The Omega 8004 (left) and 8006 (right). These are identical juicers except for finish. We tested (juiced with and cleaned) only the 8004 but throughout this review will refer to mostly the 8006 as it is the version of the juicer that most consumers are more familiar with.
Pros
- A top performer in most performance related categories
- High yields juicing hard produce, leafy greens, and a combination of produce at the same time
- Relatively low pulp content in extracted juice in most categories
- Highly durable with a proven track record (10+ years on the market and still selling well today)
- Comes with a 15 year warranty according to the manufacturer
- A good value for many reasons including its top tier performance and versatility
Cons
- Comes with the same stringent food preparation requirements as other horizontal masticating juicers
- Fairly difficult to use just like other juicers of the same type
- A poor performer juicing softer fruits such as oranges and grapes and juicing wheatgrass
- Rubber ring around bottom of food pusher gets dirty easily and is difficult to clean
- Comes with an old, outdated, poorly written manual
Contents
Category Scores
| Assembly Diff. | 4.5 |
| Food Prep. | 2.5 |
| Soft Produce | 2.5 |
| Hard Produce | 4.5 |
| Leafy Greens | 4.5 |
| Wheatgrass | 2.5 |
| Combination | 5.0 |
| Pulp Free | 4.0 |
| Overall | 4.0 |
| Cleaning Diff. | 4.5 |
| Ease of Use | 3.0 |
| Versatility | 5.0 |
| Durability | 4.5 |
| Value | 4.5 |
| Cumulative | 55.5 |
All category scores are out of 5.
Model Notes
The Omega 8006 is a 4th generation Omega horizontal masticating juicer. It has a chrome finish. In addition to the chrome finish 8006 a white finish version of the same juicer is also available. The white finish version has a different model name – it is confusingly called the 8004 (confusing because the fact that it has a lower number suggests that it is a previous generation which it is not). Note that despite its different model name, the 8004 is the exact same juicer as the 8006 (aside from the fact that each has a different color finish). We purchased both the 8004 and 8006 for this review. Below are several photographs we took comparing the parts included with both juicers. These photos should make it clear that there is absolutely no difference between these two juicers except for their color/finish.
Review Note
Although we bought both the 8006 and 8004 for this review, we only tested the 8004. Despite this fact, all of the review below is applicable to both the 8004 and the 8006. Why? Because both juicers have the exact same parts (just with different colors) and the exact same internals as we attempt to provide evidence for below. In the one section of the review in which their different colors make an impact, we talk about the 8004 and 8006 as two different juicers. For the rest of the review we talk about only one -mainly the 8006 – but in doing so please understand that we are essentially talking about both juicers at the same time.
Six Generations of Omega Horizontal Masticating Juicers
The 8006 and 8004 are 4th generation juicers Omega horizontal masticating juicers. Since their introduction in the early 2000s two more generations of this particular juicer have been released: the 5th generation 8007S and 8008C and the 6th generation NC800 HDR, NC800HDS, and NC900 HDC. We did not test any 5th generation juicers but we did test the 6th generation NC800. To see how well the NC800 performed compared to the 8006 in our tests please see this juicer comparison table. The last four generations of Omega horizontal masticating juicers are listed in the table below.
| Generation | Equivalent Models | Respective Colors |
|---|---|---|
| Third | 8003 and 8005 | white and chrome |
| Fourth | 8004 and 8006* | white and chrome |
| Fifth | 8007S and 8008C | silver and chrome |
| Sixth | NC800 HDR, NC800 HDS, and NC900 HDC | red, silver, and chrome |
*certain online retailers refer to these models as the J8004 and J8006
Assembly
The 8006 isn’t exclusively a juicer. Like most other juicers in its class (horizontal masticating) it can also be used as a mincer and/or homogenizer and even a pasta/breadstick maker. This added functionality doesn’t require the purchase of any additional parts. Everything you need to juice, mince, homogenize, and make pasta or breadsticks is included with your purchase.
Most parts you need to juice are exactly the same parts you need to homogenize, mince, etc. Let’s go over the parts list for each one of these functions to clarify.
Juicing – Parts List
- Food pusher (plunger)
- Hopper (funnel)
- Drum, feed chute (drum set)
- Auger
- Juicing strainer (juicing screen)
- Drum cap (end cap)
- Main body (housing)
- Juice container (juice bowl)
- Pulp container (waste bowl)
The general terms we use for juicer parts are listed. If the manufacturer calls a certain part by a different name (in the user manual included with the juicer) it is listed in parentheses.
Notes
Unlike most other horizontal masticating juicers, the 8006 does not feature a juicing nozzle. The juicing nozzle is a part that we’ll discuss in much greater detail when we discuss juicing performance later on in the review.
Mincing/Homogenizing – Parts List
- Food pusher (plunger)
- Hopper (funnel)
- Drum, feed chute (drum set)
- Auger
- Processing strainer (blank)
- Drum cap (end cap)
- Main body (housing)
- Juice container (juice bowl)
- Pulp container (waste bowl)
Notes
Note the bold item in each of the two parts lists above. This is the only part that differentiates the first list from the second. To set up the juicer for mincing/homogenizing simply replace the juicing strainer with the processing strainer during assembly. The processing strainer is the exact same size and exact same shape as the juicing strainer and so it fits exactly the same way over the auger as the juicing strainer does.
Making Pasta/Breadsticks
To make pasta or breadsticks using the 8006 once again follow the exact same procedure during assembly as you would follow to assemble the juicer for juicing (a process that we describe in detail below) with two exceptions. First, instead of using the juicing strainer use the included processing strainer as you would when assembling the juicer for mincing/homogenizing. Second, take one of the six included nozzles and place it so that it fits onto the end of the processing strainer between the strainer and the drum cap. Turn the drum cap counterclockwise so that it tightens over the end of the drum cylinder exactly as you would have had no nozzle been installed within the assembly.
There are four pasta making nozzles and two bread stick making nozzles to choose from. Of the four pasta making nozzles, two have round holes for round pasta while the other two have flat holes for flat pasta. The only difference between the two of each type is that one has large holes while the other has small holes. There are also two different bread stick nozzles, the only difference between them being that one has a rectangular hole while the other has a round hole. Which nozzle you select will depend on what type of pasta or breadsticks you’re trying to make.
Assembling the 8006 for Juicing
Assembly of the 8006 follows standard procedure for juicers in its category, with only a few exceptions which we’ll discuss in just a bit. To summarize, the hopper first attaches to the drum and then the whole drum assembly is fitted into the main body. Next, the auger is inserted through the drum into the main body. The juicing strainer fits into the drum over the auger. Like the next generation NC800 the design of the strainer is such that you’ll intuitively know how to fit it over the auger – the side of the strainer with a large flat rectangular piece with larger perforations points down over the juicing spout at the bottom of the drum assembly. The end cap is the last piece of the puzzle. It fits over the end of the juicing strainer and is secured to the drum assembly by turning it counterclockwise.
Assembly Differences
As we mentioned above assembly of the 8006 is exactly the same as it is for all other juicers in this class with two exceptions. The first pertains to how it compares to most other juicers in its class while the second exception applies to how it compares to the current generation NC800. First, unlike most other juicers in this class, the 8006 does not come equipped with a juicing nozzle. The drum cap (called the end cap in this juicer’s manual) is the only part that installs onto the end of the drum assembly. The other exception, pertaining to how this model compares to the NC800, is the fact that the 8006’s drum assembly comes apart and consists of two individual pieces – the hopper (the top funnel) and the drum (and feeding chute) itself. While this does add a part and a few extra seconds to the time it takes to assemble this juicer, these very minor negatives (if they can even be called so) are far outweighed by the positives enjoyed when cleaning this juicer which we’ll discuss in more detail later in the review. This is also a feature that the 8006 shares with most other juicers in its class. The NC800 is in fact the only juicer in this class that does not have a removable hopper.
Assembly Difficulty
We know that the 8006 doesn’t have a juicing nozzle and we also know that it’s hopper and feed chute are separate parts that can come apart for cleaning. The former is a trait that it shares with only one other horizontal masticating juicer we tested, the Hamilton Beach 67950A, while the latter is a trait very common among the horizontal masticating juicers we tested. These facts aside, how does the overall difficulty of assembling the 8006 compare to the difficulty of assembling other juicers we tested of the same type? How does this difficulty compare to the difficulty of assembling juicers of other types, namely vertical masticating and centrifugal juicers? Finally, how does this difficulty compare to the difficulty of assembling the newer generation NC800? Let’s answer these questions one at a time.
First, the 8006 is for the most part just as easy to assemble as every other juicer of the same type that we tested for review. It’s not quite as easy to put together as the Hamilton Beach, which garnered the highest rating in this category of all the horizontal masticating juicers we tested. But it’s just as easy to assemble as the Kuvings NJE-3580U, the Solostar 4, and the NC800. All of these juicers require the assembly of about 9 to 11 separate parts and all of them require about half a minute to do so.
Vertical masticating juicers have, in general, one or two less parts to assemble but take a little bit more time to put together because of their more complex design. Centrifugal juicers also generally have one or two less part to assemble but they take, on average, a little bit less time to assemble – most take closer to 20 seconds to assemble from start to finish.
The bottom line? The 8006 has standard assembly difficulty for its class which makes it slightly less difficult to assemble than vertical masticating juicers and slightly more difficult to assemble than centrifugal juicers. It earns an above average 4.5 out of 5 for assembly difficulty.
Food Preparation
In addition to assembling the 8006 it’s likely that you’ll need to cut produce before you start juicing. Three factors dictate how much cutting will be required. The first is the juicer’s chute size and shape. When talking about chute size in this context we’re not talking about the length of the chute from the hopper down to where the chute connects to the drum. Rather, we’re talking about the size of the entry to the chute where the food first enters the chute. The shape of this entry in the case of the 8006 is a perfect circle, which is a relatively unique feature among the masticating juicers we tested. Most juicers we tested have feed chutes that aren’t a perfect circle or even an oval shape. Instead, they’re a bean shape – the shape of an oval where one side of the oval has been pushed in. The Kuvings NJE-3580U, Tribest Solostar 4 and wide mouth Kuvings B6000 and SKG wide chute juicers were the only masticating juicers other than the 8006 that we tested that did not have a bean shaped feed chute.
We measured the 8006’s chute to be 1.5 inches in diameter which is exactly the same diameter as that of the Kuvings NJE-3580U’s feed chute. The Tribest Solostar 4 had the smallest feed chute we measured – it is only 1.25 inches in diameter. The 8006’s feed chute is also quite comparable in size to the size of the bean shaped feed chutes we saw on most other masticating juicers we tested. Bean shaped feed chutes on comparable horizontal masticating juicers range in width from 1.25 to 1.875 inches and are all 2 inches long. The same shaped feed chutes on most vertical masticating juicers we tested have about the same range in widths but all are slightly longer at 2.5 inches. Finally, the 8006’s 1.5 inch diameter feed chute is half of the diameter of the 3 inch feed chutes of both the Kuvings B6000 and SKG wide chute juicers and most centrifugal juicers we tested.
To sum it all up, the 8006’s feed chute is a below average size compared to those feed chutes of most of the masticating juicers we tested. For this reason alone, it will take the average consumer longer to prepare produce for juicing with the 8006 than it will for most other masticating and especially centrifugal juicers on the market.
In addition to chute size, two other factors have an impact on how much food preparation – how much cutting – is required before produce can be juiced with a particular juicer. Those factors are (1) juicer design or juicer type and (2) the characteristics of the fruit or vegetable that is to be juiced. Different types of juicers require that certain fruits and vegetables be cut in different ways. For the most part, horizontal masticating juicers such as the 8006 will require more cutting of certain fruits and vegetables than vertical masticating juicers. Centrifugal juicers will require the least cutting. Horizontal masticating juicers require the most cutting because the feed chute lies perpendicular to the auger. Because of this produce needs to be pushed with quite a bit of force to get it into the drum of this type of juicer. To make the produce easier to push into the drum, it needs to be cut into very small pieces. Vertical masticating juicers, on the other hand, require less cutting because the feed chute lies parallel to the auger. For this reason, produce doesn’t need to be pushed into the drum of this type of juicer with nearly the same amount of force and therefore not as much cutting is required to help facilitate the process.
When you purchase a juicer such as the 8006 you may not be aware of the fact that the orientation of the feeding chute relative to the auger affects how much you need to cut a particular piece of produce before juicing it. This is where the juicer’s manual is important. It will normally point out if there are requirements for cutting that extend beyond those requirements dictated by the juicer’s chute size. If the manual doesn’t point out these requirements you will have to learn how much cutting is required through experience. Thankfully, we had plenty of experience juicing with other horizontal masticating juicers when we prepared produce for the 8006.
The final factor that determines how much cutting is required is the actual characteristics of the produce that is to be juiced. A classic example is celery. When celery is processed by a masticating juicer it can form fibrous strands that can wrap around the juicer’s auger. To prevent this from happening celery should be cut into small at least 1 to 2 inch pieces before juicing it in a masticating juicer.
Food Preparation Results
The table below shows just how much we had to cut each of the seven fruits and vegetables we juiced for our juicing performance tests. It also shows how long it took us (in seconds) to make these cuts when preparing produce for the 8006 specifically and how long it took us to make these cuts on average for all of the juicers we tested that required this same type of cutting.
| Fruit/Veg. | Size of Cuts | Time to Cut | Avg. Time to Cut |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oranges | eighths | 62 | 59 |
| Grapes | no cutting required | ||
| Carrots | 1″ to 2″ pieces | 53 | 50 |
| Celery | 1″ to 2″ pieces | 59 | 66 |
| Apples | sixteenths | 100 | 99 |
| Spinach | pre-cut | ||
| Wheatgrass | pre-cut | ||
| More Information | |||
| Chute Size | 1.5″ diameter | ||
| Type | Horizontal Masticating |
A Word of Caution About Our Test Data
For each juicing performance test we prepared 1 lb. of produce. For our orange juicing performance test we prepared 1 lb. of oranges. For our grape juicing performance test we prepared 1 lb. of grapes, etc. In order to meet this 1 lb. weight requirement a certain number of each fruit and vegetable was required. We needed 2.5 oranges to meet the 1 lb. orange weight requirement for testing how well the 8006 could juice oranges and we needed 3 oranges to meet the same weight requirement for testing how well the Kuvings NJE-3580U could juice oranges, for example. Both juicers have equally large feeding chutes and both juicers are exactly the same type. Thus, we needed to cut oranges to exactly the same size for both juicers. Obviously, assuming that the rate at which we cut oranges is constant, it would take longer to cut the 3 oranges used for the Kuvings NJE-3580U than the 2.5 oranges used for the 8006. It is for this reason that we do not use model specific times when comparing how long it takes to prepare 1 lb. of a particular fruit or vegetable for a particular juicer to how long it takes to prepare the same quantity of the same type of produce for another juicer. Instead, we use an average time. And so, for the 8006 and NJE-3580U which both require that oranges be cut to eighths before juicing them using either juicer we say that it takes an average of 59 seconds to do so, based on time data obtained from cutting 1 lb. of oranges into eighths for six different juicers that we tested.
Note that variance in the number of a particular fruit or vegetable required to meet the 1 lb. weight requirement also has an impact on the time it takes to juice that particular type of produce in the juicer. However, its impact within this context is much less pronounced mostly because the time to juice is normally a much longer time than the time to cut. The bottom line – we will use average times moving forward when discussing how long it takes to cut a particular fruit or vegetable to a certain size but will use specific times when discussing how long it takes to juice a particular fruit or vegetable.
Food Preparation Comparison to Other Tested Juicers
We’ve already discussed at length the way in which chute size, juicer type, and produce type all play a role in determining how much a particular fruit or vegetable needs to be cut before you can feed it into the juicer. We analyzed all three of these factors relative to the 8006 to determine how we should go about preparing produce for this particular juicer. We describe just how much we cut each fruit or vegetable we tested in detail below.
Oranges
We criticized the NC800’s manual for lacking any specific instructions as to how to go about preparing specific types of produce for juicing. The NC800’s manual simply states that all produce should be cut into 2 inch long pieces. Little did we know at the time of our NC800 review (we tested and reviewed the NC800 prior to doing the same for the 8006) that its manual actually does more to describe how to properly prepare fruits and vegetables than the manual we received with the 8006. The 8006’s manual doesn’t give any specific length guideline at all. It simply states that produce should be cut “into small pieces”. That’s about as much of a general blanket statement as one can make about cutting produce for juicing in a masticating juicer.
Needless to say, we had to rely on our experience juicing produce with other horizontal masticating juicers we tested while also taking into account the 8006’s chute size to determine just how much cutting would be required for our juicing performance tests.
We first needed to prepare 1 lb. of oranges which entailed cutting them into 8 smaller wedges. The same needed to be done for four of the thirteen other slow juicers we tested, including two other horizontal masticating juicers we tested. The majority of slow juicers we tested required that oranges only be cut into quarters – 4 wedges. A few required no cutting at all – the Kuvings B6000 and SKG wide chute juicers. Cutting 1 lb. of oranges into 4 smaller wedges took us 24 seconds on average while the same quantity of oranges into 8 smaller wedges took us 59 seconds on average. The 8006 therefore takes more than 30 seconds longer to cut 1 lb. of oranges for than most other masticating juicers we tested.
Grapes
The grapes we used for our juicing tests were well short of 1.5 inches in diameter so they did not require any cutting.
Carrots
Horizontal masticating juicers were the only type of juicer that required that we cut carrots prior to juicing them. This is due to their design. A masticating juicer’s auger normally crushes and breaks apart produce as soon as it makes contact with it. This allows it to pull the produce through the juicer as it processes it. When a hard root such as a carrot is introduced to the auger of a vertical masticating juicer the orientation of the auger relative to the direction in which the carrot is pushed into the juicer allows the auger to function properly – to crush the carrot, break it down into smaller pieces, and pull it through the juicer. When the same carrot is fed into a horizontal masticating juicer its auger doesn’t easily break it apart and crush it the same way because the auger lies perpendicular to the direction in which the carrot is fed into the feeding chute. It’s up to you to help the auger by pre-cutting the carrots for juicing.
That being said, the 8006, just like every other horizontal masticating juicer we tested, required that we cut carrots into small 1 inch pieces before juicing them. It took us an average of 50 seconds to cut 1 lb. of carrots to this size.
Celery
Celery has the unique quality of breaking down into fibrous strands when its processes by a juicer. These fibers have a tendency to wrap around the juicer’s auger which can cause the juicer to jam. To prevent this from happening we cut celery for all of the masticating juicers we tested. It took us an average of 66 seconds to cut 1 lb. of celery into small enough pieces to not risk damaging the juicer when juicing them.
Apples
We had to cut the 1 lb. of apples we juiced with the 8006 into 16 smaller wedges. This is quite a bit of cutting, taking us an average of 99 seconds to do. Most masticating juicers required that we cut apples only down to 8 wedges which took us an average of 46 seconds to do. Most centrifugal juicers and the two large chute masticating juicers we tested required that we cut apples only to 4 wedges – something that took us only an average of 18 seconds to do.
Spinach and Wheatgrass
Neither the spinach nor the wheatgrass we used for testing needed to be cut prior for juicing them.
Food Preparation Summary
The 8006 receives a below average score of 2.5 out of 5 in this category primarily for two reasons. One, its feeding chute is very small, even compared to other juicers of the same exact type. Two, it’s a horizontal masticating juicer and as such it required us to cut carrots when we weren’t required to do so for any other juicer type that we tested.
These tables in our general buyer’s guide compare the average time it takes to prepare produce (at least the produce that we used for testing) to juice with the 8006 to the average time it takes to prepare the same produce to juice with other horizontal masticating juicers, other vertical masticating juicers, and a few top rated centrifugal juicers.
Performance
As we showed in the paragraphs above, we prepared 7 different fruits and vegetables for 7 different individual juicing performance tests. By saying “individual” we mean that each fruit or vegetable was juiced by itself for each test. For our orange juicing performance test we only juiced oranges. For our grape juicing performance test we only juiced grapes, etc. These 7 tests were followed by one final test in which we actually juiced a combination of fruits and vegetables. This combination of produce was composed of most of the same fruits or vegetables that we juiced for the first 7 tests – oranges, carrots, celery, apples, and spinach.
For the first 7 tests we juiced 1 lb. of each type of produce. For the 8th test we juiced 2 lb. of a combination of produce – 1 lb. of oranges and 4 oz. each of carrots, celery, apples, and spinach. Thus, our yields were always less than 1 lb. (or 16 oz.) for the first 7 tests and less than 2 lb. (or 32 oz.) for the 8th test.
Speaking of yields, we didn’t just measure the “out of juicer” yield for each juicer that we tested. Different juicers introduce a varying amount of pulp into the juice during the juicing process. This gives some juicers (juicers that make juice with a lot of pulp) an unfair advantage over others (juicers that make juice with almost no pulp) with regard to out of juicer yield. In order to attain a more standardized measurement for yield we poured the out of juicer yield for each test through a fine sieve (the same sieve was used for all tests for all juicers). This new yield is what we refer to as “after sieve” yield in the tables and discussions below. Since after sieve yield represents juice with almost no pulp, juicers that make juice with a lot of pulp lose their yield advantage in this category. For this reason, comparing after sieve yield is a much better way to compare the performance of multiple juicers. For more information on this topic in addition to our discussion of other aspects of our testing methodology please see here.
Juicing Performance Results
As this table in our general buyer’s guide shows, the 8006 is very strong in some categories while its very weak in others. Like most other slow juicers we tested, it unfortunately cannot juice all different types of produce equally well. Let’s take a quick tour of how well it did in each category.
Soft Produce
The 8006 was an average to below average performer juicing soft produce such as oranges and grapes. Its out of juicer yields for these fruits were average to below average while its after sieve yields were both below average.
Hard Produce and Spinach
The juicer’s performance starts picking up as we look at how well it did juicing carrots. For both out of juicer and after sieve yield it rates average in the category – not great but not below average either.
Exactly the opposite of its performance juicing soft produce, is its performance juicing celery, apples, and spinach. The 8006 was a top performer when juicing all three of these fruits and vegetables. It garnered the second best after sieve celery juice yield, the fourth best after sieve spinach juice yield, and the very best after sieve apple juice yield compared to the 13 other slow juicers we tested.
Wheatgrass and Combination
Its performance dips down quite dramatically as we look at its performance juicing wheatgrass. It was only the 12th best slow juicer in the category for both out of juicer and after sieve yield. It ends strong, however, in our combination juicing performance test – it was the very best juicer we tested in what was perhaps the most important test of all.
Time to Juice
It’s important for us to say just a few words about how long it took us to complete each of the tests we discussed above. Horizontal masticating juicers, in general, take longer to juice the same quantity of produce as most other juicer types. The 8006 is no exception to this rule. For all of our juicing performance tests it took us longer to juice with the 8006 than most other juicers we tested. Of special note is the fact that it took us over 11 minutes to juice 1 lb. of spinach. This is almost twice as long as it took us to accomplish the same task with more than a few other slow juicers that we tested. The Hurom HU-100, Kuvings B6000, and Omega NC800 accomplished the task in under 7 minutes. Most other slow juicers did so in under 10 minutes. Also of note is the 7 minutes it took us to juice with the 8006 in our combination performance test. Most other slow juicers we tested took only about 4 to 5 minutes to juice the same amount of produce in the same test.
Summary and Score
As this table and the discussions above show, the 8006’s performance in our juicing performance tests was quite the roller coaster ride. Its performance was all over the place. How should you interpret this data and apply it to the decision of possibly purchasing this juicer for yourself?
These are our recommendations based on our interpretations. First, the 8006 is not recommended for juicing soft produce or wheatgrass. If you primarily plan on juicing citrus fruits like oranges or tangerines, other soft fruits like grapes, or wheatgrass there are better options out there. This model is recommended, however, if you primarily plan on juicing harder produce such as carrots, celery, or apples. It is also recommended for juicing leafy greens. If you primarily plan on juicing a combination of fruits and vegetables all at the same time it is highly recommended.
Because it was a top performer in most important categories (combination and leafy green) as well as a reasonably above average performer in most others (hard produce) we give the 8006 an above average 4 out of 5 for overall performance. We do so despite the fact that its time to juice was much longer than average. We definitely want you to be aware of time to juice which is why we discussed it above. However, as is true for every other juicer we evaluate, the 8006’s time to juice has minimal impact on its performance score.
Cleaning
The 8006 is easier and takes less time to clean than almost all other slow juicers we tested. It’s easier and takes less time to clean than most other horizontal masticating juicers we tested for two reasons. First, it has one less part to clean – it doesn’t come equipped with a juicing nozzle. Second, the most difficult part of the juicer to clean – the juicing strainer – is more simply designed on the 8006. We discuss at length in both our Tribest Solostar 4 and Kuvings NJE-3580U reviews how the design of their strainers is such that it makes them very difficult to clean –their strainers are designed in such a way that there are many more nooks and crannies on their strainers than there are on the 8006 and NC800’s strainers. The strainer of both the 8006 and NC800 have a much better, less complex design and thus are much easier to clean.
The 8006 and all other horizontal masticating juicers we tested were easier to clean, in general, than other types of juicers we tested. It took us an average of 4 minutes to clean horizontal masticating juicers, an average of 5 minutes to clean the vertical masticating juicers, 6 minutes to clean centrifugal juicers, and almost 10 minutes to clean the only twin gear juicer we tested, the Green Star Elite.
Notes
The 8006’s part number advantage compared to the NC800, specifically, is offset by the fact that its hopper separates from its drum assembly. The NC800’s didn’t. Thus, both juicers have an equal number of parts to clean.
Cleaning Tools
A cleaning brush is included with the 8006 for the purpose of cleaning its juicing strainer. All other parts can be easily cleaned with a dish rag. We used a microfiber cloth to clean all parts, except for the strainer, during testing.
Cleaning Method
The juicer’s manual simply instructs to “Clean all parts that come into contact with juice after each use”. It says nothing else regarding cleaning the juicer. We were fortunate to have had plenty of experience cleaning similar types of juicers before testing the 8006, and so the manual’s lack of proper cleaning instructions wasn’t a concern for us. But, be aware that this can be a concern for new users who will have to do some online research (revisit this review perhaps) or clean by trial and error if this is their first time cleaning a horizontal masticating juicer. In any case, armed with prior experience, we were ready to clean the 8006 with maximum efficiency from the get-go.
Our method involved filling a sink with warm soapy water and at least briefly soaking most parts in the same water before washing them. After washing, the part was put under running water to rinse it. The only part for which we didn’t employ this method was the juicing strainer. We soaked this part longer than we soaked most other parts. We then scrubbed it clean with the included cleaning brush under running water.
Staining and Deposits
The only negative when it comes to cleaning the 8006 is cleaning its food pusher. The difficulty of cleaning this part lies with its design. The food pusher is primarily made of a hard plastic. This hard plastic doesn’t seal very well with the sides of the feeding chute when pushing produce into the juicer. To make it seal better there’s a groove near the bottom of the pusher into which fits a rubber O ring. The O ring allows the pusher to make a much better seal with the sides of the feeding chute when pressing produce into the drum assembly. This helps to prevent juice or pulp from finding its way back up the feeding chute during juicing. Functionally, the O ring design works great. It certainly does its job very well. Very little juice or pulp found its way up the feeding chute during testing. This was in contrast to other horizontal masticating juicers we tested for which this certainly was a problem we observed during testing.
The one large negative with regards to this design is only made clear when it comes time to clean the juicer. The food pusher is difficult to keep clean for three reasons. First, where the O ring meets the hard plastic of the pusher is difficult reach and clean with a cloth and even the included cleaning brush. You may have to use a toothpick or some other means to properly scrape it clean. Second, it’s very difficult to know whether or not you’ve cleaned this junction properly. Pulp deposits can be very small and without close inspection you may miss cleaning out small particles. Third, it’s very easy to forget to inspect this part each time you clean the juicer. And without proper inspection, cleaning this part of the food pusher is near impossible.
With regards to staining, the mostly white 8004 definitely stains much more easily than the black and chrome 8006. To test juicer performance, we used the 8004. With the same juicer we definitely observed quite a bit of staining after juicing carrots and spinach. Although we must say that those same stains were very easy to remove even with the regular cleaning methods we outlined above. We did not need to soak any parts overnight to remove any stains.
The 8006’s black and chrome parts are much less likely to stain but be aware that the juicer’s chrome body is very difficult to clean all the same. If you care about what the juicer looks like (in other words, if you plan on keeping it on your countertop) be aware that cleaning the 8006’s chrome body is quite a bit more difficult than cleaning the 8004’s white plastic body.
Dishwasher Safe Parts
As we’ve already mentioned, the juicer’s manual makes very little mention of correct procedure for proper use and care of the juicer (cleaning included). Not surprisingly, it doesn’t make any mention of whether or not the juicer’s parts are dishwasher safe or not. What we can tell you is that only 2 of the 14 slow juicers we tested have manuals that explicitly state that their parts are dishwasher safe. All other slow juicers we tested are composed of parts that are explicitly stated to NOT be dishwasher safe. It’s therefore safe to assume that this is true for the parts composing the 8006 also.
Cleaning Conclusion and Overall Score
Despite the fact that we really do not like the 8006’s food pusher’s design and how it makes the food pusher difficult to clean, the juicer is still, at least for the most part, more easy to clean than most other slow juicers we tested. We give it an above average 4.5 out of 5 for cleaning difficulty overall.
Ease of Use
The difficulty of using the 8006 is much greater when you first start using it compared to when you use it after several months of ownership. The initial difficulties associated with learning how to use the juicer properly make up the initial learning curve. The difficulties you’ll have to face on a day to day basis that don’t go away with experience are what we call the continued difficulty of using the juicer. Both types of difficulties are described in detail below.
Initial Learning Curve
The two most difficult techniques that you’ll have to learn in order to juice efficiently with a horizontal masticating juicer are (1) proper food preparation and (2) juicing nozzle adjustment.
Proper Food Preparation
Simply cutting food to a size that fits into the juicer’s feeding chute is not a sufficient means by which to approach food preparation when juicing with a horizontal masticating juicer such as the 8006. You will have to become familiar with the way in which the juicer actually processes the food that you put into it before you’ll be able to know how to prepare produce for juicing properly. We covered this topic in detail earlier in this review when we discussed how to properly prepare carrots, celery, and the like for juicing. Click here to go back to that part of the review.
Juicing Nozzle
Unlike its successor, the NC800, the 8006 does not come equipped with an adjustable juicing nozzle. Learning how to set and adjust the NC800’s juicing nozzle for maximum yield for different types of produce is a technique that is mastered only through extensive experience. You won’t need to master this technique for the 8006 which does make it quite a bit easier to use this juicer when you first start juicing.
Continued Difficulty
Once you’ve mastered the technique of proper food preparation you’ll still have to deal with a whole set of other difficulties associated with using the juicer on a day to day basis. Juicer characteristics and features that relate to those difficulties are discussed below.
How Hard Is It to Push Produce into The Juicer?
The difficulty of pushing produce into the 8006 almost exactly mirrors the difficulty of doing so with the NC800. For this reason, discussing this topic in the current review would be redundant. We invite you to read this same section of the NC800’s review for our thoughts on this topic.
Other Design Choices and Features that Improve or Detract from Ease of Use
Weight and Carrying Handle
If you plan on keeping the juicer out on your countertop permanently, how much the juicer weighs and whether it has a carrying handle to move it from place to place or not is of little concern for you. However, if you plan on moving the juicer in and out of storage from above or below your countertop on a frequent basis, the juicer’s weight may very well be something you’d want to take into consideration in your overall purchase decision.
The 8006 weighs just under 13 lb. (12 lb. 13.4 oz. to be exact) fully assembled, but chances are that you won’t store it fully assembled and so you won’t have to move it fully assembled. That being said, the body only weighs about 11 and a half lb. (11 lb. 5.2 oz. exactly). This is about average weight for the horizontal masticating juicer category. There are lighter options but the difference in weight would be negligible with maybe a 1 or 2 lb. difference at most.
Buttons and Controls
Turning the juicer on or off occurs with little fan-fare as its on/off switch is located very inconspicuously to the back and bottom of the juicer body. The switch simply reads “I”, “O”, and “II”, with “I” signifying the on position, “O” signifying the off position, and “II” signifying the reverse position. These markings may be a bit puzzling for new users but due to the fact that there are only three positions to flip the switch into, two of which are on and off, figuring out how to set the switch to your heart’s desire takes very little trial and error, if any; and once you’ve turned it on/off or set it to reverse one time you’ll never forget how to set it again.
Juicer Movement, Power Cord Length
The 8006 sits on the kitchen countertop with 4 small rubber feet. The physical part of juicing with a horizontal masticating juicer, namely forcibly pushing produce down into its feed chute, can result in the juicer moving around the countertop during the process. We saw this happen in real time when we juiced with the Tribest Solostar 4. However, this did not happen with the 8006. It firmly stayed in place with no movement during testing.
The juicer has a 61.5 inch power cord which gives you quite a bit of flexibility in terms of where you can place it on the countertop. Most other slow juicers we tested have similar long power cords. Most centrifugal juicers we tested had shorter power cords mostly in the range of 25 to 45 inches.
Other Factors That Affect Ease of Use
Manual Quality
A slow juicer can be difficult to learn how to use if you’ve never used one before. A high quality comprehensive user manual can go a long way in making the learning process easier. Unfortunately, the manual included with the 8006 does little to explain its proper use and care. It does do a very good job showing the names of all of the juicer’s parts and how to put them together properly. However, it makes very little mention of proper food preparation (a very important topic with regard to this type of juicer as we’ve already discussed), proper juicing technique, and proper cleaning techniques.
Parts and Their Properties
Many consumers will want to juice a large quantity of produce at the same time. Doing so, will more likely than not require that the juice collection container be emptied (into another container) and replaced (beneath the juicer) multiple times. How often this process is necessary depends on only one thing – the size or volume of the include juice and pulp containers.
The 8006 comes with a 32 oz. juice container and a 40 oz. pulp container. These volumes are very close to average in the slow juicer category.
Ease of Use Summary and Score
The 8006 is more difficult to learn how to use than most other slow juicers due to the fact that it is a horizontal masticating juicer. This type of juicer is much less forgiving than other juicer types, in terms of how efficiently it can process improperly prepared produce. Once you’ve learned how to properly prepare produce for juicing with it you only have to deal with the difficulties of using the juicer on a day to day basis. Those difficulties with the 8006 are few. We still give it a below average 3 out of 5 for ease of use, however, mostly because of the steep learning curve associated with preparing produce for juicing with it but also because of its poorly written and illustrated manual.
Versatility
The 8006 is highly versatile. It can be used not only as a juicer, but also as a homogenizer. For details regarding how it can be set up for different applications and what those applications are please see the very beginning of our review. You can go there now by clicking here.
Durability
Build Quality and Materials
The 8006 is very well built using very high quality materials. This is not your run of the mill budget kitchen appliance. Its build quality and the quality of the materials used for its construction are comparable to that of the NC800 and other high quality slow juicers we tested.
Consumer Feedback
The 8006 has been on the market for well over a decade, and as such has received thousands of consumer reviews during that time span. Of the 1000s of consumer reviews we surveyed, the vast majority were very positive. Less than 10% of those consumer reviews we surveyed gave the 8006 a rating less than 3 out of 5 stars. Due to the fact that so many total reviews were left for the 8006 over its life span, negative reviews (1 or 2 stars) are plentiful also (despite the fact that they represent a low percentage of the total number of reviews). To our surprise, those negative reviews we read were in many cases quite severe. There were more than several complaints of the juicer breaking after just a few days or weeks of use. The part that broke most frequently was the juicing strainer. This part is about $28 on Omega’s website (at the time of the writing of this review) if it is not replaced within warranty. That being said, for every negative review there were at least 8 or 9 glowingly positive reviews with no complaints regarding the juicer’s durability.
Brand Reputation and Quality of Support
We discussed Omega’s history and their reputation as a brand at length in our NC800 review. Here, we’ll simply say that you can rest assured when purchasing the 8006 or any other Omega juicer for that matter, that you are buying from a well-known and very well-respected brand. Omega has been making juicers for several decades and with the popularity of their current lineup of juicers and new models being released every year they don’t appear to be stopping anytime soon.
Omega can be contacted via several methods including phone, email, and snail mail. In addition to a local US number they also provide a toll free number for support. As we said in our NC800 review, Omega customer support appears to be very good according to the majority of consumer reviews that we surveyed.
Warranty
The manual included with our purchase of the 8006 states that the juicer comes with a 10-year warranty. However, the included warranty card clearly states that the warranty is 15 years long. Upon further investigation online, we found that Omega clearly states on their website that both the 8004 and 8006 come with a 15-year warranty. It’s therefore safe to assume that the manual is incorrect (and needs to be updated).
The 8006’s 15-year warranty is very impressive. 15 years is the longest warranty you can get with a slow juicer. Most other Omega juicers, including the NC800, also include a 15-year warranty. Those Tribest juicers we tested have 15, 12, and 10 year warranties. And the Kuvings juicers we tested have 10 and 5 year warranties.
Warranty Coverage
There are no explicit exclusions to the warranty listed on the included warranty card. However, the card does state that the “warranty is limited to repair or replacements of original parts, which, in the opinion of Omega Products, Inc. are defective in workmanship or material.” This language does leave the door open for certain broken parts to be considered by the manufacturer (Omega) to be broken due to reasons other than being “defective in workmanship or material”. In other words, if Omega considers that a broken part was broken due to your own negligence, you may have to replace the part at your cost.
Claiming Warranty Coverage
In order to claim warranty coverage you will have to contact Omega by any of the contact methods we listed above. Note that shipping and handling costs are your responsibility as they’re not covered by the manufacturer.
Summary and Score
We observed the 8006 to be very well built using very high quality materials. Our brief survey of consumer reviews and more specifically, negative consumer reviews, at first appeared to contradict our own observations, as these reviews raised several red flags regarding the juicer’s reliability. However, after further reflection we realized that those negative reviews we read were indicative of the thoughts and feelings of only a very small percentage of the total consumer base for the juicer. Reading further we found that most consumers very happy with their purchase and reported that the juicer was highly reliable, confirming our observations. Add in the fact that the juicer comes with an outstanding 15-year warranty on top of outstanding customer service, and it’s not surprising that we give the 8006 a well above average 4.5 out of 5 for durability.
Value
Bonus Accessories
The 8006 comes with a processing strainer and 6 different nozzles. 4 of the nozzles are used for making pasta and 2 of the 6 nozzles are used for making breadsticks. Note that most mincing/homogenizing tasks won’t require the use of any one of these 6 included nozzles.
Also included is a sieve that fits into the juice collection container, a nice bonus that is not included with most other horizontal masticating juicers we tested, including the NC800.
Initial Cost
The 8006 normally retails for anywhere between the high $200s and the low $300s. How the 8006’s price compares to that of comparable juicers will obviously depend on what price you pay within this range. If you’re able to buy it for well under $300 it’s likely to be less expensive than the NC800 (retailing for around $300 normally) and not much more expensive than the Solostar 4 (retailing for around $260) and the Kuvings NJE-3580U (retailing for around $230). Should you buy it for more than or just over $300, you’re purchasing a juicer that’s very similarly priced to the NC800 and about $50 to $70 more expensive than the Tribest and the Kuvings.
Long Term Cost
In addition to the initial cost of the juicer, it’s very important that you also consider the long term cost of owning the juicer when assessing its overall value. A particular juicer may be very inexpensive to buy, but should its performance be lacking can be much more expensive to own over time. Produce is expensive. And the more produce is required to make the same amount of juice, the more expensive it is to juice. If juicer A can make 10 oz. of juice out of 16 oz. of produce while juicer B can only make 5 oz. of juice out of the same amount of produce, the cost of produce is much greater for juicer B than it is for juicer A, assuming of course that the goal is to make the same amount of juice with each juicer.
For a detailed discussion regarding the long term costs associated with juicer ownership and in particular, the relationship between the cost of produce and juicer performance, please see here.
Value Summary
The 8006’s price varies over time and so it’s very difficult to say that it’s more or less expensive and therefore a better or worse initial buy than the other horizontal masticating juicers we tested. What we do know is that it performed very well in most of our juicing performance tests. Recall that it was an outstanding performer in our celery, apple, spinach, and combination performance tests. Thus, should you plan on primarily juicing any one or combination of these fruits and vegetables, you’ll be able to get more juice with the 8006 than you can with most comparable juicers on the market. More juice per quantity of produce equates to a better value as we discuss in detail here, and so we give the 8006 a well above average 4.5 out of 5 for value.