- Easy to assemble, disassemble and clean
- Highly durable – constructed of high quality parts and materials
- Excellent performance juicing leafy greens
- A great value because of its average to above average performance in most tests (greater yields = more juice per quantity of produce), well above average durability, and extra-long 15-year warranty
- Poor performance juicing only apples for making apple juice
- Sometimes difficult to use – hard to push certain types of produce into the juicer and difficult to learn how to set its adjustable juicing nozzle correctly
|Ease of Use||2.5|
All category scores are out of 5.
Table of Contents
The Omega NC800 HDS, along with the NC800 HDR and NC900 HDC are all 6th generation Omega horizontal masticating juicers. The only difference between them is the color of their bodies. The HDS has a silver finish, the HDR has a red finish, and the HDC has a chrome finish. All other parts are exactly the same for all three models. They all have the same strainers, the same drum assemblies, etc. and all of the materials and colors used for the construction of their different parts is the same for all three models. All included accessories are the same for all three models as well. The NC900 is not a newer, better version of either NC800 model. For whatever reason, Omega has decided to change the initial part of the model number (the NC— part) in addition to the second part of the number (HD-) for the NC900 to differentiate it from the silver and red models.
This is not the first time that Omega has named their products in a manner that confuses consumers. As we mentioned above, the NC800/900 is the 6th generation Omega horizontal masticating juicer. The 5th generation juicers they replaced are the 8007S (silver) and 8008C (chrome). Again, the 8008 isn’t a newer or better version of the 8007. It’s just a different color. The 4th generation Omega horizontal masticating juicers are the 8004 and 8006. There’s nothing about these model numbers that would indicate that they are exactly the same juicers with different color finishes but they are. The 8004 is white and the 8006 is chrome. That’s it. There’s no other differences between them. The pattern continues with the 3rd generation 8003 and 8005. Both models are identical except for color. The 8003 is white and the 8005 is chrome.
Note that although we tested only the NC800 HDS, the review below is applicable to the NC800 HDS, the NC800 HDR, and the NC900 HDC. Throughout the review we will sometimes refer to the juicer as the NC800/900 to remind you of this fact; however, most of the time we will refer only to the “the NC800”. When we do, know that we are not just referring to the NC800 but to all three models: the NC800 HDS/HDR and the NC900 HDC. Only when it is absolutely necessary to do so, will we take the time to differentiate between these three models, talking about the NC800 HDS/HDR or NC900, specifically. This only happens once or twice in the review (most notably when we discuss the differences in cleaning the three models – one of the few times the color difference between them has an impact on their performance in a particular review category).
The NC800/900 can be assembled for juicing or for food processing. Listed below are all parts required for juicing followed by a list of all parts required for food processing.
Juicing – Parts List
- food pusher
- drum, feed chute, and hopper
- juicing strainer
- drum cap
- juicing nozzle (adjustable pressure cap consisting of juicing nozzle with a tube ring)
- main body
- juice container
- pulp container
The NC800’s juicing nozzle is adjustable from 0 to 5. The NC800 and the Tribest Green Star Elite were the only slow juicers we tested with adjustable juicing nozzles. We’ll have much more on the functionality of this part later in the review.
The NC800 has one less part to assemble for juicing compared to the other horizontal masticating juicers we tested due to the fact that the drum, feed chute, and hopper are one piece. On other juicers of the same type that we tested, the hopper was a separate piece that came apart from the drum assembly.
Food Processing – Parts List
- food pusher
- drum, feed chute, and hopper
- processing strainer
- drum cap
- one of three different processing nozzles
- main body
- juice container
- pulp container
To assemble the juicer for food processing, simply replace the juicing strainer with the included processing strainer. It’s the same shape and size and fits exactly into the drum assembly the same way the juicing strainer does. The second part that’s replaced when food processing is the juicing nozzle. It gets replaced with one of three other nozzles – a round noodle nozzle, a bread stick nozzle, or a flat noodle nozzle. Which nozzle you use will depend on what you’re processing. All three nozzles are about the same size and shape and fit onto the drum cap exactly the same way the juicing nozzle does. Otherwise, the drum assembly, auger, etc. are fitted to the juicer exactly the same way that they are when assembling the NC800 for juicing.
More on the NC800’s Drum, Feed Chute, and Hopper
While testing the NC800 for review we were repeatedly dumbfounded by the fact that the hopper didn’t come apart from the drum assembly. It certainly looked like it could. The hopper was clearly a different color (black plastic) than the drum (clear darkened plastic). Further adding to our confusion was the fact that the juicer’s manual clearly showed that the hopper should be fitted to the feed chute. How could it be fitted to the feed chute if it couldn’t be removed from the feed chute (if it wasn’t a separate removable piece)?
Again, when testing the juicer, we tried to remove the hopper from the feed chute, several times, but we never could. And this is why we do not list it as a separate part in the lists above. The hopper and drum are also not sold as separate parts on Omega’s website. You can only buy them together as one part (for $42 on the manufacturer’s website as of the time of this review). This is further (but unfortunately not conclusive) confirmation that these two parts do not in fact come apart, contrary to what their design and the user manual might indicate.
NC800/900 Assembly – The Ins and Outs
The NC800 takes just over 30 seconds to fully assemble from start to finish – that is if you’re not putting it together for the first time and have some experience with the nuances of its assembly. If you are new to assembling this type of juicer assembly time goes up to at least 2 minutes. That being said, we do feel that 30 to 40 seconds is a fairly accurate estimate of how long it should take you to assemble the juicer after putting it together for just a few times.
Assembly begins by securing the drum assembly to the main body. The drum assembly consists of the drum itself, the feeding chute, and the hopper. The hopper is, as we discussed above, permanently attached to the feeding chute. No assembly required there. The feeding chute is also a permanent extension of the drum. It’s a lesser diameter cylinder that extends vertically perpendicular to the much larger diameter horizontal drum. The drum itself is not symmetrical. One end of the drum cylinder has a smooth outer ring while the other end does not – instead it has tabs. The fact that these tabs look like they fit into similar tabs on the end of the main body intuitively tells you that this is in fact the same end of the drum assembly that is secured to the main body. The drum is fitted to the main body by aligning the tabs on the outer ring of the drum so that they fit in between tabs protruding from the inner ring of the locking clip which is a part permanently attached to the main body. The drum is pushed into place so that it fits inside the locking clip. It’s secured and locked into place by turning the locking clip approximately 60 degrees clockwise. There are clear markings on the main body labeled “Open” and “Close” right next to the locking clip. When first securing the drum assembly make sure that the locking clip is set to the “Open” position. After securing the drum assembly to the main body by turning the locking clip clockwise it should be set to the “Close” position.
Next, the auger is inserted into the drum, metal end first, until the metal “arm” extending from the base of the auger fits into the juicer body. Getting it to fit securely into the main body does require some adjustment through brief trial and error but shouldn’t take longer than a second or two.
The juicing strainer is the next part to be assembled. Like the auger it’s inserted into the drum assembly. It’s fitted so that it fits between the outside of the auger and the inside of the drum. The strainer is funnel shaped with one end clearly a smaller diameter than the other. It’s also divided into two distinct sections – a smaller diameter mostly metal section and a larger diameter plastic section. The smaller diameter section is primarily composed of a metal screen – a screen akin to a fine sieve with very small perforations. The larger diameter section which also makes up the bulk of the juicing strainer is mostly solid black plastic. Extending from this section of the juicing strainer is a rectangular piece of plastic akin to a coarse strainer with large perforations.
The way in which the juicing strainer is fitted over the juicing auger is actually quite intuitive, as it makes sense for the funnel to fit onto the auger with the larger diameter section going on first. The smaller diameter end of the strainer is also the exact same diameter as the tip of the auger, another clue that this is the end that does not go first. It’s also surprisingly intuitive that the rectangular part of the strainer with larger perforations is the side that should face downward toward the juice spout. Having this piece face any other direction simply doesn’t make sense as you’re putting the strainer into the drum assembly. When the juicing strainer is pushed all the way onto the auger this rectangular piece is perfectly aligned right over the juice spout. You’ll know that the strainer is fitted correctly when it cannot be pushed toward the juicer body any further.
Next on the list of parts required for assembly is the drum cap. As its name suggests it’s simply a cap that fits onto the outside of the drum. The drum cap is secured to the drum by turning it counterclockwise. We found this to be the most counterintuitive part of assembly. Intuition tells us that in order to tighten anything we need to turn it clockwise, not counterclockwise (recall the old adage “righty tighty”). Turning the drum cap counterclockwise to tighten it just didn’t make sense to us and even after assembling and disassembling the juicer multiple times we were still, more often than not, turning the cap clockwise to tighten it first and only after failing to do so, remembering that we needed to turn it the opposite direction.
The final part required for assembly is the juicing nozzle, which fits onto the drum cap. Like the drum cap, it requires that you turn it counterclockwise to secure it. Needless to say, we have the same complaints regarding assembly of the juicing nozzle as we have for assembly of the drum cap.
How does the NC800/900’s assembly difficulty compare to that of the other juicers we tested? Well, like most other horizontal masticating juicers we tested we only have one real complaint when it comes to its assembly, which is the counterintuitive manner in which the drum cap and juicing nozzle are secured to the drum assembly. The manner in which the drum assembly fits into and is secured to the main body is intuitive, the manner in which the auger and juicing strainer fits into the drum assembly is intuitive, but the manner in which the last two parts – the drum cap and juicing nozzle – are secured to the main assembly is not intuitive at all. You will always, even after repeated use, have to remind yourself that both caps are secured to the juicer by turning them counterclockwise, not clockwise, probably after first unsuccessfully trying to secure the drum cap by turning it clockwise. Is this a major complaint that’s a deal breaker for purchasing this type of juicer? Absolutely not. But, it’s still an unnecessary nagging frustration that we feel an informed buyer should be made aware of. We certainly hope that this issue will be corrected in future iterations of this juicer type’s design.
How does this complaint compare to complaints common to other types of juicers? Well, quite favorably actually. Horizontal masticating juicers such as the NC800 are actually some of the easiest to assemble juicers on the market. In our experience, vertical masticating juicers and especially twin gear juicers (such as the Green Star Elite) are definitely more difficult to assemble. They have a greater number of parts and a more complex design which makes them take longer to assemble and makes them more difficult to assemble as well. As such, the NC800 receives an above average (compared to other slow juicer types) 4.5 out of 5 for assembly difficulty, despite the complaints we have regarding the counterintuitive manner in which its drum cap and juicing nozzle are secured to the main assembly (a complaint common to all juicers of the same type).
Because the NC800/900 features a standard design for a horizontal masticating juicer it has a small diameter feeding chute. Because of its small feeding chute, you will need to cut most fruits and vegetables into smaller pieces before feeding them into the juicer. Other factors that impact whether you need to cut produce before juicing are (1) what the manual instructs regarding food preparation (the manual that accompanies a specific juicer will have specific instructions for cutting certain produce based on what type of juicer it is) and (2) the types of produce you will be juicing. An additional factor that impacted whether or not and how much we cut produce before juicing for testing purposes was our own experience with juicing the same produce with other juicers of the same type. For example, if we had juiced carrots on a certain model horizontal masticating juicer and saw that we were getting better yields and/or performance cutting them to 2 inch rather than 4 inch pieces, we would take this knowledge and experience and apply it to future testing of juicers of the same type. The next horizontal masticating juicer we would test might have the manual instruct us to cut carrots into larger 4 inch pieces but using what we had learned we might be inclined to cut it to 2 inch pieces instead. Note that this last factor impacting how we prepared produce for juicing – our own experience – is not a factor that will necessarily apply to you juicing at home. That is, of course, unless you use knowledge gained from reading our review and use it when juicing similar type produce in the future.
That all being said, chute size is by far the greatest factor impacting how much food preparation is required for any juicer. Manufacturers have purposefully made the chute diameter small on masticating juicers to accommodate their design and the slow process by which they crush and strain juice from processed fruits and vegetables. The small chute size forces users to not feed larger pieces of produce into the feed chute than what the juicer is actually capable of processing. The chute size is also small to make it difficult to overload the juicer with a greater quantity of produce than it can process at one time.
The entry to the NC800’s feeding chute is 1.5 in. wide by 2 in. long and so you will not be able to fit into it any pieces of produce larger than these dimensions (1.5 in. by 2 in.). In addition, even certain long and thin fruits and vegetables that are able to fit into the feeding chute whole without being cut (such as carrots or celery stalks) will have to be cut into smaller length pieces in order to be able to be properly processed by the juicer. With these types of produce you will have to rely on the manual’s directions (or past experience) instead of chute size to point you in the right direction with regards to proper cutting sizes.
The NC800’s 1.5 in. by 2 in. feed chute is a fairly standard size for a horizontal masticating juicer. It is, however, a smaller chute size than that of most vertical masticating juicers on the market which have chute sizes with approximately the same width (ranging between 1.25 and 1.5 in) but which are slightly longer (most have a length of at least 2.5 in). And so, in general, most vertical masticating juicers we tested required less food preparation than the horizontal masticating juicers we tested, including the NC800.
Food Preparation Results
The table below shows how much cutting was required for each of the produce items we juiced with the NC800. It also shows how long it took us (in seconds) to cut each produce item when we prepared it for juicing with the NC800, specifically, and how long it took us to make the same type of cut for the same quantity of produce, on average, for all of the juicers we tested that required the same cut for that particular produce item.
|Fruit/Veg.||Size of Cuts||Time to Cut||Avg. Time to Cut|
|Grapes||no cutting required|
|Carrots||1" to 2" pieces||46||50|
|Celery||1" to 2" pieces||76||66|
|Chute Size||1.5" by 2"|
A Word of Caution About Our Test Data
We prepared close to 10 lb. of produce for juicing for each masticating juicer we tested. For all tests except for our combination performance test, this entailed preparing 1 lb. of produce per test. For our orange juicing test, we prepared 1 lb. of oranges. For our carrot juicing test, we prepared 1 lb. of carrots, and so on and so forth.
When weighing each type of produce for each juicer we tested, the number of that particular type of produce required to reach the 1 lb. weight requirement was not always the same. Sometimes it would require less than 2 apples to prepare 1 lb. of apples for juicing and other times it would require more than 2 apples. For example, we used 1.5 apples to reach the 1 lb. weight requirement for juicing apples with the Tribest Green Star Elite. We used slightly more than 2 apples to reach the same 1 lb. weight requirement for juicing apples with the NC800. Let’s assume that we needed to cut apples to quarters for both the Green Star Elite and the NC800. If this were the case and we were cutting apples at a consistent rate for both, it would obviously take us more time to cut the 2+ apples we used for juicing with the NC800 than the 1.5 apples we used for juicing with the Green Star Elite.
And so, in order to give more fair and accurate data as to the time required for cutting any particular fruit or vegetable to a certain size, we will use average times moving forward in the review. We had to cut 1 lb. of oranges into quarters eight times during our testing. Instead of saying that it took us 20 seconds to do so when preparing them for juicing with the NC800, we will instead say that it took us 24 seconds on average to do so the eight times that we had to cut 1 lb. of oranges to quarters for juicing during testing.
Food Preparation Comparison to Other Tested Juicers
The NC800’s manual does very little to describe proper food preparation prior to juicing – there are only two sentences in the entire manual that discuss how to prepare produce for juicing. The first sentence directs users to “thoroughly wash unpeeled fruit and vegetables before juicing”. The second sentence instructs that fruits or vegetables should be cut “into small pieces (2 inches) so juice may be extracted more thoroughly”. Needless to say, these few words are not much direction at all. There are no specific directions for preparing oranges compared to other soft fruits or for preparing carrots compared to celery, for example – the type of directions you would find in the more comprehensive and complete user manuals for many of the other masticating juicers we tested for review.
Note that following the 2-inch maximum size guideline outlined in the manual is essentially the very same thing as taking into account the juicer’s chute size, and cutting produce according to how large the chute is. Recall that 2 inches is also the length of the longest side of the feeding chute.
Regardless of whether you’re following the manual’s directions or simply looking at the juicer’s feeding chute, cutting produce to the 2-inch size requirement that each approach dictates is an overly simplistic way to approach the food preparation process. Many produce items can be cut into larger than 2-inch pieces and still fit into the feeding chute and be processed by the juicer just as well. We therefore relied on directions outlined in other user manuals for juicers of the same type, in addition to our own experience preparing produce for this type of juicer to dictate how we would approach preparing each produce item we needed to juice.
We cut oranges to quarters for juicing with the NC800. The orange pieces were much more than 2 inches in length but a combination of common sense and our experience juicing oranges with other juicers of the same type told us that they would fit into the feeding chute and be able to be juiced by the juicer just as well as if we had cut them to the manual’s guideline of 2-inch lengths instead.
The NC800 was one of only two horizontal masticating juicers we tested that required such minimal cutting for juicing oranges, the other being the Hamilton Beach slow juicer. Three of the five horizontal masticating juicers we tested required that we cut oranges smaller – to eighths. Almost all of the vertical masticating juicers we tested required that oranges also be cut to quarters like the NC800 and Hamilton Beach. This distinction is important to make because cutting 1 lb. of oranges to quarters took us only 24 seconds, on average, while cutting the same quantity of oranges to eighths took us more than twice as long – 59 seconds on average. Thus, you can add 30 seconds to food preparation time should you want to juice 1 lb. of oranges with any juicer that requires that they be cut to eighths, as compared to juicers that require that they only be cut to quarters – a group that includes the NC800.
None of the juicers we tested required that grapes be cut for testing. We did need to remove individual grapes from the stem but this preparation time was not recorded as it would be the same for all of the juicers we tested.
Carrots present a unique challenge to masticating juicers and horizontal masticating juicers especially. A centrifugal juicer’s filter basket spins fast enough and is sharp enough for it to be able to cut and chop a carrot without much force required from the food pusher (see this part of our general buyer’s guide for more information). A vertical masticating juicer has its slowly rotating auger positioned vertically and so produce can be pushed down into the juicing bowl of the juicer parallel to the auger – minimal force is required to push the produce down as the auger is able to cut into and pull the produce through the juicer quite easily. A horizontal masticating juicer has its auger positioned horizontally and so produce entering the juicer through the feed chute is likely to be in an orientation perpendicular to that of the auger when it first comes into contact with the auger – a large amount of force is required to push the produce down onto the auger so that it feeds into the juicer properly.
Even more force is required when pushing hard roots such as carrots into a horizontal masticating juicer. To make this process easier hard roots such as carrots have to be cut into small approximately 2-inch pieces when juicing them with this type of juicer. For comparison, we did not need to cut carrots at all when preparing them for juicing with vertical masticating or centrifugal juicers.
It took us an average of 50 seconds to cut 1 lb. of carrots to pieces small enough (2 in. long) to be processed by a horizontal masticating juicer. This is almost a full minute of extra preparation time required for juicing this type of produce with a horizontal masticating juicer as compared to other juicer types.
Celery is similar to carrots in that celery stalks are long and thin like carrots are. Celery is also different than carrots in that it isn’t quite as hard and brittle. With this in mind you might think that you can get away with juicing celery with the NC800 without cutting it. This is, unfortunately, not the case as celery presents yet another unique challenge to masticating juicers. Much of celery, when it is crushed by a masticating juicer’s auger, turns into fibrous strands. These strands can easily wrap around the juicer’s auger and put an extra strain on the auger as its rotating.
For this reason, we cut celery into small 2-inch pieces for all of the masticating juicers we tested, even vertical models. This adds an average of 66 seconds of preparation time when juicing celery with a masticating juicer such as the NC800. Those are 66 seconds you gain in preparation time when juicing with a centrifugal juicer, a juicer type that does not require that you cut celery prior to juicing.
The apples we used for testing needed to be cut to eighths for juicing with the NC800. Most other masticating juicers we tested also required that apples be cut to eighths. Only two required less preparation time for apples – the Kuvings B6000 and the SKG wide chute juicers. They required that apples only be cut to quarters. Three of the five horizontal masticating juicers we tested required more preparation time – two required that apples be cut into 16 wedges while one required that apples be cut into 32 wedges. That much cutting takes quite a bit more time. Cutting apples into 8 wedges (as we had to for the NC800) took us 46 seconds on average, cutting apples into 16 wedges took us 99 seconds on average and the one time we needed to cut them in 32 wedges took us 2 minutes and 10 seconds.
Spinach and Wheatgrass
The spinach we juiced was pre-packaged, pre-cut, and pre-washed. The wheatgrass we juiced was cut from flats but we did not cut it further for any of our tests.
Food Preparation Summary
Less preparation is required for juicing produce with the NC800/900 than what is required for any other horizontal masticating juicer we tested, except for the Hamilton Beach slow juicer, which tied the NC800 in all categories. However, more preparation is required for juicing with the NC800 when compared to vertical masticating juicers and centrifugal juicers.
The next part of our review will cover the NC800/900’s results in our seven juicing performance tests. For the first five tests we juiced 1 lb. of a particular fruit or vegetable in each test. For our wheatgrass test we juiced 4 oz. of wheatgrass and for our combination performance test we juiced a total of 2 lb. of produce consisting of 1 lb. of oranges, and 4 oz. each of spinach, apples, celery, and carrots.
Before you read the rest of this part of the review (on juicer performance) we recommend that you first read the relevant part of our general buyer’s guide in which we cover such topics as how we went about selecting produce for our tests and how we went about the tests themselves in much greater detail than what we describe below. We also discuss much of the terminology that we use in the following paragraphs in the same guide.
Soft Produce Performance
The NC800 extracted 10.4 oz. of orange juice from 1 lb. of oranges for a percent yield of exactly 65%. After running this yield through a sieve the final “after sieve” yield was 9.2 oz – a total of 1.2 oz of pulp was collected in the sieve.
The Omega was able to extract 13 oz. of grape juice from 1 lb. of grapes for a percent yield of 81%. We ran this yield through a sieve and collected only 0.2 oz. of pulp as the after sieve yield for grapes was found to be 12.8 oz.
Note that the NC800’s performance in each of the tests we outlined above is not just indicative of well it does juicing oranges and grapes. These tests also show how well the juicer does juicing similar soft fruits such as tangerines, nectarines, grapefruit, lemons, limes, and other varieties of grapes such as red, white and black seedless grapes (we juiced red globe grapes).
The NC800’s performance in both soft produce performance tests was average at best when compared to the other slow juicers we tested. Its 10.4 oz. out of juicer yield for oranges places it 6th in this test among the 14 slow juicers we tested. This was, however, the best recorded out of juicer yield among all of the horizontal masticating juicers we tested. The Solostar 4 was second best with an out of juicer yield of 10.3 oz. The NC800’s after sieve yield in the same test, 9.2 oz., places it in 8th place among the 14 slow juicers we tested. It places third in the same test among juicers of the same type (horizontal masticating). The Solostar 4 and Kuvings horizontal masticating juicers each had an after sieve yield of 9.5 oz., 0.3 oz. more than the NC800.
The NC800’s performance was equally average in our grape juicing performance test. Its 13 oz. out of juicer yield places it in 8th among the slow juicers we tested. The top performing juicer in this test, the Solostar 4, was able to extract 1 oz. more grape juice in the same test. The NC800’s after sieve grape juice yield of 12.8 oz. places it in 6th place among the 14 slow juicers we tested. The top performer in this category was once again the Solostar 4 with an after sieve grape juice yield of 13.9 oz.
Hard Produce Performance
To test the juicer for hard produce performance we juiced 1lb. each of carrots, celery, and apples. We juiced carrots first. It took us exactly 2 and a half minutes to juice 6 carrots cut to approximately 2-inch pieces. The out of juicer yield for carrots was 6.7 oz., only a 42% yield. The after sieve yield was recorded as being 6.5 oz.
Next, we juiced celery. The out of juicer yield for celery was 11.5 oz. or 72% of 1 lb. The after sieve yield was 11.3 oz. Finally, we juiced apples. The out of juicer yield for apples was 9.9 oz. or 62% of 1 lb. The after sieve yield was much less – only 4.5 oz.
The NC800’s ability to juice hard produce varies dramatically depending on the specific type of hard produce that is being juiced. Its out of juicer and after sieve yield for carrots and celery is average compared to the other slow juicers we tested. Compared to those juicers it placed 9th and 5th for out of juicer and after sieve yield for carrots and 8th and 5th for out of juicer and after sieve yield for celery. Where the juicer’s hard produce performance falls apart is when juicing apples. Its 9.9 oz. apple juice yield was already well below average out of the juicer. This result gave it 9th place among the 14 slow juicers we tested. However, of much larger concern is its after sieve yield of only 4.5 oz. – a measly 28% yield. This exceptionally low yield was due to the unusually high pulp content of the out of juicer yield. We have much more to say on the juicer’s ability or lack of ability to juice apples in the note below.
Special Note Regarding Juicing Apples
As we started juicing apples, it quickly became clear that the NC800 was having difficulty juicing them with any type of reasonable success. This was made evident when we saw most of the apple pieces we were juicing turn to mush in the drum assembly. This mush was being pushed back up the feed chute from the drum assembly while we were juicing. We briefly adjusted the juicing nozzle (we have more on juicing nozzle adjustment later in our review) to a lower pressure setting in an attempt to compensate for this issue, but doing so didn’t appear to do much to help the situation. We proceeded to set the juicing nozzle back to its highest pressure setting (for maximum yield as apples are considered to be a firm/hard fruit and thus fall into the category of produce for which the manual specified that we should use the highest pressure setting) and repeatedly pushed down the feed chute with the food pusher to try to push most of the mush back through the drum assembly (which would turn most of it into juice). We did so with a reasonable amount of success but, based on these test results, would not recommend the NC800 for anyone looking to juice only apples to make apple juice. Note that we didn’t observe these same problems juicing apples in combination with other fruits and vegetables in our combination test.
Leafy Green Performance
The NC800 was a much better performer in our leafy green performance test, in which we juiced 1 lb. of baby spinach. Its out of juicer yield in this test was 9.9 oz. – 4th best out of the 14 slow juicers we tested. It was only bested by the Solostar 4, J8004, and Green Star Elite. The Solostar 4 and J8004 tied for 2nd with an out of juicer yield of 10 oz., only 0.1 oz. more than the NC800’s yield in the same test. The Green Star Elite’s out of juicer yield of 11.6 oz. is almost 2 oz. more than all three of the aforementioned horizontal masticating juicers.
The NC800’s leafy green after sieve yield of 8.5 oz. places it in 2nd among the 14 slow juicers we tested. The previously mentioned Solostar 4 and J8004’s initial out of juicer yields contained more pulp than what was found in the NC800’s initial yield. Thus, their after sieve yield was less than the NC800’s. The Green Star Elite is once again in a class of its own in this category as it produced an after sieve yield of 9.8 oz.
We juiced 4 oz. of wheatgrass in this test. The NC800 extracted about 50% of this weight as juice. Its out of juicer yield of 2.1 oz. places it in 10th place among the 14 slow juicers we tested. This apparently below average result is somewhat deceiving as most other slow juicers we tested had very similar yields. Five other slow juicers we tested had a yield of 2.5 oz. or less and Four other slow juicers had a yield of 2 oz. or less. Four other slow juicers did have a yield greater than 2.5 oz. with the Hurom HU-100 leading all juicers with an out of juicer yield of 3 oz.
We did run the initial out of juicer yield through a sieve for each juicer that we tested; however, very little pulp was collected and so after sieve yield results for the most part mirror the out of juicer yield results we discussed in the above paragraph.
As a final test we juiced 2 lb. of produce, alternating feeding five different fruits and vegetables into the juicer. We juiced 1 lb. of oranges and 4 oz. each of carrots, celery, apples, and spinach for this test. Mirroring its performance in our leafy green performance test, the NC800 garnered an above average result in our combination performance test. The NC800’s out of juicer yield in this test was 20.5 oz. or 64% of 2 lb. which puts it in a 3 way tie for 3rd among the 14 slow juicers we tested.
Juicing Performance Summary and Score
In terms of yield and compared to the 13 other slow juicers we tested, the NC800/900 was an average performer in our orange, grape, carrot, and celery juicing tests. It was a slightly below average performer in our wheatgrass test and a well below average performer in our apple juicing test. Conversely, it was a well above average performer in both our spinach and combination juicing tests.
The NC800 follows the general trend that we observed for the vast majority of the slow juicers we tested for review: It juices certain types of produce really, really well while it juices other types of produce quite poorly. It did exceptionally well juicing what is perhaps the most difficult type of produce to juice – leafy greens. Its yields in the category were well above average. Its after sieve yield, specifically, was good for second best among the 14 slow juicers we tested. The only juicer that did better was the almost twice as expensive twin gear Tribest Green Star Elite. The NC800 also did fairly well juicing softer fruits such as oranges and grapes and harder produce such as carrots and celery. The one exception to its average to above average performance in these categories was its ability to juice apples. The NC800 was an absolutely terrible performer in our apple juicing test. Sure, we could have used an apple variety of a firmer consistency that would have been easier to juice and might have given the NC800 a better chance of garnering better results; however, we used the exact same apple variety (Red Delicious) apples for all of our apple juicing tests and the only juicers that had any difficulty processing this variety of apple were horizontal masticating juicers such as the NC800. It is important for us to note here as we did earlier that the NC800 only had difficulty processing apples by themselves. When the same apples were juiced in combination with harder firmer produce such as carrots and celery they were able to be processed by the juicer just fine.
What we haven’t discussed to this point and what is also an important consideration in assessing the overall performance of any juicer (including the NC800) is how long it takes to juice different types of produce. It took the NC800 a little more than a minute (1 minute, 13 seconds) to juice oranges, 2 and a half minutes exactly to juice carrots, a little over 4 minutes (4 minutes, 5 seconds) to juice celery, a little under 5 minutes (4 minutes 53 seconds) to juice apples, and a little under 7 minutes (6 minutes, 50 seconds) to juice spinach. Recall that each of these tests involved juicing 1 lb. of each of these fruits and vegetables. The table below shows how these times compare to the time it took to juice the same quantity of produce with some other top rated slow juicers we tested.
Taking into account both yield and the time it takes to juice, the NC800 is highly recommended for those users that will prioritize juicing leafy greens. Its leafy green juice yield was well above average and the time it takes to juice leafy greens is also very low. Conversely, the NC800 is absolutely not recommend for those users that would want to juice Red Delicious apples or any fruit that has a similar consistency to that particular apple variety (which is not as firm as varieties such as Fuji apples, for example). The juicer’s performance was relatively average for juicing most other types of produce and so it’s a safe choice, but not necessarily the best choice for users prioritizing a wide variety of different types of produce. Overall, we give the NC800 a barely above average 4 out of 5 for juicing performance.
The NC800 takes about 4 minutes to clean. This time does not include the time it takes to disassemble all of the juicer’s parts, prepare for cleaning (move the parts from the juicing location to the sink, fill the sink with water, etc.), or dry the parts. It only includes the time it takes to actually go through the process of cleaning all of the parts – for most parts this involves a quick soak, scrub, and rinse. Cleaning time varies only slightly between different juicer types and even more slightly between models of the same type. Thus, we won’t compare the time it took us to clean the NC800 to the time it took us to clean other juicers of the same type. Rather, we will only note here that while it took us an average of 4 minutes to clean horizontal masticating juicers, it took us slightly longer to clean all other types of juicers – it took us about 5 minutes to clean vertical masticating juicers and approximately 6 minutes to clean centrifugal juicers.
The NC800’s manual only very briefly describes how to go about cleaning the juicer’s parts correctly. It simply instructs that parts should be washed in warm, soapy water and be rinsed well. There is no mention of specific cleaning methods for cleaning specific parts in the manual. When testing (and cleaning) the NC800, we were fortunate to have had prior experience juicing with and cleaning this type of juicer (horizontal masticating) and we also had the ability to reference other user manuals for other juicers of the same type to help us find the means by which to clean this type of juicer most efficiently. Thus, the NC800 user manual’s lack of complete and proper cleaning instructions wasn’t a problem for us. Note, however, that new users not familiar with proper juicer cleaning techniques and not equipped with other juicers’ user manuals might have some difficulty finding methods by which to clean all of the NC800’s parts most efficiently.
In any case, our method for cleaning the juicer was as follows: We first filled a sink about half way with warm, soapy water. Washing most parts would involve first submerging them in the warm soapy water and then washing them clean with a microfiber cloth, followed by rinsing the part under cold running water under a faucet. Most parts required that we only briefly submerge them in the soapy water to clean them – no soaking was required. One part, the juicing strainer, did require that we actually leave it in the water for more than a few seconds before cleaning it – in other words, it required soaking. After soaking the strainer, we scrubbed it clean with the included cleaning brush.
Most of the parts comprising the NC800 were very simple and easy to clean. Most parts were very easily cleaned with just a cleaning cloth (again, we used a microfiber cloth) and soapy water. The one exception to this general rule was the juicing strainer. Not only did it require pre-soaking, but it also required extensive scrubbing under running water. We want to make it clear that the NC800’s juicing strainer is not any more difficult to clean than the juicing strainer of any other slow juicer we tested. Every slow juicer comes equipped with a juicing strainer and every slow juicer’s juicing strainer is difficult to clean. What’s of note is the fact that the NC800’s juicing strainer is the juicer’s only difficult part to clean. Most other juicer types have multiple parts that are somewhat difficult to clean, hence why they take longer to clean than horizontal masticating juicers such as the NC800.
Differences in Juicer Models
This juicer is available with a silver (the color and model we tested – NC800 HDS), red (NC800 HDR), or chrome (NC900 HDC) finish. The main body’s finish is important because, during testing, we found that juice would quite often find its way onto the main body of the juicer. This was most frequently due to juice splashing out of the juice container or juice dripping from drum assembly during disassembly. In any case, juice did find its way onto the main body of the juicer more often than not during testing, and as such we had to wipe it clean using a microfiber cloth or paper towel after each juicing performance test. The NC800 HDS’s silver matte finish was very easy to clean and we expect the same is true for the NC800 HDR’s red matte finish. However, the NC900’s chrome finish is a bit of concern for us. The reason being that chrome is very difficult to clean properly and clean to an extent that it looks perfect – it’s much more difficult to clean than matte or even glossy plastic. The hard truth is that the NC900’s chrome body would need to be cleaned and polished in a way and to such an extent that would require a much larger time investment than cleaning the matte finish of either the NC800 HDS or HDR. This is something that should definitely be taken into consideration should you be debating which color/finish to go with. We can speak confidently on the topic because we had the nightmarish task of cleaning the Omega J8006’s chrome body and several other chrome bodies for several other juicer models during testing.
The colors and materials of the rest of the parts that make up the Omega NC800/900 is exactly the same for all 3 models. All models come with the same clear plastic drum assembly and black plastic food pusher, hopper, auger, juicing strainer, drum cap, and juicing nozzle.
We observed absolutely no staining on any of the juicer’s parts during testing. This was most likely primarily due to the color of the its parts – a matte silver finish for the body, a clear plastic material for the drum assembly, and a black plastic material for the rest of the parts.
Dishwasher Safe Parts
The juicer’s manual may be short on words when it comes to describing proper use and care, but it does explicitly state that none of the parts that compose the juicer are dishwasher safe. This isn’t a knock against the NC800 as the parts that make up the vast majority of slow juicers we tested also are not dishwasher safe. Only two slow juicers we tested are composed of dishwasher safe parts – the Hamilton Beach and Kuvings horizontal masticating juicers.
Cleaning Summary and Overall Score
The parts that make up the NC800 HDS are very easy to clean and so is the main juicer body itself. This is demonstrated by the fact that it took us less time to clean this type of juicer than it took us to clean all other types of juicers we tested. Other positives for this particular juicer in this category are the fact that most of its parts are made of a black plastic that’s both very easy to clean and keeps staining to a minimum. We give the NC800 HDS a perfect 5 out of 5 for cleaning difficulty. Due to its chrome finish, the NC900 HDC would receive only an average score in the same category.
Ease of Use
How easy it is to use the NC800/900 varies depending on how much experience you have juicing with it. Below we first discuss the difficulties of using the juicer the first few times you use it (initial learning curve) before transitioning to a discussion of how difficult it is to use on a day to day basis, after you’ve already familiarized yourself with all of the juicer’s quirks and idiosyncrasies ( we call this day to day difficulty “continued difficulty”).
Initial Learning Curve
As is true for all masticating juicers, juicing with the NC800 can be a challenging thing to do the first few times you do it. Only through experience will you be able to learn how to assemble it, how to disassemble it, how to clean it, and how to juice with it quickly and most efficiently. The two greatest challenges with regard to the process of learning how to use the juicer correctly are proper food preparation and proper juicing nozzle adjustment. We’ve already covered proper food preparation for the NC800 earlier in our review. Below we discuss proper juicing nozzle adjustment.
Juicing Nozzle Adjustment
Food preparation for the NC800 is certainly a challenge but perhaps the greatest obstacle to overcome in learning how to use the juicer correctly is learning how to set its adjustable juicing nozzle correctly. Below we discuss the thinking that went into deciding how to set the juicing nozzle for the produce items we juiced during our testing of the juicer. This discussion should serve to show you just how complicated the process of setting the juicing nozzle correctly can be for new users.
The juicer’s manual states that its juicing nozzle should be adjusted to position 5 for firm vegetables and leafy greens and to position 1 or 2 for soft fruits and vegetables. Note that it does not state why it should be set to these positions or exactly what the nozzle does. It also doesn’t specify what position 3 or 4 should be used for or whether position 1 is better than position 2. Following the manual’s directions, we set the juicing nozzle to position 5 for carrots, celery, apples, spinach, and wheatgrass for our juicing tests. Since the manual didn’t specify what about position 1 or 2 would compel us to choose one over the other we used prior knowledge (gained from experience using similar juicers with juicing nozzles) to make the decision to set it to position 2 when juicing oranges and grapes. Note that we set the nozzle to position 5 in our final test, in which we juiced a combination of firm and soft produce items. We did so for many reasons but most importantly because, when juicing soft produce in combination with firmer produce, the firmer produce acts to push the softer produce through the juicing assembly which offsets any need to set the juicing nozzle to a lower pressure level (1 or 2) – this reasoning may be difficult to understand now but will soon become clear as we discuss exactly how the juicing nozzle works below.
We’ve already alluded to the fact that the NC800’s manual does a terrible job of educating users with regard to how the juicer works and, specific to the current discussion, how the juicing nozzle works, so we’ll take our time to illuminate the subject here in our review. First, note that the juicing nozzle is called an adjustable pressure cap in the NC800’s manual. Tightening the cap (turning the nozzle from 0 to 5) increases the amount of pressure applied to the produce inside the drum while juicing. Loosening the cap (setting the nozzle to 0, 1, or 2) does the opposite. It decreases the amount of pressure that is applied. Increasing the pressure (tightening the cap) results in greater juice extraction. Since our primary concern when conducting our juicing tests was to facilitate maximum yield we would have been inclined to set the juicing nozzle to the highest pressure level possible (5). Why then, did we set the pressure level to 2 when juicing softer produce items, namely oranges and grapes? We did so because setting the pressure level to a high number when juicing soft produce items can prevent the juicer from being able to properly eject pulp during juicing. If we had set the pressure level to 5 when only juicing oranges the juicer would not have been able to eject pulp as it should. This can have a negative repercussion on juice quality by introducing excess pulp to the juice and can also clog up the drum assembly which could result in excess pulp backing up into the feed chute. Thus, we settled on a pressure level of 2 when juicing oranges and grapes. At position 2 the pressure was enough to facilitate the highest yield possible while also being low enough to allow pulp to eject from the juicer as it should.
Over time you’ll learn how to cut produce items in a way that will allow the juicer to process those same produce items most efficiently. You’ll also learn how to set the juicing nozzle depending on which produce item you’re juicing. Proper food preparation and juicing nozzle adjustment are techniques you’ll learn and perfect over time. Those things that cannot be perfected – those things having to do with using the juicer that do not get easier over time are discussed below.
How Hard Is It to Push Produce into The Juicer?
For most types of produce, every time you juice with the NC800/900 you’ll need to push those produce items into it to force them into the drum assembly for processing by the juicer. Pushing produce into a horizontal masticating juicer such as the NC800 is more difficult to do than it is for most other types of juicers on the market. Pushing produce into this type of juicer requires so much force that the majority of users will find it at least somewhat cumbersome to do. A small minority will find it very difficult, near impossible to do, while some will simply find it not to be possible at all. If you have any type of physical disability be aware that you may very well not be able to use the NC800 to juice certain types of produce at all.
Why is it so hard to push produce through a horizontal masticating juicer? The answer is twofold. For one, the feeding chute on these types of juicers normally has a very small diameter. Most horizontal masticating juicers have a chute diameter less than 2 inches, making it very difficult to fit even properly cut and chopped produce into the feeding chute so that they can find their way down to the auger/drum assembly without getting stuck in the feed chute first. Secondly, and even more importantly, the rotating auger that pushes the produce through the juicing strainer (which facilitates juice extraction) of a horizontal masticating juicer lies in the horizontal plane and is therefore perpendicular to the point of contact of the produce items being pushed through the juicer’s feed chute. This makes pushing food into the drum assembly of such a juicer much more difficult than it is with vertical masticating juicers which have their feeding chute in the vertical plane, parallel with the auger.
That all being said, it is possible for the auger to “catch” certain produce items that come into contact with it, even on a horizontal masticating juicer. Once it “catches” these types of produce it’s able to drag those items down and through the drum assembly. When this happens the only force required is to push the produce item to the bottom of the feed chute so that it can come into contact with the auger. When this does not happen is when the aforementioned brute force is required. Soft produce and leafy produce falls into the former category – they only need to be pushed to the bottom of the feed chute and then get “caught” by the auger. When juicing these types of produce such little force may be required that using a food pusher may not even be necessary at all. That is if the produce items are cut into small enough pieces so that they don’t get stuck in the feed chute.
Hard vegetables such as carrots and celery fall into the latter category. Even after cutting carrots into smaller approximately 2-inch-long pieces, many wouldn’t get caught by the NC800’s auger requiring us to push them to the point of us crushing them into and onto the auger. Pieces that landed vertically in the feed chute would immediately get cut in half by the auger and required little force to push through. In contrast, pieces that landed horizontally in the feed chute were especially hard to push into the drum assembly and into the auger. Celery pieces were similarly difficult to push through, however, only those pieces that landed horizontally onto the auger required us to push down with the food pusher at all. Pieces that landed vertically would immediately get caught by the auger and didn’t require us to push down with the food pusher at all.
Design Choices and Features that Improve or Detract from Ease of Use
Weight and Carrying Handle
The NC800/900 has an average weight for a masticating juicer. The body alone weighs 11 lb. 0.4 oz. Fully assembled, the juicer weighs 12 lb. 11.2 oz. Other juicers of the same type that we tested weighed about the same in both categories. Thus, the NC800 isn’t any more or less difficult to move from one location to another in your kitchen than any other masticating juicer we tested. Note that the NC800 is also equipped with a carrying handle to make carrying it around your kitchen easier.
Buttons and Controls
There is only one button or switch that operates the juicer. It is located on the side of the juicer opposite the drum assembly. The button is labeled “ON” and “REV”. Pushing the button to the “ON” position obviously turns the juicer on while pushing it to the “REV” position puts the juicer in reverse. Leaving the button in a neutral position leaves the juicer off. There is nothing about the labeling of this button or its location that makes the juicer more difficult to use.
Power Cord Length
The NC800’s power cord is a little over 5 ft. long (61 in to be exact). Most other masticating juicers we tested have a power cord with a similar length.
Other Factors That Affect Ease of Use
If a juicer’s manual is comprehensive and complete in its coverage of preparing food for juicing and properly using and caring for the juicer it can go a long way in making it easier to learn how to use the juicer correctly. Unfortunately, the NC800’s very small 14-page manual is exactly the opposite of comprehensive and complete. The manual is very brief in its description of most parts of proper use and care of the juicer. We hope the manufacturer, Omega, will do a better job of fleshing out the NC800’s user manual in the future.
Juice and Pulp Container Volumes
All masticating juicers we tested have two outlets – a pulp outlet from which pulp exits out of the juicer and a juice outlet from which juice exits out of the juicer. A pulp collection container is placed beneath the pulp outlet to collect pulp while a juice collection container is placed beneath the juice outlet to collect juice. Most masticating juicer manufacturers include both a juice and pulp container with your purchase of their juicer. These containers are normally designed in such a way that they accommodate the juicer’s design. The containers’ design is what dictates their size and volume. And their volume is what determines how often you’ll need to empty them when juicing – which is how this discussion ties in with ease of use.
The NC800’s juice container has a measured volume of 34 oz. and its pulp container has a measured volume of 42 oz. The table below shows the measured volume of these containers in ounces for some of the NC800’s closest competitors.
|Juice Container||Pulp Container|
|Tribest Solostar 4||32||32|
Note that these containers are also not nesting which makes their storage more difficult than it is with juicers that have nesting containers.
Ease of Use Summary and Score
The NC800/900 is more difficult to use than other horizontal masticating juicers, if only because of its adjustable juicing nozzle. Other horizontal masticating juicers we tested also have juicing nozzles but they aren’t adjustable. Some do not even have a juicing nozzle at all, only a drum cap. Another major factor affecting how difficult it is to use the juicer is its horizontal design, which makes pushing produce through it much more difficult than it is with vertical masticating juicers. And so the NC800 is both more difficult to use compared to other horizontal masticating juicers and its more difficult to use than vertical masticating juicers. Its manual doesn’t make the situation any better as its very sparse on details regarding the juicer’s proper use and care. We give the NC800 a below average 2.5 out of 5 for ease of use.
The inclusion of an adjustable juicing nozzle makes juicing more difficult but it does give you more control over the juicing process. This control allows you to fine tune the juicer for maximum yield. So while we’re very critical of the nozzle’s inclusion when it comes to assessing the ease of using the juicer, it’s actually a positive thing for juicing enthusiasts that are willing to take the time to learn how to use it correctly to maximize yields.
The NC800/900 is not just a juicer. It can also be used as a food processor to make anything from pasta and breadsticks to ice cream and nut butters. Note that this added functionality is not unique to the NC800. Most other horizontal masticating juicers and a few of the vertical masticating juicers we tested can also be used for food processing purposes. Because it’s so versatile the NC800 receives a perfect 5 out of 5 for versatility.
Build Quality and Materials
The NC800 was observed to be a very well-built solidly constructed juicer. The quality of its construction and the materials used for its construction were observed to be on par with comparable similarly priced options such as the Omega J8006 and even more expensive options such as the vertical masticating juicers we tested. The NC800’s build quality was observed to be much better than less expensive options such as the Tribest Solostar 4 (with which we observed quite a bit of drum flex) and especially the Hamilton Beach 67950A (which was constructed of much lower quality materials). Compared to these cheaper options the plastic parts used for the NC800’s construction were observed to be made of a much higher quality more durable plastic and the juicer body itself was observed to be made of a much tougher more durable material also. Everything from the juicer’s carrying handle to its five plastic feet were observed to be constructed very well using only high quality materials.
Our survey of consumer reviews for this juicer lead us to believe that it is just as durable as our own observations would seem to indicate. Of the approximately 300 consumer reviews we surveyed, only about 6% of reviews were less than 3 stars out of 5. Negative reviews (1 or 2 stars out of 5) can be a good indication of a product’s durability as most such reviews describe a product breaking or not working correctly. You can rest assured that the NC800 has received a very low rate of such reviews.
Brand Reputation and Quality of Support
Omega is a very well respected brand in the juicer community. Omega, the company, was first founded in 1985 and Omega juicers themselves have been popular in the United States for at least several decades as of the time of this review. Omega is a US company that was acquired by another US company, Legacy Companies in 2009, although they still manufacture and sell juicers under the Omega brand to this day. Note that while Omega is a US company that conducts most business operations and customer service in the United States, Omega juicers are NOT manufactured in the USA. They are all manufactured in South Korea. For more information on other juicer brands that manufacture in Korea see here.
As we made clear above, despite their manufacturing their products outside of the United States, Omega does provide all customer service from within the USA. For customer service you can call them via a toll free 1800 number or a local number in Harrisburg, PA. They also provide a physical address for contact via snail mail. The address is, not surprisingly, an address in Harrisburg, PA. In addition to phone and snail mail you can also contact them via a contact form on their website at omegajuicers.com
In our survey of consumer reviews for the NC800 we found that most consumers describe Omega’s customer support as being nothing short of spectacular. Comments regarding their customer service are not just positive – they are glowingly positive.
The NC800’s manual simply states that the juicer comes with a “15-year warranty on all parts and labor”. It does not list any exclusions or special terms. This alone makes the NC800’s included warranty better than the warranty included with most other juicers on the market, which, for the most part list at least a few exclusions. Most of the time the list of excluded parts includes the juice and pulp containers, the food pusher, and the cleaning brush. Such exclusions do not appear to apply to the NC800’s warranty.
The warranty’s 15-year duration is also impressive. For comparison, the J8006 appears to come with the exact same 15-year warranty as the NC800. The Tribest Solostar 4 also comes with a 15-year warranty. But every other masticating juicer we tested comes with a warranty much less than 15 years in length. Most of those juicers only come with a 10-year warranty and some, like the Kuvings (model no. NJE-3580U) and Hamilton Beach (model no. 67950A) horizontal masticating juicers come with a warranty that’s as little as 5 and 3 years in length, respectively.
Summary and Score
The NC800/900 is a great choice if you’re looking for a highly durable and highly reliable juicer. The parts used for its construction are great quality, the juicer’s construction is of a very high quality, and should any of those parts break or malfunction you’re covered by a tremendous 15-year warranty. It’s certainly true that any juicer’s warranty is only as good as the customer service that accompanies it and, thankfully, when it comes to Omega, you’re in very good hands should you need a part replaced or need any other type of assistance with your juicer. We give the NC800 a perfect 5 out of 5 for durability.
In addition to all the parts required for juicing, the NC800/900 also comes with a processing strainer and three different processing nozzles. This is a little bit less of a value than the Kuvings NJE-3580U and Omega J8006 which each come with a processing strainer and 6 extra nozzles. It is however, more of a value than the Hamilton Beach 67950A which doesn’t come with a processing strainer or any extra nozzles at all. The Tribest Solostar 4 is the only other horizontal masticating juicer on the market of note, and it comes with three extra nozzles just the same as the NC800.
Other bonus accessories that we like to see included with a slow juicer are extra juicing strainers, a sieve, and/or a recipe book. The NC800 doesn’t include any of these accessories. Most other horizontal masticating juicers do not either, although both the J8006 and Solostar 4 each do come with a sieve that fits over the juice container.
The NC800 HDS retails for between approximately $290 and $330. At the time of this review we found most retailers selling it for just over $300. At this price, the NC800 is the 9th most expensive slow juicer we tested for review (recall that we tested a total of 14 slow juicers). It is more expensive than most other horizontal masticating juicers we tested but still less expensive than most vertical masticating juicers on the market. The Hamilton Beach 67950A retails for well under $200, the Kuvings NJE-3580U and Tribest Solostar 4 retail for between $200 and $260, while the J8006 is normally priced just about the same as the NC800 at around $300.
Long Term Cost
When it comes to assessing the value of a juicer, its price is certainly an important consideration. But, what is of even more importance is the cost of juicer ownership over time. This long term cost of ownership is dictated by several factors. Some of these factors have already been discussed in this review – how well the juicer is built, the quality of the parts used for its construction, and the quality of the included warranty. We explain how these factors relate to a juicer’s value here. Another very important factor, however, has not been discussed – the cost of produce.
Yes, a juicer is sizable investment that may cost you several hundred dollars. However, the produce you’ll be juicing will cost you much, much more over time. Directly related to the cost of produce is juicer performance. The better – the more efficiently a juicer can juice a particular type of produce, the less of that produce needs to be juiced to make the same quantity of juice. For example, if juicer A requires that 3 lb. of produce be juiced to make 1 lb. of juice while juicer B requires that 6 lb. of produce be juiced to make 1 lb. of juice, juicer A is not only twice as efficient as juicer B, but juicer A requires that half the amount of produce needs to be juiced to make the same quantity of juice. If a lesser amount of produce needs to be juiced a lesser amount of produce needs to be bought. The net result is a lower cost of produce to juice with juicer A than juicer B.
Thus, it is of paramount importance that you consider any particular juicer’s performance in addition to its initial cost, durability, etc. when assessing its overall value. The NC800 was a top performer in our spinach and combination juicing tests, a below average performer in our apple and wheatgrass juicing tests, and an average performer in all other tests. Thus, you’ll save quite a bit of money juicing leafy greens and a combination of fruits and vegetables should you do so with the NC800 compared to most other masticating juicers on the market. Conversely, you’ll spend a lot more should you want to juice apples, wheatgrass, or similar produce. You’ll spend an average amount juicing grapes, carrots, and celery.
The NC800/900’s value varies dramatically depending on what type of produce you plan on juicing with it. The fact that its juicing performance is average or better than average for most types of produce makes it a better value than most other horizontal masticating juicers we tested, the one exception being the Tribest Solostar 4. However, we have several concerns regarding the Solostar 4’s durability which we outline in its review. These concerns essentially negate its price and performance edge over the NC800 when it comes to evaluating each juicer’s value. The NC800 is therefore the best value horizontal masticating juicer we tested and so we give it a well above average 4.5 out of 5 in the category.