Is the Polar M400 going to be just as good as anything?

I used to work in a store that carrier the M400. It was one of the worst watches that we had. I got to use one for a few runs and it was very inaccurate as far as the GPS is concerned, but the heart rate was pretty accurate. Proceed with caution.

ALH359 wrote:

I used to work in a store that carrier the M400. It was one of the worst watches that we had. I got to use one for a few runs and it was very inaccurate as far as the GPS is concerned, but the heart rate was pretty accurate. Proceed with caution.

Thanks man! I'll keep looking for something else then.

My Forerunner 420 is still going strong after 6 years. How long have you had it? Might be worth contacting garmin. Maybe they will fix it or replace it.

I have the Polar M430- best watch I've ever used. Wore Garmins previously. Very comfortable, accurate wrist based HR (which has been cool to use in races), and functionally simple. You can set up what data views you want to see in the Polar Flow software. It has a long battery life (20-30 hrs). I have the Polar V800 as well- great watch as well. I will never go back to Garmin.

I have a polar m400, and I really like the watch and its features. I have a Garmin 630 and feel that it's maybe slightly better, but wouldn't be worth the extra if it weren't for the polar's one big flaw.

Unfortunately the charge and data micro USB port has a tendency to retain water and corrode over time. I try to treat it nicely, and am careful to follow all recommended care instructions, but I've already had to send it back twice for fixes related to that port.

Meanwhile, the Garmin cord interface seems to be bullet proof.

I never had the 400, but the M430 (which I'm guessing is the updated version) works well/no problems with the USB charger- so far (4 months). It plugs directly on the back. It uploads quickly and easily too.

ALH359 wrote:

I used to work in a store that carrier the M400. It was one of the worst watches that we had. I got to use one for a few runs and it was very inaccurate as far as the GPS is concerned, but the heart rate was pretty accurate. Proceed with caution.

Just to provide a counter-example, I've been using the polar M400 for about 8 months now and I absolutely love it. The price is perfect if you can search for it on Amazon. It's been very accurate, even on our wheel-measured tempo course. It's a good watch. I have some issues if I run under a lot of bridges or something. City running can be tough with the buildings but that's it.

ALH359 wrote:

I used to work in a store that carrier the M400. It was one of the worst watches that we had. I got to use one for a few runs and it was very inaccurate as far as the GPS is concerned, but the heart rate was pretty accurate. Proceed with caution.

I also want to point out that depending on when you used the watch, they've updated it a few times since then. I've recently started using it since they've added the bluetooth functionality and a couple other hardware fixes. The USB port does kind of suck though, but as long as you rinse it you're good.

I have one of the first versions of this watch.

Overall I like it and will keep it until it dies, but I will replace with a lower end Garmin.

I like the display on this watch and the size is good for a running watch with GPS.

I have had to send it back twice under warranty due to corrosion in the USB port for charging. You have to rinse it out and let it dry before charging so now that I do that it's fine. But I'm always nervous that it will happen again.

The GPS is not super accurate but I don't know how it compares to a Garmin.

Garmins are also friendlier with more services for uploading your data if that is important to you.

I don't regret buying it but would just go with a Garmin in the future.

I know I keep posting to defend this watch but I run alongside my teammate every day. He has a garmin and I have a polar. We are usually within .05-.1 of eachother unless we happen to run under bridges or whatever, then it might be more like .15 off

We are a 2 M400 family and have had them 2 years now. Accuracy is close to anything I've compared it to & for its price range has a multitude of options. Polar flow web app even has training plans that are downloadable to the watch. Both units have been totally reliable. Looks like at the moment the black one is on Amazon without HR strap for $114 & IMO that's hard to beat.

keckels wrote:

We are a 2 M400 family and have had them 2 years now. Accuracy is close to anything I've compared it to & for its price range has a multitude of options. Polar flow web app even has training plans that are downloadable to the watch. Both units have been totally reliable. Looks like at the moment the black one is on Amazon without HR strap for $114 & IMO that's hard to beat.

I bought mine for 81 dollars a few months ago. Best investment on a watch I've made.

I also just bought a Polar M430 and so far so good. Tested it around town on some known miles (I measure USATF courses so I feel like I have good confidence on the accuracy of certain courses around here) and got solid reads, within 15' of where my marks are. Tested while both running and cycling, similar results. Was out for a run on Saturday with a friend who had a Garmin and we were beeping within 10' of each other.

First GPS watch I've had. Previous watch was a Suunto X6HR, which was good for about 6 months then the heart rate stopped reading accurately. Suunto's customer service was awful for me. I kept using the Suunto for about 10 years because I'm too lazy to switch.

The M430, one area it's not been particularly good so far has been reading distance on hikes in mountainous terrain in the woods. I did a hike last week on the AT that is known to be 8.4 miles (NH, Rt 16 to Wildcat A and back). The M430 only read about 6 miles at the end. I was carrying a Garmin eTrex 30 on that hike and it recorded 7.9 miles. The week before I hiked Mt Isolation via Rocky Branch Trail which is known to be 14.4 miles. The M430 recorded 12.87 miles, the Garmin recorded 13.9. I have an inquiry in to Polar to see if I'm doing something wrong with how I'm setting it up, or if it's just a case that it loses signal more easily in mountainous conditions.

This watch was great for my 5x18 mile intervals.

imo the polar m430 is pretty meh considering what you can get for close to the same price (garmin FR235). I have a FR630 and lover it to death. The running store i work at had a polar rep come in and give us a 430 it try out. I've been doing a lot of runs with it and i honestly hate it. It feels bulky and the gps in not accurate. It takes a long time to connect compared to a GPS+GLONASS watch. The wrist strap feels very cheap and flimsy compared to my garmin and i would be shocked if most strap loops don't break within a year. The built in wrist based HR is very good though and definitely good enough as long as you arent doing any fast track stuff like 12x200 in ~27sec or less.

m400 is the best value running watch around.

gps is accurate, customizable data pages, customizable workouts, easy to read display.

looks like a running watch not a toy from a christmas cracker.

what else do you need?

the only downer is the lack of ant+ and vibro alerts

Seems like a lot of people are giving their account of the m430 and not the n400.

blobs wrote: Polar M430...It takes a long time to connect compared to a GPS+GLONASS watch...

I just went into running mode. Took 12 seconds to get GPS up, and I'm indoors. I don't have any frame of reference, is that a lot? I haven't synced my M430 in a week, usually it seems to get GPS up faster. 12 seconds is fine for my purposes.

d2xccoach wrote:

blobs wrote: Polar M430...It takes a long time to connect compared to a GPS+GLONASS watch...

I just went into running mode. Took 12 seconds to get GPS up, and I'm indoors. I don't have any frame of reference, is that a lot? I haven't synced my M430 in a week, usually it seems to get GPS up faster. 12 seconds is fine for my purposes.

My M400 takes roughly 20 seconds if I'm sitting in my apartment or office. If I'm already outside, I can get signal a bit faster. I run with my coworker very often. He has a garmin, it takes a good 2 minutes sometimes to connect and I'm just sitting there with my hand on my dingus waiting for him. Garmins are also great watches, but yeah it definitely takes significantly longer to connect than my M400. I can't speak about the M430, but that's not what this thread is about.