NiMH Battery performance with firmware 2.4?

[+Quiet-Tiger]

I was wondering if anyone has had the opportunity to use the Colorado (FW2.4) with NiMH batteries and seen an improvement. This was the biggest issue for me and I have put off getting a Colorado till this is addressed.

 

I had a look through some of the Colorado threads but no one seems to be making any comments about the NiMH performance with 2.4 firmware. That in its self might be a good sign!

 

Sylvain

[+LifeOnEdge!]

I was wondering if anyone has had the opportunity to use the Colorado (FW2.4) with NiMH batteries and seen an improvement. This was the biggest issue for me and I have put off getting a Colorado till this is addressed.

 

I had a look through some of the Colorado threads but no one seems to be making any comments about the NiMH performance with 2.4 firmware. That in its self might be a good sign!

 

Sylvain

 

No one? I don't understand. Almost anyone who has admitted to seeing increased performance is (secretly) using NiMH batteries.

 

First of all, those who complain, generally don't tell you what they are doing. Its a blanket %&^*%$ session. I relate it to the (this story dates me) mother who peeks into her baby's diaper to see if its full. The baby is crying for some reason. Lets see if there's a gift!

 

Yes, there is increased improvement in NiMH performance with the 2.40 release. Basically, its seen in the corrected battery levels in the meter and not in the actual performance side of the issue. There is some performance, but its hard to tell how much, if any, there is since the meter wasn't indicating the proper battery level AND the unit was shutting off when there was plenty of energy left in the batteries.

 

Garmin is still working on battery consumption. This isn't a completed project.

 

Here is how I see it. If you have NiMH batteries, you should probably have three sets, with the pre-charged version as two or four of the six you have for the unit. I charge up my 2650s the night before I go out, leaving them in the charger for a trickle charge until I leave the house. The other two pair (one pair for me, since I am using 4 pair for two units instead of 3 pair for one) were previously charged and don't lose charge like the standard batteries. I'm set to go. I have a backup pair "just in case. I also have a charger that I can use in the vehicle. This keeps me set for batteries so I don't have to be as concerned with actual performance. In the meantime, I'm cycling new batteries as I use them and waiting for the next firmware release, hoping that I'll see some increase. Regardless, I'm happy. - Pat

[+Quiet-Tiger]

Ok so what you seem to be telling me is the NiMH problem is not fixed. While the battery metter seems to now follow the system still knocks off way before the batteries are actually dead. IE if you take a set of batteries out of a "dead" Colorado and put them into a 60CX you can get another 4+ hours of use. I've read several posts about this.

 

Here is my concern. If this issue of the batteries being declared dead by the Colorado to early has not been fixed then its likely not a firmware solution. If this is the case the solution would likely be a hardware revision. If that is the case then I'd have to wait for the next hardware rev before I buy.

 

My questions are...

 

With the new firmware how long will the Colorado operate with the backlight at 25% and 100%?

Does the Colorado with 2.4 still override the backlight when the unit drops to two bars?

 

Thanks

[+g-o-cashers]

I think that there are two issues 1) making the battery metering work correctly and reliably and 2) improvements to overall battery life in the CO. Because of issues with 1) it is very hard to see whether Garmin has made any changes that impact 2).

 

With 2.4 I think there are still problems with 1). Occasionally I get battery low warnings and several minutes later will see 3 bars on the battery. Garmin did add a configuration setting in 2.4 which sounds like it should disable the auto-dimming/shutoff of the backlight but even with this turned on I still see the backlight getting turned down/off when the battery gets low. I still notice drastically different performance on different sets of NiMH batteries (much more than I saw with the same batteries on my 60cs).

 

In general the battery performance in 2.4 is better than 2.3 but there is still work to do to make the metering more reliable and work across a larger range of battery types.

 

GO$Rs

[toddm]

I'd say it depends

 

Garmin seems to have improved the nimh battery level indicator if you will. Also you now have the option to keep the unit from automatically turning the backlight down as the batteries get to about 2 bars left, at the cost of runtime no doubt. That is a mixed bag though, first of all after awhile the unit still decides it cannot support backlight and shuts it "off". Which is fine, I'm pretty sure the 60/76/etrex do this. One issue is it does not turn the backlight "off" it turns it down to like 20% which is silly. Because even in a pitch black room 20% is barely visible but it's certainly chewing up battery life.

 

As to total runtime, I doubt there is much garmin can improve with firmware updates here, electronics drain what they drain, they may be able to alter certain things that reduce power consumption but I don't think we are going to see a huge improvement. However that may compromise other things such as accuracy, or the frequency of position updating so it's give and take.

 

On thing that might help is I know my 76 has a "battery saver" setting, I believe all it does is reduce the sampling rate. It seems the colorado updates every second, but it might help a lot with runtime if they could have a battery saver setting that updated every oh 3 seconds. That's a lot less screen redrawing and iterations. I use it a lot hiking or on long road trips where I know I don't need instant turn by turn navigation for long periods of time and it does seem to increase runtime significantly.

 

However, the bottom line is, the colorado is a battery hog, it should not be that surprising since it's only rated to run 15 hours. With many users finding that they need to have the backlight cranked up you can figure about half the stated runtime. On the unit I was playing with using new 2650 duracells, I was getting about 7-8 hours of runtime with the backlight at 75%, which is the minimum in my opinion you need it set at to make a difference unless it's really dark out. Pretty much half what my 76csx will do and close to 1/3 what my etrex will do with similar backlight and system settings. That is with waas on, and the compass on. I think the bottom line here is we are paying a runtime price for a big screen with a lot of resolution, probably to support the image viewer function. That's not a feature to me unless garmin makes it so you can use georeferenced image to navigate with. Frankly I'd much rather have the etrex screen, it's capable of a bright enough backlight that it's actually visible in almost all daylight conditions where the coloroado is very hard to see in anything but direct sunlight, and the backlight even on 100% is not much help. In fact compared to my etrex HCx set 2 positions from no backlight is as bright as the colorado at full backlight. Again my guess is garmin did this for runtime if you could get 2-3x brighter backlight on the colorado it probably would not run 4 hours.

 

It would be interesting to see what garmin has changed about how they test runtimes. I say this because the 76csx is only rated for 18 hours, but my unit will run oh 14-15 hours on the same set of batteries with the same level of backlight as the colorado, and my etrex rated at 25 hours gets near 20 hours. It's interesting that the colorado with backlight can barely last 50% of it's stated battery life. Hopefully garmin can do some things to really increase battery life, but I would not hold my breath. On the plus side for uses like hiking, you can use the backlight at full power but use a 15-30 second backlight timer feature and you are likely to get probably close to the rated runtime.

 

However for biking or driving where you would want to see the unit pretty much the whole time, runtime is very poor. In a car it's no big deal to get a car kit and plug it in. On the bike that's not an option.

 

In the field for actual navigation and field work, you simply can't beat the etrex hcx line, it runs 20 hours so a person does not have to worry about a battery change more than once a day, carry one spare set and you are good. If i were to use the colorado in the field I'd have potentially 2-3 battery changes a day, that's more hassle than I'd want to deal with. It also means instead of charging one set of batteries a day I'd have to charge 2-3 sets, which means a larger charger and more charging time and more hassle.

 

While the colorado is a new format......I'm not really seeing much in the way of ground breaking features, in fact it has much less user adjustability than the older units. I don't geo-cache so I really can't comment on that, but as far as navigation, and marking accurate waypoints, frankly it's a step backwards in features and function than the older units. You have no waypoint averaging, no ability to use georeferenced images, half the runtime, no trackback feature, the unit is much harder to see out in daylight, the new text entering method while I like the rocker wheel format, it takes much longer than the older style, and we are still kneecapped with 20 tracks and 50 route limits. Garmin continues to drop the ball by not allowing more functionality with the data card. I can slap a 16 gig card in a colorado, but I still can't have more than 20 tracks, and with no trackback feature, that's at most 9 out and back trails, that's just unacceptable.

[+LifeOnEdge!]

Ok so what you seem to be telling me is the NiMH problem is not fixed. While the battery metter seems to now follow the system still knocks off way before the batteries are actually dead. IE if you take a set of batteries out of a "dead" Colorado and put them into a 60CX you can get another 4+ hours of use. I've read several posts about this.

 

Here is my concern. If this issue of the batteries being declared dead by the Colorado to early has not been fixed then its likely not a firmware solution. If this is the case the solution would likely be a hardware revision. If that is the case then I'd have to wait for the next hardware rev before I buy.

 

My questions are...

 

With the new firmware how long will the Colorado operate with the backlight at 25% and 100%?

Does the Colorado with 2.4 still override the backlight when the unit drops to two bars?

 

Thanks

 

Uhhhh, NO. That's not what I said at all.

 

Considering your viewpoint on this issue: the battery problem is fixed.

 

IN ADDITION: Garmin is working to further increase the performance of the batteries.

 

You are confusing battery performance with battery level display. Two Different Things.

_____________________________________________________

 

For your decision, if you would purchase any advanced mapping GPS, you should consider the Colorado (if your pockets are that deep.)

 

The Colorado does NOT shut off prematurely like it did previously. That has been fixed with the 2.40 firmware revision.

 

The backlight limits do go into affect, but gradually. Not at 2 bars.

 

I think your question of how long the unit will last with 25% and 100% backlight on is neither well defined or particularly useful. Here's why:

 

If you set the backlight levels and set backlight to stay on, THEN leave the unit on the desk, it will run on and on and on. Not for 24 hours, but not for 4 hours either. If you set the backlight levels and set backlight to stay on, THEN go out in the field and use the unit, you will be using more battery power, and thus running the batteries down sooner than you would had it been sitting on your desk.

 

All other things being the same, if you took out the Colorado 400t and the GPSmap 60CSx and set them similarly, you would have a couple more hours of life out of the 60, but still have a good day with both units.

 

Suggestion: If you can't afford three pairs of rechargeable batteries for your new Colorado, you have over-extended your budget and should stick with something less expensive. If you are willing to accept shorter battery life and have backup battieries "just in case," then buy the unit and enjoy it.

Edited February 29, 2008 by LifeOnEdge!

[+LifeOnEdge!]

Here is the situation:

 

Garmin definitely fixed the battery metering problem. The proper levels are set based on the needs of the Colorado to perform.

 

The Colorado still needs a certain amount of energy to run. The backlight is the greatest drain on this and that drain depends on which screen you have displayed and what background you are using at the time.

 

More light coming from the unit = More battery drain

 

What people other than me aren't telling you is that the Colorado screens have been redesigned. It has mostly white text on dark backgrounds on all screens besides the map screen. The fewer brighter pixels you have illuminated, the less power you use. Its that simple.

 

What are some other issues:

 

The Colorado has a larger screen. That takes more power to opperate.

The electronic compass is more stable on the Colorado. I suspect this comes at a price for power.

The Colorado also have several more pages to go through than on the other units. Instead of buttons, this unit has control screens. This also comes at a price for power.

 

In all these "comparisons," parameters are not consistant and are not being specified. Lets face it, the average geocacher is neither a scientist nor an engineer. To get some accurate information, we really need to specify several things about the batteries and their conditions before we even begin to nail down the specific conditions of the tests.

 

Along similar lines, very little useful information has been collected from the users claiming there is sporatic battery meter readout. We know the first reported issue has been resolved. Now we see a few people stating that they have 3 bars, then 1 bar, then back to 3 bars. I don't think this issue was mentioned before the 2.40 firmware update. That doesn't mean that the update caused the problem. We just don't know until more and more specific information is obtained.

[+Quiet-Tiger]

Thanks toddm... That helps... I knew even before it was released that on AA batteries the Colorado would be problematic IE need more cells. I'm glad to hear the backlight auto off function has been made less obtrusive. The eTrex Cx and 60Cx I own also cut the backlight but normally it is very close to the end of the battery life.

 

Life On Edge you seem to have not completely understood my point of view. I do not yet own a Colorado. I very much want one and yes my pockets are indeed deep enough. My interpretation / perception is based on many post on this forum about the Colorado performance.

 

Several poster had stated that the Colorado would shutdown indicating low batteries, but that if the batteries were removed thay would continue to operate for several hours once installed in a 60Cx. That would appear to indicate that either the set point for declaring a low condition as set too high, or that the minimum voltage for the Colorado was significantly higher than the 60Cx. The second one is particularly problematic since NiMH batteries have a very flat curve. That is to say the difference between full charge and about to die is small and then then falls very quickly at once voltage droop begins. By comparison a standard alkaline looks more like a diagonal line. So if the Colorado minimum voltage is too close to the 1.2V of NiMH cells it essentially makes these cells unsuitable for the unit.

 

A problem with the minimum voltage would mean migrating to expensive 1.5V lithium rechargeable rather than the more common 1.2V NiMH. Or carrying three or more sets of the NiMH.

 

Your understanding of the dark pixels and backlight are also in error. A backlight is one single component the number of light and dark pixels on the screen has very little to do with power usage. Even though the pixels may be dark, the backlight is actually on under them. In fact I do believe that opaque pixels are actually "on" and using power. Though I know from experience that compared to the backlight the pixel drain is very much lower.

 

You are absolutely right, larger screen, higher resolution faster processor more memory... all these things contribute to the shorter battery life. I just want to get an idea of the performance of the unit. If I can get 6 hours out of the unit with %50 backlight I'll be happy. When the unit was originally released I saw several post claiming 2 hours or less on 2500mAh.

 

I have no doubt that Garmin is working hard to make a good product. Not to make us happy so much as to increase sales and make the shareholders happy. I was one of these until several months ago and thankfully took my profit before the recent Garmin slide, but that is another story.

 

I like the Colorado for its paperless caching and the colorful maps. I'm pretty sure this is the best PNG in its class. I have always been very pleased with the many Garmin products I purchased and the after sales support I received has been golden.

Edited February 29, 2008 by Quiet-Tiger

[+nicolo]

...

You are absolutely right, larger screen, higher resolution faster processor more memory... all these things contribute to the shorter battery life. I just want to get an idea of the performance of the unit. If I can get 6 hours out of the unit with %50 backlight I'll be happy. When the unit was originally released I saw several post claiming 2 hours or less on 2500mAh.

 

...

 

I like the Colorado for its paperless caching and the colorful maps. I'm pretty sure this is the best PNG in its class. I have always been very pleased with the many Garmin products I purchased and the after sales support I received has been golden.

That kind of battery performance was, for me anyway, pre-2.4 upgrade. Since then I have had well over 10 hours of usage out of my 2000 mAh batteries. However, I didn't have the backlighting on all the time ... 2 minute timeout at 100%.

 

If you do a lot of caching in a day, you will love the Colorado for paperless caching.

[+RRLover]

The fewer brighter pixels you have illuminated, the less power you use. Its that simple.

The Colorado, having an LCD (light valve) screen doesn't illuminate individual pixels as an CRT, or

plasma screen would. The process is a reflective background and the 'PICture ELements' are (for lack

of a better term) little windows that darken or lighten to allow the backlight to show through (or not).

That light can be ambient, or provided by a powered source. Part of the brightness issues are manifest in

the pixel density (approximately 30% greater than a 60 series) measure the screen resolution and

the "real-estate" (pixels per sq. unit of measure) . Each pixel has a border around it by which it

gets the electronic signal to tell it 'on', or 'off'. a mesh so to speak. On the 60 series the screen is veiled by

an 'opera mesh stocking, and on the colorado, fine silk.

So the ratio of energy used would be opposite since a 'charged' pixel is the one that darkens.

The LCD panel uses far less energy than the backlight, so the main factor here is how far one has to

"crank up" the backlight for adequate (to them) brightness to see the screen details. This veiling effect is

also why the Colorado has reduced visibility when no backlight is used, as the ambient light has to pass

through the veil twice.

 

Norm

[+Quiet-Tiger]

Could any one else post the battery performance post 2.4? So far I have three post say it has. One of them indicates that performance pre 2.4 was 2-4h and post was over 10h. Can anyone confirm or deny.

[+geobernd]

Could any one else post the battery performance post 2.4? So far I have three post say it has. One of them indicates that performance pre 2.4 was 2-4h and post was over 10h. Can anyone confirm or deny.

I get approx 6 hours on my 300 with backlight @ 100% and a little over 10 with backlight on 1 minute out off with 2300mAH NiMH nicely charged. Less than my 60CS but an acceptable tradeoff for the much nicer display and functionality.

[+victorymike]

I have never had good luck with either NiMH NOR Lithium rechargeables in my GPSs. I first bought them when I had my Garmin eMap back around 2002...and they wouldn't last 4 hours. So I stuck with Alkalines since then. I recently bought the Colorado 400t...and recently upgraded to firmware v2.40. I figured that I'd give rechargeables another try since my 400t actually offered settings for specific types of rechargeable batteries. I bought a set of 4 NUON 2500mah NiMH rechargeables in a kit. Last weekend the last set of alkalines died and I put in the first pair of NiMH's. I have no idea if they will last or not, but I am hopeful...so I am following threads like this with renewed interest. When this pair dies I'll gladly add my information, but I expect to have to recharge these batteries a few times before they reach their maximum potential.

Edited March 1, 2008 by victorymike

[+donbadabon]

I picked up my 400t last night, took it out today.

 

Duracell alkalines lasted about 3 hours before they died, 2700 NiMH's lasted about 1.5 hours before they died. Ugh. I went through 4 sets of batteries for a caching day.

 

This was with no backlight, WAAS on, and no turn-by-turn.

[+geobernd]

I picked up my 400t last night, took it out today.

 

Duracell alkalines lasted about 3 hours before they died, 2700 NiMH's lasted about 1.5 hours before they died. Ugh. I went through 4 sets of batteries for a caching day.

 

This was with no backlight, WAAS on, and no turn-by-turn.

Are you running 2.4?

[+donbadabon]

Are you running 2.4?

 

Yep.

 

Software version 2.4.0

GPS Software version 2.6.0

[+geobernd]

Wow - I would almost say there is a good chance that you got a bad Colorado....

[+donbadabon]

Wow - I would almost say there is a good chance that you got a bad Colorado....

 

Heading back to REI first thing tomorrow then! Thanks for the confirmation.

[+RRLover]

The fewer brighter pixels you have illuminated, the less power you use. Its that simple.

That light can be ambient, or provided by a powered source. Part of the brightness issues are manifest in

the pixel density (approximately 30% greater than a 60 series) measure the screen resolution and

the "real-estate" (pixels per sq. unit of measure) . Each pixel has a border around it by which it

gets the electronic signal to tell it 'on', or 'off'. a mesh so to speak. On the 60 series the screen is veiled by

an 'opera mesh stocking, and on the colorado, fine silk.

 

Norm

 

Upon review, I misquoted the pixel density. The Colorado has aprox. 96,000 pixels for 3.9+ sq. in. of

screen, whereas the 60 series has 38,000 pixels for 3.3 sq. in. of screen. The colorado has just over

2X the density. W/ three layers (one for each color) of LCD it's no wonder it appears darker in ambient light.

For an equal amount of ambient brightness (as the 60s) a display screen would cost as much as the

Colorado itself (if such a thing exists at all).

 

Norm

[+Quiet-Tiger]

Just remember victorymike you will need to cycle your new NiMH cells six to ten times before they reach their maximum capacity. I don't mean that you have to do this each time. New batteries have a break in period for lack of a better expression. After they have been charged, used and recharged several times they work up to their maximum capacity. So if you don't get exactly what you expect at first stick with it. After a few charges the batteries will begin to last longer.

[+twolpert]

I have a reply from Garmin tech support dated March 3, 2008. My actual question had to do with random fluctuations of the battery meter with some types of alkaline non-rechargeables and firmware 2.40. They completely failed to answer THAT question, but did provide the "official line" on NiMH rechargeables and the fluctuating battery meter problem in 2.40:

 

Thank you for contacting Garmin International.

 

We have not seen this issue persist if the batteries are those listed

below with 2500 mah. And the up date to the firmware operating system

 

is current. It is a good idea to view that in the device, under Main

Menu tools, system and options , software version.

 

I could only ask that you try different battery.

 

If using NiMH insure you are using Energizer, Duracell or Sanyo

w/capacity greater than 2500 mAh. We have found these to be of higher

quality than others.

 

Otherwise, I am happy to set up an exchange for you. I need a good

shipping address, phone number and unit serial number please.

 

Let me know.

 

I take this to mean that if you are still having fluctuating battery meter problems with their preferred NiMH battery brands/capacities, you should return it to Garmin for a swap...

 

I have not tried rechargeables. On my unit, at least, 2.40 still has problems with the battery meter with Energizer e2 Titanium alkalines. And it still shuts off with plenty of juice in the batteries. I can turn the unit back on and get 2 bars. And it will run for some time before it shuts off again. Because of the premature shutoff problem, it's hard to tell just how bad the battery life really is. But I'm only getting 5 or 6 hours out of a pair of Duracell copper-top alkalines (backlight off, WAAS off, compass on). Plain, vanilla alkalines seem to have fewer problems with meter fluctuation than the expensive, long-life ones. Haven't decided whether or not ask for an RMA. I've seen posts from people who've swapped Colorados 2 and even 3 times. Maybe the devil I know is preferable to the one I don't. Other than the battery problem, I'm very satisfied with the unit...

 

Tom

[moonpup]

I'm seeing the same things with alkaline batteries. I get about 5-6 hours with no backlight and compass off. I haven't tried rechargeables yet, but when the Colorado thinks the alakalines are dead and won't power up I can put them in an eTrex and it will power right up showing 75% battery capacity.

 

This tells me they may have tweaked the rechargeables, but the alkaline setting needs a lot of work!

[+qlenfg]

I have never had good luck with either NiMH NOR Lithium rechargeables in my GPSs. I first bought them when I had my Garmin eMap back around 2002...and they wouldn't last 4 hours. So I stuck with Alkalines since then.

 

Garmin had one firmware update for the eMap that added the ability to use the rechargeables at some point. Last firmware update was 2003 or so. Mine seemed to work OK, a bit less battery life. My biggest problem was the batteries loosing connection after being on a shaky motorcycle for miles and miles. I wore out two Garmin bicycle mounts before I found the R.A.M. mounts. I'd probably still use it if I had some maps more recent than '99 or so.

[+qlenfg]

The other day I was playing with the Colorado in a totally dark car, and I noticed the backlight is not completely off when you crank the brightness down all the way. Just not visible under normal conditions.

 

We ran ours hard the other day with the backlight turned down all the way under partly clouding conditions in a partially wooded area and the display was still very readable. Just ordered 4 sets of 2700 mAh batteries from Thomas Distributing -- we'll see how good the life is with new high-capacity batteries.

[+Red90]

Heading back to REI first thing tomorrow then! Thanks for the confirmation.

 

Apparently they sold your returned unit to someone else...... Found caches still in memory....

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3366505

 

Let's avoid that store!!!

[+LifeOnEdge!]

I'm seeing the same things with alkaline batteries. I get about 5-6 hours with no backlight and compass off. I haven't tried rechargeables yet, but when the Colorado thinks the alakalines are dead and won't power up I can put them in an eTrex and it will power right up showing 75% battery capacity.

 

This tells me they may have tweaked the rechargeables, but the alkaline setting needs a lot of work!

 

I keep seeing post after post like this one that is lacking basic information (both to inform us of the actual situation and to demonstrate that you're aware of the various issues.)

 

What firmware version are you running?

 

Are you sure that the batteries placed in the unit are the same that the unit believes are installed?

 

After your Colorado shuts down with a Low Battery condirtion, what voltage are you seeing in the batteries?

 

If they are greater than 1.2 volts, did you place them in a different unit (with the proper battery type selected) and what did that unit indicate?

 

Without all this information, what you Do Not Say clouds the issue and only makes it look like there are more problems when its indeterminate if there is or is not an issue with your GPS unit.

__________________________________

 

Sorry to "unload" like this, but guys ... Information = Power.

[+LifeOnEdge!]

The other day I was playing with the Colorado in a totally dark car, and I noticed the backlight is not completely off when you crank the brightness down all the way. Just not visible under normal conditions.

 

We ran ours hard the other day with the backlight turned down all the way under partly clouding conditions in a partially wooded area and the display was still very readable. Just ordered 4 sets of 2700 mAh batteries from Thomas Distributing -- we'll see how good the life is with new high-capacity batteries.

 

With all the threads and all the posts, no one (besides myself) has indicated the real problem here (which you almost step directly in): The Colorado, once (backlight) turned on, can not be turned off. Sure, the backlight goes off with the timer, but its still in Backlight Mode.

 

This is definitely a bug that GARMIN needs to fix!

[+stroute]

You have made some pretty broad statments that some us don't know what we are doing and am reporting problems without knowing how to properly set up the unit. I to am a professional and know what I am doing. The unit has the latest installed firmware. As with the batteries for the 400T, they are freshly charged NiMH and when in the 60CSx show fully charged. On the 400T, I had the battery setting to show I was using the NiMH. With all these issues, on day 2 with unit, the batteries would only last 63minutes. Note: with it being overcast and light trees, to be able to see the screen you must turn on the backlight. Is the unit defective, don't know and I now don't really care. It has too many issues and to many problems. What do I want? I'd like a 400T with a brighter screen, longer battery life, and other issues addressed.

 

Found another issue today. I had over 900 way points imported from Mapsource. I deleted the waypoints from the menu of the 400T and it said they were deleted but guess what. They were still on the map. They had labels but were not accessable. Also, the Geocache menu selection is unable to find any of them. What gives here.

 

Too many problems. When Garmin fixes these issues, I'll definately consider getting one. They must fix these problems:

 

Dim screen (only fixed by turning up the backlight all the way), issues with POOR battery performance, Waypoint issues. Speaking of the screen, when outside I had my 60CSx on with the backlight OFF. Very readable and brillant. 400T-well what else can you say, the screen was barely visible. I found the only time the 400T was easily usable was at night.

 

Did I find anything I like. Yes, the 3D topo graphics are awesome. Than in itself will be a reason to do the upgrade when they units problems have been addressed.

 

Note: Sorry if I offended you with the double post.

 

Steve

Edited March 14, 2008 by stroute

[+Red90]

As with the batteries for the 400T, they are freshly charged NiMH and when in the 60CSx show fully charged. On the 400T, I had the battery setting to show I was using the NiMH. With all these issues, on day 2 with unit, the batteries would only last 63minutes. Note: with it being overcast and light trees, to be able to see the screen you must turn on the backlight.

 

Yes, it is defective. I get 13 to 14 hours on a set of Ni-MH before the low battery warning. Stop complaining and return.

[+qlenfg]

Just got my 2700 mAh batteries from Thomas Distributing. They're on the charger in break-in mode. We'll see how they hold up Sunday -- hopefully better than the old tired 2100 mAh batteries I've been using.

[+g-o-cashers]

Same here! Did you get a Maha MH-C9000? Man, I love this thing. Only one more charge cycle to go for my first set of 4 2700mAh's

 

GO$Rs

[+nicolo]

Just got my 2700 mAh batteries from Thomas Distributing. They're on the charger in break-in mode. We'll see how they hold up Sunday -- hopefully better than the old tired 2100 mAh batteries I've been using.

Good to hear. Please update us wrt battery life. I still get pretty decent life on my 2000 mAh Eneloops, 10+ hours but I'd like to know how higher capacity batteries fare.

[+TheSurfcaster]

When you speak to the Garmin techs, they recommend 2700Mah for the Colorado.

[+qlenfg]

Only snag is the break in can take 48-50 hours, so I may not get to try them this weekend. Batteries look like they're still on the first charge cycle so far. I did get an extra 8-cell battery holder and a free keychain flashlight (batteries not included ).

[+g-o-cashers]

I'm a little ahead of you and it looks like my first break-in will complete in about 40hrs, manual claims 39-45hrs.

 

It is a long time but the last time I used new NiMH batteries in my 60cs I had to run them through several cycles in the unit before they would hold a decent charge, I'm hoping the break-in capability of the MH-C9000 avoids this.

 

GO$Rs

[+nicolo]

Just got my 2700 mAh batteries from Thomas Distributing. They're on the charger in break-in mode. We'll see how they hold up Sunday -- hopefully better than the old tired 2100 mAh batteries I've been using.

BTW, which 2700's did you get?

 

I just noticed that they also have 2900's, yikes!

Edited March 15, 2008 by nicolo

[+g-o-cashers]

Just got my 2700 mAh batteries from Thomas Distributing. They're on the charger in break-in mode. We'll see how they hold up Sunday -- hopefully better than the old tired 2100 mAh batteries I've been using.

BTW, which 2700's did you get?

 

I just noticed that they also have 2900's, yikes!

 

Mine were PowerEx's (Maha), I've always had great luck with them.

 

GO$Rs

[+g-o-cashers]

First batch is out. I got 2520-2610 mAh rated across the four batteries. We'll see how they run now.

 

GO$Rs