Review: RCX SE2205 2400kV Motor

by Oscar

RCX is known to make cheap mini quad motors that are relatively powerful for their price. They have recently released the “V3” of their flagship motor – RCX SE2205.

Some of the links on this page are affiliate links. I receive a commission (at no extra cost to you) if you make a purchase after clicking on one of these affiliate links. This helps support the free content for the community on this website. Please read our Affiliate Link Policy for more information.


Motor is made of 7075 CNC aluminum, which should make it more resistant in crashes than previous edition.  There is no noticeable change in appearance of the motor bell, but the RCX SE line is following the “red bottom” trend.

Unfortunately they didn’t specify the exact type of alloy. They are motion balanced – blue goo is visible inside the bell. In my thrust testing I didn’t notice any vibrations, it spins very smoothly.


Motor specs:

  • kV: 2400
  • Weight: 25g
  • Suggested battery: 3-4S
  • Only one thread direction available – CW


Closer Look

Bell shaft is held by a large c-clip that can be easily removed with small pliers. Entire unit can be easily disassembled. Bearings pop off easily when shaft is removed, and the shaft is held in the bell with two grub screws.


Spare parts such as bearings, circlips, shafts are available for $1/pc.


The bell design with protruding spinning parts can make it vulnerable in certain crashes, but the same issue is faced in numerous motors now, like Tornado F1 and EMAX red bottoms for example. I guess this design helps cooling when spinning. I didn’t experience any issues with it so far in terms of durability.


  • Light design
  • Long motor wires
  • Only one direction of propeller shaft thread (no CCW/CW thread confusion)
  • Can be bought very cheap if user is willing to give up on warranty
  • Spare parts available


  • Thrust values are below top performers
  • Lower Efficiency compared to other motors, take DYS SE2205 for example, the RCX motor delivers 50g less top thrust on the same amperage

Overall, I am impressed by this motor. Machining is a little bit rough, but to be honest I noticed it only when I was doing macro photo shots of the motor base.


After flying with this motors for about 20 packs, I like them a lot. I had a few serious crashes (including 10m free fall on asphalt) and they are holding up like a champ.

My experience so far is that this motor should be used with lighter props. It can spin heavier 5” without problem, but I really prefer to stay on either biblade or 5040 triblades. 5045HBN triblades proved to be a battery killer for me.


If you are looking for motors to put on a new build you should also consider SE2205 bigger brother, the SE2206 motor. That one should be able to handle heavier 5” props more effectively.

See some flight footage:

RCX SE2205 2400KV Thrust Test

Props % Peak Thrust – g Peak Current – A Max Power – W Efficiency – g/W
Gemfan 5040×3 50 373 5.6 87.6 4.3
100 1094 25.7 416.7 2.6
Gemfan 5045BN 50 378 5.5 90.7 4.2
100 1102 25.8 418 2.6
DAL 5040×3 50 325 4.5 76.1 4.3
100 994 20.7 293.8 3.4
DAL 5045 50 306 4.2 70.9 4.3
100 938 20.1 331.4 2.8
DAL 5045×3 HBN 50 425 6.1 160.1 2.7
100 1219 30.3 494 2.5
Kingkong 5040 50 324 4.9 82.7 3.9
100 1051 24.7 403.5 2.6


Leave a Comment

By using this form, you agree with the storage and handling of your data by this website. Note that all comments are held for moderation before appearing.


jack 3rd October 2017 - 12:50 am

Are they v3? They do not look like v3, v3 uses arched magnet.

Tim 5th December 2016 - 8:43 pm

I think only one direction of threads is a con. Cuz with both CW and CCW you don’t have to squeeze the prop to get it to stay on. Nor is it a chore to remove it. Plus, the prop won’t come off if you don’t tighten them enough.

Cwix 3rd November 2016 - 12:05 pm

I just bought them and waiting for the rest of the parts for my new build. Will see how they perform. I mean, they’re super cheap without the factory warranty.

Also, the title says 2300KV instead of 2400.


Oscar 15th November 2016 - 5:31 pm

you are right :) corrected.