I normally use a DSE 901, but I recently bought a black 4075 atty in my last order from heaven-gifts.com, which is where I usually get my 901 and parts from.
The 4075 parts are physically interchangeable with the 901, so I thought this would be an inexpensive way to evaluate the 4075 which I had heard varying things about.
As you would expect, a 4075 atty appears to have the same external physical dimensions as a 901 as far as I could tell by lining them up side by side and then in parallel. It has an intake hole in the same place which may be marginally smaller.
The battery connector does indeed work with a 901 battery. The inner gold terminal has a slightly smaller diameter than the 901, but that has no effect on interchangeability or anything else I can think of. I could not find a serial number on the battery connector or anywhere else on the atty.
The atomizer pot is at the exact same depth as the 901.
The atomizer bridge is rounded on the 4075 as opposed to the more pointed, almost triangular shape of the atomizer bridge of the 901. The 4075 bridge also does not rise as high as the 901 bridge. The top of the 4075 bridge is approximately 2 mm deeper inside the atomizer than the 901, raising concerns for me that it would not contact the cartridge stuffing of a stock 901 cartridge.
Because of this, I decided to use a 510 cartridge, which goes about a mm deeper into the atomizer, to ensure contact with the atomizer and proper wicking of liquid. This appeared to work fine. I have not tried using a 901 cartridge with the 4075.
I used the straw mod in the cartridge for this evaluation and always use it in the 901 as well, along with hand rolled polyfill as the cartridge stuffing. The eliquids used included the standard Winston and Flue Cured tobacco types produced by Dekang, and a home made Lorann's Creme De Menthe flavor PG/VG/PGA mix.
In use, the 4075 atomizer runs hotter, and produces a more dense and warmer vapor than the 901 as a result. This results in a slightly more pronounced throat hit than the 901, and causes the cartridge to run out of liquid noticeably sooner. It also seems to reduce the flavor of the vapor slightly in comparison to the 901 atty.
While for me, the DSE 901 atty has a very slight hiss when taking a draw, the 4075 atty was completely silent when vaped.
I switch out batteries randomly and frequently, so I can't report that the 4075 uses up a battery more quickly, but that has been reported elsewhere and would certainly make sense.
I hope this review helps clear up some questions you may have about the difference between 901's and 4075's. Thanks and happy vaping!
The 4075 parts are physically interchangeable with the 901, so I thought this would be an inexpensive way to evaluate the 4075 which I had heard varying things about.
As you would expect, a 4075 atty appears to have the same external physical dimensions as a 901 as far as I could tell by lining them up side by side and then in parallel. It has an intake hole in the same place which may be marginally smaller.
The battery connector does indeed work with a 901 battery. The inner gold terminal has a slightly smaller diameter than the 901, but that has no effect on interchangeability or anything else I can think of. I could not find a serial number on the battery connector or anywhere else on the atty.
The atomizer pot is at the exact same depth as the 901.
The atomizer bridge is rounded on the 4075 as opposed to the more pointed, almost triangular shape of the atomizer bridge of the 901. The 4075 bridge also does not rise as high as the 901 bridge. The top of the 4075 bridge is approximately 2 mm deeper inside the atomizer than the 901, raising concerns for me that it would not contact the cartridge stuffing of a stock 901 cartridge.
Because of this, I decided to use a 510 cartridge, which goes about a mm deeper into the atomizer, to ensure contact with the atomizer and proper wicking of liquid. This appeared to work fine. I have not tried using a 901 cartridge with the 4075.
I used the straw mod in the cartridge for this evaluation and always use it in the 901 as well, along with hand rolled polyfill as the cartridge stuffing. The eliquids used included the standard Winston and Flue Cured tobacco types produced by Dekang, and a home made Lorann's Creme De Menthe flavor PG/VG/PGA mix.
In use, the 4075 atomizer runs hotter, and produces a more dense and warmer vapor than the 901 as a result. This results in a slightly more pronounced throat hit than the 901, and causes the cartridge to run out of liquid noticeably sooner. It also seems to reduce the flavor of the vapor slightly in comparison to the 901 atty.
While for me, the DSE 901 atty has a very slight hiss when taking a draw, the 4075 atty was completely silent when vaped.
I switch out batteries randomly and frequently, so I can't report that the 4075 uses up a battery more quickly, but that has been reported elsewhere and would certainly make sense.
I hope this review helps clear up some questions you may have about the difference between 901's and 4075's. Thanks and happy vaping!
Last edited:
