Current Tudor Chrono movements: 7753 vs. 2892 (with add on module)

[Boothroyd]

Apologies in advance if I am starting a thread that duplicates past TRF discussion on currently-produced Tudor movements, but I can't find anything that directly addresses my question:

As it relates the movement used in the Tudor Heritage Chrono (2892) vs. the Fastrider Chrono (7753), is one in any way advantageous over the other (reliability, etc.)? I realize these are modified by Tudor to their specs, and the layout of the chronos are different. Any inherent superiority of one over the other?

My guess is no, but wanted to ask those much more knowledgeable about movements than me. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

(Still trying to decide between a BB, THC or Fastrider for a next "weekend" watch--want to buy for the long-term, so concerned about which may hold up better).

And Padi, if you are still checking TRF, would love your opinion on this!

[~JJ]

I can't provide a technical answer, but the 7753 felt much smoother to me in person and I prefered the pushers on the fastrider.

[landroverking]

Not a fan of the movement in the heritage

[Old Expat Beast]

There was a lot of criticism of the THC's DD module here when they first came out, then Peter (Padi) wrote a long post blowing everyone out of the water saying how great it was. That was the post that encouraged me to get my THC. I have been wearing it every day since last August, with the stopwatch hand running in perfect synch with the sub dial seconds hand, and with overnight positioning it is always within one or two seconds of the atomic clock at any time. That's more than can be said for any of my Rolexes.

This is the same modular setup used in the AP ROO, and as far as I can tell, the main criticisms are from watchmakers who don't like working on them. Shouldn't be a problem at RSC.

[Boothroyd]

You see, I missed that post from Padi, Adam. Trying to find it, but could you send a link if you have it bookmarked? Thank you.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by Boothroyd

You see, I missed that post from Padi, Adam. Trying to find it, but could you send a link if you have it bookmarked? Thank you.

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=295326 This is a more recent thread.

[Boothroyd]

Thank you, sir!! Reading through those posts now.

Be interested if any early THC users have been through a service cycle yet, for any reason, and associated costs. Too early for that, I would think.

[Old Expat Beast]

Here's a much older thread with more opinions, and similar feedback from Padi at post#40. http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=121318

[tkerrmd]

They are both cool watches don't think it matters

[Dan Pierce]

My THC has run +4 sec per day since 2011. Never had an issue.
dP

[breitlings]

2892 or 2894 is a much better movement. imo its the best modern eta movement, there are some good write ups out there but the 2892 is considered their best. the 7750 is and was made at a time when chrono movements were expensive. the original 7750 was built to a price point there are plastic levers etc. the new 7750 have more jewels but the pieces are now stamped. so I would still choose a 2892 every day of the week.

7750 is louder and winds one direction. can lose regulation. for both movements must be careful with changing date and stopping chrono b4 reset.

[vukotab]

Well, based on my experience, there is no way in the world to determine which movement is "better" in terms of use and durability.
Tudor uses Chronometer grade movements (although not officially certified) in both cases, so there is a good chance that both will perform well within COSC specs, if that's matter to you.
I had numerous watches with both movements, and never had ANY issues, and I personally prefer 7753 slightly over 2894, simply because jumping chrono minute hand, instead of dragging one, found in 2894. (I found that easier to read, but that's just nonsense, really, and 2894 is smoother and gives feeling of more sophisticated movement :)
There's been a lot of talk about possibilities of repairing defective chrono modules on 2894, and universal opinion is that the module is impossible to repair, which isn't true btw, but it's really much, much easier to simply replace it. And it's not too expensive either.
But, again, I never had any issues with 2894, so chances that something goes wrong with such fantastic watch as THC are pretty slim. :)
Personally, I would be relaxed about both 7753 and 2894 and I would choose my Tudor for it's design cues only, because all of them are really built like a tanks and will probably last for a lifetime :)

[breitlings]

well here's a write-up I referenced, http://www.chronometrie.com/eta2892/eta289202.html :

"So how does it compare to the competition? There are some movements that match it in terms of accuracy and reliability, but in my humble opinion, none exceed it. The Rolex 3035 and 3135 match it toe to toe. But they are a lot thicker and considerably more expensive too. The PPs, while being very pretty to look at, do not match it for accuracy and are more delicate as far as reliability is concerned. Of course they’re also slightly thinner, so that does put them at a disadvantage. The JLC 889/2 does match it for accuracy, but is also too delicate to give it any competition in the reliability department. The main reason for the latter is its very weak mainspring. The whole design, while being well thought out and superbly executed, relies too much on everything being just perfect. It is just thrown out of wack too easily, when even minor things go out of adjustment. I don’t have too much experience on the Blancpain/Piguet movements. But from the few that have crossed my bench, they don’t seem to deliver the same accuracy that the 2892 has no trouble delivering. Let me know if I’ve left any of your favorite movements out, and I’ll gladly comment on them."

I have to disagree with the idea that you can't judge movements, I think you can quantify it. The 2892 is an excellent movement. It's one of the only ETA's that are even close to a Rolex. The 7750 is more of an economical movement, that being said Breitling has been COSC'ing their whole 7750 line up for at least a decade.

ETA's are not as reliable as Rolex movements. ETA's will need regular service, you'll need to not change the date between 9-3 and stop the chrono b4 resetting or risk damage.

[Dan Pierce]

Originally Posted by breitlings

well here's a write-up I referenced, http://www.chronometrie.com/eta2892/eta289202.html :

"So how does it compare to the competition? There are some movements that match it in terms of accuracy and reliability, but in my humble opinion, none exceed it. The Rolex 3035 and 3135 match it toe to toe. But they are a lot thicker and considerably more expensive too. The PPs, while being very pretty to look at, do not match it for accuracy and are more delicate as far as reliability is concerned. Of course they’re also slightly thinner, so that does put them at a disadvantage. The JLC 889/2 does match it for accuracy, but is also too delicate to give it any competition in the reliability department. The main reason for the latter is its very weak mainspring. The whole design, while being well thought out and superbly executed, relies too much on everything being just perfect. It is just thrown out of wack too easily, when even minor things go out of adjustment. I don’t have too much experience on the Blancpain/Piguet movements. But from the few that have crossed my bench, they don’t seem to deliver the same accuracy that the 2892 has no trouble delivering. Let me know if I’ve left any of your favorite movements out, and I’ll gladly comment on them."

I have to disagree with the idea that you can't judge movements, I think you can quantify it. The 2892 is an excellent movement. It's one of the only ETA's that are even close to a Rolex. The 7750 is more of an economical movement, that being said Breitling has been COSC'ing their whole 7750 line up for at least a decade.

ETA's are not as reliable as Rolex movements. ETA's will need regular service, you'll need to not change the date between 9-3 and stop the chrono b4 resetting or risk damage.

Respectfully, this is absolutely not true.
dP

[breitlings]

Originally Posted by Dan Pierce

Respectfully, this is absolutely not true.
dP

We shall agree to disagree. It is a difficult to defend position that a 7750 chronograph or a 2892 with module will beat a rolex in reliability.

There's a reason people buy rolex and it's not because their bracelets, dials or cases are awesome. It's because they work and are tested.

[Boothroyd]

Appreciate all the comments and perspectives..look forward to reading this in detail tonight.

[Dan Pierce]

Originally Posted by breitlings

We shall agree to disagree. It is a difficult to defend position that a 7750 chronograph or a 2892 with module will beat a rolex in reliability.

There's a reason people buy rolex and it's not because their bracelets, dials or cases are awesome. It's because they work and are tested.

Another opinion thrown out as fact. But you're well within your right to believe it. If true, how could Rolex ever sell a precious metal model? If it's not the solid platinum or gold bracelet and Oyster case, why spend the extra $$ since any stainless steel reference would "work and be tested" as well?

People choose the Rolex brand for many various reasons, some more substantive than others.
dP

[breitlings]

That's not a counter argument. My argument is that rolex is ubiquitous and prevalent because they work.

If they had sketchy reliability they would not sell so well. Mercedes makes v12s. It will still be reliable. Your argument is that people don't want a gold reliable timepiece. It's like saying people don't want to buy a Mercedes v12.

I think it's funny you are arguing ETAs are as reliable or durable as rolex. Next will I hear about seagull? There is a significant price difference and testing difference in the movements. Next you'll say BREITLING crystals aren't perfectly curved, and people buy rolex up for their domed crystals? Or perhaps they buy rolex for their perfectly executed seven or nine link bracelet that will never stretch?

Rolex has a great movement refined by time and pursuit of excellence. It's extremely reliable. Peace.

[Dan Pierce]

Rolex movements are extremely well made & reliable. So are many ETA movements, which have also been refined by time and the pursuit of excellence.

Attempts to reinforce your argument by putting words in my mouth might make you feel better but doesn't add much substance to the discussion.

Believe what you will. More power to you.
dP

[breitlings]

Just the regulation mechanism in the Rolex makes it better suited to deal with shock. I said Rolex movements are better you said that's not true, especially the example of an ETA chronograph automatic with date, which are known to be delicate. Then the comparison between the two ETA movements which are also at different price points you can look at things like the winding mechanism and realize the 2892 is better which I backed up with references. All you do is insult people and provide no substantive facts to further any discussion. You are just confusing people.

[mike]

Originally Posted by breitlings

Just the regulation mechanism in the Rolex makes it better suited to deal with shock. I said Rolex movements are better you said that's not true, especially the example of an ETA chronograph automatic with date, which are known to be delicate. Then the comparison between the two ETA movements which are also at different price points you can look at things like the winding mechanism and realize the 2892 is better which I backed up with references. All you do is insult people and provide no substantive facts to further any discussion. You are just confusing people.

I see nothing that can be called insulting in the least.

This is a good discussion on the merits of each and can benefit many new members here. Let's keep it in that vein.

[Old Expat Beast]

For the record here, I have had both my THC and THR (Ranger) regulated by Rolex, and they barely lose or gain a second week to week. Any opinions on the Ranger's 2824 movement, to go slightly off topic for a moment?

[breitlings]

2824 is similar, smaller I believe (1mm thinner), and it is available in lower level ebauches then the chronometer and top grade only of the 2892 offering (it should be noted that all 2892s are high level movements they don't offer the lower grades as they do with the 2824 and 7750).

I would say the 2892 is slightly more reliable and potentially more accurate but at the same grade it would be to close too call in a material way, but at the expense of a ~25% thicker movement. My opinions are borrowed but supported.

Here's a write-up of the 2824 from the same source but different author as the 2892 write-up above: http://www.chronometrie.com/eta2824/eta2824.html

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by breitlings

2824 is similar, smaller I believe (1mm thinner), and it is available in lower level ebauches then the chronometer and top grade only of the 2892 offering (it should be noted that all 2892s are high level movements they don't offer the lower grades as they do with the 2824 and 7750).

I would say the 2892 is slightly more reliable and potentially more accurate but at the same grade it would be to close too call in a material way, but at the expense of a ~25% thicker movement. My opinions are borrowed but supported.

Here's a write-up of the 2824 from the same source but different author as the 2892 write-up above: http://www.chronometrie.com/eta2824/eta2824.html

Very interesting. Thank you.

[padi56]

Originally Posted by breitlings

That's not a counter argument. My argument is that rolex is ubiquitous and prevalent because they work.

If they had sketchy reliability they would not sell so well. Mercedes makes v12s. It will still be reliable. Your argument is that people don't want a gold reliable timepiece. It's like saying people don't want to buy a Mercedes v12.

I think it's funny you are arguing ETAs are as reliable or durable as rolex. Next will I hear about seagull? There is a significant price difference and testing difference in the movements. Next you'll say BREITLING crystals aren't perfectly curved, and people buy rolex up for their domed crystals? Or perhaps they buy rolex for their perfectly executed seven or nine link bracelet that will never stretch?

Rolex has a great movement refined by time and pursuit of excellence. It's extremely reliable. Peace.

A lot of people think the ETA is a inferior movement which it is not,and there 5 grades to many of the ETA line up and all 100% in-house built.The top grade chronometer grade movement IMO can match any of the mass produced high end Swiss brands in terms of accuracy and longevity of life.And in proportion to the amount of Rolex movements tested at the Swiss COSC the ETA 2892/3 and Valjoux 7750 range have the highest first time pass rates. And by the way there are some plastic parts in the Rolex cal 4130 but called a fancy name.And lets not forget there was a little bit of ETA in all Rolex watches for decades with the escapement hairsprings.Take the Ulysse Nardin marine chronometers they have always been very very highly regarded, but it is a little known fact that for years, they were fitted with a hi-beat (36000 BPH) version of the ETA 2824-2, UN calibre NB11QU.And over the many years I have been around watches this in-house stuff that they are always better is not correct.Truth be told there have been quite a few mediocre so called in-house made movements over the years.And like all the high end brands today you pay quite a high price for the name on the dial or movement.But on a few occasions the name has not lived up to full expectations on some.Truth be told yes Rolex does make very fine movements but so do many others including ETA/Valjoux.

Sometime I hear comments like "such an expensive watch and only an ETA movement inside ". Words like these give the impression that an ETA movement is of lower quality.It should be the other way around, people should say "Well, it has a excellent ETA movement inside this watch, but the price of this watch is astonishingly high".And ETA/Valjoux still make and sell around six million plus movements a year.Lets not forget that ETA is the largest manufacture in Switzerland, because they make everything, in-house only.I have a special regard for the Unitas 6497/8 this movement has not basically changed now for over 50 years,and is capable of COSC standards,and very forgiving in its servicing or lack of.A truly great workhouse movement with a huge balance wheel that has powered many high end watches.

And myself have high regard for the Chinese Seagull ST19 manual wind chronograph movement Its a copy of the Swiss Venus 75 a very fine movement in its day,the Chinese bought the tools and tooling writes when they went bust like so many Swiss brands way back in the late 1960s early 1970s.Over the years they have modded the movement and increased its BPH .Myself have tested this movement for over 7 years in a watches costing just $60. And they have taken a lot more punishment on the wrists of my grandsons,than most mainly pampered Rolex watches today.Myself have regulated these Seagull powered watches for my grandsons and I am truly amazed by there accuracy.Yes today they are now both a bit scratched but even the bracelets show very little wear and movements still running fine after 7 constant years of wearing with very little care.

[Boothroyd]

Peter, thank you for the commentary! Appreciate the information from everyone posting. Not going to worry about the Tudor movements in making a decision.

[Boothroyd]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

For the record here, I have had both my THC and THR (Ranger) regulated by Rolex, and they barely lose or gain a second week to week. Any opinions on the Ranger's 2824 movement, to go slightly off topic for a moment?

Not an opinion, but Tudor does use the their 2824 in the Black Bays and the Pelagos as well as the Ranger. I would assume they are using the same exact movement in each, as they make no distinction in their catalog.

That's coming from a guy who only looks at a catalogs, not someone who opens up watch cases and works on movements.

I am assuming its top grade and robust as they come!

[Friar]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

For the record here, I have had both my THC and THR (Ranger) regulated by Rolex, and they barely lose or gain a second week to week. Any opinions on the Ranger's 2824 movement, to go slightly off topic for a moment?

There has been quite a bit of discussion on the WUS watchmaking forum regarding hand-winding of the 2824.

http://forums.watchuseek.com/f6/f6-2...ad-866942.html

http://forums.watchuseek.com/f6/eta-...ns-684738.html

While I can't seem to find it now, in one of the posts, Archer, a respected watchmaker in Toronto, commented on the modifications Rolex has made to the 2824 in the Tudor line.

[breitlings]

Peter, I agree with everything you've said. I don't want to put out that I'm an ETA hater, I like ETA movements a lot. I don't believe every in-house movement is better than an ETA. I like the ETA powered breitlings more than the Breitling B01 movement for example. I do like Rolex movements more than ETA and certain ETA calibers better than others though, and I think that's a fair opinion.

Here's where I do pose a bit of a challenge. The OP was a question about which is better:

7750 vs 2892: I still believe that the 2892 with modules > 7750.

Why:

I like the 2892 winding system better, its quieter and smoother if you will in operation versus 7750s which can get loud. The 7750 winds in only one direction so it can wobble a bit. I've regulated a 7750 to dead-on, never been able to do that with other movements. I find that the chrono mechanism especially hour totalizer is a bit fragile in the 7750, the fake 7750s really don't work. 2892 just feels more robust refined and substantive in the operation. Sort of like the 2824 it just more or less works.

Rolex vs ETA: I still believe that the Rolex >> ETA.

Why:

I like the microstella adjustment system that makes the movement more uniformly circular ( http://people.timezone.com/library/c...28417314218750 ) and more difficult to knock out of regulation vs the eta fine adjustment. I like the quicksets, it is very easy to mistakenly set the time or date during a "danger" period. I like the variance better too. That doesn't mean you can't get a 7750 to be dead on, it might take a bit more work to keep it there though, imo.


I own and enjoy all the movements discussed above.

Originally Posted by padi56

A lot of people think the ETA is a inferior movement which it is not,and there 5 grades to many of the ETA line up and all 100% in-house built.The top grade chronometer grade movement IMO can match any of the mass produced high end Swiss brands in terms of accuracy and longevity of life.And in proportion to the amount of Rolex movements tested at the Swiss COSC the ETA 2892/3 and Valjoux 7750 range have the highest first time pass rates. And by the way there are some plastic parts in the Rolex cal 4130 but called a fancy name.And lets not forget there was a little bit of ETA in all Rolex watches for decades with the escapement hairsprings.Take the Ulysse Nardin marine chronometers they have always been very very highly regarded, but it is a little known fact that for years, they were fitted with a hi-beat (36000 BPH) version of the ETA 2824-2, UN calibre NB11QU.And over the many years I have been around watches this in-house stuff that they are always better is not correct.Truth be told there have been quite a few mediocre so called in-house made movements over the years.And like all the high end brands today you pay quite a high price for the name on the dial or movement.But on a few occasions the name has not lived up to full expectations on some.Truth be told yes Rolex does make very fine movements but so do many others including ETA/Valjoux.

Sometime I hear comments like "such an expensive watch and only an ETA movement inside ". Words like these give the impression that an ETA movement is of lower quality.It should be the other way around, people should say "Well, it has a excellent ETA movement inside this watch, but the price of this watch is astonishingly high".And ETA/Valjoux still make and sell around six million plus movements a year.Lets not forget that ETA is the largest manufacture in Switzerland, because they make everything, in-house only.I have a special regard for the Unitas 6497/8 this movement has not basically changed now for over 50 years,and is capable of COSC standards,and very forgiving in its servicing or lack of.A truly great workhouse movement with a huge balance wheel that has powered many high end watches.

And myself have high regard for the Chinese Seagull ST19 manual wind chronograph movement Its a copy of the Swiss Venus 75 a very fine movement in its day,the Chinese bought the tools and tooling writes when they went bust like so many Swiss brands way back in the late 1960s early 1970s.Over the years they have modded the movement and increased its BPH .Myself have tested this movement for over 7 years in a watches costing just $60. And they have taken a lot more punishment on the wrists of my grandsons,than most mainly pampered Rolex watches today.Myself have regulated these Seagull powered watches for my grandsons and I am truly amazed by there accuracy.Yes today they are now both a bit scratched but even the bracelets show very little wear and movements still running fine after 7 constant years of wearing with very little care.

I'll check out the unitas and as an aside I agree the old venus chronograph movements are very cool.

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by Friar

There has been quite a bit of discussion on the WUS watchmaking forum regarding hand-winding of the 2824.

http://forums.watchuseek.com/f6/f6-2...ad-866942.html

http://forums.watchuseek.com/f6/eta-...ns-684738.html

While I can't seem to find it now, in one of the posts, Archer, a respected watchmaker in Toronto, commented on the modifications Rolex has made to the 2824 in the Tudor line.

Thanks. The Ranger certainly does give a lot more resistance on the manual wind than the THC, which gives almost none by comparison.