New cars

[wolfie]

While my car's in the shop, I've got a rental (Mazda 3). The rental company calls it a "midsize". Seriously? It's smaller than mine, which is a borderline compact (it's a station wagon - the sedan version of the same model is classed as a subcompact due to the loss of interior space to the "notch"). Among the stupidity:

- Instead of a standard DIN radio, it's a fully-integrated unit. I guess people who buy Mazdas aren't supposed to upgrade their audio systems.
- Lousy sight lines. The bottom of the "greenhouse" slopes up toward the rear, making it hard to get a good view during shoulder checks.
- Plenty of chrome on the dash. Haven't the designers heard about something called "glare"?
- There's no temperature gauge. Instead, it has a pair of "idiot lights" - blue for "not yet up to the operating range" and red for "overheated". If you're in the normal range, you don't know WHERE in the range you are - drifting toward one end or the other is valuable information.
- The dash indicator for which gear it's in. For the "as needed" gears (people in the medical field will probably have a better idea of what I mean than others), there are separate outlines in white, lit in either green or amber (depending on which of the gears it is) when that gear is selected. For the forward gears, it has a 7-segment display that's been "massaged" to show a capital "D" instead of a zero (when the lever is pushed to the left, to allow driver-selected up/down shifts, this display shows which gear, from 1 to 5). What's the problem with this? The 7-segment display is RED (for consistency, it should be green, with white being a decent second choice). A car should NOT have a red light showing on the dash under normal operating conditions - for decades, a red light has been the standard for "something's wrong with your car!".

[protege]

While my car's in the shop, I've got a rental (Mazda 3). The rental company calls it a "midsize".

The rental company could be going by the EPA's designation.

- Instead of a standard DIN radio, it's a fully-integrated unit. I guess people who buy Mazdas aren't supposed to upgrade their audio systems.

Many buyers are happy with the factory-installed unit, and wouldn't bother with an upgrade. I'm sure that some aftermarket firm could supply a new unit if there was a demand. Granted, it wouldn't be cheap.

However, as designers are struggling to stuff more and more electronics into a vehicle, you're going to have to make some trade-offs. There's only so much space inside the dashboard and consoles to put things, without making the interior overly cramped. That could be why many vehicles now feature touch-screens for the GPS and entertainment systems. It's probably easier to add another layer of menus than it is to cram in a separate system.

- Lousy sight lines. The bottom of the "greenhouse" slopes up toward the rear, making it hard to get a good view during shoulder checks.

Quite a few cars seem to have this feature now. It's a styling trend, that will eventually pass as tastes change. In the meantime, it's something to adapt to. I was always told that a good driver is able to adjust their driving style to different vehicles.

- Plenty of chrome on the dash. Haven't the designers heard about something called "glare"?

You're probably too young to remember how 1970s and '80s Japanese car interiors were. We're talking acres of (usually) black vinyl and plastic. Pretty boring to look at, and as tastes changed, the manufacturers started adding chrome and other touches. But, if you *really* want chrome, sit inside a 1950s Buick sometime

- There's no temperature gauge. Instead, it has a pair of "idiot lights" - blue for "not yet up to the operating range" and red for "overheated". If you're in the normal range, you don't know WHERE in the range you are - drifting toward one end or the other is valuable information.

This one I'll give you. I'm not sure why Mazda thought this is a good idea. I mean, I *have* had an engine overheat...which led to an expensive explosion. Why you'd substitute a pair of lights for a gauge, I don't know!

- The dash indicator for which gear it's in.

I have a feeling that I know why this one is red. Mazda probably felt that it should be something you'd notice...which is why it goes against the "red is bad" convention. Plus, leaving the car in 1st gear too long *would* be bad.

[HYHYBT]

After driving my car 20 miles on the interstate in 2nd once, I'd love a warning light on the dash to call my attention to being in an unusual gear. As for temperature gauges vs. lights... the difference between "just right," "slightly cooler than normal," and "slightly hotter than normal" doesn't mean anything to most people, and instruments you don't look at because they never show anything interesting aren't useful. My temperature gauge *never,* except for the first few minutes of running, does anything other than point straight up. Not once in 163,000 miles. At least, not that I've caught it doing. There's a light to tell me if the temperature ever gets too high, and the only thing I use the needle for is to tell me when it's warmed up enough to turn on the heat. A cold light going off would serve that purpose at least as well.

Integrating the stereo instead of using the formerly-standard size separate one serves a couple other purposes: it looks a lot better, and it encourages people to spring for the higher-end factory system, if there are options.

[NecCat]

I agree with you about newer cars, but I always thought that was just me getting old and crotchety and resisting change - excuse me improvements.

I hate the dummy lights too. My old car almost always ran the temperature dead middle, except when it is first started. The one time it got to 3/4 hot, I stopped and checked, oh look, the rads leaking. I was able to dump the last of my prestone and the rest of the bottle of water I was drinking in, and get it to the mechanics before it overheated. Had I only had a dummy light I wouldn't have noticed until it overheated, which meant I would have had to tow it from the highway, and then have to try to find a garage, plan for a ride or rental.

I also once drove a friends mazda, don't remember the model, back in the 90's. It was a standard, and had no tach, instead it had up and down arrows, identical to the indicator arrows except for orientation, that told me when to change gears. I never understood that, except that it irritated me. My old pick-up, also a standard, had no tach either, just a governer in every gear, so that you couldn't red line, it would just kill the engine (but leave you power steering and brakes) in each gear until you shifted or the engine speed dropped and the engine would cut back in.

Other things I hate about newer cars:
- they seem to go out of their ways to design the cars so that the things you need fixed most are the hardest to get at: light bulbs, oil filters, air filters (I'm basin that on my old civic)
- 'traction control' it makes a horrible grinding noise like the axle is about to fall off, makes me afraid to touch any controls until it stops, and generally makes the behaviour of the truck less predictable. Instead of letting the back end slip on the icy corner, while slowing down, then taking my foot off the brake to get the truck back in line, it just does whatever it wants. I don't understand it, and I don't want to, I just want it to stop (the only truck we have which has it now also has a button to turn it off, which actually IS an improvement)
- ABS, horrible idea. It won't let you skid, which sounds good in theory, but skidding is the fastest way to slow down in some situations. If you skid while going straight you usually have enough time to slow down enough that you can make the turn, avoid, corner etc. in case of emergency. By not letting you skid you don't get to slow down enough to be able to make that emergency steering maneuver safely. I've had the ABS disabled on every vehicle I've bought.
- airbags, which I already had a rant about here somewhere, so I won't repeat that
- all the random computer chips, which make it virtually impossible to do your own repairs. All you used to have to do was follow the pressure, you could almost physically see which area the repair was needed in. I can't see what a computer chip thinks. I think it has made it easier for the dealerships to convince people to overspend on repairs too. I once took my car in for a new wheel bearing (I don't have a press) and had the mechanic recommend I get new filters, oil change, rad flush etc. He showed me a printout showing that some of those hadn't been done in 5 YEARS. He was adamant that my car was going to blow up on the way home. All of those things had been done in the last 6 months, some more recently, by me personally. The oil change and filter was actually done less than two weeks ago. I just did it and didn't know how to reset the computer. Even when I showed the mechanic the oil dipstick, with the golden coloured oil on it, he still insisted that it needed done, NOW, OR ELSE.

I could go on for hours about the things I hate about new cars, but long story short, I personally don't trust any vehicle born after me (1977), although I do have to drive a fair few of them.

[s_stabeler]

so. NecCat, t can be summarised that you don't like every single safety improvement made in the past 20-30 years in cars?
1) airbags- they aren't perfect, but they are considerably safer than they used to be- and they are a response to people not using their seatbelt. The idea was to create a system to protect the driver even if they didn't bother wearing their seatbelt.
2)ABS- as you said, the idea is to avoid people skidding. skidding DOESN'T slow you down faster- it happens when the wheel 'locks up'- and you cannot longer control how fast the car brakes. What ACTUALLY happens is that with ABS, you mit not NEED to make the emergency steering manoeuvre, because you didn't skid in the first place. Yes, if you're stupid, ABS won't hep- but if you actually know how to drive in bad conditions, it can make a massive difference.
3) traction control- this falls under the same category, the back skidding around a corner is usually a BAD thing- it means you took the corner too fast. Traction Control is about making sure you go around the corner properly- and far more safely. YES, skidding around a corner is quicker- that's why racecars don't have it. On an ordinary road, skidding around a corner is inviting you to oversteer the corner and end up perpendicular to where you are supposed to be.

[protege]

2)ABS- as you said, the idea is to avoid people skidding. skidding DOESN'T slow you down faster- it happens when the wheel 'locks up'- and you cannot longer control how fast the car brakes. What ACTUALLY happens is that with ABS, you mit not NEED to make the emergency steering manoeuvre, because you didn't skid in the first place. Yes, if you're stupid, ABS won't hep- but if you actually know how to drive in bad conditions, it can make a massive difference.

Yep, skidding is a *bad* thing. That's how people lose control...and go off the road into a pine tree. ABS is designed so you can stop safely, without locking your brakes up, and still allowing you to steer around the object/vehicle safely. Case in point, I was driving my grandmother's 1995 Olds Cutlass Ciera home one afternoon. About 2 miles outside of Washington (PA), the truck in front of me hit a bump...tossing the unsecured BBQ grille in the bed...onto the highway directly in front of me 70mph, I was able to nail the brakes, and safely steer around things, and avoiding my grandmother's wrath for totaling her car! Had I been in my non-ABS Corolla, I would have hit it.

As for those shift lights/arrows, I'm not a fan of them either. First car I had was a 1991 Toyota Tercel with a four-speed. No tachometer to worry about either. Once I mastered it, it wasn't too hard to tell when to shift--the engine will let you know.

Even now, 22 years on, I don't bother looking at the tachometer, and I ignore the shift arrows. On most cars I've driven with them, they seem to be changing under "ideal" conditions. They don't take into account the reason I had to downshift into 4th (or not up into 5th), was because I'm heading up a long hill, or I'm approaching a traffic light. I know when to shift--I don't need some machine telling me to change gears at the wrong time!

Oh, and if you think modern cars are bad about service items being a pain...you've never worked on a '70 MGB GT.

Some things, I'd like to know what the hell the factory was thinking. For example, to check the transmission's oil level...you have to take out the radio. The rubber plug on the tunnel is directly under the radio. Pain in the ass, but at least you don't have to fill it very often.

Then there's the oil filter. On a '70, it consists of an upward-facing cylinder...which contains a replaceable paper element. Getting the filter housing apart is easy--one big bolt holds the cylinder onto its base. But, you'd better have a catch pan handy. Undoing that bolt will release an oil slick on the floor, the starter, and anything else nearby.

Many "service items" on cars have gotten easier over the years. I'm thinking of the air filter box on my Corolla. Instead of bolts, the cover is held on by clips. All of the various reservoirs (washer fluid, coolant, etc) are transparent and can be easily checked.

Light bulbs are equally easy. They simply snap into/out of their housings. But, on the driver's side, you have to bend a hose out of the way to get the high-beam bulb out.

[siead_lietrathua]

...you've never worked on a '70 MGB GT.... (and following)

fuck that car sounds like as much a pain as my '04 PT cruiser. have to talk out half the damn engine just to change a damn sparkplug in the P.I.T.A.

[NecCat]

so. NecCat, t can be summarised that you don't like every single safety improvement made in the past 20-30 years in cars?

That's not limited to safety 'improvements', but yes they are among the things I don't like.

1) airbags- they aren't perfect, but they are considerably safer than they used to be- and they are a response to people not using their seatbelt. The idea was to create a system to protect the driver even if they didn't bother wearing their seatbelt.

Safer than the not at all safe that they used to be is not good enough for me. Countries that have cracked down on vehicle seatbelt use over the same time that airbags have been introduced have increased their vehicle safety stats at least as much as countries where vehicle air bag use has become common. I don't feel noble enough that I want to put my 5'2" self in danger so every vehicle can have an airbag that will make 5'10" people who can't be arsed to wear seatbelts safer.

http://www.scienceservingsociety.com/p/airbag.htm
https://www.amstat.org/newsroom/pdfs...ntsAirbags.pdf

2)ABS- as you said, the idea is to avoid people skidding. skidding DOESN'T slow you down faster- it happens when the wheel 'locks up'- and you cannot longer control how fast the car brakes. What ACTUALLY happens is that with ABS, you mit not NEED to make the emergency steering manoeuvre, because you didn't skid in the first place. Yes, if you're stupid, ABS won't hep- but if you actually know how to drive in bad conditions, it can make a massive difference.

On dry pavement ABS slows you down slightly faster than skidding. On wet pavement the results are mixed. On both surfaces threshold braking, which can be accomplished in vehicles with or without ABS, is far superior.
On true ice ABS makes no difference. If there is no friction, the ABS is incapable of doing anything.
On gravel, snow, slush, sand and any loose surface skidding stops you SIGNIFIGANTLY faster than ABS or threshold braking. Unfortunately in cars equipped with ABS you are unable to skid, thereby increasing the minimum braking distance for any situation, including emergencies. If you need to make that emergency swerve wouldn't it be nice to get to the lowest possible speed before you get there? Too bad a 'safety feature' wouldn't let you.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811182.PDF (that's a long one, but I think it's page 16 or 17 that compares the stopping distance depending on surface conditions of ABS vs non-ABS)
http://carsafetyphysics.weebly.com/a...mitations.html
https://www.sgi.sk.ca/individuals/li...s/braking.html

I'm going to stop with that one, but I could do that all day. EVERY test ever done will tell you that ABS increases stopping distance significantly one some surfaces, while being unable to match the best stopping distances (threshold braking) on the rest.

3) traction control- this falls under the same category, the back skidding around a corner is usually a BAD thing- it means you took the corner too fast. Traction Control is about making sure you go around the corner properly- and far more safely. YES, skidding around a corner is quicker- that's why racecars don't have it. On an ordinary road, skidding around a corner is inviting you to oversteer the corner and end up perpendicular to where you are supposed to be.

Apart from not liking driving with it personally, I hate being a passenger with it installed in the vehicle. The biggest difference I've noticed is that the driver will drive faster than the conditions allow. After doing a small skid around a corner, most people slow down. When the traction control kicks in the driver feels overconfident in the vehicle ability, and doesn't drive properly to the conditions.

I looked but was unable to find any data for actual difference in road accidents, fatalities etc due to traction control, only predictions. Maybe in a few years we can revisit this one.

To be fair it's not just the 'safety improvements' that I dislike. I also dislike fuel injection, electric locks, windows and mirrors, most dummy lights, cruise control, automatic transmissions, and virtually every other vehicle advancement. Except 4on the fly, not getting out in blizzards to play with the hub caps makes me happy. Anything that takes away my control of the vehicle, which I am responsible for, irks me greatly.

[wolfie]

Protege, the "borderline compact/subcompact" for my car is going by the EPA definitions, so a car that's got less interior volume than mine (what the EPA guidelines go by) CAN'T be a mid-size.

As for a good driver adjusting their driving style to different vehicles, one of the biggest adjustments is that when you have a choice of vehicles, you DON'T get one that takes away one of the tools needed for safe driving. If vehicle "A" has good sight lines and vehicle "B" has lousy sight lines, vehicle "B" CAN'T be driven as safely as vehicle "A".

1) airbags- they aren't perfect, but they are considerably safer than they used to be- and they are a response to people not using their seatbelt. The idea was to create a system to protect the driver even if they didn't bother wearing their seatbelt.

You mean the "shotgun" airbags (throw shrapnel in the driver's face) in the news lately are an improvement? If you've got your arm in front of the wheel (i.e. trying to get the wheel turned quickly), they'll break your arm. If you've got your hands in the normal "10:10" position, the airbag expanding to the sides will knock your hands away from the wheel - so an "oops" (cars have had airbags go off when a piece of debris hit on the undercarriage near the sensor) can take away your control of the vehicle and cause a crash. I've got a simpler solution - wear your effing seatbelt.

BTW, my previous car (1993 Hyundai Excel) had a better frontal crash rating than the Honda Civic of the same year. Airbags were standard on the Civic, not offered on the Excel.

I'm going to stop with that one, but I could do that all day. EVERY test ever done will tell you that ABS increases stopping distance significantly one some surfaces, while being unable to match the best stopping distances (threshold braking) on the rest.


Apart from not liking driving with it personally, I hate being a passenger with it traction control - added to quote to keep the context installed in the vehicle. The biggest difference I've noticed is that the driver will drive faster than the conditions allow. After doing a small skid around a corner, most people slow down. When the traction control kicks in the driver feels overconfident in the vehicle ability, and doesn't drive properly to the conditions.

That's the big problem with 4WD, ABS, and traction control - they make the best use of AVAILABLE traction, so in "barely not enough" conditions people don't notice any difference, and keep driving as if the roads were bare and dry (i.e. treating these technologies as if they were magic wands). When things get into "oh shit!" territory, they haven't adapted to road conditions, and wind up crashing at a higher speed than if they didn't have the technology and therefore were forced to slow down to match the conditions. Ever notice that the first vehicle in the ditch after a snow storm is usually an SUV with 4WD?

Anything that takes away my control of the vehicle, which I am responsible for, irks me greatly.

Definitely. You have the responsibility, but someone in an office somewhere (i.e. the person who programmed the software controlling the "safety feature") has the authority to override your actions and take control of the vehicle. This phenomenon was behind the A320 crash at an airshow where the (then new) design was being shown off - the "fly by wire" system decided that the extreme control inputs being issued by the pilot would exceed design stresses, and so reduced the control surface movements to "safe" levels (including delaying "spool-up" of the engines - when you're low and slow, you need power NOW!). If the control inputs had been passed on, and the control surfaces given the extreme deflection the pilot wanted, they'd have been into the safety margin (i.e. the plane would have needed a thorough inspection to see if anything had been overstressed and needed replacement), but it wouldn't have crashed.

[Greenday]

As for those shift lights/arrows, I'm not a fan of them either. First car I had was a 1991 Toyota Tercel with a four-speed. No tachometer to worry about either. Once I mastered it, it wasn't too hard to tell when to shift--the engine will let you know.

Even now, 22 years on, I don't bother looking at the tachometer, and I ignore the shift arrows. On most cars I've driven with them, they seem to be changing under "ideal" conditions. They don't take into account the reason I had to downshift into 4th (or not up into 5th), was because I'm heading up a long hill, or I'm approaching a traffic light. I know when to shift--I don't need some machine telling me to change gears at the wrong time!

My fiance just taught me how to drive stick this year. I never had a reason to and honestly still don't (Other than I commit blasphemy every time I drive my automatic transmission 6-cylinder Mustang) but I wanted to learn anyway. It probably took me about 10 minutes to get relatively comfortable. Practiced in parking lot traffic at Wal Mart too. Once I was done, I realized that the car had an indicator for switching gears. I had managed to drive the entire time and get up to third gear without ever realizing it was there. Such a useless feature.

[HYHYBT]

If you don't like it when traction control kicks in, *drive so it doesn't have to.* If you can tell the car has it, you're using it, which means you're doing something you shouldn't be.

ABS may or may not mean slowing down slightly less quickly than without it. One thing it does do is just the opposite of what you're claiming. By preventing skidding, it allows you to brake and steer at the same time, which, if you have the sense to take advantage of that ability, decreases your overall chance of hitting things.

As for what you're calling shotgun airbags: on what planet is it reasonable to take *one* specific recalled product and pretend that makes the whole category unsafe?

(As for lights vs. gauges, this is far from a new thing. I learned to drive in a 1972 Cadillac. Its dashboard had only two gauges: speed and fuel. And they were enough.)

[Andara Bledin]

fuck that car sounds like as much a pain as my '04 PT cruiser. have to talk out half the damn engine just to change a damn sparkplug in the P.I.T.A.

MGs are some of the worst cars to work on. My aunt had one, and I had a teacher with one (an MBG) and both were in the shop, constantly, and always for protracted periods of time.

Protege, the "borderline compact/subcompact" for my car is going by the EPA definitions, so a car that's got less interior volume than mine (what the EPA guidelines go by) CAN'T be a mid-size.

You're working on the assumption that the car sizing is based on interior volume when it's more often based on wheel base, which on the Mazda 3 is 106.3", which is right in the range of mid-size, which rates from 105"-110".

The Mazda 3 is absolutely a mid-size car.

You mean the "shotgun" airbags (throw shrapnel in the driver's face) in the news lately are an improvement?

You're seriously going to go with a manufacturing defect as an excuse to vilify a safety feature? That doesn't do much to make the rest of your argument look any more reasonable.

Once I was done, I realized that the car had an indicator for switching gears. I had managed to drive the entire time and get up to third gear without ever realizing it was there. Such a useless feature.

I've never really understood the need for a tach, but especially not in an automatic. The latter will shift when it shifts, and with the former, it's pretty obvious when it's time to shift. If you were deaf, then it might be useful I guess.

[TheHuckster]

On gravel, snow, slush, sand and any loose surface skidding stops you SIGNIFIGANTLY faster than ABS or threshold braking.

You are also going significantly slower on those surfaces... or at least I hope you're not going 55+mph on gravel, snow, and sand.

I'm going to cite the same data I cited before on the issue of airbags: It's true that cars built in the 1990s had dangerous airbags, however cars built since 2000 or so have vastly improved their airbag safety record.

http://www.scienceservingsociety.com/p/airbag.htm

You are trying to claim that airbags are more dangerous, and then cite an article from nearly 20 years ago that states people with airbags have 9-13% increased survival rates, which somehow manage to spin that to mean a bad thing.

I'm going to stop with that one, but I could do that all day. EVERY test ever done will tell you that ABS increases stopping distance significantly one some surfaces, while being unable to match the best stopping distances (threshold braking) on the rest.


Apart from not liking driving with it personally, I hate being a passenger with it traction control - added to quote to keep the context installed in the vehicle. The biggest difference I've noticed is that the driver will drive faster than the conditions allow. After doing a small skid around a corner, most people slow down. When the traction control kicks in the driver feels overconfident in the vehicle ability, and doesn't drive properly to the conditions.

Then that person is a bad driver who should be taken back to driving school and/or should read the damn manual of the car that says you shouldn't take safety features like traction control for granted and make you feel like Iron Man.

I'm just going to throw this last one out here: raw statistics on fatal crashes (both pedestrian and driver/passenger)

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

Between 1994 and 2012, fatalities went from 1.73 per 100,000 down to 1.13 per 100,000. And this includes fatalities due to mechanical flaws, older cars, and those who aren't using all of the safety features (including driving at safe speeds and wearing seatbelts). This, in addition to the airbag fatality rates I described above tell me that as new models are engineered, safety improvements are getting better and better.

[Kuari]

I'm one of those folks that prefer older cars - easier for me to work on and I don't have to worry about malfunctioning sensors that cost an arm and a leg to replace. And if the car has a computer system in it I usually just walk away.

I can drive stick, and even when driving newer models of standard transmission cars I tend to shift according to engine noise. Forget those stupid indicator lights - they drive me nuts. I prefer driving stick, tbh, because I feel that I have more control over my vehicle. My last vehicle with a standard transmission had a tach but it didn't work and I couldn't be bothered trying to fix it because I knew I wouldn't look at it. 1986 Dodge Charger - looked like a piece of shit but I still loved her, and if I had my way I'd still have her but I had to part with her before moving across the country because I knew she wouldn't make the trip. But if I come across another one and I have the cash, even if it needs work, I'm buying it because I can do much of the work myself...and I still have my Haynes repair manual for it :P

I'm not a fan of airbags or ABS or a lot of other gewgaws that seem to be the norm for new vehicles, but that is a personal thing more than any real issue with how they work. It is my opinion that a lot of the new safety features make for lazy drivers and that is why I don't want them in any vehicle I own. Some people like them and that's their prerogative.

[protege]

MGs are some of the worst cars to work on. My aunt had one, and I had a teacher with one (an MBG) and both were in the shop, constantly, and always for protracted periods of time.

I don't think that's the fault of the car...but the fault of the mechanic. At most, my car has been laid up for a day, usually because the garage can't work me in. Otherwise, most jobs I've done myself. I even rebuilt the brake calipers on my kitchen table.