"Safety" Feature Backfires

223rem wrote:

> That's stupid. Last December I flew to Vancouver, BC and rented a Volvo
> with navigation system from Hertz. Without that, in an unfamiliar big
> city, I would have had a very hard time getting around.

Woah cool it everyone! :-) I said anyone who *needs* a GPS system
telling them where to go shouldn't be on the road.

I was refering to the people who buy GPS systems for the sole reason
that they aren't able to sucessfully navigate via a traditional map
(cue: Scotts blonde friend), although I could've been clearer about that
in my OP.

If someone is able to to navigate with a paper map, but prefers a GPS
nav system, then each to their own.

Call me old fashioned, but I prefer a car with as few computers as
possible, hence will stick to the old fashioned map for as long as I can.

Regards,

--
SL

"The essence of propaganda consists in winning people over
to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they
succumb to it utterly and can never again escape from it"

Joseph Goebbels - Nazi Minister of Propaganda, 1933 - 1945

C.H. wrote:
> Ted B. wrote:
>
>
>>>I agree with both of you, kinda. Personally I would like a high
>>>quality but "no frills" car. It doesn't seem to exist. Even the lower
>>>end of the market seems to be saturated with vehicles that push
>>>gimmicky "features" at the expense of engineering substance. I would
>>>rather have, say, a bare-bones car with a bulletproof drivetrain and
>>>decent seats and little else than a gimmicky car with cheapass
>>>everything that will be worn out in 150K miles.
>>>
>>>Heck, I'd pay a PREMIUM for such a car, just because it would likely be
>>>much more reliable than average.
>>>
>>>nate
>>>
>>
>>I'm with you there, all the way. A car is, after all, just
>>transportation.
>
>
> For you, sure. For others? Not necessarily. I like driving, which may be
> explained by the fact that I always shunned the ecoboxes you seem to adore.

Who said anything about "ecoboxes?"

>
>
>>It's nice to have goodies like A/C, power windows, decent stereo, etc.
>>But even WITH all those goodies, it's still tough to enjoy your time
>>behind the wheel.
>
>
> I will readily admit that it is hard to enjoy the time behind the wheel of a
> Toyota Corolla.
>

Who said anything about a Toyota Corolla?

>
>>Just give me a car that goes from point A to point B reliably and
>>efficiently, EVERY TIME. Like you said, bulletproof drivetrain, "no
>>frills". Sign me up. Now where do I buy one? Less than $50K,
>>preferably, though I suspect this beast isn't available at any price.
>

Sure it is, you have to buy used though. Like a late-70's or early 80s
VW. (which certainly can be fun to drive, not boring like you imply.)
Or a basic GM product with a 3800 (although the interior is likely to be
a little TOO Spartan and uncomfortable.) Or to crank up the wayback
machine a little, any Chrysler product with a slant six. Or a Rambler.

>
> I never had reliability problems with my cars, probably because I don't
> abuse them like a lot of other drivers do. Maybe you should try treating
> your cars better and you wouldn't have reliability problems either.
>
> Chris

Maybe you just don't drive your cars long enough. As you probably know,
the company I work for uses Impalas as company cars; I had the occasion
to drive one that had been maintained "by the book" but had a hair over
70K miles on it (when they're typically turned in) until my new car
arrived. It felt completely worn out - the engine was rough, the
suspension was loose, etc. etc. etc. and of course the interior is
*still* Spartan to the point of ugliness - not that I want more features
(exactly the opposite) but the materials are just cheap, cheap, cheap.
Personally, for $20K plus, I expect better, for that price I shouldn't
be getting a disposable car.

This is not bashing GM, either. A lot of new car companies seem to have
issues with this, I am just using the Impala as an example. Now VW does
have very nice interiors even in relatively inexpensive cars, and past
experience has shown that they are exceptionally durable as well, but
they seem to be the exception not the rule, and also their true entry
level vehicles are not offered in the US. Also the GTI I bought a
couple years ago while a very nice car still exhibited a little bit of
the "over-gadgetization" I complain about...

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

>
> For you, sure. For others? Not necessarily. I like driving, which may be
> explained by the fact that I always shunned the ecoboxes you seem to
> adore.
>
> I will readily admit that it is hard to enjoy the time behind the wheel of
> a
> Toyota Corolla.

> I never had reliability problems with my cars, probably because I don't
> abuse them like a lot of other drivers do. Maybe you should try treating
> your cars better and you wouldn't have reliability problems either.
>
> Chris

FYI, looking back on all the vehicles I have personally owned (had my name
on the title of), the AVERAGE horsepower rating of them was well over 200.
I personally hate Toyota Corollas with a passion. I don't object to driving
a Corolla or even owning one. My problem with Corollas is always getting
stuck behind them at 20 under. People who drive Corollas tend to drive them
like they have nowhere to go and 100 years to get there. And the Corolla is
so fricking popular, you can't go ANYWHERE in the U.S. without getting stuck
behind the damned things constantly. Would I own one, though? Maybe. I
certainly wouldn't be the average Corolla owner, though. Meaning, I would
drive it like I know where I'm going and want to get there before a week
from next Tuesday.

I don't have reliability problems with my cars, either. I just wish someone
would come out with a car that will do 500K or better on the original engine
with no more than the usual routine maintenance. Yeah, I know some engines
will do that, now. Problem is, the rest of the car falls apart long before
then. I want a car I can keep for 20 or 30 years, instead of a
car -designed to fall apart- at 5 years, that I keep for 10 or 15 years.

My current car will probably be 15 years old with 300K before it gets more
expensive to maintain it than to REPLACE it. While that's probably better
than average, it's not what I'd consider to be bulletproof.

For $50K or less, I'd gladly buy a car that was designed to last 20 years
under ORDINARY usage and maintenance conditions. I'd gladly give up A/C,
power (anything and everything), stereo, etc. Just make it last forever.
I'll buy it. -Dave

C.H. wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> > C.H. wrote:
> >> Ted B. wrote:
> >>
> >>>>Heck, I'd pay a PREMIUM for such a car, just because it would likely be
> >>>>much more reliable than average.
> >>>>
> >>>I'm with you there, all the way. A car is, after all, just
> >>>transportation.
> >>
> >> For you, sure. For others? Not necessarily. I like driving, which may be
> >> explained by the fact that I always shunned the ecoboxes you seem to
> >> adore.
> >
> > Who said anything about "ecoboxes?"
>
> Ted implied it by claiming 'a car is only transportation'.
>
> >>>It's nice to have goodies like A/C, power windows, decent stereo, etc.
> >>>But even WITH all those goodies, it's still tough to enjoy your time
> >>>behind the wheel.
> >>
> >> I will readily admit that it is hard to enjoy the time behind the wheel
> >> of a Toyota Corolla.
> >>
> > Who said anything about a Toyota Corolla?
>
> That's the car most of the 'car is only transportation' people seem to
> adore. A transportation appliance.

That doesn't mean that an equally reliable car can't be somewhat
involving to drive while still being practical. (and that's what I
don't see on the market today.)

>
> >> I never had reliability problems with my cars, probably because I don't
> >> abuse them like a lot of other drivers do. Maybe you should try treating
> >> your cars better and you wouldn't have reliability problems either.
> >>
> > Maybe you just don't drive your cars long enough.
>
> Is a Volvo 264 with 350000km on the clock long enough? Or a Dodge pickup
> with 280000 miles?
>

I'd say those both qualify, although I don't know that current
offerings from either company would. That's the whole problem as I see
it.

> > As you probably know, the company I work for uses Impalas as company cars;
> > I had the occasion to drive one that had been maintained "by the book" but
> > had a hair over 70K miles on it (when they're typically turned in) until
> > my new car arrived. It felt completely worn out - the engine was rough,
> > the suspension was loose, etc. etc. etc. and of course the interior is
> > *still* Spartan to the point of ugliness - not that I want more features
> > (exactly the opposite) but the materials are just cheap, cheap, cheap.
> > Personally, for $20K plus, I expect better, for that price I shouldn't
> > be getting a disposable car.
>
> Maybe some people in your company abuse company cars. I drove an Impala with
> somewhere north of 100000 miles on the clock a while ago and it felt ok.
> Not great, but then no other 20k car feels great either.

Abuse is entirely possible, but for a vehicle that has a huge segment
of its target market being fleet use, you'd think that there would be a
little more designed-in abusability. Perhaps a police-package car
might be a little more acceptable, but it's difficult for a regular
consumer to purchase one, at least new.

>
> Concerning abused cars: I drove a rental Golf IV TDI with only 21000km on
> the clock and it felt as if it had over 100000. You can abuse any car to
> oblivion and company cars are especially prone to this type of abuse.
>
> > This is not bashing GM, either. A lot of new car companies seem to have
> > issues with this, I am just using the Impala as an example. Now VW does
> > have very nice interiors even in relatively inexpensive cars,
>
> You must be kidding. You really call the plastic landscape in a New Beetle
> very nice?
>

No, I don't. The NB is ugly compared to a Golf/Jetta/GTI which has a
nice upmarket feel, especially with leather. However, it looks very
similar to the interior in my brand new Impala...

> > and past experience has shown that they are exceptionally durable as well,
> > but they seem to be the exception not the rule, and also their true entry
> > level vehicles are not offered in the US. Also the GTI I bought a
> > couple years ago while a very nice car still exhibited a little bit of
> > the "over-gadgetization" I complain about...
>
> Most of the GTI I didn't even see the 100k mile mark in Germany. They rusted
> out, almost literally fell apart. The Golf 1 was a truly shoddily made
> econobox, which earned its reputation for severe rust problems and lack of
> longevity.
>
> Chris

Hmm, I just sold last year a Scirocco 2 (second iteration of the
original watercooled VW, same chassis as the Golf 1) with 240K miles,
bought it with 180K and drove the wheels off of it, only repairs in my
care were a suspension rebuild, conversion to 16V brakes (no need to, I
just wanted them) and a junkyard transmission after the original wore
to the point where the output shaft seals wouldn't seal anymore at
about 200K miles. I also replaced the original exhaust system at about
the same time. The A/C never worked in my care, but that was primarily
due to a replacement condenser being difficult to obtain (at the time,
it was definitely one of the older vehicles still on the road in daily
use.) The new owner was more than happy with the car, by the way, and
I noticed no rust on the car. The original engine was still in the car
and had received only routine maintenance while I had it.

That car certainly qualified as the kind of car I'd like to see on the
market today... simple, durable, economical and yet still fun to drive
and easy for an owner to maintain himself.

nate

In article >,
Scott en Aztl?n > wrote:

> Most vehicle manufacturers who offer navigation system in their cars
> lock out most of the controls while the vehicle is moving. The idea is
> to prevent the driver from fiddling with her nav system while she's
> supposed to be driving.
>
> Great idea, right? Well, maybe not.
>
> The other day there was a blonde in an SUV who was stopped in the
> middle of the street. She sat there fiddling with her nav system as
> cars streamed around her like a stream around a rock.

I have a few friends who have cars that are equipped with factory
installed navigation systems. Not a one of them locks out any of the
controls when the car is in motion. I think having a control lock is a
good idea because I know from personal observation that those navigation
systems can be very distracting to program.

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 10:58:11 -0400, Shawn Hirn >
wrote:

>I have a few friends who have cars that are equipped with factory
>installed navigation systems. Not a one of them locks out any of the
>controls when the car is in motion.

They must own Hondas/Acuras.

In article >,
says...

>I have a few friends who have cars that are equipped with factory
>installed navigation systems. Not a one of them locks out any of the
>controls when the car is in motion. I think having a control lock is a
>good idea because I know from personal observation that those navigation
>systems can be very distracting to program.

The NAV in the Chrysler T&C does lock out when you get above 15mph, or maybe it
is 20 mph. You get a warning on the screen letting you know you should pull
over if you really want to make any changes.
-----------
Alex

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:27:22 -0400, Alex Rodriguez >
wrote:

>In article >,
>says...
>
>>I have a few friends who have cars that are equipped with factory
>>installed navigation systems. Not a one of them locks out any of the
>>controls when the car is in motion. I think having a control lock is a
>>good idea because I know from personal observation that those navigation
>>systems can be very distracting to program.
>
>The NAV in the Chrysler T&C does lock out when you get above 15mph, or maybe it
>is 20 mph. You get a warning on the screen letting you know you should pull
>over if you really want to make any changes.

That really ****es me off. These cheapskates SHOULD provide drivers
with voice commands to operate the nav system safely, but instead the
penny-pinching mother****ers just lock out the controls so even your
PASSENGER can't punch in a new destination while you're moving.

One of these days I'm going to reverse-engineer the firmware in my nav
system and NOP-out the code that locks out the controls. Then I'll
sell the patch to other frustrated owners and make a fortune.

In article >,
says...

>That really ****es me off. These cheapskates SHOULD provide drivers
>with voice commands to operate the nav system safely, but instead the
>penny-pinching mother****ers just lock out the controls so even your
>PASSENGER can't punch in a new destination while you're moving.

Yes, it can be annoying. As you mention, there are times when my passenger
could change the settings. I guess this is what happens when you have too
many lawyers with free time on their hands.

>One of these days I'm going to reverse-engineer the firmware in my nav
>system and NOP-out the code that locks out the controls. Then I'll
>sell the patch to other frustrated owners and make a fortune.

Interesting. I know there is a company that sells a service that will allow
you to watch TV on the NAV screen. Maybe you can piggy back your service
onto theirs.
------------
Alex