Boxford Cud or ML7

[Trevor HowleyParticipant @trevorhowley19606]

As above Boxford Cud or ML7 I’m torn between the two is either better than the other ?

[Robert Atkinson 2Participant @robertatkinson2]

Assuming identical condition and accessories like chucks and you have the space, the Boxford without a doubt. My choice would be a BUD with VFD and Electronic Lead Screw.
Im a Myford owner.

Robert.

[Trevor HowleyParticipant @trevorhowley19606]

Why the VFD what benefits does this give.

[Trevor Howley]

On Trevor Howley Said:

Why the VFD what benefits does this give.

Variable speed + other programmable options, while driving a 3 phase motor.  A far better option than a single phase motor any day of the week.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

When buying second-hand lathes, I suggest condition matters far more than who made it.  And if all the accessories are still with it.

Assuming both are in good nick, I vote Boxford!  More solid than Myfords and less likely to be over priced.

Much depends on what the lathe is for.  A Boxford CUD is about a third as heavy again as an ML7 – is that good or bad?   If the lathe is a difficult install due to access problems, then the lighter ML7 is easier to handle.   If the lathe is required for seriously hard work, then the CUD is better.

Boxfords were preferred by industry and education because they are more robust.   That means they are more likely to have been abused than a Myford, but don’t  assume that!  Many Myfords were also worked good and hard.  A CUD was markedly more expensive than an ML7, but that means spares are expensive,  Condition!!!

On the downside, both are relatively slow, which is a disadvantage if you want to use carbide inserts.

Both lathes were made before electronics, so are probably fitted with single-phase motors.  They’re a compromise, not awful, but they vibrate, have poor starting torque, don’t speed control, and dislike stop-start operation.   The alternative is a 3-phase motor and VFD, which has a lot of advantages, but I would upgrade when the old motor kicks the bucket.  (Or brushless DC)

And are you metric or imperial?

Dave

 

 

[bernard towersParticipant @bernardtowers37738]

Sorry but by the way you talk I wonder how anyone manages with a single phase machine.

[Nicholas FarrParticipant @nicholasfarr14254]

Hi, well I’ve had my Boxford CUD for twenty odd years, it had a 3/4 HP three phase motor on it from new, but I changed it for a new 1 HP single phase one, I have used some carbide tools on it, and it’s had thousands of stop starts without any trouble, and been used all day long many times, but it was used in industry before I bought it, and it hadn’t been abused. I wouldn’t change it for a Myford, although I do have a Myford “M” type, which was near enough given to me.

Regards Nick.

[Chris CrewParticipant @chriscrew66644]

• If you go down the Myford path, forget about an ML7, look out for a Super7 or at least an ML7R. The reason being that the Super7 and ML7R have a 60 tooth bull wheel which is very useful for dividing. The Super7 has a better top slide design and zero resettable dials. Avoid the ML10 like the plague. The Boxford is a far more rigid machine but will have far fewer attachments and enhancements designed for it over the years. That is not to say they cannot be adapted for a Boxford,  I am sure many have been, but as the Myford was the model engineer’s machine of choice for many years they are mostly designed with this machine in mind. I used an ML7R with a single phase motor without a clutch for over 35years and all the stopping and starting doesn’t seem to have damaged it,  although a contact on the Dewhirst reverse switch did get burnt through arcing, nor did I ever notice any practical lack of torque on starting. I have since enhanced my ML7R to almost Super7 spec., less gearbox and power cross feed. And that raises another point. If you need to cut odd threads and worms a gearbox is a hindrance with change wheels being a more convenient option.

[Speedy Builder5Participant @speedybuilder5]

I was trained on an ML7 – with its die cast dials, flat ways and its serious limit on the angle settings of the top slide. The first lathe I bought was a worn out Southbend and later “upgraded” to an ex schools Boxford.  I don’t think the ML7 can do anything a Boxford can do, however the reverse is not true.

Bob

 

[bernard towers]

On bernard towers Said:

Sorry but by the way you talk I wonder how anyone manages with a single phase machine.

Oh, you can manage with a single phase motor but you don’t have to. You only realise how bad single phase motors are when you replace one with a 3 phase motor without changing anythng else on the machine. You don’t need a “resilient mount” with 3 phase. A VFD brings additional benefits. Brushless DC motors have similar benefits but the term covers too many different systems to be meaningful for comparision.
Replacing a 3 phase motor with a single phase these days is spoiling the ship for a ha’porth of tar.

Robert.

[SillyOldDuffer]

On SillyOldDuffer Said:

<SNIP>Much depends on what the lathe is for.  A Boxford CUD is about a third as heavy again as an ML7 <SNIP>

Dave

 

 

Hi Dave, Don’t you mean 3 times as heavy?
A ML7 with motor is under 85kg A CUD  is 254kg (from lathes.co.uk).
The Boxfords do break down into smaller bits.

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

Chris says Myfords were the choice of the model engineers for many years.

I would strongly suggest that was due to its cheapness – and not a lot more!  Much the same reason as why most model engineers bought cheap chinese machinery, from late in the last century to date.

I would insist that Boxfords, Raglans and others were far superior to the myford offerings – but at considerably greater expense.

Many worked plans and designs (of model builds) were arranged around the myfords because of their popularity – many before milling machines were readily available at reasonable (for modellers) prices.

Those plans included the (now regarded as limited) use of the vertical slide which enhanced the use of the lathe.  Few would prefer the vertical slide on a  myford rather than a lathe and mill, these days.

Clearly the myford with vertical slide was good enough for very precise work – particularly by experienced machinists.  That is not generally the case in this century, where two separate machines are far more convenient than a multipurpose machine which is a compromise at best.

As Robert says, you can <i>manage</i> with single phase motors.  These were fitted because most homes only had a single phase supply.  No other reason as three phase motors would have been both cheaper and better.  I run 3 phase motors wherever possible, to the point of replacing single phase motors, given the opportunity.

[bernard towers]

On bernard towers Said:

Sorry but by the way you talk I wonder how anyone manages with a single phase machine.

Bernard misunderstands!  I said, my bold :  They’re a compromise, not awful, but … I would upgrade when the old motor kicks the bucket. 

Just in case Bernard has a problem with “the way I talk”, here’s what Electrical Matters on lathes.co.uk says about the opposite case, 3-phase to single phase motor conversions:

Should you decide to change a 3-phase motor for a 1-phase one some thought is necessary to get the best out of the conversion. It is as well to bear in mind that a single-phase motor is not the direct equivalent of a three-phase type. A 1-phase motor is best run continuously near its rated capacity (i.e. worked nearly flat out); if the motor is switched on and off frequently against “no load” the windings will be damaged and, if run through a cycle where it is started, worked briefly, stopped and started again, the capacitor will fail.
A machine tool with a 1 h.p. 3-phase motor should, in theory, run just as well with a 1 h.p. 1-phase motor – but, life’s not like that. If you need your machine to perform as well as it did with its original motor – and run to the same top speed without struggling (and it is by no means certain that you will) – you may well find that, for power for power, for ease of starting and long-term reliability, a successful and reliable conversion to 1-phase requires a motor which is marked as being some 30% to 50% more powerful – but do take care and see the notes below

That folk manage with single-phase motors isn’t “job done”, better is available.  Many Myford owners have upgraded to 3-phase/VFD, and – as far as I know, no-one regrets it!   Doesn’t mean owners should rush to change, by all means put up with single-phase until it goes wrong.  Then consider replacing the motor with 3-phase + VFD.

Dave

[Robert Atkinson 2]

On Robert Atkinson 2 Said:

On SillyOldDuffer Said:

<SNIP>Much depends on what the lathe is for.  A Boxford CUD is about a third as heavy again as an ML7 <SNIP>

Dave

 

 

Hi Dave, Don’t you mean 3 times as heavy?
A ML7 with motor is under 85kg A CUD  is 254kg (from lathes.co.uk).
The Boxfords do break down into smaller bits.

I attempted to find the weight of the lathes, and it’s confusing because the ML7 and motor can be plonked on a bench as a unit (no stand), whereas the Boxford comes with a hefty stand containing the motor and switching.  Stand/no stand makes it hard to compare weights directly!  But we all agree that a Boxford CUD is considerably heavier than an ML7.  And they cost far more too…

Dave

 

 

 

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Do you have a mill, intend to get one or just use the lathe for milling?

If the later then the Myford would be the better bet particularly with the long cross slide as it is more suited for milling than the Boxford there are many myford accesories that can also be used for milling.

If just turning then go for the Boxford.

[William ChithamParticipant @williamchitham75949]

I can’t compare the two having never owned or used a Myford but perhaps these observations on the Boxford CUD might be helpful. I bought mine as a CUD but pretty quickly decided that it had some serious limitations:

no powered cross feed

powered longitudinal feed via the half nuts, consequently the lead screw and half nuts were worn out

no gearbox

no flat surfaces on the cross slide or top slide – this seriously limits the possibilities for non standard operations, milling, line boring etc

parts and accessories such as steady rests, milling attachments, T-slotted cross slides etc are ruinously expensive, much more than Myford equivalents as far as I can see.

I have since upgraded it to AUD spec with gearbox and powered feeds both ways and a VFD (it came with a 3 phase motor) but I look forward to the day I have the space and finance for something altogether heftier.

I would not advise against a Boxford but I would suggest you by the absolute best specified one you can get, a late AUD with T-slot crosslide, 3 & 4 jaw chucks, steady rests, thread counter etc.

William.

[Clive Brown 1Participant @clivebrown1]

The OP quoted Boxford C against ML7. These are approximately comparable specification levels. The higher spec. Boxfords are more akin to the Super 7 range. All are good machines within their capabilities, with  Boxfords being slightly larger but usually cheaper to buy. I like my Boxford, I have friends who turn out truly excellent work on their Myfords. The Myfords can perhaps be more versatile for the model maker. Condition is important and look for a well equipped example. It also depends on the OPs intended use.

Re milling in these lathes. The Boxford vertical slide is pricey and not easy to find s/h now but it knocks the Myford slides for six in terms of rigidity.

 

[Charles LamontParticipant @charleslamont71117]

Having owned both, I agree that a Super 7 is superior to an ML7 to a perhaps surprising degree.

[Chris GunnParticipant @chrisgunn36534]

One of the big reasons Myfords got so popular was the brilliant marketing of the Myfords at the time. Many of the contributors to the ME were given Myfords, so all the construction articles were full of pictures of Myfords, and the contributors spoke well of them. They also wrote about the upgrades and improvements a lot. This legacy goes on today.

When I worked in the British Steel Controls system dept years ago, three lathe types were available for use in our workshop, for relatively light work,  none were allocated to any specific operator, so one chose one that was available. The 3 Kneller lathes were first choice, you wont see many of them about now, the Boxfords were second choice, and the Myfords the least popular.

Chris Gunn

[Trevor HowleyParticipant @trevorhowley19606]

Well  , this gives me some more to think about thank you guys .

[BazyleParticipant @bazyle]

Yes other lathes need consideration. This afternoon I I got to use a (equivalent of) Clarke 500 which is very solid and luckily for us can turn the 11in wheel we needed to bore. I was impressed. Since we were boring the V-bed of the Boxford would have been an advantage (if not worn to oblivion).
While I agree some of the extras can be expensive for a Boxford you can make steadies and use a modern Chinese vertical slide. The long and slotted cross-slide is not essential if you have a mill though desirable for a rear toolpost so just make one.
Note as well as a V-bed note the saddle ‘wings’. This improves the alignment and is a significant deficiency on a lot of the older hobby lathes.

[HollowpointParticipant @hollowpoint]

Some weird advice in here. I’ve had both. The Boxford is superior. Why?

Bigger headstock bore

Angular contact bearings

Prism bed ways

Better dials

Back gear

Overall more rigid

 

Don’t worry about a VFD, it’s not important for a newbie, yes it’s better, but its something that you can add later. Your budget would be better spent on tooling. I would also add that nearly every ML7 I’ve ever seen has been very worn or abused. So the chances of getting a bad one are higher imo. I think because they were often a “first proper lathe” they found their way into the hands of many amateurs who made all their mistakes on them and abused them. Boxfords in comparison were mostly used under supervision in schools and colleges, and being of more robust design, the chances of getting a bad one is lower. Again imo.

 

[bernard towersParticipant @bernardtowers37738]

sorry but dont get the “better dials and back gear bit”

[Trevor Howley]

On Trevor Howley Said:

Well  , this gives me some more to think about thank you guys .

Helps enormously to know the type of work the lathe is intended for but a beginner may not know where his interests will take him.    For example:

• For clockmaking, best to buy a watchmakers lathe.
• Something up to Super 7 size is good for general purpose work in a small workshop.
• For motorbikes and above, Super 7 size is a bit small, and too small for repairing railway wagons.

In ye olden days, buying a lathe was a lifetime investment.   When the ML7 appeared in 1947 it was by far the best option within a hobby budget, and then the even better Super 7 was affordable at a stretch.  Myford held pole position for 30 years, but today there are many alternatives.

I started out with a Chinese Mini-lathe.   I bought one to learn on, not as a keeper.   Several advantages: an easy 2-person lift; quiet enough to be used indoors; all basic functions; powerful enough to cut steel; big enough to tackle many jobs (80% of a Myford); widely available with delivery sorted; buying new means condition is low risk; and affordable!

Using a mini-lathe for a couple of years taught me a great deal about what to look for in a lathe, and I also settled on the type and scale of work I was going to major on.  I discovered that mini-lathes are nowhere near as bad as many fervently believe, certainly not “a kit of parts”.  They are far from perfect.   I could be unkind about the change-gears, which work OK, but are a pain to set-up, gritty feel, and various other shortcomings.   In short, getting the best out of a mini-lathe takes more skill and time.   In my case the mini-lathe’s chief sin was being too small for about 30% of the work I do.

So, I sold it and bought a bigger Chinese lathe.   I wanted the replacement to be about 20% bigger than a Super7, and have speed control and other modern features.   A WM280 was just the right size and weight to fit in my workshop alongside a bench, mill and other machines.   Runs off an ordinary power socket so no fuss with the electrics.  Expecting to do heavier work, I intended to upgrade again later to an ex-industrial machine but never happened – a WM280 and WM18 mill between them do everything I need.

You might consider a similar approach.  Buy a Chinese lathe to gain experience, and change it if it’s no good.

Have you discovered lathes.co.uk?   Lots of good information about the pros and cons of older lathes and mills.  It doesn’t cover Far Eastern machines.

Dave

 

 

[bernard towers]

On bernard towers Said:

sorry but dont get the “better dials and back gear bit”

The boxford has a back gear for more torque. I don’t believe that the myford does.

The dials on the ml7 are terrible, some sort of alloy casting with a very sharp edge. They aren’t that clear to read either. The Boxford has nicely plated and etched dials.

[Author]

Posts