76cs Vs Quest?

[+Fenix6372]

I have been struggling with the dilemma that seems to be enveloping the people on these forums that are in the market for a new GPSr, 60c(s) vs 76c(s). I have just stumbled upon a third candidate to complicate things even more, the Garmin Quest! I am wondering if anyone has any information on them besides what is on the Garmin website since they are not expected until August (yeah I know that is like a day away but they didn't say which part of August) The 76c(s) and Quest seem to be very similar, but there are a couple of things that are making me question which one is better. The following are the things that I noticed to be similar and the things that are different between the units. Please feel free to offer any comments or data that would be helpful.

 

First and foremost, the Quest seems to be approximately 60 dollars more than the 76cs based on their suggested retail price, but that is quickly accounted for by the fact that the Quest will come with a fully unlocked City Select.

 

Second, the Quest has an integrated flip-up patch antenna, while the 76cs has the quad-helix antenna. Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but don't the lower end eTrexes have patch antennas and people seem to think they lose the sat locks more often than the quad-helix? (And yes I know they both will accept external antennas which would render that antenna debate pointless at least for car navigation)

 

Third, the Quest will come with an external 12 volt speaker for voice prompted car navigation which is always nice, while the 76cs obviously doesn't.

 

Next, the Quest has an internal Li-ion 1050mAh rechargable battery for approximately 20 hours of use, while the 76cs runs on 2 AA batteries. I am not sure if I am keen on the rechargable battery in the Quest, what happens if I forget to charge it? And isn't that the point of rechargable AA batteries? I think I'd much rather be able to change out batteries in case of emergency.

 

They both have 115 MB of internal memory, however the Quest has 500 user waypoints with name, category, comment, and graphic symbol, while the 76cs has 1000 user waypoints with name and graphic symbol. I am assuming the Quest only has half the waypoints due to the extra data they can hold. What if this is the much sought-after way to include the hints to caches that 60 and 76 owners complain about the 30 character limit with?

 

I am not going to go through too many more comparisons as it is obvious that the Quest is meant for in car navigation while the 76 can lean either way, you can look at all the details on the Garmin website. HOWEVER, this is what is bugging me the most: the Quest states it has a "High-speed processor means fast automatic off-route and detour recalculation." How fast are we talking here, especially compared to the 60 and 76cs? I intend to use my 60cs or 76cs (depending on what I finally settle upon) for a fair amount of geocaching, but I also intend to use it for a fair amount of in car navigation. I want to be as fast as possible in recalculating routes if I choose to go another way or miss an exit!

 

So what is everyone's thoughts on these units? Please debate/discuss/give info to your heart's content!

[SergZak]

Just a few thoughts on the Quest...

 

Regarding the "high-speed processor"...I think the same processor is used on all the new portable Garmin units (60C(S), 76C(S), Vista C/Legend C etc.) since they all have very similar operating systems. The Quest looks to have this same operating system but with a slightly different look and a few different options. I can see no reason why they would use a totally different processor in the Quest. I feel that Garmin's reference to "high-speed processor" is a comparison to the older processor used in previous units like the GPS V...compared to the GPS V, the 60C and 60CS (I have both) are blazingly fast at route calculations.

 

I too am looking into the Quest...but the battery issue has me re-thinking this unit. Maybe Garmin figures that since it's a portable automotive navigator, most of the time it will be wired direct to the car's 12 volt power, not needing the internal battery at all while being used in the car. When and if you need to take it with you, the unit will still be portable enough to pop out of it's bracket, disconnect the power source and be ready to run off it's internal battery. Hopefully the unit be able to recharge it's internal battery while being connected to the 12 volt power while it's operating. Let's hope this is the case...if it is, I would be happy with this setup since you don't have to "remember" to charge the internal battery as it's already being charged as it's being used on 12 volt power. But then again, I'd rather have the ability to pop in a couple of rechargeable AA's when I need to. Also, since I never leave the GPS in it's bracket when I'm not in the car, disconnecting the power cable every time I stop somewhere and stow the GPS would get old really quick.

Edited July 31, 2004 by SergZak

[+Brainerd]

The Quest seems to be created just for the car. It does not look "sturdy" for hikes, and its screen is only made for horizontal orientation; which would be awkward to hold while geocaching.

 

The battery issue is a concern. Using rechargeable AA batteries is much better on the trail. You can always carry a couple of spares in your pocket.

 

I think the quest looks great, but it doesn't seem to be well suited for geocaching.

[daetripper]

Having had many electronic "gadgets", I can tell you without question I favor units that use AA batteries over a dedicated battery.

On the quest for instance, let's say you are away from the power source and still want to use your gps........and it runs out of battery......

That's why I like AA's. Always easy to carry a few spares with you and theyre available everywhere.

This is one reason I'm so impressed with the garmin line of GPS receivers. almost all of them run off of AA batteries which make life much easier on us.

[CenTexDodger]

It looks to me like Garmin is doing a very good job of providing products that their customers want and need. The 60 is a multi-purpose unit with emphasis on on land use(hiking) whereas the 76 is a multipurpose unit with emphasis on the boat.

 

The quest seems to be for those that want an in-car navigator that would like to be able to take it out of the car for some street hiking (shopping), and don't want to spend the money for a StreetPilot. It has the batteries, but it seems as if it is designed to spend much of its time plugged in to external power.

 

I think they are all very good units, but they are each designed for a defferent market. i am probably going to be buying my wife a Quest one of these days so she will quit borrowing my 60cs

[Hankhan]

I considered selling my recently purchased 76CS and getting the Quest - until I saw the battery. I'll stick with my AA's...

[+Fenix6372]

Those are some very good points you guys have made, and I think as far as geocaching and in car navigation, the 60 or 76 would win, if only because the quest seems to be made with the intention of always being in a car, not too handy for geocaching. Does anyone have any thoughts on patch antennas vs quad-helix antennas? I was under the impression that the lower end eTrexes and such had patch antennas, and that most people thought that those models didn't hold satellite locks as well as models that had quad-helix antennas. If that is the case, I am wondering why Garmin would go back to a patch antenna for this model? Maybe they are cutting back costs because they figure that a great majority of the people that get a Quest are going to use it in the car and also purchase an external antenna? Any thoughts on patch vs quad-helix?

[peter]

Does anyone have any thoughts on patch antennas vs quad-helix antennas? I was under the impression that the lower end eTrexes and such had patch antennas, and that most people thought that those models didn't hold satellite locks as well as models that had quad-helix antennas.

My feeling is that the importance of antenna type has been greatly exagerated. Good (and bad) antennas can be made in either style. Garmin's early units came with a mix of patch and quad-helix and reports generally indicated that they performed equally well (i.e. comparing the 12 series with the II/III+ or the 38 to the 45) as long as the antennas were properly oriented.

 

I only started seeing tales about poor reception from patch antennas when the eTrex series came out. My personal observation of various eTrex units has indicated that they vary considerably on a sample-to-sample basis so I tend to blame poor quality control on the reception difficulties rather than the antenna design. I've also noted that users of the Lowrance GM100 and iFinders report good reception from their patch antennas as do users of a variety of external patch antennas.

 

Comparing my eMap (patch) to a couple Meridians (q-h) inside a large store and far from windows showed very similar reception performance. None could get a lock if oriented poorly (vertical for the eMap, horiz. of the Meridians). When oriented properly all three could receive between 3 and 6 satellites and switched back and forth between 2D and 3D locks. Reception quality appeared essentially equal for all three units.

 

I don't think antenna cost is driving the patch vs. q-h design choice. Many of Garmin's highest priced units (26xx series, iQue 3600, Quest) use patch antennas. I've also read that patch antennas are used in our military jets where they wouldn't trade off noticeable performace to save a few dollars.

 

The Quest looks like a very nice design and I wouldn't be concerned about the internal patch antenna. Unfortunately the internal Li+ battery is a significant drawback and is keeping me from seriously considering this model.

[+Night Stalker]

I am using the new NIMH 2300's with my 60CS. The batteries exceed 20 hours of use before needing to be replaced. This alone would make the 60 superior to the Quest. Of course if you never remove the Quest from your car that wouldn't be a problem, but I don't know of 2 many caches that you can get from your car.