Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 11th Apr 2014 20:09 UTC
Graphics, User Interfaces

There's certainly some hope on the horizon with Apple and Google, though just how good these systems will be remains to be seen. One thing is clear, though: the current state of all in-car experiences is incredibly bad. For those manufacturers looking to go it alone, I don't expect much.

In-car software is absolutely horrifying and crazy complex. A good friend of mine regularly drives brand new and super-expensive cars (in the hundreds of thousands of euros category), and even in those cars, the user interfaces are just terrible. There's a lot of room for improvement and disruption here.

Thread beginning with comment 586964
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: disposable cars
by unclefester on Sat 12th Apr 2014 08:19 UTC in reply to "RE: disposable cars"
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

The fuel efficiency of modern cars is based on totally unrealistic synthetic benchmarks that can underestimate real world fuel consumption by 30% or more.

A VW Golf DSG transmission costs >$8,000 (in Australia) to replace and it can fail after about five years (75,000Km) of normal use. $8000 will buy 6000 litres of petrol so efficiency isn't all that critical.

The Peugeot clutch costs $40 (plus labour) to replace and will easily last 100,000Km if driven properly. There are no expensive electronics to fail. Routine maintenance costs are no more than $100-200/year if you have some basic tools and some DIY ability.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: disposable cars
by ilovebeer on Sat 12th Apr 2014 14:59 in reply to "RE[2]: disposable cars"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

The fuel efficiency of modern cars is based on totally unrealistic synthetic benchmarks that can underestimate real world fuel consumption by 30% or more.

Nobody is getting 30% less mpg unless they drive like a complete idiot. All my vehicles get around what they should, and I suspect most people would say the same.

A VW Golf DSG transmission costs >$8,000 (in Australia) to replace and it can fail after about five years (75,000Km) of normal use. $8000 will buy 6000 litres of petrol so efficiency isn't all that critical.

You can cherry pick expensive parts to use for comparison all day long, there are literally millions to choose from. But, it doesn't mean much because for every one you come up with, you can cherry pick the opposite as well. Aside of that, efficiency does matter. Why? Because it can mean less wear on wear-parts and less pollution for starters.

The Peugeot clutch costs $40 (plus labour) to replace and will easily last 100,000Km if driven properly. There are no expensive electronics to fail. Routine maintenance costs are no more than $100-200/year if you have some basic tools and some DIY ability.

First, why are you trying to compare a clutch against the entire transmission? In other words, something that tends to be cheap against something that tends not to be. Next, not all electronics are expensive. Also, routine maintenance on many new cars isn't much either.

The durability of a car starts with the quality of work done at build time, but the buck stops with how the owner treats it. Certain cars can take a beating and still go. Others need to be handled with care. And the truth is as I said, all cars contain wear-parts and there's simply no getting around that. Saying older == better as a blanket statement isn't true at all. There's a slew of old cars that were pieces of crap, just like there is today. Yes, the reverse can be said too, ...and it also applies to modern vehicles.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: disposable cars
by unclefester on Sun 13th Apr 2014 04:25 in reply to "RE[3]: disposable cars"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13


Nobody is getting 30% less mpg unless they drive like a complete idiot. All my vehicles get around what they should, and I suspect most people would say the same.


Rubbish. The test protocols are nothing like real world driving. The City Cycle test used in Australia involves a 13 minute simulated trip with speeds up to 50km/h. A real Australian commute is closer to an hour and involves speeds up to 100km/h and dozens of stops/starts.

You can cherry pick expensive parts to use for comparison all day long, there are literally millions to choose from. But, it doesn't mean much because for every one you come up with, you can cherry pick the opposite as well. Aside of that, efficiency does matter. Why? Because it can mean less wear on wear-parts and less pollution for starters.


Wrong again. The VW DSG transmission problem is a known defect affecting millions of cars. It has led to worldwide recalls.

First, why are you trying to compare a clutch against the entire transmission? In other words, something that tends to be cheap against something that tends not to be.


Both the clutch and DSG transmission are disposable items that are not designed to be repaired. Both last about the same distance but one costs 200x times as much the other.

Next, not all electronics are expensive. Also, routine maintenance on many new cars isn't much either.


The only "electronic" part that is cheap on a modern car is a lightbulb.

Routine maintenance on modern cats is typically cheap for the first 5years/100,000km. Once the warranty runs out costs an spiral into an nightmare as major components such as transmissions ($3000-$10,000+), brake rotors ($500+) timing belts ($1000+), fuel injectors ($2000+), suspension components etc need to be repaired or replaced. The cost of these routine repairs can easily exceed the value of a 10 year old car.

In Australia most reputable car dealers won't resell traded vehicles over about six years old because of warranty problems. These trade-ins are sent straight to wholesale auctions

The durability of a car starts with the quality of work done at build time, but the buck stops with how the owner treats it. Certain cars can take a beating and still go. Others need to be handled with care. And the truth is as I said, all cars contain wear-parts and there's simply no getting around that.


Parts do wear out. The problem is some cars are cheap and easy to fix and others are expensive nightmares. The owner often has no idea how outrageous these repairs costs will be until a problem occurs.

In Australia if you own an imported Holden (Opel) Vectra or Astra you're out of luck because most mechanics refuse to work on the engines. The Vectra was a popular mid-size family car not some rare and exotic machine.

Modern cars use the cheapest components sourced from a wide variety of suppliers. QA is patchy at best - even amongst prestige brands. Modern cars are initially economical and reliable before becoming expensive nightmares as those "efficient" and often extremely complicated part swear out.

Saying older == better as a blanket statement isn't true at all. There's a slew of old cars that were pieces of crap, just like there is today. Yes, the reverse can be said too, ...and it also applies to modern vehicles.


I never claimed that ALL old cars were reliable. Many, particularly British cars, were rubbish . However some old cars eg 70s-80s Mercedes have far better build quality and reliability than any modern car.

Reply Parent Score: 3