14-50R one is $12 the other is $40 what is the difference

Fred B

Fred B

Senior Member
Location
Upstate, NY
Occupation
Electrician
Just saw on Big orange web site 2 different Leviton 14-50R with huge difference in price. One is marked with a little picture of a car on it and indicating for EV charging for $40, the other one just indicates for range hookup and is $12. Is there any real substantive difference between the two to justify the price? Or is it $28 for the little picture of the car?
 
Fred B said:
Just saw on Big orange web site 2 different Leviton 14-50R with huge difference in price. One is marked with a little picture of a car on it and indicating for EV charging for $40, the other one just indicates for range hookup and is $12. Is there any real substantive difference between the two to justify the price? Or is it $28 for the little picture of the car?
Click to expand...
Think there’s higher torque specs on the terminals and maybe more blade contact with the $40 model.

I use the Hubbel L14-50 for EV
 
Higher temperature plastics, different design of the terminations, additional material in blade sockets.

The 2026 code requires the use of listed EV receptacles, but at this time there no product standard to list an EV receptacle.

The Hubbell EV receptacle is just a remarking of their industrial rated receptacle that has been around for decades.
 
Those things are dumb if you do a charger just hard wire it;
All the 'EV car' ones I have seen say 'Copper Wire only', learned that when I went to replace one and there was AL SE wire, since there was no neutral I converted the setup to a NEMA 6-50.
Also note if you see a 'car' one without a neutral put a sticker on it "Not for RV use" as the installers here (not me!) run 6/2 NM or AL SE cable and leave the neutral pin floating, since neutral is never used on the 'car' chargers.
If people insist on a receptacle insist on a 6-50
 
pipe_bender said:
Those things are dumb if you do a charger just hard wire it;
All the 'EV car' ones I have seen say 'Copper Wire only', learned that when I went to replace one and there was AL SE wire, since there was no neutral I converted the setup to a NEMA 6-50.
Also note if you see a 'car' one without a neutral put a sticker on it "Not for RV use" as the installers here (not me!) run 6/2 NM or AL SE cable and leave the neutral pin floating, since neutral is never used on the 'car' chargers.
Click to expand...
personally would always hard wire the EV too. Was wondering if there is any justification for the difference and whether there is sufficient upgrade to the receptacle to warrant considering them for other higher demand items like a welder. Seeing the seeming degradation of the current standard product and failing much easier than before even on a range.
 
Just today I went to look at a job.
Walk in the garage and see a vehicle charging on a level 2 charger.
I asked the owner how long they had been using the charger.
She said it was put in a year and a half ago. Also said it’s used daily as they drive quite a bit.

It was a 14-50 standard Leviton device.
I put my hand on the 4” square metal box and it was rather warm.

I asked if I could remove the cover and take a closer look.

It was wired as a 4 wire Appeared to be #8THHN Cu.
I turned off the 50 amp breaker and noticed 8/3 NM connected to it. I retightened the set screw terminals. Got at least 1/2-3/4 turn on all of them.

The back of the device showed heat discoloration although the blades still seemed to fit snug in the receptacle.
Curious so I opened the j box where the transition from NM to Single conductor was.

Blue wire nuts that were also relatively loose.

It was an eye opener as to how much these charging circuits are loaded.

Charger spec was 40 amp.
 
Yeah 8/3 NM is only good for a something like 32A charge setting and requires a 40A OCPD.

As I understand it any receptacle should be able to carry its ampacity continuously without deforming, no matter what the receptacle costs.
 
There was a thread a few months ago (Dec 2024?) that discussed this. Here is a picture I posted of the 2 receptacles you mention...

1758070234041.jpeg

The new (taller) one is #14-50R-B0 (that's B-zero). It's an almost identical copy of the Hubbell HBL9450A. Much improved clamping features(s), instead of a single screw bearing into the wire. Marked for Cu only, with 75 in-lbs spec for torque (vs 25 for the old one).

The old Leviton is on the right (#279). Been around for ages and is "Value Engineered" like crazy if you get that joke.
 
Be aware, the cover plate circle is bigger for the 14-50R-B0. For a 4 & 11 square box, the RACO part# is 888 for a raised surface mount cover. My supply house does not stock this part, but had one next day from the warehouse. This cover is not commonly used.
 
For a receptacle connected EVSE a 14-50 is a DIY fools errand, its not even the correct receptacle.
I'll keep using the 8 dollar receptacle (a NEMA 6-50), its UL listed for 100% of its 50 amps and only will see 40.
I spend the extra $32 on the correct copper wire (6/2 WG).
Also before I flip the breaker on I set the tiny rotary dip switch that I need my bifocals and a magnifying glass to see down one notch from 48 to the 40 Amp setting.
 
Side note: I recently saw an add for a " heavy duty " 14-50 receptacle for $50. So can any manufacturer state their device is " heavy duty ". Ul & other testing agencies were asleep at the wheel when then gave approval for the inferior 14-50 receptacles used on EV chargers burnt out within a year . I installed both 14-50 & 50 amp 250 volt receptacles w/o a grounded conductor for machines that ran 8 to 16 hours a day and never had one burn up. Always used spec grade 20 amp receptacles in commercial work and they seldom failed.
 
garbo said:
Always used spec grade 20 amp receptacles in commercial work and they seldom failed.
Click to expand...
And that is the same case with the standard 14-50 receptacles and the "heavy duty" ones.
garbo said:
Ul & other testing agencies were asleep at the wheel when then gave approval for the inferior 14-50 receptacles used on EV chargers burnt out within a year .
Click to expand...
I understand that is an issue, but I don't know why as the testing requirements in UL 498 require that the receptacle carry its full load forever without excessive temperature rise.
 
Just more confusion from UL and the code that we do not need. Things shouldn't be that difficult. UL probably "assumes" the lower quality receptacles will not be loaded heavily or continuously but they are supposed to be able to carry the rated current without failure. Just another example of why plumbers beat us to death.

The electrical industry is in a race to the bottom quality wise. Always in a race to push prices down and lower quality.

Allowing a ceiling fan to be mounted on a plastic nail on fiberglass box even though it is "fan rated" is a good example.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
but I don't know why as the testing requirements in UL 498 require that the receptacle carry its full load forever without excessive temperature rise.
Click to expand...
Its because contrary to popular belief on the internet the receptacle is not the problem,
its the DIY installers and or oxidized AL wiring because the installer is too lazy to use noalox.

If you look back at the EV threads on here they smell a little DIY, none of the reports of failing receptacles, not a single one were installed by currently practicing licensed electricians on this forum who installed the receptacle personally. A non-electrician working on their own home installing a EVSE receptacle is DIY in my book.
 
Eddie702 said:
UL probably "assumes" the lower quality receptacles will not be loaded heavily or continuously
Click to expand...
The testing requires that the receptacle be loaded to 100% of its rating and that the temperature be recorded every 5 minutes, and the test continues for a set period of time after there has been no additional increase in temperature. If the temperature rise does not exceed the permitted rise set in the product standard, the receptacle passes the test. Maybe the time period after the last recorded temperature increase is not long enough.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Most of the pictures I have seen indicate a failure of the blade to socket connection and not the wire terminations.
Click to expand...
Your more of an expert than me, all I know is a
A)14-50 is the wrong outlet
and
B) All the issues I have seen were AL wire and a DIY in nature, including the threads on here
and
C) using several different search features for this and other forums I cant find one licensed electrician that reported a issue with a regular $8 receptacle they installed themselves on #6 copper.

As you probably know the chemicals that hot electrical plastic off-gas's are highly corrosive chemicals like halogen acids.
When I got to see someone smarter than me (a forensic investigator) examine the aftermath of a small electrical fire due to AL on a receptacle they said halogen acids, along with other volatile compounds, can cause severe corrosion and pitting damage to aluminum wire and once that starts you get thermal run away pretty fast.
Using a grease compound such as noalox or DE-OX protects the AL from corrosion, many electricians dont use the grease at all.
And the older aluminum alloy is more common than you think, I do service work, people like to re-use an existing circuit, like converting a old dryer plug to a EV charger plug etc. That may be that old alloy aluminum.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top