have specified I was looking at the PM 2000, and not the 66. I will assume now the PM66 base isnt cast though.

I wasnt aware the motors were different. See its good to ask questions!.

I was looking at the two side by side. Hence this question. I was unsuccessful getting the store worker to answer this to my satisfaction. I was just told its like Cadillac to a Chrysler. Uh, ok... that helps :rolleyes:

[Jim Becker]

The difference between the lines is less of "quality" than of features. PM is the premium name; Jet is the value brand. You pay more for the premium features that PM offers and they also have quite a few larger industrial type machines in addition to the stuff we typically talk about here at SMC. Prior to my moving to Euro machinery, nearly everything was Jet in my shop. I was totally pleased with all of it for both quality and functionality.

[J. Z. Guest]

A 3 HP motor is a 3HP motor...till they die..which the baldors generally don't, so maybe you get a few more years out of the PM?

I beg to differ here Peter. A 3 hp Chinese no-name motor is not in the same sport as a Baldor, Emerson, etc.; much less in the same league. There are so many places to cut corners in motor construction: cheaper magnet wire, (some are aluminum instead of copper now) cheaper varnish on the magnet wire, (which acts as the insulation between turns of the windings) cheaper bearings, lesser metals throughout, thinner metals, cheaper paint job, cheaper insulation system components, the list goes on. The better motors are more efficient, and therefore make more power with less heat. They probably make less heat anyway due to better fan design.

I don't believe Baldors are any better than many other high-end motors, but they're certainly miles better than the cheapies.

It is like Lexus vs. Toyota.

Toyota makes them all, but they put more effort & consideration into their more expensive, high-end stuff. They always have the top engines, top interiors, latest gimmicks, best suspension, better headlights. That doesn't mean Toyota is inadequate.

For the use like a regular old hobbyist woodworker will give it, the Jet will probably be fine, and you probably won't notice any difference. Maybe if you use the hell out of it, it will poop out in 20 years instead of 40...

The bottom line is that you get what you pay for. It isn't always in a 1:1 ratio, but you can pretty much count on it.

[Eric Haycraft]

AFAIK, they are both made in the same factory. In general, the PM seems to be beefier. The PM has thicker angle iron on the front and rear fence rails, CI base, beefier trunnions with 8 point mounts compared to 4 point on the Jet. I would suspect that the motors are the same since both saws are made in Taiwan.

[Dave MacArthur]

Jet and PM were totally different companies with different designs, sourcing, and manufacturing. They both happen to have been acquired by the same holding company, WMH. This in no way ensures that 100% of the two companies overlap has been removed and consolidated! I would NOT assume any parts are the exact same until proven otherwise.

[Scott Seigmund]

Rick,

A key difference in the PM2000 and Jet Xacta saw is in the design of the trunnion assembly. If such things matter to you, the jet copies the Unisaw trunnion design, while the PM2000 is based on the PM66 but with larger (wider) front and rear trunnions similar to the PM66’s of the 1960s but with four bolt mounts per trunnion. The center trunnion, motor mount, and arbor (or bearing arm) are nearly identical to the 66 except for modifications to adapt a riving knife. The PM2000 is an evolution of the PM66, although the 66 probably has better castings (meehanite vs. “Chiwan Peanut Butter Iron” - Bob Vaughan). It is a shame the PM2000 can’t be produced in the United States. If so, I would buy one.

-Scott

[Jim Becker]

Scott, the LT Jet (at least the pre-Deluxe version that I owned) was made to compete with the PM66 when it was introduced and was heavier constructed than the RT version of the same vintage.

On the motor comments, the motors that Jet uses, regardless of the source, are high quality products.

[Rick Gifford]

I appreciate the replies. I took the comments and did some looking around on the web. Different reviews etc.

I may need to go back to the store now and educate the seller. I probably have a better understanding.

I dont have anything to add on the motors. From all I can find otherwise, a key difference is the trunion design. Its beefier, and better enforced. Allowing a more vibration free operation. There are some design differences in the saws and it would be up the the individual if the extra expense is worth it to them. Like built in retractable casters on the PM for one.

Now the deluxe XACTAs and the PM 2000 both have the riving knife. Some reviews were older, side by side comparison of Jet, Powermatic, Delta, SawStop and Lugana was one review.

For what its worth as a side note, I didnt see any negatives about the SawStop except prices. Someone might give it a consideration if cost isnt a factor.

But anyway between the PM and Jet saws I think its a matter of some features are different, but mostly the trunion and some other parts that are a step up from the Jet parts. Not to say the Jet is a lesser saw in the name of woodworking, but it helps to understand the differences.

[Chris Robertson]

Rick, If your contemplating buying one of the two, I just went through the same process two weeks ago. I was all set to buy the Jet. I could get it $600 less, it has a 4" hose up to the blade compared to 2-1/2" PM2000, I had a mobile base already I could use. The both seemed to have the same riving knife/guard system. My decision was based on weight. There had to be a reason one saw weighed 100 lbs more than the other. Come to find out, there is, as explained by the other replies. I choose the PM2000. I still think the Jet is a great deal though and you can make equally good cuts with either saw. For me, I've come to find I like the heavier machines and less vibration.

[Rick Gifford]

Rick, If your contemplating buying one of the two, I just went through the same process two weeks ago. I was all set to buy the Jet. I could get it $600 less, it has a 4" hose up to the blade compared to 2-1/2" PM2000, I had a mobile base already I could use. The both seemed to have the same riving knife/guard system. My decision was based on weight. There had to be a reason one saw weighed 100 lbs more than the other. Come to find out, there is, as explained by the other replies. I choose the PM2000. I still think the Jet is a great deal though and you can make equally good cuts with either saw. For me, I've come to find I like the heavier machines and less vibration.

Thanks Chris. I havent decided which way I am going, havent rule out any option. I was wondering the differences between these two and hoped folks here had some insight.

If I buy from my local WoodCraft I can get a 10% off the price and free shipping so I give that heavy consideration. I even looked at Lugana, but due to some reviews with broken parts and the hounding salesmen I think not.

You say the PM2000 has a 2 1/2" hose to the blade? I think I overlooked that detail. Wonder why they'd chimp on thatl?

[Peter Quinn]

I beg to differ here Peter. A 3 hp Chinese no-name motor is not in the same sport as a Baldor, Emerson, etc.; much less in the same league. There are so many places to cut corners in motor construction: cheaper magnet wire, (some are aluminum instead of copper now) cheaper varnish on the magnet wire, (which acts as the insulation between turns of the windings) cheaper bearings, lesser metals throughout, thinner metals, cheaper paint job, cheaper insulation system components, the list goes on. The better motors are more efficient, and therefore make more power with less heat. They probably make less heat anyway due to better fan design.

I would like to apoligize for my gross over simplification of the motor issue. I suppose I meant to say a GOOD 3hp motor is a GOOD 3Hp motor, which begs the question how good are PM and Jet motors and by what standard should they be judged and compared. I know there are some experts here on motor design from other threads I've read. I wish one of them would would develope a comparison chart to allow laymen to decipher and compare different motors meaningfully.

It seems all those little numbers, letters and codes on a motors name plate mean more than the HP rating. I have read technical sites that explain those codes but it does nothing to clarify the issue for me. If I understand correctly the stated amps, together with the heat and efficiency class give a better picture of capability. Good motors turn more of the energy they use into power, produce less heat, operate more efficiently at higher ambient temperatures, and have a higher insulation class that promotes longevity under continuous duty. Better bearings both on the machine arbors and motor create less friction thus putting more of that power to the blade. Which motor is better and by how much? I for one don't know.

After that we get into balancing and machining of pulleys, aging and machining of iron parts, and the effects of mass on reducing vibration. All the subtle factors that make one machine better than another are difficult to decipher, and most companies aren't trying to make it any easier for us...maybe they don't want to confuse us with facts? They stick to the simple things like features, weight, table size, and horsepower.

When I bought my PM66 the powermatic literature made note of the use of high quality Baldor motors, specific reference to the industries heavest '150# trunion assembly' and the minimum 18 month aging of their castings. They showed pictures of great numbers of raw castings, just sitting and "relaxing" in a warehouse, waiting to be ground to perfection! The name Baldor is gone from their new literature, as is reference to the 150# trunion and the extensive iron ageing process. Does this mean these things are gone on the PM2000? I for one don't know.

As for that iron base on the PM2000, on close inspection it looks like more of an iron 'skirt' meant to accomadate the built in castor system and invoke the image of true iron bohemoths of yore like the mighty Tannewitz or Northfield TS, which had TRUE iron bases and cabinets. In fact the machine has clearly been designed to look retro...if they can't build them like they use to at least they can make em look cool. It seems like more of a style thing than a major functional upgrade. The riving knife and improved dust collection seem to be the only real substantial changes and I wish my 66 had both.

So how do you compare these two cabinet saws? Maybe you can order one of each, take em both apart, check everything with calipers and a scale, bench test the motors in a lab, hardness test the steel and iron parts, have a machinist run a laser comparitor on the tops for flatness? I still think in the dark you'ld be hard pressed to tell them apart, and in the dark is where the manufacturers would like you to stay! Which one is better? I for one don't know.