Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1
    Good Citizen
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    114

    Default passport 8500 X50 vs 8500 nonX50

    Today, I sent my 8500 X50 in for repairs; on/off/volume switch was starting to get flaky, also was getting a few laser false alerts during the summer months. I bought it new in April 2005 and got the Escort ESP plan which added an additional 2 years of warranty to it.

    I'm using wife's 8500 nonX50 which I bought new in Sept 2001. It was sent in once for repairs in 2006 due to constant alarming after being turned on.

    Was wondering, other than POP in the X50, how much difference in performance between the two? Any test reports you can provide a link to where they compared both?

    thanks, karl

  2. #2
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,509

    Default

    Not much difference exccept for POP. We occasionally throw in an old non-X50 8500 for comparison purposes in a few our tests:

    http://www.guysoflidar.com

  3. #3
    Old Timer
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Cleveland/Shaker Heights, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    7,732

    Default

    The Professor ( as well as others ) -

    I understand that the original non-x50 8500s were essentially the x50s,. of the S7 platform, without POP feature, and that the x50 was simply an evolutionary product based, at first, on that very platform.

    However, I was also under the impression that the x50s also incorporated a bit more filtering to help cut-down on falses, as well as have (debatable) increases in sensitivity?

    http://www.radardetector.net/viewtop...hlight=non+x50

    Any truth to this?

    I advised a friend that the non-x50 8500 and the x50, while they should see similar overall performance in terms of detection capability (per the GOL 2006 data; both sets), that the latter should be less prone to falsing. Similarly, I advised this friend that an asking price of $150 for the non-x50 8500 was too high, and he should not pay that much for one on the secondary market.

    Did I make any mistakes? ops:

    Thanks!

  4. #4
    Lead Foot
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    469

    Default

    I thought the X50 had a new antenna design to increase KA band range. It says something to that effect on the Escort site anyway.

  5. #5
    Old Timer
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Cleveland/Shaker Heights, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    7,732

    Default

    The x50 did undergo a platform change, which was, of course, not available to the then-defunct 8500. I believe that this is what Escort's statement addressed, however, I am not certain that this is complete accurate, as the x50 did start-out on the same S7 platform as the 8500.

    I am also uncertain, though, whether the data provided either by testing or by end-user experiences ever proved conclusive in this respect - that the x50 was definitively "better" than the non. You'll see in the GOL data (as well as in the threads cited) that they were pretty much neck-and-neck, and it was always a give-and-take between being better in one and trading-off for another.

    Similarlyh, for as many threads that say positive, there are also others like this:

    http://www.radardetector.net/viewtop...hlight=non+x50

    :?:

  6. #6
    Power User
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    3,939

    Default

    Out of the 8500 X50's and 8500 non X50's I have used my non X50 did better on 35.5 freq Ka and the X50 did better on K band.

    One example is this test: http://www.guysoflidar.com/radar-det...ctor-test.html

  7. #7
    Old Timer
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Cleveland/Shaker Heights, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    7,732

    Default

    ^ Although true for that test, look at the January '06 test, where again, your own detectors were used.

    While what you cited regarding K-band holds, it seems that in this test, your x50 also surpasses your non-x50 in terms of overall Ka band performance (and specifically in terms of 35.5) by a not-insignificant margin.

    But yet, in the August '06 test, the results flip-flopped in the manner represented by the test your cited above, and is even more drastic of a difference when it came specifically to 33.5.

    This is why I thought that in terms of sensitivity, the two are very, very similar, and that the results are so close, regardless, that it becomes an impossible call.

    Again, I know that POP-detection versus SWS (actual text warning) availability was a difference between the two, as well as the fact that the latter x50s are on the modern M4 platform, but I also remember reading that the x50 had better filtering....it is this last issue that I'd like to confirm.

    Overall, I don't think that sensitivity was a clear-cut "win" or "lose" for either model, and that for an average user, through the average course of use, the differences in terms of sensitivity may not be all that important.

  8. #8
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TSi+WRX
    The Professor ( as well as others ) -

    I understand that the original non-x50 8500s were essentially the x50s,. of the S7 platform, without POP feature, and that the x50 was simply an evolutionary product based, at first, on that very platform.

    However, I was also under the impression that the x50s also incorporated a bit more filtering to help cut-down on falses, as well as have (debatable) increases in sensitivity?

    http://www.radardetector.net/viewtop...hlight=non+x50

    Any truth to this?

    I advised a friend that the non-x50 8500 and the x50, while they should see similar overall performance in terms of detection capability (per the GOL 2006 data; both sets), that the latter should be less prone to falsing. Similarly, I advised this friend that an asking price of $150 for the non-x50 8500 was too high, and he should not pay that much for one on the secondary market.

    Did I make any mistakes? ops:

    Thanks!
    I'm sure the X50's had different software. But any conclusions regarding additional filtering over the non-X50's would be subjective at best, unless tested in a lab. From what I have seen, the claims of additional sensitivity have not been substantiated.

  9. #9
    Old Timer
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Cleveland/Shaker Heights, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    7,732

    Default

    ^ That's a very reasonable and well-thought answer! Thankyee!


  10. #10
    Lead Foot
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    381

    Default Re: passport 8500 X50 vs 8500 nonX50

    My older Escort 8500 has better Ka range then my Escort 8500 X50.

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Passport 8500 X50, do I get it?
    By Cruisin'Spartan in forum Escort
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 08-05-2010, 12:10 PM
  2. passport 8500 x50 vs 8500 refurbished
    By that guy in forum Escort
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-05-2010, 01:50 PM
  3. finally got a 8500 nonX50
    By ActiveKAjam in forum Escort
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-05-2008, 09:32 PM
  4. 8500 nonx50 needing repairs again
    By karl56 in forum Escort
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-17-2008, 12:20 AM
  5. 8500 (nonx50) & 9500I
    By CJR238 in forum Escort
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-01-2008, 10:40 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •