• Home
• Product Reviews
• Blog
• Our Services
• About Us
• Contact Us

19 Jan 2016 NOTE: I recently received a Nagoya UT-106 antenna, and it appears to be a legitimate version. Testing is in progress.
Now to the test results below.

Table of Contents

1. Signal Strength results
• Tram 1185 signal strengths
• UT72 signal strengths
• UT106 signal strength testing


2. SWR Tables

A. Dual band SWR meter results

• TM-261 w/ 1/4wave
• FT-2900R w/ Jpole
• UV-82HP w/ Tram 1185
• UV-82HP w/ UT-72

B. MFJ-259 SWR results

• 2m 1/4wave
• Copper pipe Jpole
• Tram 1185
• UT-72
3. Conclusion and overview
4. Links to each antenna on amazon

Mobile/Other Antennas

On this page I break away from the HT antennas and will start posting information specifically about mobile or other antennas. For now I have the Tram 1185 magnet mount, recently got a Nagoya UT-72 courtesy of BaofengTech, as well as a few others. As I do more testing, more antennas may appear here so check back on occasion please.

Signal strength readings

Tram 1185

I was asked to see if the Tram 1185 actually has that much gain over the stock and upgraded HT antennas. I did the testing one morning before I went to work, so here are the results. I only tested the higher power settings since that will be the primary power levels used with a mobile antenna in a vehicle. This test was done with each radio connected to the Tram 1185 antenna (via stubby SMA to SO-239 adapter), and the frequency counter was connected to a 2m 19.5" ground plane antenna, 10 feet away from the Tram 1185.
This antenna can be purchased here: Amazon.com Tram 1185.

Radio	Pwr	144.1	146.0	147.9	AVG	420.1	435.0	449.9	AVG
UV-5R (BFS313)	4W	+2.0	+3.5	+3.5	+3.0	-5.5	-3.0	-4.0	-4.2
BF-F8HP	4W	+6.5	+6.0	+3.5	+5.3	-24.5	-6.5	-10.0	-13.7
BF-F8HP	8W	+8.0	+6.5	+4.0	+6.2	-23.5	-6.0	-9.0	-12.8
UV-82HP	5W	+3.5	+3.5	+3.5	+3.5	-21.0	-4.5	-5.0	-10.2
UV-82HP	8W	+6.5	+6.0	+4.5	+5.7	-18.0	-3.5	-3.5	-8.3
OBLTR-8R	5W	+3.5	+3.0	+3.0	+3.2	-19.0	-7.0	-4.5	-10.2

back to top

With this test, it takes the individual antennas out of the equation and shows how even similar radios can have varying power output. The big surprise here is the power stability by the older UV-5R radio in UHF frequencies. I tested the same setup with my other UV-5R with N5R-20 firmware, and the numbers were within 1.5dBm, so this must be a quirk with the 5R series, or there is something else I am not seeing. NOTE: After some thought, one major difference with the UV-5R radios is I was using a counterpoise on them, but not the other 3 radios, so it seems that makes a big difference, as I found during my testing. I posted to the results to a separate blog post found here.
For the 8W radios, the F8HP seems to do a little better in VHF, and the 82HP does slightly better in UHF. This also shows that connecting the cheap Baofeng radios to an external antenna like the Tram 1185 does equal out the performance when compared to other radios at the same power levels. At VHF frequencies, all 4 radios had very close numbers at the same 4-5W power levels, with the winner being the F8HP at +5.3dBm, and the other 3 coming in at +3.0 to +3.5dBm. The two 8W radios at the 8W power levels were too close to call a definite winner with only 0.5dBm difference in VHF, although the 82HP did much better (4.5dBm higher) in the UHF frequencies.
So with that said, connecting even a cheap Baofeng radio to an external antenna (whether it is a Tram 1185 on the vehicle, or an external antenna on the house), should have close to the same signal output as radios 2,4, and even 10 times the price, at the same 4-5W power level. This is just physics at play, so you would need to look at it whether you need the extra features available with the more expensive handhelds or not. This follows along with what most hams have been saying for decades now, a better antenna can get even the most basic radios on the air (or sometimes explained as "if you have $500, spend $495 on the antenna"). As we see here, leveling the playing field by using an external antenna means it doesn't matter if you have a $25 UV-5R, a $60 HP, a $89 OBLTR-8R, or a $400 Yaesu, the analog signal should get out the same (I say analog since the other models like OBLTR-8R and Yaesu tend to have a lot more options).

Nagoya UT-72

Here is where I will be posting the results of my testing with the Nagoya UT-72 that I received courtesy of BaofengTech. This is a brand new antenna specifically made and sold as part of a partnership between Nagoya and BaofengTech. This test was done with each radio connected to the Tram 1185 antenna (via included SMA to SO-239 pigtail adapter), and the frequency counter was connected to a 2m 19.5" ground plane antenna, 10 feet away from the UT-72. I also have the SWR testing done, and you can scroll toward the bottom to see those numbers.
Side note: I did not alter or change my testing procedures or results to show any favor or benefit. My testing remains unbiased and my opinions based on the results only are shown after the table. I am grateful that BaofengTech is willing to send out review samples, although it is sad that so few companies are willing to do this without expecting some kind of bias or expect payment for the equipment whenever they get less than favorable reviews.
This antenna can be purchased here: Amazon.com UT-72.

Radio	Pwr	144.1	146.0	147.9	AVG	420.1	435.0	449.9	AVG
UV-5R (BFS313)	4W	-1.0	+1.5	+3.0	+1.2	-3.5	+2.0	+3.5	+0.7
BF-F8HP	4W	+3.0	+3.5	+3.0	+3.2	-4.0	+1.5	+3.0	+0.2
BF-F8HP	8W	+3.5	+3.5	+4.0	+3.7	-3.5	+2.5	+3.5	+0.8
UV-82HP	5W	+2.5	+3.5	+3.5	+3.2	-7.5	+0.5	+1.5	-1.8
UV-82HP	8W	+3.0	+3.5	+4.0	+3.5	-7.0	+1.5	+3.0	-0.8
OBLTR-8R	5W	+3.0	+3.5	+3.5	+3.3	-7.0	+2.5	+3.0	-0.5

Looking at a direct comparison between the UT-72 and the Tram 1185, one thing becomes obvious: the UT-72 is slightly worse on VHF, and quite a bit better on UHF. Both models are built slightly different such as the Tram 1185 with the center coil which is supposed to allow for a more stable signal among both bands. Instead what we see is a stronger signal on 2m and a weaker one on 70cm with the Tram 1185. As the UT-72 has the base coil, this means slightly more "give" when used at highway speeds.
One bonus with the UT-72 is that it includes the SO-239 to SMA pigtail adapter, so that is what I used with my testing, versus the Tram 1185 does not come with an adapter, so I had to use another adapter I have which is a simple stubby SO-239 to SMA. Both antennas terminate with the PL-259 at the end of the coax, so this is where the adapters are needed, to be used with these handhelds. Otherwise for a mobile unit, no adapter will be needed. The coax length on the UT72 is approximately 1 foot shorter, so for larger vehicles, this may mean you need to adjust where you place it, but for medium to smaller vehicles it should be sufficient length.
As one S unit on most radios is 6dB, this means there is less than half of one S unit difference between the two antennas on VHF, but at UHF frequencies, the UT-72 has 1 to 2 full S units over the Tram 1185. For others receiving at a distance, this could mean the difference between breaking the squelch or not. Of course on the other hand, as 2m VHF tends to be more widely used, this essentially is a wash between them.
I have had the Tram 1185 for over a year now and have had the chance to use it at interstate speeds several times. One of my biggest annoyances with it is over 50 mph, there is a whistle that comes from it. My ears tend to be more sensitive to higher pitched tones so after a while it becomes annoying for me. To date I have taken 2 different trips on the interstate with the UT-72 and neither time did I hear any whistle from it. One thing worth noting is this may be the airflow over my 2004 Durango hitting the center coil of the Tram just right to cause this sound. When I spoke with others on Facebook, none of them had noticed this whistle (or they did not pay enough attention to hear or listen for it).
The signal reports I got from others with the same VHF repeaters and same stretches of the interstate came back equal between the two, no signal or audio strength differences noticed by them. I have not had enough chances to do similar requests via UHF repeaters as they tend to be used less in my area.

For an alternate review of this same antenna, please check out the miklor.com UT72 Review.

back to top

Nagoya UT-106

I have done the testing with the UT-106 that I received from ebay for $3.65 (free shipping, from China). The same antenna can be found on Amazon as well for $5 to $20, depending on the seller. In my case, I ordered it Dec. 16 and it arrived here (from China) on Jan. 19.
Nagoya UT-106 details
Height 16.5" (42cm) their documentation says 15.25" (39cm) which is whip length without the base.
Base to bottom of coil 1: 6.5"
Base to bottom of coil 2: 8"
Base/magnet width 1.25" (by comparison: UT-72 3.25", Tram 1185 3.5")
Coax length: 9.85ft (300 cm)

Radio	Pwr	144.1	146.0	147.9	AVG	420.1	435.0	449.9	AVG
UV-5R (BFS313)	4W	+1.5	+3.0	+1.5	+2.0	-1.5	-8.0	+6.0	-5.2
BF-F8HP	4W	+2.0	+3.0	+1.5	+2.2	-1.0	-6.5	-3.5	-3.7
BF-F8HP	8W	+2.0	+3.0	+2.0	+2.3	-3.5	-5.5	-1.5	-3.5
UV-82HP	5W	+0.5	+3.0	+1.0	+1.5	-5.5	-9.0	-3.0	-5.8
UV-82HP	8W	+1.5	+3.0	+2.5	+2.3	-3.5	-5.0	-1.5	-3.3
OBLTR-8R	5W	+1.0	+1.5	+1.5	+1.3	-4.0	-4.0	-3.5	-3.8

The UT-106 is an older model that is no longer being made since Nagoya has updated their line, and I believe the UT-108 is the newer variation. Although I suspect with the release of the UT-72, the 108 is also discontinued. The one I received seemed to be in the official packaging from several years ago and as the numbers were not too bad, this helps advance my belief that this is a legitimate product.
Looking at the comparison with this antenna versus the Tram 1185 and UT-72, there are some very obvious differences. The most obvious deduction is that the 106 is worse all around than both of the other antennas. It claims to be dual band (and in some cases tri band 144/440/900MHz), but the coils seem to be setup where it has weaker signal strengths in at least 2m and 70cm within 2-7 degrees of horizon (the "sweet spot").
Another point I found out by accident is when I was double checking the calibration of the meter and accidentally hit the transmit from a radio, it showed a VERY different signal strength versus all the testing that had been done. What I found was this antenna has a much higher angle of radiation above the horizon. Seeing this I decided to test it a little more. In VHF @ 146.0 MHz (still 10 feet, plus or minus a few inches away), at approximately 10 degrees above "horizon" from the center of the antenna, I was seeing readings of +11.0dBm. In UHF @ 435.0 MHz, I was seeing +1.0dBm (compared to the -4.0 to -8.0dBm I was normally seeing). What this tells me is the antenna is not tuned properly which results in an unusual transmission pattern coming from the antenna, sending the signals at higher angles from the antenna, which is bad... Unless you live in an area where the repeaters are on top of tall hills/mountains or bigger city buildings, that are around 10-15 degrees above horizon (instead of the usual repeater towers at a distance that are 1-7 degrees above horizon). When I tested the same thing with the Tram 1185 and the UT-72, the signal patterns were much stronger within 2-7 degrees of horizon (which is what you want), versus the UT106 was stronger at 10-15 degrees above horizon (which is what you do not want).
So with that said, this is an antenna I would strongly suggest avoiding except possibly as an emergency backup if your regular mobile antenna gets broken. The ONLY time I would recommend it is maybe in a larger city where your antennas get bent, broken or stolen/vandalized, and the repeaters within 20 miles are on top of taller buildings. At under $4 each, you could buy 10 of them and simply keep a few in the trunk. The tiny magnetic base would make it fine for around town but I would not trust it at highway speeds, even with the much thinner gauge wire of the whip. Where the Tram 1185 is 0.1" (2.55mm) thick, the UT106 is only 0.006" (1.5mm) thick. The UT-72 is 0.08" (2mm) thick.

Just for fun I hooked up my Baofeng UV-82X (144/220 variation) to the antenna to see if I could get any reading. When I transmitted, the frequency counter only read a second resonance point. For example when transmitting at 223.000, the frequency counter showed a very weak signal (-23.0dB) at 446.000. Yet directly from radio with stock antenna, it does read on the proper 223.000 frequency. This shows the UT106 antenna will not work with a 220 radio, which was expected, but I was interested to see if it would work or not since it seems the resonance and setup is pretty poor for 2m and 70cm.

back to top

SWR Tables

Here I will be posting some SWR testing that I have done, including the Baofeng antennas listed above but also listing some others, primarily for the purpose of my own personal reference, but I hope someone else may be able to use this info as a "see how well it works" type of moment. The first batch are with a dual band (2m/70cm) SWR meter, further down are tests run with the MFJ-259 analyzer in the 2m band only.

Dual band SWR meter tests

Below are tests I did with various 2m antennas I have at my QTH (house). I did only tests them on 2m for now (since that is what the radios attached to the antennas are), but will be adding UHF testing in the near future with these same antennas likely using a 8W Baofeng.

TM-261, 2m 1/4w, 25ft RG-58U

Freq	Radio Pwr	SWR	Pwr @ Meter
144.100	50	1.2:1	50
	10	1.2:1	50
	5	1.2:1	25
146.000	50	1.2:1	50
	10	1.2:1	50
	5	1.2:1	25
147.950	50	1.2:1	50
	10	1.2:1	50
	5	1.2:1	25

What I learned here is for some reason my radio only has 2 power levels, 50 and 25W, instead of the factory 50, 10 and 5W. Since I got this unit second or third or tenth hand, it is possible someone had messed with internal things at some point. Either way it is rarely used, so I am not overly concerned with the output power ratings.

back to top

Yaesu FT-2900R, copper pipe Jpole (40ft high), 50ft RG-2213 coax

Freq	Radio Pwr	SWR	Pwr @ Meter
144.100	75	4.8:1	150+
	30	4.6:1	60
	10	4.5:1	16
	5	4.0:1	7
146.000	75	1.2:1	150+
	30	1.5:1	60
	10	1.5:1	16
	5	1.4:1	7
147.950	75	1.8:1	150+
	30	1.8:1	50
	10	1.8:1	15
	5	1.8:1	6

Looking over this info, this copper Jpole seems to be best at a narrow band range, which the below table also shows when I hook up to an MFJ-259.

back to top

UV-82HP to Tram 1185 - VHF and UHF

Measured on top of my 2004 Dodge Durango, top center of the roof for a realistic reading.
Note: I noticed some odd SWR readings at different points in the UHF range, so I re-ran the tests multiple times and posted a wider than usual UHF range here. I am not sure if this is just a characteristic of this radio or some other unforeseen anomaly but I am posting the numbers here anyways.

Freq	SWR
VHF
144.100	1.1:1
146.000	1.1:1
147.900	1.1:1
MURS Ch5 1W WB	1.5:1
MURS Ch1 1W NB	1.3:1
UHF
420.100	7.5:1
425.000	6:1
430.000	1.65:1
435.000	1.2:1
445.000	1.5:1
449.900	1.15:1

As we see here it is setup for primarily VHF, with the coil in the middle that is supposed to allow for better and stronger UHF signals. Does it work? Have a look below at the numbers for the Nagoya UT-72 antenna, and a break down of this info below that table. There is also testing shown further down the page where these antennas were also tested with a MFJ-259 analyzer.

back to top

UV-82HP to UT-72 - VHF and UHF

Measured on top of my 2004 Dodge Durango, top center of the roof for a realistic reading.
Note: Like before with the Tram 1185, I ran the tests multiple times and posted a wider than usual UHF range here.

Freq	SWR
VHF
144.100	1.25:1
146.000	1.2:1
147.900	1.2:1
MURS Ch5 1W WB	1:1
MURS Ch1 1W NB	1.1:1
UHF
420.100	6:1
425.000	3:1
430.000	1.5:1
435.000	1:1
440.000	1.05:1
445.000	1.1:1
449.900	1:1

As we see here, it has a very low SWR across most of the UHF range with a minor impact to the VHF readings. The 1.1 to 1.2 comparison of the Tram versus the Nagoya shows there is very little difference between the two in the VHF range, but the Nagoya posted better numbers acorss the entire 70cm range. I suspect it may be a characteristic of these Baofeng "HP" radios to have reduced output at the low end of the 70cm band as each of them displayed signs of problems below 430MHz. With both antennas, 430MHz would be the lower range of suggested use with these specific radios. It is possible that higher end models from the Big 3 may have more stable power output across both bands, but aside from the Anytone OBLTR-8R, I do not have use of a Yaesu, Icom or Kenwood handheld at this time.
With that said, at this point in time I do believe the Nagoya UT-72 would be my recommendation over the well trusted Tram 1185. They are both great magnet mount antennas but the Tram seems to be primarily tuned for 2m and show unstable SWR numbers in the UHF band, versus the Nagoya has been designed to have a very good balance between both bands without losing much from either. The added bonus is the UT-72 also includes a pigtail adapter (SMA-F to SO-239) to easily connect your handheld (with SMA connection) to theirs or any antenna with a PL259 end. Other antennas you would have to buy it separately.

back to top

MFJ-259 tests

2m 1/4w, 25ft RG-58U

Freq	SWR
144.100	1.1:1
145.000	1:1 (yes perfect match)
146.000	1.2:1
147.000	1.4:1
148.000	1.9:1

This means the antenna is likely a bit long and needs to be trimmed. Hopefully will get to that this weekend since most of the local repeaters are in the 146 and 147MHz frequency range.

Copper pipe Jpole, 40 ft high, 50ft RG-213

Freq	SWR
144.100	4:1
145.000	2.5:1
146.000	1.4:1
147.000	1.7:1
148.000	1.75:1

This matches up very closely with what I found on the other SWR meter, with the lowest SWR in the middle of the band, which I prefer. Since the low end, like 144.200 is typically long distance sideband use, and this is for local repeaters, having a 1.3 to 1.7 SWR in the local repeater frequency ranges is much preferred over a mediocre SWR across the entire band.

back to top

Tram 1185 on top center of SUV

Below are the results where I ran the test with my (lightly used 1 year old) Tram 1185 at the top center of my 2004 Durango roof, where it typically sits when in use in the real world.

Freq	SWR	Ohms
144.000	1.1:1	25
145.000	1.2:1	27
146.000	1.3:1	26
147.000	1.5:1	25
148.000	1.6:1	22
Below 3:1 SWR:	132-154MHz

I don't know if they have a lower SWR when new or not, but even after a full use of use in the rain, highway speeds and so on, it still has good SWR in the entire band. I double checked and loosened the adjustment screw, and the antenna was already as far down as it could go. I could probably get a touch better SWR in the upper end of the 2m band if I trimmed off 1/8 of an inch, but I am still happy with it as is for now. Something else worth noting is a different SWR meter as shown higher up on this same page showed a 1.1:1 across the entire 2m band, so that is a bit of a discrepancy, not sure if the MFJ-259 meter (which is an old version) is going bad or there is something else at play here.

back to top

UT-72 on top center of SUV

Below are the results where I ran the test with my Nagoya UT-72 at the top center of my 2004 Durango roof, where it typically sits when in use in the real world.

Freq	SWR	Ohms
144.100	1.2:1	25
145.000	1.2:1	26
146.000	1.1:1	28
147.000	1.1:1	29
148.000	1.1:1	26

This antenna has kept a very low SWR reading across the entire 2m band, and even the more favorable 30 ohm range in the typical repeater area of the band at of 147MHz.

back to top

Conclusion

As you're looking through the numbers, one thing seems to be a little off: How can it get 1:1 with one method and 1.5:1 with another on the same frequencies? This has so many possible explanations, but I will cover at least a small part of it here. The antenna analyzers send out a very low power signal (usually around 0.1W or less), which is just enough to get a feedback and SWR reading, but not enough to really be heard more than 10-15 feet away. You could have another radio or handheld tuned to the same frequency very close by (5-10 feet/2-3 meters)and hear the faint tone put out by the MFJ-259 analyzers. Then there is another factor to put into this, some antennas act just a little differently anytime more power is sent through them. This is why the tables further up the page show various SWR readings on the Jpole at different power levels from the FT-2900R, but same frequency, it varied at the center of the band from 1.2 to 1.5:1. Compare that to the simple ground plane that was a much steadier SWR reading across the entire 2m band, and you can see an obvious difference between those antennas. This doesn't mean the ground plane is better, because if you mount then both at the same location, the ground plane would be aproximately 3 feet lower (top to top) due to the length and design of the Jpole.
At the same time, pitting the Tram 1185 against the UT-72 is an apples to apples comparison because they are vying for the same market and may possibly be found side by side on the (ham radio) store shelves. So when making the comparisons, look at the results that make use of the same testing method. You cannot compare the Tram 1185 1.5:1 @ 147.0MHz with dual band SWR meter reading to the UT-72 1.1:1 @ 147.0MHz with MFJ-259 reading. You can directly compare the two antenna results with the MFJ-259 analyzer to each other. I provided both methods of testing so there would be a way to see if possibly one relies on low numbers with low power analyzers that may not relate to real world numbers. As you can see, what the analyzers displays, may not be an indication of real world use as we saw here. The SWR on the Tram when measured by the MFJ slowly climbed the higher up in the 2m band it got, yet with the real world transmitting, the SWR stayed stable with both antennas. Still, with the consistent numbers in UHF with the UT-72, it ekes out the Tram by a slim margin, thus why I would recommend the Nagoya over the Tram.

UT-72 Pros:

• Spring base should allow for less strain on the magnet, but it is still firm enough to keep the antenna upright for vertical transmitting
• Lower profile base means less windflow disturbance while driving
• No coil in the middle (my Tram whistles all the time when driving over 45 MPH due to that coil)
• Includes the SMA-F to SO-239 pigtail adapter, no need to purchase separately
• It is approximately 1 inch taller meaning a very slight increase in transmit and receive capability (UT-72 = 20.25 inches, versus Tram = 19.5 inches)
• It has a rubber cover over the magnet that wraps around the sides, so much less likely to scratch your vehicle, the Tram has some thin plastic cover over the magnet, those tend to break down quickly if used in the weather for too long

Neutral:

• The coax with the UT-72 is about 2 feet shorter than the Tram coax, this may be just enough to not reach where you need to with larger or full size vehicles, although the included 6 inch pigtail does help with this a little. For some with smaller vehicles this may be a plus as you will not have extra coax snaked all over the car or getting caught on something.
• I am unsure how long the black paint will hold up on the base spring with regular use on the road

Cons:

• There is a very small gap between the metal base top and the bottom of the sealed plastic base where the coax enters, I am unsure if this will affect signals at all during these heavy Florida rains

Links

Below I am displaying links to each antenna mentioned above for the purpose of allowing you to see them for yourself and make your own decision.

• Tram 1185
• Nagoya UT-72
• Nagoya UT-106
• Nagoya TB-320A

I appreciate you looking over this information, and if you have any questions or comments, feel free to join me in the Facebook Baofeng "BARN" group and let me know, or send me an email at km4fmk -at- afo -dot- net.
Thank you and 73!
Mike
K4ISR

back to top