Which Solar Car Battery Chargers Brand Wins?

/ 3.52 lb

/ 1.64 lb

/ 3.32 lb

/ 2.81 lb

/ 2.26 lb

/ 2.28 lb

/ 2.92 lb

/ 1.15 lb

/ 3.22 lb

stated in the transcript as '284 g or 4.59 lb', which is numerically inconsistent (284 g would be about 0.63 lb, not 4.59 lb); described as by far the heaviest brand up to that point in testing, so the 4.59 lb figure (about 2,082 g) is likely the more accurate one and '284 g' is likely a caption/transcription error; both figures are kept verbatim here per the no-invention rule

/ 10.86 lb, described as 'absolutely massive' and 'quite a behemoth', by far the heaviest panel in the video

/ 2.19 lb

at 19.47 V flat; 0.76 W at 28 degrees

at 22.13 V (charge controller read 22.5 V) flat; 6.47 W at 28 degrees

at 18.97 V flat; 2.68 W at 28 degrees (worse than the Hoysicy)

at around 20 V flat (2nd place behind Hoysicy at that point); 4.11 W at 28 degrees

at just over 22 V flat, the best flat result up to that point in testing; 4.57 W at 28 degrees

at 13.14 V flat; 4.18 W at 28 degrees, about 21 W below its rating

at just under 14 V flat, moving into the lead at that point; 8.87 W at 28 degrees

at around 20 V flat; 3.85 W at 28 degrees (angle hurt performance)

at 14.7 V flat, moving into the lead; 10.49 W at 28 degrees

at around 10 V flat, described as underpowered and not enough to charge a car battery; 2.28 W at 28 degrees, still around 10 V

at around 22 V flat, performing better than average; 5.79 W at 28 degrees

at around 20 V flat; 2.25 W at 28 degrees, described as performing poorly compared to the competition

at around 18.3 V flat, the worst result in the entire competition; 0.1 W at 28 degrees

about 3.5 W short of its 20 W rating (3rd place in this test)

notably impacted by the heat

handling the heat better than Newpowa (2nd place at that point in testing)

over 5 W short of its rating

over 10 W short of its 25 W rating

continuing to outperform the visually similar EBL

well below its 20 W rating; noted as very hot to the touch in direct sunlight

moving into the lead at that point (2nd place in the final hot-sun ranking behind FlexSolar)

struggling in the heat

about average for the 20 W-rated chargers

described as really struggling for its size

about 3 W short of its rated output (the transcript states this is 'about 3 watts short of its rating' after describing the rating as 15 W in this section, versus 12 W stated in the brand's intro; see notes)

SAFETY ISSUE: began charging a near-dead battery at under 1 V, but never stopped charging even after the battery reached 15.5 V (overcharged); no functioning cutout observed

SAFETY ISSUE: began charging at under 1 V, but its factory float charge is supposed to cut out around 14 V or less; the battery reached 16.2 V and it was still overcharging

SAFETY ISSUE: began charging at under 1 V, but never stopped charging even after the battery reached well over 15 V

cut-in voltage 13.1 V, cutout voltage 14.1 V; functioning cutout observed

SAFETY ISSUE: began charging at under 1 V, but never stopped charging even after the battery reached 15.5 V

cut-in voltage 12.6 V, cutout voltage 13.8 V; functioning cutout observed

cut-in voltage 13.3 V, cutout voltage 14.1 V; described in the closing summary as better cut-in/cutout points than the FlexSolar

begins charging at 5 V; cut-in voltage 13.7 V, cutout voltage 15.2 V, which the reviewer flags as 'seems too high'

cut-in voltage 13.8 V, cutout voltage 14.5 V; functioning cutout observed

cut-in voltage 13.8 V (same as NXQWLL), cutout voltage 14.5 V (same as NXQWLL); functioning cutout observed

begins charging at around 5 V; cut-in voltage around 13.8 V, cutout voltage around 14.3 V

designed to only begin charging a battery with at least a 3.3 V charge (cannot jump-start a fully dead battery like most other brands); cut-in voltage 12.3 V (below a fully charged battery's baseline of 12.6 V), cutout voltage 14.4 V

powers on at just under 1 V; cut-in voltage 13.8 V; during testing the battery reached 15.5 V and the charger still had not reached a cutout voltage, leaving its actual cutout point unresolved

damaged easily at pick #5

damaged at pick #8

damaged at pick #6

damaged at pick #9 per the main test narration ('performed the best yet'), though the closing summary recap states pick #8 for this brand; this is a numeric inconsistency between the two parts of the transcript and both figures are preserved here

damaged at pick #9 per the main test narration (tied with Volt Hero), though the closing summary recap states pick #8; both figures preserved here

has a rubberized coating; earned a perfect 10 with no damage from any pick tested

has a rubberized coating; earned a perfect 10 with no damage from any pick tested

no rubberized coating; damaged at pick #8

not very durable, damaged at the relatively soft pick #3, the worst scratch result of any brand

damaged at pick #8, much better than the NXQWLL

pretty durable, damaged at pick #8

light scratches at pick #7, deeper grooves at pick #8

scratches pretty easily at the relatively soft pick #3, despite being the most expensive charger in the video

not durable, quite a bit of visible damage

held up just fine

soft panel, left a pretty big dent

held up just fine, no damage

survived without any damage

held up just fine, no visible damage

held up just as well as the EBL, no damage

WORST RESULT: ruined by the impact

experienced a pretty big dent but the panel still works fine

survived without any damage

held up just fine

held up just fine

pretty soft, experienced a dent

(the highest claimed rating of any brand tested)

maximum output

maximum energy production, the lowest claimed rating of any brand tested

passed; only a tiny spark, no damage

passed (not one of the two brands that failed)

FAILED: experienced a pretty significant spark and the wiring became extremely hot; the reviewer notes a continuous connection would likely have caused damage, though the tool still worked fine after the brief test

FAILED: delivered a pretty hot spark and the wiring became hot very quickly; the reviewer notes an extended reverse connection would likely have caused damage, though the tool still worked fine after the brief test