vB Easy Archive - V3i reception comared to v3

Pages: 1

V3i reception comared to v3
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: Wolfgang5150

Does anyone know if the v3i has better reception than the original v3? I have always had crappy reception at my house (compared to Verizon), and really don't want to switch carriers.
just doing as much research as possible reagrding RF before going through the hell of switching..............
Thanks in advance
KS (zip code 14127)

Posted by: jyalexop2003

The original V3s were better made than all subsequest V3s
(V3m, V3c, V3i, etc). The subsequent one were cheaper plastic, especially Verizons' versions and the black for Cingular.
The antanna on the original was the best and expensive since it was
gold-plated. At my office (where Cingular has weak coverage) my
1.5 year old original silver V3 gets better reception than
my colleagues V3i.
The original were more expensive due the housing materials and antenna..

Posted by: Wolfgang5150

Ugh - not what is hoping to hear.
Thanks.
KS

Posted by: thisisnotadrill

v3i has a metal casing.

howard had this to say about the v3i:

Quote:

The v3i's RF performance was awesome - it's about the same as my Sony Ericsson W600i and Z300i both of which are best I have ever tested.

and just to give you some heirarchy, here is what he said about the w600i

Quote:

RF performance was awesome, it's noticeably better than my Nokia 6682 and about the same as the Sony Ericsson Z520a.

I did use both a z520a and v3i and in the dead spots in the building i work in the v3i was noticably better, so at least in that respect i can corroborate his statements.

I couldnt find a direct comparison to the v3, but the general thought among most people on the forum is that the v3i is a slight improvement over the v3.

Posted by: jyalexop2003

Quote:

Originally Posted by thisisnotadrill

v3i has a metal casing.

howard had this to say about the v3i:

and just to give you some heirarchy, here is what he said about the w600i

I did use both a z520a and v3i and in the dead spots in the building i work in the v3i was noticably better, so at least in that respect i can corroborate his statements.

I couldnt find a direct comparison to the v3, but the general thought among most people on the forum is that the v3i is a slight improvement over the v3.

Well for me at least the V3 holds a signal bettter than my colleagues V3i
beside each other in my office.
The fact is that the original V3s had the best motorola antennae - gold plated.

Posted by: Wolfgang5150

I swear my property needs to be an official test market for RF. Great area, but I am in low-lying area that is tough for GSM reception. I have VZW envy when people I know use their phones in my basement................
KS (14127)

Posted by: fractured

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfgang5150

Does anyone know if the v3i has better reception than the original v3? I have always had crappy reception at my house (compared to Verizon), and really don't want to switch carriers.
just doing as much research as possible regarding RF before going through the hell of switching..............
Thanks in advance
KS (zip code 14127)

It might just be that your area is not covered well by Cingular and no phone will made a difference. As a phone, the V3 gets the best signal. If you cannot get a signal with the V3, then it's either that you had/have a defective phone or your area doesn't have good coverage. You can go through the hassle of trying different phones--some SE and Nokia phones, for example--but the one area where Moto phones usually shine is in the reception department.

Posted by: wirelessforever

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfgang5150

Does anyone know if the v3i has better reception than the original v3? I have always had crappy reception at my house (compared to Verizon), and really don't want to switch carriers.
just doing as much research as possible reagrding RF before going through the hell of switching..............
Thanks in advance
KS (zip code 14127)

I have two cell phone lines because I live in two different areas and need two different area code numbers. My primary phone is a V3i and my secondary phone is a standard V3. I love the V3i. But the facts are that the V3 has marginally better reception than the V3i. We're talking maybe a half bar. It shows up in areas where the tower strength is very weak. The V3 may get service where the V3i won't. This is not a huge issue for me but there is no denying that the original V3 does get slightly better reception.

Posted by: xx mike 03 xx

I cannot tell a difference between my v3 and v3i. Both have fantabulous reception

Posted by: davistld01

Although I'm currently having a love affair with my new V635...my Razrs have better reception than the V635, and better than my girlfriend's Nokia 6230b. But, a Cingular rep at my local corp. store told me that the V3i didn't have the same quality reception as the regular V3.

Posted by: jyalexop2003

Quote:

Originally Posted by davistld01

Although I'm currently having a love affair with my new V635...my Razrs have better reception than the V635, and better than my girlfriend's Nokia 6230b. But, a Cingular rep at my local corp. store told me that the V3i didn't have the same quality reception as the regular V3.

Folks, the original V3s had a gold plated antenna/connectors from what i read.
This is why the V3 has better reception, as was more expensive than the other V3s when released.

Posted by: blkballoon925

I don't know. My old Nokia still gets signal in several areas my V3 doesn't. In fact, I was very disappointed when I got my V3 and found signal strength was diminished by at least 3-5 dB almost everywhere I went.

Posted by: davistld01

Quote:

Originally Posted by blkballoon925

I don't know. My old Nokia still gets signal in several areas my V3 doesn't. In fact, I was very disappointed when I got my V3 and found signal strength was diminished by at least 3-5 dB almost everywhere I went.

That's odd. My girlfriend swears by her Nokia 6230, but I always got a signal with my Razrs in areas here in the Ozark hills where her beloved Nokia would drop calls in the same location. But, I will admit that Nokias have always been known for their superior RF.

Posted by: blkballoon925

Quote:

Originally Posted by davistld01

Sometimes I think it's the network in this area. There are a few places I know in particular where I can take the phones and the Nokia will hold a call while the RAZR shows No Service.

Posted by: I have a phone

Quote:

Originally Posted by jyalexop2003

The original V3s were better made than all subsequest V3s
(V3m, V3c, V3i, etc). The subsequent one were cheaper plastic, especially Verizons' versions and the black for Cingular.
The antanna on the original was the best and expensive since it was
gold-plated. At my office (where Cingular has weak coverage) my
1.5 year old original silver V3 gets better reception than
my colleagues V3i.
The original were more expensive due the housing materials and antenna..

can you provide even one ounce of data to prove your statements as factual? Gold plated? Are you kidding me?

Posted by: fractured

Quote:

Originally Posted by jyalexop2003

the original V3s had a gold plated antenna/connectors from what i read.

...and where exactly did you read this?