• Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0

    J.D. Power Finds New Car Buyers Hate Their In-Car Nav, Want To Use Their Smartphones


    By William Maley

    Staff Writer - CheersandGears.com

    January 31, 2013

    J.D. Power and Associates recently released their 2012 U.S. Navigation Usage Satisfaction Study and the results aren’t that surprising. Consumer happiness dropped 13 points in the study’s 1,000-point scale to 681, one of the lowest scores J.D. Power has ever recorded in the six years the study has been taken. Even worse was the overall satisfaction in voice controls, scoring 544 points out of 1,000.

    Even worse news for automakers: people are using their smartphones for navigation and point-of-interest searches.47% of the people surveyed had downloaded a navigation app to supplement their in-car system, up from 37% last year. The survey also revealed that owners “definitely would not” or “probably would not” buy the system in their vehicles if their smartphone’s navigation could be displayed on the screen.

    “Manufacturers of navigation systems face a serious challenge as smartphone navigation usage continues to rise and gains preference among vehicle owners. Free apps, up-to-date maps, and a familiar interface allow for quicker routing and improved interaction, including better voice recognition,” said Mike VanNieuwkuyk, executive director of global automotive at J.D. Power.

    Source: Wired Autopia

    William Maley is a staff writer for Cheers & Gears. He can be reached at william.maley@cheersandgears.com or you can follow him on twitter at @realmudmonster.

    0


      Report Article
    Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0


    User Feedback


    Not surprising... When I got the Megane last June I had a choice between ordering with Nav or an extended warranty; I went for the warranty without a doubt.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    We're less than a tech generation away from having direct links to NAV apps between your smart phone and your car as a regular thing. You can already control Pandora, Stitcher, Siri, and others from your phone and have some of the visuals show up on screen. Why not NAV?

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Wow people are carthing onto what I said YEARS ago. I DO NOT want to pay for crap I'll never use. Built in nav is damn near worthless. I don't want it. I will not pay for it. I will buy a car without it or I will not buy a new car at all.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Guess I am one of the few that actually hates the smartphone apps and slow 4g LTE response. (Interesting Observation that is confirmed by my wife and kids, we have unlimited Verizon and I have not been willing to resign a new contract. As such it seems even though they denies it that the upload and download has gotten worse)

    I would rather have a dedicated Nav in my autos.

    What the auto companies need to do is stop trying to reinvent the wheel and partner up with those companies that are already doing nav well and push out via satellite constant updated Nave to begin with.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Guess I am one of the few that actually hates the smartphone apps and slow 4g LTE response. (Interesting Observation that is confirmed by my wife and kids, we have unlimited Verizon and I have not been willing to resign a new contract. As such it seems even though they denies it that the upload and download has gotten worse)

    I would rather have a dedicated Nav in my autos.

    What the auto companies need to do is stop trying to reinvent the wheel and partner up with those companies that are already doing nav well and push out via satellite constant updated Nave to begin with.

    Once I updated my wife's phone, I had to let go of the unlimited data. :( But if it's slower, then maybe it's ok.

    I agree with you about the dedicated nav. My next vehicle will have it, either stock or aftermarket. I do like Google Maps on my phone, but it's rather inconvenient while I drive.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Perfect reason for the car companies to partner with others that do it better than do it themselves. GM always seems to be 2 yrs behind on updates. I got the latest DVD for both my Trailblazer and Escalade and while it updated many things, there are roads that have been around for the last year plus that are still not showing up on the nav and yet both Bing maps and google maps shows these roads. Course interesting thing is my son on his iPhone with Apple maps does not show the updated HOV lans/ramps. Wonder if Apple and GM use the same supplier for maps. :P

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Wow people are carthing onto what I said YEARS ago. I DO NOT want to pay for crap I'll never use. Built in nav is damn near worthless. I don't want it. I will not pay for it. I will buy a car without it or I will not buy a new car at all.

    Your comment is what I hear from Baby Boomers all the time. Some finally see the benefit of having NAV in their auto when they go on road trips, others which is most of the baby boomers do not want to learn. I have found that when you stop learning, you die. Example is uncles who have passed away in their 70's as they just wanted to sit around and watch TV and then I have my Grandparents in their late 90's who keep on learning and pushing. My Grandpa died at 95 due to cancer as he hated doctors. But my Grandma who is 96 was just told by the Cardiologist that we will need to plan to replace her pacemaker battery when she turns 100 and he sees no reason she cannot keep going. :P

    Learning and change is grand! :D

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Wow people are carthing onto what I said YEARS ago. I DO NOT want to pay for crap I'll never use. Built in nav is damn near worthless. I don't want it. I will not pay for it. I will buy a car without it or I will not buy a new car at all.

    Do dealers in your area make you order navigation units at gunpoint?

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    More and more, it's in the nicer cars though, whether we want it or not.

    I am proud of GM for being late to the game. Turn-By-Turn through Onstar is a fine way to integrate nav help in a vehicle, but "competitive pressures" forced them to start polluting their dashes with these crappy systems.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    More and more, it's in the nicer cars though, whether we want it or not.

    I am proud of GM for being late to the game. Turn-By-Turn through Onstar is a fine way to integrate nav help in a vehicle, but "competitive pressures" forced them to start polluting their dashes with these crappy systems.

    In other words, the Impala will finally be catching up to Corolla?

    As nav systems have come down in price (which many have), OhStar TBT has looked less and less appealing. Especially to those like me who prefer having dynamic maps.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    In this era of satellite nav systems and Google Maps on smartphones, is OnStar really just obsolete in some respects? Are Nav systems just plain obsolete in the smartphone era? It seems that there are only two advantages of nav systems: one can use it without being distracted AND a car nav uses an 7-8" screen, rather than the 5" or smaller smartphone screen. Is that enough anymore?

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    In this era of satellite nav systems and Google Maps on smartphones, is OnStar really just obsolete in some respects? Are Nav systems just plain obsolete in the smartphone era? It seems that there are only two advantages of nav systems: one can use it without being distracted AND a car nav uses an 7-8" screen, rather than the 5" or smaller smartphone screen. Is that enough anymore?

    Those are huge advantages, given that everyone's fighting against distracted driving these days... lawmakers and manufacturers alike.

    Third advantage: Mobile data plans ain't as cheap as they used to be.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Oh boy, OnStar turn-by-turn, something you have to pay an annual fee for! And there's no map screen. Personally, I like the ability to glance a map to get an idea where an upcoming turn is in a place I'm not familiar with, or a complex highway junction I'm not familiar. That said, I use my Google Navigation on my smartphone. It stays up to date, very accurate, very specific, looks good and has lots of features. Oh and its free. Now, I want to say that an automaker was developing an infotainment system that lets you pair your smart phone's navigation to the car's screen, but I can't remember who.

    1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    More and more, it's in the nicer cars though, whether we want it or not.

    I am proud of GM for being late to the game. Turn-By-Turn through Onstar is a fine way to integrate nav help in a vehicle, but "competitive pressures" forced them to start polluting their dashes with these crappy systems.

    In other words, the Impala will finally be catching up to Corolla?

    As nav systems have come down in price (which many have), OhStar TBT has looked less and less appealing. Especially to those like me who prefer having dynamic maps.

    Agree, the OnStar Turn by Turn sucks. The systems look like their from the 80's and I am not at all impressed with them. I would rather have a dynamic map on a nice screen nav system with a ladies voice to remind me of up coming changes.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Would be nice to have a standard wireless connection for smartphones & tablets to connect to an external touchscreen. Then buy the car with built in touchscreen, and be able to just connect your device. No more built-in outdated NAV. But of course they can't keep it that simple, cuz they'd be worried you'll play Angry Birds while driving, so there would have to be oodles of complex safety systems involved, etc...

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Oh boy, OnStar turn-by-turn, something you have to pay an annual fee for! And there's no map screen. Personally, I like the ability to glance a map to get an idea where an upcoming turn is in a place I'm not familiar with, or a complex highway junction I'm not familiar. That said, I use my Google Navigation on my smartphone. It stays up to date, very accurate, very specific, looks good and has lots of features. Oh and its free. Now, I want to say that an automaker was developing an infotainment system that lets you pair your smart phone's navigation to the car's screen, but I can't remember who.

    I think it is Kia

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Well yes, Onstar comes with a fee, but how much does a nav system add to the price of a given car, it has a cost somewhere. Anyway, I don't care about Onstar or nav systems.

    I admit I have never used turn-by-turn in any of my GM vehicles. I am content without a smartphone, without any sort of nav system. Except for an in-car compass. I love those and find them extremely useful for the kind of driving I do. It's a small, important feature lacking in my Patriot, and it mystifies me why a Jeep ® brand vehicle wouldn't have one. It seems a natural to me.

    If nav is going to be a permanent part of new vehicles going forward, I'd rather it be something simple like the smartphone interface through the radio screen some of you are describing. That way when I don't use it I don't feel like I spent money for nothing.

    Edited by ocnblu
    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I still use my Garmin. It is payed for, doesn't require monthly fees, won't get me a ticket when it directs me to my destination, doesn't distract me going through menus and looking at a tiny screen, 99% of the time gets a perfect signal and is just as portable going between vehicles. I do have to occasionally update it for a small cost but most of the time it is dead on and gets me right where I need to go year after year. I would never pay for an in built Nav unit in a car unless it was used and already came with it.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I agree, ponchoman49. My Garmin works just a good as yours and I've had it about 3-4 years now. I've only updated it once in that time and it hasn't gotten me lost. When I purchase my next vehicle, unless another option requires it, I would likely forgo the navigation option. Now the wife's vehicle will be a different story - she has a problem with directions and I don't want her fiddling with her iPhone for directions. Or I can just buy her a Garmin too :P

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Guess I am one of the few that actually hates the smartphone apps and slow 4g LTE response. (Interesting Observation that is confirmed by my wife and kids, we have unlimited Verizon and I have not been willing to resign a new contract. As such it seems even though they denies it that the upload and download has gotten worse)

    I would rather have a dedicated Nav in my autos.

    What the auto companies need to do is stop trying to reinvent the wheel and partner up with those companies that are already doing nav well and push out via satellite constant updated Nave to begin with.

    Agree..........but they want to sell crap, and some put a gun to their own head and stand in line to buy it. I have a Garmin and I have a smart phone both of which work better than nav that comes in cars with less bs.

    Edited by RjION
    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

    Guest
    You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
    Add a comment...

    ×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    Loading...



  • Popular Stories

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. jlbunting
      jlbunting
      (40 years old)
  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      'Autonomous Emergency Braking' (AEB) and the various names this system goes under have the same goal; to bring the vehicle to a stop if the driver doesn't fails to engage the brakes. But a new study done by AAA reveals not all systems are equal and a very worrying trend concerning a consumer's belief in the system.
      There are two types of emergency braking systems, ones that are designed to bring the vehicle to stop to avoid a crash and ones that reduce speed to limit the severity of a crash. Unsurprisingly, AAA's tests showed that systems designed to avoid a crash did a better job than systems designed to limit the crash damage. At speeds under 30 mph, systems designed to avoid crashes were successful about 60 percent of the time. Systems designed to limit damage had a success rate of 33 percent. Increase speed to 45 mph and the systems designed to avoid a crash had a success rate of 74 percent. The systems designed to limit damage were successful 9 percent of the time.
      AAA also surveyed Americans familiar with the technology and it revealed something very troubling. Nearly two-thirds of those surveyed believe autonomous emergency braking systems will totally avoid a crash without driver intervention.
      “AAA found that two-thirds of Americans familiar with the technology believe that automatic emergency braking systems are designed to avoid crashes without driver intervention. The reality is that today’s systems vary greatly in performance, and many are not designed to stop a moving car,” said John Nielsen, AAA’s managing director of Automotive Engineering and Repair in a statement.
      This is important as 22 different automakers have agreed to make this technology standard on all of their models by 2022. Currently, 10 percent of new vehicles have this system as standard while more than 50 percent of new vehicles have it as an option. AAA recommends that if you're looking at a vehicle with an AEB system to make sure what system you'll have. It will make a difference when it comes to avoiding a crash.
      Source: AAA
      Press Release is on Page 2
      Hit The Brakes: Not All Self-Braking Cars Designed to Stop
      AAA Tests Reveal Automatic Emergency Braking Systems Vary Significantly ORLANDO, Fla (August 24, 2016) – New test results from AAA reveal that automatic emergency braking systems — the safety technology that will soon be standard equipment on 99 percent of vehicles — vary widely in design and performance. All the systems tested by AAA are designed to apply the brakes when a driver fails to engage, however, those that are designed to prevent crashes reduced vehicle speeds by nearly twice that of those designed to lessen crash severity. While any reduction in speed offers a significant safety benefit to drivers, AAA warns that automatic braking systems are not all designed to prevent collisions and urges consumers to fully understand system limitations before getting behind the wheel.
      “AAA found that two-thirds of Americans familiar with the technology believe that automatic emergency braking systems are designed to avoid crashes without driver intervention,” said John Nielsen, AAA’s managing director of Automotive Engineering and Repair. “The reality is that today’s systems vary greatly in performance, and many are not designed to stop a moving car.”
      In partnership with the Automobile Club of Southern California’s Automotive Research Center, AAA evaluated five 2016 model-year vehicles equipped with automatic emergency braking systems for performance within system limitations and in real-world driving scenarios that were designed to push the technology’s limits. Systems were tested and compared based on the capabilities and limitations stated in the owner’s manuals and grouped into two categories — those designed to slow or stop the vehicle enough to prevent crashes, and those designed to slow the vehicle to lessen crash severity. After more than 70 trials, tests reveal:
      In terms of overall speed reduction, the systems designed to prevent crashes reduced vehicle speeds by twice that of systems that are designed to only lessen crash severity (79 percent speed reduction vs. 40 percent speed reduction). With speed differentials of under 30 mph, systems designed to prevent crashes successfully avoided collisions in 60 percent of test scenarios. Surprisingly, the systems designed to only lessen crash severity were able to completely avoid crashes in nearly one-third (33 percent) of test scenarios. When pushed beyond stated system limitations and proposed federal requirements, the variation among systems became more pronounced. When traveling at 45 mph and approaching a static vehicle, the systems designed to prevent crashes reduced speeds by 74 percent overall and avoided crashes in 40 percent of scenarios. In contrast, systems designed to lessen crash severity were only able to reduce vehicle speed by 9 percent overall. “Automatic emergency braking systems have the potential to drastically reduce the risk of injury from a crash,” said Megan McKernan, manager of the Automobile Club of Southern California’s Automotive Research Center. “When traveling at 30 mph, a speed reduction of just 10 mph can reduce the energy of crash impact by more than 50 percent.”
      In addition to the independent testing, AAA surveyed U.S. drivers to understand consumer purchase habits and trust of automatic emergency braking systems. Results reveal:
      Nine percent of U.S. drivers currently have automatic emergency braking on their vehicle. Nearly 40 percent of U.S. drivers want automatic emergency braking on their next vehicle. Men are more likely to want an automatic emergency braking system in their next vehicle (42 percent) than female drivers (35 percent). Two out of five U.S. drivers trust automatic emergency braking to work. Drivers who currently own a vehicle equipped with automatic emergency braking system are more likely to trust it to work (71 percent) compared to drivers that have not experienced the technology (41 percent). “When shopping for a new vehicle, AAA recommends considering one equipped with an automatic emergency braking system,” continued Nielsen. “However, with the proliferation of vehicle technology, it’s more important than ever for drivers to fully understand their vehicle’s capabilities and limitations before driving off the dealer lot.”
      For its potential to reduce crash severity, 22 automakers representing 99 percent of vehicle sales have committed to making automatic emergency braking systems standard on all new vehicles by 2022. The U.S. Department of Transportation said this voluntary agreement will make the safety feature available on new cars up to three years sooner than could be achieved through the formal regulatory process. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, rear-end collisions, which automatic emergency braking systems are designed to mitigate, result in nearly 2,000 fatalities and more than 500,000 injuries annually. Currently, 10 percent of new vehicles have automatic emergency braking as standard equipment, and more than half of new vehicles offer the feature as an option.

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      'Autonomous Emergency Braking' (AEB) and the various names this system goes under have the same goal; to bring the vehicle to a stop if the driver doesn't fails to engage the brakes. But a new study done by AAA reveals not all systems are equal and a very worrying trend concerning a consumer's belief in the system.
      There are two types of emergency braking systems, ones that are designed to bring the vehicle to stop to avoid a crash and ones that reduce speed to limit the severity of a crash. Unsurprisingly, AAA's tests showed that systems designed to avoid a crash did a better job than systems designed to limit the crash damage. At speeds under 30 mph, systems designed to avoid crashes were successful about 60 percent of the time. Systems designed to limit damage had a success rate of 33 percent. Increase speed to 45 mph and the systems designed to avoid a crash had a success rate of 74 percent. The systems designed to limit damage were successful 9 percent of the time.
      AAA also surveyed Americans familiar with the technology and it revealed something very troubling. Nearly two-thirds of those surveyed believe autonomous emergency braking systems will totally avoid a crash without driver intervention.
      “AAA found that two-thirds of Americans familiar with the technology believe that automatic emergency braking systems are designed to avoid crashes without driver intervention. The reality is that today’s systems vary greatly in performance, and many are not designed to stop a moving car,” said John Nielsen, AAA’s managing director of Automotive Engineering and Repair in a statement.
      This is important as 22 different automakers have agreed to make this technology standard on all of their models by 2022. Currently, 10 percent of new vehicles have this system as standard while more than 50 percent of new vehicles have it as an option. AAA recommends that if you're looking at a vehicle with an AEB system to make sure what system you'll have. It will make a difference when it comes to avoiding a crash.
      Source: AAA
      Press Release is on Page 2
      Hit The Brakes: Not All Self-Braking Cars Designed to Stop
      AAA Tests Reveal Automatic Emergency Braking Systems Vary Significantly ORLANDO, Fla (August 24, 2016) – New test results from AAA reveal that automatic emergency braking systems — the safety technology that will soon be standard equipment on 99 percent of vehicles — vary widely in design and performance. All the systems tested by AAA are designed to apply the brakes when a driver fails to engage, however, those that are designed to prevent crashes reduced vehicle speeds by nearly twice that of those designed to lessen crash severity. While any reduction in speed offers a significant safety benefit to drivers, AAA warns that automatic braking systems are not all designed to prevent collisions and urges consumers to fully understand system limitations before getting behind the wheel.
      “AAA found that two-thirds of Americans familiar with the technology believe that automatic emergency braking systems are designed to avoid crashes without driver intervention,” said John Nielsen, AAA’s managing director of Automotive Engineering and Repair. “The reality is that today’s systems vary greatly in performance, and many are not designed to stop a moving car.”
      In partnership with the Automobile Club of Southern California’s Automotive Research Center, AAA evaluated five 2016 model-year vehicles equipped with automatic emergency braking systems for performance within system limitations and in real-world driving scenarios that were designed to push the technology’s limits. Systems were tested and compared based on the capabilities and limitations stated in the owner’s manuals and grouped into two categories — those designed to slow or stop the vehicle enough to prevent crashes, and those designed to slow the vehicle to lessen crash severity. After more than 70 trials, tests reveal:
      In terms of overall speed reduction, the systems designed to prevent crashes reduced vehicle speeds by twice that of systems that are designed to only lessen crash severity (79 percent speed reduction vs. 40 percent speed reduction). With speed differentials of under 30 mph, systems designed to prevent crashes successfully avoided collisions in 60 percent of test scenarios. Surprisingly, the systems designed to only lessen crash severity were able to completely avoid crashes in nearly one-third (33 percent) of test scenarios. When pushed beyond stated system limitations and proposed federal requirements, the variation among systems became more pronounced. When traveling at 45 mph and approaching a static vehicle, the systems designed to prevent crashes reduced speeds by 74 percent overall and avoided crashes in 40 percent of scenarios. In contrast, systems designed to lessen crash severity were only able to reduce vehicle speed by 9 percent overall. “Automatic emergency braking systems have the potential to drastically reduce the risk of injury from a crash,” said Megan McKernan, manager of the Automobile Club of Southern California’s Automotive Research Center. “When traveling at 30 mph, a speed reduction of just 10 mph can reduce the energy of crash impact by more than 50 percent.”
      In addition to the independent testing, AAA surveyed U.S. drivers to understand consumer purchase habits and trust of automatic emergency braking systems. Results reveal:
      Nine percent of U.S. drivers currently have automatic emergency braking on their vehicle. Nearly 40 percent of U.S. drivers want automatic emergency braking on their next vehicle. Men are more likely to want an automatic emergency braking system in their next vehicle (42 percent) than female drivers (35 percent). Two out of five U.S. drivers trust automatic emergency braking to work. Drivers who currently own a vehicle equipped with automatic emergency braking system are more likely to trust it to work (71 percent) compared to drivers that have not experienced the technology (41 percent). “When shopping for a new vehicle, AAA recommends considering one equipped with an automatic emergency braking system,” continued Nielsen. “However, with the proliferation of vehicle technology, it’s more important than ever for drivers to fully understand their vehicle’s capabilities and limitations before driving off the dealer lot.”
      For its potential to reduce crash severity, 22 automakers representing 99 percent of vehicle sales have committed to making automatic emergency braking systems standard on all new vehicles by 2022. The U.S. Department of Transportation said this voluntary agreement will make the safety feature available on new cars up to three years sooner than could be achieved through the formal regulatory process. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, rear-end collisions, which automatic emergency braking systems are designed to mitigate, result in nearly 2,000 fatalities and more than 500,000 injuries annually. Currently, 10 percent of new vehicles have automatic emergency braking as standard equipment, and more than half of new vehicles offer the feature as an option.
    • By William Maley
      Back in June, we learned that Skoda (a Czech brand under the Volkswagen group) was investigating possibly entering new markets. One of those new markets was North America, a place where 20 percent of global car sales take place. At the time our original report, Skoda hasn't set a timeframe for a decision. Also as we noted, Skoda would need to get more crossovers and SUVs ready if they want to try and make inroads in the U.S.
       
      Speaking of SUVs and the U.S., a recent article done by Autocar piqued our interest. Skoda CEO Bernhard Maier said if they were to launch the brand in the U.S. in the near future, they would have their upcoming seven-seat Kodiaq leading the charge.
       
      “If we do decide to compete in the US, we will have one chance to make a good first impression. We feel that if we were there now, the Kodiaq would be a home-run car,” said Maier.
       
      Maier did stress that the U.S. isn't on Skoda's immediate radar. At the moment, the brand is looking closely at Iran, Singapore, and South Korea as possible new markets. But Maier isn't saying the U.S. isn't on their radar at all.
       
      “America is the one that we don't currently compete in with the biggest potential.”
       
      Skoda appears to have taken a page out of PSA Peugeot Citroën's playbook. Autocar says the automaker has begun a feasibility study as to whether or not it makes sense to enter the U.S.
       
      Source: Autocar
    • By William Maley
      The good news is that consumers are visiting the gas station less. The bad news is that consumers are spending more at the pump. Wait, those two sentences contradict each other. Which one is true? According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), both of these sentences are correct.
       
      Let us explain. As new fuel economy and emission regulations come into effect, automakers are trying to figure out ways to make that gallon of gas go farther. One method that a number of automakers are using is turbochargers. They allow automakers to use smaller displacement engines to improve fuel economy and retain the power of larger engines. The EIA says the market share of turbo engines has climbed from 3.3 percent in 2009 to 17.6 percent in 2014.
       
      But the problem is that many turbo engines require premium fuel to operate at their full potential, which costs more than regular and midgrade fuel. Yes, you can fill them with regular and not have the issue of knock - premature fuel detonation due to increased cylinder pressure. But you lose some of the power that the turbo is providing.
       
      The EIA says that only 12.5 percent of vehicles recommended premium fuel in 2010. This increased to 14.2 percent in 2013.
       
      With turbo engines projected to be in 83.3 percent of new vehicles by 2025, expect to pay more at the pump despite going there less.
       
      Source: Energy Information Administration
    • By William Maley
      With the rise of services of car and ride-sharing services such as Uber and Lyft, a number of people have said this would begin the downfall of buying and owning a new vehicle in the U.S. But a new study commissioned by Kelly Blue Book says that isn't happening for the majority of the country.
       
      The study revealed many Americans consider vehicle ownership to be more convenient, reliable, safer than car- and ride-sharing services. It also revealed that 76 percent of respondents that use these services are planning to buy or lease a vehicle within the next two years.
       
      "While there are numerous benefits to ride sharing and car sharing, our data reveals that owning a car still reigns supreme, with reliability, safety and convenience all being major factors," said Karl Brauer, senior analyst for Kelley Blue Book.
       
      Other findings of KBB's study include,
      73 percent of respondents said they have heard of these ride-sharing services, but only 16 percent have used them. This is similar to car sharing services as 43 percent said they have heard of them, but only 7 percent have taken advantage.Most of the respondents using these services are young people living in urban environments. This makes sense as owning a vehicle in this environment is more of a pain. Car and Ride sharing services are seen more as substitutes for taxis and rental cars. Affordability was the top reason given respondents who don't own a car.Only 5 percent said using a ride-sharing service was the reason they don't own a car. 3 percent said gave the same reason for why they use car sharing services.  
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required), Kelly Blue Book
       
      Press Release is on Page 2



      Page 1 of 2 1 2 → Last »



      Click here to view the article
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Who's Online (See full list)