mgaleano Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 Hello I notice that all new cars don't have the old fashion metal aerial. Either its built into the back window or a plastic one that you cannot adjust the length. My Getz has this. Which performs better? The new aerials length cannot be adjusted isn't this a bad thing for radio performance? Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkint3 Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 I have driven a couple of late model cars that have the aerial in the window frame and have found no issue with long distance FM radio reception (haven't tried them on AM). I drove a previous model Camry Atlise (2002 - 2006) in Canberra for a couple of days a few years ago and could receive reasonable commercial FM reception from Star FM Wagga Wagga and from Young, as well as Snow from Cooma and Eagle from Goulburn. In Newcastle, the BA Falcon Futura (2002 - 2005) and could receive better FM reception than my own VX Commodore (2000 - 2002) with its' adjustable telescopic antenna extended at full length. But having said that, the performance of the radio itself is the other factor, as all 3 models here have different model radios in them, so it's a bit difficult to be conclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtv Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 I've driven cars with both types of antennas and they seem to work fine. I haven't tried AM as I only listen to FM. Theoretically, AM wouldn't work as well as a conventional vertical antenna, as AM signals are vertically polarised. With FM, most signals are mixed, or circular polarised so either vertical or horizontal antennas should work ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgaleano Posted April 12, 2007 Author Share Posted April 12, 2007 The actually Radio itself does make a huge difference. I agree on this a lot from personal experience. Are the new style aerials meant to be better or they are just more fashionable ie just for the look of the car? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtv Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 Just an appearance thing mostly, but not having an external vertical antenna would be less wind resistance and less noise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkint3 Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 And it does make life easier for owners too, not having to replace broken aerials due to vandals or trees etc.. And some of the old bombs around the place have coathangers stuck in the antenna slot in the bonnet etc as a replacement for a broken aerial.. which I think looks pretty ugly. This problem will therefore be eliminated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
datvman Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 We have both a VY Commodore with an automatic telescopic antenna (raises only when the radio is on) and a BF Falcon with the antenna built into the rear window. I can say that the BF's radio reception is 10x better than the VY's. Can get Triple M in Coolangatta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt86 Posted April 14, 2007 Share Posted April 14, 2007 The actually Radio itself does make a huge difference. I agree on this a lot from personal experience. Agreed. I have also found the tuner itself seems to make more of a difference than that difference between the telescopic or window antenna. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts