We pride ourselves on having the friendliest
and most welcoming forums for moms and moms to be! Please take a moment
for free so you can be a part of our growing community of mothers.
If you have any problems registering please drop an email to email@example.com.
Our community is moderated by our moderation team so you won't see spam or offensive messages posted on our forums. Each of our message boards is hosted by JustMommies hosts, whose names are listed at the top each board. We hope you find our message boards friendly, helpful, and fun to be on!
Either the Acme Juicerator 6001 or its identical twin, the 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 . 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?