Leviton NEMA 14-50r - Changed model from 279 to 279-S00 - New Design?

[eprosenx]

So at times folks have bashed the Leviton NEMA 14-50 receptacles as being "cheap" here in the forums and folks have often referenced the Tesla documents suggesting the use of a Hubbell or Cooper receptacle of specific models. I really don't know what to think as I have never bought all three and compared them side by side and I have no empirical evidence one way or the other.

I have often challenged this as it is really hard to convince me that the more than 10x cost of a Hubbell receptacle is worth it compared to a Leviton one which can be picked up at any local Home Depot. I am willing to pay for quality, but this seems massively out of whack. I think also one big issue is that Hubbell does not sell through channels that are generally directly available to consumers, and so you have to use random shady sellers on Amazon, etc... to source them.

I at least have accounts at local supply houses and can get them, but my pricing sucks because I don't buy much.

So with all of that being said: A friend recently had his Leviton receptacle melt (though it was extremely clear that it was caused by his electrician installing it with insulation trapped under the terminals - so I don't blame the receptacle). When he went to replace it with a new one from Home Depot (also Leviton) he noticed the design was different. So that got me thinking that Leviton changed something.

A little research later and I find these two product listings:

279 - 50 Amp Flush Mtg Receptacle in Black - Leviton

279-S00 - 50 Amp Flush Mtg Receptacle in Black - Leviton

I can not for the life of me figure out what the actual difference is from the spec sheets, but Platt is discontinuing the basic 279 one and only stocking the -s00 version going forward, so clearly the -s00 is the replacement.

Anyone have any clues?

Maybe the new one is more robust and so would be more suitable for EV use (so maybe this changes folks opinions?)

 

[mswlogo]

They probably added a "Privacy Policy" on the Box

 

[NeverFollow]

I can not for the life of me figure out what the actual difference is from the spec sheets,
but Platt is discontinuing the basic 279 one and only stocking the -s00 version going forward,
so clearly the -s00 is the replacement.

I noticed few days ago that the Leviton surface mount cardboard box now is white, the one I bought was more like green and blue.

Note: I bought NEMA 14-30 surface mount and flush plugs, not 14-50,
but the 14-50 qnd 14-30 are basically identical.
In the case of the surface mount, only the plastic cover part of the plug is different,
and the neutral plug otherwise can accept a curbed (14-30) or a flat (14-500 Neutral plug.

I didn't open the new (white) surface mount white box,
but I would be curious to see if they changed the way each wire get fit to a corresponding pin.

For the model that I get, the screw directly touch the wires.both for the flush and the surface mount.

In the case of a solid wire this is fine, but with stranded wires,
I would prefer that the screw pushes a little plaque, so that all the wires would get the same pressure contact.

If you tight very hard and remove the wire thereafter, you can notice that some of the stranded wires get damaged or cut.

May be I should tinning the end of the wires to make them stronger,
and to ensures that all of the wires are making an electrical connection?

 

[gilscales]

Only difference in design I can see is the 4 brass colored rivets on the face of the older model 279 holding to the mounting plate

https://www.amazon.com/Leviton-279-Receptacle-Industrial-Grounding/dp/B00009W3AA

https://www.amazon.com/Leviton-279-...id=1544604083&sr=1-1&keywords=leviton+279-s00

 

[Vines]

I'll be following this, as I do have the older style 14-50 outlet at work and I plug into it every day. Luckily its in a metal box, with metal conduit in a concrete building and a set of fuses in case of issue, but I wonder how much it is heating up, or whether or not numerous plug and unplug cycles will cause it to fail prematurely.

I've read all the concerns about contact pressure, and plug cycles so do pay attention to this connection.

 

[Vines]

Just went out and checked the temperature of my plug end of my mobile connector, Seemed barely warm after charging 4 hours. This is after approximately 100 cycles of plug and unplugging. I also took a picture of my outlet, just to have a point of reference for the future. I use the mobile connector, with the tesla adapter, so I do have the temperature sensor still functioning. If there is some temperature issue with the outlet, my mobile connector should shut down.

 

[stanjang]

My first post and soon to take delivery of my Tesla. Thanks for the wealth of info.

I contacted Leviton regarding the differences between the 279-S00 and the 279. The only real difference that I found from Leviton's website was that the 279 was nylon while the 279-S00 was thermoplastic. Here's the response from Leviton:

"Thank you for choosing Leviton. They are both thermoplastic, the 279-S00 is not for use with single-gang wall boxes, single-gang mud rings or single-gang box extender. However the depth is only 1.02 inches from mounting plater to the back of the device compared to the 279 which is about 1.8 inches."

Stan

 

[gilscales]

My first post and soon to take delivery of my Tesla. Thanks for the wealth of info.

I contacted Leviton regarding the differences between the 279-S00 and the 279. The only real difference that I found from Leviton's website was that the 279 was nylon while the 279-S00 was thermoplastic. Here's the response from Leviton:

"Thank you for choosing Leviton. They are both thermoplastic, the 279-S00 is not for use with single-gang wall boxes, single-gang mud rings or single-gang box extender. However the depth is only 1.02 inches from mounting plater to the back of the device compared to the 279 which is about 1.8 inches."

Stan

Do yourself a favor and get a quality receptacle like this one
Bryant 50A 4W Single Receptacle 125/250VAC 14-50R BK 9450FR | Zoro.com
And do not forget to order the larger hole cover plate like this on
Hubbell Wiring Device-Kellems Single Receptacle Plate, 2 Gang, Silver SS701 | Zoro.com
as the standard size will not fit.

Here is a post I started back in Jan. to show some differences of the receptacles and why you should choose the higher quality ones from Hubbell/Bryant
Definitive 14-50 NEMA Outlet Guide

 

[mswlogo]

Do yourself a real favor and don’t install any outlet. They are the weakest link.

Get a Wall Connector.

 

[gilscales]

Do yourself a real favor and don’t install any outlet. They are the weakest link.

Get a Wall Connector.

Thats what I chose and I only have it on a 50A breaker because I came off of an existing sub panel and not the main panel just for ease of installation, most times I dial the charge rate back to 20 to 25 amps as I just don't need any more, the Hubbell/Bryant while still being the weakest link is the most capable receptacle out there and I would think it would be very safe at the 32A max draw the gen 2 mobile connector is capable of, I do agree though that the HPWC is best, no question.

 

[mswlogo]

Thats what I chose and I only have it on a 50A breaker because I came off of an existing sub panel and not the main panel just for ease of installation, most times I dial the charge rate back to 20 to 25 amps as I just don't need any more, the Hubbell/Bryant while still being the weakest link is the most capable receptacle out there and I would think it would be very safe at the 32A max draw the gen 2 mobile connector is capable of, I do agree though that the HPWC is best, no question.

There way more positives to the wall connector than the weak link of a 14-50 plug that can fail.

To many folks install them without GFCI, which is an accident waiting to happen with out it. Many folks use their one Mobile Connector that cane with the car and figure they will never need it on the road. Many folks pay for a 14-50, 50A circuit and only get 32A out of it.

Unless you have another EV that requires a 14-50, an RV or an Arc welder you are better off with a Wall Connector.

Hands down.

 

[gilscales]

There way more positives to the wall connector than the weak link of a 14-50 plug that can fail.

To many folks install them without GFCI, which is an accident waiting to happen with out it. Many folks use their one Mobile Connector that cane with the car and figure they will never need it on the road. Many folks pay for a 14-50, 50A circuit and only get 32A out of it.

Unless you have another EV that requires a 14-50, an RV or an Arc welder you are better off with a Wall Connector.

Hands down.

No one I know installs the 14-50 receptacles with a GFCI breaker, I’m pretty sure that Tesla instructs you to NOT use gfci protection on the outlet

 

[mswlogo]

No one I know installs the 14-50 receptacles with a GFCI breaker, I’m pretty sure that Tesla instructs you to NOT use gfci protection on the outlet

It’s now required by code.

 

[gilscales]

It’s now required by code.

While I have not seen the new 2020 code, I did hear something from a city inspector about ALL circuits will soon have to be arc fault AND gfci protected.

 

[eprosenx]

While I have not seen the new 2020 code, I did hear something from a city inspector about ALL circuits will soon have to be arc fault AND gfci protected.

It is in the 2017 code for EV receptacles.

I personally am not convinced it makes sense to require for receptacles in dry locations since the EVSE has GFCI built in, but it is the code.

I really think it is ridiculous to require this for EV’s but not for RV’s. Seems like a double standard and I personally think plugging and unplugging RV’s daily at campgrounds in the rain is more dangerous than my EV receptacle in my garage.

I have found many inspectors are unaware of the GFCI requirement FWIW, but perhaps that has changed as they become more common.

The industry has a massive lobbying effort to push GFCI units everywhere as they are nearly 10x as expensive.

(note that I don’t have all the numbers to quantify the number of injuries due to lack of GFCI on EV receptacles so it is hard to compare that against the costs and downsides of having GFCI in both the breaker and the EVSE)

 

[mswlogo]

It is in the 2017 code for EV receptacles.

I personally am not convinced it makes sense to require for receptacles in dry locations since the EVSE has GFCI built in, but it is the code.

I really think it is ridiculous to require this for EV’s but not for RV’s. Seems like a double standard and I personally think plugging and unplugging RV’s daily at campgrounds in the rain is more dangerous than my EV receptacle in my garage.

I have found many inspectors are unaware of the GFCI requirement FWIW, but perhaps that has changed as they become more common.

The industry has a massive lobbying effort to push GFCI units everywhere as they are nearly 10x as expensive.

(note that I don’t have all the numbers to quantify the number of injuries due to lack of GFCI on EV receptacles so it is hard to compare that against the costs and downsides of having GFCI in both the breaker and the EVSE)

EV’s are in wet locations (by definition) and may plug in or unplug their mobile connector (because they took it with them). Might be infrequent, but that doesn’t matter. It also doesn’t prevent the outlet from being used for say an RV by a future owner. Future application doesn't matter to the code, right? EV outlets are also often in reach of children. We’re you a curious boy when young, do you always listen to daddy to never touch something? Did you have a dare devil friend?

People often think, I’ll won’t be dumb, I know better. The point is, it might not be you. And well, people do dumb things when tired or distracted. It’s midnight, after a long drive, they just cleaned snow of the car, wet feet, wet hands, floor is already wet from snow all week that dragged in, they pull in and plug in. But the mobile adapter has GFCI, right? Big whoop. It’s an accident waiting to happen.

 

[gilscales]

It is in the 2017 code for EV receptacles.

I personally am not convinced it makes sense to require for receptacles in dry locations since the EVSE has GFCI built in, but it is the code.

I really think it is ridiculous to require this for EV’s but not for RV’s. Seems like a double standard and I personally think plugging and unplugging RV’s daily at campgrounds in the rain is more dangerous than my EV receptacle in my garage.

I have found many inspectors are unaware of the GFCI requirement FWIW, but perhaps that has changed as they become more common.

The industry has a massive lobbying effort to push GFCI units everywhere as they are nearly 10x as expensive.

(note that I don’t have all the numbers to quantify the number of injuries due to lack of GFCI on EV receptacles so it is hard to compare that against the costs and downsides of having GFCI in both the breaker and the EVSE)

I have looked in the code and cannot find it, what I found is this.


625.54 Ground-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection for Personnel. All single-phase receptacles installed for the connection of electric vehicle charging that are rated 150 volts to ground or less, and 50 amperes or less shall have ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection for personnel.

If anyone can find in the code that a 14-50 outlet in the garage needs GFCI protection please tell me where it is, I am not denying it exists I just cannot find it.

 

[eprosenx]

I have looked in the code and cannot find it, what I found is this.


625.54 Ground-Fault Circuit-Interrupter Protection for Personnel. All single-phase receptacles installed for the connection of electric vehicle charging that are rated 150 volts to ground or less, and 50 amperes or less shall have ground-fault circuit-interrupter protection for personnel.

If anyone can find in the code that a 14-50 outlet in the garage needs GFCI protection please tell me where it is, I am not denying it exists I just cannot find it.

You actually did find it. ;-) And you posted it above. ;-)

A 14-50 is installed typically on residential split-phase service in which each hot leg is ~ 120v to ground. (240v phase to phase).

So that provision requires a GFCI breaker on any EV receptacle basically.

To @mswlogo - yeah, there are edge cases where having a GFCI breaker on a EV receptacle likely provides an uplift in safety. The question is whether the increase in nuisance tripping issues and the hugely added cost and the number of installs this would make vastly more expensive (due to needing to upgrade a panel since there are not enough breaker spaces for a GFCI breaker or they don't sell one for that model of breaker) is worth it for that marginal safety benefit. It is really hard to say without access to large amounts of accident data and installed cost data.

My primary point though is that until the code requires GFCI on RV receptacles installed in wet locations (like campgrounds, or outside your house) I have very little respect for the addition of the requirement specifically for EV's. It feels like the code council felt it could apply this expensive requirement on "rich EV owners" but that it would get too much pushback if it tried it on RV receptacles. I personally think a good half step might have been to require GFCI circuits on any 14-50 receptacles installed in wet locations (to include both RV and EV receptacles).

 

[gilscales]

You actually did find it. ;-) And you posted it above. ;-)

A 14-50 is installed typically on residential split-phase service in which each hot leg is ~ 120v to ground. (240v phase to phase).

So that provision requires a GFCI breaker on any EV receptacle basically.

To @mswlogo - yeah, there are edge cases where having a GFCI breaker on a EV receptacle likely provides an uplift in safety. The question is whether the increase in nuisance tripping issues and the hugely added cost and the number of installs this would make vastly more expensive (due to needing to upgrade a panel since there are not enough breaker spaces for a GFCI breaker or they don't sell one for that model of breaker) is worth it for that marginal safety benefit. It is really hard to say without access to large amounts of accident data and installed cost data.

My primary point though is that until the code requires GFCI on RV receptacles installed in wet locations (like campgrounds, or outside your house) I have very little respect for the addition of the requirement specifically for EV's. It feels like the code council felt it could apply this expensive requirement on "rich EV owners" but that it would get too much pushback if it tried it on RV receptacles. I personally think a good half step might have been to require GFCI circuits on any 14-50 receptacles installed in wet locations (to include both RV and EV receptacles).[/QUOTE

So if I labeled the outlet “for EV charging” then it would be required to have gfci but if it does not have a label then it is not required?

 

[eprosenx]

So if I labeled the outlet “for EV charging” then it would be required to have gfci but if it does not have a label then it is not required?

Labeling not even required. All that matters is what you put on your permit application. I installed an RV receptacle at my mothers beach house, not an EV receptacle. (but there is nothing stopping me from using it for my Tesla)

Hence my point about how incredibly stupid this is code wise.

If they feel GFCI is necessary for safety then move it out of article 625 and have it apply to all 14-50 receptacles (etc) installed!