gortex2

That would definitely not be type-accepted for either service.
If you dig into the website further it's an either/or ... there is a MURS version, an FRS version,  and a PMR446 version for Europe.  But you have to pick one.

I have to be honest... I own a repeater with no ID, but never had a site inspection. However, one of my friends has a repeater on every pair and none of them ID. He has had several inspections over the years at all of his locations and even without his systems ID'ing, his system were found compliant. One of the systems has been on the air for 17 years.
 
It may be anecdotal, but I'm pretty sure under the private and share use clauses, they don't have to ID in those conditions. 
 
Again, just my opinion and sharing second hand info... but there it is.
 
  
 
I actually really like this idea and generally agree... but my repeater system doesn't support automated ID, nor can one be added without some serious engineering on my part.  This is pretty common for an inexpensive repeater.
 
 

That’s exactly why people participate in forums, to discuss. Plus, everything learned here can be applied elsewhere.  Everyone has different priorities; we shouldn’t dismiss discussions based on coverage, but I understand the feeling that some discussions go on far longer than their sell by date.  I would love to find an Ignore Thread button so I could permanently disregard the “Radio Hatred” dumpster fire. To each their own.

I too think that we have little chance of getting the FCC to grant digital modulation schemes to GMRS. 
The one possibility where it COULD happen is if the FCC decides to make GMRS 12.5 Khz channel widths mandatory on all GMRS frequencies.
From my experience with this in the commercial realm, we will sell a 25 to 50% decrease in coverage area for a given repeater.  At that point the MAY allow DMR as an equivalency to the 12.5Khz analog move, but even then I don't hold out a lot of hope.  
I think it's gonna depend on if we continue to see the level of growth in license holders or not.  And it may not happen until the first go around of renewals in 10 years.  GMRS is currently growing in leaps and bounds.  But we saw that in the 90's with ham radio as well and now most ham repeaters are quiet.  Will we see that with GMRS as well, who knows.  I would like to say no.  But I would be lying if I said I see it hanging on with this growth rate for that length of time.
 

I know there are valid points from all but this is an awful lot of discussion about a repeater that may cover a mile.....

I have stock in Garmin, and own way too many devices, to include several Rino series GPS/radios. Good concept and at some point I will probably break down and get one of these.
I used to use a Motorola MW800 mobile data terminal with Maxtrac data radio, GPS, and Streetview USA. It was a very cobbled together mess that weighed about twenty pounds, another twenty with the MobileView camera and VHS recorder, but did well for showing my off road adventures. All taken from police and fire vehicles. Now, Garmin bundles this together at a tenth of the cost, with streamlined capabilities, twenty years after the public safety version. 
Thank you OP for sharing.

DMR will only increase the channels if used in TDMA. Rarely that happens. And why should P25 or NXDN be pushed aside for DMR ? That's the issue. Only so many channels for repeaters. And why should an analog user who has had a repeater on the air for 20+ years be interfered with because someone bought a license and put up a DMR repeater in the same area. I know this can happen in Analog also. Still doesn't make it right. Linking should not be part of the digital standard. 
Again I get baffled by trying to make GMRS another ham band. Its one service that has some basic rules that anyone can spend the money on and get a license and use. As said earlier there are many places you can go use DMR, Fusion, P25, and NXDN outside of the GMRS service. 

Problem with P25, is you can only get very narrow equivalency if you go trunking (Phase II), where as DMR does it 100% of the time, and NXDN can run two separate repeaters side by side in the same bandwidth as a single P25 or DMR repeater.  

Personally as much as folks want digital I think its in FCC and evey one best interest to stay analog. There are only a handful of repeaters for GMRS and if we add in DMR, P25, NXDN then it will turn into the ham bands. If you really need digital get a ham license or another license and use that service.  

DMR will only increase the channels if used in TDMA. Rarely that happens. And why should P25 or NXDN be pushed aside for DMR ? That's the issue. Only so many channels for repeaters. And why should an analog user who has had a repeater on the air for 20+ years be interfered with because someone bought a license and put up a DMR repeater in the same area. I know this can happen in Analog also. Still doesn't make it right. Linking should not be part of the digital standard. 
Again I get baffled by trying to make GMRS another ham band. Its one service that has some basic rules that anyone can spend the money on and get a license and use. As said earlier there are many places you can go use DMR, Fusion, P25, and NXDN outside of the GMRS service. 

I wouldn't be concerned about FRS. It's a different service, and effectively unlicensed at that. If an FRS user wants to use digital voice, well let them pay for a license. It's another perk of getting licensed besides using higher power and access to repeater operation.
The repeater idea has merit. I believe that dual mode equipment is available, which will automatically switch between analog and digital modes. 
The negative aspect is too many non-technical GMRS users have trouble figuring out what offsets and tones are judging by the frequent posts on the forum asking for help. Now throw in color codes, slots, talk-groups and user ID's, well even some experienced radio buffs have a bit of a problem with those.

No the ghost antenna is about as effective as a dummy load. Think of it as your portable radio antenna crammed into a pepper shaker. They were designed for transit and public safety with TLMR systems in mind (many repeaters covering large areas) and are used in public safety alot. But those systems are designed for it. I run 2 Laird/MSI ghost antenna's on my work truck. One in UHF and one in 800. On a good day we can get about a mile Car-Car on UHF but that's on the highway. Get in the city and its less. 
For trail riding in a group its a good antenna as your talking to the guy in front or behind. If there is a good repeater in the area it works well. To be honest a 1/4 wave will out perform the ghost/transit antenna all day long and be just as durable as the ghost. I run the 1/4 wave on both my Jeeps and have yet to damage one or have issues talkign to folks on the trail. 

No the ghost antenna is about as effective as a dummy load. Think of it as your portable radio antenna crammed into a pepper shaker. They were designed for transit and public safety with TLMR systems in mind (many repeaters covering large areas) and are used in public safety alot. But those systems are designed for it. I run 2 Laird/MSI ghost antenna's on my work truck. One in UHF and one in 800. On a good day we can get about a mile Car-Car on UHF but that's on the highway. Get in the city and its less. 
For trail riding in a group its a good antenna as your talking to the guy in front or behind. If there is a good repeater in the area it works well. To be honest a 1/4 wave will out perform the ghost/transit antenna all day long and be just as durable as the ghost. I run the 1/4 wave on both my Jeeps and have yet to damage one or have issues talkign to folks on the trail. 

No the ghost antenna is about as effective as a dummy load. Think of it as your portable radio antenna crammed into a pepper shaker. They were designed for transit and public safety with TLMR systems in mind (many repeaters covering large areas) and are used in public safety alot. But those systems are designed for it. I run 2 Laird/MSI ghost antenna's on my work truck. One in UHF and one in 800. On a good day we can get about a mile Car-Car on UHF but that's on the highway. Get in the city and its less. 
For trail riding in a group its a good antenna as your talking to the guy in front or behind. If there is a good repeater in the area it works well. To be honest a 1/4 wave will out perform the ghost/transit antenna all day long and be just as durable as the ghost. I run the 1/4 wave on both my Jeeps and have yet to damage one or have issues talkign to folks on the trail. 

Couple questions:  Where are you when you hear these pages, and what radio(s) are you using?

I think there may be some misconceptions about UHF connectors (and M-type) vs N-type connectors when it comes to the bottom end of UHF.  You can buy garbage UHF connectors that won't work well, 100%, but that holds true for N-type, too. 
 
N-type connectors were created in the 40's, when there were no real standards for UHF connectors, not that there is much of a standard now.  The DOD needed consistent performance, so Bell Labs created a standard to be met and created N-type connectors.
 
If you buy a quality silver/teflon UHF connector manufactured by a company like Lands Precision or Larsen (about $8 per connector, $16 per set to make a cable) you will not see any difference in insertion loss or any performance degradation when compared to a comparable price and quality N-type connector in GMRS systems.  I personally have done tests using LMR400.  I made 2 patch cables that had UHF connectors and 2 patch cables that had N connectors.  I tested them with my analyzer between 440 MHz and 500 MHz and there was exactly zero difference between 3 of the 4 cables.  One of the cables with UHF connectors had an increase in insertion loss 0.01 dB... which I am assuming had something to do with me and the way I made the patch cable or possibly the section of cable itself introduced the difference and it had nothing to do with the connectors.
 
Bottom line, we are not running enough power, moving enough data, or have high enough duty cycle that would require an N-type connector.  Our only real benefit would be for outdoor connections and utilizing the native weatherproofing instead of having to add additional weatherproofing to a UHF connection.

Wow - what tangled answers to a simple question.
YES!  You can use the EVX-5400 for GMRS! It's a nice little radio.
The software does not require a wideband entitlement key like Motorola CPS. You just use the Export or "international" version of the Vertex software. If the radio was previously written with the Narrowband only software, you will need to "unlock" the radio with a special Vertex software module called the "Wideband Recovery Tool" version 1.03
If you're trying to recover newer Vertex radios like the EVX series - you're going to need Version 1.03 of the Wideband Recovery Tool.  That isn't easy to find online, and you also pretty much need to invest in the FIF-12 programming box/cable setup from Vertex to make that work with newer radios. The FIF-12 runs about $150 to $200 new.  I could unlock it for you for about $25 if it's a one time service. Any other Vertex or local LMR radio dealer could probably perform the service for you also at a similar price.
There are also 2 different versions of the EVX-5400 radios. Older models had a 8 character display, the newer versions had a 16 character display. The CE-151 export software should be used with the newer (and more common) 16 character displays for Wideband operation.

If this Repeater owner is like me.... I only turn it on as needed for my community and I do not list it on any directories.  Sorry but it for family in the field and neighbors who lose power and internet...
Hope this helps from the mind of a repeater owner.
I know Goodland as I have a few wells in the area.
 

Or we could go back to using Channel 20!

I vote FRS channel 8.  If I'm within the sound of your voice, you have earned my assistance hahaha

The baofengs are not good for scanning. Does it but not well. If you want a real scanner for a vehicle then there are many options from uniden and other scanner manufacturers. 

Just program both radios then have the shop re-tune the duplexer. 
The controller has dip switches for hang time and repeater enable. Here is the manual that has the dip switch stuff. No ID built in. We used an external COMM SPEC repeater panel on some so they could have MPL. This was not designed as a full blown repeater but really a small construction style unit to take from place to place. Basically to complete with the MSI GR300/500 series repeaters. 
https://www.icomamerica.com/en/downloads/DownloadDocument.aspx?Document=71
 

They're fun, inexpensive radios (well, my experience is with the UV5G, but practically the same). However, true scanners they are not. Even a 22 year old Radio Shack scanner will breeze through 22 GMRS frequencies in the time it takes a UV5G to get through five to seven. Modern ones are even faster.
 
One of the key elements to scanning is covering the scanned frequencies quickly enough that you don't miss a lot. Dedicated scanners are good at that. They also often allow for easily turning on or off scan banks, quickly.

FCC Line A also excludes people in Seattle, Detroit, Ann Arbor, Lansing, Michigan's Upper Peninsula, most of I80/90 through Ohio, Buffalo, Syracuse, Montpelier and 75% of Maine, from using GMRS channels 19 and 21.

The RT97 is ideal. Had one in my motorhome and would cover most camp grounds just fine with a decent antenna. The issue with the surecomm simplex repeaters is people understanding how they work and worse if they can hear both conversations. Save up and get the RT