Garmin 60CSx vs. Colorado400t feed-back please

Good morning all,

I would appreciate opinions from Garmin 60CSx and Colorado 400t users on below issues. Thanks in advance for your help.

-Is it difficult to use (60csx:the buttons and the arrow pad AND colorado: wheel and click arrowpad) with gloves on when riding?
-Both units, is the screen big/easy enough to read for safe riding?
-How is the unit under sun light?
-Any other feed-back you think is useful

Well, I found 60CSx for $300 with no maps and Colorado 400t for $519 with topo pre-loaded. Considering 90 is for the topo, Do you all think $130 difference is worth it?

If you are going to ride on the roads, I'd skip the topo. I have both Topo 2008 and City Navigator 2008 and CN is way more accurate on the roads and has everything I've ridden, including the roads inside Big Bend park. On top of that, it is autorouting, meaning you can enter a destination and the GPS will use the map info to create a route for you. With Topo, all you get is a straight line route. So you have to manually figure out the route and put waypoints in for the turns.

As far as the units you are looking at, I have no experience with the Colorado ones. The 60's are good units and I know several folks that are quite happy with them for dual sport bikes. From what I've seen, that controls on the Colorado may be hard to work with gloves. I suspect REI would have both in stock if you wanted to check them out. Or maybe Sportsmans Warehouse in Round Rock.

I second the "skip the topo" comment by Rusty. I tried it them out and hated them. City Navigator is wayyyy more accurate and has a ton more info.

Thank you both for your comments.

Rusty, one more question. I do a lot of off-pavement county roads on my bike. Do you think CN is better than the topo in that department?

For instance, does CN show cr315, 310, 308 which are all unpaved small roads between 71 and 16 south of Llano ?

I assume topo would show them and more trails/roads to ride hopefully? Could you check when you get a chance?

City Navigator will show all of those gravel and dirt roads. Even some that don't exist anymore. I like the looks of the Colorado, but have never used one. It's got a bigger screen, Shaded relief, and you can share info with other Colorado users wirelessly. I would get the Colorado 300 and an sd card with City Navigator on it.

I've got the 60CSx and love it. With gloves on the buttons can be a little tricky at times but I think that most of them are that way. I manage without major issues. On maps, if I had to pick one or the other, I'd pick the City Streets and Navigator for the reasons listed above. There are few roads that I've found that weren't on CSN but are on the TOPO maps. I just bought more memory and keep them both loaded up. It takes seconds to switch between the two.

Decided on 60CSx vs. Colorado400t.. Here is why if you are interested.

Thank you all for pitching in.

After long hours of reading user evaluations and concerns, and communicating with some reviewers, I am going with 60CSX and CitiyNav2008 only (no topo) for dual-purpose riding.

Below, I pasted all fed-back I could find on Colorado

I think accuracy concerns are due to using base-map instead of CityNav or Topo. The rest are good concerns.

One more concern I have heard from a geocoaching instructor/rider local sales person is that Colorado my not be suitable for dual-purpose riding, taking all that wobble and wibration. He said that early 60C had similar issue but later CSx model was improved and is a proven unit that works well on motorcycles. Colorado is yet to prove itself in that dept.

And here it is, all the feed-back I found on the net in regards to Colorado:

Garmin Colorado

PROS:

• I've loaded streets '08 and was truly impressed by how accurate the system worked in the auto-profile. Turn by turn is exceptional.
  
• it DOES chew through some batteries! 16 hours on a set of AAs is a little rough. I'm okay with the display outside in the sunlight. It only takes a second to brighten it up or turn it back down or off if I need to check a detail, but I guess I don't need to spend all of my time looking at the GPS (after the novelty of the new unit wore off.)
  
• PROS: City navigation in automobile mode, perfect – just like having a Nuvi (!), Profiles – cool, Geocaching mode with a great level of detail – truly paperless, Resolution – wow (!), Controls/Wheel on top (rather than under the screen as the CSx) – great, Sat-Reception – better than the CSx, works even indoors
  
• After poking at one at work (REI) I think the roller wheel interface will be much better than the 60 series with gloves on. Zooming is as easy as flicking the wheel, and the screen redraws on zooming are wicked fast. Reception inside our building (metal roof, few skylights) is better than the 60 when placed side-by-side, with the Colorado maintaining a lock for far longer. Lock-on times are excellent, too, with 90 seconds from startup with a cold receiver that still thinks it's in Overland Park.
  
• My experiance with the 400t and a 60CSx sitting right next to each other, turned on at the same time, results in a longer boot time for the Colorado, but a faster signal acquisition and faster circle of error reductions. When brought into the building the 60 loses signal while the Colorado maintains a lock, but with reduced precision. I saw it with my own eyes, so....
  
• if your day involves a giant burning orb overhead, the 400 is much easier to see. so if you are in prudoe bay, advantage 60 i guess. I live in Arizona, so.... 3. the 400 takes longer to start up cold, but smokes the 60 in redrawing like dry pot.

CONS:

• When I took it for a spin outside the store, the unit consistently positioned me about 400 ft west of my location on the map - even though the satellite page said I was accurate to ~ 10 feet. I tried re-booting, and playing with menu options to no avail. I figure there may just be some simple setting I was missing (map datum?). I plan to try again in a week - maybe they will have figured it out at the store by then. Any ideas? Unfortunately Garmin has yet to post a manual on their website.
  
• However 16 hours of battery life is not much compared to the GPSMAP60 which I actually have seen work twice as long on two AAs. That is a good week of effective use. The device I tested said goodnight after only four hours. (Yes the backlight was off.) That is simply not good enough.
  
• My battery life is 4.5 hours on NiMh rechargeables and 9.25 hours on Alkalines with brief use of full backlight. However, cut that in half for actual usable time since the backlight goes off when the batteries are half used.
  
• I've had one for over a week. Accuracy when I zoom into a street location is way off. Hundreds of yards from known map locations. Other times, the streets just don't match up to what is there.
  
• I have the 400t and have been quite underwhelmed with the display. It is darker, less reflective, and generally much harder to read than my 60CS, especially outdoors. And it doesn't help that some of their color choices (like dark blue on black for the satellite signal bars) are incomprehensible. Outside I can barely see them. Ironically it looks best indoors (with the backlight cranked up), but that's not exactly where I want to use it.
  
• power for me is short too maybe 2 or 3 hours on nickel metal batteries before screen goes dim. biggest problem tho is base map wrong. streets wrong. streets where none exist. no street where street is clearly there. track runs parallel to street off by a few hundred meters.
  
• I also get only a few hours on regchargable batteries and have useless display when power is 50%. Really scratching my head about the value of this device at $600.
  
  
• the screen, which is clearly (to my eyes at least) less readable than the 60CS. And yes, Garmin will undoubtedly fix many of the simpler issues (and they already have some with the 2.3 update). But I would not hold my breath on anything major with the screen. Short of tweaking colors to be more sensible, I'm not sure there is much they can do to fix a bad choice of LCD hardware. If you look at a powered off Colorado next to a 60CS, the Colorado screen is noticeably darker. It is even darker than my Nuvi. So it just won't reflect as much light back out, and you have to rely on the backlight (which as we all know can't compete well with the sun).
  
• My inside connection says that in the month these have been out, they have only sold a few hundred and most of those have come back. You would think Garmin would either lower the price, fix the problems, include the software,
  
• I'm a bit pissed that they put the 3-axis compass in a dog unit a year or two ago, and now they are back to the fixed orientation compass with this unit. It' not natural to hold it horizontal when you use it.
  
• 2) Let me reverse the direction of a trail/track that i have just archived. Say i hike somewhere there are no roads and want to "track back" (just like the CSx can do where you can even choose the point to track back to!!) this one cannot do it since each saved track has a predetermined direction built-in (the one used when it was recorded). I hope this makes sense to you guys. Please, why remove features that the CSx had
  
• display not so bright (nothing like the CSx outdoors) or as reflective for that matter
  
• - not even close to the map customizations the CSx has (i.e. compass track up or north up zoom level or SPPED/time dependant, turning map regions on/off, etc. etc.
• - cannot average a waypoint (i.e. takes only one measurement, the CSx takes as many as you are willing to wait for!)
  
• - cannot "track back" on a trail/track (OK GARMIN - what were you thinking here???). Cannot reverse tracks either! Cannot follow track back since when archived the direction is set!?!
  
• The screen is very dim. At full backlight, it is barely viewable (in a large building lit by fluorescent lights). In direct sunlight (corner with large windows let lottsa sun in), it is much better. In bright sunlight, the screen brightness stays the same whether the backlight is on or off. The screen is obviously designed for outdooor viewing. The maps have a gray-green background color and that contributes to the overall dark look of the display. The shaded maps are miserable. We could barely distinquish topo lines in the shaded areas. My 60CSX, which is dimmer than my Vista HCx, is much brighter than the Colorado. The Vista is a beacon compared to the CO. Map detail is poor. The sales lady said it has the 2008 Topo US maps (pre?) loaded. These are 100,000:1 and do not have the detail that the 24,000:1 map in my 60CSx has. The screen resolution is obviously greater than my 60CSx, but overall, I judge my 60 to be a better unit. Well, the 60 has a better looking screen and map anyway.
  
• When I asked the sales rep what they thought vs the 60csx, he frowned. His biggest complaints, slower acquisition and he said the 60 is better at holding a signal

Seems to me that there are a lot more cons vs. pros for the Colorado. Not to mention the price difference.

Been running a 60Cs, and now a Csx for a year and really like it. I have it on a RAM on the left and can toggle screens easy enough while riding with gloves. Granted I would not enter in an address while riding, but I can search for food/gas easy enough and it's right in my line of site while riding which is great since I use it as my speedo. Might try in on the lower ball mount to lover it or get a 1.5" arm (currently a 3"). I have yet to ride this bike with the GPS on. On my VFR it was fine, seems a bit tall in the pic to me.

From what I have heard, the NG topo maps are more accurate and up to date than the Garmin topos database. Not sure about the interface with Garmin, though, as far as full functionality. (they are meant for Garmins, but don't know how they compare in functionality compared to something like CN).

So far my 60csx runs well on the Whee (not hardwired yet) without any problems on bumps, and my ride is bumpy as all get out (suspension sucks). Have not tested it yet on the dirty bike (KLR250); things get a bit bouncy on that bike.

Just a short note:
Have had the 300 for a month, and I think that side by side, the 60CSx is easier to use and has fewer glitches. But the hx of the 60CSx was the same with numerous bugs and fixes when it first came out. In a situation of would I buy the 300 or get a 400T now? I'd say get the 400T, and load 2008 maps, both topo and City Nav into the 4 to 8 GB card that you add to the machine. Lots of good features, but the 60CSx (latest model) has some that the 300 doesn't, and vice versa. I am carrying both now while geocaching. On the bike I have yet to try them side by side (too many OT hours).
Big learning curve and the folks at Garmin are trying to get all the bugs out. Lots of comments on the geocaching site re. things to put back that were left off from the 60CSx to the 400T. The internal memory is the big difference in the 300 and 400T. The 400T has topo maps but you can overlay topo onto CN with the bigger internal memory and you can't with the 300. It's like the 60CSx, one or the other, but not both.
AA batteries work for a long time. The big pleasure in the 300 and 400 is the geocache programming. Load the caches and the cache info and you have all the online logs and latest on the caches while standing in the woods trying to figure out if it is a micro, it has been "muggled" or you are just blind. The arrow to the cache is there with all the other info. And you can set the compass to magnetic, or electronic. Lighter than the 60CSx, the 300 is a challenge in the early production and software models. Latest version was 2.4 and 2.6 (software/hdw ver).
Your call. What do you want your GPS for, then decide by using the comparison tables at gpsnow or at Garmin.


ride on y'all.