Apollo Phantom 2.0 Stellar (60V) vs Dualtron Thunder 3: Which Should You Buy? (2026)

Side by side

	Apollo Phantom 2.0 Stellar (60V) 60	Dualtron Thunder 3 67
Motor & speed
Top speed (claimed)	53 mph	63 mph✓
Peak power	7000 W	—
Nominal power	6700 W	11000 W✓
Drive	Dual motor	Dual motor
Max incline	46.6%	—
Battery & range
Claimed range	56 mi	80 mi✓
Est. real-world range	31–39 mi	44–56 mi✓
Battery	1800 Wh	2880 Wh✓
Charge time	10 h	6 h✓
Build
Weight	107 lb✓	112 lb
Max load	330 lb	330 lb
Suspension	dual	dual
Brakes	Advanced Hydraulic 4-Piston brakes + Power RBS™ (regenerativ	Nutt 4-piston hydraulic disc
Water resistance	IP66	IPX5
Tyres	11" tubeless	11" tubeless
Features
Score (within category)	60/100	67/100✓
Price	$2,799✓	$3,299

A green ✓ marks the better figure on that row. “—” means the manufacturer does not publish it; a blank is never counted as a loss. Scores compare each model within its own category.

What the makers don't publish

Apollo publishes every specification we track for the Apollo Phantom 2.0 Stellar (60V). Dualtron (Minimotors) does not publish peak power and climbing grade for the Dualtron Thunder 3 — 2 of the 15 specifications we track. We show a dash for each of those rather than estimate, and a missing figure is never counted against a scooter in our scoring — the component is dropped and the remaining weights renormalise. Those rows cannot be compared head to head, so treat this as a comparison of what is published rather than a complete picture. If one of the unpublished figures is the one your decision turns on, ask the seller in writing before you buy: a maker that measures a specification usually states it, and silence is a reasonable prompt to look harder.

Motor & speed

The Dualtron Thunder 3 is the faster of the pair, 63 mph against 53 mph — a 10 mph gap that shows on open stretches but rarely in traffic, where junctions and shared paths set the pace regardless of what the scooter can do. At the Thunder 3's speeds, braking matters more than the extra miles per hour: check the build section below, because stopping distance climbs faster than speed does. The Dualtron Thunder 3 carries more motor on paper, and that surplus shows up in acceleration and on climbs rather than in a higher cruising speed — the place a stronger motor actually earns its keep is the hill you take twice a day. Read any top-speed figure as a maximum reached under ideal conditions; rider weight and gradient both pull it down in the real world, so treat these numbers as a ceiling rather than a cruising promise.

Battery & range

Battery capacity is the honest way to compare range, because watt-hours cannot be marketed around: the Phantom 2.0 Stellar (60V) holds 1800 Wh and the Thunder 3 2880 Wh. The Dualtron Thunder 3's 60% larger pack will out-last the other on the same route whatever the two brochures claim, and it is the single number to trust most in this section. Both claims deserve the usual discount. The Phantom 2.0 Stellar (60V)'s 56-mile figure realistically works out to about 31–39 miles once you account for a normal rider at real speeds; the Thunder 3's 80 lands at roughly 44–56. Plan around the lower end of whichever band matters to you: if your daily round trip does not fit inside it with margin to spare, the range difference here is the deciding factor and you should pick the bigger battery. Recharging also differs: the Dualtron Thunder 3 is back to full in about 6 hours against 10, which matters if you top up between a morning and evening commute rather than overnight. Whichever you choose, remember that both figures assume a fresh battery; a pack loses roughly 20–30% of its capacity after a couple of years of daily cycling, so a used example of either will fall short of these numbers.

Build & ride

Weight is where the daily reality lives: 107 lb against 112 lb, a 5 lb difference. If you carry the scooter up stairs or onto a train, the lighter Apollo Phantom 2.0 Stellar (60V) is the one you will actually keep using — the difference between a scooter that gets ridden and one that gathers dust is often a single flight of steps. Both run suspension at both ends, so both should ride comfortably over broken ground — a genuine point in common rather than a tie-breaker. Each publishes a water-resistance rating (IP66 and IPX5); the higher of the two shrugs off heavier rain, though neither should be ridden through standing water or pressure-washed.

Price, score & value

The Apollo Phantom 2.0 Stellar (60V) is the cheaper of the two, $2,799 against $3,299 — a $500 gap. Whether that gap is worth closing depends entirely on whether the pricier scooter's advantages above line up with your priorities. Within their category the Dualtron Thunder 3 scores higher (67/100 to 60/100). Remember that our scores are within-category judgements — this comparison is only meaningful because both sit in the same or an adjacent class. If value per dollar is your lens, use the cost-of-ownership calculator on this site: a slightly cheaper scooter with pneumatic tyres can cost more to run over a few years than a pricier one on solid tyres, and the sticker price alone hides that.

What the extra $500 buys

What these numbers actually govern

Here is what each of these measures controls in general — both the ones that separate these two and the ones they share. These describe the measure, not a claim about how either scooter rides, which we have not tested.

charge time

Charge time matters most if you top up between a morning and an evening commute rather than overnight.

nominal power

Nominal power describes sustained output: it shows up in acceleration and in holding speed on a long climb rather than in a higher top speed.

battery capacity

Watt-hours are the single best predictor of range, because capacity is the one range input that cannot be marketed around.

claimed range

Every claimed range figure is measured at a light rider weight, a low constant speed and on flat ground, which is why we show a computed real-world band beside it.

water resistance

An IP rating describes water resistance, not immersion — it covers rain and splashes, never standing water or a pressure washer.

Max load (both 330 lb)identical on both

A load rating covers rider plus cargo, not the rider alone. Where both models publish the same limit, rider weight cannot separate them.

Suspension (both dual)identical on both

Suspension is the component that most changes how a scooter handles broken pavement; where both models carry the same arrangement, road comfort is not a differentiator between them.

Tyre type (both tubeless)identical on both

Pneumatic and tubeless tyres absorb road imperfections that solid tyres pass into the deck; solid tyres trade that comfort for never puncturing. A shared construction means the same trade on both.

Drive (both Dual motor)identical on both

A second motor adds traction and acceleration at the cost of weight and battery drain. Where both use the same arrangement, drive layout is not a separator.

Price & where to buy

Who should buy which

Buy the Apollo Phantom 2.0 Stellar (60V) if you ride in the wet (IP66 vs IPX5), or you want to spend less ($2,799 vs $3,299). Buy the Dualtron Thunder 3 if you top up between commutes rather than overnight (6 h vs 10 h), or you want more sustained power (11000 W vs 6700 W — a decisive 39% edge). Whichever you pick, 5 specifications are identical across both — max load, suspension, tyre type — so those rows cannot decide it. Within their category our score puts the Dualtron Thunder 3 at 67/100 against 60/100.

Bottom line: the Dualtron Thunder 3 is the safer default here — it recharges faster (6 h vs 10 h). The Apollo Phantom 2.0 Stellar (60V) earns its place if better sealed against water (IP66 vs IPX5) matters more to you. Every figure here is the manufacturer's published claim or a value we compute from it, linked back to each maker's own specification so you can check it yourself.

Frequently asked questions