"Dr. Anton T. Squeegee" wrote in message
...

If you're serious about decent peformance, stay away from glass
mount antennas for anything other than receive-only. They're worse than
useless for transmitting.

I think you better stick to the paintings. Anecdotal evidence is worse than
no evidence. Just because one manufacturer's antenna was junk doesn't mean
they all are. There does seem to be considerable variability in glass mount
antennas, though. Some people report good results, others horrible, and
little in the middle. Still, at 2.4G I'd personally be a bit suspicious of
glass mount.

However, OP has another problem. Nobody has mentioned feedline loss. The
wire carrying the signal to the antenna, even with a good SWR, can be a real
source of loss, especially at 2.4G. Cable which has a low loss at that
frequency is available, but it is expensive and hard to get. As someone
else has suggested, it may be better just to keep the antenna in the
vehicle.

I would also caution OP, presuming he is in the U.S., there are pretty
significant limitations to what he can do legally with WiFi. Besides power
limitations, there are a number of other limitations designed to protect
other users of that spectrum (including amateurs). WiFi is a tertiary user
of that spectrum, and you are REQUIRED not to interfere with the other
users. You are also required to accept interference from the primary and
secondary users.

Now the odds that you will be called on interference either way are pretty
small, but recognize that in general modifications, even something as simple
as an external antenna, are disallowed by the regulations.

...