Apollo Phantom 2.0 (52V) vs Apollo Phantom 2.0 Stellar (60V): Which Should You Buy? (2026)

Side by side

	Apollo Phantom 2.0 (52V) 51	Apollo Phantom 2.0 Stellar (60V) 60
Motor & speed
Top speed (claimed)	44 mph	53 mph✓
Peak power	—	7000 W
Nominal power	3500 W	6700 W✓
Drive	Dual motor	Dual motor
Max incline	46.6%	46.6%
Battery & range
Claimed range	50 mi	56 mi✓
Est. real-world range	28–35 mi	31–39 mi✓
Battery	1404 Wh	1800 Wh✓
Charge time	9 h✓	10 h
Build
Weight	102 lb✓	107 lb
Max load	330 lb	330 lb
Suspension	dual	dual
Brakes	Semi-Road Dual Discs + Power RBS™ (regenerative braking)	Advanced Hydraulic 4-Piston brakes + Power RBS™ (regenerativ
Water resistance	IP66	IP66
Tyres	11" tubeless	11" tubeless
Features
Score (within category)	51/100	60/100✓
Price	$2,099✓	$2,799

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 does not publish peak power for the Apollo Phantom 2.0 (52V) — 1 of the 15 specifications we track. Apollo publishes every specification we track for the Apollo Phantom 2.0 Stellar (60V). 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 If one of the unpublished figures is the one your decision turns on, ask the seller in writing before you buy: a maker that measures a specification usually states it, and silence is a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 Apollo Phantom 2.0 Stellar (60V) is the faster of the pair, 53 mph against 44 mph — a 9 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 Phantom 2.0 Stellar (60V)'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 Apollo Phantom 2.0 Stellar (60V) 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 (52V) holds 1404 Wh and the Phantom 2.0 Stellar (60V) 1800 Wh. The Apollo Phantom 2.0 Stellar (60V)'s 28% 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 (52V)'s 50-mile figure realistically works out to about 28–35 miles once you account for a normal rider at real speeds; the Phantom 2.0 Stellar (60V)'s 56 lands at roughly 31–39. 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 Apollo Phantom 2.0 (52V) is back to full in about 9 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: 102 lb against 107 lb, a 5 lb difference. If you carry the scooter up stairs or onto a train, the lighter Apollo Phantom 2.0 (52V) 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 IP66); the higher of the two shrugs off heavier rain, though neither should be ridden through standing water or pressure-washed. Braking favours the Apollo Phantom 2.0 Stellar (60V), whose hydraulics are stronger and more consistent at the lever than the other's setup — the specification that matters most as speed rises, and worth prioritising over almost any other feature on a fast scooter.

Price, score & value

The Apollo Phantom 2.0 (52V) is the cheaper of the two, $2,099 against $2,799 — a $700 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 Apollo Phantom 2.0 Stellar (60V) scores higher (60/100 to 51/100). 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 $700 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.

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.

brakes

Hydraulic discs are more consistent at the lever than mechanical discs, and drums trade outright stopping power for lower maintenance — a difference that grows with speed.

price

Price is the one figure that is not a specification — it moves with stock and promotions, so treat any gap as current rather than permanent.

battery capacity

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

top speed

A top-speed figure is a ceiling reached under ideal conditions; rider weight and gradient both pull it down, so it describes headroom rather than a cruising promise.

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.

Max incline (both 46.6%)identical on both

A climbing grade is quoted under test conditions and a heavier rider reaches the limit sooner than the figure suggests; an identical claim means neither is specified to climb better.

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.

Water resistance (both IP66)identical on both

An IP rating describes water resistance, not immersion: it covers rain and splashes, never standing water or a pressure washer. A shared rating means neither is the safer choice in the wet.

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

Step up to the Apollo Phantom 2.0 Stellar (60V) if you want more sustained power (6700 W vs 3500 W — a decisive 48% edge) — that is what the $700 buys. Save the $700 and take the Apollo Phantom 2.0 (52V) if you top up between commutes rather than overnight (9 h vs 10 h), and that matters more to you than the rows that change. The step changes 6 specifications and leaves 7 identical — max load (both 330 lb), max incline (both 46.6%), suspension (both dual) carry over unchanged, so the money is buying nominal power rather than a different scooter.

Bottom line: the $700 step from the Apollo Phantom 2.0 (52V) to the Apollo Phantom 2.0 Stellar (60V) buys nominal power, brakes, battery capacity, and costs you charge time and weight. It changes nothing about max load (both 330 lb), max incline (both 46.6%), suspension (both dual), water resistance (both IP66). Every figure here is the manufacturer's published claim or a value we compute from it.

Frequently asked questions