396 vs 496

[Kokemiller]

I have my panel wiring harness hard wired for a 396, does anyone know if a 496 will plug and play on the same harness. I currently have a 196 and they said they dont use the same wiring.

I would like to find a good used one and would like to make sure that a 496 will work if i find a good used one.

Anyone who has used both 396 and 496 units do you believe the 496 is worth that much more money?

I was hoping that the 696 would free up some good used ones but that doesnt seem to be the case as of yet.

Thanks in advance for the replys

[breister]

They should work on the same harness.

496 has better screen resolution and a couple of new features, but it otherwise pretty similar.

One caveat: I don't remember whether it ended with the 296 or 396, but the older units used to support a Serial 2 output. This is definitely not supported in the 496, so if you were using Serial 2 out from the x96 harness it will no longer function.

[mburch]

Yes, a 396 and 496 will definitely work with the same wiring and plug.

good luck,
mcb

[stu517]

The 496 uses a different GPS than the 396. A couple of years back someone went "under the hood" trying to fly an sr22 with a 396 only and the complaint was a definite lag in the responsiveness of the gps "six pack". when the 496 came out he reran the test and he felt it was significantly better.

so if you are looking to use the 396/496 for IFR backup instrumentation the 496 is clearly worth the money.

i had both and agreed that the GPS on the 496 came on line quicker and was more responsive.

good luck with your choice

[n5lp]

Originally Posted by stu517

The 496 uses a different GPS than the 396. A couple of years back someone went "under the hood" trying to fly an sr22 with a 396 only and the complaint was a definite lag in the responsiveness of the gps "six pack"...

I have flown both and yes, the 496 is more responsive. I believe that is just because of a faster processor rather than a different "GPS."

[flyeyes]

Originally Posted by stu517

The 496 uses a different GPS than the 396. A couple of years back someone went "under the hood" trying to fly an sr22 with a 396 only and the complaint was a definite lag in the responsiveness of the gps "six pack". when the 496 came out he reran the test and he felt it was significantly better.

so if you are looking to use the 396/496 for IFR backup instrumentation the 496 is clearly worth the money.

i had both and agreed that the GPS on the 496 came on line quicker and was more responsive.

good luck with your choice

I would add here that _any_ handheld GPS "simulated" instruments are a poor substitute for a backup EFIS or wing leveler. This is especially true in an RV. An SR22 is vastly more stable than my RV-8.

[lucaberta]

Originally Posted by flyeyes

I would add here that _any_ handheld GPS "simulated" instruments are a poor substitute for a backup EFIS or wing leveler. This is especially true in an RV. An SR22 is vastly more stable than my RV-8.

well, I beg to differ, particularly so with a 496 that has a 5 Hz GPS engine, thus updating the backup GPS-driver instruments every 0.2 seconds, instead of 1 Hz (once per second) like the 396 and most other handheld GPS.

This very same topic was discussed a while back here:

http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...ad.php?t=29206

On the second serial port issue mentioned by breister, it was removed with the 396. I infer that this is the case because of XM Weather and radio. The hockey puck XM antenna output is a serial stream piped thru USB, and they have rerouted the connection internally in the GPS. Very easy to do for Garmin, and I assume that very few were using the second serial port on the 296 anyways...

Ciao, Luca