Having worked on Bluetooth designs in the early days of the standard I can say that there are indeed multiple versions with some denoting higher power for longer range uses. Take a look at the Wikipedia Bluetooth info and you will see a table showing various range "Classes".
Class 3 is typical for low power very short range uses like wireless keyboards and mice, printers, etc. Range for this is about 1 meter or about 3 feet.
Class 1 has higher power and can potentially go for approx. 100 meters or so or about 330 feet.
Having said that, I kind of wonder if the OP is one of those "modern digital tech affeciandos" who believe that "wireless" is something completely separate and distinct from "radio" with "wireless" being a magical modern digital way of avoiding wires while "radio" was that old scratchy noisy method grandpa used to talk about using back when they were running around chasing mammoths for the tribal dinner. You know, pretty much anything before 1995 is prehistory.
And including "radios" in cars is just an ancient tradition of paying respect to our distant ancestors.
Sorry but I really have encountered that kind of mindset! Non-technically proficient folks, and even some IT folks seem to not understand that "wireless", for all practical purposes, is usually "radio" unless it's optical, induction, or ultrasonic.
Outside of high value research labs (maybe "neutrino" or quantum entanglement?), for practical you can buy it on Amazon or at Best Buy "wireless" methods they involve those common three methodologies: radio, optical, or ultrasonic and sometimes induction like near field devices.
I always found it funny - back in the early days of radio development back in the late 19th and early 20th century it was common to call it "Wireless" until later when "radio" was the more "fashionable" and modern term for the technology. Then, after 802.11 WiFi started to take off followed by Bluetooth, Zigbee, etc., "radio" just sounded too "analog" and old fashioned so the term "wireless" was "re-discovered" and became the modern "digital" "In" phraseology for what is really just good old "radio" wrapped up in a cozy more digitally aesthetically pleasing package!
So, maybe not, but it might have been the case that the OP thought that it would be cool and simple to "wirelessly" connect an old fashioned analog "radio antenna" to a modern computer with an SDR.
-Mike