MFJ tuners really that bad?

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio Equipment Reviews' started by KF7WMM, Oct 19, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: abrind-2
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Subscribe
ad: Left-3
ad: Left-2
  1. KF7WMM

    KF7WMM Ham Member QRZ Page

    I read so many bad comments about MFJ antenna couplers/tuners..I have an LGD at-100 auto that works OK but I "think" I want a manual as the auto tuner gets a bit buggy at is possible to do some manual touch up on the LDG but very little...I use 100 watts only with a random wire,coax to unun...Anyone have good luck with MFJ tuners like the 949E etc.? Thanks,Bob KF7WMM
  2. WA8UEG

    WA8UEG XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    I have had a MFJ 998 legal limit auto tuner over 2 years now and couldn't be happier.
  3. N0IU

    N0IU Ham Member QRZ Page

    I have had my 949 for over 20 years. I may have to write MFJ and tell them their QC department screwed up and let a good one get through!
  4. KF7WMM

    KF7WMM Ham Member QRZ Page

    Thanks for the replys...
  5. N3TU

    N3TU Ham Member QRZ Page

    I have a MFJ 962C. I am not happy with it which I got back in 1992. I won't take high power over 800W. When they say 1.5kw, they really mean 800 MFJ watts. Anything over that is it lights up at the meter with a little spark show. I use it as a back up. I bought a Dentron Super Super Tuner five years ago and have been happy with it every since. I also had trouble with MFJ's 300 watt tuner a few years back not tuning right and it took forever to tune running 100watts. My position, I won't deal with anymore MFJ tuners again. I will still use their other products like the antenna analyzers.
  6. KA0HCP

    KA0HCP XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Umm, have you read the [edit] 962C manual? It specifies:

    -1500 W PLATE INPUT power PEP. Since most amps are 60-70% efficient this equals 900 Watts.

    -800 W carrier on 80m-10m.

    -500 W carrier on 160m.

    If you are tuning a particularly high antenna impedance, the voltages can become very high in the tuner and cause a flashover.

    Sounds like your MFJ tuner performed pretty much as advertised. ;)

    --The MFJ 949 series is pretty much the standard tuner among hams (at least until LDG came along). It's a great multi purpose device. To highlight the point however, don't expect to be able to push it to the 300w limits.
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2013
  7. PA5COR

    PA5COR Ham Member QRZ Page

    MFJ 993=B and MFJ 998 legal limit autotuners here, working as advertised since 5 years now.
    The MFJ 998 is on 24/7 feeding the inverted L for 160 -20 and is used from 200-1000 watts, the only problem was the incandescent lamps burn out within a few monts i just replaced them by LED's and never looked back.
  8. M0GVZ

    M0GVZ Ham Member QRZ Page

    It sounds more like MFJ are lying about their "1500W legal limit tuner" which isn't actually a 1500W tuner but a 900W tuner. 1500W never equals 900W. You can't just go around saying "well you've a 1500W linear but they're only 70% efficient so it only actually outputs 900W". If the power meter reads 1500W it is outputting 1500W and 1500W linears DO output 1500W if they're working and set up correctly. They may consume 2300W of power to generate that 1500W output, which is where the 70% efficiency comes from, but if they're rated at 1500W RF output they output 1500W RF.
  9. ND6M

    ND6M Ham Member QRZ Page

    actually, they clearly told the TRUTH. just as the antenna manufacturing companies did in the BA days. antenna were rated the same way,.............. no one said they lied back then.

    when all else fails, the instructions
  10. KB4MNG

    KB4MNG Ham Member QRZ Page

    I have 2 949 bs. One was given to me, trade on another one. They advertise high power but I feel they come up short. I purchased a palstar due to the flash over experienced in the 949. This only occurs on 75 meters and I don't go down there much. So they pretty much work. They feel cheap and loose compared to the palstar. The palstar is expensive.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page