Can't say I have an E2DL to do a runtime test on, but I think we could make a reasonably educated guess about its performance. Considering SureFire have updated the specs to be identical (on high) to the LX2, and since users' reports comparing recent E2DLs and LX2s support the spec update, would it not be reasonable to guess that the LX2's runtime graph would be similar to that of the recent E2DL's?
Granted, the circuitry in the two lights is probably somewhat different, so the shape of the graph may not be exactly identical. But chances are, it's pretty similar either to the shape of the LX2's graph or to the shape of the "old" E2DL.
That leaves the amount of runtime in regulation. On the low end, I can't imagine the "new" E2DL would perform worse than the "old" E2DL (~90 minutes). And on the high end, we have ~2 hours from the LX2 (this seems like the likely performance, given the updated specs, user reports, etc.).
In the end, the performance of the 2009 E2DL is going to be somewhere in between the 2008 E2DL and the 2009 LX2, and the difference between those is not huge. An extra 20-30 minutes of runtime is useful, sure, but frankly it seems more like an intellectual exercise to look for a runtime graph in such a small range. In real world use, such differences really aren't that significant, especially when there's any unit-to-unit variation.
Of course, with all of that said, I would be intellectually interested in a runtime graph of a "new" E2DL. Then again, if I were to ask for a runtime graph at this point, it would be for the A2L, not the slightly upgraded E2DL...
