Utility Fleet

70 Series Heavy-Duty Inground Lifts

Rotary Lift

December 22, 2015 - Equipment

<p><em>Photo courtesy of Rotary Lift</em></p>

Rotary Lift has updated its 70 Series heavy-duty traditional inground lifts with new user-friendly features and has had the lifts third-party tested and certified to meet industry safety and performance standards.

The 70Q and 703Q traditional inground lifts feature a new standard locking system with “lower to locks” feature. Also new is an upright control console that eliminates the need for technicians to bend down to run the lift. Instead, the operator can control the lift from a standing position.

The 70Q is equipped with two hydraulic cylinders (one stationary and one moveable) for a total capacity of 50,000 lbs. The 703Q has three cylinders (one stationary and two moveable) with a total capacity of 75,000 lbs. Each lift’s cylinders are automatically equalized and easily adjusted with push-button controls. The cylinders feature Rotary Lift’s EnviroGuard coating to protect against electrolysis and corrosion.

For maximum flexibility, the 70Q and 703Q frame lengths are customizable in one-foot increments to fit existing pits or new facility designs.

In addition to the 70Q and 703Q traditional inground lifts, customers can choose MOD Series lifts with or without environmental containment, or EFX Series inground scissor lifts. All Rotary Lift heavy-duty inground lifts come standard with Rotary’s patented Universal Saddle Adapter that provides lift operators with fast and easy setup to reach virtually any truck or bus pick-up points. For specific transit applications, the ultra-low profile saddle adapter is available.

Go directly to this company's home page


See more products & equipment

Article News

Popular Stories

FleetFAQ

Public Fleet Tracking And Telematics

Amin Amini from Verizon will answer your questions and challenges

View All
Sponsored by

Subrogation is the process by which an insurance company attempts to recover expenses for a claim it paid out when another party should have paid for part of the claim.

Read more