VeggieBoards banner
1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
When I went raw, first thing I did was get a juicer - but being fairly broke, I got pretty much the cheapest one I could find. It seems to be getting worn out (no shock there) and I think I'd like to save up and replace it with a better one that'll last longer.

Does anyone here have a particular brand/juicer they would recommend? Right now I'm kind of looking at the Jack Lalanne types and the Breville ones, but I don't have my heart set on those if you have a brand you think is better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
I love my Champion. Same model for years. IT's a work horse. I know the Tribest & GreenStar are excellent too! I'm not sure what "cheaper" juicer you have but the Jack LaLanne is not bad for the price. I also have one of those. But you can't go wrong with the Champion. It's like comparing a reg blender to Vita-a-Mixer. When you have the more powerful motor you've got a better product. It's worth the extra money in the long run.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,272 Posts
There are several good ones that was mentioned but we have the black Jack alane's juicer elite, its the one that makes soy, rice and almond milk as well.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,763 Posts
Either the Acme Juicerator 6001 or its identical twin, the Waring Pro PCE401. See the review dated 2011 Nov 21, by nomenclator. These get a little more juice out of your veggies, than your pulp-ejector centrifugals. If you want to juice mostly leafy greens, perhaps you should get a masticator instead of a centrifugal. Masticators are a lot more expensive than the Acme-waring centrifugal. Centrifugals are better for root vegetables, celery, apples, and similar firm plant matter. I don't believe that the lower speed and consequent less air introduction produced by the masticators, make a significant difference in the nutritional qualities of the juice. Just whipping air into the juice doesn't cause oxidation. You need the air to remain in contact, for a significant length of time; then nutrients gradually oxidize. And I don't believe the introduction of air causes the centrifugal juice to last significantly longer in the fridge, with significantly less oxidation. Why? Because when the juice is sitting in the fridge, the air gradually leaves the juice. After a few minutes, the juice resulting from centrifugation, doesn't have much more whipped-in air remaining in it, than the juice resulting from electrically-powered mastication. In either case, let the juice sit around for an hour, and you will lose a significant amount of micronutrients, with either juicer; drink the juice within 5 minutes of making it, and both juicers will provide juice with similar levels of micronutrients, with minimal loss of nutrients.

The Waring Pro PJC44 is the same juicer, but includes a citrus attachment in addition. The Acme Juicerator 5001 is the same as the Acme 6001 except the bowl and cover are plastic instead of stainless steel. The Acme 6001C (the 6001 commercial model) is much more expensive than the Acme 6001. I checked replacement part numbers, it has the same bowl, basket, blade, and nut, as the 6001. That just leaves the motor and the motor housing. I have to assume that the only difference, if anything, is a motor that is designed to last longer. The 6001C is available in 120 or 240 volt models. People have been using their 6001 every day for 50 years, changing the shredder blade once every 4 years, replacing the rubber feet once every 25 years - that's about it. They are still going strong. I assume you would want a 6001C only if you are juicing hour after hour, day after day.

The Omega 9000 (formerly the Olympic) is very very similar to the Acme and Waring models, with the main difference being it has a different kind of clamp to hold the cover down. This has advantages and disadvantages. See nomenclator's review for a comparison of clamps. I haven't checked this first hand, but I've heard that the shredder plates and clutch nuts are identical. The Waring-Acmes usually sell for less than the Omegas.

I personally own a Waring PJE401 which I bought a few weeks ago and have found it very satisfactory. The basket is not as perfectly balanced as people like to say it is, but it is adequately balanced and very nicely constructed with good welds, nicely eyeballed symmetry of welded-on parts, and quality screen material. The basket is all stainless steel. Most (pulp-ejector) juicers have stainless steel sieve material but it is held in a rigid conic-section form by a plastic framework. The shredder plate is all stainless except for a very small, thin, nylon ring on the underside. The bowl and cover are both all stainless. The clutch nut is mostly nylon. While some people claim the workmanship on the Acme has deteriorated since it was bought out by Waring, and that the Omega is better, I am skeptical of this claim. It looks well-made to me. The label on the box says that the Waring is "assembled in the US." From parts made glob-knows where, the label doesn't say. Only way to tell is to disassemble it enough to void the warrantee. I have owned 3 juicers in the last 40 years, and the Waring is the only one I've been happy with. The other 3 were all pulp-ejectors. The last one, a Panasonic, the shredder plate bumped into, and ground up, the end of the plastic feeder tube every time I turned the machine on and put in the first carrot or whatever. I got tired of the taste of plastic and bought the Waring. I always wanted the Waring ever since I saw one in the late 60's or early 70's. But being in a hurry to get juice, and get healthy, I put my savings down on juicers that cost half the price, thinking they would be ok for awhile. But the difference is like night and day.

If anyone tries to convince you that a pulp-ejecting juicer is less work and less time-consuming to use, when making a large batch (or a small batch), than an Acme-Waring centrifugal non-ejector, or an Olympic centrifugal non-ejector, or if anyone tries to convince you that cleanup after you've finished a batch, is easier, I suggest you examine both kinds for yourself. Look at their covers. Look at the shape of the pulp basket on a plain centrifugal verses the pulp bucket on the ejector juicer you have been told is easier to use. Can you clean out that pulp bucket on the ejector any more easily than you can clean out that big basket on the Waring-Acme? And what about the cover on the ejector? Is it a simple a big round shape like the Waring-Acme, or does it have lots of nooks and crannies that are hard to clean with a hand, sponge, or brush? The only pulp-ejector I've seen (but not used) which I would suggest, is the Omega 4000. Unlike most other pulp-ejectors, this one has less hard to clean corners in the cover, but it still has some, as does the pulp bucket, though it is not as bad as most. And you can line the bucket with a plastic bag (at the risk of having the bucket make a poor seal with the cover, and pulp being squirted out all over your kitchen). It does have a large shredder blade which is replaceable separately from the conic-section sieve, and the blade is held down with a nut, making it hard for the blade and the bottom of the feed tube to contact each other and damage each other. The Omega 4000 is about the same price, if not more, than the Acme-Waring. It would be nice if the Waring-Acme had a brake, but still, you really don't have to wait for its turning to stop, before you can open the cover. Pull the cover straight up, to avoid having the basket drag against the cover. And after you open it, be careful not to juice your fingers on the shredder plate. Then you can slow down the turning basket with your fingers on the top. See Ken Anderson's youtube demo. Disclaimer: Ken's views don't necessarily all reflect my own.

When receiving any new juicer, I'd look at the shredder plate with a magnifying glass to make sure that it hasn't bounced around during shipping, and been dulled. The cutting edges are made by pounding the disk with an awl-like tool, at an angle. so as to form a little spike with a sharp point. There will be about 100 little spikes. Maybe more. Take a look at them all. Make sure no more than 4 or 5 of the little spikes have points that have been flattend, bent over, or worn down. I think the shredder plate will still work OK even with 20 or 30 spikes flattened, but really, why should one accept a blade in that condition, if it is purported to be new?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,945 Posts
Thought this might be a good place to ask this question: Should I get a juicer or a really good blender like a Vitamix? I was thinking the latter, because I really need to get more greens in my diet and thought green smoothies would be a good way. My current blender cannot handle a frozen banana.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,763 Posts
I make almond milk from whole, blanched almonds. By simply blending them up with water in a cheap blender, or by grinding them up to almond butter (releases the oils) in a food processor. They store this way for months in the fridge. Whenver I need almond millk, I add water to the almond butter. Using the blender if I want it lumpless quickly. A preferred way to make almond butter would be to use large nut mill or grain mill with variable speeds and stones or burrs. But these are very expensive. Several $100 probably more. A good food processor is about $100.

The skins contain tannic acid which is a stomach irritant and in my opinion degrades the flavor. It does have plenty of fiber, but it doesn't really have much in the way of nutrients. Plus milk made from almonds with skins isn't really "milky."
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,763 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by delicioso View Post

Thought this might be a good place to ask this question: Should I get a juicer or a really good blender like a Vitamix? I was thinking the latter, because I really need to get more greens in my diet and thought green smoothies would be a good way. My current blender cannot handle a frozen banana.
A cheap $20-30 Oster will handle 2.5 frozen bananas at a time. Comes with instructions for shaving ice. I'd let the banana thaw for about 10 minutes before blending. Until it is soft enough so that you can get a fork through it with difficulty (as opposed to not at all).

Osters are very common and replacement blades are widely available. Just about every model for the last 40 years uses the same blade. Also, the blade has an oil-filled bronze or brass bearing held in a stainless steel carrier. Must more rugged and durable than the plastic blade carriers most blenders have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
961 Posts
we have a jack lalane juicer. ive never had another juicer to compare it to but i really like it. it works great and when we got it they had it on sale for buy one get free lol. but i really do like it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by delicioso View Post

Thought this might be a good place to ask this question: Should I get a juicer or a really good blender like a Vitamix? I was thinking the latter, because I really need to get more greens in my diet and thought green smoothies would be a good way. My current blender cannot handle a frozen banana.
I have a Vitamix. It's amazing, and I believe it came with a lifetime warranty (don't quote me on that). It will make juice out of anything and can make rice, soy, and almond milk as well. It comes with a pretty vegan-friendly recipe book as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Well, I ended up caving in to advertising (sort of) and budget by getting the Breville (Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead used that brand) and getting the Compact Fountain one, because the higher end ones in their line were just too much out of my budget, even though I was trying to go up. (I had a cheapo Black and Decker before.)

I just used it, and I have to say, I absolutely love it, and clean-up was a breeeeze.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,763 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kumo View Post

Well, I ended up caving in to advertising (sort of) and budget by getting the Breville (Fat, Sick, and Nearly Dead used that brand) and getting the Compact Fountain one, because the higher end ones in their line were just too much out of my budget, even though I was trying to go up. (I had a cheapo Black and Decker before.)

I just used it, and I have to say, I absolutely love it, and clean-up was a breeeeze.
The Breville Compact Fountain demonstrated here, and here, and being sold here, is this your machine?

Breville has a reputation for making well-made, reliable machines. And at $100 this unit appears to be priced about right. It should work well and be easier to clean than almost any other machine. Black and Decker has a reputation for finding the cheapest way to make a machine, so that it looks ok, can be sold below a "price-point," and amazingly, will actually work, at least for a short time. So I'm not surprised you like your Breville better than your Black and Decker. And the Breville looks like one of the easiest pulp-ejector machines to clean. You should get many years of terrific juice out of it, without having to endure excess cleanup drudgery. Excellent!

I took a look at how it operates, and at the inside of the cover, and the bowl, in regard to how easy they would be to clean, at this youtube demo, and this one. You can compare with the waring-acme, here.

I noticed a few things though, that I just had to comment on. It is a pulp-ejector type machine, in the sense that the pulp shoots out over a conically shaped basket, instead of staying within a cylindrically shaped basket. But what is the purpose of having pulp ejection if, just like with a non-ejector, after a short period of time you have to stop the machine, remove the cover to get to the pulp, and take the pulp out from inside the machine, before you can continue juicing? It is being ejected into the same relatively small place that the non-ejectors put their pulp! Weird. So you have to turn off the machine and remove the pulp just as frequently as with a non-ejector machine. But it doesn't have the advantage of non-ejectors, which is (1) the slight advantage of turning at a lower speed to minimize froth, and oxidation, and most significantly, (2) letting the pulp spin longer, and getting more juice out of it. Ejectors usually have a huge bucket so that you can continue juicing indefinitely, before having to stop the machine to remove pulp, if ever. Or so you can can quickly switch buckets and juice non-stop, indefinitely. On most models, you can even put a bag inside the bucket, so that cleaning up the bucket is made easier. If the manufacturer wanted to, as the salesman in the first video says, reduce the "footprint" of the machine, by not having "a separate pulp container," I would want to manufacture, instead, a simpler, non-ejector machine, which has those further advantages, beyond just the smaller footprint. This talk about "smaller footprint" is a marketing ploy to direct your attention away from a major disadvantage, by pointing to an advantage, and one that is implemented poorly. Magician's sleight of hand. Misdirection. My guess is that this machine uses the same motor, and same shredder plate and sieve assembly, as one or more of their other machines, and that for this machine they had their designer draw up plans for a differently shaped "high-grade polymer" bowl and cover, to be sent to the manufacturer that makes the polymer parts. Possibly also different motor housing. This saved them the trouble of designing and manufacturing a different shredder plate and seive, and enable them to purchase a particular shredder plate and seive assembly, in larger quantity, for lower cost per unit. Then they called their spin doctor to write up the marketing copy for the "compact" model, that you hear in the first video. Then they have an actor with a pretty face speak the marketing copy to maximize the chances that people will look at the things she points to and won't look too much at anything else.

My initial instinctive reaction to the actor, was what an annoying, idiotic woman. But then of course I realized that she is an actor doing her job well, and deserving my respect. The real culprit is hiding, sneaking around like a rat in an apartment building, leaving droppings all over the place, but hard to locate and identify.

Another thing I noticed in the first video, is the claim about how fast the machine spins. Another sleight of hand, misdirection. Faster spinning does not correlate well with faster juice extraction, and does not correlate at all, with "more power." With an ejector type machine, the speed must be chosen to correlate with the size of the shredder plate, the size and angle of the sieve, and the coefficient of friction between the pulp and the sieve. Spin too slow, and pulp does not go whizzing over the top of the sieve and into the pulp catcher. Spin too fast, and it goes whizzing too fast, and less juice is removed, before it gets to the pulp chamber.

Another thing, the feed tube is large, but it has an obstruction inside, that the salesman calls a "stabilizing knife," that prevents putting in a piece of vegetable as large as the tube. It is simply a piece of plastic sticking into the feed tube and obstructing it. Probably easy to break off. To get the vegetable all the way down the feed tube, you have to cut the vegetable into a smaller size than the size that fits into feed tube at the top. Why not simply make a smaller feed tube? This would be a better way of guiding the vegetable to the right part of the blade. Another misdirection, sleight of hand.

Is this machine the easiest to clean? Perhaps. In regard to ejectors, take a look at the Omega 4000, here. It looks about as easy to clean. The omega 4000's cover has some angular corners. The Breville's cover looks easier. But the Omega 4000's bowl looks a bit easier than the Breville's. The Breville's shredder-sieve assembly looks easy, as does the Omega 4000's.

The Breville's bowl looks like it would be its hardest part to clean, but be pretty easy to clean. I'd have to take a closer look at it. I'd submit that the Waring-Acme non-ejector may be the easiest. The cover is about same. Its bowl looks easier than the Breville's. The Waring-Acme's sieve basket is its hardest part. I think the Waring-Acme's basket would be easier to clean than the Breville's hardest part, the Breville's bowl, but I haven't seen Breville's bowl up close, or actually tried to clean it. But if you use paper filters in the Waring-Acme, it blows everything else out of the water. Cleaning it becomes just a matter of giving giving the cover and bowl a quick rinse, and removing the filter from the basket. A few specs of pulp will fall out. Wipe these few specs out with a damp cloth. Takes a few moments. Rinse - there is almost nothing to rinse away - and you're done. You don't have to brush the holes in the sieve to get pulp out of them. There isn't any.

As far as "durability and performance" obtained by using "high grade materials," this claim is totally ridiculous, in regard to "high-grade polymer materials." The kind of polymer used in the Breville is nowhere near as durable as the stainless steel used in the Acme-Waring stainless model, or the polymer used in their polymer model, and the Breville's polymer has the same strength and durability as the similar polymers used in many other machines. And as pulp spins in it, it abrades it, adding bits of very finely pulverized polymer to your juice, and and pulp, and making the bowl look cloudy after a few dozen uses. I wouldn't worry too much about it the small amounts of polymer in my food. But stainless steel is generally regarded as safer. It is harder, and less of it ends up in your juice, and pulp. While there is some slight suspician that traces of polymers in your juice or pulp may have some slight toxicity, with repeated daily ingestion, the very tiny amounts of iron that end up in your food, from abrasion of stainless steel, as well as the nearly un-measurable traces of nickel, are generally regarded as micronutrients, rather than as suspected toxins. Most experts in toxicity of materials that food comes into contact with, regard food grade stainless steel as second in safety after food grade glass or food grade glazed ceramics, and very nearly as safe. While plastic resins such as the Breville's polymer are in another class altogether. I might add that the polymer used is harder to clean than stainless steel. Tiny pulp particles kind of get embedded in it and are hard to wipe off.

I'd like to ask: how is the shredder plate attached to the motor? This is one of the most important aspects of juicer design. While a plate held to the motor by gravity is faster to remove and replace: if the machine should vibrate due to an uneven load or uneven pressure on it, it can strike the bottom of the feed tube while spinning, causing both to be damaged. A machine that doesn't have a method for keeping the plate from riding up, such as by screwing it onto the motor shaft, or holding it on with a nut or bolt, is likely to have poor durability. As long as an unbalanced load doesn't occur, it will be fine. But it is hard to assure that this never happens. It is too easy for a bit of pulp to stick to the sieve, and cause it to vibrate, and then ride up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
119 Posts
I've heard that the Breville juicer is great if you're on a budget. I have the Omega 8006 and it works really well. It's a little more expensive (around $300 US), but there's a 15 year warranty, so it's very cost friendly in the long-term. It's also very quiet and easy to clean. I use it mostly for leafy greens (especially kale), but it's also good with other leafy greens, wheatgrass, etc. I need to use it more often though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,067 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonanimal View Post

I use it mostly for leafy greens (especially kale), but it's also good with other leafy greens, wheatgrass, etc. I need to use it more often though.
You make juice from kale?
That can't taste very good.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,763 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonanimal View Post

I've heard that the Breville juicer is great if you're on a budget. I have the Omega 8006 and it works really well. It's a little more expensive (around $300 US), but there's a 15 year warranty, so it's very cost friendly in the long-term. It's also very quiet and easy to clean. I use it mostly for leafy greens (especially kale), but it's also good with other leafy greens, wheatgrass, etc. I need to use it more often though.
The Omega 8006 is a terrific juicer, but it is three times as much as the Breville Compact, and almost twice as much as the Acme-Waring centrifugal. Masticators like the 8006 get more juice out of leafies, but are quite a bit slower than centrifugal juicers at juicing hard veggies like carrots, yams, squash. Unlike the centrifugals, the 8006 will make nut butters - maybe even turn animals into chopped meat.

I am skeptical about how easy to clean it is. The housing that holds the auger - can you fit your hand or a brush inside and reach all the corners? The auger itself is harder to clean than a shredder plate. And like a centrifugal, it has a screen to clean.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,067 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by soilman View Post

Unlike the centrifugals, the 8006 will make nut butters - maybe even turn animals into chopped meat.
I've heard the 9500 model turns little children screaming for their lives into a medium-thick blood soup.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
119 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by soilman View Post

The Omega 8006 is a terrific juicer, but it is three times as much as the Breville Compact, and almost twice as much as the Acme-Waring centrifugal.
Yes, it's more expensive. But a lot of the Breville juicers have a 1-year warranty, whereas the Omega 8006 has a 15-year warranty. And some Breville juicers (like the Breville Juice Fountain Elite) are just as expensive, but again only have a 1-year warranty (and maybe a 3-year warranty for the motor). If you're looking to spend around $100, then I'd go with the Breville Compact. But I wouldn't buy a Breville juicer for anything more than that. The warranty just isn't good enough.

Quote:
Masticators like the 8006 get more juice out of leafies, but are quite a bit slower than centrifugal juicers at juicing hard veggies like carrots, yams, squash. Unlike the centrifugals, the 8006 will make nut butters - maybe even turn animals into chopped meat.
I have no interest in using it for anything involving animal products. But you're right, it's not as good with hard vegetables. If I wanted to juice a lot of carrots, I would have looked into another juicer. But I mainly use it for kale, lettuce, etc. and that's where it really excels. It's also pretty versatile... I haven't tried it with nut butters but I've made ice cream using frozen bananas.

Quote:
I am skeptical about how easy to clean it is. The housing that holds the auger - can you fit your hand or a brush inside and reach all the corners? The auger itself is harder to clean than a shredder plate. And like a centrifugal, it has a screen to clean.
The housing that holds the auger can be detached really easily, same with the auger. And I wouldn't say the auger is harder to clean than a shredder plate. You can just rinse it under the tap if you wanted to. The most time-consuming part is the screen, but that's just a minute or two. If you're interested, there's a review of the Omega 8006 where it shows how the juicer is cleaned. It's from 8:40-9:45 in the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r437hboI_U
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,763 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonanimal View Post

Yes, it's more expensive. But a lot of the Breville juicers have a 1-year warranty, whereas the Omega 8006 has a 15-year warranty. And some Breville juicers (like the Breville Juice Fountain Elite) are just as expensive, but again only have a 1-year warranty (and maybe a 3-year warranty for the motor). If you're looking to spend around $100, then I'd go with the Breville Compact. But I wouldn't buy a Breville juicer for anything more than that. The warranty just isn't good enough.

I have no interest in using it for anything involving animal products. But you're right, it's not as good with hard vegetables. If I wanted to juice a lot of carrots, I would have looked into another juicer. But I mainly use it for kale, lettuce, etc. and that's where it really excels. It's also pretty versatile... I haven't tried it with nut butters but I've made ice cream using frozen bananas.

The housing that holds the auger can be detached really easily, same with the auger. And I wouldn't say the auger is harder to clean than a shredder plate. You can just rinse it under the tap if you wanted to. The most time-consuming part is the screen, but that's just a minute or two. If you're interested, there's a review of the Omega 8006 where it shows how the juicer is cleaned. It's from 8:40-9:45 in the video.
I think that video how I learned how difficult to clean it is. Yes you can detach the housing that holds the auger, but it is still small, and getting a hand or brush or small sponge or cloth inside to brush or wipe all its internal surfaces, looks like it would be much much harder than reaching into any of the parts on the Breville compact, the Acme-Waring, or the Omega 4000. Since the auger housing is plastic, which is much softer than stainless steel, rinsing is often not enough, as tiny particles of pulp become slightly embedded in it, and need to be accosted by a brush or sponge in order to be removed.

The screen is rather small, it surfaces are accessible, and particles caught in the holes are easily brushed out.

If you have a properly made device, you don't need a warrantee. Whether something is well constructed is easier to ascertain, than how dependable a company really going to be, years from now, when you make a warrantee claim. Companies that reneg on their warrantee claim are quite common. Not saying that this is the case with omega. In any case, I doubt you don't need a warrantee for the motor. I'd bet they've had to replace very few of them, if any. It is likely to last 40 years or more with thrice daily use. The plastic parts look less robust, especially that auger housing. I believe some of the older masticators had stainless steel auger housing. Properly welded piece of stainless steel sheet metal, is likely to last 150 years.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top