Kobalt Tools

"There are a hand full of other minor players (Vermont American, etc) and an endless list of Taiwanese import tool companies (some of which Stanley own as well as Danaher to serve the lower end consumer import brands at WalMart, etc). How do I know all of this? I work for Stanley Mechanics Tools, specifically with the Proto Industrial brand. I personally do not think that MAC, MatCo, or Snap-On branded tools are worth the extra markup since they use the same forgings and manufacturing processes that make Husky and Kobalt and pre-1994 Craftsman."

At one point he states that only Proto, his line, goes through tougher testing as NASA and other gov. agencies use Proto. I would suggest he is trying to prejudice reads so that they will buy Proto. I know the Navy only allows Snap-On tools to be used in repairs to there gas turbine engines, both the ones used on smaller ships, and on aircraft. They do NOT use Proto. As for NASA, I can not say.

Kobalt came about after Snap-On bought out Williams Tools, and as Kobalt tools do not resemble Williams or Snap-On tools, it is apparent that Snap-On re-tooled Williams to produce Kobalt, and that there is a difference in Kobalt and Snap-On tools.

I have not looked deeply enough into Mac and Proto to say what Stanley, who I understand has been bought by the German tool manufacturing company, AEG, has done with these.

I can tell you that when I was unable to remove a 13MM bolt for a shock absorber on a 1983 Cadillac with my Craftsman socket, a friend laughed at me, told me to use his Snap-On socket, and I was then, and only then, able to remove the bolt.

I believe that both Mac and Snap-On have patented designs that they do not incorporate into their other lines, meaning Proto, Kobalt, etc.

For most people, most of the time, Craftsman wrenches, and sockets are more than up to the task, though I have found their newer ratchets to fail frequently. I tend to use my old Craftsman ratchets more frequently than my Snap-On, Mac, or Matco mdls, when a standard ratchet is called for, though I admit that I am now using Snap-On, Mac and Matco sockets with them. I have tossed out, or given away my Craftsman sockets and wrenches....

He states that MAC, MATCO and Snap-On are basically the same forgings and processes as Kobalt and Husky and they are not worth extra money.

Proto and Husky might share the same basic forgings, but, Snap-On and Kobalt are worlds apart. Plus, the extra refinements of the likes of MAC, MATCO and Snap-On are worthwhile to many as, if for no other reason, the top van tools are generally more compact in design, allowing them to enter areas with space restrictions where the bulkier hardware quality tool could not enter.

Van and industrial quality tools all have been run through vibrators (Proto might be the exception) where all sharp edges have been removed. It is at those sharp edges where chrome can split easiest.

Pieces of chrome falling into turbines can cause a complete strip down of the engine, looking for this contamination.

He also states that a Craftsman socket failed to remove his 13 mm bolt but a Snap-On socket did. Sounds like the patented Flank Drive by Snap-On worked as promised and is one of the several reasons why people pay the high price for Snap-On products.

I doubt if the Kobalt range is a rehash of Snap-On or of Williams as he states. 1) Snap-On is not so dumb to offer a cheap copy of their range through Lowes. Why give the consumer an opportunity for Snap-On quality at Lowes pricing?

2) For the level of sales volume of the Kobalt range, Snap-On could afford to sink new forging dies that are exclusively for Kobalt.

3) The Williams acquisition probably has little or no connection with the Kobalt range. J. H. Williams' sales had dropped below $10 million per year, plus my guess is that less than 1/2 of the tools were actually made by Williams while they were still independent and owned by Merrill Lynch.

The value of the Kobalt contract was not announced, but, it probably is well over $100 million per year.

How could the small Williams plant with $5 or $10 million per year capacity take on a $100 million per year contract? The answer seems to be "it couldn't."

On the other hand, Snap-On's billions per year state-of-the-art factories could handle the Kobalt without missing a heartbeat.

I'm puzzled that this gentleman works for SPIT (Stanley Proto Industrial Tools) and he states that Stanley is owned by AEG? Who? Somebody should tell AEG and Stanley as they don't know this!

Do others have additional information?

Perhaps if you had taken note of the quotation marks, this would have made more sense to you. The Proto employee was the person I was both quoting as well as refuting.

"He states that MAC, MATCO and Snap-On are basically the same forgings and processes as Kobalt and Husky and they are not worth extra money."

He NOT being me, and I refuted him because of it.

"Proto and Husky might share the same basic forgings, but, Snap-On and Kobalt are worlds apart."

A point I made myself.

"Plus, the extra refinements of the likes of MAC, MATCO and Snap-On are worthwhile to many as, if for no other reason, the top van tools are generally more compact in design, allowing them to enter areas with space restrictions where the bulkier hardware quality tool could not enter."

Not to mention that these slimmer tools tend to spread less, so that they do not round off nuts and bolts as frequently.

"He also states that a Craftsman socket failed to remove his 13 mm bolt but a Snap-On socket did. Sounds like the patented Flank Drive by Snap-On worked as promised and is one of the several reasons why people pay the high price for Snap-On products."

That was my point.

"I doubt if the Kobalt range is a rehash of Snap-On or of Williams as he states. 1) Snap-On is not so dumb to offer a cheap copy of their range through Lowes. Why give the consumer an opportunity for Snap-On quality at Lowes pricing?"

The fellow I was quoting from was saying that these were the same, and I was in disagreement with him on that point.

"2) For the level of sales volume of the Kobalt range, Snap-On could afford to sink new forging dies that are exclusively for Kobalt."

Which is exactly what I was contending.

"3) The Williams acquisition probably has little or no connection with the Kobalt range."

Well, I just re-checked the www.Kobalttools.com site, and they no longer mention Williams, which they did when the line was first introduced. It may well be that they have now grown beyond the capacity of Williams tools, I cannot say.

"J. H. Williams' sales had dropped below $10 million per year, plus my guess is that less than 1/2 of the tools were actually made by Williams while they were still independent and owned by Merrill Lynch."

I'll take your word for it, I have no idea.

"The value of the Kobalt contract was not announced, but, it probably is well over $100 million per year.

How could the small Williams plant with $5 or $10 million per year capacity take on a $100 million per year contract? The answer seems to be "it couldn't."

On the other hand, Snap-On's billions per year state-of-the-art factories could handle the Kobalt without missing a heartbeat."

Perhaps you are correct, Snap-On may even be manufacturing some Williams tools in their own plants, or contracting out, who knows? I was only stating what I read at the Kobalt web site several years ago.

"I'm puzzled that this gentleman works for SPIT (Stanley Proto Industrial Tools) and he states that Stanley is owned by AEG?"

He did not state it, I did, though I cannot recall the source of this information, it may be faulty information, but I know when I heard it I considered the source reliable. I think it was a finnancial/investment news cast, but am not sure.

"Somebody should tell AEG and Stanley as they don't know this!"

You could be right about this as I cannot remember the exact source.

Lou

We seem to be in 99% agreement.

That's quite good since the tool industry has changed so rapidly that no two people can be on the same track at the same time.

I'll be visiting the National Hardware Show in Chicago next week were there are sure to be more rumors and maybe even a few hard facts.