which would you buy...explorist 600 or garmin 60csx and why plz.

[+Raven02]

I have narrowed it down to these 2. But I need more info on the pros and cons of each. Please help lead me in the right direction.

[f5fstop]

I have narrowed it down to these 2. But I need more info on the pros and cons of each. Please help lead me in the right direction.

 

I had nothing but problems with my Magellan SPORTOPO. Twice into service, and calling Magellan for service is like asking the IRS for a refund. Then after three years, it literally fell apart when removing the battery compartment. Understand, this was not used 12 months out of the year, it was used for off-road excursions in a Hummer out west, and a few trips in the southern states; along with many miles of hiking. However, it was never dropped or abused in any way, and never was subjected to any rains storms.

I had a Garmin iQue 3600 for street navigation, and the one time I called Garmin, the tech was able to help me over the phone, and they answered the phone in a reasonable amount of time (15 - 20 minutes). After about three years, it still works fine, even though I have switched to two AVIC Z1 Pioneer indash units in both vehicles for highway use.

I purchased a Garmin 60 CSX for off-road use and for hiking, and it is twice as good as the TOPO. Yes, I realize it has a better chip, better screen and is more technically advanced, but it also feels like a better built unit (non-scientific way of saying I like the feel better).

 

Therefore, with my experiences with Magellan vs. Garmin, I naturally went with Garmin (but I did look seriiously at Lowrance).

[ossumguywill]

Sportopo is a badly built unit. The new units are very sturdy, rubber armored and waterproof to 1 meter for 30 minutes. The support does kinda suck. Garmin is just eye candy. The 60CSx is basically the 600 minus 2 channels, minus the three axis compass, minus the advanced features like area calc and stuff (don't know exactly), and I think minus the elev. profiling. Not sure if 60CSx is EGNOS enabled. Also, (please note this is in my expirience) the explorist is more accurate than the 60CSx.

Edited October 24, 2006 by ossumguywill

[+hogrod]

I had nothing but problems with 6 different magellan units, of the explorist series Ive owned three(a 200, 210 & 400). I've owned a few garmins and would highly recommend then over magellan any day. garmin customer service is the best of any place I have dealt with, magellan was just a pain.

 

I agree the 3-axis compass of the explorist 600 is great, but would still rather have the 60csx. you can customize the data feilds and the unit in general more with the 60csx, and its just as accurate if not more than the magellan.

Another thing to consider is software, I also prefer garmins software(city navigator & topo US are both great).

[ossumguywill]

I had nothing but problems with 6 different magellan units, of the explorist series Ive owned three(a 200, 210 & 400). I've owned a few garmins and would highly recommend then over magellan any day. garmin customer service is the best of any place I have dealt with, magellan was just a pain.

 

I agree the 3-axis compass of the explorist 600 is great, but would still rather have the 60csx. you can customize the data feilds and the unit in general more with the 60csx, and its just as accurate if not more than the magellan.

Another thing to consider is software, I also prefer garmins software(city navigator & topo US are both great).

 

You can customize data fields on an explorist too. menu>customize page.

[+hogrod]

you can customize the data feilds and the unit in general more with the 60csx, and its just as accurate if not more than the magellan.

 

You can customize data fields on an explorist too. menu>customize page.

 

What I meant if that wasn't apparent was there is way more data options when you do customize data feilds, also the 60csx has a very nice trip computer page that has TONS of data fields..... the explorist isn't even as customizable as the older magellan meridian golds I had, not as many data screens and not as many data options.

 

also I prefer the icon based menu system of the 60csx when doing anything at a quick glance, though the magellans text menus aren't that bad.

Edited October 25, 2006 by hogrod

[beauxp]

I have an Explorist 400 now. Unit is great but tech support is awful. I have never seen worse tech support from any electornics vendor. I have a Garmin unit on order and have called support a few time with questions prior to buying. They are always very helpful.

[ossumguywill]

I have an Explorist 400 now. Unit is great but tech support is awful. I have never seen worse tech support from any electornics vendor. I have a Garmin unit on order and have called support a few time with questions prior to buying. They are always very helpful.

 

I agree completely. My 400 was great until a nearby magnet corrupted some data. It was probably fixable, and I urgently needed the unit fixed to do surveying but the lady in customer support was absolutely clueless and didn't help at all. I ended up returning it to costco and getting the 600.

[+GeekBoy.from.Illinois]

I have narrowed it down to these 2. But I need more info on the pros and cons of each. Please help lead me in the right direction.

 

Well, I happen to own one of each of these, and I find it difficult to determine which is "best" for me, so I tend to use both of them. If I had to chose between one of the two, I would have a hard time. I can list my experiences with my units to see if it helps you to determine which you would prefer to have:

 

The Magellan's thermometer is of little value as it is measuring the temperature inside the unit, not the ambient air temp. Both the Garmin and the Magellan have these internal thermal sensors to help calibrate their data, and that feature is "essential" to keep the units accurate. The Garmin electronic compass is difficult to use accurately, as you must keep the unit perfectly level for it to be accurate, where the Magellan is much easier to use with its 3-axis compass. Both units come with minimal base maps that are of little value, and you must spend about $100 to get the additional maps you need. If you want maps that can also be used for driving directions, expect to pay about $150 for them. The accuracy of the maps are highly dependant on your location, and which is better also depends upon your usage and area.

 

Into more geocaching specific areas: The Magellan has a limit of 500 waypoints and 200 geocaches (per file with no apparent limit to the number of files). The Garmin has a limit of 1000 waypoints (including geocaches). If you want to use your GPSr for driving directions it needs some of those waypoints for that. Both units can store data on the card storage to allow for expanded capacity, but you lose some functionality by doing this. With the Magellan, you have to search for the nearest geocache in each of the files to find the one that is actually nearest to your current location. If you live in a "cache rich environment", you may need to look through 15 or more files to find the cache nearest to you. The Garmin makes this much easier, as it will search through all the [custom POI] files on the card and show you the nearest ones, but it doesn't allow you to mark them as found and exclude them from the next search. Additionally, you lose the ability to use the "geocaching mode" for these points, because they are not stored in the proper waypoint format for that feature.

 

The Garmin uses "AA" batteries, and the Magellan uses Lithium rechargeable (cell phone) batteries. Both units can run off external power when in your car to extend the battery life, but my Garmin seems to "eat" the batteries faster than the Magellan. I have NiMH batteries for the Garmin so I am "re-using" them to try to help reduce the total cost. The Garmin allows you to turn the back light completely off, and it even allows you to turn the GPSr radio off (but leave the unit on). The Magellan does not allow the light to be turned off, and it is always trying to get satellite reception whenever the unit is on. The Magellan uses standard SD cards, and the Garmin uses micro-SD cards. The micro-SD cards are smaller and more difficult for me to work with (since I have large fingers/hands), not to mention that they are more expensive. Both units store the cards underneath the battery, so you have to take the battery out to remove the card.

 

The Garmin is slightly larger and I think slightly heavier. Being slightly larger it has a slightly larger screen, but it is also harder to disguise if you are trying to be inconspicuous. The button layout is similar for both units (all of the buttons can be operated by the thumb on the hand holding the unit). The menuing system on the two is different. Magellan uses a text/menu based system, whereas Garmin uses the icon/Palm-ish menuing system. I can't say that one is better than the other, or one is easier than the other, since I have been using computers from the "old DOS days" I have no problems with either.

 

The Garmin generally reports that it has a higher accuracy in its position assessment, but both units seem to be pretty consistent in their accuracy for me (once I got past some early problems with the Magellan). I find myself using the Garmin more lately since my wife uses the Magellan when we cache together. When I am out alone, I have taken to using the Magellan for driving directions to the cache, and then using the Garmin to locate the cache. This is more because I work that way when I am caching with my wife, so it is more of a consistency than anything else. I guess the early [bad] experiences with Magellan have tainted my views as well, but those were essentially resolved by performing a full system reset, and not leaving the unit on when it will be out of communications with the satellites for any length of time. I suspect that having the unit on while inside added to the problems it was having when I first got it.

 

I hope that this provides you with some helpful information.

[+Raven02]

I have narrowed it down to these 2. But I need more info on the pros and cons of each. Please help lead me in the right direction.

 

Well, I happen to own one of each of these, and I find it difficult to determine which is "best" for me, so I tend to use both of them. If I had to chose between one of the two, I would have a hard time. I can list my experiences with my units to see if it helps you to determine which you would prefer to have:

 

The Magellan's thermometer is of little value as it is measuring the temperature inside the unit, not the ambient air temp. Both the Garmin and the Magellan have these internal thermal sensors to help calibrate their data, and that feature is "essential" to keep the units accurate. The Garmin electronic compass is difficult to use accurately, as you must keep the unit perfectly level for it to be accurate, where the Magellan is much easier to use with its 3-axis compass. Both units come with minimal base maps that are of little value, and you must spend about $100 to get the additional maps you need. If you want maps that can also be used for driving directions, expect to pay about $150 for them. The accuracy of the maps are highly dependant on your location, and which is better also depends upon your usage and area.

 

Into more geocaching specific areas: The Magellan has a limit of 500 waypoints and 200 geocaches (per file with no apparent limit to the number of files). The Garmin has a limit of 1000 waypoints (including geocaches). If you want to use your GPSr for driving directions it needs some of those waypoints for that. Both units can store data on the card storage to allow for expanded capacity, but you lose some functionality by doing this. With the Magellan, you have to search for the nearest geocache in each of the files to find the one that is actually nearest to your current location. If you live in a "cache rich environment", you may need to look through 15 or more files to find the cache nearest to you. The Garmin makes this much easier, as it will search through all the [custom POI] files on the card and show you the nearest ones, but it doesn't allow you to mark them as found and exclude them from the next search. Additionally, you lose the ability to use the "geocaching mode" for these points, because they are not stored in the proper waypoint format for that feature.

 

The Garmin uses "AA" batteries, and the Magellan uses Lithium rechargeable (cell phone) batteries. Both units can run off external power when in your car to extend the battery life, but my Garmin seems to "eat" the batteries faster than the Magellan. I have NiMH batteries for the Garmin so I am "re-using" them to try to help reduce the total cost. The Garmin allows you to turn the back light completely off, and it even allows you to turn the GPSr radio off (but leave the unit on). The Magellan does not allow the light to be turned off, and it is always trying to get satellite reception whenever the unit is on. The Magellan uses standard SD cards, and the Garmin uses micro-SD cards. The micro-SD cards are smaller and more difficult for me to work with (since I have large fingers/hands), not to mention that they are more expensive. Both units store the cards underneath the battery, so you have to take the battery out to remove the card.

 

The Garmin is slightly larger and I think slightly heavier. Being slightly larger it has a slightly larger screen, but it is also harder to disguise if you are trying to be inconspicuous. The button layout is similar for both units (all of the buttons can be operated by the thumb on the hand holding the unit). The menuing system on the two is different. Magellan uses a text/menu based system, whereas Garmin uses the icon/Palm-ish menuing system. I can't say that one is better than the other, or one is easier than the other, since I have been using computers from the "old DOS days" I have no problems with either.

 

The Garmin generally reports that it has a higher accuracy in its position assessment, but both units seem to be pretty consistent in their accuracy for me (once I got past some early problems with the Magellan). I find myself using the Garmin more lately since my wife uses the Magellan when we cache together. When I am out alone, I have taken to using the Magellan for driving directions to the cache, and then using the Garmin to locate the cache. This is more because I work that way when I am caching with my wife, so it is more of a consistency than anything else. I guess the early [bad] experiences with Magellan have tainted my views as well, but those were essentially resolved by performing a full system reset, and not leaving the unit on when it will be out of communications with the satellites for any length of time. I suspect that having the unit on while inside added to the problems it was having when I first got it.

 

I hope that this provides you with some helpful information.

 

 

THANKYOU so much for your advice and your experiences with these units......I think I'm going with the 60CSX. Hope I made the right decision. I think I did. Hope to see you all out there caching. Thanks again from Ohio.

[+gpsblake]

I would be a much bigger fan of the Explorist if they didn't dumb down the unit from the Meridian line. The Explorist getting rid of the Trip Computer Screen, Speedometer screen, & making the Odometer only down to .1 mile instead of .01 mile was unacceptable to me. Magellan should have taken a hint from the Ifinders and have a novice mode and a expert mode with all the bells & whistles.

 

Since I primarily use my GPS for bicycling, the Explorist simply doesn't have the data fields or screens that I need.I like to know my total average speed, climbing speed, and my moving average speed. The Explorist simply can not do this. I also don't like the fact that it doesn't have a separate trip odometer from the regular odometer. And to view the regular odometer, I've got to scroll thru screens on the Explorist then switch again to view my MPH.

 

But if I were to buy a unit simply for geocaching, I would choose the Explorist. I do like the feel of them. But for now, I'm using a Legend-C for my bicycling needs.

[+GeekBoy.from.Illinois]

THANKYOU so much for your advice and your experiences with these units......I think I'm going with the 60CSX. Hope I made the right decision. I think I did. Hope to see you all out there caching. Thanks again from Ohio.

 

No problems. To be honest, I don't think that you can really go wrong with either of the two units you are looking at. They are both good units, although they each have their own eccentricities or faults (depending upon your point of view). I really like both units, and have a hard time saying that one is better than the other. They have differences, and those differences may make one better or worse for you, but I'm lucky enough that I can usually work in a team that has one of each.