Differences between Hammarlund HQ-170 and HQ-180

[David, K3TUE]

http://www.amwindow.org/tech/htm/slabrxreview.htm

The wonderful Receiver Road Test article recently posted reminded me of a question I have had but keep forgetting to ask.  Other than what appears to be the addition of 6m coverage in the HQ-170 over the HQ-180, can anyone who has experience with these receivers explain the difference between them?

[W8EJO]

The big difference is that the HQ180 was general coverage (.54 - 30MC) & the HQ170 was a ham bands only(160-10) receiver. Both were triple conversion & had the same 3 IF's I believe.

There were various versions of each (A, C AC). "A" stood for solid state rectifier I think & C stood for clock.

[The Slab Bacon]

For what it is worth, the Hq-180 is the general coverage SWL version of the ham band only 170. I have played with both and they have all of the same controls and features. The 180 has a ham band calibrated bandspread dial. The 180 has the same narrow crappy audio as the 170 and basically acts like the same receiver. One difference between the 2
(and i dont know why) is that the 180 has one more tube than the 170. I havent had a chance to compare the skizmatics to see what that is all about. The biggest difference between the 2 is the prices that they are bringing. I often see 170's at give away prices at hanfests (usually under $150) and 180's are usually going for fairly big money, sometimes near $4-500. Both are no fun to repair and a bit quirky.
                                                                           The Slab Bacon

[w3jn]

2 of the 3 HQ-180s I've owned have had busted off notch filter coils, and the slugs in the IF/RF cans have a propensity to freeze solid  .

And the audio is truly terrible with the ill-advised NFB arrangement that DECREASES NFB at higher volume levels.

I don't find them too hateful to work on (other than breaking transformer slugs) but I don't like the feel of the tuning.  Still, they are very good battle-mode receivers.  Not my cup of tea though.

[David, K3TUE]

The biggest difference between the 2 is the prices that they are bringing. I often see 170's at give away prices at hanfests (usually under $150) and 180's are usually going for fairly big money, sometimes near $4-500.

And the audio is truly terrible [...].
[...]
Still, they are very good battle-mode receivers.

That's most convincing.  The lower price of the HQ-170 is a big plus.  I'm trying to hold out unless I see a real deal on e-bay and see how much better the prices are at next year's hamfests (FrostFest in VA is not too far off).

Also, with an R-8B on the bench, I am looking for something more battle-mode anyway.  So an HQ-170 just might fit the bill.

Then I am wondering how it compares to a 2B/2BQ.  But perhaps that Drake is more in line with an HQ-110.  Hmmm.  I think I'm slowly giving in to the idea that "you can't have too many receivers". 

[w3jn]

The 2B is a better receiver all the way 'round than the HQ-170 (although I confess I've never done a side-by-side comparison)

I think I'm slowly giving in to the idea that "you can't have too many receivers". 

That's the spirit!!  Drink the koolaid 

[nq5t]

The 2B is a better receiver all the way 'round than the HQ-170 (although I confess I've never done a side-by-side comparison)

I've owned several of both, and agree.  I'd much rather use the 2A/2B than the 170.  In some ways, the 170/180 are a bit better.  They are advertised to have slightly better skirt selectivity (I've never measured it), and cover 160,  which the Drakes do not,  if that's an issue.  And of course, the 180 is general coverage.  The Drake 2A has a wider maximum bandwidth (4.8Khz), making it somewhat better for AM than the 2B (3.6Khz), although the Hammarlunds  have an even wider max bandwidth (6Khz).  I think there are some mods on the AM Window that address some of the audio response issues of the 170/180 radios.

The biggest problem I've encountered with every 170 and 180 I've had (with the exception of one very late production HQ-180A) is cracked coil slugs.  Especially in earlier production units (older) you can expect to find one .. or two.  Once the slugs crack, any attempt to turn them with an alightment tool drives the split pieces apart and they lock into the inside of the coil form.  I bought a couple of units just to salvage coil assemblies from.

Late HQ-180AC's are easy to spot -- the clock wiring plugs into a socket on the chassis.  If the clock wiring goes through a grommet and is soldered under the chassis, it will be a somewhat older radio.  As far as I know, this socketed clock connection only appeared on the HQ-180 and not the HQ-170.

Grant/NQ5T