i voted suburban..only cause it has the most roof...[largest groundplane] i bet if ya woulded added mini van in there it been really closer to the suburban.just a side note . my mini van install seemed to do a little better than my s10 pu install . same magnet mount on the roof same radio
-
You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.
Mobile Which mobile vehicle model here performs the best?
- Thread starter Marconi
- Start date
My 2c, In my experimenting the vehicle with the largest chassis produces a stronger field strength as measured with a remotely mounted spectrum analyzer. It is obvious why. Have confirmed this with duplicate RF chains (monoband Texas Bugcatchers and SGC Cube linear) on both 11 and 160m.
Unit 148 - G4ZOW
Unit 148 - G4ZOW
148, thanks for your reply. I understand your testing showed you that larger chassis vehicles tend to produce stronger field strength. I've heard this claim suggested often in CB chatter.
I could just take you word for it, but your explanation for how you tested is not so obvious to me. Can you help me to better understand, more simply, what you've described above?
What was the range for the field strength test vehicle vs. the remote spectrum analyzer in your test?
I understand the confirmation idea as being a good idea, but what does the rest of the sentence really mean, "Have confirmed this with duplicate RF chains (monoband Texas Bugcatchers and SGC Cube linear) on both 11 and 160m?"
Last edited:
Hi Marconi,
It was many years back but let me give you some background info.
Scroll down the images to the one titled Woburn 1997: https://www.qsl.net/g3tso/Top Band.html
You can see me far left (ham call G4ZOW) holding my mono-band 160m (1.8-2MHz) Texas Bugcatcher antenna (lower section as it's a centre loaded design antenna). I had a much smaller coil which I used on 11m but it was still a 12ft+ antenna in total.
In my testing a local park was used so that there would be no obstructions. We used a portable spectrum analyzer on a table several wavelengths away from the vehicles tuned to spot frequencies on each band, in this test, 160m & 11m (CB). So, measurements were carried out in the far-field. You can read about near field & far-field here (but you need a degree in high mathematics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field
Spectrum analyzer was used simple to measure any increase or decrease in voltage or field strength and not the purity of the signal.
Two vehicles were used in the testing, a regular compact family car (I think you call them) and a commercial VW LT truck roughly double the size of the car. For the testing the same antenna was used on both vehicles and in the same location (centre of the roof), Both vehicles used the same amp: The SGC Power Cube which ran around 500W pep output. We had the export models which covered up to 30Mhz and was opened up in the factory so covered 27Mhz as it did not have to comply with FCC reg's.
A Bird 4410 meter was used to set the transmitter power at 100W and also at 500W CW.
I found a good image on the Italian Gain-Master antenna site showing similar to what we were looking at on our spectrum analyzer all those years ago. In this image you see two antenna field strength, one stronger that the other. A spectrum analyzer used in a line of sight scenario takes no prisoners and there will always be a winner, and a loser. I do not like 2nd place
http://gain-master.it/vsconventional.php Scroll down to the image entitled Fair Field Signal Comparison.
Btw, this was of course a line of sight 'groundwave' test as scientific as a pair of regular hams could make it. Personally speaking you would see the same or similar results at a CB shootout or on CH6 it's just that rules go out the window there LOL.
The truck beat the compact with a very noticeable increase in field strength. I no longer have the written results as it was too long ago and I have move home, and country since. I'm now based in Cyprus, where the sun always shines in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Unit 148
It was many years back but let me give you some background info.
Scroll down the images to the one titled Woburn 1997: https://www.qsl.net/g3tso/Top Band.html
You can see me far left (ham call G4ZOW) holding my mono-band 160m (1.8-2MHz) Texas Bugcatcher antenna (lower section as it's a centre loaded design antenna). I had a much smaller coil which I used on 11m but it was still a 12ft+ antenna in total.
In my testing a local park was used so that there would be no obstructions. We used a portable spectrum analyzer on a table several wavelengths away from the vehicles tuned to spot frequencies on each band, in this test, 160m & 11m (CB). So, measurements were carried out in the far-field. You can read about near field & far-field here (but you need a degree in high mathematics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_fieldSpectrum analyzer was used simple to measure any increase or decrease in voltage or field strength and not the purity of the signal.
Two vehicles were used in the testing, a regular compact family car (I think you call them) and a commercial VW LT truck roughly double the size of the car. For the testing the same antenna was used on both vehicles and in the same location (centre of the roof), Both vehicles used the same amp: The SGC Power Cube which ran around 500W pep output. We had the export models which covered up to 30Mhz and was opened up in the factory so covered 27Mhz as it did not have to comply with FCC reg's.
A Bird 4410 meter was used to set the transmitter power at 100W and also at 500W CW.
I found a good image on the Italian Gain-Master antenna site showing similar to what we were looking at on our spectrum analyzer all those years ago. In this image you see two antenna field strength, one stronger that the other. A spectrum analyzer used in a line of sight scenario takes no prisoners and there will always be a winner, and a loser. I do not like 2nd place
http://gain-master.it/vsconventional.php Scroll down to the image entitled Fair Field Signal Comparison.
Btw, this was of course a line of sight 'groundwave' test as scientific as a pair of regular hams could make it. Personally speaking you would see the same or similar results at a CB shootout or on CH6 it's just that rules go out the window there LOL.
The truck beat the compact with a very noticeable increase in field strength. I no longer have the written results as it was too long ago and I have move home, and country since. I'm now based in Cyprus, where the sun always shines in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Unit 148
Last edited:
My upcoming (trial and error) experiment for my 2019 F-350 Crew Cab with a 6'-6" box will be as follows.
I found a new 4' Top-loaded Fiberglass Firestick antenna which has been stored for about five years and I'm waiting for the Breedlove Stake Pocket Mount and the coax connector (P/N 205) to arrive. The plan is to install / mount the antenna on the front passenger side stake pocket. I am estimating that only about 29" of the 48" antenna will be above the roof which is probably not a good idea, but I'll see what happens. I have a rubber bed mat in the bed of the truck and I'm wondering if that will affect the SWR, receive and transmit. More to follow.
Bond the bed, tailgate, cab, doors, hood, & exhaust.
Alan has some words on aluminum Fords
www.k0bg.com
Seven foot Skipshooter (natural), next.
(Don’t know what others are using, but REJEX paint sealant great on mobile antennas).
.
Alan has some words on aluminum Fords
www.k0bg.com
Seven foot Skipshooter (natural), next.
(Don’t know what others are using, but REJEX paint sealant great on mobile antennas).
.
Front stake pocket mounts are not the best due to proximity to the cab. You might have SWR problems and coverage issues as well. The rubber mat in the bed will be invisible to RF in the same way that the fiberglass covering an antenna is invisible or the same as an insulated wire is as good as a bare wire for an antenna.
Yeah, you are correct. I remember installing the (fancy) quality Breedlove stake mount and a 60" base coil antenna on one of my trucks a few years back. The SWR was on the high end but within the allowable tolerance. I ordered a 18" mast extension so as to get the coil above the roof line at that made a significant improvement but it looked terrible and weak.
The Breedlove parts are on their way and I may as well give it a try with the top loaded antenna. If it doesn't work out, I will attempt to remove the headliner and locate the cross supports and probably "bite the bullet' and use a knock-out body punch hole tool and install a roof mount antenna.
mount the firestick on the rear pocket stake by the tailgate away from the cab..may help?
4 Nov. Update. I installed the Breedlove Stake Pocket Mount w/ Quick Disconnect and the Wilson 4 ft. Top Load Fiberglass antenna on the front driver's side stake pocket. First SWR reading on Ch. 1 was 2.3 and 3+ (in the red zone) on Ch.40. Removed the end cap, peeled off the vinyl cover and un-coiled two-inches of the 18 gage wire and replaced the end cap and the SWR on CH 40 improved about 1/4". Step-by-step, I uncoiled another 2 inches and checked the SWR.
I continued this process at 2 inch increments until the SWR on Ch. 40 is at 1.3 and 1.2 on Ch.1. SWR on Ch. 20 is 1.2. Total amount of wire removed was 14 inches. Measuring from the top of the bedrail to the base of the antenna, the Breedlove mount with the quick disconnect piece adds about three-inches to the length of the antenna and I am assuming that is why I had to remove 14 inches of wire. The diameter of the coiled wire is about 3/8 inch. Now, some genus out there could probably calculate what the as-is true length of the antenna is. I did not remove / trim-down the fiberglass because I did not see any need to do so. There is approximately 1/2 inch of fiberglass exposed. Phase two tomorrow when I drive around to test-out transmit and receive.
On the particular antenna I have, the 18 gage wire is coiled on the outside of the fiberglass rod and the wire is covered / sealed with some type of clear coating or sealant and then a (appears to be) vinyl sleeve covers the entire antenna. I left the rubber bed mat in place and rolled-up he tonneau cover before I checked the SWR.
I drive a RAM 1500 Quad Cab with a HEMI & it is my choice.I have never considered anything about how a radio or antenna will work from any vehicle.I would not drive any other style of vehicle even if the vehicle was FREE.I hate cars & SUV's & it's why I drive what I drive.I have three antenna mounts on it & have room for several more if needed.I currently operate 2 meters,440 mhz,6 meters,& 10 meters FM as well as 11 meters AM & SSB.I have a 220 mhz mobile but it is not currently installed.My Quad Band Mobile has a separation kit so the control head is mounted to my dash & the main body is under my back seat out of the way & it is connected to a Quad Band Diamond antenna. The UNIDEN 980SSB is connected to a 102" stainless steel whip.Both of those antennas are mounted on the rear bed stakes next to the tailgate.I have Zero issues with communicating on any of the bands that I have.
SIX-SHOOTER
SIX-SHOOTER
I remember the CB days of 1965 -1966 when just about everyone had a 102" whip antenna permanently installed either on the side of the rear quarter panel, on the top of the rear quarter panel deck close to the trunk hinge, or on the rear bumper with a chain-link type bracket. Some of us had the standard steel springs and they rusted-out after the first winter exposure to salted roads. Stainless steel springs were probably two-dollars more than the standard spring. The guys with pick-up trucks mounted the 102" whip either on the cab behind the driver or passenger, or on the side of the quarter panels back near the rear bumper or on the side of the rear bumpers. Obviously the Rain Gutter, Trunk Lip and Mag-Mount antennas could not compete with the 102" whip antennas.
I had a 1970 Ford F-100 long bed and for a short time had two 102" co-phased steel whips on the "West Coast" style mirrors that were popular at the time. Of course I had to put an extra mirror to door support piece on each one.
- No one is chatting at the moment.