Hi everybody -

I'm in the market for a handheld aviation GPS , and have narrowed down
to the Airmap 2000C & Garmin 296. I need color & terrain mapping ,
which both have.

Try as I will though , I can't find an honest comparision of the two ;
retailers push both (for obvious reasons).

The strange thing is that their prices seem to differ significantly.
Sample prices -
Garmin 296 (with inbuilt terrain mapping) = $1500 (aprox)
Airmap 2000C (plus terrain mapping extra) = $1100 (aprox)

All you enlightened folks...which should I choose and why ?


regards
Pavan Bhatnagar

Well Pavan... my .02...

We comparison shopped 18 mos ago, and chose the AM 1000.
Bigger screen, excellent RAM mount and all those who had one
.....well, not one negative comment.

Al we heard about was Garmin, Garmin, etc....but when we ASKED
the owners, the pilots that we heard from were very satisfied with
the Lowrance and were , umm.... mostly quite happy with the Garmin
units.

So... we tried a 196 in a Cessna here, ...what a tiny screen!
(In comparison) and tiny buttons. If all the air around here was
smooth, the small screen and buttons would not be a problem.

The AM fastens to the yoke with that EXCELLENT RAM mount, and
I can operate it with my big thumbs while holding on to the yoke..

The AM, yoke and my thumbs move as a unit in rough air, and I
rarely "miss" a button ...

Sad note, our AM 1000 died completely at 16 months, out of
warranty.

Shipped back to Lowrance (Canada) on a Thursday, inspected on
Monday, could not be repaired at their depot, so they will send me a
new replacement for $299 (Cdn) I made a deal to trade up to the AM
2000 Colour for another $100.

(I thought this was a great deal,---- less than the difference
between selling the 1000 and buying the new 2000)

Well.... the colour unit is all I expected and more!

Screen a little smaller (same case) , and battery life is
about 3 hrs compared to the AM 1000's 5 hrs.

We use ours on the Aircraft 12 Volt supply, so this is not a
concern. We treat the internal batts as emergency supply ONLY, and
carry extra.

Lowarnce service and phone help/guidance has been superb,
they (on the phone) seem knowledgeable and helpful, the mapping
("MapCreate"), downloads and upgrades all work as advertised.

I am told there will be a software upgrade for the Sat
weather, but so far Lowrance cannot confirm this , so don't quote me
here...

We are really happy with the performance and support of the
Lowrance product...

Dave


.. .On 19 Sep 2005 14:54:24 -0700, wrote:

>
>Hi everybody -
>
>I'm in the market for a handheld aviation GPS , and have narrowed down
>to the Airmap 2000C & Garmin 296. I need color & terrain mapping ,
>which both have.
>
>Try as I will though , I can't find an honest comparision of the two ;
>retailers push both (for obvious reasons).
>
>The strange thing is that their prices seem to differ significantly.
>Sample prices -
>Garmin 296 (with inbuilt terrain mapping) = $1500 (aprox)
>Airmap 2000C (plus terrain mapping extra) = $1100 (aprox)
>
>All you enlightened folks...which should I choose and why ?
>
>
>regards
>Pavan Bhatnagar

On 19 Sep 2005 14:54:24 -0700, wrote:

>All you enlightened folks...which should I choose and why ?

I would always go for Garmin. It's not that I'm superstitious (knock
on wood!) but Garmin has always gotten me home.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:42:41 -0300, Dave
> wrote:

>Sad note, our AM 1000 died completely at 16 months, out of
>warranty.

Ah well, you should have bought a Garmin!

Reminds me of the Saab owner who was singing the praises of his mark.
"Every time I take it in for service, the dealer gives me a loaner
car!"

Erm, yes, but if you'd bought a Honda, you wouldn't be taking it in
for service!


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

In article >,
Cub Driver > wrote:
> Reminds me of the Saab owner who was singing the praises of his mark.
> "Every time I take it in for service, the dealer gives me a loaner
> car!"
>
> Erm, yes, but if you'd bought a Honda, you wouldn't be taking it in
> for service!


Honestly, that's a myth. Hondas need service just like any other make.
Hondas have unscheduled problems just like any other make. Hondas have
recalls just like any other make. We used to own one.


As for GPSes, I do agree. We've owned both Lowrance and Garmin, and
liked the Lowrance slightly better, but Lowrance just doesn't seem to be
as serious about the aviation market as Garmin. Garmins have better
resale value, and hold their value much better over time. I feel that
Garmin supports their product better than Lowrance over the life of the
product.


JKG

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:54:24 -0700, pavansheel wrote:

> The strange thing is that their prices seem to differ significantly.
> Sample prices -
> Garmin 296 (with inbuilt terrain mapping) = $1500 (aprox)
> Airmap 2000C (plus terrain mapping extra) = $1100 (aprox)

Just FYI, you should be able to get the 2000C for ~$800.

Greg

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 07:34:32 -0400, Cub Driver wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:42:41 -0300, Dave
> > wrote:
>
>>Sad note, our AM 1000 died completely at 16 months, out of
>>warranty.
>
> Ah well, you should have bought a Garmin!

Hehe. My father bought a Garmin 295, right before they started to phase
them out. His is out of warranty with not many hours (maybe 30-40) on it
and it died. He never got much use out of it because shortly after he
bought it, he had a Garmin 430 installed in his 172. He sent the 295 to
Garmin. For *only* $600 bucks, they'll kindly give it a good going over
and send it back to him. The guy with the Lowrance paid $300 for a brand
new unit, which included an upgrade to their latest model. Hmmm....should
of bought a Garmin indeed...

Just FYI, shortly after he sold his 172, the display on the 430 went out.
It had to be sent to Garmin for service. Long story short, if you think
buying Garmin means superior quality then you are sadly mistaken. From
where I'm sitting, they seem to all be on the same quality page...each
with excellent service...yet you pay less for Lowrance. The only down
side to buying Lowrance, as far as I can tell, is that it makes your
wallet "fatter", which has been proven to cause back problems... ;)

Greg

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:38:11 -0400, Jonathan Goodish wrote:

[snip]
> As for GPSes, I do agree. We've owned both Lowrance and Garmin, and
> liked the Lowrance slightly better, but Lowrance just doesn't seem to be
> as serious about the aviation market as Garmin. Garmins have better
> resale value, and hold their value much better over time. I feel that
> Garmin supports their product better than Lowrance over the life of the
> product.
>
>
> JKG

Of course they do! They charge more for their product and when its out of
warranty, they charge for more to have the unit serviced. The cost
difference will buy you a brand new Lowrance...assuming Lowrance's service
doesn't allow you to upgrade with trade in.

Greg

I like the Garmin. I have never had one go bad so I cant tell you about the
service.If I were you I would get the 396. It doesnt get much better than
that.
"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:54:24 -0700, pavansheel wrote:
>
>> The strange thing is that their prices seem to differ significantly.
>> Sample prices -
>> Garmin 296 (with inbuilt terrain mapping) = $1500 (aprox)
>> Airmap 2000C (plus terrain mapping extra) = $1100 (aprox)
>
> Just FYI, you should be able to get the 2000C for ~$800.
>
> Greg
>

All - thanks for the valuable input.
Case anyone's wondering , I'll go with the AM 2000C.

Greg - any suggested website for getting the $800 tag on the AM 2000C ?

regards
Pavan Bhatnagar

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:55:42 -0700, pavansheel wrote:

> All - thanks for the valuable input.
> Case anyone's wondering , I'll go with the AM 2000C.
>
> Greg - any suggested website for getting the $800 tag on the AM 2000C ?

http://www.airplanegear.com/special-airmap2000.htm

I'm sure I'll buy from them too. I got the address from others here. I
just don't recall who. I've seen it posted a couple of times since.

Let me know how your shopping experience goes. ;)

Greg

Greg Copeland wrote:
>> Greg - any suggested website for getting the $800 tag on the AM 2000C ?
>
> http://www.airplanegear.com/special-airmap2000.htm
>
> I'm sure I'll buy from them too. I got the address from others here. I
> just don't recall who. I've seen it posted a couple of times since.
>
> Let me know how your shopping experience goes. ;)


I'd like to know also. Please let us know how it goes... that is an attractive
price.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Excellent - thanks.

rgs
Pavan B.

In article >,
Greg Copeland > wrote:
> Of course they do! They charge more for their product and when its out of
> warranty, they charge for more to have the unit serviced. The cost
> difference will buy you a brand new Lowrance...assuming Lowrance's service
> doesn't allow you to upgrade with trade in.

The Garmins may cost more, but they are better supported and usually
have more features. In 8 years of owning my Garmin 195, I never once
had to send it back to the factory for any type of defect, and Garmin
still publishes Jepp database updates for it. The comparable Lowrance
unit 8 years ago was the AirMap 300, which I also owned, and which
Lowrance abandoned shortly thereafter.

The Garmin 296 has provided features for a couple of years now that the
AirMap 2000c does not yet possess. Lowrance does not have a product to
compete with the Garmin 396. It's up to the individual to decide what's
important. Lowrance does support airport taxi diagrams on its newer
units, which I think is a big deal if you fly into larger airports.



JKG

I recently bought an AM1000 from him. Price $425, less $175 for my
AM300 tradein, net $250!! He had an AM2000c for $795, less $225 for
the AM300, net $570. I figured I didn't need the color (I have a 430
in the panel).
Great service. Highly recommended.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:38:11 -0400, Jonathan Goodish
> wrote:

>Hondas have unscheduled problems just like any other make.

My four Hondas, owned over a course of 15 years (usually two at a
time), had fewer repairs that this guy's Saab in three years. Three of
the four Hondas never had a repair other to the exhaust system, this
being considered a disposable part in New Hampshire like sparkplugs.
I drove one of the former Hondas 10 years and the other 12 years; the
two others are still going strong after 3 years (no repairs) and 8
years (none but exhaust).

I have become a bit religous about them. I appreciate that Toyotas are
also good, and that all cars have become more durable in since about
1990, but my experience with the Honda mark has been almost magical.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

I have had a similar experience with Town Cars... (on my 3rd,
since 1985)

Yeh, I keep them a long time... :)

These big "Rincolns" are boiler plate cars... and will
haul ass AND freight... (and boats, campers and travel trailers)

...over 30 mpg is easy on the hwy even if your foot is in
it...

Drove in one 4 yrs ago (airport limo in Toronto) that was
being "retired" at the end of the week with 1,325,000 kilometers on
it....

BTW, I have a friend who is a technician at a Honda
dealership. He says he and 7 others make a good living fixing brand
new Hondas... :)

Around here (Eastern Canada) MOST brands are quite good these
days, - locally the Chrysler products seem to be a bit on the low
end, with Jeeps being the most pain...

Quality of the DEALER is a large factor as well...

And this could all change next year.....

YMMV!

Dave



On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 06:58:12 -0400, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:38:11 -0400, Jonathan Goodish
> wrote:
>
>>Hondas have unscheduled problems just like any other make.
>
>My four Hondas, owned over a course of 15 years (usually two at a
>time), had fewer repairs that this guy's Saab in three years. Three of
>the four Hondas never had a repair other to the exhaust system, this
>being considered a disposable part in New Hampshire like sparkplugs.
>I drove one of the former Hondas 10 years and the other 12 years; the
>two others are still going strong after 3 years (no repairs) and 8
>years (none but exhaust).
>
>I have become a bit religous about them. I appreciate that Toyotas are
>also good, and that all cars have become more durable in since about
>1990, but my experience with the Honda mark has been almost magical.
>
>
>-- all the best, Dan Ford
>
>email (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
>Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
>Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
>the blog: www.danford.net
>In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 08:57:07 -0500, Greg Copeland wrote:
[snip]

Quick follow up on this. My father got his 295 back from Garmin. They
seviced the unit for no fee.

Greg

Jonathan,


> The Garmins may cost more, but they are better supported and usually
> have more features.

Sorry, but that's just not true. Feature-wise, it for sure isn't, and I'd like
your unbiased statistical measure of support proving your point.

> The comparable Lowrance
> unit 8 years ago was the AirMap 300, which I also owned, and which
> Lowrance abandoned shortly thereafter.

Lowrance dropped the support at the same time Garmin dropped support for units
with comparable memory.

>
> The Garmin 296 has provided features for a couple of years now that the
> AirMap 2000c does not yet possess.

And they sell it for a lower price. And the features will be offered soon as
an upgrade. What's your point? Having features is not a value in itself.

Take me, for example. Flying mostly in Europe, I couldn't care less about XM
weather.

> Lowrance does not have a product to
> compete with the Garmin 396.

They don't have a product that will set you back by an absurd amount of money
plus a steep monthly subscription fee, either. Again, having features is not a
value...



--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:
> > The Garmins may cost more, but they are better supported and usually
> > have more features.
>
> Sorry, but that's just not true. Feature-wise, it for sure isn't, and I'd
> like
> your unbiased statistical measure of support proving your point.

It's simple. The Garmin 195 is still being supported with database
updates, which means that the 195 can still operate as a useful unit
with a current database. The AirMap 300, which was on the market as
competition for the 195, was ditched by Lowrance years ago. The AirMap
100 was released after the 300 (and the Garmin 195), and it too is no
longer being supported.



> And they sell it for a lower price. And the features will be offered soon as
> an upgrade. What's your point? Having features is not a value in itself.
>
> Take me, for example. Flying mostly in Europe, I couldn't care less about XM
> weather.

That may be true, but Europe is a rather insignificant market compared
to the United States. Sorry to break the news. Companies sell to their
largest market, and sell features that are valuable to their largest
market.



> > Lowrance does not have a product to
> > compete with the Garmin 396.
>
> They don't have a product that will set you back by an absurd amount of money
> plus a steep monthly subscription fee, either. Again, having features is not
> a
> value...

Weather uplink is a huge value if you fly in or around weather. It's
easily worth the price of admission. Garmin has nothing to do with the
monthly fees, though I do not think that $30/month for the "Lite"
subscription is "absurd." Many folks pay 3 times that amount for cable
television every month, and that is truly something that contains almost
no value.



JKG