Escort Passport 9500ci or Laser Interceptor

[CJR238]

Well i have decided to start researching for a new toy. i know the LI is awesome at jamming and the ci is awesome at detecting radar.
My problem is i can get the ci for cost and that will save me a few bucks in comparison to the LI. However the ci is sub par at jamming and the LI rocks at jamming but doesn’t detect radar.

Any thoughts? I also live/drive in CT & NY so the ci may do a good job jamming the laser used here, IDK.

[crazyVOLVOrob]

What type of car do you own? Would you mind also to purchase and use VEIL?

NY troopers only use LTI guns with Zr4 does well against. CT troops (not sure what else they use) have Truspeeds which the ZR4 supposidly JTGs haven't seen anything from LI on that yet.

Personally giving your current set-up I would just go with an LI as your detectors are fine the CI performance is great but the ramp-up sucks compared to the 9500i and for the price the 9500i has great detection

[TSi+WRX]

Originally Posted by crazyVOLVOrob

What type of car do you own? Would you mind also to purchase and use VEIL?

CJR has a late-model Acura TL.

And I would agree with cVr - are you, CJR, willing to use VEIL?

NY troopers only use LTI guns with Zr4 does well against. CT troops (not sure what else they use) have Truspeeds which the ZR4 supposidly JTGs haven't seen anything from LI on that yet.

^ I'm, personally, VERY unsatisfied with the "sneak peek" that Roy left us with, on the RD.net community, regarding the supposed performance of the ZR4, Blinder M25, and LI, against the TruSpeed.

Roy has, himself, later added several additional stipulations to his LI "origin" description - noting that it "was not from his arsenal," at first, to later admitting on the LI Forums, specifically, that the unit was likely a first-US-run unit, and that it was not his - which itself carries the possibility that the unit could have even been faulty, with the head waterlogged, as we've seen so many of the first-US-run units.

Now, without the help of other hobbyists, like ahmadr, we wouldn't even be able to view that specific Blog post (which also included said claim of the ZR4's stellar performance against the TruSpeed) by Roy, which had been deleted.

Furthermore, no independent hobbyist group, to-date, including the GOL, has been able to replicate the level of performance that Roy claimed of the ZR4, during its pre-release dates.

At this current time-point, unless Roy can produce definitive data to show that what he claimed of the ZR4, I simply cannot put any faith in that claim. Similarly, although I have seen early videos of the LI's 7.05 box revision against the TruSpeed, as a matter of logic, I also cannot insist on these videos being taken at face-value (although I have no reason not to trust their source). To be absolutely fair, I don't think that ANY of us can say ANYTHING, about the TruSpeed, at this junction.

I think that for us independent hobbyists/enthusiasts, we'll first see the TruSpeed at either the next CFL event or at the TX event hosted by RR.net, and that will be these jammers' first "trial-by-fire" of these units.

To me, I think that it is very well worth waiting for these tests' results, particularly if you. CJR, frequent areas where the TruSpeed is likely going to see heavy usage, such as in CT.

But exclusive of the TruSpeed, I do agree with cVr.

The ZR4 does well enough against the other threats *that you'll typically face*, CJR, WITH VEIL G4, that if such a combo is acceptable for you, you should be OK, particularly if you can get in some live runs against the LIDAR used in your area, in a true-objective, quantitative, testing scenario, to fully optimize your setup.

Personally giving your current set-up I would just go with an LI as your detectors are fine the CI performance is great but the ramp-up sucks compared to the 9500i and for the price the 9500i has great detection

^ +1.

And wait the couple more weeks, for the LI's 7.05 box (newest revision, TruSpeed enabled) to see some testing versus the TruSpeed, as well as for the data of the other jammers' capabilities against the TruSpeed (as well as all other threats) to be cross-verified via both the CFL and TX enthusiast groups.

[CJR238]

I would prefer not to use VEIL, but may try it, once I test the CI out. Thanks for the update as to what NY-CT use that helps allot. Its going to take a bit before I pull the trigger, so some more results will surface soon.

The price I can get the CI for will save me allot over the LI. Plus i might be able to get away with a single head LI running with the CI at a later date, im not going to need JTG but close is fine.

Thanks guys.

[TSi+WRX]

Originally Posted by CJR238

Plus i might be able to get away with a single head LI running with the CI at a later date, im not going to need JTG but close is fine.

^ That's a very interesting consideration......

I'm not completely sure that I'd go for a single-LI front, single-LI rear, setup, though....

I'm not a believer of "offset" jammer setups. Historically, they've done less-than-well, except on VERY small vehicles, with little or no hardpoints.

What I don't like is the idea that depending on the situation, you'll likely get inconsistent results. I'm of the strong belief that inconsistent protection is truly worse than no protection at all, as with the inconsistencies, you're almost left where you cannot predict what your setup will do, in any one situation versus another. That sense of false security could lead you into more trouble than if you just didn't have that false expectation, to begin with.

If you're budget-limited, I'd just mount both LI heads up-front, and hedge your bets on the fact that, for the time being, it is truly MUCH more likely that you'd see a frontal assault, rather than rear.

[KITT]

The LI is a phenomenal performing jammer however does anyone know the long term reliability of it?

[TSi+WRX]

^ Currently unknown.

My first-US-run heads, the ones - speaking in terms of that particular "shipment/batch" - that had so much problems with weathersealing?

They're still going strong, with no hint of issues, and they're nearing a year old.

A lot of this is truly simply up to luck, currently.

It seems that achieving true, long-term weathersealing is something that's, so far, eluded the ability of *any* jammer maker to accomplish.

[CJR238]

Originally Posted by TSi+WRX

I'm not a believer of "offset" jammer setups. Historically, they've done less-than-well, except on VERY small vehicles, with little or no hardpoints.

What I don't like is the idea that depending on the situation, you'll likely get inconsistent results. I'm of the strong belief that inconsistent protection is truly worse than no protection at all, as with the inconsistencies, you're almost left where you cannot predict what your setup will do, in any one situation versus another.

Very good point, inconsistency would certainly be a bad thing, I will re consider this option.
The thought was the ci would do ok at jamming and the single LI would compensate for the ones the ci doesn’t jam. Wishful thinking I guess.

[Governator]

Originally Posted by TSi+WRX

CJR has a late-model Acura TL.

And I would agree with cVr - are you, CJR, willing to use VEIL?



^ I'm, personally, VERY unsatisfied with the "sneak peek" that Roy left us with, on the RD.net community, regarding the supposed performance of the ZR4, Blinder M25, and LI, against the TruSpeed.

Roy has, himself, later added several additional stipulations to his LI "origin" description - noting that it "was not from his arsenal," at first, to later admitting on the LI Forums, specifically, that the unit was likely a first-US-run unit, and that it was not his - which itself carries the possibility that the unit could have even been faulty, with the head waterlogged, as we've seen so many of the first-US-run units.

Now, without the help of other hobbyists, like ahmadr, we wouldn't even be able to view that specific Blog post (which also included said claim of the ZR4's stellar performance against the TruSpeed) by Roy, which had been deleted.

Furthermore, no independent hobbyist group, to-date, including the GOL, has been able to replicate the level of performance that Roy claimed of the ZR4, during its pre-release dates.

At this current time-point, unless Roy can produce definitive data to show that what he claimed of the ZR4, I simply cannot put any faith in that claim. Similarly, although I have seen early videos of the LI's 7.05 box revision against the TruSpeed, as a matter of logic, I also cannot insist on these videos being taken at face-value (although I have no reason not to trust their source). To be absolutely fair, I don't think that ANY of us can say ANYTHING, about the TruSpeed, at this junction.

I think that for us independent hobbyists/enthusiasts, we'll first see the TruSpeed at either the next CFL event or at the TX event hosted by RR.net, and that will be these jammers' first "trial-by-fire" of these units.

To me, I think that it is very well worth waiting for these tests' results, particularly if you. CJR, frequent areas where the TruSpeed is likely going to see heavy usage, such as in CT.

But exclusive of the TruSpeed, I do agree with cVr.

The ZR4 does well enough against the other threats *that you'll typically face*, CJR, WITH VEIL G4, that if such a combo is acceptable for you, you should be OK, particularly if you can get in some live runs against the LIDAR used in your area, in a true-objective, quantitative, testing scenario, to fully optimize your setup.



^ +1.

And wait the couple more weeks, for the LI's 7.05 box (newest revision, TruSpeed enabled) to see some testing versus the TruSpeed, as well as for the data of the other jammers' capabilities against the TruSpeed (as well as all other threats) to be cross-verified via both the CFL and TX enthusiast groups.

FYI the 7.05's start shipping today

[TSi+WRX]

^ Yep.

And Cliff should have separate c-boxes ready for us soon, too.