Current build quality of the LXD55

I have read many of the last couple of months posts and would
appreciate comments on the following questions.

Has there been any substantial design improvements by Meade to the
LXD55 since its release?

Does Meade seem to recognize the problems you all have been dealing
with and do they care?


I really do not mind tinkering, polishing and "fixing" bad
design/quality control if what I end up with is something that works
like it should have out of the box... I consider myself mechanically
competent and might even enjoy taking the mount apart and making it
work if... IF... I will end up with something that actually works
and is a good value for what I paid. Is that really what the LXD55
mount is or is it a hopelessly bad design?



Thanks for all the comments and typing effort in advance.

dwight

Hi Ricardo. Make no mistake: I don't know have much first hand experience with this mount, but I did ask a lot of questions about it when it first came out, and researched it a lot because I really thought it would revolutionize the low end market. It didn't.

It is a CG5 mounting more or less. Sold by Celestron as cg5 I think (or is it "3"?). And it is made in china, which isn't equal to it being bad, it's just a so-so product a cheap price. The LXD-55 uses that and adds goto. Some say the QA was even worse for the LXD55 run. For example the lubricants they use are reportedly terrible, and the same articles readily found by google for upgrading the CG5 or improving lubes all apply to LXD55. The motors are very loud and the phrase "coffee grinder" often accompanies descriptions of its noise.

Okay, as you know Celestron and Meade basically put out the same product lines in an almost show of bravado head-to-head competiton. So if Meade was going to have cheap EQ-Goto with all manner of OTA options, in addition to their popular fork-mounted SCTs now with GPS, then Celestron was going to have cheap EQ-Goto with all manner of OTA options, in addition to their popular fork-mounted SCTs now with GPS, and vice versa. Sometimes Meade is first, sometimes Celestron, but the other is never far behind.

So guess what? Now there is the Celestron Advanced series. I saw one on the weekend at a star party with a C9.25" SCT on it and it was ROCK solid, with a big beefy STEEL ROUND LEG tripod. The motor was 100% inaudible, but it was just tracking mars, so I never heard it slew, but the owner tells me it is a HUGE improvement over the CG5 upon which it is based (built), so much beefier and can hold the C9.25 no problem, whereas he thought the old CG5 was not quite up to snuff for that tube. Mind you we are talking visual / planetary photography only. If you want DSO photography, forget it without something like a G8/11 but if you are considering an LXD55 there's probably a budget not far behind.

I thwapped the legs at the EP and saw the image jump once then snap back into place solidly without vibrating and wobbling. This was with the regular steel legs with their rubber-ish feet, without any vibration suppression pads or anything, just sitting on concrete.

So, without really comparing the 2, and just a semi informed, but not truly experienced intuition, I myself would not (and decided not to for real) buy an LXD-55 only to start tinkering with it. Rather, I would buy an advanced series in that price/feature range if I still wanted one at all (I don't), OR...and this is a big OR: if you must get an LXD55 I would search for one used as it is likely BETTER than new if the person already did a half dozen things to improve it, you follow?

Hope my opinion is of some kind of help?

TomL