Milwaukee updated their popular M18 Fuel 2767 heavy duty cordless impact wrench, and there seems to be a problem with the new design.
Update 10/7/22: Milwaukee Tool provided a new statement, skip to it below.
Torque Test Channel received numerous complaints from users about their recently purchased Milwaukee 2767 impact wrenches, and how the tools were breaking unexpectedly.
Advertisement
Examination of the broken tools point towards the new components as the common mode of failure.
I have spoken to Milwaukee Tool – they are taking this very seriously and are investigating the matter.
In the meantime, I would advise holding off on purchasing the 2767 unless you are able to handpick a copy of the previous revision. Or, buy the 2767 from a retailer with an easy return policy, and keep your receipt in a safe place.
User Failure Reports
Torque Test Channel (TTC for short) is a popular YouTube channel that specializes in independent testing of fastening tools and related products. I trust their opinions and findings.
TTC shared with me – and now in public video (embedded at the end of this post) – that they had received an unusual number of user complaints about the typically well-regarded Milwaukee M18 Fuel 2767 cordless impact wrench.
Users reported two types of issues.
Advertisement
Some tools appear to suffer from intermittent power delivery when the trigger switch is first pressed, only in certain modes, and temporarily. From the footage I examined, the tools seem to stutter for up to a few seconds at low speeds before operating at full speed.
More significantly, there have been reports of mechanical failure. I was shown evidence of partial failure, which had resulted in diminished performance, and also complete failure where tools were rendered completely non-functional.
How the Gear Box was Updated
TTC discovered that Milwaukee updated the 2767 impact around August 2022.
The previous 2767 design has serial numbers with the prefix H96A. We’ll call this the “A” model or revision.
The newer revision has serial numbers with the prefix H96B, or “B”.
Looking closely at the A model’s drivetrain assembly, the cam shaft (12) houses the planet gears (14) in a one-piece cage, with the planet pins (15) slip-fit and supported on both ends. The rear end of the cam shaft is centered in the rear gear case (20) via a large bearing (17). A washer (16) between the gear cage and bearing retains the planet pins.
Looking at the B model’s drivetrain, the cam shaft (12) has the planet pins pre-installed via press-fit. The planet gears (14) slip onto the pins and are held in place via a large washer (69). A ring (68), described as the rear washer in the parts diagram, serves as a spacer in the rear gear case (20) and also a bushing.
A Closer Look at the Powertrain
From what TTC has seen with high repeatability, the planet pins are bending and breaking after high torque applications.
Model A: Planet gears are arranged within a cage structure, with the planet pins slipped through and supported on both ends.
Model B: Planet gears are slipped onto planet pins, which are fixed to the cam shaft on one end.
For both versions of the tool, the rotor is held concentric at the front via a bearing (part 29 in both diagrams above) that is seated at the rear of the gear case (not shown here), and at the rear via the end cap. The hammer assemblies are held concentric at the front housing via a bushing.
Model A: The hammer assembly is radially supported at the rear with a large bearing. The planetary gears are positioned between front and rear radial supports.
Model B: The hammer assembly is radially supported at the rear with a bushing (rear washer). The planetary gears are positioned beyond the rear radial support.
The 2767’s “A” design’s powertrain is relatively standard for impact wrenches and in general. It’s not the only way a planetary gear box can be configured, but it’s tried-and-true. It is unclear what prompted Milwaukee to redesign it.
I have been looking at everything from planetary gear load distribution modeling to failure analysis, and there are so many things that can go wrong.
I would urge everyone to avoid jumping to any assumptions.
If I had to guess, I would suspect an unaccounted-for vibrational force (possibly from the bushing placement) that is increasing the load on the planet pins well beyond design specs.
Whatever the cause, this seems like the type of problem that no amount of modeling, simulation, or in-house testing could have predicted or revealed. But, it’s showing up as users put the revised 2767 impacts to work, and that’s a problem.
I would give Milwaukee engineers the benefit of the doubt; they could have taken every precaution to ensure the B model performed as well as the A model under any and all conditions. But, even with such efforts, things won’t always go according to plan.
It’s unfortunate, but these things happen.
Kudos to Torque Test Channel
TTC put a lot of work into investigating, replicating, and sharing about the Rev B models in a responsible and respectable manner. They went above-and-beyond to serve and protect the interests of their audience and end users.
I am sure that the issue would have been noticed and investigated as users and service centers reported tool failures to Milwaukee.
But from what I can tell, TTC’s quick, diligent, and thorough attention to the matter alerted Milwaukee Tool and end users about it earlier.
Milwaukee Tool is Investigating
Milwaukee is investigating the issue, and provided the following statement:
We take all feedback seriously, and our teams are actively investigating this claim. If anyone in your audience is experiencing dissatisfaction, please send them our way! They have a couple of options…
The first is to return the tool to us for repair utilizing our eService portal. This allows them to send it to us, free of charge, to be evaluated by Milwaukee technicians to determine if their repair is covered under warranty or to provide an estimated max repair price. All tools are repaired with genuine Milwaukee parts and the average turnaround time is about 7-10 business days.
They can also have their tool repaired through their nearest authorized service. They can find their nearest center here. Lastly, they can always give us a call at 1-800-SAWDUST from 8:00am to 6:00pm CT, Monday-Friday.
ToolGuyd Opinion and Recommendations
If you have a “B” model, what have your experiences been like?
In my opinion, given what I have learned:
If you’re buying the 2767 in person, check the serial number on the outside of the box – you want the version with serial number starting with H96A.
If you buy the 2767 with serial number starting with H96B, keep your receipt handy. The issue might only affect some but not all Rev B models – nobody knows just yet why these tools are breaking, only how.
If ordering online, smaller independent retailers might be able to check serial numbers in the warehouse.
If your tool fails after the return period, consult Milwaukee’s advice, above.
My local Home Depot had a promotional display with plenty of copies of the impact wrench. All but one were the previous A model. There’s a sticker on each box with the serial number.
If you want the A model, they’re still out there.
I’ll provide updates as I learn more.
Torque Test Channel’s Video
Milwaukee Tool Update
Milwaukee Tool provided a statement on 10/7/2022. I have added line breaks for easier readability. Here is what they said:
[Statement Begins]
We have recently learned that a number of users are experiencing issues with their 2767-20 ½” High Torque Impact Wrench w/ Friction Ring, and quickly launched an in-depth investigation to understand the claims.
Upon investigation, 2 distinct issues were uncovered:
1) We recently implemented a new mechanical design in the model 2767-20. This new design is distinguished by “H96B” in the serial code.
This new design has not held up to the Milwaukee name and will no longer be sold.
Our developmental testing of this mechanism did not reveal the symptoms described by users, but the feedback is clear, and our decision to replace product is ultimately the right thing to do for them.
We will continue to produce the original design that has been on the market for years, that is distinguished by “H96A” in the serial code. We will immediately stop production of the new design distinguished by “H96B” in the serial code.
2) There are also variances in electrical tolerances that may cause some tools to “stutter”. This was exacerbated by the new mechanical design in 2767-20 inventory that is distinguished by “H96B” in the serial code.
If users are experiencing an issue, they are encouraged to send their tool in for repair or replacement by utilizing our eService portal. All products with the “H96B” distinction on the serial code will be replaced with “H96A”.
Frequently Asked Questions
If I wanted to purchase the 2767, but am hesitant to do so until inventory with the original design is available, what should I do?
There is currently a mix of “H96A” and “H96B” serial codes for the 2767-20 in inventory at authorized Milwaukee Distributors.
The ONLY product affected is the 2767-20 in bare tool packaging distinguished by “H96B” in the serial code. These products are being sent back to Milwaukee Tool and will be replaced with inventory of “H96A” by November 1st.
Why did you make the design change at all? Why mess with a good thing?
Products can change several times within their lifetime for a variety of reasons, but the goal is always to exceed the users’ expectations. This time we clearly did not hit the mark.
Will the new tool have the same level of performance as the original?
Yes, we are reverting back to the original “H96A” mechanical design that has been on the market for years.
Why didn’t you catch this before it went to market?
A thorough investigation is in progress. We applied the exact same test parameters for both the original and the new design.
[End of Statement]
Jeffro4704
I just ordered one from Home Depot Thursday. Got the wrench, protective boot, and a 9 pc deep well socket set for $300. Hopefully they send me the A version.
Jeffro4704
Darn, got the “B” version. Guess it’s going back to Home Depot.
Big Ray
I found a parts list and side by side diagrams for the A and the B.
I recently bought a B model.
Order the A parts today for about 70$$.
Got mine from ebay, so returning it is not an option.
I am hoping the parts are not on backorder…
Been hearing good things about M.E. for years, finally buy one and this happens.
SteveP
TBH, if they were “doing the right thing” they’d simply replace it – no questions asked
Brandon S
You don’t a retailers help get warranty/service help. Go to Milwaukee website and visit their service side and make a ticket. They pay for the shipping and everything and it’s VERY easy! I used to distribute Milwaukee tools, and this is the same system anybody can use to service their tools.
Jeffityy
You have a 5 year warranty. Just replace it.
Mateo
Considering how many examples they lay out of it being cradle death or dead on arrival it could be a rather batch specific issue, otherwise it’d be an extremely troubling reflection on their qc as a whole.
Adam
Seems too significant of internal changes to be just a bad batch.
What I’m more surprised at is that they were supposedly made in August, and already showing up on shelves. That doesn’t sound like any supply chain delay’s there. I know HD has there own transport now, so I wonder if only new versions have shown up there so far.
Mateo
Right, I believe the design change is weaker overall. But maybe so many failures this quick could be a batch issue within the revised model.
That is true… maybe a sign of “with everything going on” “supply chain issues” days finally being over.
Dave
Supply chain delays affect raw materials and parts. Once those parts finally make it to the factory, a month to get on store shelfs seems normal. Says nothing to the state of the current supply chain shortages which are very much still a thing.
Lance
This is not QC, this is cheapening the design for more profit, and knowing full well the decrease in strength and durability of the change. This is called Value Engineering.
“Whatever the cause, this seems like the type of problem that no amount of modeling, simulation, or in-house testing could have predicted or revealed.”
I disagree 100%. This change would have been thoroughly tested to failure many times over and compared to data on the previous version. No way does a company of this stature implement a Value Engineering change like this without a comprehensive understanding and risk/benefit analysis of the change.
The word Value implies money, and yes a change like this is to save money and increase profit margins. There’s no other reason to radically change a successful product.
Milwaukee are marketing geniuses and are busy right now working on what their public statement will be on this issue. I expect they will recall all model B tools and replace with model C, which will be a stronger version of the changes seen in model B, and will take many months to roll out.
The low road approach could be to blame QC and just leave the motel B in circulation, hoping that not everyone will push it hard enough to break it. If all it ever does is lug nuts and the electronics don’t give out, they may provide years of service before breaking at which point the problem is just passed on to the customer.
Let’s see how this one plays out.
W4114C3
In the youtube video the guy breaks 4-5 of them fresh out of the box in the parking lot of HD on lug nuts.
Mike
I exchanged 3 of them at home depot. Another one was fixed by Milwaukee but it was worse one received. I sent mine out again for the random delay when pulling the trigger. I have low expectations after reading this article. 12ah battery really makes it mess up.
Matt W
Yeah, although Im in the business of software and not hardware, you don’t just make a change and let it loose with your fingers crossed. All changes always go through testing. Given these failures it’s hard to believe that this would have been release without knowing of its flaws, and if they didn’t know then they absolutely failed to do the basics of their jobs. The only way this could possibly have blindsided the company is if they have been stung by dodgy materials when getting to the mass production phase, in any case there is less margin for error in the new design and definitely less robust.
Greg
They probably didn’t test them since it is such a high failure rate. Any testing on the production version would have revealed this. The word is out on this and will hurt Milwaukee’s reputation and sales more than any money they saved. The c model will be taken apart on launch to see the changes. Hopefully they will revert back to the 96a design that is a proven winner.
Bobby C
You hit the nail on the head!
The engineer who warned them that this was not going to work has likely been layed off and the brainiac who pushed this through got their bonus and has been promoted.
This is the reality of it.
Rob
I wish I could say you are full of it.
However what you are full of is REALITY and most likely the truth.
dar
yup, BC, all ya gotta do is pick at random any Dilbert ‘toon
for where it’s at these days…quality has gone the way of the dinosaur.
Rx9
Well, I’m glad this is blowing up on social media. Without the internet, the sin of Value engineering would go unpunished.
Big Ray
Agreed
Ferdylong
Please let’s not jump into such conclusions yet.
Matt+the+Hoople
Yes, value engineering indeed. I am not fond of it as I work for a company that does it a lot. It’s can be, but is not always a bad thing as it can lead to innovation and improved design in some cases. This could be a poor design which would certainly not be a QC issue. It could also be that the production components like the pins that hold the gears did not meet the specs. This could be a QC issue at a sub-supplier that ME wasn’t aware of. Have dealt with many questionable suppliers where the samples and prototypes look great and then the production is suspect. ME should have a lab to verify material properties of critical components so not sure what happened here. It would be hard to believe that they did not test the heck out of the new design. It could be that the new design tested great when all components are in spec but is unforgiving if built with components that are out of spec or at low end of the tolerance. The design certainly looks to be less robust and I suspect is less forgiving when all of the individual parts are not up to snuff. Not sure how they could miss this if they are random sampling production lots.
Stuart
From TTC, the tools achieve full rated torque. The problem is that this cannot be sustained, and the tools are suffering from early mechanical failure.
This doesn’t seem like something that would show up in typical QC testing.
MM
I’m unaware what constitutes standard testing of tools in this industry, but if I were involved with production and had the power to make decisions I’d have a couple guys grab some of the first few off the production line, a big stack of 12ah batts, and tell them to go hammer on an impossibly large/tight fastener at full power until they either run down a few batteries with no problems or break something. Clearly that’s no replacement for a proper test protocol, but it IS a very fast, inexpensive, sanity check that can deliver some information while everybody is waiting on the proper, formal, test protocol to be completed & the data analyzed.
Steve
At NASA we would test components of assemblies, but that is no substitute for testing at the assembly level. The vernacular is test them as you would fly them (environmentally, thermally, shock, etc). Essentially just what you are suggesting your end users were to do.
Stuart
@MM
When I make a coding change here, I usually develop and test in an isolated environment. If all is well, I then implement and then test the live changes in multiple devices and browser environments.
Sometimes issues don’t appear right away, and I never know about it until a reader chimes in with a comment or email.
My understanding is that Milwaukee tests prototypes in the lab and field before sending tools to production. It’s possible that was done here and the issue still wasn’t caught.
MM
@Stuart,
Absolutely, there are certainly some problems which aren’t found during testing. But in my opinion this problem doesn’t seem like that kind of problem. This problem isn’t something obscure that only happens under certain rare conditions, this is a widely repeatable problem which is very easily discovered with even very basic testing. The TTC Youtube video features a guy who had tool after tool fail in the HD parking lot trying to remove a lug nut on a normal passenger vehicle. If the tool can’t even bust off a ~100 ft-lb lug nut how are we supposed to believe that it was “thoroughly tested” to deliver its quoted spec of “1400 lbs of nut-busting torque” ? This problem seems like one that even the most basic testing protocol of “go thrash on a few of these for a while, then we’ll tear them down and see if there’s any obvious problems” would detect. This is not a special edge case where some lucky combination of parameters results in a problem, this is a failure of the most basic function of the tool. If we are to take Milwaukee at their word that this revision was tested as much as the original, what does that tell us about their test procedures?
Stuart
@MM
That’s only evidence there’s a problem. It seems that some tools are failing quickly, but not all of them. There are simply too many unknowns, and too many competing possibilities..
MM
@Stuart,
Yes, that’s “only evidence that you have a problem”. But what more do you need in order to make the decision to stop production of the new design? You don’t need to know the full extent of the how-and-why in order to make the choice to stop shipping substandard products to customers.
Roy Oldaker
I have thousands of dollars worth of Milwaukee tools
In the past 3 months 3 of my tools has quit working . I sent 2 of the tools back.never heard anything from them. I called the said they called and no answer. The put the tool in the trash.long story short. They sent me replacements. The tools they sent are NOT nearly as good and powerful as the old ones
we’re. Just got those back and my drill quit
I AM NOT HAPPY WITH MILWAUKEE AT ALL.. ROY OLDAKER
Pat
I totally agree, I also have thousands of dollars of Milwaukee tools. I have the 2767 A model and it only worked one time straight out of the box. Used it for two lug nuts then quit working, no abuse there. Called customer service,(I know it was past the warranty period) just hoping Milwaukee would stand behind their product(s) . Sorry was their response.
Time to start looking for better made tools …if that’s possible.
Collin
The switch issue is easy. Quit using cheap Chinese switches.
Switch issues have been a motif for Milwaukee tools since before this 2767 debacle.
Greg
Yea the earlier 96a didn’t have this problem the later ones do. It could be battery contact issues too.
Steve
I wonder if the design and/or manufacturing was done in China. Appears like no quality assurance program was done, or is superficial. Even pulling minimal samples off the line could not have missed this level of failure.
Stuart
Made in Vietnam.
Greg
Owned by TTI based in Hong Kong , China 🇨🇳
MM
This looks to me like this was a cost-cutting design change and it came back to bite them in the rear. Like Stuart wrote the original “A” revision is common practice, but just looking at a glance this “B” design seems poor to me. First off that large bearing which supports the rear of the camshaft has been removed. But more importantly, the “B” revision puts a lot more load on the pins which the planet gears ride on. In the A revision those pins are supported on both ends. In the B revision they are only supported on one end. It’s the difference between a Fixed and a Cantilevered beam, the “A” design is weaker.
In my opinion load-bearing pins and shafts should be supported on both ends whenever possible, this is just basic good design practice. Overhung shaft loads are to be avoided whenever possible. It is especially true in this case where there is shock loading.
TomD
I also wonder if this is an attempt to standardize across similar impact drivers and wrenches. I know TTC has created some Frankenstein tools by swapping the impact heads.
Sean
The change they made is honestly a little shocking. For exactly the reason you said, this is a poor idea even on the drawing board. And obviously it did not pan out in practice.
Milwaukee may have had various issues on the electrical end over the years, but from the tools I’ve torn down, the mechanicals/geartrains have always been really, really solid. Almost overkill. The M18 Fuel Jigsaw is a prime example.
This change, however, is a wild swing in the opposite direction. I might expect this level of cost-cutting/’streamlining’ in a Ryobi tool, but it’s kind of shocking to see on Milwaukee’s historically stellar geartrains. (For the record, even Ryobi’s equivalent high torque has the planetary gear pins captured on both ends.)
I really hope this was just some supply chain issue that forced them to do this. Or some kind of misguided experiment to make the internals shorter for the next generation of more compact tools – which appears to be the only advantage to this design other than cost-savings.
Jared
I’m surprised, but for slightly different reasons.
Milwaukee has engineers, it’s their job to make sure a design change like this is up to the task. A change like that is deliberate – maybe it’s done in the name of streamlining and cost-cutting, but it would be an awfully big error if no one checked that the new design was strong enough and they just rolled the dice.
My armchair guess is that the problem is at least one step farther back in the design process. E.g. maybe it was spec’d with pins made of tougher steel and Milwaukee’s supplier screwed up the heat treatment. Maybe the bearings had more play that was expected and introduced different stress points. Stuart mentioned the bushing placement.
Hence the comments “there are so many things that can go wrong” and “avoid jumping to any assumptions.” While the new design looks weaker, odds are it was plenty strong enough in modelling = there is probably some aspect that wasn’t accounted for.
MM
The pins being out of spec absolutely could cause this problem. If the pins were a weaker alloy or improperly heat treated that could explain the failures.
That said, I still feel this involves a cost-cutting move which changed the mechanism for the worse. When it comes to this specific failure–shearing off the pins–the “A” version is twice as strong as the “B”. With B the pin can simply break in half, but for the pins to fail in A they have to shear in two places simultaneously. There is also the fact there is likely more slop in the parts with configuration B without the bearing present to support the end of the anvil. Computer modeling is fantastic, but I feel there is still room for human thought to enter the equation.
MM
I just watched TTC’s video all the way through and with that new information I no longer believe this is an issue of improper heat treat on the pins. The first photos show broken pins…OK, that could be overhardening of the metal or the wrong grade of steel causing them to fail. But the impact wrench belonging to “Chris” which was tested in the video shows a different mode of failure. The pins are wiggling loose from where they are press fit into the camshaft. Note the video at about 10:29 where we can see just how shallow those pins go into the camshaft. The constant impact motion going back through the gear train is pushing and pulling those pins from side to side, just like how you might wiggle a post in the ground before pulling it out.
I predict that the mode of failure is that the press fit joint between the pins and the camshaft is not strong enough. Without the full support from the original cage the forces involved eventually work the pins loose from their holes. Once they start working loose and there is play in the mechanism the hammering action breaks the pins. Note how in Grizz’s photograph you can see that both halves of the pins are lying on the paper towel. In other words when that impact was torn down the pins were no longer press-fit and simply fell out. If the pins were failing due to improper heat treat one-half of each pin should still remain in the camshaft.
Stuart
It’s also possible the spec is wrong.
Lyle
Don’t you mean the B design is weaker?
MM
Yes indeed! Thank you for catching my mistake. I couldn’t decide if I wanted to say “A is stronger” or “B is weaker” and ended up flubbing it.
Lawrence Scism
All battery powered impact wrenches are trash not enough power to the motor for large vehicles with 100 lb torque or better with a 12 volt battery pack. Even if it does loosen some lugs it’s not going to hold a charge to Finnish a job.
Fred
I carry the m18 impact wrench in my wrecker for tire changes. I use a red lithium 5.0 battery which lasts me 3 week in every day use. Today I changed a tire on a Toyota tundra with 20 inch wheels no problem
Doc
You hit the nail on the head. Planetary axle support. A serial number axle supported, B serial number are not. A cost factor change that will probably end up costing them more.
Rx9
“In my opinion load-bearing pins and shafts should be supported on both ends whenever possible, this is just basic good design practice. Overhung shaft loads are to be avoided whenever possible.”
Absolutely. This the reason why full-crankshaft engines are a desirable feature on string trimmers and other outdoor equipment and half-crank designs are absent from commercial grade OPE lines.
It’s possible to build strong overhung support designs in the same way that you can build a reciprocating engine with oval pistons (see the Honda NR500).
Yes, it can be done, but to put it another way – “the juice ain’t worth the squeeze”.
A W
Possible typo:
Hells in place by a “large washer (19)”. It looks like the washer in the diagram is p/n 69.
A W
*Held, lol. I should check my own work for typos next time!
Stuart
Sorry – yes! *fixed*
Dave
I bought mine at HD in mid-September. I just checked the serial no. It’s a “B” model. Kinda pissed now.
TomD
Might be worth a swing through a few HDs to see if they have any As left.
Fitch
I did that and found one Oct 5, 2022 (Yesterday).
Liam
not able to predict this failure fue to vibration?? It’s an impact gun, ffs. Beancounting idiocracy shit like this is why this electro-mech ain’t working in the industry.
Stuart
Look up the Tacoma Narrows Bridge failure.
TomD
That was unknown forces (at the time) operating against a structure in a way not expected. I’ve heard that the SF bay bridge was designed 100x too strong, but because of unknowns at the time it actually is only 10x.
Stuart
Exactly my point.
In this case, there could be unknown factors increasing the actual load on the planetary pins beyond what modeling or simulations predicted.
MM
It’s absolutely possible there’s some complex interaction of forces that nobody anticipated or and was never predicted in their sophisicated computer modeling.
Or it’s possible that they greatly weakened the mechanism when they removed end support from the planet gear pins and that big ball bearing.
Occam’s razor.
Lance
Stuart, that’s what testing is for – to identify issues that modelling didn’t predict.
A comprehensive testing program also includes components representing the extremes of their specs, so pins at their hardest, softest, thickest, thinnest, longest, shortest, etc. Milwaukee is full of smart Engineering staff that can easily figure this stuff out, if they want to or are allowed to by management.
Collin.
Don’t forget that Milwaukee failed to predict that the vibration on the 2767 kills the battery/tool interface.
TTC’s latest video shows a rubber strap being used to secure a battery to the Milwaukee impact wrench. Zip ties, duct tape, and even custom made straps are available for the 2767 to more positively secure the battery to the tool. Without the aftermarket retention mechanisms, the tool quickly becomes damaged to the point of not being able to make proper contact with the battery, which leads to a dead tool, unless you use your free hand to cradle the battery against the 2767.
Makita has rubber battery vibration countermeasures, on the other hand.
Don’t forget the vibration issue in the M18 string trimmer. Many reports of white dust on the batteries after use–the glass fiber reinforced plastic tool and battery housings are literally being pulverized during use of the tool. This eventually leads to a poor battery-tool connection, which causes arcing at the terminals, which then leads to the numerous reports of melted batteries on the M18 trimmer.
SamR
Yes, my M18 trimmer has a terrible pulverized in every use, and I am sure it is just a matter of time before something breaks down. I am not sure how to DIY fix it!
Collin
I’d probably try zip-ties to better secure the battery to the tool so there’s not as much battery-on-tool vibration.
Or maybe a strap like the ones they make for the 2767.
https://www.jerseydiscounttoolco.com/product-page/jdtco-shock-strap-3-pack
Mike
Wow didn’t realize this was a Milwaukee tool Homer page. Don’t jump to conclusions? It’s very clearly a cost savings move. Now amount of modeling could predict? I don’t know, just test the tool after you cheap out to save a few bucks. If you have this cheaper model, return return return. It will clearly break.
Stuart
The more I looked into planetary gear designs, the more I realized the issue or potential issue is way more complicated than I originally understood or assumed.
Consider all of the recalls and bulletins released for cars and trucks on an ongoing basis as new issues are discovered.
Milwaukee has a proven track record. You don’t have to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I will.
Munklepunk
Milwaukee at least seems to keep up with problems and offer quick solutions. Their customer service seems to be quite good.
Chris
This is a design change fail and won’t be fixed anytime soon
Adam
It would probably take months to redesign & figure out… or go back with what wasn’t broke.
They only raised the price $50 on one of their most popular tools. One would think they could have afforded to keep things the same.
Munklepunk
My reasoning is that Milwaukee puts out so many new tools, necessary or not, they probably already have the next one in design phase, and there one after that.
MJJ
“Whatever the cause, this seems like the type of problem that no amount of modeling, simulation, or in-house testing could have predicted or revealed. But, it’s showing up as users put the revised 2767 impacts to work, and that’s a problem.”
So unlike other tool manufacturers, Milwaukee no longer field tests (beta) it’s equipment?
As a retired Sr management, engineer from a Fortune 100 hardware manufacturer, our test engineering group would send out hundreds upon hundreds of RTM (and alpha/beta) models to endusers who were especially interested in testing the limits of our products. That’s how we discovered what we couldn’t replicate in real world work environments.
Not to say things didn’t occur but they were rare. We involved others with alpha testing during modeling and design to acquire other “sets of eyes” since we only had some many test engineers internally.
I would hope Milwaukee actually takes this seriously rather than pushing it off to repair which will cause loyalty issues to the brand.
JMHO
Stuart
This is something I would have expected them to do.
Did they not? There are too many unknowns.
Rob
I’ve had two circular saws and a drill both have trigger issues. You don’t have to replace the switch to fix it. Take the case apart, remove the switch, and take the switch apart. (It’s kind of a pain but it’s doable.) Once you get the switch apart you’ll see contact points that look alot like the contact points in an old car before electronic ignition. Lightly clean the points with fine sandpaper or emery cloth. Then clean it good and put it back together. (This is the part that’s a royal pain.) Put the tool back together and it works like new.
One saw I took apart was an older M18 and the inside of the switch contacts was burnt and melted. I didn’t have high hopes but it works fine and the blade brake even started working again. The other saw and drill would just kind of work intermittently. Like you were fluttering your finger on the trigger.
bob urz
back in the old day’s of working on mechanical pinball machines, i had a point burnishing tool (very fine file) to make the contacts usable again. the problem being, sometimes those contact areas had a coating on them to make them last longer. and you just shaved it off. It may work for awhile, but it may be a temporary fix. we also put new points on a switch blade with a special tool that flattened the back of the point into the switch blade much like a pop rivet gun.
Rob
True it may be a band aid fix but I won’t have to spend money on a new switch yet. One of the saws I fixed, my brother in law brought home to me because his employer told him to throw it in the trash. They couldn’t have the blade brake not working because it’s a safety issue. The switch in that one is pretty much toasted. But I temp fixed it and it’s still going strong. If it quits again I’ll order a new switch for it. In the end, I wound up with a free saw and so far the cost to me was a new blade for it.
Chris
Buy a new Dewalt dcf900, problem solved 🤣
Jeffro4704
Yes, this answer here.
TH
you know a lot of shops now will.
jay
Many manufacturers pull items from the production line frequently (often every day) and test them. Apparently this was not being done.
Intuitively mounting those pins on one end only seems incredibly foolish especially in a premium product which produces a lot of shock load
Stuart
One-ended support seems like a bad idea. But it can work. While not quite the same thing, aren’t wheel studs supported on just one end? Wheels don’t just snap off of cars all the time.
Is there a shock load? The shock is exerted in the anvil, but doesn’t back-travel to the tool. This is one of the benefits of impact tools.
MM
A wheel stud is not held in by a press fit alone. It has a head on the inside of the hub which is larger than the hole it fits into, just like the head on a bolt. In order for a wheel stud to fail you either have to pull the head through the hub & brake assembly, or the stud itself has to break. TheB revision relies only on the press fit to secure the pins to the crankshaft, and the video which TTC made shows that the depth of that press fit is extremely shallow. The photograph from Grizz shows that the press fit has failed and the broken ends of the pins have fallen out of their holes.
Perhaps the press fit is out of spec? Hole too large or pin too small? But one still has to question of choosing this sort of design in the first place. Part of machine design is to avoid those situations where extreme precision or tolerancing is required. This is an unheard of problem for impact wrenches in general….any brand, any model. It sure smells like a design problem.
Stuart
Yes, ABSOLUTELY.
What I’m saying is that, unless found otherwise, I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt that they took all of the usual reasonable steps to vet and test the design, but something unexpected or unanticipated was missed.
jay
Additinally the wheel stud is solidly laterally supported by the wheel and lugnut compression. There is NO angular flex component.
Mike
Well stated Jay.
Roy
I am always wary of these new updates as they are mostly oriented toward higher profits instead of quality. If the old model proven reliable just stick with it.
Stuart
That’s a possibility too, and it’s what this would look like if I didn’t know any better. When has Milwaukee updated a tool like this to cut costs before?
Roy
Plenty of examples, just compare the old made in USA tools to the nowadays made in China ones.
Collin.
Sometimes there are no further possible costs to cut, as is the case with the no name chucks used on their flagship drills, with field reports and demonstrations of their supernatural ability to let go of bits, even when brand new in some cases. Even Kobalt can afford a Jacobs chuck.
The bizarre inability of the gen 3 M18 impact driver to hold onto bits also comes to mind, as does the video VCG construction did calling Milwaukee out on this issue. Collets holding onto bits has been successfully executed by even Ryobi. At least Milwaukee released a Gen 3.5 in which they begrudgingly added an extra ball bearing to the collet.
And now the gen 3 M12 fuel impact driver seems to have the same issue with the collet not holding onto bits, as evidenced by a YouTube demonstration recently. I’ll have to keep on eye on it to see if this is an one-off issue, or an actual design issue.
JJP
While I never really like a cost cutting redesign, especially with the same model number, if it was up to the same specs it should be ok. All companies have these problems and the important/telling thing to me is how they handle them.
That said, end of the article saying no amount of’testing’ could have discovered this? I believe testing is exactly what discovered this. Whether it’s testing in a lab or QC in the factory this is probably something that they should have caught before anything was shipped. Statistics are statistics, if there’s a significantly higher failure rate of the new design then it’s a design problem, that should have been caught somewhere along the line, not by end users.
In the end it sucks that it happened but nothing is perfect. Hopefully Milwaukee handles it well, redesigns or rebuilds the faulty tools and everything is made whole. I can’t imagine they’d hurt a good reputation on this situation.
Stuart
There are many stages during which product issues are caught. Sometimes issues are only discovered after production.
I have received a LOT of test samples with early production issues over the years. This could be one of those times where reasonable steps were taken and *use*, rather than *testing* or even field testing, turned up the problem.
Or, maybe numerous mistakes allowed tools with seemingly higher early failure rates to hit the market.
It’s likely that, for a company that doesn’t usually make mistakes like this, few mistakes were made rather than many.
We’ll know more in time.
This is similar to how you have to give a toy to a 5-year old to see how durable it really is.
JJP
I agree to an extent, but unlike a toy going to a 5 year old these are tools made for specific use, used by knowledgeable (I know not always the case) users. If these were being broken because the user was hitting something like a hammer (as a child would misuse something) I could agree they could miss that in testing. But breaking while doing the main thing it should be tested to do does seem to be Milwaukee’s miss.
Impacts pretty much do 1 thing. I honestly don’t know what could be done in the real world they could not foresee and test for (that’s a serious question, not a dig)
Stuart
There’s not a lot of published research on impact planetary gears, but there is on windmills.
If windmill gears and bearings, designed and purpose-built for one task, can fail unexpectedly, and in so many ways I wouldn’t have anticipated, how much might I fail to understand about impact gear boxes?
It seems mistakes were made somewhere, but I’m going to assume the best (or least worse) over the worst until or unless I know better.
I mean the latter in multiple ways.
In an argument once, someone cited an article of mine they had read, and tried to tell me I was wrong about what I said the author meant. I knew better, but they thought they knew my own words better.
I am not familiar enough with impact tool planetary gear design, or privy to the steps taken to launch the Rev B design. I realized how little I know.
jay
Certainly a rare problem could show up unexpectedly. But in this case we have people bringing the tool out to the parking lot and one unit failing after another. I find it very hard to believe, that if they actually gave early units to tradesmen to use, this would not have shown up.
firefly
Let wait and see but this kind of thing are usually the sign of many deeply rooted problems at the management/engineering department (ie the wrong guy/group is being in charge). It could also be the sign that the engineer side of the house is losing control. Whichever the case maybe if it doesn’t get fix then it only goes down hill from there for Milwaukees products.
SamR
You are absolutely right. If this issue is not taken seriously, it will be a turning point in company history.
I guess it is a fight between Joseph Galli, TTI’s CEO, doing his job pleasing shareholders, and Steven Richman, President of Milwaukee Tool, maintaining quality standers.
TH
With all the vibration the pins now only in single shear is not a good idea. They would need to be much thicker to handle the higher stress. Dual shear pins are the way to go.
Stuart
Thank you for that terminology!
Agreed.
KB
“this seems like the type of problem that no amount of modeling, simulation, or in-house testing could have predicted or revealed.”
I don’t see how you arrive at that conclusion.
When there are multiple videos of people breaking these immediately in the parking lots of Home Depots, how you can write the above?Clearly only minimal testing is needed to discover that something is wrong with the new design. That’s probably the most alarming part of all this.
If Joe Random can show the Home Depot manager that multiple versions of the same product break in the parking lot after first use, what kind of testing is Milwaukee (not) doing on these new designs?
Stuart
I built a box once. I measured everything correctly. I modeled it on paper and then digitally. I bought wood surfaced to spec (which my plans were based on). I measured twice and cut once. The glue up went perfectly.
When all was said and done, it was a little too narrow.
I did everything right, checked everything each step of the way, did things exactly as I should, and STILL messed up somehow.
Until someone at Milwaukee says “this is what went wrong,” I’m going to assume they did everything the usual way.
I have a lot of faith in the decision-makers, product managers, and engineers there, and have met and talked with many of them over the years.
I have not known them to cut corners or skip steps.
I’m not saying mistakes weren’t made, I’m simply choosing to believe the most forgivable type , at least until I learn and understand more.
I’m assuming the least-worst way this could have happened, but i didn’t start off this way. I changed my mind after looking more into planetary gear failure modes and common and uncommon factors.
There are so many potential non-obvious contributing factors, that I realized it’s more likely they missed something honestly and in a way that could not have been easily avoided.
That’s not the only potential explanation, but there’s no proof either way right now.
Mistakes happen. Were mistakes made here? It certainly seems that way. What were the mistakes? Could all this have been avoided? How?
So what’s more likely, that everything I know about how Milwaukee Tool operates is wrong, or that everything still holds true and this is one of those times when everything is done right and something still goes wrong?
If I didn’t know Milwaukee Tool and their people as well as I believe I do, I would jump to very different assumptions and conclusions.
Kevin
There’s some people that will probably be in hot water at Milwaukee. It’s a brazen cost saving measure, but if it was properly tested it should’ve been detected. Cantilevered pins are notoriously week. (By design, you want pins to be hard to mitigate wear, but the compromise with this application is it’s very difficult to get the harness right; too hard and it shears, to soft and it deforms). They obviously used the same pin diameter to keep with the cost saving theme – as to not have to use different gears. It’s pretty safe to say that the pin diameter makes this design non-feasible. If the failures were are rampant and repeatable as the video suggests, the only explanation is gross oversight from lack of in house testing. my guess is they didn’t do any kind of stress testing, as this is a very detectable failure mode.
TomD
Given how slowly they release new tools even after we know they’re coming, I cannot believe that they didn’t do stress testing. The TTC video has some guy who got seven in a row to break; that should be caught even during run-in testing at the factory.
Something as developed wasn’t done in production manufacturing; perhaps a grease was switched for something that “should be” the same, who knows.
Someone could buy one and start doing some tests on the pins and see if there’s variations.
Kevin
I have to respectfully disagree. I should elaborate on saying although stress testing was likely done on some level, it definitely wasn’t done thoroughly enough. To that point, the design is just bad. Pinned mechanical couplings of that diameter will never work well with the type of metallurgy they use on power tool parts. The narrow diameter, regardless of harness, definitely isn’t properly sized to tolerate the relative immense spring tension they must overcome to engage the impact assembly. It’s clear they did this leverage the existing planetary gear inner diameters. The old design works with said pin diameter because the pins are fully supported on both ends. The new one is just too susceptible to the inherent weaknesses of an unsupported pin.
AlexK
I look for a pattern before making a decision. When I had a store, if an employee came in late one day, I just made a mental note of it – things can happen. If that person came in late too many times, it is a pattern and I have to find out why, and then make a decision.
Is Milwaukee redesigning all their new tools to save a little money? Trying to make their tools smaller and lighter at the cost of durability?
With all their investment in their brand as the pro tool go-to, I doubt they would risk their reputation and business model, by skimping on some parts. Unless there are shortcomings in more new tools, I doubt it is anything more than something gone wrong. Of, course I could be wrong. Corporate mentality seems to have become short game profit rather than long game vision.
SamR
I am thinking of, short game profit due to the fact companies have to answer to their owners, the stockshear holders, and they are all about Qs profits = short game profit.
Huey
From looking at the digrams and pictures of the failed components it looks like the pinion gear cage design is the issue. By not supporting the pins on both sides the cage is allowing the pins to much movement. This is more pronounced when switching from forward to rear motion.
This change may have had a couple reasons. First being cost savings. Milwaukee is owned by a larger corporation so they prioritize profit over everything. The second was a supply issue. Easier to manufacture parts are easier to get.
I’ve been a light and heavy vehicle technician for over 25years. I’ve inspected, rebuilt, or replaced many planetary gears assemblies. Those above are what I’ve experienced to be common failures by design.
K
I think Milwaukee has gotten onto some sort of cost optimization at the price of quality. I have numerous tools from them. A few of them are actually kind of old but they still work without any issues. But recently I bought one of their newer m18 fans. The first one was bad out of the box, ended up sending it in under warranty. They sent me a replacement and at first it was okay but after a few days, same problem as the first one. Haven’t had time to take it apart and see what’s wrong, but I suspect it’s either a bad (cheap) bearing or there isn’t one where they’re should be and instead it’s some type of cheapo bushing.
Collin
The Milwaukee fans are horribly designed with cheap bushings instead of bearings.
There’s a reason every Milwaukee fan comes with a measly 1 year warranty.
Shoot, even Ryobi has 3 year warranties on their fans.
My M18 fan, used in a non dusty environment, developed the typical rattle after just a few months of use.
From my Google search I’m not the only one.
I eventually sold that fan and moved onto using Ryobi fans.
Nathan
It will be an interesting case to see how it gets handled. so far so good.
I’m honestly surprised with the torque and impact speeds the new machines do that we don’t see more anvil or socket – socket extension breakage.
Some of these new machines go beyond ANSI rating and one time, 2 time use over that value – not really an issue. And no just because it’s rated for that high doesn’t mean you would see that rating often. But still I wonder.
Rog
This strikes me as 100% cost-cutting. This reeks of Milwaukee has grown to the Big Boy in the professional tool world and now they’re raking in the dough. But it’s harder and harder to continue rising and growing at the top so they have to start looking at ways to keep the profits growing every year. What better way to do that than to cut costs from the product.
Nathan
sorry wasn’t the new tool put out to increase the torque specs – like the new Dewalt and the new Hitachi (I think). IR I think has a new one too.
so while I don’t discount that some cost measures were thought of I was thinking this was more about keeping up with the numbers in the market. As such I wonder if somewhere in their modeling -and I assume here they modeled this out for stress and fatigue. There might have been a mis calc or some faulty assumption. which is where shop testing of the model is needed.
MM
There is no change in the torque specs. If you watch the TTC youtube video he shows that when it works, the new “B” revision of this wrench produces the exact same torque curve as the original version.
Jay
So glad i decided to go with the dewalt dcf900.
Tom
Maybe the pins were bought from china?!
Jeffro4704
The whole thing is from China.
Farid
“….Whatever the cause, this seems like the type of problem that no amount of modeling, simulation, or in-house testing could have predicted or revealed. But, it’s showing up as users put the revised 2767 impacts to work, and that’s a problem.”
I disagree. I am an engineer and I see this type of problems with designs all the time. Simulation relies on good data, and tons of assumptions. The problem is with assumptions and boundary conditions. Garbage in means garbage out.
However, it does not take an engineer to see that that updated design will fail by just looking at the photo that compares the two power-trains. The B model leaves the center point (the rear side of the planetary gear assembly) largely unsupported, and makes it prone to flexing. There is a bearing further back, but the whole assembly relies on the rigidity of the main tool housing to prevent side deflection under load. I don’t think the housing is designed to handle such loads without deforming. There could also be be some final assembly tolerances that play into this, that unless specifically considered in simulations and tests, would only be found after the parts are made.
Stuart
I’m being generous with the benefit of the doubt based on what I’ve seen over the past decade plus with early production samples, and what I know about Milwaukee Tool and the steps their engineers and product teams take in designing and vetting products.
Were the same steps not taken here because it was an update? Or were all the same steps taken and something still went wrong?
D
Could you post the weights of the tools? I bought a 2863 last month and wonder if it is the new revision. Made in Vietnam.
Stuart
As far as I am aware, the 2863 (One-Key) tool has not been updated. I have one that I can weigh, but it wouldn’t be conclusive. Different assemblers might also use different amounts of grease, which could throw things off.
Michael Scott
How hard is it to change the components of stainless washers to titanium as well as the ring or bushing that appears to be its weakest link. If I changed my arm from steel to plastic at what point will the stress fracture occur. But if I join these with equally strong parts there can be no failure. I look at Dewalt 900 or Hercules ultra with 12 ah and see the same weakness. They charge $300 for main item and separate batteries and chargers to give you a range you can never stay at unless you are an assembly line of one brand. I will go back to making my own or using manual tools that won’t fail, not even under the highest 1500-2500 ft lbs of torque that I might need on huge lugs.
JoeM
I’m a very confused DeWALT guy right now. I’m having trouble coming to terms with the concept that Milwaukee did something that their fans accuse DeWALT tools of doing for so long… Plus… I have trouble believing Milwaukee… got it wrong? Didn’t test the new model for these kinds of malfunctions? Somehow didn’t run the design through a digital stress test in the CAD phase of designing the new tool? The failure points, from what I’m reading from ToolGuyd here, would have lit up like an exploding Stellar Nova before they even sent the designs to be parted out and manufactured… wouldn’t they?
Emilio+Gonzalez
You have to first ask, what was the reason for this new B revision?
MM
In my opinion that’s obvious: money.
The revision B camshaft is much easier (read: cheaper) to manufacture since it doesn’t have that cage assembly supporting the gears that the A revision had. The new design also eliminates a ball bearing.
Rog
Yup, I think so. Someone found a way to make it cheaper and someone greenlit it a bit too eagerly without properly vetting the change.
Stuart
I have asked, and am waiting to hear back.
bob urz
ill bet you will soon see the “C” version with a return to the “A” version gear box design.
Fazol
How it looks for the FHIWF12 model? They are exactly the same? Don’t know what are the differences between them
Dennis N Schmidt
What a crock of shit from Milwaukee. Where is the “We’re sorry we screwed our customers over” part of the statement. Where is the “We will make this right no matter what it takes.” part of the statement. Instead they say we’ll fix your shitty tool with another shitty part making it the same shitty tool. I hope the DCF900 outsells them 50 to 1. What clowns. Clear market leader to garbage overnight. It wasn’t broke why did you fix it?
Andy
It’s a shame this happened as my Dad and I have been team red for years. Now it looks like I will be searching for a used one rather than new – or perhaps it’s time to switch.
LK
Increase the price or sacrifice quality.
Makita raised prices and everyone had a fit.
Milwaukee kept them the same and I guess we’re seeing what can happen.
Collin
Makita was very public and gave advance warning about price increases.
Milwaukee didn’t say jack and decided to cheapen the internals silently and hoped that no one would notice.
That play didn’t work out too well.
Good-Tools
I would only accept the “old” design because it’s better.
Rx9
I’m a big fan of Milwaukee, having been impressed with both the quality and breadth of their product line. That said, as a jaded millennial, I have no problem jumping to another brand if this is what the future holds. The best move would be to borrow a page from Johnson & Johnson-
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/23/your-money/IHT-tylenol-made-a-hero-of-johnson-johnson-the-recall-that-started.html
-and recall all the “B” series wrenches.
The upfront loss would hurt, but if you are serious about positioning as premium product, you had better defend that image as much as possible.
MM
Bingo.
When I was running my machining business one of the things I told my employees was that mistakes were bad, yes, but they were also an opportunity to demonstrate how good of a job we were going to do in order to make things right. In the future, after the crisis was over, what was going to stick in the customer’s mind? Was the customer going remember the company as one who delivered failure? Or were they going to be impressed with how a problem was resolved? We always aimed for the latter.
If I were in charge here? I’d do my best to see if I could make the C revision even better than the A even if it cost the bottom line more. Let’s look at bringing back the fully supported cage, and maybe we can add bearings inside the planets?
jay
At this point, they should have ALREADY set up a contact phone or web page for anyone who has had a failure to register their incident. Even if a replacement plan is not ready yet, gather the information, and reassure the customers.
Rx9
Update: and now with the message Milwaukee made on 10/07/22, I am now satisfied they did the right thing.
This is one more reason I will continue buying Milwaukee products and recommending them to others in the future.
L
It’s amusing how little it takes to keep a fan boy sucking at the teat, they did the absolute bare minimum to make it right and completely avoided answering as to why they tried to sell you the cheapest garbage they could make but yet here you are eager to bend over and let them try again.
Jeffro4704
Truth spoken here !! All these fan bois making excuse, after excuse. For a Chinese corporation none the less. What really gets me is they raised the price of it by $50, and put cheaper parts and lesser quality control. I understand companies do that. But for them to let those B models out into the wild, to me there’s no excuse.
Stuart
Personal attacks will not be tolerated; everyone is entitled their opinions, whether you agree with it or not.
Rx9
Honestly, I’m willing to give them a pass on this because they have earned my forgiveness by doing right in the past.
That said, if they make a habit of this, word will get out, and they will lose sales. I have no problem advocating against a terrible brand.
Unfortunately, in an age without a universal battery standard, you have to commit to a single brand’s system and take both the bad and good that comes with it.
Every brand seems to have its merits and faults. Pick what works for you.
I’m curious, what brand/system do you think is best? Why?
L
You may want to look into how J&J are handling the current lawsuit regarding their talcum powder causing cancer and how they are trying to weasel out of it before you start using them as some sort of shining example of “doing the right thing”
Rx9
Correct, they are weasels nowadays, but the example I gave was from about 40 years ago. A lot has changed.
Eric
Sounds like they are recalling them from retailers and will be resuming production of the H96A version. Anyone with problems can get theirs replaced with an A version – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IL5nUiskNpw
MM
Politicians take note of the slimy dodge for the question regarding why the B revision was made in the first place….but it’s good to hear they’re taking quick action and replacing all the B’s with A’s.
Gary
Looks like Milwaukee has owned up, and agrees that the model B is not to be sold. TTC has the official letter from them.
A W
Good to see Milwaukee do the right thing.
Collin
So Milwaukee acknowledged the electrical issues and is not doing anything to explicitly address the electrical issues?
I guess the cheap Chinese switches are way too profitable to give up.
Jim Felt
Exactly where would they secure “switches” to their exact specifications otherwise? I’ll wait.
Collin
Funny that a company called Milwaukee Electric Tool has issues with electrical parts that it:
1) Acknowledges
and
2) Refuses to root cause the issue and instead effectively states that they are satisfied with the status quo ante failure rate of their cheap Defond switchgear.
Collin
Speaking of trigger switches, I am on my 3rd M12 Surge because the first 2 were either lost or stolen.
The 3rd one I picked up just a few months ago in 2022, and the other day, while driving some 2″ Spax screws, I noticed that the impact driver would stall and stop impacting and then jerk the tool slightly almost like a drill w/o anti-kickback despite me never having let go of the trigger.
I never had this issue before, and I’m intimately familiar with the M12 surge, having owned 2 of them previously. I was not in the wrong mode (not in self-tapping screw mode) and I know the capabilities of the tool.
I have to wonder if this is related to the switch issues in the 2767 revision.
I can’t say that I’m surprised, given Milwaukee’s history of using pretty cheap switchgear.
TomD
I bet we’ll see the “B” guts inside of some lower power drill someday, after they figure out why actually went wrong.
I noticed the insides of the cabinet installer was very similar but obviously not subject to impacts.
André
Milwaukee is lying, they just didn’t bench test the crap. I’m not an engineer but
can clearly see the gear pins have insufficient support, compared with the previous design. The evident reason they made it obviously cheaper is to cash in
more mullah. Stealers.
I have their 2840-20 700$can oilless compressor and they don’t even worry
selling spare teflon piston rings for it, what a joke (and what an idiot was I to buy it).
Then my M12 Rotary Tool toasted itself solid after a few easy jobs…
Never again, Milwaukee. Beware those YouTube Fraudsters.
Ct451
Well, all they said was “We applied the exact same test parameters for both the original and the new design.”
What the heck does “applying parameters” even mean? Please don’t insult our intelligence. I get trying to save face but what is the point at this time?
1day@atime
Resolved? In what ways? They didn’t own up to this being intentionally done. They didn’t own up to the reason why it was done. It certainly wasn’t done for the benefit of the consumer. And there are no variety of reasons why they made the change. It wasn’t an engineering mistake. It wasn’t a developmental mistake. It wasn’t a design flaw. It was purely intentional to remove those critical parts because they didn’t want to spend the money on manufacturing those parts and having them machined. They paid their engineers to put in the time to find a half ass way to get around from implementing those structural parts which prevented mechanical failure. Their engineers knew that they were introducing a mode of failure that wasn’t present in the previous version. And they signed off on it. There wasn’t any extensive testing done within a set of parameters. They submitted the plans for the H96B to the manufacturing division and from the manufacturing floor they boxed it and shipped it. They didn’t pull any of them off the assembly line for testing. They made the changes with hopes that it wouldn’t be discovered and brought to light. Think about it. Why did the bare tools receive this alteration and not the kits? Why would they even swap out the bare tool that had the H96A parts for the bare tool with the H96B parts? There’s no good reason for it. Bare tool buyers get the shitty version meanwhile the kit buyers get the better version. Wtf is that? That’s about as slimy and shady as it can get. Planned out and approved by the decision makers at Milwaukee for the benefit of Milwaukee. Not for the retailers. Not for the consumer. I’m starting to wonder how many other Milwaukee bare tools have gotten the lemon treatment. Obviously bare tool buyers beware. The response letter is all but a joke. No honorable explanation given. That’s just how they do things to give themselves excuses for not having to admit their greed. It’s pathetic and dishonorable. They could care less. Number one priority is profit. Any and everything else is secondary. It’s clearly cut and dry as to why it was done. There’s no refuting that.
Jeffro4704
I agree with every word written here, well put sir.
MM
I assumed that this was a cost-saving measure they intended to implement in all the tools going forward–both bare tool and kit–and at this point in time they still had plenty of inventory on the kits so the kits hadn’t received the change yet, but presumably would have in the future if customers hadn’t caught this problem.
Collin
I just don’t understand why a 6 year old tool needs further cost cutting with a concurrent MSRP increase.
I would hope that Milwaukee has already earned back all the money they invested in the 2767 by now, in late 2022.
What’s the point of making this massive change in the internals from a standard impact design to a novel design?
Surely all the money they invested into the original 2767 has been recouped by now.
It just seems odd to do a last minute overhaul of an old tool. No different than Toyota overhauling the Camry for 2022 and then releasing a brand new generation of Camry in 2023. We know that Milwaukee is on the verge of releasing a successor. The 2767 is old and DeWalt came out swinging with their dcf900.
Essential+American+Firearms
As soon as I saw they replaced a bearing with a bushing I stopped reading, that’s all I had to see. John Deere did this exact same thing on their front mount sweepers with disastrous results. Bushings don’t last, good quality bearings do.
SamR
Since no recall or exchange program is issued, the problem is not solved.
Jack
Thank you Stuart for this announcement. I have a 2767 and fortunately it’s the H96A version.
Milwaukee USA take note: You take significant planning, effort, time and investment to build your brand and loyalty. Suggest you take a serious look how H96B was created and made its way into production, then take steps to stop the multiple mistakes in your product development and decision-making processes.
Rx9
I think the folks at TTI need to understand that they are not in one of the industries that the media/social media/tech monopolies will go out of their way to protect from criticism. If a product fails this bad, they will be subject to a viral backlash.
Henry9
I believe Milwaukee tested the samples seriously during qualification stage. Put aside the mechanical strength change due to the structure change(they should have known that, that’s why they applied same test parameter to qualify them in the manner they thought reprenting the most of application senarios), sure the new design is not robust as before, but if they passed test, no company would reject it plus there is cost saving.
The problem I see from this case, maybe there is big issue in their Vietnam factory process control, including incoming process control and assembly process/outgoing process control. These controls are to make sure MP units are always consistently to be the same as qualification sample. These kind of early failure units could be caught easily in lots of check stations in a normal factory. Version B is not a good design, but at least QC in their Vietnam factory could help them screen out the bad one before shipping to US. It’s shame for such power tool leading company that customer found many units dead out of box.
Long story short, Milwaukee needs to review their whole process including project development, qualification, and manufacturing control to see what on earth the problem is.