My buddy has an EcoFlow Pro Delta, I just got my AC300 in the mail. We tested both against my Teardrop by running the AC all night over two nights.
EcoFlow Pro Delta: 15 hours runtime
AC300: 7.5 hours runtime
Now I know the EcoFlow has a slightly larger capacity (about 20%), but 2x the runtime is quite inexplicable. Does anyone have any idea whats going on? Is my battery a dud? I am pretty disappointed in this performance but I dont want to give up on the product just yet. Maybe there is something I can do to see similar results???
@blortis would you mind showing me the index of output power on the screen for both of units? It might be the difference in output voltage between bluetti and ECOFLOW, which causes the different output power and duration charging on the camping, does both units are full of SOC during the test?
@blortis Theres alot of factors here that could come into play. Both the EF delta pro and the AC300 have pretty similar and solid overall efficiency ratings (mid 80’s) but it really comes down to what the draws were. Were you using the same appliances and duration for these appliances during both “tests”??
Again there are alot of obstacles here but to get a general average of consumption and efficiency of the units. I would try the test again, but run a killawatt in between the power station and your loads, to get a true feel for how many watt hours you were able to pull from each device before it shutting down. Try to keep both tests as similar and consistent as possible, with the loads you run generally.
Also, has your ac300/b300 system been “cycled” before or is it brand new? Its recommended with new units, to fully “cycle” them to calibrate the bms in them. This could also have an effect on your runtime. Let us know your results and post some pics of your teardrop and setup! I’d love to see it!!
I’d run the test again with a Kill-a-watt meter for each. It will show exactly how many watts and watthours are being drawn by each one. Was the outside temperature different over the two nights, as compressor run time might be a factor?
Well my buddy with the EF took off and is headed to Canada, so I wont be able to run any more tests. I don’t think I will come to any reasonable conclusion to this, but I will just take it as a fluke cause there is no way there could be that big of a difference right? right?
On to my next problem… My solar panel.
I’ve been testing my PV420 for the last 3 days and the highest I have been able to output is 359W. I am in the Texas sun with FULL DIRECT sunlight. The sun right now is directly overhead my panels are pointing straight up into it and I am getting 346W. I am sure you can see how bright this sun is in the picture, but just to be clear, this sun is so bright I could probably fry an egg on my solar panel
346w is pretty good, that’s 82% of the rated wattage. I’m usually happy at about 75% with my portable and fixed panels.
Hmm maybe I got bad information from my friend then. He runs his entire house on solar and he told me 15% loss is a little on the high end. He lives in Washington too so no where near as much sun as Texas
Just to compare - I have a Trina Vertex 420W fixed panel connected to my AC500. Even so the sun is not in the very best angle to it, I have seen values above 400Watts already.
That is more along the lines of what I was expecting out of the panels. I know a lot of people will say “it depends on conditions” and I understand that, but I cannot imagine any conditions better for generating solar power than the three days I tested my panel. I matched the solar angle several times throughout the day. There was no shade, no clouds… perfect conditions. I am a bit skeptical given I could not get it above 360W once even for a brief moment. Its a bit disheartening having such a drastic difference in the EF PRO runtime and the 1000$ solar panel under performing your 300$ panel
I agree with you. Unser best conditions, a panel should deliever its advertised performance.