There is a lot of ongoing work by companies to manufacture charging products for new USB Power Delivery (USB-PD) and Qualcomm Quick Charge (QC) devices. Because the USB-PD and QC specifications are at direct odds with each other, the products are difficult to standardize, leading to confusion among consumers. Essentially, anything that does not adhere to the strict USB-C specifications is considered in violation. Google Engineer Benson Leung has tested numerous USB-C cables and chargers and found many to not be within USB-C specification. This implies they may be dangerous for USB-PD devices. However, I have not seen any true proof of QC chargers damaging USB-PD devices, only that they will not fast charge them.
The engineering points are numerous and can get fairly complex, beyond the scope of this review. However, I find it important to add to the fount of knowledge with our new phones and charging devices, and this is my small contribution.
I own a LG G5 phone, and my testing and comments are limited to this device only.
My simple method is to use a USB-A multimeter as well as the Android OS’s amperage reading. There are limitations to this. Primarily, I have been informed that the Android OS amperage is based on a voltage of 5V. This was certainly fine in the days pre-Qualcomm Quick Charge, but now with higher and variable voltage, the amperage readings are not reliable. Secondly, as this is a USB-A meter, I have no way of directly monitoring USB-C amperage or voltage. Thirdly, I do not have the ability to digitally log the voltage off the multimeter, so some of the data points presented are more general than I would like.
Here I am reviewing the Tronsmart Presto 12000mAh battery pack, which has both a USB-C port for USB-PD devices (Nexus 6P, etc) and a USB-A port for QC3.0 devices (LG G5, HTC10). It is available here:
https://amazon.com/gp/product/B01GVBFBBO/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_4?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ALTVS0Q5KJ7M3
It was provide to me for my review.
The main selling point of this battery pack aside from the QC3.0 capability is the dual types of ports. If you happen to have both QC3.0 and USB-PD devices, this battery pack can theoretically fast charge either. The QC3.0 port is rated at the usual QC3.0 voltages/amperages, and the USB-PD port is rated at 5V/3A. It comes with a short USB-A to USB-C cable to be used with the QC3.0 port. You’ll have to supply your own double-ended USB-C cable if you want to go C to C.
There’s a 4 LED gauge for how much battery is left. During charging, the LED at the end will flash. On the side there’s a button to turn on the charging. The battery is charged through the USB-C port (it’s used both for output and input). Attached to my separate QC3.0 AC adapter, the battery charged at 2.4A / 5V only. I do not have a USB-PD charger to use to charge the Presto.
EDIT: I re-tried the charging measurements using a Tronsmart branded QC3.0 AC adapter and the battery now charged at 15W, ~2.7A and 5.6V. This is better than the prior measurements! Your charging adapter matters!
For this test, I used the included USB-A to USB-C cable for the QC3.0 port. My USB-C to C cable is one provided by ChoeTech (available here https://amazon.com/gp/product/B01H3COF62/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1)
I drained my phone down to ~20% and plugged in. Here is how the charging times for the Presto battery ports compare:
To go from ~20 to 100% for QC3.0, it took ~70 minutes. For the USB-PD port, it took 90 minutes. The mA readings for the QC3.0 are not accurate, but those reported by the Android OS. The USB-PD amperages are likely correct.
I have previously tested several QC3.0 and QC2.0 chargers. The charging time for the QC3.0 port lines up well with my multiple previous measurements. Those show that for 0-100%, it takes ~80 minutes, with ~20% increase/10 minutes for the first 20 minutes.
For the QC3.0 port, here are some general points collected from me taking notes on the multimeter readings:
Wattage maxed out at ~16-17W. Not bad!
Voltage maxed at 8.70 very briefly. Most of the early measurements (fastest charging) were at 6.4-7.4 volts.
Amperage maxed at ~2.6 briefly.
These measurements all fall within QC3.0 guidelines.
Regarding the USB-C port readings, it seems that despite a recent Gtrusted.com review,
http://gtrusted.com/review/lg-g5-su...-to-qualcomm-quick-charge-3-0-over-usb-type-c
which reported the LG G5 is also capable of negotiating charging over the USB-PD standard, many kinks and incompatibilities remain. Gtrusted.com subsequently found that the G5 cannot charge at all from the Anker or iVoler USB-PD charger USB-C ports:
http://gtrusted.com/review/40938
http://gtrusted.com/review/40937
I did not have that issue with the Presto, but the USB-PD port charging times were suboptimal. They lagged behind QC3.0, and an additional 15-20 minutes was necessary to top off the phone. I doubt the G5 is able to extract the 5V @ 3A the port is advertised to provide for USB-PD devices and that the initial Gtrusted report suggested.
Previous to my testing, I had wondered if the G5 would get the fast charging benefits of USB-PD chargers. In this case, it does not. As I mentioned in the introduction, the standards of USB-PD and QC clash with each other. Specifically, it is very unclear how manufacturers are implementing charging through USB-C ports.
Some earlier models had put QC3.0 into USB-C ports, which is in violation of USB-PD standards. BUT, I want to point out, why and how does that even affect QC capable devices? It really doesn't. The outrage on retailers such as Amazon is driven by the USB-PD side, neglecting entirely Qualcomm’s tested standard. Manufacturers in turn are removing their QC implementation from the USB-C ports and leaving them USB-PD only.
One notable issue I discovered was with the phone after the charging finished on the USB-C port and the battery auto-shutoff. The phone made repeated connecting/disconnecting sounds despite the battery pack being off. I think this is solely a G5’s issue though--perhaps the G5 detects a USB-C device but cannot successfully interface with it. The same thing occurs when the battery pack is off and you first plug in the USB-C cable. This subsides once the battery pack is turned on.
In conclusion, having 2 fast charging solutions in one battery pack is a worthwhile luxury. It’s great to see products like this fill the need. Having full-fledged QC3.0 capabilities in a portable unit makes travel and juicing up quick, easy and convenient.
Pros:
2 different ports to charge either USB-PD or QC3.0 standards! There are few options like this these days.
QC3.0 amperage, voltages, and charging times are similar to AC QC3.0 adapters!
Auto-shutoff is a nice feature to preserve battery life.
Includes a USB-C compliant USB-A to USB-C cable, a necessary touch to charge the battery if you don't already have one
If you have a capable QC3.0 charger, the battery will charge at ~15W
Cons:
The G5 does not charge at 3A/5V with the USB-C port. My estimates suggest it is more like 5V @ 2A. This may not be any fault of the charger but rather the programming controlling the charging from the phone.
Other:
The USB-C port interface with the G5 results in repeated connects/disconnects if the battery is not off. This is more likely an issue with the phone than the Presto.
2 different ports means 2 different cables to carry!
The outrage on retailers such as Amazon is driven by the USB-PD side, neglecting entirely Qualcomm’s tested standard. Manufacturers in turn are removing their QC implementation from the USB-C ports and leaving them USB-PD only.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is not a good power bank to have if one does not already own a device that accepts USB-PD. Reason is this powerbank will only accept 5V3A input to charge itself. The A port cannot be used to charge it. So you cannot QC this powerbank.
So unless you have a charger with a c port that you can connect with a c to c cable, you will only be able to input 7-8W to charge this bank up instead of twice as much. The bank will take twice as long to charge.
That is not true. It *can* take either USB-PD C input or QC input to charge, and it is not only 7-8W, but rather 15W with the QC3 charger. I was afraid of that also, as USB-PD accessories are not so common yet, but my testing (and also from that other review) indicate otherwise.
I had an earlier version of this review using a different brand QC charger, and what you said was the case. Quite slow, 10W charging only (5v @ 2A). But with the Tronsmart QC3 charger, this is not the case.
I realize that old chargers and even most new ones will simply work, but I have had a hell of a time finding any 3rd party charger (wall or car) that supports USB PD (Power Delivery) at 9v/2A (18w). I am aware Googles store has the official wall charger and a Belkin car charger. Has anyone found any cheaper options? I just cant bring myself to spend $35+ per charger
I am looking for both a car and wall charger and prefer:
-usb c to c
-9v/2A 18w Power Delivery
-$25 or less per charger (car or wall)
-Available on Amazon (US)
-Separate cabling (not permanently connected to a cable)
Is this just a matter of waiting for USB PD to be more mainstream? I also presume from my research that Quick Charge 3.0 is NOT compatible/interchangeable with PD.
Thanks
Here's the thing. I've done extensive research and here's the TL;DR:
Buy the Google 18W Charger for $35.
Here's the reason. Most chargers out there for USB-C with the correct wattage but no PD or w/ PD cost around $20-$25 US Dollars. A reputable USB-C cable (no matter the length) is going to cost at minimum $10 dollars. That's $35 dollars.
So, when you look at that, the better deal is Google.
https://store.google.com/product/usb_type_c_18w_power_adapter
Have to agree with @GreenMachin3. I've done alot of reading up and following Benson Leung and Nathan K. on Google+ about their work with USB-C chargers and the conclusion I came to is that the only surefire way to ensure that your phone won't get ruined is by buying OEM or what Google sells. Reading some of the their reviews on Google+ (Gtrusted and USB C communities) makes me cautious enough to spend the money on the correct charger.
I have to agree with the above comments from @greenmachin & @ufinmd, Benson, GTested & Nathan K have a sheet going with cables and chargers. With ratings on compatibility etc, the Google charger seems to be the best bet, unless you want more than 18w for future devices and dont mind buying separate cables.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...x9dMDWqENiY2kgBJUu29f_TX8/edit#gid=1288176877
The sheet contains a rating, and link to either the manufacturer/amazon, the specific model, and who validated it's compatability.
As more devices are added you may find one in the goldylocks zone, so just sit tight and wait if you can.
Why do we even care if a charger is USB-PD specific? The Pixel has a Qualcomm QC 3.0 IC inside of it and current QC 3.0 chargers (and even some older non QC 3.0 certified chargers) actually charge faster than the Google charger....
See my thread here for more details on chargers I have used.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/pixel-xl/accessories/pixel-xl-experience-multiple-chargers-t3485587
http://forum.xda-developers.com/pixel-xl/accessories/pixel-xl-experience-multiple-chargers-t3485587
I was of the understanding that the Pixel/XL were not QC 3.0 compatible and ONLY PD compliant. Is it possible to safely fast charge them using QC 3.0 chargers then? If so that's great because those are dirt cheap.
Thanks for the link and for others input too. Seems so far the consensus is that the google chargers are the best bet. I heard the Belkin car charger they have is $5 cheaper at Verizon so I may swing by there Thurs on my day off to grab a car charger.
Ill have to check out the spreadsheet. My phone arrived today so ill get hands on with it tonight after work. I will first have to evaluate if the cable is long enough for me and if not get a longer cable or 2. I may pick up 1 or 2 other wall chargers at some point too.
Can anyone comment if QC 3.0 is support and safe? Those types of charger are abundant and cheap.
Does anybody know of a car charger that does turbo charge the Moto Z? Apparently Motorola/Lenovo doesn't offer one and a third party QuickCharge 3.0 I tried failed...
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
I got this one :Nekteck 5.4A USB-C Car Charger from Amazon for 15$ and it does turbo charge my phone .
I don't believe that the Z Force is set up for Qualcomm Quick Charge. And while it doesn't Turbo charge, I use the Verizon brand rapid USB-C car charger. I've also read that we have to be careful with what charging cables we use with our Z Force phones.
Sent from my Moto Z Force Droid using Tapatalk.
zaki67 said:
I got this one :Nekteck 5.4A USB-C Car Charger from Amazon for 15$ and it does turbo charge my phone .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you, I will try that one then ?.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
karlmf said:
I don't believe that the Z Force is set up for Qualcomm Quick Charge. And while it doesn't Turbo charge, I use the Verizon brand rapid USB-C car charger. I've also read that we have to be careful with what charging cables we use with our Z Force phones.
Sent from my Moto Z Force Droid using Tapatalk.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
At least Motorola claims it supports QuickCharge if I'm not mistaken. Apparently, though, it also has additional requirements for turbo charging to kick in... I looked at the Verizon charger, too, but a) there's not much info on its website, b) calling Verizon didn't help - they don't have a clue, and c) there is some comment / review saying that it "burned out" some user's battery (which is of course unconfirmed to be related to this charger, may have been something else).
Anyways, given the utter lack of info and the suspicion of harming the battery, I stayed away from it... not to mention the ridiculous $40 price tag.
On an other note, though, Verizon has the original Motorola TurboCharger (wall charger) at a 50% discount.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
pb1379 said:
At least Motorola claims it supports QuickCharge if I'm not mistaken. Apparently, though, it also has additional requirements for turbo charging to kick in... I looked at the Verizon charger, too, but a) there's not much info on its website, b) calling Verizon didn't help - they don't have a clue, and c) there is some comment / review saying that it "burned out" some user's battery (which is of course unconfirmed to be related to this charger, may have been something else).
Anyways, given the utter lack of info and the suspicion of harming the battery, I stayed away from it... not to mention the ridiculous $40 price tag.
On an other note, though, Verizon has the original Motorola TurboCharger (wall charger) at a 50% discount.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No USB-C device can support Quick Charge - it violates the USB-C spec. Any quality USB-C charger that is higher amp will TurboCharge a phone. Moto screwed up by using TurboCharging name with both QuickCharge and USB-C - they are different.
The Moto Z is absurdly picky when it comes to quick charge specs.
I have a Blitzwolf QC2.0 with a type C and a Type A connector in my wifes car, and it will ONLY enter quick charge if I use the Type C to Type C cable I bought from Blitzwolf.
It will not turbo charge if I use a high end Type A to Type C cable, but my wifes LG G5 will do so happily.
I also bought a QC3 compatible charger, with the cable integrated like the original charger, and this works too, and is faster than the QC2 charger.
Both are definitely charging at more than 10 watts, the maximum for 5V 2A mode chargers.
And in fact, using a Non-QC 5V 3A charger, caused my cable to melt, and start to glow.
Incredibly my phone charging port survived.
Blitzwolf may very well be the only brand that works fully, as I just bought a Chuwi QC3 power bank, and it will refuse to quick charge my phone.
But works on some others.
And on another note, I used the Type C to Type C in a modern laptop a while back, and when I plugged it in, my phone displayed the message about receiving quick charge.
If I'm not mistaken, the Type C spec allows quick charging, but only if you use C to C, with the extra pins it's able to keep better track of the charging process I guess.
Shadowdancer123 said:
The Moto Z is absurdly picky when it comes to quick charge specs.
...
And on another note, I used the Type C to Type C in a modern laptop a while back, and when I plugged it in, my phone displayed the message about receiving quick charge.
If I'm not mistaken, the Type C spec allows quick charging, but only if you use C to C, with the extra pins it's able to keep better track of the charging process I guess.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, it seems all matter of cables...!
I have a Blitzwolf QC3.0 too BUT I'm able to obtain "Turbocharge" indication only using a *single* micro USB to type C adaptor. This with every cable and every charger. Even when connected to a USB port!
If I use every other cable or similar adaptors (I've tested many...), the "Turbocharge" never shows (except original charger obviously...).
With Blitzwolf QC3 and this cable/adaptor I got a full charge from less than 5% in about 70-75 min... during the charge cable was OK, while the adaptor (with metallic/aluminium exterior) was quite warm but never really hot in dangerous way...
Here's more information than any of you probably care about, but I'm tired of seeing the same misinformation and confusion being thrown around (not just in the Moto Z forum, but in a bunch of others, too).
chromedome00 said:
No USB-C device can support Quick Charge - it violates the USB-C spec.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's not true. Case in point: my ZTE Axon 7 and LeEco S3 both use QC 3.0 and both are USB-C. The common confusion comes from using "USB-C" (a connector) and "Type-C" (interchangeably used to refer to the connector and the power specification) incorrectly. Clarification below.
chromedome00 said:
Any quality USB-C charger that is higher amp will TurboCharge a phone. Moto screwed up by using TurboCharging name with both QuickCharge and USB-C - they are different.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is mostly true. "TurboPower" is the stupid name Moto uses to refer to the Type-C power specification. Actually, I'm being unfair: it's confusing that they called it "Type-C" in the first place and Moto took the opportunity to market the spec as their own thing.
Before going any further, let's use a common analogy to make the relationship between, wattage, voltage, and amperage easier to understand in broad terms. Wattage is the amount of water going through a pipe. Voltage is how fast that water is moving and amperage is the size of the pipe. 15W is 15W, but you can get there by having a tiny pipe (1A) with water moving really fast through it (15V) or a really big pipe (3A) with water going more slowly through it (5V). They both move the same amount of power, but in different ways. Got it? Good.
Anyway, Type-C has a fixed voltage and maxes out at 15W ([email protected]). Quick Charge 1.0 does only 10W ([email protected]), 2.0 does 18W (5/9/12V @ 3.6/2/1.5A respectively), and 3.0 does 18W with varying voltage (3.6-20V) and amperage (5-0.9A) to match. That is the advantage of QC over Type-C: a higher voltage can (usually) be run through those old and cheap USB cables without issue since voltage tolerance is determined largely by the phone and the charger. As long as the amperage doesn't exceed the capacity (gauge) of the wire, higher voltage is fine.
Amperage, though, that's what causes non-compliant or crappy cables to burn up. Really old or especially cheap cables can handle 1A max (heck, if they were built to spec, only 500mA for USB 2.0), but most cables of reasonable quality can handle 2A without much issue. They tend to use lower gauge (thicker) wires and should *not* feel warm at all when using it to charge. Some manufacturers (Samsung, for example) used to disable data on their USB cables and use it for additional amperage capacity, which is why you would occasionally buy a phone with a cable that wouldn't work for data transfer in the computer but would charge your phone just fine.
Moving on. Technically, QC 1.0 and QC 3.0 do not violate the Type-C power spec. QC 1.0 because it can't exceed it and QC 3.0 because it's variable. That said, QC 3.0 (and possibly QC 1.0, I don't know) require protocol negotiation; if that negotiation is lacking (in the case of the Moto Z), it's going to default to a "safe" charging rate (around 5W, plus or minus some). Your QC 2.0 does technically violate the Type-C spec because its voltage and amperage rates are fixed: you can get 5V at up to 3.6A. The "up to" bit is the important part. I have seen in various threads folks claiming their non-QC 3.0 phones will work with QC 2.0 chargers just fine and it's probably because the amperage tolerance is there (ie. it will actually allow 3.6A, violating spec) or it gets throttled (ie. sticks to 3A, keeping to spec).
Shadowdancer123 said:
The Moto Z is absurdly picky when it comes to quick charge specs.
...
And in fact, using a Non-QC 5V 3A charger, caused my cable to melt, and start to glow.
Incredibly my phone charging port survived.
...
If I'm not mistaken, the Type C spec allows quick charging, but only if you use C to C, with the extra pins it's able to keep better track of the charging process I guess.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All Type-C and USB-PD compliant devices are picky about the charge specs, not just the Moto Z. Or, at least, they're supposed to be for the reasons outlined above (namely the amperage). QC devices are less picky because it frequently uses higher voltage, which we established above as being much more tolerable for cables of varying quality.
Your cable melting and glowing is to be expected when you push 3A through a cable that likely can't handle more than 2A or so. Your phone charging port survived because it's designed to handle 3A.
I'm not entirely sure about which pins do what on a USB-C connector, but you're right in the C-to-C is the only connection that (should, according to spec) support Type-C and USB-PD (Power Delivery). The rate is negotiated via the USB Power Delivery 2.0 "power rules", which define four acceptable voltages (5/9/15/20) and variable amperage (0.1-5) to obtain charge rates as low as 0.5W and as high as 100W. "Type-C" is part of the Power Delivery spec, but is usually limited to only the 5V rule. I'm fairly certain the Moto Z does not support anything past the first level power rule, which is why you likely won't find the Moto Z to charge significantly faster with the TurboPower 30 included with the Moto Z Force than it does with its original TurboPower 15 charger. No clue as to whether that's a hardware or software limitation.
Also, to answer the OP's original question: any reputable (Anker, Aukey, Choetech, Belkin, etc) that uses an actual USB-C port will work. Most (if not all) dual port units will have a USB-C port that will work with the Moto Z (or any other Type-C/USB-PD device) and a QC 3.0 compatible "traditional" USB-A port. I have yet to find one that includes two USB-C ports and I really hate the ones with integrated cables.
My personal favorite is the Choetech for $16 since its QC 3.0 USB-A port is reversible: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01AAGH8OY/
This Aukey is cheaper ($15) and would be fine: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01E764DXM/
Here's a Tronsmart for $16, as well: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B018K7LHBU/
Even this $10 Vinsic should be okay: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B014F2NQ36/
Just for funsies, here's a spreadsheet of the Benson Leung cable and charger tests: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wJwqv3rTNmORXz-XJsQaXK1dl8I91V4-eP_sfNVNzbA/edit#gid=0
Interestingly, the $10 Vinsic is on his list of approved. So there. Go buy a $10 car charger and be happy.
I have the aukey 6 port usb charging station with two QC 3.0 ports, I am using high quality braided usb 3.0 to type c cables - I have tested both QC 3.0 ports and the other ports (using ampere) - Every port lists charging as "normal" - QC port 1 shows a min of 640mA and a max of 1040mA. QC Port 2 shows - min of 530 mA and a max of 980 mA. Regular ports 3-6 all show a min of 270mA and max of 870 mA. Not one port indicated it was ever turbo or fast charging. This same charger does fast charge my lg G5 and Samsung S7 Edge.
this one is verified to give the "TurboPower connected" message when plugged in.
From what I have read, both QC 2.0 and 3.0 doesn't turbo charge moto phones. Qualcomms QC charging works by increasing the voltage and decreasing the amps. So you can have 12v and 2amp for a total of 24 watts, but that won't turbo charge the moto z. Moto works on 5 volts but needs at least 3 amps. It is the amps that seem to engage the Motos into turbo charge mode, and they have to be at least 3 amps.
This Belkin model, for example, is what Benson Leung uses for his pixel xl. Its one of the few on Amazon that is USB-IF certified for 5v 3amp.
rczrider said:
Here's more information than any of you probably care about, but I'm tired of seeing the same misinformation and confusion being thrown around (not just in the Moto Z forum, but in a bunch of others, too).
That's not true. Case in point: my ZTE Axon 7 and LeEco S3 both use QC 3.0 and both are USB-C. The common confusion comes from using "USB-C" (a connector) and "Type-C" (interchangeably used to refer to the connector and the power specification) incorrectly. Clarification below.
Moving on. Technically, QC 1.0 and QC 3.0 do not violate the Type-C power spec. QC 1.0 because it can't exceed it and QC 3.0 because it's variable. That said, QC 3.0 (and possibly QC 1.0, I don't know) require protocol negotiation; if that negotiation is lacking (in the case of the Moto Z), it's going to default to a "safe" charging rate (around 5W, plus or minus some). Your QC 2.0 does technically violate the Type-C spec because its voltage and amperage rates are fixed: you can get 5V at up to 3.6A. The "up to" bit is the important part. I have seen in various threads folks claiming their non-QC 3.0 phones will work with QC 2.0 chargers just fine and it's probably because the amperage tolerance is there (ie. it will actually allow 3.6A, violating spec) or it gets throttled (ie. sticks to 3A, keeping to spec).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you are propagating mis-information. If you want to catch up on why QC 2.0/3.0 violate the USB-C spec, here it is from the horses mouth:
https://plus.google.com/+BensonLeung/posts/cEvVQLXhyRX
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/201...omm-quick-charge-with-android-incompatibility
Interestingly Qualcomm has QC 4.0 now and they call out integration with USB-C and USB-PD https://www.qualcomm.com/news/relea...livers-20-faster-charging-improved-efficiency
"Quick Charge 4 also integrates USB Type-C and USB-PD support, making the industry’s most popular battery charging solution available on the widest variety of cables and adapters."
USB-C has 24 pins while standard USB-A has 4. Quick Charge chargers (2.0/3.0) only have the 4 pins of USB-A - so if it can't use the data lines, then it can't quick charge via USB-C. Since there are only 4 outputs, plugging a USB-C cable into a QC 2.0/3.0 charger will not change anything. Still only 4 wires originating from the charger. The data lines are not allowed to be used for voltage, so your QC charger will only supply a fixed 5V to the phone. So no Quick Charge.
If QC3 supports [email protected] couldn't it supply power at [email protected] to turbocharge?
Looking for a solution to turbocharge my Moto Z and support QC3 for LG G5/Samsung S7.
The TurboPower 15 wall charger delivers hours of power in just minutes of charging. It includes micro USB and single USB charging cables so you can use it on compatible smartphones, tablets, digital cameras and more.
Have a Moto Z or another USB-C enabled device? The TurboPower 30 wall charger is USB-C compatible.
Looking for a car charger? Shop at Motorola Home.
zaki67 said:
I got this one :Nekteck 5.4A USB-C Car Charger from Amazon for 15$ and it does turbo charge my phone .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just ordered one of these. This one specifically
Hopefully it'll work out well
This one works fine.
https://store.google.com/product/belkin_15w_usb_c_car_charger
Sent from my XT1650-03 using Tapatalk
swejuggalo said:
This one works fine.
https://store.google.com/product/belkin_15w_usb_c_car_charger
Sent from my XT1650-03 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
YES! I can confirm it!
So, I already read all the other threads on car chargers, but I have a bit of a unique situation.
I use a ProClip charging dock for my pixel xl in my car, but sadly the pigtail from that terminates to a male USB-A. Is there any charger out there that would actually allow for 3A charging over a USB-A connection instead of max 2.4? Would just splicing on a USB-C connector allow for full speed charging? Really wish this company outputted their charging docks to the proper termination
I have my eyes set on this one, just not sure if I'm missing something https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01B7NIG72?ref=emc_b_5_t&th=1
I tried to splice into a type c cable to do some f*ckery one time. Bad idea. Many wires, same colors.
For so cheap I bought it, worst case it doesn't work
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Short answer, is no. Because with the 56k ohm resistor built into the cable, the phone will never draw over 2.4a. but, you can get a voltage drop compensating charger like many of the Anker chargers to ensure the voltage is 5v at the device end.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
If it's of any help to anyone, I picked up an XL this week and took a chance on Anker's PowerDive Speed2 charger. On the side it shows the output as 3.6-6.5v @ 3A / 6.5-9V @ 2A / 9-12V @ 1.5A
In use my Pixel shows "charging rapidly" and the Anker charger is barely above ambient temp. I can't measure to confirm, but based on the behavior seems to charge a Pixel at the spec of 9V @ 2A. Not sure this is a PD spec charger but it works for me.
https://www.amazon.com/Anker-Charge...erdrive+speed+2+39w+ultra-compact+car+charger
Hi all, just ordered a Pixel XL to replace my 4 core failing Nexus 6P. I have no idea what kind of charger is coming with it, and even if its OEM, I'd like to have 2. I have read many threads about the non PD compliant chargers not providing rapid charge, and am wondering what the consensus is on using a Nintendo Switch charger? My local Best buy has the official Google Pixel XL charger for $34.99, and the official Switch AC adapter is $10 less. Has anyone tried this, or have any thoughts on using this? With all the stories about nonPD if I have to, I'll just get the official google one, but was wondering if this was an option.
Thank you!
The Pixel XL comes with a USB-C charger and a USB-A to USB-C cable, so any standard USB-A rapid charger will work.
Weudel said:
The Pixel XL comes with a USB-C charger and a USB-A to USB-C cable, so any standard USB-A rapid charger will work.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the reply. I was under the impression from this thread: https://forum.xda-developers.com/pixel-xl/accessories/usb-c-pd-chargers-google-pixel-xl-t3474205
that only certain chargers provide fast charge. I did not buy the phone new so I don't know if it comes with the standard google charger or not.
belkin type c rapid charger should be available for cheap at your local walmart/target/best buy. pretty good quality cable for the price.
My switch charger ended up damaging the port after continued use. I recommend saving up for the official one
Tried many chargers, only the original Google ones seem to charge at rapid charging speed. Oh Belkin car charger ones does as well.
I tried a NS charger (HAC-002 USZ) on a Pixel XL a day ago and it worked fine and did rapid charging.
Mine didn't come with a charger (bought off eBay). I bought a so called fast charger (can't remember brand but it looked legit Qualcomm fast charge capable) and it says it's fast charging but it takes about twice as long to charge as my old OnePlus 5 did.