Pros
- Excellent performance (high yields) juicing root vegetables (such as carrots) and certain other “hard” produce like celery
- Made of highly durable materials
- 100% made in the USA and manufactured by a family owned business
- Outstanding product support from the manufacturer
Cons
- Overheated during testing
- Poor performance (very low yields) juicing “soft” produce, leafy greens, and wheatgrass
- Difficult to assemble, use, and clean
- Has lots of little quirks which are the result of a design that has seen very little change in 50+ years on the market – an example is the fact that the motor shaft needs to be lubricated before juicing
Category Scores
| Assembly Diff. | 2.0 |
| Food Prep. | 4.0 |
| Soft Produce | 2.0 |
| Hard Produce | 4.0 |
| Leafy Greens | 2.0 |
| Wheatgrass | 2.0 |
| Combination | 2.0 |
| Pulp Free | 2.0 |
| Overall | 2.5 |
| Cleaning Diff. | 2.5 |
| Ease of Use | 2.5 |
| Versatility | 3.5 |
| Durability | 3.0 |
| Value | 2.5 |
| Cumulative | 36.5 |
All category scores are out of 5
Contents
Model Differences
We tested the Champion Juicer 2000 Commercial for this review. The 2000 model is available with a white or black finish and as a household (model no. G5-NG-853-S) or commercial (model no. G5-PG710) unit. The household unit is exactly the same juicer as the commercial unit except that the latter’s motor “has added winding capacity” according to the manufacturer. This translates into improved motor durability which allows commercial units to run longer at any one particular time than household units. It also results in higher starting torque which may or may not have a negligible impact on the juicer’s performance. Household and commercial units are normally very similarly priced so we would advise consumers interested in a Champion 2000 juicer to simply buy the commercial unit if possible.
Comparison to the New Champion Juicer 4000
Shortly after we tested the Champion Juicer 2000, the manufacturer released its successor, the Champion Juicer 4000. The 4000 model comes equipped with the same heavy duty motor as the 2000 “except that it is shorter”, per the manufacturer. A shorter motor translates into a shorter body (the purpose of the body is to cover the motor) – the 4000 therefore has a much smaller footprint than the 2000 as well. The material used for constructing the body is different also. The 2000 has a painted metal body. The 4000 has a plastic body. The last major difference between these two models is that the 2000 uses a single auger to process all produce. The Model 4000 uses two augers – a grinding auger and a “Greens” auger. But note that both augers are not installed at the same time. Depending on the type of produce that is to be juiced, one or the other auger needs to be installed. For example, when juicing hard root vegetables or fruits, the grinding auger needs to be installed. When juicing leafy greens or wheatgrass, the greens auger needs to be installed.
Which Model To Buy
We already recommended purchasing the commercial over the household version of the Champion 2000. But what about the 2000 compared to the 4000 model? Which model is best? Our recommendation is the 2000. Here’s why:-
The 4000 in stock form is a more capable juicer when it comes to processing leafy greens and wheatgrass because of its greens auger. The greens auger and the screen that surrounds it is much more efficient at processing leafy greens than the single auger (cutter) and screen of the 2000. However, this same greens auger and screen (of the 4000) can be purchased as a separate kit for the 2000. The price of the 2000 + the kit is very close to the price of the 4000 by itself. Thus, all things being equal (2000+kit vs 4000), for processing leafy greens and wheatgrass, the performance of the 2000 vs the 4000 is essentially a dead heat.
Here’s where things get interesting. The 4000 uses a traditional grinding auger for processing all other types of produce. The 2000, on the other hand, uses a much more unique type of auger for this purpose. Half of the auger is constructed like a traditional grinding auger with smooth hard edges (like the 4000’s grinding auger) but the other half has a multitude of sharp metal “teeth”. This hybrid construction gave the Champion 2000 juicer a unique edge over the other slow juicers we tested in processing certain “hard” vegetables such as carrots and celery. This advantage is lost with the 4000’s more traditional auger design.
The hybrid design of the Champion 2000’s auger. Note the metal teeth on one part of the auger and the smooth edges on the other part of the auger.
In summary
The 2000 + greens attachment kit and 4000 perform equally well when it comes to processing leafy greens and wheatgrass while the 2000 performs better juicing all other types of produce. Because both juicers are very similarly designed otherwise, they tie or perform very similarly in most other categories – ease of use, durability etc. It is therefore the 2000’s juicing performance advantage that earns it our recommendation over the Champion Juicer 4000.
Note:-
Because both juicers are very similarly designed much of the review that follows applies just as much to the Champion Juicer 4000 as it applies to the 2000. Topics regarding ease of use and durability are especially relevant if you’re looking for more information on the 4000, specifically. Throughout the review we will specify directly underneath the topic heading whether the write-up that follows applies to just the 2000 or the 2000 and the 4000.
We did not test the 2000 with the greens attachment kit for this review. We used the juicer in its stock form (with the auger that it comes with) for all tests including those involving leafy greens and wheatgrass.
Assembly
Mostly applicable to 2000 although some discussions apply to 4000 as well
The following parts are required to assemble the Champion 2000 for juicing. It can also be assembled for homogenizing by interchanging only one of the parts below. We discuss that part in the notes below.
Juicing – Parts List
- Auger (cutter)
- Drum (body) and feeding chute (feeding chamber)
- Juicing strainer holder (screen holder)
- Juicing strainer (screen)
- Hopper (funnel)
- Food pusher (tamper)
- Main body
- Juice container
- Pulp container
The general terms we use for juicer parts are listed. If the manufacturer calls a certain part by a different name it is listed in parentheses.
Notes
The manufacturer recommends that the hopper not be used “when juicing large foods” and that it should only be used when juicing or homogenizing smaller foods such as berries, nuts, grapes, etc. We eschewed following this recommendation during testing, not for any other reason other than that we didn’t see not using it having any tangible benefit.
When using the juicer for homogenizing all parts and subsequent assembly are exactly the same as they are for juicing except that the juicing screen is replaced with a blank screen. The blank screen has the same size and dimensions as the juicing screen, except it is made of solid plastic.
Assembly Parts and Time
The Champion’s nine parts required for assembly is exactly equal to the number of parts required to assemble a vertical masticating juicer or a centrifugal juicer (also nine) and one less than the number of parts required to assemble a horizontal masticating juicer (ten).
During testing it often took us several minutes to properly assemble the Champion for reasons we’ll outline in detail below. However, in ideal conditions with nothing going wrong (during assembly) it takes as little as 26 seconds to fully assemble the Champion from start to finish. This time compares favorably to the time it took us to assemble more difficult to assemble juicers such as the Tribest Green Star Elite, which took almost twice as long to fully assemble, even under the same ideal conditions. This time also compares favorably to the time it took us to assemble the easiest to assemble juicers, the centrifugal juicers, which mostly took between 20 to 30 seconds to assemble, start to finish. Finally, most vertical and horizontal masticating juicers we tested took between 30 and 40 seconds to assemble under the same ideal conditions. Thus, in an ideal situation in which you don’t make any mistakes, and things fit together perfectly first try, you can assemble the Champion faster than most masticating juicers, and just as fast as most centrifugal juicers. In practice and under less than ideal conditions, however, it takes just about as long as most masticating juicers to assemble which makes it slightly slower to assemble than most centrifugal juicers.
A Masticating Juicer?
The Champion’s parts and the manner in which its parts are assembled aren’t much different than the typical horizontal masticating juicer’s parts and the manner in which those parts are assembled. There are important differences, however, mostly having to do with the design of each type of juicer’s auger and the parts that surround it. First of all, the Champion’s “auger” isn’t called an “auger”. The manufacturer Plastaket calls it a cutter, and rightfully so. A masticating juicer’s auger turns at a very low RPM (normally between 50 and 100 RPM) and moves food through the juicer by pulling, pushing, and crushing it – the type of actions associated with, well, an auger. An auger on this type of juicer is normally constructed of a smooth, very hard and resilient plastic. In contrast, the Champion’s “auger”, its cutter, rotates at a much faster 1725 RPM. It also has teeth. And so the cutter of the Champion processes food by cutting and slicing it much more so than by pulling, pushing, and crushing it.
The second difference between a typical masticating juicer and the Champion has to do with how the auger on each type of juicer attaches to the main body of the juicer. Augers on most masticating juicers are mostly plastic but have a metal arm (normally about 2 inches long) that extends from the center of the base of the auger. This metal arm is positioned so that it fits into the main body of the juicer to connect the auger to the juicer, much like the male end of a PVC connector fits into the female end of another PVC connector. The Champion features the exact opposite design. The metal arm in its design does not extend from the auger, or cutter. Instead, it extends from the main body as a motor shaft that is directly attached to the juicer’s motor. And so, on the Champion, the body is the equivalent male end and the cutter is the female end.
The third difference between masticating juicers and the Champion has to do with each juicer’s screen – the part through which the produce is strained to make juice. The juicing screen of a typical masticating juicer is located inside the drum assembly (consisting of the drum itself and the feeding chute and hopper). It’s normally a cylindrical filter-like part that fits around the outside of the auger. The Champion’s juicing screen fits onto the outside of the drum assembly (called the body by the manufacturer). The drum assembly has a rectangular hole on the bottom that’s covered by the screen. Produce is chopped and sliced up by the cutter and then pushed through the screen into the juice container. Holding the screen in place is the aptly named screen holder. This part is unique to the Champion.
Finally, most horizontal masticating juicers have a drum cap that attaches to the drum assembly. Many have a juicing nozzle that attaches to the drum cap. The Champion has neither. Its equivalent drum cap is integrated with the drum assembly and it doesn’t have any type of nozzle that attaches to it.
Assembly Steps
We’ve discussed the different parts that make up the Champion and how those parts compare to equivalent parts on a typical horizontal masticating juicer, but how does the difficulty of assembling those parts on the Champion compare to the difficulty of assembling the parts that make up a masticating juicer? Before we compare difficulty, let’s first discuss how exactly the Champion is assembled.
Assembly begins with preparing the main body. That’s correct. You have to first prepare the main body of the juicer before putting together any parts for assembly. This preparation involves one step – making sure that the motor shaft is properly lubricated. The juicer ships with the shaft lubricated but, even after juicing just one or two times you’ll probably need to lubricate it again. Lubrication involves applying a generous amount of either olive oil or coconut oil to the shaft. The manufacturer makes it clear in the included user manual that other liquid oils, butter, margarine, and petroleum jelly should not be used for lubrication. We chose to use olive oil during testing.
Note that both the Champion Juicer 4000 and 2000 require application of oil to their motor shafts. The Champion 2000’s auger with oil inside of it is shown on the left and its motor shaft, properly lubricated, is shown on the right.
Note that the Champion Juicer 4000 also requires application of oil to the motor shaft.
Once you’ve completed the messy task of apply oil to the motor shaft the next step is to slide the cutter onto the shaft. It only completely slides onto the shaft in one orientation, although it can make it most of the way onto the shaft in any orientation. If not properly oriented it will stop short of the base of the shaft by a few fractions of an inch. If this happens you’ll need to rotate the cutter until the flat edge of the motor shaft matches the flat edge of the cutter hole. Alternatively, you can make sure that the edges match before sliding it onto the shaft, in which case you won’t need to rotate it to fit it correctly. Either way, we didn’t have much trouble with this step during testing.
Next, you’ll need to slide the drum assembly over the cutter, making sure that the feeding chute points downward but at a slight angle. If necessary, rotate the drum slightly when it makes contact with the main body so that the notches at the end of the drum fit in between the clips on the main body of the juicer. You then have to rotate ever so slightly further so that the drum stays in place for the next step.
The next step involves picking up the juicing screen and holding it over the rectangular hole on the bottom of the drum assembly (which should be facing upward at an angle at this time). While holding the screen in place you’ll then need to slide the screen holder over the screen toward the main body. There are grooves on each side of the screen holder that are just wide enough to fit the edge of the juicing screen and the protruding edges on the drum assembly. Holding the screen exactly over the hole can be difficult. Keep in mind that it has to be exactly in place for the screen holder to be able to get started as you slide it over the drum assembly. There are also no arrows or any type of markings on the screen holder to show you which orientation is correct for proper assembly. Only by referencing the manual, using trial and error, or employing past experience will you know to slide it onto the drum assembly with the magnet side facing the main body of the juicer.
With the screen attached to the drum assembly, the only thing left to do is to properly attach the drum to the main body. First, rotate and pull the drum away from the main body. With the drum properly positioned – feeding chute pointing upward and screen/screen holder pointing downward – push it back toward the main body, as before making sure that the notches at the end of the drum fit in between the clips on the main body of the juicer. At the point of contact rotate the drum slightly counterclockwise to lock it into place.
Assembly Criticisms
We have only a few criticisms when it comes to the Champion’s assembly, and only the first is a serious issue. First, is the motor shaft needing repeated lubrication. Manufacturers of every other type of juicer have found a way to have their machines operate without requiring any parts to be lubricated. Lubricating any part in any way is not a required step for any other juicer we tested. Making this a requirement for the Champion is quite simply unacceptable. It’s messy, adds extra time before you can start juicing, and can even keep you from juicing should you not have either of the manufacturer specified lubrication oils on hand.
Our second complaint has to do with attaching the juicing screen to the drum assembly. First, holding the screen in place to slide the screen holder over it can be awkward and difficult. Second, as we mentioned above, there is no indication on the screen holder as to which way it has to slide onto the drum assembly. Third, actually sliding the screen holder over the screen is something that, even after repeated practice, can be challenging to do.
Conclusion
The few criticisms we outlined above are just that, only a few. But one of those few, having to lubricate the motor shaft before juicing, is so egregious that it can be an absolute deal breaker for many and drops the Champion’s score in this category quite dramatically.
That being said, how does the Champion’s assembly difficulty, overall, compare to the average masticating juicer’s assembly difficulty? How does it compare to the difficulty of assembling the average centrifugal juicer? The truth is that the Champion is, for most the part, and taking into account the lubrication issue we discussed above, slightly more difficult to assemble than the average masticating juicer. Yes, the lubrication issue is a large reason why we make this claim but we have other reasons also, most important of which is the fact that the parts that make up the Champion simply don’t fit together as easily and as intuitively as the parts that constitute the typical masticating juicer (the main culprit here being the drum, screen, and screen holder assembly). When it comes to how the Champion’s assembly difficulty compares to that of centrifugal juicers, we invite you to read the assembly section of our general buyer’s guide where we compare the difficulty of assembling all of the different types of juicers. As we note in the same guide, how the Champion or any other slow juicer compares to centrifugal juicers in any category (including this one) is not factored into the category score. That being said, we give the Champion a very poor 2 out of 5 for assembly, for all of the reasons we mentioned above.
Food Preparation
Applicable mostly to 2000 – the 4000 has a slightly larger 2.25 in. diameter feeding chute
Each slow juicer we tested required that we cut most fruits and vegetables into smaller pieces before juicing them. This adds additional time to the overall time that it takes to juice. Some juicers require more food preparation than others. The primary factor that dictates how much cutting – how much food preparation – is required is chute size. Most slow juicers have very narrow chutes – chutes that are less than 2 in. wide and less than 2.5 in. long. The Champion follows this trend as its feed chute is only 1.75 in. in diameter.
Secondary factors that influence how much food preparation is required are juicer type and produce type. For an in-depth discussion of how these secondary factors in combination with chute size dictate food preparation requirements see here.
Skip to next section: performance
Note
The juicer’s user manual is normally a good place to start when seeking information regarding how the juicer’s design (juicer type) can influence food preparation requirements (above and beyond those dictated by feed chute size). The manual for the Champion states that it isn’t needed or required that larger pieces of produce be cut or chopped before juicing them. It states that the only produce that should be cut is produce that won’t directly fit into the feeding chamber and that when cutting produce to fit into the feeding chamber that it should be cut into the largest pieces possible. The take away from this information is that the manual is essentially stating that nothing about the type of juicer that the Champion is influences how you should cut produce for it – that you should only cut produce to fit it into the its feeding chute.
We followed the manual’s directions when it came to all produce items we tested except for celery. We definitely could have fit the celery stalks whole into the feeding chute (which is exactly what we did with a similar item – the carrots – we fit them in whole; and which is exactly what the juicer’s manual would indicate); however, we chose to cut them instead (as we did for the horizontal masticating juicers we tested) only because we were weary of fibrous celery strands catching onto the cutter and causing it to jam. This was one instance in which we used our own experience with similar juicers to decide how to cut certain produce instead of relying on the manual’s directions.
Food Preparation Results
The table below shows how much cutting (size of cuts) was required for each produce item we tested with the Champion and also with some other popular highly rated slow juicers. We also list the specific time (time to cut) that it took us to cut each item when preparing it for the Champion juicer AND the average time (avg. time to cut) it took us to cut the same quantity of produce to the same size for all of the juicers we tested that required the same type of cutting. For reasons we discuss here, average times are a much better way to show just how much time it takes to prepare fruits and vegetables for one juicer compared to another. Note that all times are in seconds.
Champion 2000
| Fruit/Veg. | Size of Cuts | Time to Cut | Avg. Time to Cut |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oranges | quarters | 23 | 24 |
| Grapes | no cutting required | ||
| Carrots | no cutting required | ||
| Celery | 1″ to 2″ pieces | 113 | 66 |
| Apples | eighths | 49 | 46 |
| Spinach | pre-cut | ||
| Wheatgrass | pre-cut | ||
| More Information | |||
| Chute Size | 1.75″ diameter |
Tribest Green Star Elite
| Fruit/Veg. | Size of Cuts | Time to Cut | Avg. Time to Cut |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oranges | eighths | 54 | 59 |
| Grapes | no cutting required | ||
| Carrots | no cutting required | ||
| Celery | no cutting required | ||
| Apples | sixteenths | 80 | 99 |
| Spinach | pre-cut | ||
| Wheatgrass | pre-cut | ||
| More Information | |||
| Chute Size | 1.5″ by 1.5″” | ||
| Type | Twin Gear (Slow) |
Omega NC800
| Fruit/Veg. | Size of Cuts | Time to Cut | Avg. Time to Cut |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oranges | quarters | 20 | 24 |
| Grapes | no cutting required | ||
| Carrots | 1″ to 2″ pieces | 46 | 50 |
| Celery | 1″ to 2″ pieces | 76 | 66 |
| Apples | eighths | 48 | 46 |
| Spinach | pre-cut | ||
| Wheatgrass | pre-cut | ||
| More Information | |||
| Chute Size | 1.5″ by 2″ | ||
| Type | Horizontal Masticating |
Performance
Applicable only to 2000
In order to better understand the Champion juicer’s performance test results we advise that you first read the article we’ve linked to below. This article explains our testing methodology, how and why we selected the fruits and vegetables we chose for juicing, how we went about juicing for maximum yield, and the difference between out of juicer yield, after sieve yield, and % yield.
Our Testing Methodology
Soft Produce Performance
Oranges
We started off our testing of the Champion by juicing 1 lb. (16 oz.) of oranges which yielded a very disappointing 8 oz. of juice. This low yield places the Champion juicer in dead last place for orange juice yield compared to all 30 other juicers we tested. Most slow juicers we tested yielded at least 10 oz. of juice in the same test and most centrifugal juicers we tested yielded at least 11 oz. in the same test.
We continued the test by pouring the “out of juicer” juice through a sieve into a measuring cup. The collected juice represents the “after sieve” yield. The Champion’s after sieve yield was equally disappointing. We collected only 6.6 oz. of juice after pouring the initial quantity of juice through a sieve. This once again places the Champion juicer in last place compared to every other juicer we tested.
The difference between out of juicer yield and after sieve yield is a good representation of how “pulpy” the out of juicer juice is. The difference in this case was 1.4 oz. – 1.4 oz. of pulp, which is more pulp than what was found in the same test for most other juicers we tested.
The Champion, unfortunately, didn’t fare much better in terms of how long it took us to juice the 1 lb. of oranges. We could accomplish this task in under 2 minutes with 11 of the 14 slow juicers we tested. It took us 3 minutes and 15 seconds to do the same with the Champion.
Grapes
The Champion also did not perform very well juicing 1 lb. of grapes. Its out of juicer yield for 1 lb. of grapes was 12.3 oz. which was the 10th best yield recorded among the 14 slow juicers we tested. Top performers in this category were able to extract as much as 14 oz. of juice while the worst performers extracted only 11 oz. of juice.
Only 0.6 oz. of pulp was collected as we poured the out of juicer yield through a sieve to find the juicer’s grape juice after sieve yield. The Champion’s after sieve yield for grape juice was 11.7 oz., about 2 oz. less than top performers in this category and only a few tenths of an ounce better than the worst performers.
Hard Produce Performance
Carrots
Recall that the Champion’s “auger” rotates at about 1750 RPM, at least 1600 RPM faster than augers on other slow juicers. This fast rotation works in combination with the auger’s myriad of tiny little “teeth” to allow the Champion to do very well juicing certain hard produce like carrots and celery.
As we just mentioned, the Champion was a top performer among the slow juicers we tested when it came to juicing carrots. It was able to extract 11.1 oz. of juice from 1 lb. of carrots. This yield is a full 3 oz. more than the next best performing slow juicer in this category, the top rated Tribest Green Star Elite, which was only able to extract 8.1 oz. of juice in the same test. Most other slow juicers we tested extracted between 5 and 7 oz. of juice.
This result is made at least slightly less impressive by the fact that over 2 oz. of pulp was collected when pouring the out of juicer carrot juice yield through a sieve. The Champion’s after sieve yield of 9 oz. was only 1.4 oz. more than the next best performing slow juicer (the Green Star Elite, again) which yielded 7.6 oz. of juice in this test. Most other slow juicers we tested had very little pulp in their initial batch of juice and so their after sieve yield was very close to their out of juicer yield in most cases.
The Champion was the slowest slow juicer we tested for juicing carrots. It took us over 5 minutes to juice 1 lb. of carrots with this juicer, a task that took us less than 2 minutes to do with most other slow juicers we tested.
Celery
The Champion’s performance in our celery juicing test mimics its performance in our carrot juicing test. It was able to obtain a very high yield – 12.6 oz. – out of the juicer but after pouring this yield through a sieve its yield was mediocre at best – 10.9 oz. In contrast, most other slow juicers we tested had an out of juicer yield less than 12 oz. but an after sieve yield greater than 11 oz.
Juicing with the Champion, it took us almost as long to juice 1 lb. of celery as it took us to juice 1 lb. of carrots. It took us 5 minutes 7 seconds to juice celery and 5 minutes 20 seconds to juice carrots. These times were more than double the average (of the slow juicers we tested) for each category.
Apples
The Champion’s performance in our apple juicing test was much more like its performance in our soft produce tests than in our carrot and celery tests. With the Champion we were able to get an out of juicer yield of only 9.7 oz. juicing apples. This result puts it in 13th place out of the 14 slow juicers we tested. Its after sieve yield was only 6.7 oz. but since we had even more trouble juicing apples with several other slow juicers we tested, this result puts the Champion in only 10th place compared to the 13 other slow juicers we tested.
Despite its low yield, the Champion did make quick work of juicing apples. It was able to juice the test quantity (1 lb.) in only 1 minute, 28 seconds. Juicing the same quantity of apples took us between 2 and 5 minutes to do for most other slow juicers we tested.
Leafy Green Performance
The Champion was a terrible performer in our leafy green performance test. It was able to extract only 5.9 oz. of juice from 1 lb. of baby spinach. Compare this result to the 11.6 oz. out of juicer yield of the Green Star Elite and the 8.5 to 10 oz. out of juicer yield for eight other slow juicers we tested.
Things only got worse after we poured this out of juicer yield through a sieve. The Champion’s after sieve yield of 4.1 oz. is less than half of the after sieve yield of the Green Star Elite and substantially less than the 7+ oz. after sieve yield we saw with seven other slow juicers we tested.
Worst of all, however, was the fact that it took us over 14 minutes to juice. Spinach is very slow to juice, in general, but the Champion’s last place 14 minute 30 second time to juice was more than 3 minutes slower than the second to last place Omega J8004’s 11 minute 20 second time to juice. Most slow juicers required between 7 and 10 minutes to juice 1 lb. of spinach.
Wheatgrass Performance
The Champion’s performance in our wheatgrass juicing test was also well below average. Its out of juicer yield of 1.5 oz. and after sieve yield of 1.3 oz. is almost a full ounce less than the average yields obtained for all slow juicers we tested. Note that we only juiced 4 oz. of wheatgrass for this test.
The Champion also took very long to obtain those yields. It took us over 8 minutes to juice only 4 oz. of wheatgrass with the Champion. The average time for all of the slow juicers we tested was 6 minutes 18 seconds.
Combination Performance
As a final test we juiced a combination of fruits and vegetables totaling 2 lb. in weight. The same ratios of each fruit and vegetable were used for each juicer that we tested for combination performance (1 lb. of oranges and 4 oz. each of carrots, celery, apples, and spinach). The Champion yielded only 19.2 oz. of juice in this test, putting it in last place for this test compared to the 13 other slow juicers we tested.
Juicing Performance Summary and Score
As we’ve already discussed at various points in this review, the Champion has a hybrid design – it’s part slow juicer (in terms of its design), part centrifugal juicer (in terms of how fast its “auger” rotates). And while this hybrid design proves to be a large advantage (over other slow juicers) when it comes to juicing certain hard produce like carrots and celery, it’s just as much of a disadvantage when it comes to juicing soft produce, leafy greens, wheatgrass, or even a combination of hard and soft produce. Unfortunately, the disadvantage in this case far outweighs the advantage and we’re forced to give the Champion a well below average 2.5 out of 5 for juicing performance.
Cleaning
Mostly applicable to 2000 although some discussions (noted in italics later) apply to 4000 as well
The Champion’s user manual instructs that parts should be cleaned immediately after juicing and that only cold water and soap should be used for cleaning them. The manual also contains special instructions for cleaning the screen, cutter, and motor hub. It instructs that the screen can be scrubbed with a stiff bristle brush and that the cutter can be cleaned with a “cleanser” or dishwashing liquid and that it can be scrubbed with a nylon brush. Unfortunately, neither one of these types of brushes were included with our purchase of the juicer. We used the cleaning brush included with Breville centrifugal juicers to scrub the screen and the cutter clean. The manual also warns that moisture can get trapped inside the cutter. For this reason, you need to be careful to allow as little water as possible from entering the shaft hole at the base of the cutter when cleaning it. This means holding the cutter under the tap so that the flat end with the shaft hole is always pointing downward. The manual suggests that a paper towel, soft cloth or toothbrush be used to clean the motor hub.
Difficult To Clean Parts
The juicer’s manual addresses cleaning the screen, cutter and hub of the juicer, specifically, for good reason. Of the 8 parts that you’ll need to clean each time you use the juicer, these are 3 most difficult parts to clean. The other 5 parts are all plastic (nylon) parts that can easily be cleaned using a cleaning cloth (we used a microfiber cloth), soap (we used dishwashing liquid), and cold water.
The screen is the least difficult to clean of the 3 difficult to clean parts we address in this section of the review. How difficult it is to clean will vary greatly depending on what type of produce you’re juicing. We found that after juicing only carrots, a thick layer of fibrous carrot covered the strainer. In this case it took much more of an effort to clean the screen than when we cleaned it after juicing a combination of fruits and vegetables, for example.
The cutter is a very unique part that presents a unique set of challenges when it comes to cleaning it thoroughly and properly. First, the small teeth that line its perimeter can easily cut into your skin. As such you’ll need to be very careful at all times when handling the cutter while cleaning it. Second, there’s a large hole (the shaft hole we just discussed in an earlier paragraph) on the bottom of the cutter where it fits onto the juicer’s motor shaft. It’s very important that as little water as possible enters the hole while cleaning it so the cutter always needs to be held in an orientation that keeps this hole pointing downward.
Finally, cleaning the motor hub is problematic for three different reasons. First, the metal material used in its construction has a tendency to almost “absorb” any juice it comes into contact with. This means that you’ll have to spend quite a bit of time scrubbing it clean if you want to clean it every time you finish juicing. Second, it’s permanently affixed to the main body of the juicer. You can’t remove it and put it under a faucet to clean it. You’ll have to scrub it clean while it’s attached to the main body. Third, sticking out of the hub is the motor shaft which is covered with oil. You don’t want to touch the shaft while cleaning the hub because doing so may remove oil from the shaft. If you remove any oil from the shaft you’ll need to re-lubricate which adds yet another step to the cleaning process.
Note
A rubber ring is fitted around the motor hub that absolutely has to be removed in order to clean it. Proper use and care of this part is not addressed in the user manual.
Both the Champion 2000 and 4000 have a metal hub that’s especially difficult to clean. Here the hub is shown after removing the drum assembly after juicing a combination of fruits and vegetables including carrots.
Both the Champion 2000 and 4000 have a rubber ring like this one (the 2000’s) that is required for assembly and needs to cleaned each time the juicer is used.
Staining
The parts composing the Champion juicer stain very easily. No part is safe from staining. The cutter stains and even the motor hub stains. The manufacturer is cognizant of the fact and includes special instructions for cleaning badly stained parts in the juicer’s user manual. Plastaket recommends that stained parts be soaked in a solution consisting of one part liquid bleach and seven parts cold water. Due to time constraints we didn’t have the ability to test soaking parts overnight during testing. We therefore had to resort to simply washing and scrubbing parts clean until they were as close to unstained as possible. Note that even after repeated cleaning during testing many of the juicer’s parts remained stained.
Dishwasher Safe Parts
The manual explicitly states that nylon (plastic) parts should not be washed with hot water and that they should also not be washed in the dishwasher. The hot water requirement is unique to the Champion; however, the dishwasher requirement is not. The parts that make up 12 of the 14 slow juicers we tested also cannot be washed using a dishwasher. Most of the parts composing most of the centrifugal juicers we tested can be washed in a dishwasher although we didn’t do so during testing and do not recommend do so either. For details regarding why we make this recommendation see here.
Cleaning Summary and Overall Score
The parts that make up the Champion juicer took us about 6 minutes to clean on average. Cleaning the motor hub took an additional 2 to 3 minutes at a minimum. Compare this time to the 4 to 5 minutes it took us to clean most other slow juicers and the 6 minutes it took us to clean most centrifugal juicers.
It takes a longer than average time to clean the Champion juicer for two reasons. First, it’s made up of certain unique and very difficult to clean parts, namely the cutter and the motor hub. Second, its parts stain very easily. Add in the fact that the juicer doesn’t even include any type of cleaning tool when you purchase it, and it’s not surprising that we give the Champion a well below average 2.5 out of 5 for cleaning.
Ease of Use
Mostly applicable to both 2000 and 4000
Initial Learning Curve
The Champion has a very steep initial learning curve and much of it is due to its unique design. It has a feeding chute, drum, strainer, and a rotating “auger” (cutter) like a horizontal masticating juicer. However, the Champion’s cutter rotates almost 20 times faster than the auger on a typical masticating juicer. This unique design means that learning how to use the Champion correctly is a very unique experience that is altogether different than learning how to use any other type of juicer. If you have experience using slow masticating juicers, centrifugal juicers, or any other type of juicer for that matter, you’ll have to learn how to juice all over again when juicing with the Champion for the first time.
Skip to next section: versatility
This experience, of learning how to use the Champion effectively, is also unfortunately, a much more difficult experience than what is typical when learning to use most other juicers. There are plenty of do’s and don’ts – different nuances – that you can only learn through experience when juicing with any juicer. However, there are many, many more such do’s and don’ts, different nuances, and idiosyncrasies when juicing with the Champion.
Because we were unfamiliar with many of its idiosyncrasies, we repeatedly had to stop juicing, take the juicer apart, and rethink our procedure while testing the Champion’s juicing performance. This is not something we had to do nearly as often with other juicers we tested.
To give an example of one of the Champion’s many idiosyncrasies, recall that most of our performance tests required that we juice 1 lb. of a specific fruit or vegetable. This proved to be too great of a quantity to juice at one time for most fruits and vegetables we tested with the Champion – the juicer was overheating midway during most of our tests. We had other problems as well – problems we only experienced when testing the Champion. During our wheatgrass test we had to stop juicing midway through, partially disassemble the juicer, and manually pull unprocessed wheatgrass off of the cutter as it was wrapping around the cutter and causing it to jam and clog the drum assembly.
Continued Difficulty
The initial learning curve of using the Champion is steep and, unfortunately, things don’t get much better in terms of how difficult it is to use the machine, over time, even after you’ve become familiar with all of its quirks. Let’s take a look at some of the factors that contribute or detract from the difficulty of using this juicer on a day to day basis.
How Hard Is It to Push Produce into The Juicer?
When it comes to how much force is required to push produce through the juicer, the Champion is much more like a centrifugal juicer than a masticating juicer. When juicing oranges, grapes, and apples for the most part we only had to place the food pusher into the feed chute and let the weight of the food pusher itself fall down onto the produce to push it through the juicer. Almost no external force was required. Carrots and celery, on the other hand, required us to actually push down with the pusher. Not much force was required initially but as juicing continued progressively more force was required – by the end of the test period we did have to use quite a bit of force to get the last few pieces through the juicer. Spinach also required us to push down with the food pusher but, initially, more so to force the wet spinach leaves through the feed chute (they had a tendency to stick to the sides of the feed chute), than to force them through the juicing assembly (the cutter, etc.) itself. Only at the end of the test period did we actually have to push down with the food pusher to force the spinach through the juicing assembly. When juicing wheatgrass, we mostly had to simply place the food pusher in the feed chute as we did with the soft fruits (oranges and grapes) but by the end of the test period we had to use even more force than what was required to juice the carrots and celery.
So, in summary, soft and firm fruits alike required almost no force while firm vegetables, leafy greens, and wheatgrass required very little force initially and progressively became more difficult to push through the juicer as we continued through each test period. Why was this the case?
The reason why it became increasingly difficult to push the carrots, celery, etc. through the juicer was first made evident when we disassembled the juicer after juicing carrots. When juicing these vegetables and leafy greens a thick fibrous layer of pulp would form over the juicing screen. When first starting each test the juicing screen was clean. At this beginning stage the vegetables were easy to feed through the juicer. However, as juicing continued more and more pulp would accumulate on the juicing screen. Evidently, the pulp wasn’t being successfully pushed through and out of the juicer. This layer of pulp was what made it increasingly difficult to push the firmer and leafier vegetables through the juicer. We experienced even more problems when juicing wheatgrass. The blades of grass actually caught and wrapped around the cutter. This required us to partially disassemble the juicer and pull these blades off of the cutter.
Extra Notes
Because of what was probably a combination of the previously discussed juice pulp accumulation over the juicing screen and running the juicer for extended periods of time to conduct our testing, it is important for us to note that we repeatedly experienced the main body of the juicer emitting heat during and after juicing. Note that this didn’t occur when juicing oranges and grapes. We only first started noticing the juicer emitting heat after juicing carrots which also happened to be the first time we saw excessive pulp accumulation on the juicing screen. The reason why we’re making the claim that the juicer emitting heat isn’t just due to pulp accumulation lies with the fact that it was emitting even more heat after we conducted our apple juicing test, which didn’t result in any pulp accumulation on the juicing screen. Furthermore, the juicer continued to get hotter and hotter as we continued with testing through the day.
Speaking of the juicer malfunctioning, its manual states that it will make a clicking sound if it is overloaded. It claims that this will occur when the juicer is either being fed too rapidly or if the tamper (food pusher) isn’t held down long enough between feeding produce pieces into the juicer. The solution to this problem, according to the manual, is to hold the pusher down with one hand while applying downward pressure on the tapered end of the drum with your other hand.
During testing we didn’t even once hear the aforementioned clicking sound and thus never felt compelled to attempt to resolve such an issue using the instructions outlined in the user manual.
Other Design Choices and Features that Improve or Detract from Ease of Use
Weight and Carrying Handle
The Champion is the heaviest juicer we tested. The main body alone weighs just under 20 lb. and fully assembled it weighs just under 21 lb. The body is a 20 lb. mass that must be moved in one piece – it cannot be further disassembled. Compare this weight to 10 to 11 lb. body weight of a typical masticating juicer (such as the Omega J8006 or Tribest Slowstar). Needless to say, moving the Champion from one location to another in your kitchen is much more difficult to do than it is for most other slow juicers on the market. If you have the counter space to keep the juicer in the location you’ll be juicing with it, this shouldn’t be an issue for you. However, should you want to store the juicer and want to move it up or down onto the counter top with any amount frequency, the juicer’s body weight can be problematic.
The Champion’s design also doesn’t feature a carrying handle, so you’ll need to pick it up from underneath or by its sides to move it from one location to another.
Buttons and Controls
The juicer features a single switch to turn it on or off. There aren’t any labels or markings showing which direction to flip the switch to turn it on or off, but because there are only two settings (on and off) it’s not difficult to remember which way is which.
Chute Size, Juicer Movement, Power Cord Length
The Champion features a 1.75 in circular feeding chute. To see how this chute size impacts the extent to which food needs to be prepared for juicing please see the respective section of our review.
Some of the juicers we tested would move during juicing. We did not observe this happening with the Champion.
The Champion features a 69.5 in long power cord. Its power cord is about 10 inches longer than the power cord you’ll find on most other slow juicers on the market. Power cord length is important because it gives the user greater freedom as to where the juicer can be located in the kitchen relative to power outlets. Because the Champion is as immobile as it is (due to its high body weight), its extra-long power cord is a welcome feature.
Other Factors That Affect Ease of Use
Other factors that should be taken into consideration when assessing the ease or difficulty of using any particular juicer on a daily basis are (1) how difficult it is to assemble the juicer, (2) how difficult it is to clean the juicer, (3) the quality of the included user manual, and (4) the characteristics of certain included parts and/or accessories. We’ve already discussed (1) and (2) earlier in the review. We discuss (3) and (4) below.
Manual Quality
Using a juicer is made much easier if its user manual is detailed and comprehensive in explaining proper use and care. The Champion scores well in this category as its 53-page manual does an excellent job of explaining proper assembly (with photographs), disassembly, preparation of produce, cleaning the juicer, and perhaps most importantly, how to actually use it properly. The recipe section of the manual (containing 80+ recipes) doesn’t simply list ingredients and the quantity of those ingredients that should be used. Each recipe goes into detail explaining how to properly prepare the produce for juicing and how to feed it into the juicer. The manual also addresses many of the nuances of using the juicer. For example, one section of the manual addresses overloading the juicer, the clicking sound the juicer makes when overloaded, and how to go about correcting it (we already briefly discussed this “overloading” topic earlier in the review).
Parts and Their Properties
The parts that we take a look at in this section of the review are the juice container and the pulp container. The volume of each container dictates how much you can juice before having to turn off the juicer and empty each container when juicing a large quantity of produce (so much that the volume of juice you make exceeds the volume of juice that the included juice container can hold) – this is how these parts relate to ease of use. The Champion features a 34 oz. juice container but does not include a pulp container with purchase. The juice container’s 34 oz. volume is very slightly above average within the slow juicer category. The average juice container volume for the slow juicers we tested (we tested 14 in all) was 33.2 oz.
Ease of Use Summary and Score
The Champion is a difficult juicer to get used to juicing with because of its many idiosyncrasies. It’s also a difficult juicer to use on a daily basis even after you’re completely comfortable with those same idiosyncrasies. The juicer does include a very high quality user manual to help you better understand how to deal with many of its quirks. However, the manual doesn’t address all of them and knowing how to handle them isn’t nearly as good as them simply not existing in the first place. We give the Champion a well below average 2.5 for ease of use.
Versatility
The discussion below is only applicable to the 2000. This is one area in which the 4000 may perform better.
The Champion can be used for both juicing and homogenizing, although it doesn’t do the latter nearly as effectively as a typical masticating juicer. Once again, this is due to the Champion’s hybrid design. The typical masticating juicer’s slowly rotating auger crushes food at a low enough rate (less than 100 RPM) and in such a way that it can homogenize very well. The Champion’s much faster rotating 1700+ RPM spinning cutter simply doesn’t allow the juicer to homogenize nearly as well.
Durability
Mostly applicable to both 2000 and 4000
Build Quality and Materials
The Champion’s body appears to be made of some type of metal or steel – it’s most likely constructed using painted stainless steel. The rest of the parts including the drum and feeding chute assembly, screen and screen holder, etc. are made of stainless steel laminated with nylon (a type of plastic). The fact that most of the parts used in its construction are made of stainless steel gives the Champion an edge, in terms of part durability, compared to most other slow juicers on the market, which forego the use of stainless steel and primarily use plastics instead. It is this choice in materials that is one of the primary reasons the Champion is well over 5 lb. heavier than most other similarly sized slow juicers on the market.
Consumer Feedback
The Champion juicer has received a remarkably high rate of positive reviews from consumers. Of the over 300 consumer reviews we surveyed less than 10% gave the Champion less than a 3 out of 5 star review. Most consumer complaints mimic the complaints we voice in this editorial review (see our comments under the juicing performance and ease of use sections especially). Very few complaints have to do with the juicer’s durability or reliability.
Brand Reputation and Quality of Support
The Champion juicer has a very long history which starts all the way back in 1955, the year it was first released. The design of the juicer has actually changed very little since that time. Between 1955 and 1967 small revisions were made of which the most notable was an overhaul of the juicer’s motor’s design. It wasn’t until several decades later that a few more minor revisions were made. In 1993 a magnet was added to the screen holder and at the same time a magnetic sensor was added to the main body of the juicer. These additions were added to make the juicer safer to use (to prevent the juicer from operating unless the screen holder was correctly assembled).
Actual production of the juicer began in the United States, where it has stayed for the last 60+ years. Unlike most other slow juicers on the market, the Champion juicer is 100% made in the USA. The sole manufacturer during that time has been Plastaket Manufacturing, Inc.
Champion juicers have a very good reputation in the juicer community for the reasons we outlined above. For one, it has a very long history (50+ years) unmatched by any other juicer on the market and second, it is one of very few juicers (if not the only juicer) that is 100% made in the United States,
Plastaket also does a very good job of standing behind their product and offering outstanding support. They can be contacted via snail mail, phone, or via a contact form on their website at championjuicer.com. They are also active on Facebook and Instagram. Because they are only a US company with no ties to Korea or China you can rest assured that all customer service is handled within the United States. Not to mention the fact that they are a family owned business that only manufacturers juicers – you truly will receive a very high quality of support should you purchase the Champion juicer.
Warranty
The Champion juicer is warranted by Plastaket for 10 years. A 10+ year warranty is fairly standard for slow juicers. Most Tribest, Kuvings, Hurom, and Omega juicers also come with a minimum 10-year warranty. What differentiates the warranties included with these juicers is not their duration, but rather the coverage included with each warranty and how easy it is to claim each warranty. We look at warranty coverage and claiming warranty coverage next.
Warranty Coverage
As is true for most juicer warranties, the Champion’s warranty doesn’t cover all of the juicer’s parts for 10 years. Several exclusions apply. The juicer’s 10-year warranty does not cover the cutter, which is only warranted for 1 year. It also doesn’t cover motor defects if they are due to motor shaft seal failure. Those types of motor defects are only warranted for 3 years. For your reference, the cutter can be purchased from the manufacturer’s website for just under $40. Motor replacement will most likely require that the whole juicer be replaced.
For comparison, some slow juicer warranties do not make any exclusions. Others do make exclusions – many exclude the included juice container, pulp container, and plungers. Many also exclude the auger (the cutter equivalent). We recommend that you to read the same section of our reviews for other juicers you may be comparing to the Champion, to see how their warranties compare to that of the Champion’s.
Claiming Warranty Coverage
In order to make a warranty claim you can contact Plastaket directly by any of the methods we listed above or simply fill out the included warranty form (that comes with the juicer). Shipping and handling costs are covered by the manufacturer only if a claim is made within the first year of ownership. Most other slow juicer manufacturers do not pay for shipping and handling under any conditions.
The manufacturer strongly advises that the product be registered within 30 days of purchase, although product registration does not appear to be a requirement to receive warranty coverage.
Summary and Score
The Champion is made of very high quality heavy duty materials. Its parts don’t simply have a stainless steel finish. All of its parts are actually constructed of thick stainless steel laminated with plastic. In this regard, most of its parts are virtually indestructible (at least under normal use in the kitchen). Other positives include the fact that the juicer is made in the United States, has a fairly good warranty, and that the manufacturer provides excellent customer service.
On the negative side of things, we did note earlier in the review that the juicer overheated repeatedly during our performance testing. This type of behavior gives us great concern regarding the juicer’s long term reliability despite the fact that the juicer failing over time would contradict most consumer reviews. All things considered, we have to give the Champion only a 3 out 5 for durability, mostly because of the overheating issue we observed during testing.
Value
Mostly applicable to 2000
Bonus Accessories
A sieve and homogenizing blank were also included with our purchase of the juicer.
Initial Cost
The Champion normally retails for just under $300 which is about $25 less than the average price of all 14 slow juicers we tested. It is about three times as expensive as our top rated centrifugal juicer, the Breville BJE200XL, which sells for only $100 at most retailers. The Champion is about $100 less expensive than most vertical masticating juicers we tested and just as expensive as most horizontal masticating juicers we tested.
Long Term Cost
The Champion’s approximately $300 price tag is very reasonable when taken at face value. The Champion is by most accounts (including our own) considered to be more of a slow juicer than a centrifugal juicer and so its price being closer to that of slow juicers than that of centrifugal juicers is justified – in this regard we can reasonably say that the Champion is at least a decent value at its price point.
We cannot, however, say that the Champion is a good value when assessing long term costs associated with juicing with it. You see, its $300 price is only an entry fee into the world of juicing. It only gets you through the door. In order to stay and enjoy your time juicing, you’ll spend many more hundreds of dollars if not thousands of dollars on the items you’ll actually be juicing – fruits and vegetables. The efficiency with which any particular juicer can juice those fruits and vegetables is paramount with regard to the overall cost of juicing.
Here is a quick example to demonstrate our point. The Champion extracted only 4.1 oz. of spinach juice (after sieve yield) from 1 lb. of spinach during our testing. The Omega NC800, the Tribest Solostar 4, and the Omega J8004 all extracted over 8 oz. of juice in the same test. All of the previously mentioned juicers are approximately the same price as the Champion. All of them can be seen as having the same value as the Champion if you only consider the initial cost of buying each juicer. Let’s say that you want to juice enough spinach to make 100 lb. of spinach juice over the course of the next two or three years. Doing so will cost you $472 using the NC800, $478 using the Solostar 4, and $496 using the J8004 assuming the price of spinach is $2.51 per lb. (the average price of 1 lb. of baby spinach in the United States in 2015). Doing so will cost you a whopping $980 using the Champion. This is only one example of many, of how big of an impact juicing performance has on the long term cost of owning any juicer and how owning the Champion costs much more than owning most other slow juicers we tested. For more on this topic see here.
Value Summary
Many of the slow juicers we tested also include a sieve with their purchase and most also include at least one extra blank to enable you to use the juicer as a homogenizer. Thus, the Champion’s “bonus accessories” are much more of a standard for juicers of this type than they are a bonus. The Champion’s price, taken at face value, seems very reasonable at around $300. However, should you take into account the long term cost of produce in combination with the Champion’s very weak performance in our juicing performance tests, it quickly becomes apparent that the Champion fails to be good investment for most users. It earns a well below average 2.5 out of 5 in the category.