Xerox 240 vs. 242

[bgrubb7]

Were looking at replacing our Doc12 with a used or refurbished 240 or 242... I'm trying to decide if the 242 is worth the extra money... they are usually a few thousand more than the 240s I'm seeing. What were the main upgrades for the 242?

Does the 242 have any major advantages regarding things like feeding, color calibration or registration?

Thanks.

 

[che.c]

I used to run a 240 and noticed that it would do a darker outline around EVERY grey shape, like a very clumsy edge enhancement. This seemed to be something the system would do, it didn't make any difference turning edge enhancement off in the fiery - it did not happen on the 260 (same family as 242).

For that reason I'd go for the 242 (it looks really bad on a lot of jobs), but if you don't see that artifact then I'd save the money and get the 240.

 

[stueey]

Were looking at replacing our Doc12 with a used or refurbished 240 or 242... I'm trying to decide if the 242 is worth the extra money... they are usually a few thousand more than the 240s I'm seeing. What were the main upgrades for the 242?

Does the 242 have any major advantages regarding things like feeding, color calibration or registration?

Thanks.

I have a 240 and I would advise totally against getting a Xerox at all. Their click charges get way too high compared with someone like Konica and when you're out of maintenance contract they expect you to commit to £1000 for a repair even when they don't know what's wrong.

 

[che.c]

Meh, I'm an operator not an owner. That said, I would not like to imagine how much it would cost to run one of these outside a maintenance contract.

All these 'digital presses' are jumped up photocopiers, breaking down all the time. That said the 240 is particularly woeful when you start to run volume on it (especially as the one I was using had no hi-cap feeder). Since been replaced with a 700 which is less awful, however that machine will also send me into a swear-spiral several times a day.

 

[stueey]

I've heard that about to 700, I'm glad I got a Konica instead.

Generally, accepting it's limits, I have been happy with my 240 and a Xerox engineer who I'd dealt with says he sees a couple in the field that are way over 3 million clicks and still working.

It's just not feasible to keep them in contract and generally it's cheaper not to, right up until they decide that even before doing or knowing hardly anything about a problem they ask for £1000. it's a piss take and really the very final nail in the coffin for me and Xerox.

 

[che.c]

The non-service agreement mark up that they put on parts and service is what really makes it untenable to run the things. We've still got a 260 here and I think it's a more solid machine than the 700, sure it can't do as much but it's nowhere near as flaky.

I swear the 700 hasn't worked properly since it's been installed, never 100%. Don't get me wrong, theres 700K clicks on it but the 260 at 1.3M is considerably more reliable.

In the end I don't think you're gonna win anywhere with these machines, as long as you're making money from your print and the stress levels are at the intense level and not the unbearable level, then that's about all you can ask for in digital.

 

[jotterpinky]

We noticed smoother solids with the 242 vs our 250, less mottling and banding.