Things that have ruined modern cars

>what's the problem with push button start

Get out summerfaggots

push button start when made with proximity keys allows you to keep the keys in your pocket when you start the vehicle, particularly convenient in cold winters while you're wearing gloves waiting for the car to heat up.

(and in really cold environments, remote starting the car isn't going to do shit once you get below 0F/-17C, you can idle for 30 minutes and the air coming out of the vents is still going to be fucking cold)>

i've been on this site for almost a decade, the "summerfag" boogieman is really fucking tiresome.

>needlessly complex
it's just making the transponder wireless, if anything a push button start REDUCES the complexity since you don't have the moving parts of the ignition cylinder for a physical key. unless of course we're comparing to a car without a transponder in the key to begin with.

And what happens when the push button ignition breaks? None of these modern cars have a backup emergency key slot, so you're fucked until you spend $700 to fix it, whereas a replacement key would cost you $5 at your local hardware store.

>CVT
personal preference
>Turbos on everything
personal preference
>Direct injection
mandatory in diesels, ecause of how they work. makes air cooler in gas engines allowing for higher compression
>Electric steering
less moving parts, ability to vary amount of suport
>Push button start
older than convential ignition lock
>"Safety Tech"
i do understand that it may get to obnoxious, especially in us cars

>What was the problem with keys?
ask GM

oh, forgot no shift-lock release to make your car go into neutral in case it breaks down

not getting your point here. pretty much all keys with proximity ignition have a backup options.

>battery of car is dead and I need to enter car, or battery of remote is dead and I need to enter car
my ford fusion has a backup physically cut key in the back, part of the handle on driver door slides. put in key turn, physical access. can pop the trunk if required once in it.

>battery of remote is dead and car cannot detect key
there's a compartment for the physical key in the center console, slide it in there and the car starts. it's passively powered in a fixed location like the transponder in a key with a physical blade.

>push button breaks
that's like saying
>ignition cylinder breaks
one is more much more physically complex than the other. guess which one is a simple button and which has a bunch of shit in it that moves?

All these advents have been to increase fuel economy. They didn't ruin anything

>"lifetime" components (will inevitably fail right after the warranty runs out and cost a shitton to replace)
>electronic parking brakes
>computer-controlled everything
>exhaust manifold cast into cylinder head

It's a fucking button. Compared to a mechanical key starter the button will last way longer. The button hits the electrical start just like your key does except its electronic and not mechanical

that isn't affected by the use of proximity start, just automaker design. in my ford fusion you remove the panel to the right of the gear shift lever and use a flat head screwdriver or similar to turn the interlock.

The reliability of turbos and direct injection are questionable. I doubt most modern cars will last as long on the road, newer cars are made to be replaced more often while getting more expensive.

>The reliability of turbos
Not really, people have been using diesel in cars and especially diesel engines for over 30 years. Hell BMW made turbos for their jet engines before putting them into cars. Turbos are highly reliable in this day and age

turbos are kind of a meme unless you drive like a computer. if you use cruise control heavily with consistent speed and baby the gas, you can get better fuel efficiency. Go above 55mph or do anything other than slight gas pedal inputs and your efficiency quickly goes down the fucking tubes. plus the engines with turbos take forever to break in (15,000+ miles) from a fuel efficiency perspective.

turbos are a meme to game the EPA tests like automatic stop/start.

>turbos are kind of a meme unless you drive like a computer
>meme

What the fuck does this even mean? Are you really so unoriginal you can't come up with a palpable reason why something is bad so you resort and default to calling something a meme?

>Turbos are highly reliable in this day and age

>Ford ecoboost carbon buildups

there are three sentences following the sentence you quoted explaining WHY turbos are not what they're cracked up to be.

lol fuck off grandpa

stop being a salty old codger who wishes he could buy a brand new piece of shit with no safety speed comfort handling or reliability for $75

cars are better than ever

>>Ford ecoboost carbon buildups
that's just problem with ecoboost, not turbos themselves

Any 25 year old model of a little shitbox (Jetta, Civic, Corolla, etc.) gets higher MPG figure than a modern equivalent simply because they don't weigh 3000 pounds

>cars are better than ever

Is that why auto journalists always rag on how lifeless new cars drive?

>Go above 55mph or do anything other than slight gas pedal inputs and your efficiency quickly goes down the fucking tubes
This is patently false. Civics with the turbos get 40mpg easily and their efficiency increases at higher speeds. You don't know fuck all about anything you're trying to talk about. If they lost efficiency you'd see it both in the dyno and in gas mileage which you obviously don't see because it's not fucking true.

>take forever to break in
Another baseless claim. Turbod cars have no longer break in periods than other cars. 1000 to 1500 miles is typical for piston seals they even tell you this in the owners manual

And none of your shit is true because you have no evidence

Nice cherry pick. My 2016 civic with 40k+ miles already btfo your stupid shit.

You magically think that one issue with one maker means it's representative of the entire industry when there are 2 dozen other makers using turbos in their engines

>Any 25 year old model of a little shitbox (Jetta, Civic, Corolla, etc.) gets higher MPG figure than a modern equivalent simply because they don't weigh 3000 pounds
No they don't. The old civic with the 1.8l gets less mpg than the new civic with a 1.5l turbo

Same with the corolla

sound like a bunch of tryhards who want old shitboxes wanting the degeneration of the auto industry

who the fuck even cars about driving feel other than some special snowflakes

cars are objectively better

This
Cars are superior in every single measurable way, how you "feel" about them is completely irrelevant

>the added weight
There's a reason why they called the 1992 civics fucking death traps. They had virtually no safety equipment compared to today. They don't have nearly the noise dampening, we're significantly smaller. You're literally comparing apples and oranges trying to grasp at straws by comparing entire differences in generations by reducing it to one aspect of fuel efficiency while completely disregarding literally every other metric

>hurr they're better because I say it is
>grasping at straws calling me a grandpa

Nice headcanon

Ignition cylinders and switches break all of the time

You can pop out the button and use the fob as a key
pic related

they are

safer
more efficent
more reliable
more comfortable
faster

>hurr theyre not better cuz I sayd so!

>You can pop out the button and use the fob as a key

Nice cherry pick

Give me evidence mainstream brands do this.

Alright, let's review
Modern cars are:
>safer
>faster
>cleaner
>better equipped
>more reliable
>more efficient
>more comfortable

Meanwhile, the only argument in favor of old cars is "muh feels".

Honda, Nissan, Subaru, and Toyota all have similar back up systems to start or unlock the car if and when the battery is dead

i have a 2.0L ecoboost in my fusion. the problem is that you can run a turbo lean or rich. if you run it lean (more air, less fuel), then you get higher temperatures. so turbos used in econoboxes run rich. you basically dump a ton of fuel in there. so basically any time you demand power more than the 2.0L wants to provide on its own, you suck down massive amounts of fuel. dumping a ton of fuel in it means that MPGs go down the tubes.

>efficiency increases at higher speeds
gas efficiency does, the turbo does not. if I baby it at keep the cruise control steady at 55mph for long periods of time, I can hit 30mpg average on my ford fusion (highway rating is 32mpg). if I drive 65 that falls to 28, if I drive 75 that falls to 27mpg (again, these all assume steady use of the cruise control where the turbo is not often called). on long highway trips I average 27mpg versus a rated 32. versus say the 2016 Honda accord, which is rated for 23 city/33 highway/27 combined MPG, and most owners average a couple mpgs higher with a naturally aspirated engine than the EPA rating in actual driving.

>Another baseless claim. Turbod cars have no longer break in periods than other cars. 1000 to 1500 miles is typical for piston seals they even tell you this in the owners manual
break in from a careful driving characteristics/don't be superman on the pedal/don't redline remains the same. fuel efficiency on the other hand is another story. when I first got my fusion I averaged 16.5mpg (versus a rated 22mpg) in city driving. after 1000 miles I could average 17-17.5. as I got to 15,000 miles that number has crept up and I can average 18.5-20mpg city. my driving characteristics have not changed, and this is often discussed online by owners of the various ecoboost engines.

>you have no evidence
autoguide.com/auto-news/2016/06/why-turbocharged-cars-don-t-live-up-to-the-mpg-hype-and-what-automakers-are-doing-about-it.html

see
A lot of different manufactures have their own back up systems

This, they have absolutely nothing to go on so they call econoboxes getting more economically friendly and gas efficient bad because they can't figure out why these cars are made or who they're made for even though it'd blatantly obvious

My old SRT8 could do this.

The BRZ is a modern car that has all of those along with "muh feelz" and Veeky Forums loves to shit on it

Everyone here is a hypocritical poorfag

>i have a 2.0L ecoboost in my fusion. the problem is that you can run a turbo lean or rich. if you run it lean (more air, less fuel), then you get higher temperatures. so turbos used in econoboxes run rich. you basically dump a ton of fuel in there
Except that's not true because you get better gas mileage at higher speeds. You'd be burning more fuek if what you said is true which it obviously isnt

>gas efficiency does, the turbo does not
That's the entire fucking point. To save gas, they don't car about the turbos thermodynamic efficiency because the entire point is to save gas

>break in from a careful driving characteristics/don't be superman on the pedal/don't redline remains the same. fuel efficiency on the other hand is another story. when I first got my fusion I averaged 16.5mpg (versus a rated 22mpg) in city driving. after 1000 miles I could average 17-17.5. as I got to 15,000 miles that number has crept up and I can average 18.5-20mpg city. my driving characteristics have not changed, and this is often discussed online by owners of the various ecoboost engines.

OH great a baselesa anecdote

>safer
I'd rather be thrown clear.
>faster
I don't care about speed. I just want to be able to go out on a Sunday cruise.
>cleaner
Fuck liberals and fuck the environment.
>better equipped
I want the satisfaction of cranking windows, pushing locks up and down, adjusting my own mirrors, and driving without the aid of electronics.
>more reliable
Really? Because I've seen many an old shitbox exceed 300,000 miles on their original engine. American shitboxes at that.
>more efficient
Again, fuck the environment. I'll burn gas if I want to.
>more comfortable
Completely opinion-based and completely wrong. Modern automotive seats are made of plastic it seems, and old cars felt like living room chairs in comparison.

>Meanwhile, the only argument in favor of old cars is "muh feels".
Or how about they're cheaper, easier to work on yourself, more unique, more fun, more comfortable, and just as usable as a modern one, if not more usable.

You'd think everyone on this board would fucking love Fiat for continuing to make the least reliable modern vehicles with a massive lack of lane-keeping and other random safety features.

>I want the satisfaction of cranking windows, pushing locks up and down, adjusting my own mirrors, and driving without the aid of electronics.

oh youre on of those luddites who like 7L 150hp V8s and act like an edgy confrontational teenager

totally the best opinion

too bad it doesnt combat the facts that modern cars are better

Literally how fucking difficult is it to use a crank or pull a little lever up and down? Do amerifarts really need little tiny switches that their fat fingers can't even grasp juts to control the most basic of functions? Are they that dependent on technology? That's not even funny, that's just sad.

Too bad you don't combat the fact that tripfags are cancer.

>cheaper
Because no one wants them lmao

>easier to work on yourself
Who even works on their own car? Can't afford to take it to a shop?

>more unique
Yeah, 90° angles and melted bars of soap are so unique
Modern materials and techniques allow for much more unique shapes and styling

>more fun
Muh feels

>more comfortable
Literally incorrect

>and just as usable as a modern one, if not more usable
As in it'll get you from A to B? Sure, but any modern car will do a better job of getting you from A to B in better comfort, while using less fuel, polluting the environment less, and being much safer overall

>Things that have ruined modern cars
There have been a lot of good points made here, but missing is one of the worst

THE FUCKING RETARDED CENTER CONSOLE.
IT IS BULLSHIT!
pic related

If you are a big enough pussy to have to drive an autofaggit transmission, then the autofaggit transmission selector should be on the column, out of the way, and not taking up space. If you have a fucking ferrari or something, then paddle shifters.

But this bulky enourmous behemoth that takes up 30% of the interior width is simply unacceptable.

And no, you don't need a center console. The good Porche 911s didn't have them.

>cant argue with the facts
>has to shitpost

thanks for conceding I guess

I have a genuine question about cvt

I know that it's some kind of spaced pulley system that essentially makes it like a 'gradual gear shift'. But what's it like in terms of being a daily driver? I'm stuck between outback 3.6 and vw golf alltrack, and the only think leading me to the golf is the actual 6 speed auto paddles. Does suby make an attempt to make their paddles at least feel like you're changing gears?

>Except that's not true because you get better gas mileage at higher speeds. You'd be burning more fuek if what you said is true which it obviously isnt
okay, i think you're conflating a few things here that are unrelated. you don't need the turbo to achieve or sustain highways speeds. what the turbo does is provide an additional boost when required. in high end cars this provides an extra boost when really demanding power. in lower end cars (econoboxes), what this allows you to do is put in a smaller engine and then have the power/acceleration speeds that would come with a large naturally aspirated engine. it's computer controlled. when your inputs go past gentle (and the smaller engine won't be able to accelerate quickly on its own), then the turbo is engaged. while the turbo is engaged, you're basically dumping shittons of fuel down into the turbo.

if you can maintain a consistent speed with gentle acceleration, you can get better mpgs. engines are generally going to do better on highway because of the lack of stopping/starting and just providing minimal power to maintain. turbos suffer more when speeds are inconsistent because of how quickly the computer will choose to call the turbo.

the point is, for EPA testing purposes, which represent inputs far more gentle than what drivers do in the real world, it tests better, helping automakers reach CAFE targets. in practice, drivers use inputs that cause fuel to be dumped into the turbo, and worse MPGs than a naturally aspirated engine.

dude, I linked to the autoguide article. turbos are a scheme to eke out a few more MPGs on EPA testing for most automakers. high end cars it's more power, but in econoboxes its for CAFE targets.

autoguide.com/auto-news/2016/06/why-turbocharged-cars-don-t-live-up-to-the-mpg-hype-and-what-automakers-are-doing-about-it.html

Except this isn't true for just turbod cars it's for every car they throw through that test under the same parameters. I like how they don't show how well na engines did versus turbos because you know that would make an objective study and a real comparison and not some linear exposition blog

>wanting shitty truck tier interiors and column shifters

garbage

center consoles are great for practical purposes

The worst CVTs are the ones programmed to mimic gears. The ones that just hold the revs at redline work as intended, but auto journalists bitched and moaned about them so the industry started changing them.

>>CVT
yes

>>Turbos on everything
>>Direct injection
No

>>Electric steering
Arguable.

>>Push button start
meh

>>"Safety Tech"
Cars are actually getting lighter and safer nowadays, tho.

>Because no one wants them lmao
i do. And so does anyone with half a brain cell that doesn't want to be stuck in debt for 20 years just to pay off something they could've paid for in cash.

>can't afford to take it to a shop?
I can, but I don't wanT to get rippeD off.

>modErn maTErials and teChniques allow for much more unique shapes and sTyling
dEfend pic relateD.

>Muh feels
>more comfortable
That's up to you.

>dude, I linked to the autoguide article. turbos are a scheme to eke out a few more MPGs on EPA testing for most automakers. high end cars it's more power, but in econoboxes its for CAFE targets.
Except that issue isn't exclusive to turbo vehicles. Notice how they don't do any comparison to naturally aspirated or forced induction engines under the same epa tests to show the results. It'd one sided and skewed and from an academic stand point you can't definitively say that this is an issue exclusive to turbos if you didn't compare them to other kinds to begin with.

Them saying turbod cars having 2 less realistic mpg on epa tests but not mentioning naturally aspirated engines in comparison tells you literally nothing about the efficacy of turbo engines

>wanting shitty truck tier interiors and column shifters
>center consoles are great
you bemoan the cheap interior, while saying you want a bulky chunk of cheap plastic smack in the middle of the vehicle.

get fucked

it basically boils down to you being poor and stupid so you want cars that reflect yourself

So you're a poorfag who can't afford any better and is trying to justify buying an old shitbox over a modern car that's objectively superior in every single measurable way, got it

chicagotribune.com/classified/automotive/sc-modern-turbocharging-autocover-0216-story.html
>"What we've found in some situations is that they may have better EPA fuel economy (estimates), but when we've tested the fuel economy in our regimented test cycle we've found that they don't always deliver. Sometimes they're actually worse than the larger, normally aspirated engines in our testing," said Jake Fisher, director of automotive testing for Consumer Reports.

autoweek.com/article/car-news/mpg-or-performance-its-trade-turbos
>Consumer Reports recently tested 11 turbocharged vehicles from seven automakers to see if the vehicles delivered on fuel economy claims. The combined city-highway fuel economy for all of the vehicles came in lower than the EPA estimates by a few miles per gallon.
>[...]
>So why do turbocharged vehicles often fall short of their EPA ratings?
>The turbocharger, mounted in or near the exhaust manifold, is powered by exhaust gases that spin a small turbine at very high speeds. The turbine runs an air pump that blasts a denser mixture of fuel and air into the engine's cylinders, enabling a smaller engine to deliver more power.
>But when the turbocharger is running, fuel economy declines, sometimes dramatically.
>In addition, Omotoso says some automakers are gaming the EPA's mpg rating system by taking advantage of the agency's test procedures. He said some vehicles are being calibrated to deliver the highest fuel economy label number based on EPA test procedures, which may not match real-world driving conditions.
>The EPA's highway fuel economy test, for instance, is run for about 12 minutes, has a top speed of 60 mph and an average speed of 48.3 mph. Such low speeds would produce a high mpg rating for a turbocharged engine.

At least I don't ride the bus like you two.

somehow having a storage space right next to you is a bad thing

>somehow having a storage space right next to you is a bad thing
How much crap do you need to carry?
Get a mount for your phone and be done with it.
The rest can go in the map pocket or glove box.

>can't argue against facts
>"I'll call them busriders, that'll show them!"
Stay irrelevant

Better get a move on kid, you'll miss the short bus.

Still no data to compare to. All they quote the guy for saying is "sometimes worse than naturally aspirated" but they still say absolutely nothing about it. The article posts no data and they've clearly strung a short line of quotes and don't actually cite any data beyond what the turbos did. This article would be far more accurate if it actually delivered this comparison and didn't make blond generalizations by saying umbrella shut like "sometimes worse" when the question is when specifically?

>Sealed transmissions have existed for many decades.
>OBD2 scanners are like $20
>always-on lights have practically no downside and make it significantly easier to spot cars in the distance, especially since so many people are too retarded to turn on their headlights in rain or low light

Thanks. It makes sense to put one in if you want to run 1,500rpm through your whole drive to save gas.

What's wrong with the mimicking gears? I get that nothing is better than the real thing, I'm just curious what the feel of it would be.

Shame too, because I really like the forester xt

you're fucking retarded.
people have stopped being in "full control of their cars" 90 years ago when brake booster was invented.
you know why? because nobody is able to exert 700 pounds on brake pedal.

Same shit with TCS, abs and power steering. Hell even on automatic engines the gear stick doesn't actually so anything but tell a computer what gear to be in. There's virtually no mechanical connection

web.archive.org/web/20130804012227/http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/02/consumer-reports-finds-small-turbo-engines-don-t-deliver-on-fuel-economy-claims/index.htm
>The latest example is the collection of EcoBoost Ford Fusions we tested, which come with small, direct-injection, turbocharged four-cylinder engines. The smallest one—a 1.6-liter producing 173 hp—is a $795 option over the basic conventional 2.5-liter four cylinder on Fusion SE models. But that car's 0-60 mph acceleration time trails most competitors, and its 25 mpg overall places it among the worst of the crop of recently-redesigned family sedans. The Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, and Nissan Altima, all with conventional 2.4- or 2.5-liter four-cylinder engines, get an additional 2, 5, and 6 mpg, respectively. And all accelerate more quickly.
>The larger among Ford's EcoBoost four-cylinder engines, the turbocharged 231-hp, 2.0-liter, is billed as having the power of a V6 but delivering the fuel economy of a four-cylinder. However, our so-equipped Fusion Titanium returned 22 mpg (which pales against the 25 and 26 mpg we recorded for the best V6 family sedans), slower acceleration and reduced refinement compared to its V6-powered peers.
>Another example is our tests of the Chevrolet Cruze. Our base Cruze had the 1.8-liter four-cylinder; our higher-end 1LT version came with the 1.4-liter turbo four cylinder. While the 1.4-liter feels marginally more powerful in daily driving, it was barely faster to 60 mph, and it got the same fuel economy as the larger engine—26 mpg overall.

Just look at some of the ratings of different cars (real vs EPA) by consumer reports on their testing of different non-NA and NA cars in the same class.

This is clearly bait or you are legitimatley mentally Handicapped

here
by the way, this article has a table comparing the EPA and CR tested MPGs within the same class (E.g. similarly powerful turbo and non-turbo'd engines) and you'll see a fucking trend.

>more comfortable
But they have terrible seats and no knee room

If your car has a fob in any way you need a $700 replacement even if doesnt have push to start

Also don't drive stupid planned osbelecence eurotrash cars. My hyundai has a key for the handle and you can turn on the vehicle with low battery fob by placing the fob on the push start

You have petty anger against this.

The fact you can only option cars by package
>If you want HID headlights, you have to get the tech and security package and pay out for a navigation system

I wish it was like the older days when you could add or delete any option

It's more expensive that way, packages lower overall costs and get the cars into the hands of the consumer earlier.
Higher end German cars can still be optioned à la carte

Turbos decrease engine longevity, especially when used as a replacement for displacement to get somewhat acceptable power while getting huge gas milage numbers...in an unrealistic test where the car is never on boost.

Push button starts are fine if you don't have to take the key out of your pocket, but unless there was some regulations related reason I can't think of why they would all get rid of turn key ignition. What was the point?

>Better now
No not really. Only as good as a base Civic at best.

here
by the way, I don't know why you're so opposed to the fact that some technologies are made to game the EPA tests. the EPA tests ARE the game. for CAFE it's your target, it's what you can bill the MPG as in the commercials when touting superior fuel efficiency. real world driving is secondary in a world with such ambitious targets.

turbos in econoboxes allow them to get several MPGs higher in the tightly controlled not real world driving conditions of the EPA test. same for stop/start, it allows them to get an additional mpg or two.
it's the same reason tons of econosedans come in hybrids. selling hybrid variants of your econoboxes allows you to greatly increase the corporate average across your fleet.

the ford fusion comes in a plug in hybrid version. do you know how many miles per gallon it's rated for? 97mpge. do you know the maximum distance on battery? 22mpg, then it's a regular fucking hybrid. but you get credits for plug-in hybrid. when counting the fuel efficiency of a plug for electric or fuel cell vehicles, you get 2.0x counting that car's rating. so you sell a 12mpg pickup truck and you sell an electric car, you can count the electric car's gas efficiency twice, as if you had sold two of them.

it's all a game to automakers. the EPA test doesn't represent real world driving, but it's the test you face. you need to make your numbers, so you optimize for the test. you get brownie points for a "forward thinking" technology like a plug-in hybrid that serves little benefit in the real world, but allows you to sell a lot more SUVs and trucks? you make a plug-in hybrid version or electric vehicle.

japanese are notorious for the bundling of packages, american automakers generally will let you add 80%+ of options within the middle trim.

people find it convenient/seemingly higher end and it's not expensive to implement push button start so more automakers are doing it

This is all true, but its not as much fun

>Turbos decrease engine longevity
Tell that to these things

>I can't think of why they would all get rid of turn key ignition. What was the point?
Ignition switches have more moving parts that wear out and fail versus a single button

The BRZ isn't fast you retarded fuck.

>muh mom's Chrysler Pacifica

>automatics or paddles
>overdone safety
>driver aids that are more than abs and traction control that can't be turned off with one push of one button
>economy crash

Infotainment centers. What the fuck. I don't need to be looking at a fucking iPad while I'm driving.

>would rather drive his moms minivan instead of a japanese sportscar that sounds great, handles god like and can punch up a class easily
kek benchracers

>Keyless
>Automatic 4x4
>ABS standard
>Safety standards
>Emissions standards

God I hate electric starter motors, give me a good hand crank so I can be more in tune with my vehicle while it attempts to break my wrist

>remove starter
>install cover plate
>always park on a hill, or leave it running with doors locked

Bitch wrist gravity starter here.