Which Flare Nut Wrench Brand Wins?

head 0.785 in, 0.533 in of slop

head 0.838 in, slop given as "0.5 3 4 in" in the transcript (ambiguous between 0.534 in and 0.574 in; kept as flagged rather than guessed)

(heaviest brand recorded up to that point in the video), head 0.774 in (most compact recorded up to that point), 0.577 in of slop (least slop recorded up to that point, though a smaller wrench size than Efficere/Duratech)

head 0.855 in, slop described as "almost 3/4 of an inch," a very loose fit

head 0.874 in, 0.598 in of slop

head 0.794 in (about 10 percent smaller than Duratech's), slop described as more than the dial indicator could measure, well over an inch, the worst build-quality result of the video's early brands

head 0.879 in (a notably big head), 0.61 in of slop, described as having "quite a bit of taper"

head 0.8335 in (a little large), 0.585 in of slop, similar to Kobalt

head 0.8375 in (almost the same as Williams), 0.602 in of slop (more than Williams)

(heavier than average), head 0.7865 in, 0.766 in of slop, described as "way too much slop" for its otherwise low-taper design

head 0.778 in (more compact than average), 0.542 in of slop (a pretty snug fit)

(heaviest recorded up to that point), head 0.768 in (most compact recorded up to that point), 0.516 in of slop (tightest fit recorded up to that point)

(heaviest of all 14 brands), head 0.749 in (most compact of all 14 brands), 0.639 in of slop (a pretty sloppy fit despite the compact head)

best of all 14 brands

called out in the recap as performing well, close to Kobalt

moved into the lead at that point

not recoverable; the transcript sentence introducing this brand's own slip/failure point on the 3/8 in test appears to have been garbled and dropped entirely ("any fser slipped at is made in China and the durch weighs 94 G" runs two sentences together with no clean number for Efficere)

outperformed Efficere

gave up before the dial indicator's 60 in lb minimum threshold was even reached, described as "a very poorly designed wrench with this much taper"

(transcript reads the badly garbled string "247.374410"), the first flare nut wrench in the video to outperform the open-end Snap-on baseline

gave up under 95 in lb, described as "way too much taper," only making contact with around 60 percent of the fitting; the weakest performer on this test

transcript reads "29.3 in lb," which is roughly 10 times lower than every neighboring brand's result in the 190 to 290 in lb range on this same test; flagged as a likely dropped leading digit (plausibly closer to 200 to 290) rather than corrected to a specific value

described as "still pretty decent" despite the excess slop

transcript reads "1991.5 in lb," implausibly high compared to every other brand's 95 to 290 in lb range on this same test; flagged as a garbled/misplaced-decimal figure rather than corrected to a specific value

(transcript reads the garbled "188.jpg"), described elsewhere as an "about average" first-round result relative to the field

described as "really struggled on this test," with "way too much taper and way too much slop to compete with the best in the showdown"

(transcript reads "9156," read here as a garbled decimal consistent with this test's other torque figures), wrench broke ("career ending injury"), the highest first-attempt figure recorded

(transcript reads "8483"), moved into the lead at that point

(transcript reads "8819"), only barely outperforming a competing brand

(transcript reads "6683")

outperformed Efficere and Duratech

(transcript reads "4772")

(transcript reads "559.115"), described as "a bench warmer performance"

described as performing about the same as Efficere

transcript reads "74.2 in lb," implausibly low compared to the roughly 560 to 915 in lb range recorded for every other brand on this test; flagged rather than corrected

(transcript reads "4664"), described as "a pretty dismal" result

described as "isn't too impressive considering the price of the tool"

the best second-attempt figure recorded; corrected from the transcript's garbled "700 55.3" because the narrator's stated 11 percent performance drop from 848.3 in lb computes to about 755, matching

derived from the narrator's stated "lost about 150 in lb of performance on the second attempt" rather than a verbatim second figure; not itself a spoken number, flagged as an approximation

a loss of over 200 in lb of strength, consistent with the stated numbers

(transcript reads "622.org," the ".org" is a caption artifact), jaw damage measured at 8.02 mm

transcript reads "6888," read here as a likely dropped decimal since Crescent's own second attempt is separately described as "just over 688 in lb" while performing a similar amount worse than its first attempt as Performance Tool, though this is not a fully certain correction

described as a "season ending injury," jaw contact area measured at 8.29 mm but the jaws described as too weak to work effectively

not given as a verbatim figure; the narrator states only a 28.3 percent drop from the first attempt, which would put the second attempt at roughly 401 in lb, but this is a derived approximation, not a spoken number

(transcript reads "6521"); the narrator's stated 6.6 percent drop from 698.4 computes to about 652.5, closely matching

transcript reads "585.3 in lb" (from "5853") with a stated 22.4 percent drop from the first attempt; the two figures do not reconcile cleanly with either possible reading of the first-attempt number, so both are kept flagged rather than resolved

described as throwing in the towel very early again, a dramatic decline from the first attempt

a 12.6 percent drop from 722.9, which matches the stated percentage closely

then 1,270 in lb on a second attempt (transcript reads "1,35" for the first figure, likely missing a trailing zero); narrator states only a 2.7 percent drop between attempts, which does not cleanly match the literal 1,350 to 1,270 figures (a 5.9 percent drop by that math), flagged as an unresolved inconsistency rather than corrected

then 832.4 in lb on a second attempt (transcript reads "1,13" for the first figure, likely missing a trailing zero); narrator frames this as continuing to outperform most of the competition

recorded only in a heavily garbled closing recap segment for this size; not extracted with confidence

an initial reading of about 8.5 in lb was recorded, then discarded and retested on a brand new coupling nut at 43.2 in lb; both figures read as very poor performance for this brand

(transcript reads "798.org")

then 686 in lb on a second attempt (transcript reads "7578" and "686.com"); the stated 9 percent drop from 757.8 computes to about 690, closely matching 686

recorded as the garbled string "868.42mhz" for a first figure and "32.9" for a second; narrator states this brand "performed about as well as the Crescent" (roughly 700 to 880 in lb range), so the literal "32.9" figure is very likely missing a leading digit, flagged rather than corrected

recorded as 71.1 in lb for a first attempt and approximately 699 in lb for a second attempt (transcript reads "699.00 B"), which the narrator describes as "performed about the same on a second attempt"; this framing is inconsistent with the literal first-attempt figure of 71.1 being so much lower, so the 71.1 reading is flagged as a likely caption error rather than corrected to a specific number

then 647 in lb on a second attempt (transcript reads "6618" for the first figure)

recorded as the garbled string "856.011 15.6 in lbs," roughly 856 in lb based on the leading digits, not extracted with full confidence

recorded as the garbled string "776.012," roughly 776 in lb based on the leading digits, not extracted with full confidence