I'm a quality manager at a contract manufacturer that machines flight-critical parts. Most people hear "quality" and picture final inspection. The part they don't see is that I approve every measurement device before it reaches the shop floor—roughly 200 instruments a year, from hand tools and electronic gauges to laser trackers. In 2024, I rejected 7% of first submissions because the accuracy claim had no supporting calibration data.
So when someone on our team typed "used FARO laser tracker for sale" into a search engine, I didn't start with the price. I started with a comparison. New vs used is the obvious frame, but it's not the whole story. Used from a metrology reseller with a current calibration certificate is a very different animal from used from a private seller with a vague story. I've now been through both routes, and I want to walk through the dimensions that actually decided the purchase.
Frame: The Four Things I Compare
I compare four things, in this order: purchase price, evidence of accuracy, delivery and support certainty, and what the unit costs after the invoice. The last one is where most people get hurt.
Why does this matter? Because a FARO laser tracker is not a hand tool. You buy it to measure large parts, tooling, and assemblies with tolerances that a customer's audit team will later check. If the unit can't hold its spec, the purchase price was never the real cost.
Purchase Price: The Obvious Dimension
Search any equipment marketplace and you'll see used FARO laser trackers listed at prices that make a new quote uncomfortable. In Q1 2024, we had two candidates on the table. One was a used FARO Laser Tracker Vantage S6 from a specialist dealer—$87,500, with a calibration certificate dated December 2023. The other was a similar-generation unit from a private seller at $62,500. No current certificate. The seller said it was "calibrated a couple of years ago."
For context, the new-system quote we had on file was roughly double the dealer's used price. That gap is real, and I don't want to minimize it. If you're a smaller shop and capital is tight, the used route is often the only route.
Here's the thing though: the private listing "won" on paper and lost everywhere else. The $25,000 difference should have been a warning, not a bargain. The dealer's unit came with a calibration report, an offer to run an acceptance test, and a support contact who answered the phone. The private seller could provide neither.
FARO Laser Tracker Accuracy: What the Spec Actually Means
Let's talk about the phrase "faro laser tracker accuracy" because it gets quoted all the time and understood less often.
FARO publishes accuracy for its laser trackers as a length measurement error formula. For the Vantage S6, for example, the spec is typically stated as 16 µm + 0.8 µm/m under defined operating conditions. That means at a 5-meter measurement, the allowed error is roughly 20 µm. At 10 meters, it's roughly 24 µm. These numbers are tiny—about one-quarter the diameter of a human hair—but they only mean something if the unit actually meets them.
And here's the conventional wisdom I've come to question: that a used tracker can't hold its original accuracy, so you need to buy new to be safe. In our experience, that just isn't true across the board.
We tested the private seller's unit before walking away. Following the procedure in ASME B89.4.22 (the long-standing performance evaluation standard for laser trackers) and referencing calibrated length artifacts, that unit showed errors around 65 µm at a 4.8-meter distance—over three times its spec. It had probably drifted over time, or had taken a hit nobody knew about. Whatever the cause, the seller had no data to show it was still within tolerance. A new unit might have been fine. But so might a used one that had been properly maintained and verified.
What actually separates a good used FARO tracker from a bad one isn't age or hours. It's whether anyone has maintained the beam-path optics, environmental sensors, and firmware, and whether the calibration records show consistency over time. The dealer's used unit passed the same acceptance test we run on new deliveries. That surprised me the first time we did it, but it's become a pattern: a verified used unit is not inherently less accurate than a new one.
Meanwhile, I've also seen a brand-new unit arrive with shipping damage that knocked it out of spec. "New" is not a shortcut around verification. It's just a different risk profile.
Delivery and Support: The Dimension Everybody Undervalues
This is where my view on buying used hardened into something more specific.
In March 2024, we needed an additional tracker for a new production cell. The program had a hard customer delivery date, and the new unit we'd ordered earlier was quoted at a 14-week lead time. We didn't have 14 weeks. We had about six.
That timeline is why the $25,000 gap between the two used listings became almost irrelevant. The private seller said delivery would take "two or three weeks," which meant nobody could commit. The dealer, on the other hand, guaranteed delivery in ten days and included an on-site acceptance test as part of the agreement. We paid the higher price for certainty. It was one of the easier purchasing decisions I've been part of.
Look, I understand why "rush fee" and "premium" feel like waste. But what I've learned from this industry is that certainty itself has value. If a late or inaccurate unit costs you a customer audit failure or a missed delivery, the $25,000 saving disappears fast. The cheapest option that doesn't show up on time is not cheaper. It's just a cheaper way to create an expensive problem.
If you're comparing only the spreadsheet, a private sale with no calibration data will always look like the winner. It only loses once you add delivery dates, audit risk, and support into the calculation.
Costs After the Invoice
The last dimension is the one I wish more buyers asked about before they commit.
A laser tracker needs regular calibration. That's not optional, and it applies to new units too. In 2024, our annual calibration and certification service ran around $4,500 for the tracker we kept. If you buy a used unit without a current report, you need to budget for that immediately, plus shipping and downtime. That instantly narrows the gap between a private sale and a dealer unit that arrives with fresh documentation.
There's also the matter of support. With a new FARO unit, you have a manufacturer warranty and a direct support channel. With a used unit from a reputable dealer, you might get a short warranty and a service relationship. With a private sale, you get nothing. If the software license hasn't been transferred properly, or the firmware is out of date, or the unit throws a beam error two weeks after arrival, you're on your own.
I should have asked about software and support earlier than I did on our first used purchase. Looking back, I was so focused on the accuracy test that I didn't chase down the licensing details until after the sale. It worked out, but it added a week of administrative headache. Put that on your checklist: calibration report, software license status, firmware version, and whether the seller will stand behind the unit for even 30 days.
What I'd Recommend, Based on Scenario
I don't believe there's one right answer between new and used. But there is a right answer for your situation.
If you have a long-term program, a delivery schedule that can absorb a 10-to-14-week lead time, and capital available, buy new. You get the full warranty, the direct manufacturer relationship, and the cleanest possible audit trail.
If you need a tracker soon, or your budget simply can't stretch to new, buy used—but buy it the way we did the second time. Use a dealer who provides the current calibration certificate, offers an acceptance test per ASME B89.4.22 or ISO 10360-10, and will commit to a delivery date. That combination is worth a premium over a private listing.
And if you're tempted by the as-is listing that undercuts everyone else, do three things. Ask for the last two calibration certificates, not just the most recent one. Insist on running an acceptance test before payment. And if the seller hesitates on either, walk away. A FARO laser tracker that can't prove its accuracy is not a FARO laser tracker for your purposes.
I'd rather explain to our CFO why we paid more for a verified used unit than explain to a customer why their flight-critical part missed tolerance. The first conversation is uncomfortable. The second one is career-ending.
Leave a Reply