I just got my Smoktech ARO in. Keep in mind, this is the beginning phase for me so I'll know more as I spend more time with the ARO. So far I've spent most of the late morning and early afternoon chain vaping between both the ARO and the EVOD. Both are on 2.1 ohm coils, both are on 3.8v from my Vamo V2, and both are using 80/20 liquid from the local vape shop that I picked up last night.
Flavor wise, they are pretty much identical. I've gone back and forth in an effort to find a difference and I just can't. As far as vapor, the ARO does have a slight edge, but it's not any sort of landslide. On a scale from 1 to 10 with the ARO's vapor production being 10, the EVOD would be a 9. It's enough I can see a difference, but it's not a tremendous difference since the EVOD is pretty dang good in this category to begin with.
When I unboxed my ARO, I did a dry pull on an empty tank just to see if I could taste or smell any hint of an oily taste, and to no surprise, I did. I washed the ARO out in pure grain alcohol for about 5 minutes (stuck it in a glass jar and twirled it around) then thoroughly washed it out with hot water from the tap. I did not wash the actual head out at all. Once done, I pulled off the center post to the head and primed the wicks with a few drops of liquid. Once they were saturated, I assembled everything and filled the tank.
The first few hits were burnt, but any time I unbox a new head I've experienced that, so it wasn't a big surprise. I just kept doing my thing with vaping it and gradually the taste changed. After only 5, maybe 10 minutes, the flavor was on par with what I would expect from my daily-driver liquid that I know rather well.
As covered already in this thread, the ARO is indeed a little thicker than the EVOD, though it fits on the ego threads of the Vamo V2 nicely. It's a little taller than the EVOD as well. The build quality is definitely on the higher end as it feels pretty darn secure and stable. I'm unable to tell how thick the glass is since it's wrapped in the metal tube, but considering it's wrapped in the metal tube that alone is a bonus since that of course provides an additional barrier of protection.
Now, I'm going to shift gears a bit here, as I've spent a lot of time recently trying to make the Protank 2 not suck. The EVOD, in my opinion, is a different beast altogether. Clearly the EVOD's design with the base is superior to that of the Protank 1 and 2 since the same heads that taste awful in the Protank work very well in the EVOD. I'm no expert, I'm not an engineer, and I haven't been vaping for a thousand years to feel like my opinion is worthy of an epic prize, but using some degree of logic and common sense, the base of the ARO seems to be designed in a more intelligent fashion. It just feels like juice is being delivered in a more efficient manner. Not only that, but there are quite a few "ridges" on the base, each containing an O ring. This to me makes the ARO feel like it's got backup plan after backup plan of seals to ensure it doesn't leak.
I'm absolutely happy with my purchase. The ARO at its price is quite a steal. 3ml pyrex tank with a better design for less than 10 bucks? Yes please. Now, before I get too ahead of myself, this is admittedly only the beginning, so my opinion may change as I use the ARO more. After all, when I first got the Protank I was gung-ho about it, but immediately things went south with it and a good experience never resurfaced again, even with the introduction of the Protank 2. I feel far more confident that the ARO will continue to be a solid device, just based on the design of the base, my experience so far, as well as some reviews I've read that are a month old already that are still reiterating great success.
If you are using something else and enjoy it, great, that's all that matters - but in my search for a clearomizer that performed decently, all I can say is this based on my own experiences:
Protank 1 and 2 = fail
EVOD = very decent, but no glass tank and the tank being smallish is sort of
ARO = cheap, well built, glass, 3ml -
We'll see how things go... a lot can change yet.
Flavor wise, they are pretty much identical. I've gone back and forth in an effort to find a difference and I just can't. As far as vapor, the ARO does have a slight edge, but it's not any sort of landslide. On a scale from 1 to 10 with the ARO's vapor production being 10, the EVOD would be a 9. It's enough I can see a difference, but it's not a tremendous difference since the EVOD is pretty dang good in this category to begin with.
When I unboxed my ARO, I did a dry pull on an empty tank just to see if I could taste or smell any hint of an oily taste, and to no surprise, I did. I washed the ARO out in pure grain alcohol for about 5 minutes (stuck it in a glass jar and twirled it around) then thoroughly washed it out with hot water from the tap. I did not wash the actual head out at all. Once done, I pulled off the center post to the head and primed the wicks with a few drops of liquid. Once they were saturated, I assembled everything and filled the tank.
The first few hits were burnt, but any time I unbox a new head I've experienced that, so it wasn't a big surprise. I just kept doing my thing with vaping it and gradually the taste changed. After only 5, maybe 10 minutes, the flavor was on par with what I would expect from my daily-driver liquid that I know rather well.
As covered already in this thread, the ARO is indeed a little thicker than the EVOD, though it fits on the ego threads of the Vamo V2 nicely. It's a little taller than the EVOD as well. The build quality is definitely on the higher end as it feels pretty darn secure and stable. I'm unable to tell how thick the glass is since it's wrapped in the metal tube, but considering it's wrapped in the metal tube that alone is a bonus since that of course provides an additional barrier of protection.
Now, I'm going to shift gears a bit here, as I've spent a lot of time recently trying to make the Protank 2 not suck. The EVOD, in my opinion, is a different beast altogether. Clearly the EVOD's design with the base is superior to that of the Protank 1 and 2 since the same heads that taste awful in the Protank work very well in the EVOD. I'm no expert, I'm not an engineer, and I haven't been vaping for a thousand years to feel like my opinion is worthy of an epic prize, but using some degree of logic and common sense, the base of the ARO seems to be designed in a more intelligent fashion. It just feels like juice is being delivered in a more efficient manner. Not only that, but there are quite a few "ridges" on the base, each containing an O ring. This to me makes the ARO feel like it's got backup plan after backup plan of seals to ensure it doesn't leak.
I'm absolutely happy with my purchase. The ARO at its price is quite a steal. 3ml pyrex tank with a better design for less than 10 bucks? Yes please. Now, before I get too ahead of myself, this is admittedly only the beginning, so my opinion may change as I use the ARO more. After all, when I first got the Protank I was gung-ho about it, but immediately things went south with it and a good experience never resurfaced again, even with the introduction of the Protank 2. I feel far more confident that the ARO will continue to be a solid device, just based on the design of the base, my experience so far, as well as some reviews I've read that are a month old already that are still reiterating great success.
If you are using something else and enjoy it, great, that's all that matters - but in my search for a clearomizer that performed decently, all I can say is this based on my own experiences:
Protank 1 and 2 = fail
EVOD = very decent, but no glass tank and the tank being smallish is sort of
ARO = cheap, well built, glass, 3ml -
We'll see how things go... a lot can change yet.
