Vapcell IFR32700 G62 batteries, take two

Yes, I’ve already reviewed these batteries, and to be honest, I wasn’t really expecting to see them in the package. But first, they’ve already been sent, and second, I have something to compare them with, so I’ll test these too. And yes, these are the last batteries from the six pairs I recently received.

I’d like to remind Vapcell that we agreed on four batteries, not two. For example, I still have no idea what to do with a pair of batteries, especially LiFePO4 ones—unless I make something like a 6 V lead-acid battery. On the other hand, maybe there is a use for them after all. Also, does anyone know of any decent protection boards for 2S LiFePO4, rated for 25–30 A and with balancing?

A reminder: to keep up with new posts on the blog, I recommend following me on Instagram. I’ll post notifications about all new posts there, and might also write about something interesting from time to time - link to my account

You can also subscribe to updates and new articles on the Telegram channel - https://t.me/KirichBlog

So, you’re already familiar with these batteries from this review, and I’ll be comparing the ones I’ve just tested with them.


Specifications from the Vapcell website
Model: G62
Size: 32.3±0.2*70.6±0.3mm
Typical Capacity: 6200mAh (0.2C discharge)
Min capacity: 6000mAh (0.2C discharge)
Nominal voltage: 3.20V
Max Continuous Discharge Current: 30A
Max Pulse Discharge Current: 55A for 5seconds
End-of-charge voltage: 3.65V
End-of-discharge Voltage: 2.0V
Weight: Max 150g
Internal resistance: Max 9mΩ（AC 1kHz）
Standard Charge: 6000mA,CCCV 50mA cut-off
Quick Charge Current: 18000mA

They look almost identical to the previous ones, but there’s one small difference: the positive terminal has noticeably less heat-shrink tubing over it. Otherwise, they’re exactly the same—even the negative terminal has the same W code.


Dimensions and weight are identical.


The initial charge-discharge-charge cycle also produced similar results, though perhaps slightly worse.


I also tested charging in two modes: standard at 6 A and fast at 18 A.
In standard mode, charging took 1 hour 14 minutes, compared with 1 hour 11.5 minutes for the previous batteries.


In fast mode, the battery charged in 29 minutes. The previous one did better, at 26.5 minutes.


As with the previous ones, I tested it in seven modes: 0.2C, 0.5C, 1C, and 10, 15, 20, and 30 A.
Although this battery measured 6185mAh, the result still seemed worse than that of the previous ones.


Temperature at 15, 20, and 30 A.


The second sample also falls within the stated capacity, but its result is slightly worse than the first sample’s.


Temperature at 20 and 30 A. I missed the measurement at 15 A and didn’t repeat the cycle.


Checking consistency between the batteries. Overall, no complaints. There’s some variation at load currents close to the maximum, but I don’t consider it significant.


Impedance when received, after “normalization,” and at the end. These batteries measure around 5.6–5.7mΩ, about the same as the previous ones, at 5.6–5.8mΩ.


But as I’ve already mentioned, the whole point of these tests was to compare their results with the ones I got earlier.
And it’s clear that the new ones fall behind. I wouldn’t say by a lot, but there is a difference. There was also some variation in capacity between the samples, but rather than add another graph, I’ll list the figures at 0.2C:
new -
6185mAh 19.94Wh
6155mAh 19.82Wh

previous
6317mAh 20.38Wh
6233mAh 20.06Wh



And here’s a comparison of the five 32700 batteries I’ve tested so far.
1. The ones reviewed here (red)
2. The previous ones (orange) - review
3. VariCore - review
4. Liitokala - review
5. Vapcell G65 - review

In the end, the results are below average: better than the dismal VariCore cells, but worse than all the others.


Conclusions.
I could say they’re identical to the ones tested previously, but unfortunately that’s not the case. In my opinion, they do fall short. Also, a reminder that the previous cells were tested in winter, so the air temperature was a little lower, and their delivered capacity may therefore have been slightly reduced.
All in all, I wouldn’t call them bad, but it’s hard to call them good either. Fat is fat.

That’s all for today. I’ll go test something else now, perhaps some genuine LG cells from Nkon. Thanks for reading :)