UT161D from Europe vs China

[bdunham7]

There are legitimate reasons for these kinds of designs.  For example, oscilloscope manufacturers often have the exact same hardware for different models with wildly different pricing, just having different software enabled or not.  Why shouldn't a multimeter manufacturer do similar (using slightly different hardware instead of enabling software features) for different models of meters at different price points?  Another reason for having a design support different components might be for flexibility in parts supply (which might be seen as more important now after the COVID parts crisis).

Sure, Fluke does it with their small 113-117 series.  Some of the models share a common PCB and they will have unpopulated footprints on some version.  For example, there will be an empty place for "PTC2" in the models without Low-Z.  If UNI-T had two models, one with CAT ratings and one without, then omitting the MOVs and putting in smaller fuses, etc might be a similar deal.  However, when they put the SAME CAT RATINGS on the meters and then include or omit the MOVs, big fuses, etc depending on whether the meter is being shipped to a jurisdiction that actually checks vs one where they think they can get away with leaving them out, then that's a bit different IMO.

Does anyone remember the fake airbag covers that shady used car salvage builders would use?

https://www.oig.dot.gov/library-item/31564

It's like that, IMO.  Screw the people that trust your specs, only the ones that know what to look for and check for it get what they are paying for.

[mwb1100]

If UNI-T had two models, one with CAT ratings and one without, then omitting the MOVs and putting in smaller fuses, etc might be a similar deal.  However, when they put the SAME CAT RATINGS on the meters and then include or omit the MOVs, big fuses, etc depending on whether the meter is being shipped to a jurisdiction that actually checks vs one where they think they can get away with leaving them out, then that's a bit different IMO.

Yeah.  One thing about CAT ratings is that exaggerated CAT ratings is rife throughout the multimeter marketplace.  The vast majority of low-end multimeters clearly don't meet their claimed CAT rating.  It seems to me that the only ones you can trust are from the top-tier manufacturers and maybe some of the middling-tier that are US/EU brands.

The UT16x+ series claims CAT III 1000V/CAT IV 600V (though not 3rd party certified) - are they even close? I honestly don't know.

[floobydust]

Be suspicious of any meter that has markings and holes on the on the PCB for different size fuses and other components.

It means inferior/cheaper versions have been designed into the production process.

There's Rev. A,B,C,D,E and then some +. It's all so tiresome.
UT61E+ looks the same as Euro UT161E which seems to have MOV's populated. Adding $0.12 to the total BoM cost. Hurrah!
But slightly different PCB inside- smaller fuses and smaller PTC's. They double-footprint the fuse holders. What a shell game.

There are legitimate reasons for these kinds of designs.  For example, oscilloscope manufacturers often have the exact same hardware for different models with wildly different pricing, just having different software enabled or not.  Why shouldn't a multimeter manufacturer do similar (using slightly different hardware instead of enabling software features) for different models of meters at different price points?  Another reason for having a design support different components might be for flexibility in parts supply (which might be seen as more important now after the COVID parts crisis).

I realize that Uni-T got a bad reputation for this kind of thing because with the UT61E they had at least two variants of the meter that had important differences but used the same model identifier "UT61E" (though there was some very subtle visible difference by marking some models with with the "GS" mark).

Maybe with the different UT61x+ vs UT161x model identification Uni-T are trying to avoid the confusion/sleaziness of the UT61E situation?

Uh, no when it comes to safety components. You don't arbitrarily delete some, use smaller ones etc. whilst fraudulently claiming it (still) meets 61010.
Uni-T has an ethics problem and their bad reputation will smell for some time until they clean up their act.