AT & HZ Three-Model Comparison

Compare three catalog rows across pressure, force, oil, hose, and reference-dimension fields before requesting drawings and a configured quotation.

Selection reminder:

A higher nominal-force row is not automatically the better choice because the completed decision also depends on pressure available under load, approach and working travel, return load, oil volume, line routing, mounting, frame behavior, control response, service access, and the agreed workpiece-acceptance method.

Model A

Model B

Model C

Specification	Model A	Model B	Model C

Catalog values remain tied to their stated pressure basis.

Comparison boundaries to close before release

Read nominal force together with the listed hydraulic pressure.
Separate catalog force from installed force at the workpiece.
Verify the full stroke breakdown against the final drawing.
Match oil demand to movement, boost travel, circuit volume, and reserve.
Confirm approach and return behavior under the planned tooling load.
Route the hose within its rating, bend radius, and protection limits.
Reconcile AT04 and AS04 before issuing a commercial code.
Resolve the HZ and HMPS pressure difference in writing.
Check ports, fittings, line length, fill points, and bleed access.
Review mounting, alignment, frame stiffness, and side-load control.
Define sensors, sequence, fault handling, and safe restart logic.
Approve the configured supply, exclusions, tests, and acceptance basis.

Need a drawing-level comparison?

Share the process, force, stroke, duty, mounting envelope, and control requirements.

Request a model review

AT & HZ Three-Model Comparison

Trending now