Viking Off-Road Recovery Hitch photos

[spencyg]

A forged component will always be much stronger than a similar billet component. The "billet" tag seems to have come about in the last decade or so as a trademark of "quality" and "unique". How many billet valve covers do you see in a Summit catalog? Billet this...billet that. DCH nailed it on the head. Billet components are the result of quick manufacturing and "one-off". The cost of tooling associated with forging makes it fiscally impossible to reproduce unless you're planning on selling tens of thousands of a particular product. That being said, for a situation like this, I think the Warn is probably overkill and this billet unit will do fine. In regards to plating...yes...it usually looks good for awhile and then deteriorates. I used to work in the automotive industry, and the typical standard for automotive safety-critical (i.e. steering) components is a 480hr salt spray tolerance before rusting to the point of failure. That isn't much time....

Spence

 

[Scott Brady]

These are all fair comments. I am going to spend some time with the two mounts I have and document them in more detail.

Since none of the posters have a Viking bracket, I will do a little video to show the differences in shackle fit, receiver fit, etc. Obviously, the Viking bracket has the bling factor going for it and the ability to mount vertical and horizontal. The 50,000+ lb. MBS makes any claims of strength advantage of one over the other entirely mute.

Some more research is needed to evaluate strength and material advantages. Casting obviously has higher initial cost and lower long-term costs. It is the other way around for billet-machined, which makes sense for the Viking part.

Maybe someone with professional experience with the various manufacturing methods can comment.

For now, I see these facts:

Strength: Mute point, as both are stronger than the application requires.
Fit and Finish: Clearly to the advantage of the Viking unit, though the functional advantage is only a reduction in rattles and a better appearance.
Functionality: Clearly to the advantage of the Viking unit, with the ability to mount vertical or horizontal to limit side loading of the shackle screw pin.
Cost: Clearly to the advantage of the traditional Warn and Superwinch units, by a factor of 100%.

Another fact is that the Warn and Superwinch units obviously work fine.

 

[Life_in_4Lo]

It is funny to me that somehow the Viking is placed in the category of "don't skimp" and "you get what you pay for" --simply because of its higher price -- when it is less superior in every single category.

right on

as for the pros/cons-

Strength goes to the Warn. It may be a "mute point" but the fact Viking is selling at over 200% premium and is the Bugatti Veyron of hitch reciever holes, shouldn't it be stronger than the Warn?

earlier in this thread it was "rattle free" at the hitch and shackle.
Now it's "a reduction in rattles"?
It's going to rattle or it isn't. Any hitch reciever will rattle unless it has a spring loaded "anti-rattle" pin or a scrap piece of rubber stuffed in there.

Vertical or horizontal mounting might be 'more functional' but it's unimportant enough to not ever be a real issue. Look at all the recovery points on all bumpers, aftermarket or not.

Finish will be worse on the Viking after a little use and age. In any case it's irrelevant. How much of this is actually visible to even care?

 

[Scott Brady]

Andre,

I am interested in your answers to the following categories:

Strength: Mute point, as both are stronger than the application requires.
Fit and Finish: Clearly to the advantage of the Viking unit, though the functional advantage is only a reduction in rattles and a better appearance.
Functionality: Clearly to the advantage of the Viking unit, with the ability to mount vertical or horizontal to limit side loading of the shackle screw pin.
Cost: Clearly to the advantage of the traditional Warn and Superwinch units, by a factor of 100%.

 

[Scott Brady]

It is funny to me that somehow the Viking is placed in the category of "don't skimp" and "you get what you pay for" --simply because of its higher price -- when it is less superior in every single category.

Andre,

I am interested in your answers to the following categories:

Strength: Mute point, as both are stronger than the application requires.
Fit and Finish: Clearly to the advantage of the Viking unit, though the functional advantage is only a reduction in rattles and a better appearance.
Functionality: Clearly to the advantage of the Viking unit, with the ability to mount vertical or horizontal to limit side loading of the shackle screw pin.
Cost: Clearly to the advantage of the traditional Warn and Superwinch units, by a factor of 100%.

 

[Momrocks]

It is only $50 more than a typical shackle bracket, and IMO, more than twice as good.

These are all fair comments. I am going to spend some time with the two mounts I have and document them in more detail.

Since none of the posters have a Viking bracket, I will do a little video to show the differences in shackle fit, receiver fit, etc. Obviously, the Viking bracket has the bling factor going for it and the ability to mount vertical and horizontal. The 50,000+ lb. MBS makes any claims of strength advantage of one over the other entirely mute.

Some more research is needed to evaluate strength and material advantages. Casting obviously has higher initial cost and lower long-term costs. It is the other way around for billet-machined, which makes sense for the Viking part.

Maybe someone with professional experience with the various manufacturing methods can comment.

For now, I see these facts:

Strength: Mute point, as both are stronger than the application requires.
Fit and Finish: Clearly to the advantage of the Viking unit, though the functional advantage is only a reduction in rattles and a better appearance.
Functionality: Clearly to the advantage of the Viking unit, with the ability to mount vertical or horizontal to limit side loading of the shackle screw pin.
Cost: Clearly to the advantage of the traditional Warn and Superwinch units, by a factor of 100%.

Another fact is that the Warn and Superwinch units obviously work fine.

Scott,

Good point/counter point but I am still unclear why you consider this product "more than twice as good" as competing products? The info would point mainly to a fashion advantage.

.

 

[Scott Brady]

Scott,

Good point/counter point but I am still unclear why you consider this product "more than twice as good" as competing products? The info would point mainly to a fashion advantage.
.

I should not have said twice as good. It is only better in small ways, some of which will be unimportant to the typical buyer. And functionally, in the field, the only advantage is the orientation option.

I would also agree that the standout attribute is appearance and uniqueness

 

[Momrocks]

in the field, the only advantage is the orientation option.

Let's shift the discussion to the orientation. I'd like to explore that. The appearence issue is talked out. I don't know what the advantages are, if any, of vertical vs. horizontal orientation and would like to hear some opinions.

.

 

[RHINO]

Strength: Mute point, as both are stronger than the application requires.
Fit and Finish: Clearly to the advantage of the Viking unit, though the functional advantage is only a reduction in rattles and a better appearance.
Functionality: Clearly to the advantage of the Viking unit, with the ability to mount vertical or horizontal to limit side loading of the shackle screw pin.
Cost: Clearly to the advantage of the traditional Warn and Superwinch units, by a factor of 100%.

my only disagreement to you is finish,,, i much prefer the old standby to this pretty unit, i mean can you imagine what this thing will make my piggy look like if i put it on ? :sombrero:

 

[Scott Brady]

Let's shift the discussion to the orientation. I'd like to explore that. The appearence issue is talked out. I don't know what the advantages are, if any, of vertical vs. horizontal orientation and would like to hear some opinions.

.

The weakest point of the screw-pin, d-shackle is a side-loaded pin. Just like a carabiner has a required orientation.

I do not want to split hairs here. If you use a Van Beast shackle, even the orientation is mostly irrelevant. 60,000+ MBS on those 19mm units.

It is much like the gun comment earlier. It is completely understandable why someone would buy/shoot a Holland and Holland over a Winchester. However, both will drop a bird in the same manner.

Functionality must be assumed with any product worth buying. Functionality is not only assumed with both of these products, it is a fact. The Warn unit is not "better" in any functional category. So, if functionality is assumed, then one would buy the Warn shackle receiver for its value and one would buy the Viking because of its uniqueness and appearance.

 

[RedRocker]

That thing is a work of art, very nice work.
Moot point on strength, you'll never break either one.
I usually just stick my strap in the receiver hole and
slide the pin through the loop, that's free.:sombrero:

 

[dieselcruiserhead]

I don't want to get into the specifics but I've owned that one for a long time and a clevis D ring clearly goes in it just fine and it doesn't rattle in any manor that I have ever noticed. As mentioned strength is probably just fine in either unit.

I don't know if you've ever owned any billet products for durations of time in off road apps, but they look awesome in the beginning and look like *** in just a couple years, stainless or not. The last thing I want to have to do it pull out, oil or lube or polish or whatever, my slide in shackle receiver. I would actually like to ask someone who realistically off roads regularly and uses it, to purchase one and report back in two years. I will bet that person $20 right now the Warn unit will surpass the Viking unit in cosmetics, which really seems to be the only issue here, in two years.

Regards,
Andre

 

[muskyman]

6 pages on a reciever insert?

I have used warns and I have used generic ones and you know what...dosent frigging matter they all work.

 

[bobDog]

I love Viking Off Road. My winch, my winch line, and most of the rest of my recovery kit came from them.
That Receiver Shackle is definitley a thing of beauty!

-BUT-
$110.00?!?!?!

Warn Receiver Shackle - $42.95
Superwinch Receiver Shackle - $47.99

I bet if you drop that honey in the muddy water you go looking for it!:coffeedrink:

 

[Redline]

I was going to stay quiet for a while but...

Noise:

I have two Warn units that are several years old (10+?) that do fit loose/rattle inside the receivers when moved about. I can't say that I have heard that looseness/noise, as for most of their lives they have been used on an F350 Diesel and it would take a very calm condition to hear the clevis mount rattling.

I do remember noting the looseness upon installation, wishing it fit better (but I had no reason for this other than it seemed to be quite loose, held only by the pin). It is certainly possible that if I used my Warn clevis recovery mounts on my much quieter and smoother riding 4Runner that I would be able to hear the clevis mounts rattling when on-highway, and it might bother me some. The 4Runner is so quiet and rattle free that I can hear my rear tire swing-away squeak if the latch doesn't stay up and completely tight.

Loose Fit:

Though I wanted a better(?) fitting clevis mount it’s possible that the looser fit may be a design feature. On a few aftermarket bumpers I have used, solid 2" square ball-mount towing hitches do not fit into the receiver provided with the bumper. My local trailer shop explained that many bumper manufacturers don't use the proper 2" receiver tubing material (whatever it is) but use generic 2" tube that is of a difference specification, slightly smaller. I have had to grind away material on the male end/shank of the tow ball mount on two hitches, one a load-distribution hitch for a travel trailer and another a 10-inch drop ball/pintle combo mount to make them fit into the receivers on my current Reunel and CBI rear bumpers. Hollow 2" ball mounts are slightly smaller, with rounded edges, and I have not had to modify these mounts to insert them into aftermarket bumpers/receivers.

If the smaller external dimensions of the Warn type clevis recovery mount was designed to fit any/all 2" receivers, that was a very sharp move. Maybe it was just luck or they were using less material?

Finish/Function:

My clevis mounts have ridden in the receiver mounts on the F350 for most of their lives, the front one is rarely removed. When removed, I have noted some light surface rust on the finish, on the bottom side, but surely this is a cosmetic imperfection that doesn't affects the function and it not visible unless removed.

Yes the Viking unit looks better and I do like that, but I would not like if it looked worse after a few years. However, if it worked better I may still prefer it. Upon seeing it in this thread for the first time, I noted two things immediately; that it is 'sharp' with its bling finish, and that it has the flexibility to be mounted horizontally or vertically.

The latter point I thought may have a functional advantage on a severe side pull, but I will leave that argument to those that know more about recovery than I.