Motorola QUENCH vs Nokia E52

Key differences

Calculated from recorded specifications using minimum difference thresholds. These are differences, not an overall ranking. For three phones, numeric highlights compare the two extremes.

• WeightE52: 32 g lighterE52: 98 g · QUENCH: 130 g
• WidthE52: 11 mm narrowerE52: 49 mm · QUENCH: 60 mm
• Screen diagonalE52: 0.7 in smaller diagonalE52: 2.4 in · QUENCH: 3.1 in
• DepthE52: 2.5 mm thinnerE52: 9.9 mm · QUENCH: 12.4 mm
• Release year2010 / 2009QUENCH: 2010 · E52: 2009

Relative size, not calibrated actual size. Front and side outlines share one scale and a bottom baseline. Generic outlines use recorded body dimensions, excluding camera bumps.

1. 1. QUENCH

   Height

   116.8 mm

   Width

   60 mm+11 mm versus E52

   Depth

   12.4 mm+2.5 mm versus E52

   Weight

   130 g

2. 2. E52

   Height

   116 mm

   Width

   49 mm

   Depth

   9.9 mm

   Weight

   98 g

Screen size

Approximate rectangular screens calculated from recorded diagonal and aspect ratio at one relative scale. Rounded corners and cutouts are not subtracted. These are not phone outlines or calibrated actual sizes.

1. 1. QUENCH 3.1 in · 3:2 About 28.6 cm² rectangular area
2. 2. E52 2.4 in · 4:3 About 17.8 cm² rectangular area

QUENCH has approximately 60.4% more rectangular screen area than E52.

Memory variants

Each row compares the same storage capacity. Cells show recorded RAM alternatives, not combined maxima. Not recorded does not mean unavailable in every market.

No unambiguous storage/RAM pairings are recorded. See the original specifications below.

Practical features

Explicit Yes and No values are shown directly. Qualified or regional records retain their details. Unknown means the record is missing.

Battery capacity

Capacity is not battery life. No endurance test is implied.

Open a section for more detail. On narrow screens, swipe sideways or use Left/Right arrow keys while the table is focused. Unknown means missing data, not No. Recorded zero values are shown as recorded.