Arctic Air Ice Jet: A Chilly Disappointment?

Welcome back, everyone! Today, I’m reviewing the latest in a long line of Arctic Air products—the Arctic Air Ice Jet. This new addition follows several iterations, including the original Arctic Air, the Arctic Air Ultra, and my personal favorite, the Arctic Air Pure Chill. The Ice Jet promises to deliver cooling relief using three ice packs instead of the evaporative cooling method used by its predecessors. But does it really live up to the hype? Let’s find out in today’s review.

Arctic Air Ice Jet Review

Where to Purchase

Below are links to purchase the Ice Jet or the Pure Chill. I purchased the Arctic Air Ice Jet for $30 on Amazon, and it’s also available at major retailers like Walmart and Target.

• Arctic Air Ice Jet
• Arctic Air Pure Chill

Unboxing and Setup

The unit comes with a USB cable (though no power cube), three reusable ice packs, and an instruction manual—which I promptly tore while opening. The setup is straightforward: fill the ice packs with water, freeze them for at least an hour, and you’re ready to go. There are also three “booster packs” which are small packets of powder which are to be added to the packs before filling, although it’s unclear what those do, or if they provided any benefits.

The Ice Jet boasts several features, including three fan speeds, a multidirectional vent, and an LED nightlight with seven color options. However, reviews are mixed—some users claim it works as advertised, while others say it doesn’t stay cool for long.

Performance Comparison

To test the Ice Jet’s performance, I compared it against the Arctic Air Pure Chill in three configurations: as a fan, with water and a wet filter, and with water and a frozen filter. Here’s how it went:

1. Pure Chill (Fan Mode) vs. Ice Jet (Ice Packs):
   • The Pure Chill, without any cooling filter, only blew room temperature air.
   • The Ice Jet, with its ice packs, initially blew cooler air, inside the unit measuring in the low 50s (°F), compared to the Pure Chill’s room temperature output.
2. Pure Chill (Wet Filter) vs. Ice Jet (Ice Packs):
   • The Pure Chill, with a wet filter, managed to reach temperatures around 64°F.
   • The Ice Jet remained in the low 50s, maintaining a slight edge in cooling.
3. Pure Chill (Frozen Filter) vs. Ice Jet (Ice Packs):
   • This time I measured air coming out of the units at about 12 inches away.
   • With both units running on high and using thermometers for accuracy, the Pure Chill’s cooling area was wider and slightly cooler.
   • The Pure Chill settled around 68°F, while the Ice Jet around 72°F, proving less effective.

Additional Observations

Despite freezing the ice packs overnight, the Ice Jet’s cooling performance diminished after about 50 minutes, with the air coming out feeling almost room temperature. The ice packs themselves showed a similar temperature, suggesting they lost their cooling ability fairly quickly.

The Ice Jet also lacks a filter, which could be seen as an advantage to some (no need to replace filters) but as a disadvantage in terms of cooling efficiency, especially because those filters in older models could be wet and frozen. Additionally, the fan power of the Ice Jet was weaker compared to the Pure Chill (8mph on high for the Pure Chill vs about 5mph for the Ice Jet).

Final Verdict

In the battle between the Arctic Air Pure Chill and the new Ice Jet, the Pure Chill emerges as the clear winner. The Pure Chill’s evaporative cooling method, combined with a stronger fan, consistently provided cooler air. In contrast, the Ice Jet’s reliance on ice packs proved to be less effective and less consistent.

While I appreciate the Ice Jet’s sleek design and the idea of avoiding water and filters, its performance doesn’t justify switching from the Pure Chill. If you’re looking for reliable cooling, I’d still go with the older Pure Chill – or simply a cheap desktop fan without any gimmicks.

Have you tried the Arctic Air Ice Jet or any other Arctic Air products? Tell me what you think in the comments below!