GPS ?
- Thread starter daddysbike
- Start date
Help Support Yamaha FJR Motorcycle Forum:
andromedusa
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2007
- Messages
- 18
- Reaction score
- 0
That is perfect. Thanks so much. I have been GPS-less since I switched from the FZ1 to the FJR.
i compared their prices for refurb'ed units to the price-finding guide on cnet, appears you can get a new unit for the same price. i didn't include shipping in the edge unit, so it might even be more, at least for the c340.
edge says their refurb'ed units might even be a better buy than new, as they've passed the "crib death" period. not sure about that, tho...
leebunyard
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2005
- Messages
- 131
- Reaction score
- 1
I'll second the favorable comments on the Quest II, I've had one for six months now and love it. Mounted using the Techmount centerstem mount. I have no trouble reading the screen day or night, the visibility is outstanding even in the brightest sunlight. Mine is hardwired directly to the battery on my '04 FJR.
Someone asked about the differences between the Quest and Zumo?? The biggest advantage of the Quest for me is that it is a small portable and waterproof unit (I get about 15 hours battery time out of the Quest II lithium battery) that can be used on my street bikes, for offroad mc riding, in my car or truck and while hiking. Slips into my shirt pocket nicely. I also like the fact that it uses flash memory (no worries about mc vibration destroying the HDD) and uses buttons rather than touchscreen for data input (have heard of too many people using touchscreen GPS where the touchscreen has begun behaving erratically after significant usage). I also have zero interest in bluetooth, traffic data or satellite radio so the Zumo holds no interest for me.
You have to decide what features are important to you in a GPS, we all have different needs. For me, the Quest II meets all my needs 100%.
Lee in the Mountains of Northern California
Someone asked about the differences between the Quest and Zumo?? The biggest advantage of the Quest for me is that it is a small portable and waterproof unit (I get about 15 hours battery time out of the Quest II lithium battery) that can be used on my street bikes, for offroad mc riding, in my car or truck and while hiking. Slips into my shirt pocket nicely. I also like the fact that it uses flash memory (no worries about mc vibration destroying the HDD) and uses buttons rather than touchscreen for data input (have heard of too many people using touchscreen GPS where the touchscreen has begun behaving erratically after significant usage). I also have zero interest in bluetooth, traffic data or satellite radio so the Zumo holds no interest for me.
You have to decide what features are important to you in a GPS, we all have different needs. For me, the Quest II meets all my needs 100%.
Lee in the Mountains of Northern California
bramfrank
BramFrank
There are some major differences between the Quest and the Zumo.
1. There are two Quests - the original one had only 115 megs of memory. Usually not a hardship for casual riders. The Quest-II has full load of memoryand the maps are preloaded.
2. Quest-II uses a compression mechanism for map storage that makes route recalculations almost painful
3. For my 55 year-old eyes, the Quest screen is just toos small
4. Zumo has Bluetooth, supports MP3 storage and playback and can usitlise the XM pod for radio, weather and traffic.
5. Zumo has a touchscreen (which I frankly think is a disadvantage).
6. Zumo does 3D display (not a major feature IMO) and annunciates streets by name (another non-feature).
7. The Quest antenna is a bit spindly.
8. Quest battery life is much better than Zumo
I still prefer the 276 and it's cousins.
Last edited by a moderator:
leebunyard
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2005
- Messages
- 131
- Reaction score
- 1
>2. Quest-II uses a compression mechanism for map storage that makes toue recalculations almost >painful
I don't know about the compression mechanism but I've used the Quest II extensively in my cars, truck and on the FJR and I've never had a single incident I can recall where it's failed to do a recalculation BEFORE I reached the next turn point, which is the only issue that matters to me. I find it relatively quick to recalculate, but I don't have anything to compare it to so am not the best judge of that. It totally meets my needs however and the small size and portability are the biggest pluses for me.
Lee in the Mountains of Northern California
I don't know about the compression mechanism but I've used the Quest II extensively in my cars, truck and on the FJR and I've never had a single incident I can recall where it's failed to do a recalculation BEFORE I reached the next turn point, which is the only issue that matters to me. I find it relatively quick to recalculate, but I don't have anything to compare it to so am not the best judge of that. It totally meets my needs however and the small size and portability are the biggest pluses for me.
Lee in the Mountains of Northern California
bramfrank
BramFrank
I probably should have said 'in comparison'. If you have a 276/376/378/478. 2720/273 . . . and so on and you also own a Quest-II you'll know what I mean.
I originally thought my StreetPilot-III was the cat's meow. But it's successors blow it out of the water on a lot of the comparables (though there are times I would prefer the ultra-high contrast color pallete they used). As you pointed out, you don't have any basis for comparison and until you experience it, you simply can't know.
The tiny size of the Quest almost seduced me into buying one a couple of years ago. I resisted and my old (55 YO) eyes have since thanked me (in my opinion).
Last edited by a moderator:
