passport 8500 X50 vs 8500 nonX50

[karl56]

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

[jimbonzzz]

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

[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!

[justin81]

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.

[TSi+WRX]

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

:?:

[stealthJamal]

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

[TSi+WRX]

^ 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.

[jimbonzzz]

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.

[TSi+WRX]

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

[leo68]

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