Vista HCx vs. Cx - Micro Review - Part 1 (Cx)

3 stars Trip_type_hike
Tags:
Trip created by ghadzoox on 2007/09/18
Overall Rating 3 stars
Technical Difficulty 2 stars
Aerobic Difficulty 3 stars
Distance (mi) 7.1
Elevation Range (ft) 5138 - 7434
Total Ascent (ft) 2373
Total Descent (ft) -2238
Total Ascent Distance (mi) 3.1
Total Descent Distance (mi) 4.0
Moving Time 02h 51m 55s
Stopped Time 00h 09m 52s
Average Speed (mph) 2.4
Average Moving Speed (mph) 2.5
Stops 10
Start Time 2007/09/14 09:45:53
Finish Time 2007/09/14 12:47:40
Time Zone Mountain Time (US & Canada)
  • profile graph
  • profile graph
  • profile graph

Description

This is Part 1 of a 2 part “micro review” of the new Garmin Vista HCx GPS receiver as compared to the Garmin Vista Cx. Part 2 can be found here.

A common complaint of many Vista owners is the accuracy of the receiver. If you get into heavy tree cover or narrow canyons the unit really struggles to maintain satellite reception. Well, in answer to that Garmin released the new HCx line which boasts a high sensitivity receiver (the H in HCx). I picked one of these up and decided to try it out head to head with the Cx on a trail on which the Cx has struggled before. Note this is my experience with a single hike on a single trail. Furthermore, I am comparing only the apparent performance of the receiver in each model. Thus the “micro” review. More thorough comparisons have been done. If you are serious about comparing the 2 models you should seek out this additional information.

This trip, Part 1, is the trail according to the Cx. As I said before, I have taken the Cx on this trail in the past and it has struggled. It will repeatedly lose satellite reception. This results in gaps in your track and inconsistencies in your data (speed, distance, etc).

This trip was par for the course. There were definitely gaps in my track, the distances shown above are not quite right, and to top it off the unit reported my max speed at 174 MPH! Looking at the map you can see some of the stray points that would have caused these inconsistencies. In addition, although the trail was clearly marked on the topo map on the unit, the track showed a straight line through many of the curves in the trail. I had both units set to report their estimated accuracy. Even with the above noted problems, the Cx generally reported that it was more accurate, usually about 10 feet more accurate, than the HCx! Have a look at the map and continue on to Part 2 to see how the HCx performed.

Map

Map Markers:
Miles KM's Pictures
Trip_type_mtb_small Trip_type_rdb_small Trip_type_hike_small Trip_type_run_small Trip_type_ski_small Trip_type_mnt_small

Pictures

  •  
    trip_img_8515   2007/09/14 11:23:10
  •  
    trip_img_8513   2007/09/14 11:40:56
  •  
    trip_img_8514   2007/09/14 12:14:22
  •  
    trip_img_8512   2007/09/14 12:16:04

Comments

Add Comment

Please log in to add comments.

Publish Map

You can embed this map on your own web page: just cut and paste the HTML code below:

<iframe src="http://www.mtbguru.com/trip/iframe/3077?width=500px&height=500px" width="510px" height="565px" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0"></iframe>

Share Trip

URL to copy and paste:

http://www.mtbguru.com/trip/show/3077-vista-hcx-vs-cx-micro-review-part-1-cx

GMap View in Google Maps   Live Maps / Virtual Earth Live Maps / Virtual Earth

Permalink Permalink del.icio.us Del.icio.us