Help with mobile set up.

[WREB270]

Good Morning everyone. GROL holder, new GMRS license, looking I to getting my HAM as well.

 

Anyway down to business.

 

Trying to get a decent set up to talk to the house together.

 

Here are the details:

House:

Nagoya NMO-200c antenna with ground plane kit

50' RG8x cable

Baofeng UV-5R connected to a AMP-25 UHF amp(40 watt unit).

Antenna is on second floor currently.

37watts output SWR 1.2:1

 

Mobile:

Baofeng UV-50x2(50watt unit) connected to UT-72 mag mount on center of roof. Outputting 30.4 watts with SWR of 1.08:1. (VHF test only put out 22watts 1:1 swr, may be sending it back too)

 

I have had to cycle a few Btech products back as the wattage was way off from advertised. First AMP-25 only output 20watts in the same set up, all BF-8HPs only put out 6watts not 8 etc(says uv6-r in the box if you pay attention).

 

Anyway...

 

With the above set up between base and mobile stations we can only get transmissions around 1.5 miles, which is rather disappointing.

 

Any tips tricks etc would be welcome. Was thinking of ditching the mag mount for a nmo drill mount but don't think that's going to do much.

[WRAK968]

Well, For one, neither of those radios are part 95 or 90 accepted if I recall. The issue is they could transmit on wider bandwidth than allowed and off frequency which, if a complaint is sent in could land you in hot water.

Personally I use Kenwood radios, (880 mobiles, 380 portables) and a RKR1225 repeater. The repeater is mostly to extend portable coverage as I havn't gotten permission to build a small tower. Currently the antenna is about 15' off the ground and I can get a range to the north of about 2 miles at 25W. To the south, I get about 8-10 miles range at the same power level.

Im sure your a bit confused about why this is happening. I know I was. Turns out to the north there is a slight hill, only about 20 feet higher than my house. But once I go past the hill, the signal slowly weakens. To the south is the bay, then some trees. It all sits lower than my house so the signal gets out much further.

Not really knowing your area, things like hills and such can have an affect on your signal. You also mentioned the antenna being on the second floor. If the antenna is inside you are cutting your signal in half at best. You may also have a ground plane issue as well if the antenna isn't mounted on something metal. (Funny thing about ground planes, even when manufacturers state a ground plane isn't needed, I find they still work better when connected to one.)

So there's your homework, Get the antenna outside and above the house and study the terrain. If you have small hills, getting the antenna on the roof may resolve all of your problems. If the hills are slightly taller, you can consider attaching a small TV antenna support structure to raise your antenna a little bit. Anything over 10 feet over the roof line and you may want to think about an actual tower.

[WREB270]

Completely flat here we live in the Charleston SC area. It is wooded, no tall buildings(5 stories max). I will work on getting the antenna on the roofline or chimney line, I need to get some cable to ground it to the service ground for lighting protection. I have a ground plane kit with 4 21" radials under the antenna.

 

I didn't realize about the part 95/90 type acceptance. I'll have to relegate the unit I'm keeping to HAM use and look at the Kenwood 880's.

 

I am returning the mobile unit today, should leave a nice credit towards a Kenwood.

[WREB270]

With that said about the Kenwood 880's

 

Any feelings on the Midland MXT400's?

[WRAK968]

I dont know much about the MXT 400, I do know there are other reviews on the site, some good, some not so much. I can say the Kenwood 880 is a strong commercial and emergency service radio that was used for years. They were designed for abuse and can take it. I also found the kenwoods are a little less cost wise if you do your research correctly. I purchased all of the mobiles at about $40 per radio, one for each vehicle, one base camp radio, and 2 for a portable repeater project I am doing. The portables were about $55 each since I had to buy new batteries and antennas. Still less than the MXT400's price of $250.

 

Kenwood 880H (the 40 watt model) usually go for around 75-100, but even those you can get deals on.

The nice thing about the 880/380's is that there are extra features on them. One feature we use is the texting feature. I've programmed 14-15 status messages using fleetsync and we can use them to text one another or the entire group. Fleetsync also allowed for Radio ID, which allows me to see who's calling even if they don't talk on the radio.

One last thing, if I recall, the MXT does not allow you to store repeater information on the radio. You'll need to change the settings for each repeater you may use, or each time you change the channel. The Kenwood stores the frequencies into channels so you can have 5 different repeaters on one frequency using 5 different codes, and all you do is press up or down to change between them which is nice when your driving and cant watch the radio and the road at the same time. Im sure there are some pros to the MXT400 radio, but I couldnt tell ya any off the top of my head.

[RCM]

With that said about the Kenwood 880's

 

Any feelings on the Midland MXT400's?

Yep. A tenth of the radio (if even that), at easily 3 times the price of a nice TK880. 

[mire]

If I remember correctly, the Midlands don’t do split squelch tones, which might be a problem with some repeaters. The Front Range GMRS repeaters use split DCS tones, for example.

 

The reason the BaoFengs don’t have Part 90/95 cert. is because they’re programmable from the front face with a VFO mode. My UV-82C is illegal to use on GMRS, but my UV-82C - which is Part 90 cert. on account of the VFO mode being locked out when it’s shipped - is. B-Tech also has the Part 95 GMRS-V1 (also based on the UV-82), as well as the GMRS50-X1 Mobile.

 

I concur with the Kenwood… I have a TK-380 and TK-880, both bought for $50/each with a brand new battery for the 380 and the guy I bought them from hooked me up with a programming cable, microphone you could knock somebody out with, and everything I need to install a car antenna for the 880, plus the programming software (Chirp can’t program them). Always a good idea to have two handhelds… that dual watch feature on the BaoFengs is really more of a hassle than an asset.

[marcspaz]

Yep. A tenth of the radio (if even that), at easily 3 times the price of a nice TK880.

That seems a bit harsh. Why do you have that opinion? Serious question. Not trying to be argumentative.

 

As far as I can tell, the 880 has a few nice features over the MXT400 that have very little value (if any) in the GMRS world.

 

Don't get me wrong. It's hard to argue that the price is higher with the Midlands. Also, I have owned several Kenwood radios and they are nice radios, but I also currently own three MXT400's that have been running great for some time now.

 

If you have someone who is non-technical, would like a warranty and a plug-and-play setup with a compliant radio, I would say the MXT400's are the best option. Not 1/10th the value.

 

Just my opinion.

[berkinet]

It seems to me the key difference here (between The Midland and Kenwood products) is a case of consumer grade vs. professional grade.

For many users a consumer grade product is actually superior. While they may lack some features, they tend to be easy to use (largely because many features and options have been locked out or removed). On the other hand, professional grade products tend to be more reliable and have fewer operational problems... once they are set up.

 

Setting aside the issues of split PL and lack of wide-band support on the Midland radios, which may not affect most users anyway, it really comes down to a question of how much radio you need vs. how much time and money you are willing to invest.

 

Personally, I prefer Motorola equipment. But, if someone finds Kenwood products difficult to set up and maintain, Motorola is beyond their reach.

[PRadio]

The small size of the Midland radios may be a selling point for many as well. I have very little space in my car, and would love the Midland, but I need the split tone currently. 

[RCM]

That seems a bit harsh. Why do you have that opinion? Serious question. Not trying to be argumentative.

 

As far as I can tell, the 880 has a few nice features over the MXT400 that have very little value (if any) in the GMRS world.

 

Don't get me wrong. It's hard to argue that the price is higher with the Midlands. Also, I have owned several Kenwood radios and they are nice radios, but I also currently own three MXT400's that have been running great for some time now.

 

If you have someone who is non-technical, would like a warranty and a plug-and-play setup with a compliant radio, I would say the MXT400's are the best option. Not 1/10th the value.

 

Just my opinion.

The fact that the MXT400 is narrowband only would put it out of the running for me even if everything else were the same. Even if that were not the case and there was no price difference, the TK880 is so much better than the MXT400 that it really defies comparison. To begin with, the MXT400 has 23 channels according to the advertising I have seen. So what do you do if your travels take you within range of three different 462.600 repeaters?

 

With the TK-880 you could program all of the simplex frequencies all with one PL tone (or a different one for each) and set up the monitor button to bypass the tone when desired. Then program the 8 repeater pairs 29 times, each with a different access tone. Bypass those tones as needed too, and set up one of the buttons as talkaround to get simplex on those frequencies.

 

Basically you can set it up to work with every single repeater you would ever encounter, and have it scan all of them continuously. And that's just one feature it has over the Midland.

Oh and BTW, each of those channels can be set up as wide or narrow, so if one of the repeaters you run across is narrowband (never seen one, but it's possible) you can optimize it for that too.

 

There's much more, but those features make it geometrically better than the Midland in my opinion.

[marcspaz]

@RCM... lots of good info and points. I appreciate the insight.

[Jones]

Back to the original post:

"50' RG8x cable"

 

That is the first thing to lose for better results.  50' of RG8x has over 4dB of loss at 465MHz. Replace it with LMR-400, and you will reduce loss to around 1dB. That extra 3dB hitting the antenna will literally DOUBLE your transmit power at the antenna. Receive sensitivity will increase dramatically as well.

 

RG8x is just not the right cable to use at UHF frequencies, unless you are running it less than 10'.

 

RG8x was originally designed as a thinner alternative to RG8u for running under carpet in HF or CB mobile installations that required less loss, or higher power handling, than RG58u, the typical mobile cable. RG58u and RG8x were never intended to be used in 50 foot runs, or on base stations, in the first place.