Quote:
Originally Posted by steagall1000  That test with the LI was in commerce on a rental car he had. Dodge avenger actually. |
Ah, a Dodge Avenger:
That's one heck of a rear aspect to protect.
It's got a lot of upright surfaces, and with a rear-plate mount, even spaced as far as that would allow, it still places the rear tail-lights *very* high and away, with the CHMSL an exposed target on the tail-gate as well (as
VEIL Guy's IR videos showed, the CHMSL can be a point-vulnerability, due to the optical reflector elements buried behind it).
The rear plate, if the jammer heads are mounted surrounding it, is also very, very low-placed - and that kind of setup, it was seen, caused trouble to both the LPP as well as the LI, from past testing data within the community (the LPP's tester/owner name escapes me, but the LI was
gadgetman's current-generation M5's initial setup).
I'd be surprised if *any* current-market jammer - alone (i.e. no passive measures undertaken) and without help or unconventional setup - can provide the Avenger's rear-aspect with true-JTG performance.