Rockford Fosgate Prime 5.25's?
 

Anyone use these Rockford-Fosgate Prime 5.25" in the soundbar of a late model Cherokee? Model R-152? I've heard the 6.5" version which is a 3-way, but the 5.25's are a two way. My project Cherokee came w/o any speakers in the rear overhead soundbar so I'm considering these or the Pioneer TS-G1343R's also available locally. Any thoughts or opinions?

Both are beginner, fosgates are terrible. Pioneers will sound better

Based on what? The Fosgates I've heard in the Prime line-up sound pretty good, and they are capable of handling more power than the Pioneers. Other options? The Boston Acoustics S-55's are the most efficient set out there at 92dB/W but are almost double the cost.

running 6.5 RF PUNCH2s in the back, they sound great, no distortion even after your ears bleed from the volume.

Yours are in the liftgate? The overhead sound bar in the 98 only takes 5.25's.

took my trusty dremel to that overhead soundbar :arabia:

And does the soundbar plastic support rattle much?

I also used a little bead of goodstuff cause I didn't like the way it sat, since it didn't have that beveled edge that came stock. But no bad vibes.

primes sound terrible and cant handle more power. fosgate went downhill in 2001 when they got bought out. and there are way more efficient components than all these beginner brands your naming. but unless you want to drop more than 250 on speakers and a amp for them. the ones your looking at are your best bet. the pioneers will be the best bang for your buck in your price range

Opinion

The specs say otherwise.

True, the Primes are not the most efficient, but that isn't the driving criteria in any speaker. There are some very very good sounding inefficient designs out there. But am now looking at some Kenwood KFC-1362S's, which seem to blend all the best features.

Sound quality is not an opinion, the primes have a lower amount of total excursion and the poly injected moldings rattle with low frequencies.

I know about speakers, efficiency is set by the manufacturer as a way to limit power ratings. Speaker A is 89dB/w, speaker B is 94dB/w. Speaker A can handle up to 40wrms while speaker B can only handle 35. but which one will actually have a greater spl?

Kenwoods are better tha pioneer, pioneers are better than current fosgates. Power handling is estimated mind you, not one company clamps the true rated power. Its all equations.

Sound quality is an opinion. Specs can be measured, but the sound produced by an two different speakers is purely subjective as to what is good and what isn't.

Also, your argument on efficiency only partially holds water, because you used extremes. Neither of the two speakers originally under consideration are that far apart in efficiency values, more like 87dB and 89dB, which makes them almost equal except as regards power handling. Efficiency isn't "set" by the manufacturer except as far as how drivers and materials he uses in construction. Efficiency is dictated by component design, materials used, flexibility/drag of voice coil spiders and woofer surround materials, voice coil heat dissipation, etc.

So I am leaning more towards the Kenwoods here to use in this application.

So why did you argue power handling? That is not valid being the human ear can only differentiate audible loudness in 3dB increments, mind you that is with near perfect hearing. Manufacturers make the speakers, their design equates to a specific sensitivity at a specific power, *company* makes two speakers, one is poly injected diaphragm other is paper. Paper has a higher sensitivity. They just set the sensitivity by using different materials. And many companies do this. AA just started making Carbon, Paper and poly molds, for different applications because customers wanted different sensitivity ratings, while all are rated at the same power.

Kenwoods would be your best bet, they have tight response and a nice mix between SQ and audible loudness with minimal distortion unless caused by a outside source.

Although, if you dont mind me asking, what is your price range?

Oh, am not arguing but discussing. For two speakers of ~equal sensitivity, the one that can handle more power usually suggests "better" components for a given speaker size. Power handling is best described by the speakers ability to dissipate the heat of the current draw, hence the need for fluid cooled tweeters in higher-end (and thus higher-cost) applications. Sub's can usually handle the most power because they have a limited range of frequencies they are expected to reproduce, and much large voice coils and woofer magnets which would be able to dissipate more heat and they have better airflow due to larger speaker cone movements. While a speaker will not warm up to the touch like an amplifier will, it does absorb a good bit of the heat of electrical current passing thru it and thus (among other things) will be limited by it's ability to get rid of that heat. Of course other issues (like crossover design to reject spurious high freq harmonics) is important also, but at the price point we are looking at most crossovers are basic high-pass or low-pass cap filters.

You seem to have a good handle on audio issues, but I do also for over 35 years involvement in the hobby. I also moderate an audio forum (as an FYI....).

My price point? I don't have one, but of course the application is the rear-sound bar in a non-functioning (at the moment) XJ and I'm doing some pre-planning. The Fosgate's are available locally, and the only others in the right size range locally is Sony (argh!) and I won't use those. So due to my remote location, am mostly perusing Crutchfield's online catalog. Oh, and the classifieds here....

If you don't have a price point, and an unfinished jeep that could stand to be refurbished then I think you should put in a Bang and Olufsen system HA! That would be something! It probably wouldn't matter which one you go with if they're all so similar... the inside ergonomics of a Jeep Cherokee and the positioning of the speakers wasn't exactly thought out with awesome acoustics in mind!