Zumo 660 or Montana?

[securety10]

I'm in the exact same predicament as the poster above. I'm planning a trip that will start in WI then head to Oregon and ride the TAT (backwards) and finally end in FL. I want to be off the beaten path (or even off-road) as much as possible. I've been trying to scour the regional GPS threads for routes I can use to get to the west coast, but still need to find a GPS (and figure out how to use it ).

Originally Posted by Albie

The 660 doesn't do XM, you have to get the 665 for that.

The Montana does do more waypoints and routes, but that's deceptive as it only lets you use 50 waypoints/viapoints in a single route which is very limiting, where as the Zumo lets you use 1000.

Now if you had a MS tab, you could run Basecamp off of a thumbdrive.

So, with what I stated above, in your opinion, would the Montana not be a good choice for me? I imagine I would need to use a lot of waypoints/viapoints to stick to the trails/routes I want to take. I know I obviously can't plot the trip out in one shot, but I don't want to have to be constantly loading new routes.

[camodog]

I just subscribed to this thread, so I hope it keeps going.

[eddyturn]

Tracks is where it's at so I went with the Montana 600. So far, so good but very limited use to date.

[Albie]

Originally Posted by securety10

I'm in the exact same predicament as the poster above. I'm planning a trip that will start in WI then head to Oregon and ride the TAT (backwards) and finally end in FL. I want to be off the beaten path (or even off-road) as much as possible. I've been trying to scour the regional GPS threads for routes I can use to get to the west coast, but still need to find a GPS (and figure out how to use it ).



So, with what I stated above, in your opinion, would the Montana not be a good choice for me? I imagine I would need to use a lot of waypoints/viapoints to stick to the trails/routes I want to take. I know I obviously can't plot the trip out in one shot, but I don't want to have to be constantly loading new routes.

I'd go with the ZUMO for the ease of use. On a long trip, you're gonna hit that 50 point limit a LOT with the Montana.

[Colebatch]

Originally Posted by Albie

I'd go with the ZUMO for the ease of use. On a long trip, you're gonna hit that 50 point limit a LOT with the Montana.

Use tracks on the Montana, not routes.

Easy to convert one to the other.

Montana takes infinitely more trackpoints than a Zumo takes waypoints. If you are building off road routes/tracks, the Montana is infinitely better.

[Emoto]

Originally Posted by Colebatch

Use tracks on the Montana, not routes.

Easy to convert one to the other.

Montana takes infinitely more trackpoints than a Zumo takes waypoints. If you are building off road routes/tracks, the Montana is infinitely better.

But the 660 takes tracks too, doesn't it?

[Albie]

Originally Posted by Colebatch

Use tracks on the Montana, not routes.

Easy to convert one to the other.

Montana takes infinitely more trackpoints than a Zumo takes waypoints. If you are building off road routes/tracks, the Montana is infinitely better.

Nope, easier to use the ZUMO with big routes for long trips

[thebugslayer]

Originally Posted by Albie

Nope, easier to use the ZUMO with big routes for long trips

Could you explain why the zumo is better for long trips? I'm comparing these two units and following others' tracks for long (multi-day) trips is my primary reason for getting a GPS.

[Emoto]

Originally Posted by thebugslayer

Could you explain why the zumo is better for long trips? I'm comparing these two units and following others' tracks for long (multi-day) trips is my primary reason for getting a GPS.

Do you really mean tracks, or do you mean routes? Just curious.

Routes give you turn by turn directions, so you get an audio heads up that there is a turn ahead in say, half a mile (this early alert may be configurable to a distance you like, not sure), and again when you reach the place to turn. This means you can concentrate on the road and assessing any threats, as opposed to a track that merely displays on the screen, so you have to keep looking down at it to figure out how to stay on it.

Having said that, you can follow routes on a Montana, too. I don't think the Montana offers "junction view" like the 660 does, so that might make the 660 navigation marginally better, but am not sure.

[marco polo]

I bought a Montana in early 2012 to replace my GPSMAP 276C, which had taken me around North America numerous times without a problem. Last summer I did a month-long trip to Colorado, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico then back home. I don't care whether someone buys a Zumo, or a Montana, but to suggest that a Montana is not suited for long road trips is just plain silly. I was using routes, not tracks, by the way. Is a Zumo "easier"? I have no idea, as I've never owned one, but don't decide between these units on the basis of an uninformed assertion about either one of them.

[thebugslayer]

Originally Posted by Emoto

Do you really mean tracks, or do you mean routes? Just curious.

Routes give you turn by turn directions, so you get an audio heads up that there is a turn ahead in say, half a mile (this early alert may be configurable to a distance you like, not sure), and again when you reach the place to turn. This means you can concentrate on the road and assessing any threats, as opposed to a track that merely displays on the screen, so you have to keep looking down at it to figure out how to stay on it.

Having said that, you can follow routes on a Montana, too. I don't think the Montana offers "junction view" like the 660 does, so that might make the 660 navigation marginally better, but am not sure.

I am a noob to GPS, but I mean "tracks" as in dual sport (i.e. dirt roads and trails) rides that others have created then saved as a file which I can download and follow.

thanks for the follow up

[Emoto]

Originally Posted by thebugslayer

I am a noob to GPS, but I mean "tracks" as in dual sport (i.e. dirt roads and trails) rides that others have created then saved as a file which I can download and follow.

thanks for the follow up

It turns out that in some cases dirt roads and even some trails may be present in routable map sets like CN or the recent Garmin topo sets. In those cases, you could use routes created from your friends' tracks to give you the turn-by-turn directions when available, if that appeals to you. Of course, if the tracks go over non-routable paths, then tracks will be your only option for following a prior way someone went. You'll have to get one in your hands and try using it to find out what you like the best, as everyone has their preferences. Personally, I like routes with audio alerts for turns whenever possible, but that's just me.

[thebugslayer]

Originally Posted by Emoto

It turns out that in some cases dirt roads and even some trails may be present in routable map sets like CN or the recent Garmin topo sets. In those cases, you could use routes created from your friends' tracks to give you the turn-by-turn directions when available, if that appeals to you. Of course, if the tracks go over non-routable paths, then tracks will be your only option for following a prior way someone went. You'll have to get one in your hands and try using it to find out what you like the best, as everyone has their preferences. Personally, I like routes with audio alerts for turns whenever possible, but that's just me.

Given this, is there a meaningful difference between the zumo and montana?
(although the montana doesn't have audio "stock" I think it can be added simply with a bluetooth doogle--not that I'm running helmet speakers anyway). Trying to choose my first GPS and it's a bit overwhelming.

[Bill Murray]

Originally Posted by thebugslayer

Given this, is there a meaningful difference between the zumo and montana?
(although the montana doesn't have audio "stock" I think it can be added simply with a bluetooth doogle--not that I'm running helmet speakers anyway). Trying to choose my first GPS and it's a bit overwhelming.

Here are a few differences between the Zumo and Montana. Others can elaborate further and/or add to this "differences" list.

The Zumo is better suited for using routes, compared to the Montana.
The Montana is better suited to use tracks, compared to the Zumo. (The Montana can use routes, but there are some constraints).

Routes will provide you with turn-by-turn instructions (on both units).
Tracks have the advantage that they never get recalculated by your GPS.

The Zumo includes Bluetooth, for wireless communication with your helmet headset (if you use a Bluetooth headset to receive audible directions).

The Montana's base includes hardwire audio output that can be connected to a Bluetooth transmitter or hardwired into your helmet communicator.

With my last Zumo (a Zumo 550), when you were routing using routes, you could search for various points of interest (like gas stations or restaurants) located along your travel path. I assume the Zumo 660/665 still have this capability. The Montana does not allow you to perform these searches while using routes (unless you want to re-route yourself to the location of that gas station or restaurant).

[Emoto]

Originally Posted by thebugslayer

Given this, is there a meaningful difference between the zumo and montana?
(although the montana doesn't have audio "stock" I think it can be added simply with a bluetooth doogle--not that I'm running helmet speakers anyway). Trying to choose my first GPS and it's a bit overwhelming.

The Montana does have audio output stock, either via a small jack on the bottom (when horizontal) or via a cord with a jack at the end off of the Rugged Mount. No blue tooth, though. Maybe that's what you meant. I don't use blue tooth because I don't want to chase after batteries (on the helmet unit) all the time.