HR2.0 - Yaesu FTM-6000r Mobile Ham Radio Discussion with John Kruk, N9UPC, from Yaesu

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by KC5HWB, Oct 12, 2021.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: L-Geochron
ad: abrind-2
ad: Left-3
ad: l-BCInc
ad: Left-2
ad: L-MFJ
  1. KD5BVX

    KD5BVX Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I would not describe Kenwood mics as cheap or flimsy at all. They’re the most commercial looking/feeling out of the three and very solid.
    M1WML and WS9K like this.
  2. KQ1V

    KQ1V Ham Member QRZ Page

    I beg to differ, big shock! Try the KMC-35 compared to the crapola mic they put in the box alongside the TM-V71A.
    M1WML and KF0DHQ like this.
  3. KD5BVX

    KD5BVX Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I have. I have several Kenwood mics from both ham and commercial radios. The KMC-32 that came with the V71A and G710 compared to the Yaesu and Icom mics is much more robust and a much more solid mic. The new version of it is KMC-62, which is even better.

    In fact, they do sell it, as they did the -32, on the commercial/pub safety side, too, for folks who want a 16-button mic instead of the 12 like the KMC-66. It can handle it.

    Yaesu has somewhat improved their mic with the SSM-85D but it still feels light and weak compared to Kenwood's.
    M1WML likes this.
  4. G6YPK

    G6YPK Ham Member QRZ Page

    I'm sorry to say, that the FTM-6000r is a nasty radio, at least to my mind. Well, to remove the C4 (fusion) is silly.
    So, you're not going to us it. So what? There are many things on a radio you don't like or use. Why pick on C4?
    As the owner of repeaters (DR2) (given to my repeater group); I feel that to have C4 Fm is a mode that others want to use with the repeater, yet others do not. Then don't listen to the data stream. You have an on/off and a qsy to another frequency nob.
    Nuff said. I will not be buying one anytime soon.
    K4IDT, KG7VTO and M1WML like this.
  5. K3FHP

    K3FHP XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Disclosure: I have been a Yaesu Fanboy since my FT-101Z in '82.

    I am underwhelmed by this offering. At $320(40 for the bluetooth) it is overpriced and under featured.
    I am an FM promoter for local and Emcomm, but there SHOULD be an interface connect for an external devices like the 6 pin mini-din on their previous offerings for various digital modes or an integrated sound card like the FT-991. I am not interested in Fusion, D-Star, Mega-Star, Ultra-star, etc. internet modes, but not having dual receive like the FT-8800/8900 is a deal breaker for me. Looks like they(as well as Icom and Kenwood) are trying to compete with China Branded stuff with cheaper(for them) models with similar features at higher prices. I understand and appreciate the reality of rising costs and inflation, but looks for now like I would go for with a Kenwood V71 (have ne already and live it) or used gear. I love both my FT-857D and 991A but would pass on this one. YMMV
    M1WML likes this.
  6. W4EAE

    W4EAE XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Wideband receiver = worse in-band receiver.

    I am quite happy that the IC-9700 is not wide-banded.

    I have no problem with the mic that comes with the TM-V71A, but knobs and buttons on the control head are definitely flimsy cheap plastic not very becoming for a radio of its price.
    M1WML, VE3TSV and KD5BVX like this.
  7. KF0DHQ

    KF0DHQ Ham Member QRZ Page

    Well not all frequencies. just add airband, upper VHF (150-174 MHz), and upper UHF (450-512 MHz) that won't hurt to much will it?
    M1WML likes this.
  8. W4EAE

    W4EAE XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    It all depends. With a direct sampling receiver, if you were unlucky enough to be only a couple of miles from a weather transmitter then that wider receiver would have a significant negative effect on the amateur portion of the 2m band.

    A double- or triple-superhet receiver could probably handle that same scenario fairly well, but the radio would then be nothing like the IC-9700.
    M1WML likes this.
  9. KC5HWB

    KC5HWB Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Except for the cowboy boots, I agree with this statement. I never understood why companies leave off the mic connector on a remote face of a radio.
    M1WML and KC7JNJ like this.
  10. KD5BVX

    KD5BVX Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    It would be nice if they could do both - put a mic jack on the body of the radio and also on the head of the radio, with an automatic switch: if the mic is connected to the body of the radio, the jack on the remote head is bypassed/disabled; if not connected to the body then the jack on the remote head is active. But, I'm sure they'd want to add another $50 or so to the price then...

    If someone mounts the remote head up in their roof sunglasses holder or something like that, I can see why they wouldn't want the mic cable hanging down.
    M1WML likes this.

Share This Page