XPR portable's range poor in analog mode

[RF_Burns]

What is everyone's experience with XPR portable radio's range in analog mode?

We are getting customer complaints that the range in analog mode is very poor compared to their other radios. They want to migrate to digital at some point, but can't change all units at once. But with the poor range, they don't want any more XPR's.

Just wondering if anyone else has the same experience.

thanks

[N4KVE]

I recently started using a XPR6550, & it seems to work in analog as well as my Jedi's, AS3's & XTS radios. While the radio doesn't feel as rugged in my hand as the other radios, I can listen to the AC4XQ repeater 65 miles away. GARY N4KVE

[RFguy]

We haven't seen any issues with range on the XPR radios. Check the antenna to make sure you have the correct antenna for the frequency you're operating in.

You may also want to do a side-by-side test of the old and new radios. We have seen similar complaints in the past that turn out to be unfounded. Some people remember that they "used" to be able to talk in a certain area, but that was years ago. Trees have grown, ambient RF noise has increased. They do a side by side test and prove to themselves that the new radio works just as well.

We saw it when people went from HT220's to HT600's. From HT600's to HT1000's, From HT1000's to HT1250's.

[Tom in D.C.]

As was implied above, it seems to me that an FM radio is an FM radio, period, subject of course to the deviation of the signal, the power level being the same from one unit to another, and comparable antennas being used.. Put the XPRs on a service monitor to find out if in fact there is anything different in their functioning, and then you can tell the customer that he's full of beans, or something slightly more polite. (G)

(I edited my first post on this to include a mention of the antenna comparison factor.)

[Dorf411]

We have received complaints from customers that were using the CP200 with their mobile extenders when they upgraded to the XPR portable they said they no longer had the same range as the CP portables. The XPR did have the stubby antenna which may have been part of the cause.

[escomm]

I have a customer using XPR6580 in type 2 mode and their feedback is that their Jedis (MTX8000, MTS2000) and MTX8250 perform better. I wasn't surprised to hear the Jedis were better, I was very surprised to hear the MTX8250s were better.

[wavetar]

I have a customer using XPR6580 in type 2 mode and their feedback is that their Jedis (MTX8000, MTS2000) and MTX8250 perform better. I wasn't surprised to hear the Jedis were better, I was very surprised to hear the MTX8250s were better.

We have had a few SMR customers say the XPR's don't work quite as well as the MTX850 units as well, although the systems in question have good coverage & they worked 'well enough', so we didn't follow up.

Just in the last few weeks we've had a customer switch out all their 800MHz GTX & LTS2000 portables for XPR6380's. They use them in analog as they kept their old GTX base stations, and they have always used simplex. This customer is well aware of their 'normal' range. The complaint of poor range with the new radios was heard within a couple of days. One of our techs went onsite and checked & aligned them to ensure they were putting out the rated 2.5 watts, most were closer to 2 watts out of the box. The complaints have continued. I haven't been asked to check into it yet, but I suspect the combo 800MHz/GPS antennas don't work as well as the 'standard' antennas do.

[RFguy]

Wavetar:

We don't run 800 MHz here, but brought in some 800 MHZ XPR6850's for evaluation in-building. We did some testing of the radios and found that the GPS whip antenna supplied with the radios (PMAF4003) was about 2 dB poorer on RX and on TX than a standard 800 MHz whip antenna (part# 8505241U03) from a Jedi.

We also tested the 8505241U03 whip against a 800 MHz stubby (part# NAF5084) and found the stubby to be about 4 dB down from the whip,

You may want to put on some non-GPS whips and retest.

[escomm]

Good timing that I am headed out to the desert to see my customer next week. They have been using the standard GPS antennas for the most part but have some of the older whips floating around. Certainly worth further investigation.

[AEC]

I find that 'combo' antennas are a compromise in efficiency, especially if the antenna is serving double duty to RX GPS signals.
You sacrifice antenna impedance and loading when you have co-mingled antenna systems in the same package.
There is always interference between the disparate antennas, especially when you are effectively transmitting into and through the gps antenna every time you key the radio, this will cause rf field distortions and shadowing effects and pattern warping.

I would remove the GPS antennas and replace them with standard whips, let them field test those first, but don't tell them that, or they will automatically agree they are better.
After a certain amount of time, check back in and ask how things are going with reception and range.

There has to be a given amount of coupling of the 800 signal into the GPS antenna to distort the effective range of that type of antenna.

We had a similar problem with the Larsen dual band loaded 1/4 wave whips used by P.C.S.O, the VHF section was horribly loaded while the UHF section worked as needed, but range on highband was terrible, and the return loss was painful to see on the analyzer...47dB! NOT a good return loss. UHF return loss was better than 70dB, making the UHF portion far more resonant than the highband.
I called these whips compromise antennas, NOT worth the $$ to buy...They were all replaced with 3dB gain whips as well as the standard NMO mounted 'chrome nut' variety Circle-M loves to push, but they work, just need to be replaced every year or two due to extreme sun...they get weak, leak and ruin the mounts...and yes it DOES rain heavily in AZ. during the 'monsoon' season, and that moisture sits and rots everything as nobody does PMs on a routine basis.

[RF_Burns]

I should have said this was in VHF. We tested the radio vs one of their HT1000's, Tx power and Rx sensitivity were the same, XPR maybe a tad better Rx.

I suspected the GPS combo antenna so I sent them off with a couple HT1000's antennas to try on the XPR's,(Motorola doesn't show a non-combo antenna for the XPR's). I called them this morning, but the crew using them had not reported their findings back to the office.

I'll post what I hear.

[TreyH]

Curious about how the HT antennas performed on the XPRs....

[wavetar]

Curious about how the HT antennas performed on the XPRs....

I can confirm, in 800MHz at least, the old HT antennas worked much better than the GPS combo antennas. The new XPR's worked better than the customer's old GTX/LCS radios once we switched the antennas. Before the switch, they significantly under performed.

[TreyH]

Thanks wavetar.... We're running VHF XPR6550s. Now that it's semi-official that GPS won't be allowed on the public safety VHF spectrum (DMR). I was thinking about ditching the combo GPS antennas for something that might perform better. We were a HT1000 shop so I have a lot of those antennas available. Anyone know if the HT1000 VHF antennas would perform any better than the GPS combo antennas on the XPRs?

[wavetar]

Anyone know if the HT1000 VHF antennas would perform any better than the GPS combo antennas on the XPRs?

I suspect they would, although you'll likely have to try it yourselves to be sure. If you do, please report back your findings!

Todd