2005 Accord navigation system? (worth getting?)

I have a 2004 Acura TL and 2005 Honda Accord neither with NAV, wasn't
readily available in my area when I bought TL ( chip shortage they were
claiming,89 Acuras on lot onlt 6 with standard tranny had them ) . So
figured that never had one who cares and for 2k who needs. After first year
and hearing everyone rave about Nav systems I bought a Garmin Street Pilot
2620 for the car. Like so many, couldn't live without it now. My unit is 1k
bought on sale for 800, has 2 gig hard drive builtin all US and Canada. Plug
it into cigg lighter put it on dash board ( incredably stable on beanbag
mount, also has permanent mount included ) and off you go. My concern was
that if it operated like Mapquest always giving strangely convoluted
directions that it would be worthless. Thankfully operates great and all the
routes are right there with what I would have done. Now more than confident
that it knows better and drive never lost. Has all the trip stuff too.

http://www.garmin.com/products/sp2620/

I don't drive in strange areas much but found it worth it just when you have
to bypass something or do go into an area you don't know. Cruised from San
Juan to Norfolk Va. rented a car to drive home to NY. Took Garmin along, got
into rental, plugged it in hit button twice and it took me right to my door.
Found me a nice restaurant along the way.

Drove a friend to LGA, on way home bumper to bumper do to an accident. Got
off parkway with no concern and let it find me another way. In meantime had
it take me to nearest Dunkin Donuts to get me stabilized. Obviously I am pro
navigation. Even my wife who often belittles my needs for " toys " says best
" toy " I ever bought.

The only question now is to stay with portable or next trade get one built
in. I think I will probably get one built in just for the coolness of it all


George in NY

On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 08:45:44 -0400, High Tech Misfit >
wrote:

>Dick wrote:
>
>> Maps are fine, but there is nothing like a Navigation system on a 3 or
>> 4-thousand mile trip through many cities. Anyway, I can't read a map
>> and drive.
>
>You shouldn't use a Nav system and drive at the same time either.

I presume you mean that you shouldn't try to key data into the system
and drive at the same time. I thoroughly agree with that -- terribly
dangerous.
>
>I agree with SoCalMike that a hand-held system would be a better investment.
>Not just for the price and portability, but if something goes wrong with it,
>you don't have to take the car to the dealer.

That's logical, all right, but as many others have said, once you have
a Honda Nav and live with it for a while, you're not likely to accept
substitutes thereafter. The main difference between this unit and all
the Garmin and Tom-Tom units is the size of the screen, That provides
superior readability, and that's worth the difference in price to most
people who have had a chance to experience both kinds. For those who
still wouldn't want to pay for the Honda system, the alternatives are
pretty good, too.

Ron

You are right. I will get built in next car not only for the coolness but
also for screen size. Don't know how I missed mentioning that. Also
eliminates pulling unit out everytime you park and throwing it in the trunk
though a minor inconvenience. Leaving a portable unit visible in the car at
a parking lot simply too much temptation for someone to break in and grab.

George in NY


"Milleron" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 08:45:44 -0400, High Tech Misfit >
> wrote:
The main difference between this unit and all
> the Garmin and Tom-Tom units is the size of the screen, That provides
> superior readability, and that's worth the difference in price to most
> people who have had a chance to experience both kinds. For those who
> still wouldn't want to pay for the Honda system, the alternatives are
> pretty good, too.
>
> Ron