My Impressions of the Mitsubishi G75
The following review covers the Mitsubishi G75 phone offered by Fido.

Last Updated: 26-Nov-1999

Disclaimer: The following review represents my personal opinion. No bench testing was performed on this or any phone reviewed on my web page. If you don't agree with something I say, you are certainly welcome to politely bring it to my attention (in public or private). However, any out-and-out insults or flames will be igored.

My review of the Mitsubishi G75 has been delayed somewhat by an ongoing debate between myself and Steve Hurdle. This debate centers around the RF performance of the phone, especially when it is compared to the Nokia 6190 and 5190 models. Steve's testing in Vancouver indicates that the G75 performs markedly better than the Nokia phones, while my testing showed little difference at all. A number of other people have offered their comparisons between the G75 and the Nokia phones. For the time being, the jury is still out. Our sample is just too small to draw any reliable conclusions.

However, this review will reflect my opinions of the phone, but the keep the above debate in mind. I should note that my findings are backed up by Darren Thompson of Microcell Connexions Terminal Working Group. These are the people responsible for performing tests on all phones before approval is given to use them on the network. They found that the RF performance of the G75 was slightly better than the 5190/6190, but not enough to make much difference in day-to-day use.

And now the review:

Let’s begin with the audio quality. The earpiece on this phone has a decidedly tinny sound to it that gives you the impression you are using a toy. The maximum volume of this earpiece is pathetic, and you can’t even turn it up to full volume without experiencing other audio weirdness that makes an already bad sound worse. The audio is so faint in fact, that when I called my favorite low volume example (the 407 ETR customer service line at 1-888-407-0407) I could barely hear it.

While no one has ever awarded the 6190/5190 with the Best Sounding Phone on the Market trophy, they sound positively high fidelity compared to the tinny, scratchy sound that emanates from this Mitsubishi phone. I had my parents listen to the audio on the G75 compared with their 5190. They too provided a similar assessment of the sound quality, and they did so without any coaching from me. If my parents think the sound is awful then just about anyone can come to the conclusion.

And then we have the ringer. This has to be the faintest ringer I have experienced on a cell phone since the Novatel PTR-850. It makes the ringer on the 6190/5190 sound like a screaming jet engine by comparison. The chances of hearing this phone ring in a noisy environment are slim to none.

The RF performance of the G75 is approximately equal to that of the 6190/5190 in most respects. I performed the comparisons using four major tests. Each test was performed with the G75’s antenna completely extended (and solidly locked into place).

Test 1 determined how well the phones could provide clean audio when driving through a known weak area. I chose three locations in my part of Mississauga that provided 0 to 1 bar of service when tested with my 6190. I placed a call on each phone in two separate passes of the same area while I listened for audio disturbances and audio dropouts. In all my tests, the G75 performed equally, or slightly below that of the Nokia.

Test 2 determined how far into a building I could drag a call. I chose a food store that provided reasonable coverage up front (3-bar signals near the windows) and no usable coverage at the back. I began calls on both the Mitsubishi and the Nokia, then I walked in to see how far I could go, and how much interference I would get. Again, I found no quantifiable differences between the two phones.

Test 3 determined how well each phone would hold on to the control channel while idling as I walked into an area of progressively decreasing coverage. Once again, the results showed that both phones performed equally. Both lost service at approximately the same time, and they regained it at pretty much the same place.

Test 4 determined how well each phone could place a call in an extremely weak signal area. Only in this test did the G75 come out ahead, but only slightly. The difference between the two phones would probably result in being able to place a call for an extra 10 to 15 feet into a building. If that tiny advantage is worth the terrible sound quality of this phone, then by all means buy it.

And to make matters worse, the G75 only achieved this performance when you extend the antenna. Most people do not walk around with the antenna extended, but in doing so with the G75 you end up with a phone that has inferior performance compared to the 5190 and the 6190.

Does the G75 have any other redeeming features that might make it worthy of your consideration? I can’t find anything. The 5190 and the 6190 are simply superior products in just about every respect. The G75 has a fixed font display that does not make the most of the screen’s real estate. The menus are clear enough, but they require going one or two levels deeper than you would expect. The G75 has no games, no calculator, no calendar, no uploadable ring tones, no group graphics, no alarm features, it weights more, it is bigger, and you have to extend the antenna to get full performance from it.

The G75 sells for $25 less than the 5190 at Fido stores. In my opinion, paying the extra to get the 5190 would represent $25 well spent.

Other Reviews of the Mitsubishi G75

Review by Steve Romaine