Are you really interested in all of the gadgets in new cars?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Montanan46
  • 33 comments
  • 1,328 views
Montanan46

Montanan46

Messages
27
United States
Southwestern Montana
I have been in the market for a new car for a while and have been just about turned off by all of the new gadgets that are being put into new cars. I really have no use for SYNC, On-Star, Blue Link and other communication systems like this. I also really don't care at all for the touch screens that are now in just about any new cars on the market with the exception of some stripped down base models.

I can see that some people are interested in this items, but I really can't see having to pay for these items when I really don't have any use for them. The buyer really doesn't have a choice as they are being put in as standard equipment.

There are some options that I am interested in such as heated mirrors, possibly a sunroof and some other creature comforts, but I don't really want a stripped down base model.

I have driven cars with these new gadgets and really found them both unnecessary (for me) and a distraction, especially the touch screens. New cars are getting more and more expensive as it is, and adding these items as standard equipment is helping drive up the price. I sure miss the days when you could just check a box for the options you wanted. If you didn't check the box, you didn't get it.

Give the buyer a choice.

What are your feelings.
 
This depends on what kind of a car this is about. For everyday car, they could help in some special cases, some of them are even quite nice to have. And at least here you can buy a car without most of the gadgets and buy the ones you want as an extra. For fun car, not many of them are needed maybe radio and aircon in some hotter areas.
 
I'm fully 100% interested in most of it. It does suck that there usually isn't a touch screen delete on most cars that aren't bottom of the barrel, but I guess it's a thing where the cost of engineering a second dashboard would be more expensive than the cost of installing touch screens over a standard radio.

What does suck is that you can't get the nicer interior packages (leather, heated, etc.) without also getting the electronics in most cases. Again likely just the economics of it, it's probably rare that people want heated leather but not a touch screen, but it would be nice for some to have the choice.
 
I have my fun cars. What I am looking for is a mid or full size sedan for a daily driver that can get some decent gas mileage on, 30+ mpg. i like my comfort creature amenities but really have no need for the gadgets.
 
If you spent a lot of time on the road I can see the use for many of the new gadgets in cars but for me, I don't drive all that much, so I like to keep my cars as bare as possible.

One thing that bugs the hell out of the new gadgets is the social media apps in your car. As if you need more distraction while driving.
Facebook integrated with your car. Really?
 
Some of the gadgets are usefully if you are in an accident the car will call for help and give your location, it can also help prevent an accident from happen, if your car is stolen it can be located easily, if you lock yourself out of your car it can be opened with your phone , it can help to get to your location easiera and you have internet radio.
Most of these things can be add on at the request of the buyer but most people like that stuff standard to make it seem that they are getting more bang for their buck. If you remove this stuff the cost will not be that much different in cost because they are offering it on a large scale it it will cost less for them just to add to all models and trim levels.
Some of the things are unnecessary but some will be nice after getting use to them in the car.


Edit: You have to look at it like this, first you had a AM/FM radio as optional then it became standard and so on with 8-track player to cassette player to CD player to AUX plug to touch screen with satellite radio and internet radio.
 
Last edited:
Not especially. Aux input is nice. I despise touch screens in cars. Most other gadgets are cool, but I can't say I really feel longing for them.
 
The only thing that's good is aux inputs, hell I still miss wind up windows being available. I guess I just have really low standards though.
 
Eunos_Cosmo
Not especially. Aux input is nice. I despise touch screens in cars. Most other gadgets are cool, but I can't say I really feel longing for them.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that AUX input is bad, I'm saying that remove old technology in car when newer technology becomes more popular. They still have AUX port in a new car but they are now moving to Bluetooth/ other wireless tech to connect to phone/ music device to the car.

You are do not want to buy a new car with a CD player in it, so why would company put it in as standard equipment and they have to buy them from a supplier when you are most likely going to upgrade it. They are just making it easier for you by just add it to begin with and making to more cost effective for themselves and you.
 
It seems the main complaint is the navigation units that have an array of options that allow the owners to tailor the car to their needs. That's why they feel pointless having so many; you get ones like & ones you don't. You can't build these systems to your needs only, unless you want navigation units turning into sub-options filled with what you want & don't want. As for touch screens themselves, I wonder how many people use a TomTom or smartphone to do the things a touch screen unit can do; seems a bit ironic in that area to complain about them as distracting or having unnecessary things.

Furthermore, most of the upper tier marques have gotten rid of touch screens in a large chunk of their cars & moved on to analog controls for their units via similar to a mouse; see 2nd parenthesis. Even if they feel overloaded, the systems are far from difficult to use or ignore and the car disables your ability to use most of the apps/settings when driving, which basically limits you to A/C & Radio inputs, and viewing the navigation (which is pretty much all you can do beyond zooming in and out as well). Manufacturers have heard people complain about these being distractions (a reason why these same marques have moved the units off the center console and further into the dashboard by the window) & overcomplicated which is where a lot of the audio feedback came in, so it amuses me that this then becomes too much for people when it's very straight forward. And while one can argue whether or not they want all of this, for the money you pay in for the cars that have moved onto this bit of technology, you'd find it hard not to have a navigation unit included. Lower priced cars & their different units, I can understand the desire more.
 
Last edited:
Last February I had a new Chevy Camaro for a rental car while attending the Daytona 500 with all the bells and whistles and a touch screen and for me a lot of other unnecessary features on the car. I liked the car, but all of the gadgets were quite a distraction. I found myself pulling over numerous times to do try to do what would be simple tasks without the touch screen feature. I imagine that once used to it, these tasks would have been easier.

I had looked at possibly buying a new Impala but found that unless I purchased the base model so as not to get the touch screen feature that I could not get other items that I did want. I also found that they have a person in the dealership to work with buyers just to instruct them on how to use the touch screen. Is this really necessary.

I currently have a 2005 Buick LeSabre with buttons and switches. Easy to figure out and not a distraction needing you to take your eyes off the road to operate simple tasks. I have a friend who also has a new Impala and both he and his wife hate the touch screen. Another friend with a new Ford Explorer also really dislikes their touch screen features.

I'm glad that Buick build a good car as I plan on having it around for a long time. I also have a number of restored classics and hot rods that I have available so the Buick has fairly low miles on it (45,000) and should provide many more years of good service. I originally didn't want the Buick, but I was talked into it by my wife and after a couple of road trips in it, i found that I really enjoyed the comfort on long trips and the 3800 engine regularly delivered in excess of 30 mpg on the highway.

So long as manufacturers expect me to pay for unwanted features they put in as standard equipment I will be driving what I now have. If I am paying probably $30,000 plus for a new car, I would really like to have it the way I want it instead of what manufacturers THINK I want it. Sure saves me a lot of $$$. I prefer driving a car, not a video game.
 
Eunos_Cosmo
Garmin > MyFordTouch + Sync. Seriously, that system BLOWS.
Click to expand...

You got that right. A friend has a new explorer and the voice recognition is a farce. Also, do you need your car to read your e-mail to you??? Come on. Also the climate control is also on the touch screen. It took them five minutes to figure out how to get heat into the rear seat. Buyers remorse.
 
My brother's Focus ST has it. I despise it. The touch screen is very unresponsive, the GUI is visionless, the voice recognition simply doesn't work, the system CONSTANTLY interrupts music with email and text messages alerts and the whole thing is clunky, slow, and a pain. More than that, the physical controls (like temperature and fan speed) are totally counterintuitive. Ford dropped the ball with the ergonomics on that one....hard.
 
I was very interested in the new Fusion, a good looking and fuel efficient car but backed out of it just because of stories I heard about their system. Go to Fords web site and technology is what they are pushing.
 
I like to have music from a device integrated be it via USB or bluetooth. I also like to have bluetooth to speak while driving and being able to use both hands. Apart from that, it's nice to be able to control a trip computer and check out some of the car's diagnostics. Navigation I guess is also useful if you live somewhere you need it and the interface is good. Apart from those, I don't see what else coulde be useful for me. I'm with you on touchscreens, they seem completely unintuitive for me in cars, they are generally slow/unresponsive and a bit far from reach. I much prefer traditional buttons which are easier to control without looking. Alternatively, systems with joystick type controllers are nice and easy to use without taking your eyes too far off the road and your hands too far from the wheeel. With time I'm sure touchscreens will get better but until then I'll stick to what I mentioned.
 
Would you be, like, my father or something?

Got a couple ahead of you. Sorry.

I guess this is why I find so much of this technology unnecessary. I am a car nut and enjoy driving a car. For me it is an escape from technology. I even turn off my smart phone when I get into a car.
 
I look at the tech as a yes and no. For example, my parents just bought a new Chevy Traverse recently, and my 55 year old father already loves the bluetooth feature. He had his iPhone synced with the system before he even drove it off the lot. My 52 year old mother loves the backup camera especially since she has difficulties looking behind her due to being disabled. They both love the XM Radio that it came with, and that sees as much use as the USB adapters do in the Traverse. They also love the remote start in the Traverse as well.

On the other hand, some of the stuff seems utterly useless. My parents still have yet to figure out how the Touchscreen works, and OnStar is still a work in progress as well. As far as I know, the touchscreen hasn't been used, and I do recall one arguement between my parents regarding the GPS system (my dad just got fed up and got directions from his phone).

I guess that tech is hated more so because old habits die hard and simplicity is king. It'll take some getting used to, and even I, a 21 year old who hates most tech, have started to love some things. My dad went from not knowing how to use his iPhone to not being able to live without it. I guess it'll take time to adapt to it to the tech (or at least being able to put up with it).

I'll make a side note that my family is quite interested in cars- my grandfather has a '56 F-100 that is a custom cruiser and a NOM '62 Ford Galaxie. My father has a lifted Jeep CJ, but that's probably getting sold because he wants my brother an I to have a good DD for college. When the Jeep ran, it was driven most of the time we went anywhere. And even my dad said that he might put a new head unit in the Jeep that is AUX compatible if he keeps it so he can use his phone.
 
Infotainment isn't the problem, the problem is that the systems that OEM's staple to their cars suck. Personally I'm driven nuts by not being able to input GPS directions or change Bluetooth devices while the car is moving. There's a passenger seat for a reason, Ford!

A Nexus tablet mounted into the dash is usually better at being an infotainment system than the stuff in cars.
 
Eunos_Cosmo
My brother's Focus ST has it. I despise it. The touch screen is very unresponsive, the GUI is visionless, the voice recognition simply doesn't work, the system CONSTANTLY interrupts music with email and text messages alerts and the whole thing is clunky, slow, and a pain. More than that, the physical controls (like temperature and fan speed) are totally counterintuitive. Ford dropped the ball with the ergonomics on that one....hard.
Click to expand...

I have a Focus and the touchscreen isn't that bad. Also if the system is constantly interrupting, it means your brother set it that way, mine doesn't ever interrupt me. Also I'm not entirely sure how you found the controls to be counter intuitive, they really aren't that different than another other car I've been in recently with a similar setup. I will give you though that the voice activation is a bit wonky, but that more has to do with the poor place Ford put the microphone in the Focus and it can easily be fixed with a couple bucks worth of foam.

=====

As for the gadgets in cars, some gadgets are pretty useless, as @Dennisch said something like Facebook integration, but I think most of them are good. I see nothing wrong with a touchscreen and I find them to make the dash much less cluttered. Voice activated controls allows you to simply say what you're looking for instead of fumbling with buttons while driving down the road, which in many case could be considered safer. Also things like navigation avoid the driver from fiddling with their phone trying to input an address for where they want to go.

I'm also confused when people say touchscreens and other in car gadgets are difficult to use. It might be an age thing but I figured out the touchscreen system in my Focus after about 5 minutes of fiddling with it in the parking lot of the dealership. The controls on my Volvo were even easier to figure out an set up. Car companies don't really make their systems that difficult to use, however they do make them needlessly complicated from a code perspective which makes them slow and limits their ability to do things. I agree with @Zenith, a Nexus tablet or an iPad in the dash of a car would make way more sense from a usability and performance perspective.
 
I wish my car had Bluetooth, those blind spot things on the mirrors, and maybe a backup camera (though the parking sensors seem good enough so far, since I can actually see out of the back in comparison to newer cars). Beyond that, I'm good for gadgets.
 
I'm not remotely interested in any car that has what amounts to a tablet PC to control almost every function. As a matter of fact, the only electronic gadget I need in a car is a good radio with an AUX input and/or a CD player.
 
EF12345678
Err...um...how about a mini SUV that gets decent gas mileage...

Click dis to unveil car
Click to expand...

This Kia Soul is a bit small for me. We need something that can carry four adults in relative comfort on longer trips and have decent trunk room. I had a Kia Optima for a rental car and was impressed with it. I think Kia got the hint also. In their 2013 model year a touch screen was standard in all cars except the base model. In 2014, it it an option on all but the top of the line model. Decent room and good gas mileage, plus built in the USA. The only problem for me is that the closest dealership is over a hundred miles away. I would prefer to get a car that I can get serviced locally.

2clicks did bring up a good point. Less to go wrong with less bells and whistles. How much would it cost to repair these bells and whistles if they break down?

Responding to GrandTurismo918. I understand that you don't have to use them, but the manufacturer is still expecting me to pay for them whether I use them or not.
 
Im not a huge fan of touch screens in vehicles but I think it depends on the vehicle. For example, my uncles 2014 GMC All Terrain has a touch screen. Why? Its a work truck. It does not need it. But Im fine with a touch screen in a European luxury car. Really, it just depends on the type of car. As for On-Star, I think it is an amazing useful system that should be in every modern car. It can call for help if you crash, it can shut the vehicle down if it gets stolen, and it can unlock the vehicle if you lock the keys inside.
 

Latest Posts

Back