Why I don't like new car features

In reply to GameboyRMH:

Yup, but these days it makes sense as you don't need to put a key in the ignition. Keep it in your pocket or wherever and just press the now needed start/stop button.

My problems with keyless systems is that they are not actually keyless. I am required to have a big lump in my pocket for no good reason. And, it's not thin like a credit card so I can put it in my wallet where I won't forget it. It's a big berkeleying lump with car logos on it just to carry a little RFID tag around. I'm tempted to duct tape it somewhere under the hood. Why can't we just use biometrics at this point?

I have a 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee with the stupid shifter, back up camera, and push button start (PBS).

I like the PBS and the keyless entry. It's slick. Same with the camera. I can see how the camera will make people less likely to actually look around, though.

The shifter. I would rather it be individual push buttons, or have actual position for the lever to be in for each PRNDL spot. That way there is some physical feedback not just detents and a spring back to center.

The PBS has had the effect of me walking away from a vehicle while it was running once. It was a bit noisy in the day care parking lot and other parents will sometimes leave vehicles running, so I didn't notice. Not grabbing your keys from the dash when leaving the vehicle gives an opportunity for this to happen.

Ah, it's time for this thread again, is it?

I'm no Luddite. I love most modern tech. Cameras, infotainment, adaptive cruise, stability control, airbags, bring it on. It makes cars easier to use, harder to crash, and more survivable when they do crash. But I do draw the line with certain changes that seem to exist only for the sake of change. The FCA shifter is one of those. What are they improving with this design? Same thing with the 2017 Fusion which has a dial shifter. How is that better than a lever? Honestly, I think the old-fashioned column shifter for automatics is vastly underrated. It gets the shifter out of the way and frees up the center console for more storage.

DrBoost wrote: Mu issue with PBS, and yes, driven many, many cars with PBS, is thatin this case, it could have contributed to the death. In a PRNDL car if you put the trans in Neutral, you cannnot get your keys out of the ignition. In a PBS, if you have a confounding shifter, and it's in Neutral, when you hit the button the car shuts off and you walk away with it on Neutral. And I think the complaint about backup cameras is that they are standard on just about every car and Huckleberry doesn't want to have to pay for it. And yes, we have choices....for now. The day when we must buy a car with PBS, backup cameras, and automatic transmissions isn't too far away.

If he didn't drive a car at all, it couldn't have happened.

See the logic fail?

Backup camera's are something that I said was stupid and I hated the fact that they started coming out. Then I drove a car with one. I'm now considering installing one on my 2006 Acura--turns out it isn't too hard to do. Every vehicle should have one, I'm glad that law was passed.

WilD wrote: In reply to alfadriver: people don't like the cameras because they are problem shifting. People were leaving their babies in the driveway and backing over them. Take better care of babies? No. Camera!

In the us, there are ~600 kids/year backed over, mostly around 1 year old. I'm going to assume you don't have kids - it's really easy for them to get where you don't expect them, very quickly. I might have said the same thing as you before having my kid. It's amazing and terrifying how fast and unpredictably they move.

I'm not against backup cameras, but they are not a replacement for rear visibility.

ProDarwin wrote: I'm not against backup cameras, but they are *not* a replacement for rear visibility.

They have to be. To meet modern crash standards, a car's pilars need to be YUUUUGE. Either that or they have to use costly exotic materials, or triangulated pillars that make average joes feel unsafe because they don't look like a big redwood tree holding the roof up. On that thought, a thin pillar made of honeycombed titanium or whatever might make today's car buyers feel unsafe too.

So because rear visibility needs to be greatly reduced, back-up cameras need to be the replacement.

In reply to dculberson:

Wow, I had no idea it was that many. That's tragic.

Just getting back to the main issue of one running over ones self. Couldn't this easily be solved with a little code? The shifter is electronic, the starter is as well. Door opens, driver takes foot of bake while in neutral, engine shuts off. Simple. This would still satisfy the NHTSA rule for needing neutral for a runaway, door isn't open engine can run, or be killed manually.

I dont have any of these features, but I like the keyless idea, have used it in a BRZ. PBS comes with it, and I can see that taking a little retraining. I would LOVE a backup camera simply for trailers, or on my RV, mr2, not so much, but that car would benefit from blind spot warning thingy's

GameboyRMH wrote:

ProDarwin wrote: I'm not against backup cameras, but they are *not* a replacement for rear visibility.

They have to be. To meet modern crash standards, a car's pilars need to be YUUUUGE. Either that or they have to use costly exotic materials, or triangulated pillars that make average joes feel unsafe because they don't look like a big redwood tree holding the roof up. On that thought, a thin pillar made of honeycombed titanium or whatever might make today's car buyers feel unsafe too. So because rear visibility needs to be greatly reduced, back-up cameras need to be the replacement.

Truth. I really miss having one on the Mustang. You sit low, it has a high beltline and a really high rear end. Rear visibility sucks.

java230 wrote: Just getting back to the main issue of one running over ones self. Couldn't this easily be solved with a little code? The shifter is electronic, the starter is as well. Door opens, driver takes foot of bake while in neutral, engine shuts off. Simple. This would still satisfy the NHTSA rule for needing neutral for a runaway, door isn't open engine can run, or be killed manually.

That's exactly what BMW did when they were the first to fart out a shifter similar to the new Cherokee's.

In reply to alfadriver:

My problem With them is that I see people look solely at them rather than the world around. I was nearly hit by a woman backing out of a parking spot because she wasn't looking around for other vehicles only what was specifically in the camera viewer which has no peripheral view. The camera itself is probably not the issue but rather the operator.But in a world where it seems people feel technology not attention is this answer,I imagine we will hear stories of people running over kids they didn't see till it was too late

I like backup cameras and blind spot monitoring. I still look everywhere before parking or changing lanes, but as others have pointed out, there are still blind spots.

I also like some of the features like hill descent and push button detaching swaybars on some 4x4 rigs. I'm a fan of DSG transmissions.

My view is that technology can, and does, make things better.

GameboyRMH wrote: So because rear visibility needs to be greatly reduced, back-up cameras need to be the replacement.

Understood, but in their current state, they are not. I can achieve far greater visibility in some directions by just looking out the back or side window of an older car than a backup camera can do in a newer car.

I'm sure soon with multiple cameras, crazy wide angle lenses, etc. they will get there.

Huckleberry wrote: I don't like "features" that are not for me, the car owner. Things like data recorders in the ECU that are clearly there for law enforcement and insurance company dispute resolution or even sending customer trend data back to the company unbeknownst to the actual owner. Things that turn themselves back on after every start like traction control that are maybe for some people but not for me. Things like a backup camera that can be damn useful on a tow vehicle or something with terrible rearward visibility as an option but we all have to buy and pay for even in our hatchbacks with good rear glass and mirrors.

Screw the "Active upon every start" TCS & ESC crap. Screw the "Oh I'm not really off even though I have a light that displays I'm off" TCS & ESC systems even more. And Screw the manufacturers the most for failing to include how to fully disable those systems in the owners manual.....

In reply to WOW Really Paul? all I really have to say is WOW Really Paul? TCS and ESC should most certainly be automatically engaged on start up and not super easy to disengage so it can't be done accidentally. As far as non defeatable TC and ESC I'd say that's limited to vehicles not suited to being disabled on and/or non enthusiast vehicles.

Adrian_Thompson wrote: In reply to WOW Really Paul? all I really have to say is WOW Really Paul? TCS and ESC should most certainly be automatically engaged on start up and not super easy to disengage so it can't be done accidentally. As far as non defeatable TC and ESC I'd say that's limited to vehicles not suited to being disabled on and/or non enthusiast vehicles.

I agree, except for the easy to disengage. I want it to be easy, but also not possible to be down accidentally. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I will counter my earlier anti-tech post with one exception: Porsche GT3 Make every car drive and respond the way that car does and I'll gladly give up a clutch pedal permanently, and willingly submit myself to our electronic overlords...to the extent that I've been researching the going rate for lightly-used organs. Sadly, I'm afraid I don't have enough extra parts to afford one.

mtn wrote: I agree, except for the easy to disengage. I want it to be easy, but also not possible to be down accidentally. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Perhaps something that requires a commitment to operate?

Huckleberry wrote:

mtn wrote: I agree, except for the easy to disengage. I want it to be easy, but also not possible to be down accidentally. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Perhaps something that requires a commitment to operate?

That would be the snap-oversteer button.

java230 wrote: Just getting back to the main issue of one running over ones self. Couldn't this easily be solved with a little code? The shifter is electronic, the starter is as well. Door opens, driver takes foot of bake while in neutral, engine shuts off. Simple. This would still satisfy the NHTSA rule for needing neutral for a runaway, door isn't open engine can run, or be killed manually. I dont have any of these features, but I like the keyless idea, have used it in a BRZ. PBS comes with it, and I can see that taking a little retraining. I would LOVE a backup camera simply for trailers, or on my RV, mr2, not so much, but that car would benefit from blind spot warning thingy's

The engine turning off wouldn't have prevented this incident; the car was in neutral so the engine didn't provide the motive power, his steep sloping driveway did. Maybe the code could throw it into park or throw the parking brake in addition to turning off the engine.

One thing I don't get is the complaints about the driver assists. ABS,TC & SC. Oh yes, hill holder. I have now driven 6 year with them and I don't find them to be a problem even in the winters of upstate NY. Most of the time you don't even know they are there. Traction control just mimics what you would normally do.

Yes, I did have a fellow that wanted to disconnect the ABS because he didn't like it.

I understand push button starts. Modern cars start themselves - you might think you're closing a contact to the starter, but really what you're doing is signalling to the car that you want it to begin operations. Even some key operated vehicles are like that - the previous generation Tundra for example.

My only complaint with them is that I have a car with a true push button start that engages the starter, and the ND has an on-off button. I have to think carefully not to push the starter button on the older car after driving the ND for a while.

The keyfob contains a metal key hidden inside, a battery and the buttons for the doors. It's a bit more than just an RFID chip.