Please don't "brick" my car!

rslifkin wrote:

EvanR wrote: How do auto manufacturers get off charging multiple hundreds of dollars to update maps, if Garmin, TomTom, etc. can give me continuous map updates essentially free?

Plus, the standalone units are a harder sell in the first place at this point with so many people just using nav on their smartphones.

Can't rely on smartphone nav out here in the West. Too many interesting places to visit where cell phone service is not available. Neither do I want to pay for more data.

But I get what you're saying about people preferring the integration. The cheapskate in me just isn't willing to pay the kind of dough that involves.

Sky_Render wrote: I just updated the maps on my Fusion for $150. I update them every other year or so.

But, how up to date are your "updates"? It took 2 years for both my Alpine aftermarket and the wife's factory Subaru to get the East St extension/ I-70 interchange to show up. Both Apple and Google maps had it in 3 months.

In reply to mtn: If I am in traffic I don't want to spend time looking at a screen. I prefer to know where I am going ahead of time.

Of course if I find myself in a never before been place. Then navigation can be helpful.

Years ago I made several trips between upstate NY and Witchata Falls TX. Just new my route numbers taken from a paper map.

OK, I'll shut up.

In reply to iceracer:

I generally look at directions for where I'm going first, but if some portion of the trip is complicated, I'll usually let the GPS talk to me as a reminder. If I'm having to actually look at the thing, I'm probably doing something wrong.

I don't use the NAV on my phone or my car. I find my way using the stars.

If it was good enough for my ancestors, it is good enough for me.

I mean honestly, the weird way many of the folks here rail against ANY sort of technology advancement in the world, while also desiring it at the same time, is just bizarre.

I think technology is great. I marvel at it.

I just think the reliance on it is sometimes over done.

I have a Garmin which I hardly ever use since I find the old ways easier.

And sometimes more accurate.

Garmin has free updates?

Mine started screaming at me to update. An update was something like $110, on an $89 GPS.

That was in 2011. It still whines at me to update, from time to time.

In reply to Knurled:

Current models do, yes. In the past, you had to buy a model with the suffix "LM", for Lifetime Maps. When I bought mine, possibly in 2013 or so, it may have been an extra $10 for the LM version. Well worth it, IMO.

And you didn't read it here, but there are places on the WWW where you can download current Garmin maps for older units without paying for them. I may or may not have done that for an older unit before I passed it down to my niece.

When I'm doing a long tow, I use maps to get an overall mental idea of where I'm going, a 2008 Garmin to get me from city to city and my phone to get me through cities with the latest detours and traffic. No built-in nav on the truck, but if there was I'd use it in place of the Garmin. Each of those is the best choice for their part of the job, but no single one could do as good a job as the three together.

screw this, I'm not buying anything new ever again

Back in about 1973 I heard about a guy who bought two or three new Ford LTDs because, as far as he was concerned, the future was only going to suck and he wanted to have the last of the good Fords to drive forever.

Getting back on topic, it IS possible, at least in Canada, to buy a new Chevy truck without OnStar if you order the most basic model and don't tick that box. Also, police packages don't seem to come with surveillance (I mean, indispensable navigation and convenience) equipment, so there's that option too.

I'm not a fan of factory nav units in cars. I'll go on google maps before I go somewhere and just write out my own directions or use a good ole paper map

Stealthtercel wrote: Back in about 1973 I heard about a guy who bought two or three new Ford LTDs because, as far as he was concerned, the future was only going to suck and he wanted to have the last of the good Fords to drive forever.

So he bought cars with the bad old first-generation emissions controls (no compression, no cam, no timing, run really hot, and in 1973 you get poorly-implemented EGR too) and some of Detroit's worst machining tolerances. And the first of the Big Ugly Bumpers.

In reply to 92dxman: Hey, someone who thinks like me.

Some times when I am exploring I just use a compass. Don't laugh, my Fiesta has one.

In reply to Knurled: Yeah, I know. I remember thinking, "He wants... what?" I don't know whether I hope the guy did, or did not, live long enough to see minivans as fast as HemiCudas and ordinary cars with 100 hp per litre and a warranty.

Personally, I think it's fantastic that I can buy a hybrid that uses GPS info to know I'm about to encounter a hill so it can use, or save, battery power accordingly, BUT it gives me the absolute creeps to think of it sending data about itself and its (and my) whereabouts back into the cloud, or the net, or anywhere else. I don't want my car texting my phone when it needs an oil change, and I sure as berk don't want my Audi keeping tabs on every other Audi it meets, let alone vice versa. If my car has a Black Box, I want its data to be owned by me, not GM, not my friendly local DMV, and not my insurance company. And so on.

All that said, as I enter my jealously-guarding-my-lawn years I'm not the target market for very much except extremely dismal medications and cargo shorts.

Stealthtercel wrote: Personally, I think it's fantastic that I can buy a hybrid that uses GPS info to know I'm about to encounter a hill so it can use, or save, battery power accordingly,

It can?

I remember an article about vehicle integration that said we would realistically NEVER see that happen, because then the GPS system would be an input for the powertrain, and therefore it would have to be monitored for faults with the same level of scrutiny as the PCM, since a fault in the GPS could result in increased emissions.

"Sorry, your car failed emissions because you have a code P5EC1, GPS maps out of date. The system is locked down, so you will need to pay $500 for the new maps."

Yeah, AFAIK this is a thing. I want to say I remember it from a Cayenne Hybrid test. I'll delve into it tomorrow if I get a chance. I get your point about powertrain integration, but I would think that (a) the software designer could always set that feature not to operate if there was any doubt and (b) the presence or absence of a hill is not likely to change as maps are updated.

Exactly. Why do we even need Nav? I haven't seen a Nav system yet that's as good as my large screened Galaxy running Google Maps. The updates are free and happening every day. I've heard that Wayz? is even better but i haven't felt the need to try it.

But almost every car you buy now has some form of a factory Nav system. It seems a giant waste to me.

The0retical wrote: I have mixed feelings about this. I hate factor Nav systems since they never get updated and end up out of date before they're sold. So updates are good. On the flip side... what are they updating and should I be worried that someone could be using me as a beta tester? I've seen a whole lot of really sloppy code in the past.

You obviously live in an area with good wireless coverage. C'mon out to the open southwest for a bit It's the same reason I use satellite radio when on the road.

The integration of the nav system into the car's infotainment system is useful as well, it'll drop the volume of the audio system for voice commands. Some vehicles will also cast the navigation directions on a heads-up display so that you're not looking down at your phablet as you try to work through traffic in a strange city.

Keith, that's a good response. In pure navigation terms, however, I would say that places with poor cell coverage offer less possibility of gettting lost. There aren't usually enough roads and intersections to matter. Camping and off-roading being exceptions.

Also, these days I'm finding good enough cell service to navigate much of the world via Google Maps. Recently in Trinidad I could only get some fly by night 3G provider but it was more than enough for the maps to work.

There are phone navigation apps out there that'll let you pre-download maps, etc. to avoid the issue of areas with poor cell service.

a couple of weekends ago I went off to some vintage races on the il/wi border out in farm country. Plenty of back roads and connectors. Many times I do a bit of zen driving - cruise around till it feels right to get where I'm going. This time I was on a timeline. 2/3rds of the way there the signal goes away - so much for following the cell phone nav. Updated nav would have been handy, and two turns more convenient than the zen method.

Carro Atrezzi wrote: In pure navigation terms, however, I would say that places with poor cell coverage offer less possibility of gettting lost.

There's a somewhat locally well known cell service hole in western Cuyahoga County, OH (Cleveland). Not an area of two roads and a million acres of nothing.

GPS will work even when phones don't.

oldtin wrote: a couple of weekends ago I went off to some vintage races on the il/wi border out in farm country. Plenty of back roads and connectors. Many times I do a bit of zen driving - cruise around till it feels right to get where I'm going.

Dirk? Dirk Gently?

I do a bit of zen navigation myself. I generally get where I need to be.