Fluke 77 IV versus Fluke 177

[RedGrittyBrick]

I recently put in bids on eBay on some used multimeters and was checking new prices I noticed something a little strange

The Fluke 77-IV and 177 are fairly similar in looks and measuring ranges, however

• The 177 is more accurate (0.09% vs 0.3% basic DC V accuracy)
• The 177 is true RMS

but the 177 new costs less than the 77-IV! The only reason I can think of is

• The 77-IV is "made in the USA"

Is this the reason 77-IV costs more than the, apparently better, 177?

[retiredcaps]

All Fluke 170s, AFAIK, are made in the USA.

Dave mentioned that Fluke may be producing non True RMS multimeters for the US government as they have thousands of page/procedures using non True RMS multimeters (think original Fluke 70 series).

Modemhead, a member here, has noted that the 77IV uses the same/similar pcb as the 170 series as you can see in the photos of this blog entry.

http://mrmodemhead.com/blog/fluke-77-iv-copper-corrosion/

[paulbt]

I recently put in bids on eBay on some used multimeters and was checking new prices I noticed something a little strange

The Fluke 77-IV and 177 are fairly similar in looks and measuring ranges, however

• The 177 is more accurate (0.09% vs 0.3% basic DC V accuracy)
• The 177 is true RMS

but the 177 new costs less than the 77-IV! The only reason I can think of is

• The 77-IV is "made in the USA"

Is this the reason 77-IV costs more than the, apparently better, 177?

Hi and sorry again for reviving very old topics!

This is also a dilemma for me and I often remember myself to search for an answer because I own a 77IV since a few months (bought second hand, but unused).

Some days ago I was viewing some videos on youtube from Fluke's channel and read a few comments posted.

I decided to ask this question as a reply to other Fluke's comment (see the screenshots below) and they did answered eventually, but avoided to give me a direct answer. I feel like I am some child and they give me an ice cream just to shut up and forget about my question. I usually appreciate a manufacturer that is transparent and honest to their customers, but yeah...whatever...maybe sometimes I have too many expectations from others...

 

[nightfire]

Well, I read that response of Fluke as quite clear, albeit politically correct ;-)

Reading between the lines, they state that:
- 77 and 177 have the same guts, except the RMS circuit/behaviour
- military (and probably government) are the main customers for the 77
- because most users are more happy with a DMM that can measure RMS (at least, for the same or lower price...)

Judging from that: Probably the amount of devices manufactured and sold are less than of tha 177, so the fixed costs are to be distributed to fewer units. And: If the military needs them, they probably are prepared to pay a premium for them.
Eventually Fluke has to guarantee some extended time for spare parts or whatever, this might also be of concern for some pricing decisions...

The point here ist, that as stated above: When a certain amount of processes and paper for them have been defined, changing them is not cheap. Someone has to change them, evaluate the usage of a RMS multimeter in them, check for a different behaviour and consequences, and therefore there will be some kind of liability for damages arising from this.
So it is cheaper to leave things as they are and continue to buy non-RMS Multimeters instead, that behave exactly as the models before.

[paulbt]

Thanks! your explanation makes sense!

I knew that the military will buy them because they have lots of procedures defined in the past based on non-true rms meters and they are not willing to change that, but I never thought that production costs were divided to less units than in the case of the 177 model.

Also the extended time to provide spare parts after stopping the production is an interesting little detail. We, as mass consumers, rarely or never worry about this. So...yeah...enigma solved! Now I am more clever than I was when I woke up today!

Wish you a nice sunday evening!