Harbor Freight jack stand recall

Here's another set for comparison.

I found this pair of recalled 91197 stands at work yesterday. Notice how flat the release handle is and the depth of the teeth are...
20200522_134225.jpg


20200522_134234.jpg


...compared to my pair of 69596 stands from 4-5 years ago.
20200523_081051.jpg

20200523_081121.jpg
 
If those of you with access to the 6 ton jack stands could also note the letters/numbers cast into the post and also show the shape of the saddle in any photos it could be helpful for those whose labels with part numbers are long gone.


I have two versions of 6-ton jack stands. One has a "J" cast into the post, the other a "J1." The saddles have slightly different shapes as well. The post with a cast "J" has a saddle that matches the shape of the saddle on the defective 3-ton units. The saddle of the post with "J1" is about 1/8" wider and a slightly different cast shape than those of the defective 3-ton units.


These differences may help identify the company/foundry that manufactured a particular unit and/or the part number.
 
Nothing i guess, i just don't want to void the warranty
What I meant to say was I probably wouldn't drill through that cast support. You might weaken it to the point it breaks under load and it might be really difficult to judge how much is safe.
 
@Alex01 check the handle like @jjvw posted. I have the same stand as you (62393) and the handle looks nothing like @jjvw 's

View attachment 163926

The handle position may not a perfect indicator of the problem because the handle can be pinned in a different position relative to the locking pawl. But it looks like there is a relationship.

I couldn't get the one at work to fall after shaking like we saw in one of the videos posted earlier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tworley
What I meant to say was I probably wouldn't drill through that cast support. You might weaken it to the point it breaks under load and it might be really difficult to judge how much is safe.

I would think drilling would void the warranty, regardless of how thoughtfully it was done. ;)
 
I have both good 62393 and bad ones 61197. For those without stickers anymore maybe these photos will help. 62393 has ZD at the bottom of the Jack post and 61197 has GR.
20200523_122850.jpg

There is also some differences in tolerances with the bad ones.

62393 appears to be better fit
20200523_122909.jpg


61197 has way more play and spacing
20200523_122915.jpg


Aside from the shallower teeth, that's all I see.

I'm not fucking around though so I got these monsters a long tine ago. Might be overkill but I feel safer under my rig.
20200523_123753.jpg

20200523_123941_HDR.webp
 
Floor jack, wheel, kitchen sink, whatever I can find to stick under there that's more crush resistant than my head.

Exactly! I'm glad I replaced my recalled jack stands and I certainly think the new ones are safer, but I prefer to have multiple points of failure before I end up squashed by my Jeep or my 3/4 ton diesel truck...
 
Am I the only one who leaves the floor jack in place even after I lower the vehicle on jack stands? As long as it doesn't get in the way, I just consider it extra insurance.

Yeah, but I have a HF floor jack too. Now I don't know which is worse: the thing I know is bad, or the that I think could probably be bad.
 
WOW! Just saw this.... Did my rotors and pads on my Tundra yesterday with these. I do keep my floor jack partially extended for some redundancy though.

Thank you OP
 
Mine are at least 15 years old. There’s no play in the post at all. I had my 68 GTO on these for 6mths. without any problems.

E5E54898-F65D-40D7-B79A-8038DFBB3D23.webp