# M18 Surge



## Majewski (Jan 8, 2016)

Yeah dude, I got em, like em, just buy one. You'll like it.


----------



## Dark Knight (Jan 6, 2016)

How does it compare to a regular fuel impact? Obviously the noise factor is a big deal, both for around customers and also I don't want to be deaf by the time I'm 50 from having an impact ratcheting in my ears for 25 years. But what about performance? Equal or better?


----------



## TGGT (Oct 28, 2012)

Less peak torque, but a much broader torque curve. It's applying force for a longer duration, essentially, so I imagine it's as fast if not faster.










Here's a comparison.






The reviewer had a follow up video and said that issue he had running a bore through a piece of 2x4 was because he had it on the "screw" setting, so it kept stalling out, but it doesn't do that on the appropriate setting.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Majewski said:


> Yeah dude, I got em, like em, just buy one. You'll like it.


Have you compared it to the standard impact gun?

The Surge says it has 450 inlbs. of torque while the standard Fuel impact has 1,800 inlbs. It's said that the Surge has a higher sustained torque or something like that, which makes it comparable even though the torque spec is much lower.

Personally, I don't mind the noise of the standard impact, so the Surge would have to have some other benefit for me to spend more money on it.


----------



## Majewski (Jan 8, 2016)

I'm not techi with it, I just use it and beat it to ****. It's barely different to me because I think they're all fudgin loud. I don't have any complaints though.


----------



## Dark Knight (Jan 6, 2016)

HackWork said:


> Have you compared it to the standard impact gun?
> 
> The Surge says it has 450 inlbs. of torque while the standard Fuel impact has 1,800 inlbs. It's said that the Surge has a higher sustained torque or something like that, which makes it comparable even though the torque spec is much lower.
> 
> Personally, I don't mind the noise of the standard impact, so the Surge would have to have some other benefit for me to spend more money on it.


I don't need any good reasons to buy new tools. 

I don't mind the noise either unless I'm not feeling well. I'm more worried about long term impact on my hearing.


----------



## Majewski (Jan 8, 2016)

If hearing is the issue, you're doomed regardless. Look into nice noise cancellation stuff. I like to use my bluetooth earbuds and keep one in most of the time.


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

Milwaukee is killing it, they can sell ice cubes to eskimos at this point. 

It sounded to me on paper like it's something between a drill and a standard impact. A drill has constant torque, a standard impact has very high peak torque for very short duration, this has peak torque in between and duration in between. (I don't know if their marketing materials show the average torque over time but I bet it's similar with the drill being highest.) The noise follows too is in between. 

The performance on big deck screws in wood looks about the same, so for a carpenter it's about a wash, although I'd want to see which one has better battery life with deck screws. For me I don't drive that many large screws so it's no big deal. If they aren't pimping the battery life, I'd bet it's either the same or worse than the standard impact. 

I smell a rat with the boring holes in wood, where the surge type looks way worse than the standard in the video. Either he's trying not to make Milwaukee look bad or he's a really ****ty reviewer. If you did something like that, wouldn't you take the fifteen minutes to re-do your video? If you did a follow up, wouldn't you take the two minutes to repeat the test? I wonder if he's actually a professional or a DIYer. 

The noise isn't a big deal for me. You have to make some noise so your customers can see your earning your money. 



TGGT said:


> Less peak torque, but a much broader torque curve. It's applying force for a longer duration, essentially, so I imagine it's as fast if not faster.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## TGGT (Oct 28, 2012)

I posted a little diagram of the torque comparison but I see it's not showing up on my phone.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## Dark Knight (Jan 6, 2016)

TGGT said:


> I posted a little diagram of the torque comparison but I see it's not showing up on my phone.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


It showed up. It's the one off their website, right? I've seen it before, I was just looking for real world performance vs. what Milwaukee states.


----------



## Dark Knight (Jan 6, 2016)

splatz said:


> Milwaukee is killing it, they can sell ice cubes to eskimos at this point.
> 
> It sounded to me on paper like it's something between a drill and a standard impact. A drill has constant torque, a standard impact has very high peak torque for very short duration, this has peak torque in between and duration in between. (I don't know if their marketing materials show the average torque over time but I bet it's similar with the drill being highest.) The noise follows too is in between.
> 
> ...


You would think the battery life would have to be worse, considering the torque is sustained at a constant level. But then again, it's also far lower torque than the regular fuel. Maybe it's a wash.

I noticed the hole thing as well, and in other videos I've seen the surge is always slower too. But I drill about 1 hole a year with my impact so that's a non issue for me. I have drills for that. 

One thing I've heard as well is that tool life should be longer because the surge is hydraulic, hence the quieter operation. A regular impact has metal plates slamming together that will have a lot more wear and tear issues than using oil.


----------



## zac (May 11, 2009)

Suckers!









Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## MechanicalDVR (Dec 29, 2007)

zac said:


> Suckers!



:thumbup:

I use that guy all the the time, you don't always need impact.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

TGGT said:


> I posted a little diagram of the torque comparison but I see it's not showing up on my phone.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


I saw that diagram and it doesn't make sense to me.

Would you rather use a sledge hammer to beat a ground rod in, or a little trim hammer that hit for a longer period of time?

1,800 inlbs. is a LOT more torque than 450.

What I really want is a more powerful M12 impact. It has 1,200 inlbs which is great, but not enough to turn in 1/4" tapcons all the way.


----------



## Dark Knight (Jan 6, 2016)

HackWork said:


> I saw that diagram and it doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> Would you rather use a sledge hammer to beat a ground rod in, or a little trim hammer that hit for a longer period of time?
> 
> ...


According to that diagram you're smashing that ground rod once hard followed by a bunch of love taps, most of which are less impactfull than your little hammer.

I am curious how it does with tapcons and other high torque requiring applications. I never considered that.


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

I could see the reliability going either way. On the one hand, there's lower impact / lower torque, but on the other, you have a more complicated mechanism, miniatureized hydraulics. 

The analogy with the ground rod and little hammer is right to the point; there's a point where you can hit it for the rest of your life with the little hammer, it's moving zero. Then you wish you had a bigger hammer. An impact driver is like that, you'll get some things that just won't go. Boring holes, if it happens to catch a certain way it needs a hard bump to keep moving, you have to back it out or wiggle it to get it going again where if it had adequate torque it would have blown right through.


----------



## Dark Knight (Jan 6, 2016)

It's a good analogy, but it breaks down pretty quickly as you've got points where you're getting near zero torque. 
You can show me 2 trucks, and one of them goes 140 km/h and the other can go 180 km/h. It's not accurate to say you need the one that goes 180 because it's better. 140 is plenty more than I need. 

The question is, how much torque do I need in an impact to do my job the most efficiently. Maybe 450 lbs is enough. IMO, 1800 is too much as I often snap the heads off screws. And according to the video, having the high peak doesn't drive 3" screws in any faster.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

As soon as the torque goes down to zero you get another impact which gives you a huge amount of torque. The torque is for a short period of time just like a hammer strike. Of course between strikes there’s zero force being pushed on the object you’re hitting, that’s why you hit it another time. Impact guns hit thousands of times. 

That graph is just a gimmick. Would you rather hammer a nail in or try to press it into the wood with the palm of your hand giving constant pressure? 

There is zero energy being applied to a ground rod when you’re lifting the sledge hammer back up. But that is meaningless, since you’re going to swing it again applying a huge amount of force. 

The whole point of an impact gun is to give large impact. That’s how the high torque is created.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

I bought the Fuel Surge, realized I didn't need it, then returned it new in the box.


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

I might try it.


----------



## PaddyF924 (Feb 2, 2017)

HackWork said:


> TGGT said:
> 
> 
> > I posted a little diagram of the torque comparison but I see it's not showing up on my phone.
> ...


There's a 2nd generation m12 fuel impact coming out


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

PaddyF924 said:


> There's a 2nd generation m12 fuel impact coming out


Any info on it?

My Dewalt 18V impact gun used to be able to drive 1/4" tapcons in, that had 1,330 inlbs. of torque. My Milwaukee M12 with 1,200 inlbs. just won't drive them all the way in.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

PaddyF924 said:


> There's a 2nd generation m12 fuel impact coming out



:thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## PaddyF924 (Feb 2, 2017)

They had it at their expo over summer and had given it release date for the end of the year. There were reviews of it saying it was even more compact. I can't remember the torque ratings tho


----------



## PaddyF924 (Feb 2, 2017)

https://toolcraze.net/new-milwaukee-tools-nps2017-m12-m18-power-tools/


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

PaddyF924 said:


> https://toolcraze.net/new-milwaukee-tools-nps2017-m12-m18-power-tools/


Thanks, looks like I'll be buying that.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

PaddyF924 said:


> https://toolcraze.net/new-milwaukee-tools-nps2017-m12-m18-power-tools/


Finally, an M18 Fuel Hackzall. I don't know what took them so long on that one. :001_huh:


----------



## PaddyF924 (Feb 2, 2017)

HackWork said:


> PaddyF924 said:
> 
> 
> > https://toolcraze.net/new-milwaukee-tools-nps2017-m12-m18-power-tools/
> ...


No problem. Reading the forum over the years I've used a few of your tricks


----------



## quick_2 (Dec 12, 2012)

I've got the surge, i dont care much about specs. It drives everything that i have tried to drive with it very well, and its fairly quiet. 
And then someone with an older impact is working next to you, and I realize again just how much I appreciate how quiet it is. You kind of forget until you listen to someone elses


----------



## Dark Knight (Jan 6, 2016)

Chris1971 said:


> I might try it.


I'll probably order one soon. Just been waiting for a possible black Friday deal.


----------

