Beltronics Pro RX65

Pros: Good product, it works.

Cons: Co. is dogmatic

The Bottom Line: The company is the biggest deterrent here.

Review: Aside from trying to find an authorized dealer in the United States. They make it 100% clear by providing the "unauthorized" list of dealers and not focusing on providing a positive buying experience for potential customers. If you go to the...

Pros: Awesome sensitivity on K and KA band Super Bright Display Few false alerts Easy programming

Cons: Poor Laser detection

Review: I have had all 3 top line radar detectors. The V1 1.8, The Passport 8500 X50, and this Bel RX65. They all have their ups and downs. If you are looking for the most consistant radar detector the RX65 is it. Less false alerts then the V1 and better...

Pros: Function, sensitivity, readability, price point.

Cons: No direction finding capability, a lot of false POP signals. Volume too quiet.

The Bottom Line: Hard to beat for the price point! Great sensitivity! Cool techy features.

Review: This is a great unit for those that don't want to spend the V1 premium.

I first bought a V1 when I bought my wife her car, and when I bought my new car I gave into the marketing hype and purchased the RX65; partly because of some of the...

Pros: Detection range,programable,ku-band,voice alert.

Cons: None

The Bottom Line: Great Unit, would reccomend to everyone!

Review: The bel rx-65 is one of the "Top 3" radar detectors made today. I currently own both of the other 2, inclunding the v1 and escort x50. The Rx-65 is perfect detector for the serious driver. In 2005 Speed Measurement Labatories who test all Radar...

Pros: Price, detection (KA band) and looks

Cons: Forget Laser detection!

The Bottom Line: If you want the best detector under $500, there is no substitute.

Review: The RX65 is one of the best detectors on the market. I replaced my Beltronic 985 with the RX65. I have had to make a few minor mods. I eliminated X band and K band, as K band went off every time I passed a store with an alarm system (which is every...

Pros: Clear display, voice alert, loud beep, pretty case Better than V1 in photoradar performance

Cons: Not as sensitive (or fast reacting) as the X50 Worse than X50 in photoradar performance

The Bottom Line: Don't buy this if you live outside the USA, or know the police use Photo radar in your area.

Review: *** UPDATE OF RX65 VS X50 VS V1 at the bottom of this review (07/Sep/04) ***

I have tested the RX65 against the Multanova 6F (34.3 KA band frequency), which is a very common and popular brand of radar outside of the USA, and is used...

Pros: Ease of use, shows multiple incoming bands, mute on power connector

Cons: Price? maybe?

Review: I recently purchased the RX65 after my 985 detector was stolen. I had reservations because I was so impressed with Bel's 985. Well, I wasn't left hanging...the RX65 is a good at detection (maybe better) than the 985 but has better features and a...

Pros: size and cost

Cons: detection and problem with false laser alerts when driving toward the sun

Review: The radar detector is good, not great with regard to Ka band detection. Not nearly as good as the Valentine, but of course a bit less money. Big problem though when driving into the sun either in the morning or late in the afternoon as it sets off...

Pros: Excellent range, Detects POP3

Cons: Display geared toward mounting low, no multiple signals per band indication

The Bottom Line: Wait for the new Passport 8500 X50 to be shipped

Review: Since there is not much first-hand information available about new Beltronics Bel RX65 radar detector I decided to share my short experience with everyone.

We needed another radar detector for the second car. I've been using Passport 8500...

Pros: some reviews say it is the best

Cons: lasted 3 days until Service is required.

Review: I owned this radar detector for 3 days before Service Required is now constantly displayed. I do not know what I was thinking when I purchased this product since I have owned a cordless Bel 945 as well as a 985 and both had to be sent in for...