Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!Karz.Wbst@Xerox.ARPA
From: Karz.Wbst@Xerox.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.ham-radio
Subject: Re: Problems with new rigs - a comment
Message-ID: <2259@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 18-Oct-85 18:27:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.2259
Posted: Fri Oct 18 18:27:14 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 21-Oct-85 06:32:50 EDT
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 26

Listening to everyone knocking the quality of ICOM gear, I would like to
add a few comments about Kenwood equipment, particularly since the
discussion so far gives the impression that Kenwood quality control is
much better than ICOM.

I would start by stating that I like Kenwood HF gear.  I own both a 930
and an 820 and I feel they both give excellent value.  Nevertheless, the
problems I've had are due entirely to carelessness on the Kenwood
assembly line.  My 820 developed a problem with its digital display when
it was five years old that turned out to be unsoldered (not poorly
soldered) connections on a PC board.  Similarly, when the meter on my
930 ceased functioning, the problem was an unsoldered connection.  In
this case, however, there was solder on the meter lug only it was not
where the wire was attached.  A good friend of mine, W2AZX, has a 530
which failed to work properly out of the box (apparently they didn't
even bother to try it out at the factory).  Here the problem was the
failure to insert one of the leads on a resistor into its hole in the PC
board.  All three of these problems could have been eliminated with a
little more care during manufacturing.

ICOM certainly does not have a monoply on poor  quality.  Furthermore,
Kenwood problems would appear from my limited experience to be not with
their parts suppliers but rather with themselves.

Bob
K2OID