heffneil -
Don't make the judgment of which jammer you need, based on pure-numbers reviews. Yes, that does matter, but to me, it should be a secondary concern.
Instead base your jammer need according to its performance versus, SPECIFICALLY, the type of enforcement you see in your area - both the hardware used as well as the typical engagement/encounter scenario.
The former is self-explanatory: even if a jammer that performed "less well, overall" on a set of tests, it can still be very well suited when used as selective protection against one specific type of LIDAR hardware. The prime example of this is the old ZR3, which
erickonphoenix still employs, to devastating effect (paired with VEIL), against his local enforcers, who favor the use, near-exclusively, of the PL-III.
Know your enemy, know what kind of hardware you're facing.
The latter - the engagement scenario - would include both what kind of traps you see (forward only? or both front and rear-engagements?) as well as at what distances the enforcers tend to initiate shots. If you live in an area where the enforcers only hits the front of the vehicle, and they like to start "painting" you at quarter-mile out, you very well could use just about any of the better jammers on-market today. However, if they like to engage at shorter distances and/or like to engage from the rear, your jammer choices become much more limited.
Additionally, all of these factors change "weight," based on your willingness to use passive countermeasures.
Yes, the ZR4's overall performance could be improved upon, but mounted properly (and yes, having it level-to-roadway and properly aimed is critical - see
MEM-TEK's write-up about this in the ZR4 sub-Forum, as well as witness results of the second CFL testing, both before and after leveling) and versus certain subsets of police LIDAR, particularly given favorable engagement circumstances, its real-world performance - especially if you were willing to add VEIL to the mix - could very well be all that you'd need to be "saved." Add to this mix the unique ability of the Escort system to truly and definitively alert you to forward versus rear engagement, it is a tactical advantage that, to-date, no other jammer has yet matched.
But make no mistake - if your area's engagement profile is unfavorable, it's time to step-up to something that offers more comprehensive coverage.
----
oztwix -
Looks like you got yourself mixed up in something?
I've been online since there was an online - and one common courtesy is to always read through the community's rules and regulations sections before posting.
That aside, like I've said in my first reply post to you, as well as what the others have said, "rear detection" for anything but the V1 (and here, we're speaking of the V1 solely in terms of its as-intended usage, in-vehicle stand-alone mounting; not shoved into a weatherproof box and stashed under-hood), relies on the RADAR signal "bouncing" back to the detector's forward-facing antenna.
I've been a Bel/Escort user for over a decade and a half (typically spending more than 4 years with each detector prior to upgrading) and indeed, as with you, I've come to understand the way in which my detectors would report such "rear approach" signals, and yes, they're very reliable, as such.
With the ci, its amazing raw sensitivity simply adds to the detector's ability to pick up on stray reflections, and that itself helps optimize "rear detection."
Still, the caveat remains - if your area of travel is devoid of items which facilitates such signal "bounce," you'll be at an disadvantage, when it comes to the rear approach.
Re: 9500ci's ability to detect rear radar? 
.
