Pax 2 vs Pax 3 Kevin H January 26, 2017 Portable Vaporizer Versus, Versus Ploom has been on top of the portable vaporizer game for a few years now, due in no small part to appealing design and functionality (not to mention savvy PR and marketing). Their Pax models have been consistent best-sellers, and their newest, the Pax 3, incorporates Bluetooth technology and a mobile application. This makes the arrival of the Pax 3 all the more exciting, but how different is it really from the previous model? Read the Vapesterdam challenge and see which Pax brings the most peace. Vapor Quality Pax 2 The Pax 2 has been consistently ranked as one of the finest portable vaporizing experiences available, with flavorful and smooth vapor pulled right from the start. Draw resistance may become an issue over time, as the holes in the bottom of the chamber can become easily blocked over regular use. The battery life of the Pax 2 improves on the previous model, with a three-hour charge providing somewhere in the range of 50 – 90 minutes of use (approximately 5 – 10 sessions). Pax 3 The advanced heating modes of the Pax 3 give it a certain edge over the previous model, as this allows users to customize their vaping experience in ways As well, we were able to achieve bigger clouds than with the Pax 2, and draw resistance was not as significant a factor with the Pax 3. Overall, while the Pax 3 vapor does not improve leaps and bounds on the already satisfying vapor of the Pax 3, there is certainly enough for it to take this round. Vapor Quality Winner: Pax 3 Build Quality Pax 2 The Pax 2 is a magnificently constructed device, using high-quality materials and immaculate attention detail and creating a product which associates have told me “is one of the nicest things [we] own, period.” The Pax 2 improved on the original click-top by upgrading to a new mouthpiece made from food-grade silicone, free from mechanical elements subject to disruption. The medical-grade vapor pathway, stainless steel own, and anodized aluminum exterior have all helped the Pax 2 become a leader in portable vaporizers. Pax 3 Hmm, this looks familiar: as far as we can tell, the core components of the Pax have not been changed at all. Other than slightly smaller dimensions, the heating chamber, vapor path, and mouthpiece all appear to be pretty much identical to the Pax 2. Also, while the glossy finish is a nice touch, it ends up showcasing fingerprints and scratches more than anything else. Seeing as the Pax 2 was already one of the finest vaporizing constructions around, we’re actually gonna give this one to the old guard for perfecting just the right balance of elegance and performance. Build Quality Winner: Pax 2 Portability Pax 2 With its tiny shape, strong battery life, simple operation, and discreet vapor production, the Pax 2 reached new heights of portability when it was released in 2015. At a weight of 92 grams, the Pax 2 is 10% lighter and 25% smaller than the previous model. The 3000mAh battery generates a respectable amount of sessions on the go, although using a removable battery type would be even better. Pax 3 All the portability of the Pax 2 has continued intact into the Pax 3’s construction. The Pax 3’s increased battery life easily puts it over the edge of the Pax 2; with another session’s worth of juice, this is a great investment for traveling, and the reduced charging time just drives this home further. Again, it would be nice to use removable batteries to further longevity, but Ploom can worry about this for the inevitable Pax 4. Portability Winner: Pax 3 Discreetness Pax 2 The low-profile of the Pax 2 has been one of its finer points, illustrated not just in glowing user reviews but also in popular culture. As mentioned in previous posts, one of my favorite reference points for the discreetness of the Pax 2 is how the device is used frequently on the sly by Broad City star Illana Glazer during the show. Demonstrating how low-key sessions can be achieved even on the busy streets of New York City is some of the best publicity imaginable for the discreetness of the Pax 2. Pax 3 The Pax 3 actually loses a bit of credit for discreetness due to the integration of the mobile application. Unless you have the application set up just the way you like it and don’t intend to change it during your session, you’re gonna have to handle both the vape and your phone to get the best effect. This definitely makes your session less discreet and more ham-fisted. Or, put another way: would Illana Glazer be pulling out her phone to adjust her vape sessions on the go? The answer is: no, she would be pulling out her phone to take lewd photographs. However, this is countered by the “stealth mode” of heating, which automatically dims lights and gives a quick cool-down while between draws. This helps keep both visuals and odors to a minimum, and using stealth mode with the lowest temperature setting will ensure you don’t have to muck about with your mobile to keep things lit. Discreetness Winner: Pax 3 Winner: Pax 3 Not much of a surprise, but the Pax 3 is a significant enough improvement on previous models to take the crown here. The Pax 2 remains a leading model in portable vaporizers and makes for a fine purchase, especially if you don’t intend on making much use of the mobile application. However, we see the hustle Ploom has been putting into trying to improve an already massive success, and for this we think the Pax 3 deserves your consideration. The Pax 3 carries forth the continually improved quality of design and manufacturing known from Pax models, and makes just enough tweaks for true connoisseurs to take notice. As always, thanks for reading our comparisons and feel free to let us know your thoughts in the comments below! Related Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Connect with Enter your WordPress.com blog URL http://.wordpress.com Proceed Your email address will not be published. Name Email Website Comment Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email.