gman1971

@WROZ250
Thanks. It really never had anything to do with snobbery, but everything with being tired of crap equipment not working, crap stuff needing constant attention, stuff not delivering on any promises, etc.... but whatever, let people fumbling around with trash equipment wasting some money in the process, always wondering the same things I wondered, and certainly let them think its all about being a Moto-snob... because the sooner they give up on their radio "excursion" due to piss poor equipment and range measured in tenths of a mile, then the more RF space left and available for the rest of us to use with our Moto-snob radios.  
@Lscott
Hacking part 90 equipment to work on the ham bands is not the same as using unmodified Part 90 equipment for GMRS.
Doing that would be the same thing that hams frown upon: when non-hams are using hacked Ham gear to run on GMRS or MURS, etc; and while that might work, just don't expect top performance out of modified equipment (any equipment). Let alone on a tower... where it can cause all kinds of problems.
The moment a Part 90 device is hacked to do something they were not designed to do, then they are no longer Part anything certified, so that should be no grounds to call that Part 90 stuff will get black SUVs or fines rolling on your driveway. That is pure BS.
G.

So..thinking of this as more of a knowledge base/sharing type thing, since it's another Part 95 approved LMR option, and last I looked, pretty reasonably priced on the used market.  I'm thinking trying to keep this first post an overall summary as new things come to mind, or info comes up in the thread.  Definitely still some things I can learn; I suspect it's possible to program to be able to change tones within a pre-defined table, but haven't dug back into the CPS to look for it.  the times i've run into this, I just programmed the same channel more than once with different tones (copy and paste works great, both single or bulk).
Programming:  it's not listed on their site, but there's listings on ebay for cable+software; i got mine from The Antenna Farm. I've found the help menu in the CPS (all versions of the Vertex CPS, really) to be pretty good at explaining most of the settings, given the market it's aimed at.
A couple quirks:
Scanning: It's set up for on-hook scan, which means the mic holder needs to be grounded (to the radio, if it's not mounted to anything).  Took me awhile to figure this out, but I understand it's common on LMR gear. I have the mic holder on one of the screws holding the radio in the bracket (since they're base radios for me); ran a wire to that screw when the holder was mounted on plastic in the truck. Also had to chase an issue with a mic that would not let the radio scan, turned out to be a broken ground wire inside the mic. Squelch:  I'll try to add a screenshot, but there's a "Squelch Offset" setting in one of the menus; in one of my starting from a fresh code plug, that defaulted to like..10 out of 15 without me realizing it, and NOTHING would break squelch, no matter how I set the squelch in the radio's menu (unless it was off)...I moved that down to like 2 or 3, and the menu squelch is generally on 1...working great now. On mics, the NIB 4207  came with the older Yaesu mic (MH-25A8J), as did the 4204, while the 2nd 4207 came with the newer MH-67A8J Vertex Standard mic.  I haven't run into any audio difference between the two, though the MH25 definitely has a nicer feel to it, with the weight (which is literally just a weight inside), and the softer throw of the ptt key.  The MH67 is more of a click on/off.  Both seem to interchange and scan just fine.

I usually stay out of this Motorola verses other brand Frey, and similarly, I don't always agree with gman1971.  In this case I could not agree with him more!

The reason site operators insist on type accepted equipment is to ensure said equipment will not cause harm/interference/etc.. to existing and/or future users.  And for the record it doesn't start or stop with the type acceptance.

So, to suggest that a GMRS operator needs to be 95e (legal grey area notwithstanding), and that using a part 90 repeater (Motorola Quantar for example) would be rejected and/or a basis for contractual violation is, IMHO, ludicrous. 

The likelihood of a properly adjusted Quantar causing, 'legally actionable' or contractual issues at a commercial tower site is again, ludicrous.  As pointed out, generally speaking, Part 90 equipment is superior to 95e.  Indeed, some (not all) of the part95e equipment is more likely to cause site issues than the more common Part 90 stations, which in the vast majority of commercial tower sites, is the dominant type of two-way equipment.

One would be hard pressed to argue that the (properly adjusted) part 90 Quantar GMRS repeater is inferior and/or a problem for the part 90 commercial repeater a few Khz away.

All that said, my own aversion to Motorola equipment is, when it comes to GMRS, price.  For me personally, it is also the legal concerns over possession of the programming software.  The FCC is not the concern by any stretch. Motorola legal on the other hand can, and has, destroyed the lives of people who violate the license terms and, Joe Private Citizen typically cannot even get a license agreement.  Only qualified service shops and large volume, self maintained, users.  If not for the software issue, I would always go with the Motorola if I could afford it!

But back to price...

The average GMRS user just can't pay for that level of quality.  This is not a shot at Chinese (or Japanese) equipment.  Neither is it 'snobbery' as I read somewhere else.

Desiring/owning Motorola equipment is not 'snobbery' (except perhaps for a few individuals), it is simply superior hardware that any serious operator would aspire or strive to own and operate.

To each their own in any case

So if you want to play strictly 'by the book', then only purchase and operate Part 95e equipment. 

However, please don't try and tell someone else they cannot or should not use part 90 equipment.  If it isn't obvious by other posts throughout the forums, you are in the minority and generally talking to yourself.

Besides, what someone else does isn't your proverbial ass on the line, it's theirs.

 

That's not entirely untrue. 

In my own experience, I'd heard that as well from site managers and yet, there were some commercial sites that allowed hams (or they knew somebody who looked the other way) and, some of those 'ham' repeaters were pretty disgusting in how poorly assembled the 'system' was.  Many times, when discovered they were thrown out and their equipment held for 'Back Rent", many times if they were stupid enough to mention who let them in, that person was terminated. 

Not so much of the 'free rides' since 911.  Even the professionals have to go through some serious screening for access, just to just maintain equipment.  Site access in general changed quite a bit, almost overnight, after 911.  Started in the big cities first and has been slowly migrating out to the rest of the country.

All that said, there are a lot of ham repeaters that are part 90, didn't have to be modified for that service, were properly maintained, and nobody takes issue with them on site.  "Ham' by definition isn't a bad thing, but there is a perception in commercial radio circles is that Hams are a problem because they 'kluge together junk'.  Both statements are accurate, but not necessarily so (if you get my meaning). 

When I was much younger and still in field service, my manager had a saying 'Hams can fix anything, just not the right way".  He said things like that because that was his experience.  Additionally, commercial radio is about service and revenue and so he had no reason to care if his experience was accurate or not.

The (SAD) fact is, there are 'Hams' who do just cobble shit together to serve a purpose ('repeater'), and many times that 'system' ends up being an RF nightmare or, as we use to joke, a DIY wide-band noise generator.  So the concern about allowing a ham repeater into a commercial site is somewhat justified, just not in every case.

However, in my own experience there are far more Hams, when talking about repeater systems, who take a very serious and professional approach to system design and site conformity.  Indeed, most of the latter are, or are overseen by, professional RF engineers who also happen to be Hams.  Those are the 'Hams' who, even in this post 911 world, are still are able to obtain access to commercial sites for their systems.  It's their (site managers) game.  Play by their rules and you're cool.  Otherwise, go elsewhere.

For all the bad mouthing about 'hams' in the forums here, the reality is that Ham Radio operators, like any large group, represent a cross section of society.  So don't condemn and entire hobby/group because of a generalized stereotype. 

The same can be said of GMRS users. 

The "Sad Hams" OffRoaderX refers to a lot, are real but (fortunately) do not represent the majority of Hams. 

That said, there are far too many Hams for which the statement is accurate.  I also think many of them haunt the forums and YouTube (or maybe just Randy LOL!), just waiting to point out things they really don't know anything about (but "think they read somewhere").

This (GMRS) is really just another aspect of the radio hobby.  We have noobs and we have genuine experts, neither of which should take themselves too seriously!

?

One last thing, sort of related to the subject/topic...

During my career at Motorola, over 65% of the engineers in the company were licensed amateur radio operators (Hams).  These are the same people who designed those radios so many love and want.

Indeed, in many of the communications fields, the engineers and maintenance people (not all) are also hams. 

In the day, Milwaukee County Wisconsin's radio department had a policy of only hiring technicians who had both a commercial license and, at least a General class amateur radio license.  As I recall, they were not the only agency to follow that practice.   The logic was they wanted to hire people who not only knew how to fix radios, but had an active interest in the job. 

I don't know if that still exists today, probably not because the FCC changed the rules regarding who may legally repair radios (It was better back then IMHO).

So while I am not suggesting non hams should suddenly  like 'Hams', that level of respect from public safety, despite the stereotypes says, IMHO, a lot about that 'hobby'.

Not to mention, but I'd venture a guess that a lot of GMRS users, indeed, many here, are also Amateur Radio Operators ("Hams').

?

@WROZ250
Thanks. It really never had anything to do with snobbery, but everything with being tired of crap equipment not working, crap stuff needing constant attention, stuff not delivering on any promises, etc.... but whatever, let people fumbling around with trash equipment wasting some money in the process, always wondering the same things I wondered, and certainly let them think its all about being a Moto-snob... because the sooner they give up on their radio "excursion" due to piss poor equipment and range measured in tenths of a mile, then the more RF space left and available for the rest of us to use with our Moto-snob radios.  
@Lscott
Hacking part 90 equipment to work on the ham bands is not the same as using unmodified Part 90 equipment for GMRS.
Doing that would be the same thing that hams frown upon: when non-hams are using hacked Ham gear to run on GMRS or MURS, etc; and while that might work, just don't expect top performance out of modified equipment (any equipment). Let alone on a tower... where it can cause all kinds of problems.
The moment a Part 90 device is hacked to do something they were not designed to do, then they are no longer Part anything certified, so that should be no grounds to call that Part 90 stuff will get black SUVs or fines rolling on your driveway. That is pure BS.
G.

1-5/8" on the transmit line I installed.  I believe the receive is 1-1/4".  If you'd like to see pictures (outdated now showing the TKR-850 of course) and a coverage map go to http://rugged575.com/
I'm good with my tower owner, all things have been considered and signed off for as far as studies.  Trust me on that one lol.

Double vocoding nullifies all the benefits of a digital repeater. You lose the ability to send data, radio checks, use ARS services, text messages, etc. Double vocoding is probably fine for a short range vehicular repeater, but IMO, its not useful for anything else... it should be a last ditch effort to get a repeater going.
G.

I've been making phasing harnesses throughout the years, but never a power divider. I figured I'd give it a shot. Did all my calculations to get to where I needed to be with the materials that are over the counter. Finding the right combination of outer and inner pipes is the biggest challenge.  My target was the high end of the GMRS band so that's where I did my calculations. Of course UHF being extremely critical of measurements a few thousandth of an inch either way can be a PITA. Testing it on the NanoVNA yields just barely a 1.4:1 at 467.650 MHz and under 1.2:1 at 444.175 MHz, my most used frequencies. Now I know what to look out for and compensate should I decide to build another.  Anyway, here's the finished product.
Everything all soldered and watertight waiting on a coat of battleship gray epoxy paint.

 
Everything soldered waiting for the final top cap after testing. Two 50 ohm terminators for testing.

 
Center conductor (11mm Brass Tube 1mm wall thickness) ready for installation. The 12 gauge copper center conductor is left intentionally long and will be much short once installed.  N-connector soldered on other end.

 
Brass tube with 8-32 threaded brass nut with rounded corners pressed in prior to solder.

Epilogue...
It's a happy ending.
Thanks for everyone's advice and links to radio and antenna mounts and an antenna, All was installed and tested to 8 miles Simplex to base this morning. I was amazed that this tiny Tram antenna bested the roof magnetic mount Nagoya UT-72G on my SUV with the same radio (I need to check the SWR on that install). And no drilling or other alterations to the Ferrari were necessary and it's all temporary. The car will be ready for the caravan drives with the car club.
1. Tram 1126-B
2. Rugged Radio suction cup antenna mount
3. NMO mount & RG58 cable
4. Rugged Radio/Scosche cup holder mount (modified to work)

Thanks for the suggestion. I decided to go with a Liard FG4603.
 
Still want to figure out what the deal with th Comet is.
 

If the FCC admits in writing that Part 90 equipment is perfectly legal to use in GMRS, again, in a written memo that you can show to the tower owner, then that would be "by the book". I don't understand what the issue is here.
Again, without reading the memo, and the proper legal representation on the matter, anything said here is just speculation, hearsay, and to me its also fear mongering from the Kenwood guys that after a Motorola repeater beat the crap out of a Kenwood repeater... so now lets attack Motorola superior equipment because it lacks certification, and that black SUVs and fines can come piling down your door.... so you should instead buy inferior Part 95 equipment... Sorry, I've played that game before: and I'll stick with Motorola and their superior Part 90 stuff.
In fact, in my opinion, the Quantar is most likely superior to anything repeater Kenwood has ever made (hence why it costs x10 times more, right?), and the OP post just confirms it. Also, the OP post also confirms what I've been seeing for the past two years from ISOteeing different brand radios. The question is, why is it so hard to admit that the Quantar its just a better repeater out of the box? Get one, stop complaining that the Kenwood could be better if tuned, etc... just get a Quantar and be done with it, just like the OP did, or just like I did I went Motorola on all my equipment, sold the inferior stuff, and never looked back.
Making any claims that the XPR7550e could be an equal to the APX8000 with some tuning or whatever will server no purpose, these two radios will never be equal, not even close. So when I see threads of APX guys bashing the XPR radios I simply steer clear, there is no point in denying a fact, except indicate someone might be jealous. Now, what I can tell you I'll do is that when I have enough cash burning holes in my pockets I'll get myself a whole fleet of these shiny APX8000 radios and join the Luxury Transceiver exclusive club with style, and probably dump the inferior XPR7550e...  until then, the order of things is APX8000 > XPR7550e
G.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/224684607008?epid=1800453427&hash=item34503f0620:g:VfgAAOSwdh9gAbBL

Wow I have gained a lot to think about. I'm going to see if I can get away with shortening my coax and spend a little more and get heliax 1/2". I'm now looking at the Laird FG-4603 antenna as gman1971 recommended since I mainly chosen the Tram 1486 from length and style.
Im not expecting fantastic results but a good start that can eventually lead me to where I was aiming for. I appreciate the kind words from everyone here, it's really got me excited to try and figure this out! I guess that's what it's all about

Height is king.
Noise floor seems to be less of a problem in UHF, even at <1 mile from a big 1400' angry RF firebreathing tower, the measured RSSI noise floor in the GMRS channels is always in the high -120dBm range.. that's pretty good.
The issue with UHF is the 10dB attenuation loss over VHF in long range distances, and the fact that anything it touches attenuates the signal like its going out of style... rain? boom, range goes to crap, snow? boom, range goes to crap, vegetation nearby? boom, there goes some more range... The only thing, like you've stated, that will will fix this is more height. And a good antenna setup.
G.

Height and noise floor will be everything IMO
If this is going in a private location and is not near any big RF "sites" it shouldn't be a problem for GM's/CDM's

"Not expensive" and "long range" in radio usually don't belong on the same sentence. If you want long range out of UHF, be prepared to sped time and money.
As for antenna, the Laird FG-4603 would be my next choice if you don't want a folded dipole array, which I would strongly recommend. There is a Harvest 2-bay dipole available on eBay that might be a good compromise.
Manage expectations: 20 miles from base to a portable, reliably, and out of UHF GMRS will require a decent location, a tall tower/mast and very good antenna (which doesn't develop high SWR after 3 months of being installed), a good feedline (probably look into heliax 1/2" at the very least if you really need a 100' run). And a very good radio/repeater with a receiver that will not get overwhelmed when mated to a good antenna placed that high. Most likely you'll need additional filtering if you use low end stuff.
G.

So first thing I would try to do is get your antenna cable alot shorter than 100' between antenna and repeater. Unless its going up a tower the closest is the best. Even LMR will have almost 3dblossi n 100'. That just took your 25 watt repeater to 12.5 and that no duplexer. You will have loss there also. 
The duplexer is a good unit. Get it tuned professionally and a home repeater should not have issues. Im not a fan of the antenna you picked but I prefer quality. the DB404 would be ideal but know folks dont like the look of it or the price. If you want a small fiberglass stick look at the Laird FG series in the other links on the page. You will find them a much better build than a put together antenna. 
Manage expectations. I know you want 20 miles. If you can talk that simplex then your repeater may play nice. The GM300 is a good little radio. Built many repeaters in my shop days out of the same parts you mentioned and many are still in service today. The GM is not a continuous duty radio so make sure you have a fan on it also. 
 

"Not expensive" and "long range" in radio usually don't belong on the same sentence. If you want long range out of UHF, be prepared to sped time and money.
As for antenna, the Laird FG-4603 would be my next choice if you don't want a folded dipole array, which I would strongly recommend. There is a Harvest 2-bay dipole available on eBay that might be a good compromise.
Manage expectations: 20 miles from base to a portable, reliably, and out of UHF GMRS will require a decent location, a tall tower/mast and very good antenna (which doesn't develop high SWR after 3 months of being installed), a good feedline (probably look into heliax 1/2" at the very least if you really need a 100' run). And a very good radio/repeater with a receiver that will not get overwhelmed when mated to a good antenna placed that high. Most likely you'll need additional filtering if you use low end stuff.
G.

Well, the money has to be spent somewhere, either going straight with a Quantar that just works, or go cheap and then have to buy additional infrastructure just to make them sort of work... but in the end its all a matter of $$$. 
I doubt the Quantar will ever have issues interfering other equipment due to missing Part95 certification. Most of these trash CCR repeaters, Retevis, etc, those even though they are Part 95, they are far more likely to cause interference with the rest of the tower equipment, or desense like cheap POS, or even catch on fire and bring the whole tower down... yep... 
You buy cheap, you buy twice.
G.

So does my 9.95 dollar BF-888s...

Yeah...whatever you Motorola Snobs are just angry my 200 dollar Retevis RT97 does the same thing.
 
 
 
::Heavy sarcasm::

Congrats!!, it sounds like you've reached the same conclusion I've reached as well. Motorola is not hype as they would have you believe, that is for sure.
Totally agree, experience wins a lot of contests, for sure.
@gortex2The only reason the "do it cheap crowd" gets away with their cheap stuff because guys like @JB007Ruleshave spent 5 figures on their repeater setup, so the overpriced pieces of garbage trash CCR radios have any hopes of working: Simple as that.
Well, I think depends on what 30 dollar radio you are talking about, but in general most cheap radios mated to a 1k antenna will desense really bad, so you'll end up with a deaf radio. You'll need to add several hundreds of dollars of filtering to the 30$ radio front end (or lack thereof) just to make it work.
I am certain the ISOtee on that Quantar is off-the-charts good... and all Kenwood radios I've ISOteed were not that great. Even the Vertex Standard radios were only marginally better, but there was a jump going from everything else to Motorola, even the 6550 receiver beats every Kenwood radio I've tested to date.
Tuning goes a very very long way (understatement here). as I've found that tuning the radios correctly can make the difference between 3 miles and 30 miles with ease!!
Given the cost of used Motorola gear, IMO, once your eyes are opened, there is no reason to ever go back to inferior equipment.
G.
EDIT: Forgot to say this (again), but there is a reason why the longest running, furthest reaching radios ever made by humanity are made by Motorola. Yes, the Voyager probes have Motorola radios...  been running non-stop since the 70s, and they are past the Heliosphere, or about 14.4 billion miles from Earth (as of 11/2021)... so, if you want range, think only Motorola (except the R7 turd... ) How far does your light shine?
 

Could be related to intermod in the TX. When some RF gets into your transmitter, the range drops like a rock...

Could be related to intermod in the TX. When some RF gets into your transmitter, the range drops like a rock...