be careful, HF charges a hefty fee to return stuff now days, they got wise to the part swap scam. I remember before autozone places had free rental, HF was the place to "buy" the 4x4 ball joint tool, and then "return" it later that day after is was destroyed. Opened many a HF tool box to discover damaged goods.
https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/129-1107-massive-multi-winch-shootout/ This is why I hate the pay for reviews industry. The warn is #1 in the shootout even though it's one of the only ones that broke? Makes perfect sense. It's got the nicest packaging, the best instructions (hook the red wire to the positive and the black one to ground?), and it's the quietest (especially after it's broken), so it wins? As you said, I need it to work, don't care what the box looked like, don't need instructions, and could care less if it's loud. Most expensive and broken by the end of the testing but still number 1 because it's got a shiny red w on it.
Wow… definitely a Warn hater! Have you owned one that gave you a bad experience or are you just trying to justify your purchase? Use whatever your budget, research, and experience supports. I love my Zeon and I also love that it’s made 100 miles from where I live.
It BROKE and yet was still ranked #1? That's the dumbest thing I've ever read. Has nothing to do with being a warn hater. It had a pretty box and clear instructions? Who cares? Not being broken should be the ultimate criteria in any shootout right? They tested 8 winches, 4 ended up breaking so obviously they were hard on them. The other 3 that broke were logically ranked last. But warn gets ranked #1 despite breaking in the final test and stalling out in the only other actual pull test? It should have been 5th at best. The superwinch was clearly the winner of that shootout just from reading the article.
I dunno, I read the review and it seems pretty clear to me why the Warn won...they do a pretty thorough job of explaining their thinking. There were only TWO models that didn't break, but they were both lackluster in comparison to the Warn and the Superwinch, and both of those broke when being pushed WAY beyond their spec anyway, so you can't really ding them for that. The Warn won because it matched the best in terms of pulling power, speed, and efficiency, and did it without the fuss that some of the others required.
It also stalled during the rated test, which they excused as a power supply issue which the others didn't have? Their scoring system relied way to much on crap that doesn't matter at all to me in my opinion. Box? Directions? Even how loud it is? Don't mean jack to me. As far as being pushed beyond its rating, I've never once winches with a force gauge. I have pulled until the winch stalled more than once. I've broken a few lines. A winch that will keep pulling until it strips the planetary gears is a liability more than an asset. Reading the article is have the warn at 5th, 4th at best for actual winch testing.
Well then it sounds pretty simple to me - that test is not valid for you.
Yep! ?
So long as they are aware that it won for mostly non-functional criteria, I guess the #1 ranking might be valid. When it comes to actual functionality, it was low to mid-pack at best, which is why I posted it in the 1st place in response to a comment of "I went with a warn because when I need my winch I really need it to work"? This testing proves otherwise. If that poster had said I need a warn because I need the quietest winch that came in the nicest packaging and had the best instructions, I still would have posted it but I would have been far less critical of its #1 spot.
I disagree...functionally it matched three separate other "winners" - the fastest, the strongest, and the most efficient. It had the best quality build out of all of them and also none of the little nitpicks, and it only broke when pushed far beyond its spec.
The illusion of reliability is at question though. I've seen as many failed warns as any other brands out there. They simply aren't more reliable in this testing or the real world in my experience.
