The other thing to consider about 110 vs. 220 is that the 220 is more efficient -- you end up with lower amps in the circuit. That actually ends up being making the electricity cost cheaper. Depends on how much welding you plan to do as to whether you will notice the difference.

The other thing is that although you can do thicker metals with the 110, it is possible that you don't really have enough heat and are not getting the needed penetration. 220 almost guarantees that you are going to have the penetration.

A lot of the beauty of MIG is using the shielding gas. You get a much cleaner weld that way than using the flux core and I find it a lot easier to weld with the gas than with the flux core wire.

MIG vs. stick really comes down to the range of things that you are working on. If you are mainly doing things like bumpers, rock sliders, and such you probably want stick. If you want to be able to do sheet metal, you want MIG.

Stick welding for anything other than building bridges is not a great plan. I stick weld in the field for emergencies because I can, with my on board welder. Other than that, Mig, mig and MIG.
Having two welders in your shop one for rock sliders and the other for sheet metal? Get a good mig 220v and do both with ease.

SD

I'd argue you on that. I've got a Millermatic 175 220V MIG and I still turn to my stick welder for the heavier stuff. Thinking back on it, though, I'd agree that most of what I mentioned you could probably use the MIG for. However, when I need the penetration and want to lay down a heavy bead, stick does a better job than MIG. A 1/8" or 3/32" rod is going to go quite a bit faster than building up a weld bead with wire... JMHO...

You do realize that you pay for electricity based upon KW/Hour, and that a Miller 135 at full nut draws [email]20amps@120[/email] volts (2400 watts) and a Miller 175 at full nut draws [email]20amps@240[/email] volts (4800 watts). At the same power output of lets say 100amps the machines difference in power consumption is negligible. The only time you are going to see a real difference in power consumption is when comparing a Inverter machine to a traditional Transformer machine, I.E a Dynasty 300 vs. Synchrowave 250.

You say it yourself, though. Full nut of the 175 is twice the wattage of the 135 -- hence twice the heat. So to get the same 2400 watts out of the 175 I'm only drawing 10 amps. Also, since I am only drawing 10 amps, my duty cycle has also increased substantially over the 135 giving all she's got.

GMAW is a Constant Voltage process, so P=V^2/R hence the power consumption curve is not linear like you posit.

Notice how it takes 2400 watts to produce the 135's full output and 4800 watts to produce the 175's full output? Following your flawed logic if I double the input power from 2400 to 4800 watts the output should also double to 270 amps.

From my post above:

"At the same power output of lets say 100amps the machines difference in power consumption is negligible. The only time you are going to see a real difference in power consumption is when comparing a Inverter machine to a traditional Transformer machine, I.E a Dynasty 300 vs. Synchrowave 250."

I think that we are going in circles. My understanding of the issues involved may not be as much as they could be, but I think that the above statement is a bit curious. The full output of the 175 is obviously higher than that of the 135. Now if the 135 could put out the same capacity at 2400 watts as the 175 did at 4800 watts, I'd see your point. But the 175 is putting out greater capacity at full output than the 135 is able to put out at its full output.

My initial comment was based on 220V drawing lower amperage than 110V for the same output. Granted, the overall effect may be limited depending on conditions, but the 220V load is already balanced and as such is more efficient. Going to 3-phase allows you another level of efficiency.

If I remember right doesnt 220 pull 1/2 the amps from the socket than 110?