best band for moble to moble with hills and mountains around?

I believe you, Glen.

But "today" there are more noise sources than ever before, and 160m can be a really noisy band due to human factors that hardly existed 40-50 years ago.

Ground wave using verticals certainly does work on 160m, but if there are mountains in between, they add attenuation also. I can (and anyone can) witness this on the AM BCB just driving around if you're in a mountainous area. KFI-AM 640 kHz is a dominant 50 kW BC station locally (well, it's about 45 miles from me) and is loud and clear 24/7 but if I drive on the other side of a mountain separating me from them...not so good. If I drive along the beach, 100 miles away they're very strong. Terrain does make a difference, even for MW ground wave.

I do recongize that car AM systems are terribly inefficient. But...I can hear KFI in Santa Ynez, 120 miles from them, and also in San Diego, 120 miles away in the other direction...as long as I'm close to the coast. Driving inland behind mountains, not so much.

 

Each band will have advantages depending on the terrain. The higher bands are more effected by foliage. But, UHF signals reflect off rock much better than lower VHF.

We had a repeater in California that was three bands - 144, 222, and 440 and all the antennas were on the same mast, so the coverage was fairly similar. In some terrain, UHF worked best because it bounced off the dry, rocky hills. In others, two meters was better, because there was a lot of wet dense foliage to absorb the UHF signals. There were also places where 222 worked best. UHF penetrates buildings much better than VHF, because the windows are usually big enough to pass the signals.

I'd suggest you try SSB if you're going simplex. You may be amazed at how well it works. Horizontal mobile antennas would help, too.

 

True, SSB has a huge S/N advantage due to narrow bandwidth and analog detection.

 

I've been able to pick up KFI for most of the drive from Southern California all the way to just southwest of Prescott, with the dead zone being in the Quartzite area. Coast-to-Coast got me through several of those late-night transits.

 

2M meter is better in mountainous to hilly areas due to it's ability to bend slighly beyond line of sight. 6m as well. UHF, not so much, and you get more attenuation from vegetation. Couldn't say about dry rocky hillsides as we don't have those in NC. Either works ok with repeaters, properly sited. 6m is even better at conforming to terrain than either of the aforementioned bands. But if your are talking Rocky Mountain type mountains, 2m or Uhf work pretty well with repeaters, without unsightly [to some] screwdriver antennas on your car.Whatever you choose, put your dollars into the best antenna you can afford, gain wise. You get more bang for your buck in antenna costs, than radio power. 40-50w should be quite adequate with 2m/440.

 

Nobody knows your exact needs but you. Experiment and see what works well and what doesn't.

 

This is the most interesting thread I have read on here yet.

Thanks guys.

Would that this sub forum had more activity. Beats the heck out of the two upstairs that get wore out. LOL I need to just stop up there and become a pest down here. Sure learn a lot more and my list of those to scroll past would diminish.

 

Have you considered 10 meters? Lots of hams avoid 10 meter mobile....probably because it looks like CB or something...but it's a WONDERFUL mid-range mobile band.

 

BINGO (in my opinion)

 

Me too on the 10m, now that it is mentioned. Regrettably, I have had few times when a bud was like minded and also so equipped. I keep a poopy RadShak 10m mobile around though for just such possibilities. I once had a Euro version of the Ranger 10m all mode mobile (the 25 watt). Now THAT I regret selling. The thing would rx-tx from 10m to 11m inclusive.