# Energizer Ultimate and Advanced Lithium AA



## Brlux (Oct 19, 2008)

I was shopping for Energizer Lithium AA cells at target the other day and noticed that they have some new offerings. I could not find much information on them here at CPF or on the web so I got some to test. 







The Energizer Ultimate seem to be the new Premium Lithium cells and are branded with a claim of lasting 8X longer than the Energizer MAX Alkaline cells in a digital camera? I guess this is a step up from the last version of the Lithium AA which was touted as 7X. Whether this is a marketing scheme, they actually managed to cram in more power, or the MAX Alkaline cells decreased in power has yet to be determined. The Ultimate cells had an expiration date of 2023, so these must be rated for a 15 year shelf life. (edit shelf life)

The other new player is a lower priced Lithium cell called the Energizer Advanced which claims to last 4X longer than the Energizer MAX Alkaline cell in a digital camera. They have the same temperature ratings as the Ultimate cells -40 to +140 deg F. The Advanced cells had an expiration date of 2018, So these must be rated for a 10 year shelf life. (Edited because I can't subtract)

The Ultimate cells were $9 something per 4 pack of AA and the Advanced were $6 something per 4 pack of AA. I wanted to see how they compared because I use Lithium’s in a Canon A570is digital camera that I fly on a weather balloon that can reach 100k feet which is very near space and temperatures can get below -40F so the temperature rating was important to me. Here is a picture from my last flight. 





I ran the 8X Ultimate and the 4X Advanced through my CBA-II with a .5A constant discharge and the results are closer than I was expecting.





Red = Ultimate Lithium 8X cell, Black = Advanced Lithium 4X cell

At roughly 2/3 the price of the Ultimate cells the Advanced look to be a good option for some situations. I will be flying them on my next balloon flight in a few weeks. 

I hope this information is useful to someone.


----------



## Oddjob (Oct 19, 2008)

Thanks for the info. The advanced are 2/3 the price but do not look to give 2/3 the performance. Nice pic BTW.


----------



## etc (Oct 19, 2008)

Nice pic.

What do you up there?


----------



## ltiu (Oct 19, 2008)

Brlux said:


> I was shopping for Energizer Lithium AA cells at target the other day and noticed that they have some new offerings. I could not find much information on them here at CPF



4sevens gave Chevrofreak some but we have not yet seen the results.



> The Energizer Ultimate seem to be the new Premium Lithium cells and are branded with a claim of lasting 8X longer than the Energizer MAX Alkaline cells in a digital camera? I guess this is a step up from the last version of the Lithium AA which was touted as 7X. Whether this is a marketing scheme, they actually managed to cram in more power, or the MAX Alkaline cells decreased in power has yet to be determined.


If you read carefully, the original Lithium packaging states: "lasts up to 7x longer ... vs leading ordinary alkaline".

The new Lithium reads" "lasts up to 8x longer ... vs Energizer max".

Energizer max is not the leading ordinary alkaline.

It's been known to underperform vs other alkaline batteries:

http://lights.chevrofreak.com/runtimes/AA cells.png



> I ran the 8X Ultimate and the 4X Advanced through my CBA-II with a .5A constant discharge and the results are closer than I was expecting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, the info is very useful. Thanks.


----------



## Brlux (Oct 19, 2008)

ltiu said:


> Your math sucks man! or are you living in 1998?



The 90's were a sweet era, but the real answer is yes my math sucks as does my spelling. 

Sorry.


----------



## ltiu (Oct 19, 2008)

Brlux said:


> the Advanced were $6 something per 4 pack of AA.



Costs around $13 for a pack of 12 AA at Sam's Club.


----------



## odessit (Oct 19, 2008)

Give him a break! His math is fine. Didn't you know that time slows down as speed goes up? Some Einstein dude though of this.
Anyway, cool pic, please share a photo with us of your ultra high flying super fast flying apparatus (can't really use your affectionate term "balloon") !

And thanks for the battery test, nice to have an alternative.
10% weaker, but 30% cheaper batteries are a good value in my book.


----------



## Brlux (Oct 19, 2008)

Here is a website that has pictures from all our flights. 

Here is the camera

And here is the launch.

If you live in the South Western US and are into Amateur Radio or have a police scanner you can try checking out our next flight. We have a cross band repeater that goes up on each flight. It is 2m up and 70cm 445.525Mhz down. line of sight form 100K feet is quite far. We also use APRS (GPS data being relayed over amature radio transmision) to track our payloads and get real time flight data (ground speed, altitude, position). It is like the ultimate geo cash where the cash is moving nearly 100 miles and you try to guess where it is going to stop.


----------



## odessit (Oct 19, 2008)

Cool, Thanks!


----------



## Kilovolt (Oct 20, 2008)

About two years ago Energizer started selling lithium primaries here in Italy and from the beginning they were marked 'Ultimate Lithium' . They look like the left ones in Brlux pics. Initially there was a '7x' claim on the packing that recently has disappeared.

The batteries are marked 'made in USA' . The latest I bought have an expiry date 03-2022.


----------



## David_Campen (Oct 20, 2008)

> 10% weaker, but 30% cheaper batteries are a good value in my book.


Hmm, how did you get the 10% number? Just eyeballing the graph, the difference in power (Volt*Ampere*hours) appears like it might be more than 10%.


----------



## Burgess (Oct 20, 2008)

To Brlux --


Thank you for this interesting and informative thread.

:thumbsup:


We've had an existing posting on this subject for perhaps
a month. Maybe someone can provide a Link to that.



Oh, BTW, i really loved yer' photograph !



I think i can actually see my house from up there.


_


----------



## David_Campen (Oct 20, 2008)

Here is the other thread:
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/204807&highlight=advanced


----------



## nerdgineer (Oct 20, 2008)

Brlux, do you have a graph of the current L91 lithium AA to compare to the new cells?


----------



## odessit (Oct 20, 2008)

David_Campen said:


> Hmm, how did you get the 10% number? Just eyeballing the graph, the difference in power (Volt*Ampere*hours) appears like it might be more than 10%.


Just that - eyeballing the graph.
[ugly flashback] Maybe somebody wants to refresh their Calculus skills, probably the areas of two graphs would be useful? [/ugly flashback]:thinking:


----------



## Burgess (Oct 20, 2008)

uhmmm, Calculus . . . .


Was that the same thing as Algebra ? ? ?



How can ya' add X's and Y's ?



Heck, i even have trouble with 3's and 8's.


_


----------



## David_Campen (Oct 20, 2008)

I did the integration by printing the graph and cutting out and weighing the curves on a scale sensitive to 0.01 gram. I got 1.07 gram for the Ultimate Lithium curve and 0.82 gram for the Advanced Lithium. So according to this the Advanced Lithium delivered 77% as much power as the Ultimate Lithium (0.82/1.07 = 0.77).


----------



## Burgess (Oct 20, 2008)

Nice work, David !

:twothumbs



Definitely above and beyond the Call of Duty !

:goodjob:
_


----------



## ltiu (Oct 20, 2008)

David_Campen said:


> I did the integration by printing the graph and cutting out and weighing the curves on a scale sensitive to 0.01 gram. I got 1.07 gram for the Ultimate Lithium curve and 0.82 gram for the Advanced Lithium. So according to this the Advanced Lithium delivered 77% as much power as the Ultimate Lithium (0.82/1.07 = 0.77).



Hey, why didn't I think of that back in calculus [email protected]#$%?! I could have passed on the first take!


----------



## MorePower (Oct 21, 2008)

nerdgineer said:


> Brlux, do you have a graph of the current L91 lithium AA to compare to the new cells?



The 8x Ultimate are the same as current L91 cells. The 4x is, in reality, better than 4x, but Energizer needed to give consumers the idea that there was more differentiation between the 2 products than there is. It's all about marketing.

That is based on standard ANSI testing, of course, rather than 500mA constant current.


----------



## ltiu (Oct 21, 2008)

MorePower said:


> That is based on standard ANSI testing, of course, rather than 500mA constant current.


 
So what is standard ANSI testing?


----------



## MorePower (Oct 21, 2008)

ltiu said:


> So what is standard ANSI testing?



For AA cells, there are 8 (soon to be 9) ANSI tests. The following PDF lists a subset of the ANSI tests for AAA through 9V cell sizes. 

http://batmon.emporia.edu/BatteryConditions.pdf

In addition to the 6 listed for AA cells, there is a photoflash test (1A 10 sec/min, 1 hr/day) and a digital camera test (1500mW for 2 sec, 650mW for 28 seconds, run 5 min/hr).

As you can see, most of these tests are intermittent. This more closely matches the usage patterns of a typical consumer.


----------



## Black Rose (Oct 21, 2008)

Interesting how Energizer has used a twist on Rayovac's "More Power" marketing phrase for the Advanced Lithium cells.


----------



## MichaelW (Oct 21, 2008)

You keep the ultimate, and give away the advance.

Ultimate for L1D, Advance for L2D


----------



## Power Me Up (Oct 22, 2008)

David_Campen said:


> I did the integration by printing the graph and cutting out and weighing the curves on a scale sensitive to 0.01 gram. I got 1.07 gram for the Ultimate Lithium curve and 0.82 gram for the Advanced Lithium. So according to this the Advanced Lithium delivered 77% as much power as the Ultimate Lithium (0.82/1.07 = 0.77).



Did you take into account the fact that the voltage scale is starting at 1.0 volts and not 0?

My estimate would be about an 8 to 10% difference for a device with a 1.0 volt cut off. For devices with a higher voltage cutoff, the difference would be much higher - e.g. for a 1.2V cutoff, I'd estimate a difference of about 25%


----------



## Bones (Oct 27, 2008)

Black Rose said:


> Interesting how Energizer has used a twist on Rayovac's "More Power" marketing phrase for the Advanced Lithium cells.



I wonder how a judge would view Energizer's encroachment, especially considering Rayovac has trade marked the phrase 'More Power for Your Money'.

Energizer must be trying to repeat the success it's enjoyed with the Bunny that they stole from Duracel.

The following is quoted from an article entited the 'Top 25 Ads We Can't Get out Of Our Heads' published by USA Today in 2007:



> 5. Energizer: Energizer Bunny (1989)
> 
> Energizer stole Duracell's drum-beating bunny, put it in motion and never looked back. For this campaign, Energizer can beat its own drum. And it's still going and going and going.


----------



## Black Rose (Oct 27, 2008)

It could be part of Energizer's game plan against ROV.

Energizer is suing Rayovac over Rayovac's attempt to bring lithium AA/AAA cells to market in North America (and break the Energizer monopoly). 
Apparently Energizer's patent has expired or something along those lines. The info is buried in a thread here somewhere.


----------



## Brlux (Oct 27, 2008)

I imported the graph data into Excel and calculated watt/hours for each battery. 

The Ultimate cell came to 4.257 Wh
The Advanced cell came to 3.815 Wh

So the Advanced cell has 89.6% of the Ultimates power down to 1V with a .5A discharge.

Take this for what it is worth from a guy who couldn't calculate the correct expiration date for the cells.


----------



## ps56k (Oct 28, 2008)

LC7LED - great callsign.... DE WA9TKA


----------



## woodrow (Oct 29, 2008)

Brlux, 
Thanks for the thread and your work. Cool pic too! I have a survival pack with a Fenix TK20 and 22 e2 lithiums (ultimate) in a waterproof case. When I was a Sam's, I was very tempted by the lower priced Advanced 12 pack for $14 (I think) vs. the Ultimate 12 pack for $20 (still a great deal considering most stores sell 4 for $10).

I am not sure how much better the Ultamates will perform in the TK20, but at least with your graph I know I am getting SOME difference for the extra money.


----------



## David_Campen (Oct 30, 2008)

> Did you take into account the fact that the voltage scale is starting at 1.0 volts and not 0?
> 
> My estimate would be about an 8 to 10% difference for a device with a 1.0 volt cut off



Whoops, no I didn't! That would make them much closer.


----------



## Stress_Test (Nov 9, 2008)

*I saw lower priced AA Lithiums today at Target--New trend?*

I noticed that Target had two different types of the Energizer lithium AAs. One type was the "ultimate" that was listed for the usual 10 dollar price. 

The other type was "advanced" (I think), and it was only about 7 bucks. Both these prices were for the 4-packs. 

The info on the packaging indicated that the "ultimate" was higher capacity than the "advanced", but even so I'd be willing to give up some capacity in exchange for the price break so long as the cells still perform with the same high output abilities. 

Hopefully this is the start of a trend for decreasing AA lithium prices!! Just think of the possibilities! (For us poorer flashaholics anyway! lol)


----------



## Light Sabre (Nov 9, 2008)

*Re: I saw lower priced AA Lithiums today at Target--New trend?*

The lower priced Energizer lithiums were a response to Rayovac's upcoming release of their own lithium batteries I think. Energizer has an injunction against Rayovac for patent infringement. You can read about it here: FlashlightNews | Energizer Holdings, Inc. Wins Injunction Against Spectrum Brands


----------



## Mr Happy (Nov 9, 2008)

*Re: I saw lower priced AA Lithiums today at Target--New trend?*

See this thread: https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/210335&highlight=ultimate+lithium

Best not to start yet another new thread on this subject.


----------



## Black Rose (Nov 9, 2008)

*Re: I saw lower priced AA Lithiums today at Target--New trend?*



Light Sabre said:


> Energizer has an injunction against Rayovac for patent infringement. You can read about it here: FlashlightNews | Energizer Holdings, Inc. Wins Injunction Against Spectrum Brands


Damn!!!!

I was hoping ROV would've been able to break the monopoly Energizer has on those primary cells.


----------



## Mr Happy (Nov 9, 2008)

That was only a preliminary injunction. Perhaps Rayovac may still win at the full hearing when all the facts are considered.


----------



## baterija (Nov 9, 2008)

*Re: I saw lower priced AA Lithiums today at Target--New trend?*

<Injuction comment deleted>

Move along nothing to see here. Beat to the punch by Mr Happy. Nothing to see.


----------



## Brlux (Nov 10, 2008)

I used the Advanced Lithium in another balloon flight yesterday. They performed well while taking nearly 2000 pictures at very low temperatures and still have power to spare.


----------



## cave dave (Nov 11, 2008)

Brlux said:


> I used the Advanced Lithium in another balloon flight yesterday. They performed well while taking nearly 2000 pictures at very low temperatures and still have power to spare.



wicked cool balloon project! 

Sounds like the Advanced is a good match for your needs since you are more interested in cold weather performance than squeezing out another 200 pictures.


----------



## Brlux (Nov 11, 2008)

And I have never come close to depleting a set of batteries on a flight and I don't plan on re flying used batteries so any remaining capacity at the end of the flight is just power that will get burnt off in a flashlight around the house or some other non critical use.


----------



## ltiu (Nov 23, 2008)

Brlux said:


> And I have never come close to depleting a set of batteries on a flight



How many pictures per flight?

I suppose you are not using the flash since you are in space and subjects are to far away anyways for the flash.

So just regular picture shots with no flash, how many do you typically take?


----------



## Brlux (Nov 23, 2008)

That's rite, No flash and the LCD screen is turned off. I have been getting over 800 pictures per flight. The last time it flew it was taking them every 6 seconds and the flight was 2 hours 11 minuets plus about 15 minuets on the ground before the flight. The force of impact upon landing caused the battery springs to disconect so it rebooted the camera and stoped taking pictures when it landed.

The first flight I ever did I used some of the Ultimate Lighium cells and it took about the same number of pictures (15 seconds apart but for a long time on the ground before we recovered it). When I got home I took one of the batteries form the flight and ran it on my CBA with a 500mA load and it still yielded 1.85Ah befor it hit 1V.


----------



## nitesky (Nov 23, 2008)

Great thread. I saw these batteries today in Target and wondered what was up. Thanks for the info. A good use would be the car lights, being subject to some wild temperature extremes or just long term emergency storage? I worry less about run time than just the fact they work in those cases. Nice pictures as well of the ballon launch.


----------



## ltiu (Nov 24, 2008)

Brlux said:


> That's rite, No flash and the LCD screen is turned off.



Did you do this programmatically or by mechanically disabling the flash and LCD?



> taking them every 6 seconds





> (15 seconds apart but for a long time on the ground before we recovered it).



6 seconds per flight and 15 seconds per flight. Is this programmatically timed?


----------



## odessit (Nov 24, 2008)

Here is answer from his website


> The camera automatically takes pictures every 15 seconds. The camera uses a special firmware version that is loaded on the flash card. The script controls the operation of the camera. For more information, visit the [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,"San Serif"]CHDK Wik[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,"San Serif"]i.[/FONT]


----------



## Brlux (Nov 25, 2008)

Thanks Odessit for clearing that up. 

The script file controls the time interval for the shutter and the LCD is disabled by pressing the display button on the camera until it shuts off prior to launching the script file. I had to memorize the button pattern for launching the script so that I could do it with the display disabled. I know it is working because I set the camera to beep each time it takes a picture. There probably is a command that can be used in the script file to disable the LCD but I don't know that much about the available instructions for my particular camera. O and the script file is a type of basic language that is saved as a text file on the SD card. The CHDK firmware has a script file mode where you can navigate to a saver script and execute it.


----------



## chester123 (Nov 11, 2009)

Hi Brlux, 

Thanks for your post - very helpful! 

We are launching a high-altitude balloon tomorrow - www.spudnik1.co.uk

We are trying to work out what batteries to use for our cameras, the cameras are Cannon Ixus 30 and a Ricoh Caplio R6. Both work off 3.7volts (standard Lithium voltage). We are finding that two Energizer Lithium AA batteries only give 3.4 volts, which is not enough for the cameras. Thinking of adding a 3rd nergizer Lithium AA battery, which brings it to 5.1 volts which may be too much for the cameras? Either it will fry the cameras or cause the internal regulators in the cameras to possibly overheat. So we are considering using diodes to knock down the voltage.


How many cells did you use? and what do you think of using the diodes. Please reply asap.

THANKS!!!

Chester.


----------



## MichaelW (Nov 11, 2009)

Are you running those Lithium L91's externally, in a carrier of sorts?

How do you know it doesn't fire up? Is it marginal?

Usually the L91 can read up to 1.8 volts without load, so if you ran 4 L91 as a 2s2p, the voltage under load should [hopefully] be sufficient to run your camera.


----------



## lovetofly (Sep 19, 2011)

Brlux said:


> I was shopping for Energizer Lithium AA cells at target the other day and noticed that they have some new offerings. I could not find much information on them here at CPF or on the web so I got some to test.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Hi,

This is to the Balloon Photographer,

Could you please get in contact with me, I have a few inquiries about what you do but will keep it brief on here.

My email is gsxr1000freak [at] gmail.com

send me an email and i will get in contact with you then.

Thanks and Best Regards

Chris


----------



## CujoNX (Sep 22, 2011)

might be a stupid question but in a flashlight say like a maratac AAA extreme will a ultimate lithium AAA or a standard AAA be better?


----------



## Burgess (Sep 22, 2011)

Not a stupid question at ALL !


Energizer L92 Ultimate Lithium batteries give *Superior* run-time performance.

- and -

They never LEAK ! ! !

:twothumbs


They are the only AAA cells i use !



Oh, and welcome to CandlePowerForums.


:welcome:

_


----------



## CujoNX (Sep 22, 2011)

awesome I picked a four pack to throw in my light! Thanks


----------



## Jeff E. (Sep 23, 2011)

I too have been using the Ultimate Lithium cells for years, and they never cease to amaze me! It's sometimes difficult to convince people that paying nearly $2.50 USD per cell for a AA primary is worth it, so I've even given a number of these cells to friends and family (who use alkalines) to try in their digital cameras, etc, and other items that draw heavy power yet only get used intermittently. Without exception, they have all switched to these Ultimate Lithiums and never looked back.

I have also been very happy using them for some fairly regularly used items like wireless video game controllers. They are extremely light weight, and pack a tun of run-time with no discharge if they don't get used for a while.


----------



## appliancejunk (Sep 23, 2011)

I'm a big fan of the AA Ultimate Lithium. Got one of the new Inova X1 the other day and official run time on high is 1.75 hours on there website. I run the light on high with a AA Ultimate Lithium in it for 4.5 hours and it was still going strong. Need to see how much more I can get out of the same battery when I have more time to test it.

If you watch for the sales and buy the larger packs the prices are not that bad on the Ultimate Lithium either. 



> They are extremely light weight



Funny you say that. It's one of the first things I notice when I opened my first package of them. Still remember thinking darn this battery is light weight, lol..
You would not think it would make a difference, but even just EDC a flashlight that uses a single AA battery I can notice the difference in weight with the flashlight in my pocket.


----------



## nguyet16 (Sep 24, 2011)

yeah...every time I go to Sam's club I always pick up a couple of 12 pack of the ultimate lithium,which is at a good price.Always good to have more batteries,just in case.


----------



## PhotonSuperposition (Nov 2, 2011)

Some new test results from the December 2011 issue of Consumer Reports has led me to revive this old thread. Apparently, they tested the Energizer Advanced against the Ultimate, and the Advanced batteries scored twice as well as the Ultimate ones! It seems like a mistake, but they have all of their figures straight so it's not a simple typo. Here is the data;

Energizer Advanced: Shots - 809 
Price per Pair - $5.40
Cost per 50 Shots - $0.33

Energizer Ultimate: Shots - 470 
Price per Pair - $6.00
Cost per 50 Shots - $0.64

So, what is going on here? Did Energizer switch their battery chemistry to mess around with us? Is this in error? It seems like such a strange result, as it counters both our testing here at CPF and the advertising BS on the package. 

Any ideas? Perhaps a new test is in order.


----------



## Battery Guy (Nov 2, 2011)

Somebody definitely messed this up. I recently ran the ANSI digital camera test protocol on these cells and got 702 photos with the Ultimate and 465 with the Advanced.

So either CR screwed up their samples, or Energizer mixed up their labels. My bet is that the screw up is on the CR side.


----------



## PhotonSuperposition (Nov 2, 2011)

Say it isn't so!  Though, I have been seeing evidence of sloppiness down at CR recently. Their recent 'Best of' buying guide was filled with errors, particularly in the realm of digital cameras, where they were listing Canadian prices for some cameras (Panasonic) next to American prices for others (Sony). Kind of makes a fair comparison difficult! :thumbsdow


----------



## sxl168 (Nov 2, 2011)

$50 says they accidentally swapped them in their database.


----------



## Mr Happy (Nov 2, 2011)

Sadly, I think the Internet has rendered CR obsolete for lower priced consumer gadgets.


----------



## appliancejunk (Oct 5, 2012)

*Energizer Ultimate Lithium batteries 8x vs 9x?*

Looking on ebay at Energizer ultimate lithium batteries I see that some of the packages say, "Last up to 8x longer" and some say "Last up to 9x longer". 

I take it the ones that say 9x are a newer version.

Has anyone tested the 8x vs 9x in any flashlights to see if they do last longer?

I'm really interested in if they last any longer or if it's just a marketing ploy.


----------



## moozooh (Oct 5, 2012)

*Re: Energizer Ultimate Lithium batteries 8x vs 9x?*

Apparently Energizer has updated their UL line earlier this year, and the 9x ones are indeed the newer version.

The 9x vs. 8x is claimed against their own Energizer MAX alkaline, which, admittedly, doesn't say much. I'd expect the difference to be on the order of 150 mAh at most, or maybe just better discharge curves at higher loads without actual increase in capacity.

Edit: Also, there seem to be QC issues with the improved ULs.


----------



## appliancejunk (Oct 5, 2012)

*Re: Energizer Ultimate Lithium batteries 8x vs 9x?*



moozooh said:


> Edit: Also, there seem to be QC issues with the improved ULs.



I only read a few complaints over the last few months so I don't know if I would call it a QC issue.

I would guess getting dead or weak batteries once in awhile has been going on for years. 

The reason I say this is that about 5 years ago I also got some dead Energizer ultimate batteries. I was out of town and picked some up for my camera. Later that day I put them in my camera and the low battery light come on right away and then the camera died.

At first I thought it was my camera, but after buying another set of batteries I found out the camera worked just fine.

Never thought much about the bad batteries after that and as of today never had another bad set of Energizer Ultimate lithiums.


----------



## moozooh (Oct 5, 2012)

*Re: Energizer Ultimate Lithium batteries 8x vs 9x?*

Oh, well, it's probably the same then. I also sent a question to Energizer using their Q&A form where I asked what constituted the improvement (increase in capacity or stronger discharge handling) and what was the raw capacity of the improved batteries measured at 0.1 A discharge rate. I don't exactly expect them to answer that in a way that would satisfy my curiosity, but who knows, maybe they will.


----------



## Dubois (Oct 5, 2012)

*Re: Energizer Ultimate Lithium batteries 8x vs 9x?*



moozooh said:


> The 9x vs. 8x is claimed against their own Energizer MAX alkaline, which, admittedly, doesn't say much. I'd expect the difference to be on the order of 150 mAh at most, or maybe just better discharge curves at higher loads without actual increase in capacity.




I think it's just marketing nonsense. It could, of course, be that their alkaline batteries have got worse:naughty:


----------



## Yamabushi (Oct 5, 2012)

*Re: Energizer Ultimate Lithium batteries 8x vs 9x?*

The Energizer product datasheets show almost no difference between the 8X and 9X versions except the following:

Form No. EBC - 4201R9X (I assume the "9X" means it's for the 9X version) states that "Max Discharge: 3.0 Amps Continuous/5.0 Amps Pulse (2 sec on / 8 sec off)"
Form No. EBC - 4201R (which IIRC was for the 8X) states: "Max Discharge: 2.0 Amps Continuous/3.0 Amps Pulse (2 sec on / 8 sec off)"

Form No. EBC - 4201R9X includes a graph that shows High Drain Performance 1000mA Continuous (21°C) terminates at 0.8 V in 3 hours.
Form No. EBC - 4201R includes a graph that shows High Drain Performance 1000mA Continuous (21°C) terminates at 0.8 V in 4 hours but this is contradicted by all the other charts which show performance for the 8X and 9X to be virtually identical. 

Form No. EBC - 4201R9X is available at data.energizer.com


----------



## lwknight (Oct 5, 2012)

*Re: Energizer Ultimate Lithium batteries 8x vs 9x?*

I think that they are the same with a higher priced label for those who will pay more for the top of the line or believe that if you pay more you get more.


----------



## GimmeDaLite (May 26, 2016)

Idk if it matters to people but the trends I have noticed in stores recently, stores like home depot, albertsons (jewel osco) and so forth. I saw a trend of these advanced lithium batteries going on clearance and as of today and yesterday I bought 8 packs for 3.99 USD ea. I was entirely amazed because prior to this deal the best I've paid were 3.79 USD for a four pack. Needless to say I bought all I possibly could when I saw 3.99 for 8. Idk why it would be pushed on clearance so hard but maybe it's an attempt by energizer to keep the monopoly by only having one lithium to choose from.


----------

