Xerox 8200

Created: October 27, 2013 12:33 pm by Admin
Modified: July 21, 2017 8:30 am by Admin

October 1979: Xerox started production of the Xerox 8200 copier/duplicator. The machine could produce high quality copies, like the Xerox 9500 could do.

The code name for the 8200 was Chainsaw, according to a comment from Dana. Please read the complete comment from Dana, further down this page.

  • printed 70 copies in a minute
  • 2-sided copying
  • reduction
  • stapling and sorting

The machine collated copies without a sorter.






 Floor Space Requirements (Meters/Feet)

(Centimeters) / (inches)

 147 / 58

 140 / 55

 130 / 51

 1014 / 2236

 3 x 2 / 11 x 8

Do you have any more information about this model, or have brochures / pictures? Please leave a reply in the form below, or send an email to


  1. I remember this machine from when my mom started working for Dow Jones in the 80’s–it was probably one of the first things I knew as a “copy machine.” My elementary school, of course, had a copy machine, but it was inside the school secretary’s office and was off limits even to teachers who were stuck using the mimeograph machine in the teacher’s lounge. I remember this machine seeming very modern with it’s colorful, push button control panel and the smoked window to the paper compartment.

    • Thanks for your comment on this blog. I have only seen this machine once, and I think it was around 1983. This machine was something similar to the Xerox 9400/9500, but it did not have any sorter like 9400/9500 had. I think the 8200 was also somewhat like inside as the 9400/9500. Anyway, I don’t think Xerox had much success with the 8200 on the market.

      • Somewhere I remember reading that was considered their 2 1/2 generation technology. I remember TRW in California had one of these in a building during the mid 1980s with over 3 million copies on it. A great machine, built like a tank of mostly metal parts. It was maintained by someone who had worked prior in a offset press environment. She did her best to keep it maintained.

  2. The 8200 was, indeed, based on the 92/9400 frame, but designed to be more affordable. Xerox sold quite a few of these, but they required service more often and went down quite a lot.

    I was a field service rep in the 70’s and 80’s.

  3. I too was a tech rep from 1976 – 1985, trained at Leesburg on everything from 2600s through 9700s – this machine had the worst doc feeder ever designed by man for service. The foam gaskets for the vacuum transport always leaked – the drive pulleys in the back were plastic and constantly failed – trying to keep doc registration adjustments to stay put took an act of god – poor quality bearings seized and consequently caused shafts to get sawn in half… the thing was an albatross. The one saving grace was the 9500 print engine – fresh developer and a good pr belt and it rivaled anything done on an offset b/w press.

  4. Our cross-town rival Eastman Kodak introduced the Ektaprint 100 and the 8200 was a “hurry-up” response to that product. Prior to the Kodak machines, all Xerox duplicators handled the original once, and used a sorter to make sets. The Ektaprint introduced the recirculating document feeder and eliminated the need for a sorter. The 8200 took the 94/9500 engine, added a recirculating document feeder, and eliminated the sorter to compete. The tall console from the 92/94/9500 was eliminated, and in fact the code name for the 8200 was “Chainsaw” as if the console was eliminated by a chainsaw. It worked pretty well, but this was our first attempt at a recirculating doc feeder, and it did have some challenges.

    • Your correct Dana on “Chainsaw”. That was the code name for the 8200 during development.

      Marketing needed new technology right away. Engineering had 1-year to develop a product to use as a “stopgap” measure to use for the Kodak Etaprint 100. We only had the aging 3600’s for that duplicator market at the time, and were losing customers to Eastman Kodak.

      I was a Product Technical Specialist (PTS) at that timeframe, and participated in the launch of the 8200. We also launched the 9500 at that time. Both had the new XL-10 xerographics. A high density, fine toner technology and mat finish, a breakthrough at the time to again keep up with Eastman Kodak’s Ektaprints. They already had it with their EP100’s. Remember the “soft” fused rolls with “soft touch” thermistors?

      I think I may still have a cartoon like picture that was shown to us at pre-launch in Rochester, NY that shows a “Xerox Chainsaw” cutting a Kodak in half.

      The 8200 was using off the shelf, proven technology to accelerate it’s short timeframe to market. Using the 9000 engine, and the 1065 recirculating document handler (RDH). That RDH was never meant to handle that kind of “monthly” volume. (100 impressions per minute/6,000 impression per hour) The engine was slowed down by a larger sprocket for the main drive. The engine was sound, but since it could now be used without a Dedicated Key Operator (DKO), too many untrained users would cause problems.

      Don’t forget the skewed exit jams caused by the edge of the paper cutting into the cast metal registration edge. (Who would have thought paper could cut metal.) Which lead to the stainless steel insert, and the white plastic registration ball retrofit “tag”. ?

      All great memories!!!

  5. In late 1980, the service training was two weeks in Leesburg, and you got trained on the 9500 and 8200 at the same time as the optics and xerographics were the same. The 9500 was for a production environment with a dedicated Key Operator. The 8200 was for a causual walk-up environment. The 8200 reliability was always much better in the dedicated Key Operator environment than it was in the walk-up environment! Keeping that set seperator finger working properly in the recirculating document feeder was key!

  6. Hello All, In Europe because of the number of languages we had to translate into we actually replaced the control panel head with a user interface, but not a graphical one. Because of the limited size of the control head and of our budget we took the green phosphor screen from the Xerox ‘intelligent’ typewriter and mounted it into a new head housing. Diverted the buttons from the Xerox 1045 mid-volume copier because we needed smaller buttons than the large blue ones that existed on the original 8200 and used a ‘step’ selection method for the print options. The various print options were displayed on the screen in the appropriate language with the selected item housed inside square brackets.
    I have a photograph of the complete machine somewhere and also a picture of just the control head.
    I have a photograph of the complete machine somewhere and also a picture of just the control head. Please contact me if you wish to display the 8300 variant on this page.
    I was responsible for the physical design and style of the housing, Craig Symonds developed the screen layout. I’m afraid I do not remember the team manager or any other members, it was some time ago ….. 😉

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


Do the math before submitting the form. * Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.