Is the Colorado or Oregon worth getting instead of 60csx?

[+formula1]

I've read the threads, and having owned several GPS units in the past including a Magellan, Lowrance H2O, Map 76S, as well as auto units so I'm not exactly a noob. I was going to get a Colorado initially but after hearing about the accuracy issues, especially compared to the "old standby" the 60csx, I am trying out a 60csx but I'm still wondering would it be better to get something like a Colorado (I don't care if it's a touch screen so that feature of the Oregon does nothing for me). The 60csx is a nice unit but lacks any maps out of the box obviously but the Colorado 400t has the topographic maps built in as well as the 3d maps...which would save me the cost of having to buy topo 2008.

 

And while we're on the subject of topo maps, I've looked on eBay and I can get topo 3.02 for a lot less than buying a topo 2008 - my question is 1) will that work on a 60csx, and 2) is there a big difference between the topo 2008 and topo 3.02?

 

BTW GPS technology has come a long way since the last gps I bought. This 60csx can get satellite fix in seconds from almost anywhere in my house - it's much faster and can hold sat fix much better than any of my older units by an order of magnitude IMHO.

 

So the question remains, is the Colorado worth the extra $$$ for me to get instead?

 

Thanks in advance.

[+N55340]

I seldom post here, but I'll throw my 2 cents in. I did a side by side shakedown run between my trusty 60csx and my new Colorado this past weekend. While the Colorado has a lot of nice new features the display was miserable in bright sunlight (at least by my eyes). Even with full backlight on, it was much harder to read than the 60csx with no backlight on. As for accuracy, they were pretty much equal. The 60csx seemed to do a little better under really dense canopies. I think manually entering coordinates is quicker on the 60csx, but that may be because I'm more familiar with the unit.

 

I really like the Colorado, but I have the feeling that my 60csx is still going to be my primary. My Oregon should arrive tomorrow, so I guess I'll have to do a 3 way comparison this weekend.

[ryleyinstl]

The 60csx is a nice unit but lacks any maps out of the box obviously but the Colorado 400t has the topographic maps built in as well as the 3d maps...which would save me the cost of having to buy topo 2008.

 

60CSx + Topo 2008 = $400.00

 

CO 400t (includes Topo maps) = $475.00

 

I don't see the savings here.

Edited August 6, 2008 by ryleyinstl

[+formula1]

The 60csx is a nice unit but lacks any maps out of the box obviously but the Colorado 400t has the topographic maps built in as well as the 3d maps...which would save me the cost of having to buy topo 2008.

 

60CSx + Topo 2008 = $300.00

 

CO 400t (includes Topo maps) = $475.00

 

I don't see the savings here.

 

You're right, there is no "savings" per se, just that the 400t does not need to buy a topo map.

 

Where can you get the 60csx with topo 2008 for $300?

[ryleyinstl]

Where can you get the 60csx with topo 2008 for $300?

 

 

You can't....that should have been $400.00 :-)

 

 

The added utility of having the Topo Maps on the computer (TOPO 2008 DVD) is a big plus over the "built in" maps of the 400t (IMO).

[+formula1]

deleted due to double post

Edited August 6, 2008 by formula1

[Decidion]

Well a 60 CSX and Topo 2008 from Amazon is about $380, so it's roughly a $100 savings. And about a $200 savings over a Oregon 400t. So I see a savings there; not everyone has $100 to throw around...maybe you can throw a $100 bill my way if you have too many

 

Aside from that there are the list of "issues" with the Colorado and Oregon that don't make it as useable to me (for example the screen visibility and, occasional at least, accuracy problems). Just looking at the list of Colorado and Oregon "bugs" on their respective wiki's can make your head scramble.

 

Colorado issues

 

Oregon issues

 

I don't think anyone can deny the tried and tested capabilities of the 60 csx. It may not have some of the fancy bells and whistles of the other two models, but it has proven itself over the years as one of the most solid and reliable recreational GPS units.

 

Some people can deal with the issues and love their Colorado or Oregon. Just read all the facts and make your own informed decision.

Edited August 6, 2008 by Decidion

[mulveyr]

Well a 60 CSX and Topo 2008 from Amazon is about $380, so it's roughly a $100 savings. And about a $200 savings over a Oregon 400t. So I see a savings there; not everyone has $100 to throw around...maybe you can throw a $100 bill my way if you have too many

 

Aside from that there are the list of "issues" with the Colorado and Oregon that don't make it as useable to me (for example the screen visibility and, occasional at least, accuracy problems). Just looking at the list of Colorado and Oregon "bugs" on their respective wiki's can make your head scramble.

 

Colorado issues

 

Oregon issues

 

I don't think anyone can deny the tried and tested capabilities of the 60 csx. It may not have some of the fancy bells and whistles of the other two models, but it has proven itself over the years as one of the most solid and reliable recreational GPS units.

 

Some people can deal with the issues and love their Colorado or Oregon. Just read all the facts and make your own informed decision.

 

I've got both the 400T and the 60csx, and I can say that I categorically prefer the 60csx for hiking. Its feature set - the ability to deal with multiple tracks simultaneously, better battery life, details like distance measurement from the map screen, etc. all put it head and shoulders above the Colorado. Oh yeah, the fact that it's accurate is nice, too. :-)

 

The ONLY thing that the 400T has going for it is that it makes paperless geocaching much easier. But between the accuracy issues, the stupid-beyond-belief shutdown/etc. errors that should never have made it out of testing, all of the standard features on the 60 that are missing on the Colorado, etc. makes it an incredibly poor choice, overall. Mine is going on ebay real soon.

[gallet]

Since I got my colorado, I hardly ever use my Vista HCx any longer. I have had no accuracy issues with the Colorado at all. Make no mistake the display on the Colorado is the next generation, it's fantastic, much much finer resolution than a nuvi. 10m contours on a 60 or HCx are unusable at normal paper map scales, whereas 10m contours on the Colorado are amazing. And they can be viewed in driving mode which gives a faux 3D view.

[+storm180]

Since I have had my colorado I have not had to go back to my explorist 600. However when I am caching my better half carries a 60CSx so its basically the best of both worlds. I like however being able to leave my PDA at home becuase the colorado has all the info I need. I did notice a drift last weekend on a friends colorado that put him 127+ feet off fromt the cache when it was right it front of him but since there were multiple gps's in the group it was easy to tell his unit was in error. Probably not a good thing if you were by yourself.

 

I do carry my explorist 600 in my backpack when I go out alone but I have not had to use it as of yet.

[+Redwoods Mtn Biker]

The Oregon is far superior to the Colorado, IMHO.

[+BetaMan]

The Oregon is far superior to the Colorado, IMHO.

 

I agree. I haven't even turned on my Colorado since I got my Oregon. It was much more accurate right out of the box than the Colorado.

 

It is a NICE GPS! I am the envy of my GeoCaching friends!

[+Wesbo]

My only real gripe with the Oregon is the screen visibility. See if you can demo one before you buy.

 

Other than that, I'm not sure how it could be any better for what I expect a GPS to do. The paperless geocaching features are implemented really, really well.

Edited August 9, 2008 by Wesbo

[+Oky777]

I ran my Garmin Oregon and 60CSx side by side last night for a short walk and was surprised with my findings. I was expecting the 60CSx to easily win but I must say it was a draw. I walked at my local park ( about 1.3mi on the 60CSx and 1.22mi on the Oregon) that has both heavy tree cover and open space, I followed a path marking waypoints along the way and later uploaded the tracks to google earth for analysis. Both units would wander at times with the Oregon wandering off farthest but the 60CSx did some weird loops that weren't on the path and some of its waypoints and tracks didn't meet up. The Oregon gave the straightest/smoothest track and did good out in the open but under heavy cover it went off course and didn't come back where the 60CSx did good under cover and a bit more eratic in the open. Also the Oregon's waypoints seemed to be more spot on than the 60CSx's. The 60CSx always had better EPE with the gap between them anywhere from 3' to 30' but the Oregon was faster to lock on satellites and had more of them. This was one short unscienentfic test but I found it interesting that the Oregon did so well against "the champ" of GPS's.

[+CelticDave]

We have had quite a bit of experience with the Colorado series and were never satisfied with it's performance. Accuracy and random shut downs were the final straw for our last one. I had already traded mine in for a 60csx. Our new Oregon has been a pleasant surprise. No issues and no random shut downs. We have not experienced any accuracy issues with the Oregon and it has been just about as good as the 60csx, the differences not enough to make me leary of it. If I could only have one GPS I would base it on price at this point between the Oregon and 60csx. I like using POI files for caching because I can have so many more and you can do that with either. 95% of the time I use CN and not the topo but it is nice to have the topo available on the Oregon. We use our GPS units everyday so we spend quite a bit of time with them. Our primary use is geocaching. If you can afford both I would have one 60csx and one Oregon. You will have the best of both worlds and won't be disappointed.

[sokolo0]

Colorado - Oregon - 60CSx - tested in dense forest. On bicycle, 4 rounds in two locations.

 

Results:

 

 

 

Color:

Colorado - yellow

60CSx - red

Oregon - blue

 

Screenshots:

Oregon big and small loop:

 

Colorado:

 

60CSx - big loop:

 

I had with me Legend i 60CS too but both lost fix in first minute of test ride.

Small loop in very dense park vegetation.

 

Conclusion: all 4 rounds at both locations shows very good tracks from 60CSx , good from Colorado, not so good from Oregon.

 

Christopher

[+Redwoods Mtn Biker]

Conclusion: all 4 rounds at both locations shows very good tracks from 60CSx , good from Colorado, not so good from Oregon.

 

Were all the units handlebar mounted?

[sokolo0]

Conclusion: all 4 rounds at both locations shows very good tracks from 60CSx , good from Colorado, not so good from Oregon.

 

Were all the units handlebar mounted?

 

No. Colorado, 60CSx and Oregon in a small tourist bag side by side in external pocket. That bag on my back with GPSr's looking at the sky.

 

Christopher.

Edited August 9, 2008 by sokolo0

[schmidtbaby]

Colorado - Oregon - 60CSx - tested in dense forest. On bicycle, 4 rounds in two locations.

 

Results:

[Color:

Colorado - yellow

60CSx - red

Oregon - blue

 

I had with me Legend i 60CS too but both lost fix in first minute of test ride.

Small loop in very dense park vegetation.

 

Conclusion: all 4 rounds at both locations shows very good tracks from 60CSx , good from Colorado, not so good from Oregon.

 

Christopher

 

Wow,

 

I was going to try another Oregon until I saw this. Why can't Garmin simply add the feature set of the Oregon to the accuracy of the 6scx. What is up with all this???

 

OK, I know what is up with all this. I'm just venting. I sold my 60scx and returned the Colorado. and Oregon. It's hard for me to not be bothered by the poor accuracy of the Oregon and Colorado when I primarly bike on a public greenway with mile markers everywhere - and then see that the 60scx is spot on while the Colorado and Oregon are reporting that I dropped them somewhere about 0.2 miles ago

Edited August 9, 2008 by schmidtbaby

[Mystery Casher]

I only had limited time to play with the 400t so this is only a first impression, but for now, i'll say that i like the 60csx better. Price is one thing that definitely helps but if the 400t does have the capability of holding cache information, like i think i've heard it does, then that would make it the better deal for those who don't already have a pda of some sort.

 

As far as operation, the 60csx seems to perform a little better. I noticed that the 400t acted more like the older Magellans in that the arrow took me past and sometimes away form the cache at first, but then would settle in and get pretty close. Not sure what firmware it had so a newer version may have helped with the zeroing in on caches. User friendliness seemed ok, and the unit stayed on with no lockups. I did notice that the screen display wasn't as bright as the 60 unit.

Edited August 10, 2008 by Mystery Casher

[+March Brown]

I find all this very interesting. Am a bit worried when tests are done with GPS units close together. I have compared 3 60CSX units together and got worse results than those shown on this thread. The only conclusion I can make from this is that the units should be used to record a track separately, then the different tracks compared.

When I did my test it was because I suspected that 1 of the 60CSX was faulty and it was not till I tested them individually that the faulty one showed up.

The other 2 laid tracks on top of each other while together they strayed apart considerably.

Garmin repair in Australia confirmed that 2 units close together is not a fair comparison.

[+Wesbo]

Interesting... My OR 400t seems to track very well. I have a driveway about 1400' long. I walked one edge of my driveway the entire length of it and returned on the opposite edge. The recorded tracks are nice and parallel except for a little 'noise' in the outgoing track toward the end. Not a scientific test, obviously...

[+pokerace]

And while we're on the subject of topo maps, I've looked on eBay and I can get topo 3.02 for a lot less than buying a topo 2008 - my question is 1) will that work on a 60csx, and 2) is there a big difference between the topo 2008 and topo 3.02?

 

Be careful who you buy from on ebay.I just got ripped off buy a seller and can not get my money back.

 

ebar seller vikusi.

[sokolo0]

30minutes on plastic picnic table at terrace, perfect clear view of sky:

 

Color:

Colorado - yellow

60CSx - red

Oregon - blue

60CS - greyish

Legend - black

 

First three from tracklogs, 60CS and Legend b-w - saved tracks.

Conclusion: Oregon - fantastic, Colorado, Legend, 60CS - very good, 60CSx - jumps here and there, but keeps within circle of about 20mtr.

 

==========================

 

All five GPSr in car test under windscreen, streets in neighbourhood, very good view of sky:

 

Legend b-w- saved track (black), 60CS - saved track (blue), Oregon (green), 60CSx ( saved track - yellow), 60CSx ( tracklog - fiolet) - no track from Colorado on picture, but in that test it was the same as from 60CSx and Oregon:

 

 

Conclusion from "street test"- no differences.

 

Christopher

[+Redwoods Mtn Biker]

I find all this very interesting. Am a bit worried when tests are done with GPS units close together.

 

I agree; the units should be physically separated. When testing units on a hike, I try to carry one in each hand, or hang them off opposite sides of a pack. On my bike, they go on handlebar mounts and are separated by at least a few inches.

[+g-o-cashers]

This is very similar to what I've seen testing the three units:

 

http://garminoregon.wikispaces.com/first+impressions#toc12

 

The CO and 60csx tend to track very similarly under dense cover when moving. The Colorado will have a major (200-500') location error every so often but when it is operating normally it compares very closely to the 60csx. The OR has much more drift of the 30'-50' variety all the time than either the CO or OR. It never loses signal but it just doesn't track as well under cover. It also thinks it is stopped much more frequently than either the 60csx or CO. If you look at your speed and time stopped over a longer course you'll the speed frequently drop to zero and the time stopped increment much faster than the other two. This might explain why it behaves better than the other two when stopped.

 

GO$Rs

[MtnHermit]

Not sure if this adds much, but here are two simultaneous tracks comparing a Nuvi 205W (Cyan line) and a eTrex Venture Cx (Yellow line). The total distance was 8-miles over 6 hours. The outbound, right side, track was in mixed timber and the eTrex lost signal several times, hence the yellow track is jumbled. The inbound track was on the ridge top where both units had good signals.

 

I measured the distance between the two parallel tracks on the ridge, it was 28 feet. No explanation. The etrex was on the packs shoulder strap and the Nuvi was hanging from the waist belt.

 

For my purposes, either track would be more than sufficient.