Got the answer to this one?

I have been itching to pick up Millwaukee’s new M18 Fuel Super Hawg. Were tool guys, right. So the first thing I do is check out the specs, figured the peak torque for this beast would be in the ft*lbs rather than in*lbs range. Millwaukee lists their M18 Fuel hammer drill at 1,200 in*lbs and their M18 Fuel impact at 1,800 in*lbs. So what do you think they list for the Hawg…they don’t? Nothing. Nada. Scoured the web and I can’t find a peak torque spec anywhere? What gives?

Don’t get me wrong I have played around with this thing and it has more than enough torque. Just curious what it is.

tpamatmat wrote:

43 minutes ago, tpamatmat said:

I have been itching to pick up Millwaukee’s new M18 Fuel Super Hawg. Were tool guys, right. So the first thing I do is check out the specs, figured the peak torque for this beast would be in the ft*lbs rather than in*lbs range. Millwaukee lists their M18 Fuel hammer drill at 1,200 in*lbs and their M18 Fuel impact at 1,800 in*lbs. So what do you think they list for the Hawg…they don’t? Nothing. Nada. Scoured the web and I can’t find a peak torque spec anywhere? What gives?

 

Don’t get me wrong I have played around with this thing and it has more than enough torque. Just curious what it is.

Based on the videos I’ve seen it’s in Miles-lbs.

Huh. Never noticed that before. Good point 🙂

They don’t list it on either Hawg. You can believe you’re well out of the inch-lb spec war though lol. DeBeast doesn’t list torque either. Would be interesting to see. You can tell by the size of the gear boxes and that the max rpm are way down that torque is way up lol. They don’t have the 2wd the normal drills have lol just 4 hi and 4 lo. 

They’ve never released torque specs for the two hawgs for whatever reason


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BMack37 wrote:

17 hours ago, BMack37 said:

 

Based on the videos I’ve seen it’s in Miles-lbs.

I know, right. Millwaukee loves to boast about their Fuel torque specs, seems they would be shouting from the roof tops about this one. Weird.

No specs on the corded version either.

tpamatmat wrote:

I know, right. Millwaukee loves to boast about their Fuel torque specs, seems they would be shouting from the roof tops about this one. Weird.

 

No specs on the corded version either.

There wasn’t really any competition before so I don’t think they needed to

tpamatmat wrote:

I have been itching to pick up Millwaukee’s new M18 Fuel Super Hawg. Were tool guys, right. So the first thing I do is check out the specs, figured the peak torque for this beast would be in the ft*lbs rather than in*lbs range. Millwaukee lists their M18 Fuel hammer drill at 1,200 in*lbs and their M18 Fuel impact at 1,800 in*lbs. So what do you think they list for the Hawg…they don’t? Nothing. Nada. Scoured the web and I can’t find a peak torque spec anywhere? What gives?

 

Don’t get me wrong I have played around with this thing and it has more than enough torque. Just curious what it is.

KobaltFan1 wrote:

1 hour ago, KobaltFan1 said:

I use to sell Milwaukee and don’t get me wrong I love Milwaukee but they can’t touch Kobalt’s New 24 v Brushless power tools.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thats a hard claim. You know of any comparison video’s to back it up? 🙂

KobaltFan1 wrote:

9 hours ago, KobaltFan1 said:

I use to sell Milwaukee and don’t get me wrong I love Milwaukee but they can’t touch Kobalt’s New 24 v Brushless power tools.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kobalt doesn’t have a hawg, that’s what this thread is about….

KobaltFan1 wrote:

11 hours ago, KobaltFan1 said:

I use to sell Milwaukee and don’t get me wrong I love Milwaukee but they can’t touch Kobalt’s New 24 v Brushless power tools.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are some kind of Kobalt shill or something? 

M80 wrote:

13 minutes ago, M80 said:

Max. torque (Nm) 95

 

http://www.milwaukeetool.eu/powertools/cordless/m18-frad/

that would be 95 Newton Meters if anyone was wondering

so from 95 NM=

70.068404184 FT lbs or 840 in lbs

M80 wrote:

40 minutes ago, M80 said:

Max. torque (Nm) 95

 

http://www.milwaukeetool.eu/powertools/cordless/m18-frad/

comp56 wrote:

28 minutes ago, comp56 said:

that would be 95 Newton Meters if anyone was wondering

so from 95 NM=

70.068404184 FT lbs or 840 in lbs

 

Damn…you guys are good 🙂

Impressive spec, I wonder why they don’t publish that in the states?

So technically speaking the hawg is weaker in torque than the 2704 which would explain the release of the super hawg, but form factor allows you to be more ballsy with a hawg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

tpamatmat wrote:

11 minutes ago, tpamatmat said:

 

Damn…you guys are good 🙂

Impressive spec, I wonder why they don’t publish that in the states?

Hate to quote myself, but it was a quick reply with the assumption that of course it would be more than their Fuel hammer drill. But after reading Jimbo’s quote I just realized it is less? Possibly because it is continuous torque vs. peak torque?

JimboS1ice wrote:

15 minutes ago, JimboS1ice said:

So technically speaking the hawg is weaker in torque than the 2704 which would explain the release of the super hawg, but form factor allows you to be more ballsy with a hawg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That link is for the super hawg, not the regular hole hawg

KobaltFan1 wrote:

I use to sell Milwaukee and don’t get me wrong I love Milwaukee but they can’t touch Kobalt’s New 24 v Brushless power tools.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let alone the DCD996, which is more powerful than both. 😀

Actually, I can only speak to the Milwaukee, haven’t seen the Kobalt in action.

JimboS1ice wrote:

4 hours ago, JimboS1ice said:

So technically speaking the hawg is weaker in torque than the 2704 which would explain the release of the super hawg, but form factor allows you to be more ballsy with a hawg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I bet that’s the clutch torque

Realistically you never get that 1000in-lb out of one of the drills because it’s the hard torque when it’s stalled.  The break your wrist but not actually drive anything torque.

Wow, very close! Would liked to have seen a few more holes drilled.

wildroamer wrote:

4 hours ago, wildroamer said:

Let alone the DCD996, which is more powerful than both. 😀

I was just destroying joists with my DCD996 and some Milwaukee hole saws. Frigging amazing torque on my Dewalt. Love it!

LOL Bosch “speedbor” bits 

Cool test…. definitely know good bits to use too

Nice now put a real battery on the Milwaukee and a 1 x 18 auger in end grain PT

Jimbo

sent from tapatalk

wildroamer wrote:

10 hours ago, wildroamer said:

Let alone the DCD996, which is more powerful than both. 😀

The same DCD996 I have? The one with 95nm? Well below the 2704 1200(?) in-lb claim and Makitas 1070 (that’s “somehow” stronger than the Fuel lol). I love the 996, and it pulls just like my 2704 yet it sits around 840 in-lb. The e-clutch and 3 speed gearbox make it a real beauty.

95nm for the Fuel Super Hawg on the European site make claims I’ve seen of the Hole Hawg stalling with ship auger bits more believable lol. Single speed gearbox will do that I guess. The 2704 absolutely flies in high speed with 1″+ bits in it though. Form factor on the Hawgs is very versatile however. 

EU sites for Dewalt list hard and soft torque though maybe correlating what Jeff was saying.

996 hard: 95nm / 840 in-lb

996 soft: 66nm / 584 in-lb

796 hard: 70nm / 619 in-lb

796 soft 27nm / 238 in-lb

Meanwhile EU Milwaukee only states 95nm for Super Hawg, yet 135nm for the Fuel hammer drill while specifying the Hawg can drill 150+ mm holes with a hole saw while the standard drill maxes out at 65mm according to the specs page (which is 2.55″; less than the 3″ copied and pasted from the 2604 manual over to the 2704 manual). 

The paper spec wars are fairly entertaining and full of smoke and mirrors it seems. Dewalt manual states maximum capacity of the 996 at 1-1/4″ auger, 4″ hole saw and 1/2″ masonry holes while the Milwaukee 2704 claims 1-1/2″ augers, 3″ hole saw, and 5/8″ masonry holes. What gives? Meanwhile the single speed Hole Hawg can do a 4″ hole saw, but only a 1-1/4″ auger according to its manual? Who’s testing this stuff? Who’s writing these manuals lol. 

Problem with kobalt is the warranty is garbage and the plastic breaks at the neck right above the battery platform.  I would never buy kobalt brand again. 

The Milwaukee on the other hand looks like a beast. Use that for the rail road ties to install some spikes. That wood is hard hell with all that oil.  And heavy as hell lol. Looks like i have an excuse for a toy: )

Bremon wrote:

8 hours ago, Bremon said:

The same DCD996 I have? The one with 95nm? Well below the 2704 1200(?) …

Smoke and mirrors, for sure. 996 clearly has the edge in torque, even our resident Mileaukee-lovin’-meat-chopper’s video shows that! 😉

wildroamer wrote:

1 hour ago, wildroamer said:

 

 

Smoke and mirrors, for sure. 996 clearly has the edge in torque, even our resident Mileaukee-lovin’-meat-chopper’s video shows that! 😉

@JimboS1ice 

wildroamer wrote:

8 hours ago, wildroamer said:

 

 

Smoke and mirrors, for sure. 996 clearly has the edge in torque, even our resident Mileaukee-lovin’-meat-chopper’s video shows that! 😉

Jronman wrote:

6 hours ago, Jronman said:

@JimboS1ice 

DCD 996 is a beast of drill, almost scary to you, just limited by its shitastic gear selector and stubby handle if it weren’t for flex volt id still have that over the milwaukee

With the extra cells, Kobalt should beat Milwaukee by a healthy 20% margin, not just come in close.  Not to mention they probably paired the test with Kobalt’s optimum torque.

Most of the latest version tools are extremely close because with the same power going in the same power comes out.  If they want a fair comparison, Hilti uses the same voltage.  That test would be amusing.

JimboS1ice wrote:

2 hours ago, JimboS1ice said:

 

DCD 996 is a beast of drill, almost scary to you, just limited by its shitastic gear selector and stubby handle if it weren’t for flex volt id still have that over the milwaukee

wait a sec. you don’t use the 996 because of flexvolt. wouldn’t flexvolt make the 996 a bit more powerful? I guess I don’t understand your reasoning for flexvolt being the reason you don’t have it over the Milwaukee. I agree DeWALT has had bad gear selectors for awhile. I do like that it is 3 speed instead of 2 speed.

I don’t think there’s any arguing that the 996 side handle is long enough. @JimboS1ice is fight about that. I don’t find the gear selector is any worse than my 2704 though. It was a bitch to not skip 2nd at first because it required so much force, its much better now. The 2704 was awful to switch early on too, smooth as silk now comparatively. 

I wish the gear selector on the 2704 was recessed like the 996. It’s too easy to bump while drilling and the grinding noise that follows just isn’t good

I’m with you @Bremon, no issues whatsoever with the gear selector on my 996 after breaking it in awhile. If these tools are used as intended, to do actual work, they tend to settle in a bit, imo. 

Tool tests are fun to watch, but real world experience is where it’s at. I imagine any of the top-tier tools would be perfectly acceptable to most, that is as long as they hold up and function as intended.

Just my opinion, of course.

wildroamer wrote:

22 minutes ago, wildroamer said:

I’m with you @Bremon, no issues whatsoever with the gear selector on my 996 after breaking it in awhile. If these tools are used as intended, to do actual work, they tend to settle in a bit, imo. 

 

Tool tests are fun to watch, but real world experience is where it’s at. I imagine any of the top-tier tools would be perfectly acceptable to most, that is as long as they hold up and function as intended.

Just my opinion, of course.

Thank you!

wildroamer wrote:

4 hours ago, wildroamer said:

I’m with you @Bremon, no issues whatsoever with the gear selector on my 996 after breaking it in awhile. If these tools are used as intended, to do actual work, they tend to settle in a bit, imo. 

 

Tool tests are fun to watch, but real world experience is where it’s at. I imagine any of the top-tier tools would be perfectly acceptable to most, that is as long as they hold up and function as intended.

Just my opinion, of course.

I agree, though I would like to see a simple torque test between the Super Hawg and the Fuel Hammer drill. I know soft torque is difficult to measure but simply connecting both drills to a torque wrench to measure hard torque would be interesting. I just don’t see how the Fuel Hammer has roughly 40% more torque than the Super Hawg (95nm vs.135nm).

Or even a simple tear down between the two. I  know gearing has a larger effect on torque, but I assumed the Super Hawg had the larger motor…now I am not so sure.

They could have the same motor and the Hawg could still have more torque due to gearing. 350, 950, and 1200 I believe for Super Hawg low, high, and Hole Hawg RPM respectively. 2704 low and high are 550(?) and 2000. Both Hawgs should have more torque in High and the Super should obliterate the standard drill in Low. 

Bremon wrote:

36 minutes ago, Bremon said:

They could have the same motor and the Hawg could still have more torque due to gearing. 350, 950, and 1200 I believe for Super Hawg low, high, and Hole Hawg RPM respectively. 2704 low and high are 550(?) and 2000. Both Hawgs should have more torque in High and the Super should obliterate the standard drill in Low. 

I know, the Hawg has lower gearing and I assume at least the same size motor if not larger. The Hawg should wipe the floor with the Fuel Hammer. What are they doing? comparing the Hawg’s torque in high(1200) vs. the 2740 torque in low (550)? or something like that, doesn’t make sense.

tpamatmat wrote:

4 hours ago, tpamatmat said:

I know, the Hawg has lower gearing and I assume at least the same size motor if not larger. The Hawg should wipe the floor with the Fuel Hammer. What are they doing? comparing the Hawg’s torque in high(1200) vs. the 2740 torque in low (550)? or something like that, doesn’t make sense.

They are just measuring the max torque in whatever gear provides it. In the 2704 that happens to be low gear and the since the hole hawg only has one gear that’s it. They aren’t comparing, u/we are.  I felt the same way until I bought the hole hawg. Now I feel like it’s trying to compare a sawzall with a bandsaw. Although they can be used for similar tasks I think they are 2 different tools with 2 different purposes.  All I can say is that the hole hawg feels like a beast, even compared to my 2704. I can’t even imagine what the dewalt stud and joist drill feels like

Super Hawg and DeBeast are like comparing 1 ton diesels to an ecoboost F150. The half ton can do a lot of the same work but it works harder, isn’t as efficient, and therefore might not last as long. The capability of the F150 and standard form-factor premium drills like the 2704 are both getting to be technical marvels but when it comes to the toughest jobs you get the big machine out. I’m very tempted to buy DeBeast (super Hawg won’t fit in a tough box lol) and I’ve been lusting over the Hole Hawg for about half a year now but both are a waste of money in my case. Wouldn’t see near enough use to justify one, just like my half ton does just fine by me though I love the look of the new Sierra and F250 lol. 

AnonymousJoe wrote:

42 minutes ago, AnonymousJoe said:

They are just measuring the max torque in whatever gear provides it. In the 2704 that happens to be low gear and the since the hole hawg only has one gear that’s it. They aren’t comparing, u/we are.  I felt the same way until I bought the hole hawg. Now I feel like it’s trying to compare a sawzall with a bandsaw. Although they can be used for similar tasks I think they are 2 different tools with 2 different purposes.  All I can say is that the hole hawg feels like a beast, even compared to my 2704. I can’t even imagine what the dewalt stud and joist drill feels like

I was referring to the Super Hawg with the 350 rpm gearing(my fault dropped the “Super” in my post)

I am glad you have both drills(2704/Standard Hawg) for direct comparison. The EU site lists the standard Hawg’s torque at only 25Nm. This is only 1/5th’s of the 2704’s torque@135Nm? But you say the standard Hawg feels like a beast in comparison, so I assume the paper specs are complete hogwash, right? For example, with a large auger bit in wet PT the 2704 can’t keep up.