Sealey vs Clarke engine stands

[ian_uk1975]

A while ago, I purchased a Sealey T-shaped (3-legged) engine stand rated to 350kg. Even with a 200kg engine hanging from it, it sagged BADLY. Also, it was very unstable when moving it around or when working on the engine and would easily tip over. So, I've just invested in another Sealey stand... this time, their ES550 model, which has a rated capacity of 550kg (apparently) and is a much more stable design, being both slightly wider and having 2 legs extending from the base of the stand rather than just the one. The stand was just delivered today and, on looking at the instructions, it's described as a 550kg stand but, in the specifications, it states 450kg! I've also recently discovered that Clarke make a virtually identical line of engine stands and their equivalent to the ES550 has a rated capacity of only 340kg! 550kg vs 340kg for essentially the same design is quite a difference and, given my past experience with the other Sealey stand and the conflicting capacity info given in the Sealey instructions, does make me think that Sealey are 'bigging up' their rated capacities as a marketing tool. Also, the Clarke stand looks like it's had a bit more thought put into the design (longer turning handle, sleeved upright support, etc).

Oh, and by the way, the new Sealey stand came with a ton of metal swarf in one of the uprights, which took me ages to shake all out!

Anyone had similar experiences / noticed similar things with Sealey stands?

Edited by ian_uk1975 on Wednesday 16th February 18:08

[stevieturbo]

I thought they were all made by the same place anyway. Designs of each changes slightly over time.

Both of my stands have long handles, which is good.

But I dont think I'd ever recommend the basic T style stand. Always buy the one with the extra support bar at the end of the T. Just makes it more stable.

I have the big 2 legged stand, and TBH, it sags more than the T stand. Plus in some respects, the wide legs can be annoying, even if the stand itself is more stable.

[ian_uk1975]

I'm surprised your wide 2 leg stand sags more than the T-shaped stand! Is it a Sealey? I haven't mounted my engine on the new stand yet, but I did compare the new stand to the T-shaped stand and the most obvious difference was the thickness of the metal plate that bolts, via the 4 arms, to the bellhousing bolt holes in the block. The new stand came with a much thicker mounting plate... I haven't put a caliper on it to measure it, but it looks at least 50-60% thicker than the plate on the T-shaped stand. Also, the upright on the new stand is designed to slant backwards at a slight angle. Presumably, this is to account for some deflection when it's under load, which should pull it straight.

I can see how the wider stand could be annoying... it takes up a lot more space, but I guess that's the price for the added stability. I did also look at the T-shaped stand with the 2 wheels mounted on a narrow beam at the end of the T, but I didn't think that would add a huge amount of stability and probably wouldn't help with the sagging problem.

To clarify, here are the stands I'm talking about...

Basic T-shaped stand (which sags under load)...




Modified T-shaped stand...




Wide, 2-legged, stand (the one I've got to replace the basic T-shaped stand)...

[stevieturbo]

The vertical section of both stands are exactly the same. The heavier rated stand, the black bit the engine bolts too is slightly heavier. But otherwise it is identical.
Same bore, same fitment.

It's actually handy for swapping an engine from stand to stand when needed. So load capacity has nothing to do with that part. I'd say it's mostly down to base stability.

But the 2 leg stand, the actual support section seems to be welded on at a slightly lesser angle. so this leads to sagging earlier.

The 2 legs are stable for sure, but those legs also get in the way when dropping an engine from a crane, into the stand
With a single leg stand, no such troubles,

If I was to buy another, it would definately be the middle design.

[ian_uk1975]

stevieturbo said:

The 2 legs are stable for sure, but those legs also get in the way when dropping an engine from a crane, into the stand.

Bugger, hadn't thought about that... I can see how the legs would get in the way now that you mention it.

[stevieturbo]

ian_uk1975 said:

Bugger, hadn't thought about that... I can see how the legs would get in the way now that you mention it.

I'm not saying you cant get the engine on from a crane, but depending on crane style, it can be more awkward.
Length of legs, angle they are apart etc, length of jib of crane.

I'd never thought of it either until I came to drop the engine on lol.

Sort of need to hang the frame onto the engine when it's in the air, then drop it onto the ground.

[spend]

Bolting the rotating bracket to the engine, then lifting the stand onto it is easy enough. Then drop the crane whilst you push a little laterally so the legs miss each other. Surprised you find it a problem at all?

[itiejim]

I've got the bottom, two legged stand which I have used for anything from Spitfire 1300s to a B18C Honda, a Dolly sprint and a TVR AJPV8. I have found it to be stable and reliable, no noticeable sag.

The legs can get in the way when dropping an engine off the hoist, but so long as there is a bit of slack in the rope / chain etc, the reality is that this has never caused me any problems. I don't think I'd be happy with the 3 legged design. How hard is it to roll a Reliant Robin

[stevieturbo]

spend said:

Bolting the rotating bracket to the engine, then lifting the stand onto it is easy enough. Then drop the crane whilst you push a little laterally so the legs miss each other. Surprised you find it a problem at all?

Which is what I said I do. Doesnt alter the fact a T shaped stand is easier. Cheaper, takes up less room.

And generally a better stand.