William Maley

Industry News: New J.D. Power Study Reveals Most Drivers Don't Use A Vehicle's Navigation System

17 posts in this topic


J.D. Power has announced the results of their inaugural Tech Experience Index (TXI) Study. The study focused on the experience of owners with a vehicle's technology features such as infotainment and safety during the first 90 days. The good news is the average satisfaction score was 730 out of a possible 1,000 points.

But owners aren't impressed with their vehicle's navigation system. It earned the lowest average score of 687 in the study. More than half of the owners surveyed said they never even used the system, using the navigation function on their phones. Nearly a third who said they used the navigation system only used it for two weeks before resorting to their phones, citing issues with entering a new destination. Voice commands was also a pain point for many owners as the system didn't understand the commands and have to be repeated multiple times.

“For any technology in a vehicle, it’s critical that the owners want it, are aware they have it and know how to use it. It is alarming how many technologies consumers have in their vehicle but aren’t using because they don’t know they have them or don’t know how to use them. Both of these knowledge gaps have long-term implications for future demand,” said Kristin Kolodge, executive director of driver interaction & HMI research at J.D. Power.

On the flipside, owners really like collision avoidance technologies. Such features as a backup camera, blind spot warning, and lane keep assist earned the highest average score in the study of 754. Also, 96 percent of owners who have these safety features in their current vehicle want to have them in their next vehicle.

Source: J.D. Power
Press Release is on Page 2


Safety Technologies Have Highest Satisfaction; Navigation Lags

DETROIT: 10 Oct. 2016 — BMW and Hyundai each have two models that rank highest in overall customer experience with vehicle technology in their respective segment, according to the J.D. Power 2016 U.S. Tech Experience Index (TXI) Study,SM released today.

The inaugural study measures a vehicle owner’s experiences, usage and interaction with driver-centric vehicle technology at 90 days of ownership. The major technology categories analyzed in the study include collision protection; comfort and convenience; driving assistance; entertainment and connectivity; navigation; and smartphone mirroring.

BMW models that rank highest in their segment1  are the 2 Series (small premium segment) and 4 Series (compact premium segment), while the Hyundai models that rank highest are the Genesis (midsize premium segment) and Tucson (small segment). Model-level rankings and awards include 2016 model-year vehicles that were all new or redesigned within the past three years.

Other models that rank highest in their segment are the Chevrolet Camaro (midsize segment); Kia Forte (compact segment); and Nissan Maxima (large segment).

Safety Technologies Reign
Among the vast array of technologies available in new vehicles, those that assist with collision avoidance have the highest usage and the highest overall satisfaction. Additionally, they are the technologies owners most want in their next vehicle, according to the study.

Collision avoidance technologies—such as blind spot warning and detection, lane-keeping/centering and back-up camera/warning systems—are collectively part of the collision protection category, which has the highest overall satisfaction among the five groups of technologies included in the study index scores, with a score of 754 on a 1,000-point scale. In contrast, owners are least satisfied with their navigation systems (687).

“For any technology in a vehicle, it’s critical that the owners want it, are aware they have it and know how to use it,” said Kristin Kolodge, executive director of driver interaction & HMI research at J.D. Power. “It is alarming how many technologies consumers have in their vehicle but aren’t using because they don’t know they have them or don’t know how to use them. Both of these knowledge gaps have long-term implications for future demand.”

Back-up camera/warning and blind spot warning and detection are the most often used technologies, with at least three-fourths of owners saying they use the technology every time they drive. Additionally, they are the most in-demand technologies, with 96% of current owners of the technologies saying they want each of the features in their next car.

Other industries beyond automotive are keeping a close eye on in-vehicle technologies. For example, the insurance industry is closely tracking the use of safety-related technologies that, while potentially increasing claims costs when a vehicle is damaged, also help prevent or mitigate collisions and protect occupants when there is an accident. Auto insurers have been slow to add discounts for newer safe driver technologies, but that is beginning to change. Liberty Mutual Insurance offers a vehicle safety discount for teens driving a vehicle equipped with safety features, such as a lane departure warning system; adaptive cruise control; and collision preparation systems.2

“As auto insurers begin to offer discounts for vehicle safety features, this may help raise consumer awareness that they actually have these technologies and the knowledge to use them properly,” said Jessica McGregor, director of the insurance practice at J.D. Power.

The Role of the Dealer
Even if owners are aware they have an in-vehicle technology doesn’t mean they will use it.

Among owners who say they never use a specific technology, 39% indicate they bring another device into their vehicle to replace certain technologies that are already present. Of those who bring in another device, navigation is the feature most often replaced. Furthermore, 57% of owners who bring in another device say they never used the in-vehicle equipment before bringing this outside device into the car to replace the vehicle’s features. Of the 43% who have used it, 56% stop using it within the first month.  

“The dealer plays a critical role in whether or not a technology is used,” said Kolodge. “When the dealer takes the time to explain the technology or provide a demonstration, it not only makes the owner aware they have the technology, but also helps them understand how to use it, which means they are more likely to use it, continue to use it and, because they see the value, want it in their next vehicle.”

Among owners who learn how to operate the technologies from their dealer, overall satisfaction is 25-54 points higher, compared with those who learn how to operate the technologies from another source or from prior experience. Technologies that owners say are difficult to use (DTU) put a strain on satisfaction.  Across all technologies, there is an average 98-point drop in satisfaction when owners have DTU issues.

DTU problems not only deteriorate satisfaction, but they also affect the vehicle’s quality. Even though it may operate as intended, when a technology is difficult for an owner to use or understand, it is likely to be considered a quality issue. For example, navigation system difficult to use/poor location is the sixth most common problem in the J.D. Power 2016 U.S. Initial Quality StudySM (IQS). Owners who learn how to use their navigation system from the dealer report 2.0 problems per 100 vehicles (PP100) fewer navigation DTU problems than those who do not get a dealer explanation.

“By taking the time to show the technology to the new owner, the dealer can mitigate DTU issues, improving both satisfaction and quality,” said Kolodge. “The navigation system is just one area. If the dealer explains all or many of the technologies to the new owner, it can have a dramatic positive effect on the ownership experience.” 

Gap between Premium and Non-Premium Is Narrow 
Overall owner satisfaction with new-vehicle technology averages 730. Satisfaction among premium vehicle owners is slightly higher at 734, compared with 730 among non-premium owners.

Overall satisfaction varies greatly by segment. Satisfaction is highest in the large segment (755), followed by the small premium segment (735); compact premium segment (732); midsize premium segment (731); compact segment (727); midsize segment (725); and the small segment (706).

“It’s not just how much technology you have in the vehicle, but how well it’s delivered,” said Kolodge. “The technology’s usability and how well it is integrated into the vehicle are critical—that has to be done right.”

The 2016 U.S. Tech Experience Index (TXI) Study is based on a survey of 17,864 vehicle owners and lessees. Awards are based solely on responses from the 13,269 consumers who purchased or leased a new 2016 model-year vehicle in the previous 90 days that has been considered an all-new or redesigned vehicle within in the past three years. The study was fielded from February through August 2016.


View full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just recently had the opportunity to drive fully loaded Subaru Outback and Mazda 6.  While Subaru's Eye Sight safety system is a little bit too intrusive with too many beeps it is useful and rated very highly, I liked Mazda's system better because it was less intrusive.

However, Navigation in both vehicles is absolutely useless.  And it is a shame that people pay premium to use that option in the built in large screens and then they have to use phones or other Navigation devices.  It really puzzles me how manufacturers system be so bad when the market is flooded with good navigation systems, let alone Google and Apple Maps.

It is really time for them to embrace smartphone integration in all the new vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the Apple Play and Google Play integration not supposed to fix this problem of sucky Nav's?

Big problem that was created by the OEMs was they want to charge $500 for a Nav update. That DVD update is just so overpriced when you have your smartphone maps being updated all the time during the year. 

This has been my biggest complaint to GM about not using smart Nav's that update all the time over their satellite system.

GM could have destroyed the competition by giving continuous updates to their auto nav systems over the OnStar network. They could have done this years before anyone thought of Google or Apple play. Yet that "We have to nickle and dime the consumer", is what has hurt more than helped them.

@Drew Dowdell @William Maley Guys, can you expand on the Google / Apple Play system? Does it give you the smartphone maps on the built in car nav system? Or what is the details here? My mind is drawing a blank and I think this would be a great write up on the inner workings of this system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Is the Apple Play and Google Play integration not supposed to fix this problem of sucky Nav's?

Big problem that was created by the OEMs was they want to charge $500 for a Nav update. That DVD update is just so overpriced when you have your smartphone maps being updated all the time during the year. 

This has been my biggest complaint to GM about not using smart Nav's that update all the time over their satellite system.

GM could have destroyed the competition by giving continuous updates to their auto nav systems over the OnStar network. They could have done this years before anyone thought of Google or Apple play. Yet that "We have to nickle and dime the consumer", is what has hurt more than helped them.

@Drew Dowdell @William Maley Guys, can you expand on the Google / Apple Play system? Does it give you the smartphone maps on the built in car nav system? Or what is the details here? My mind is drawing a blank and I think this would be a great write up on the inner workings of this system.

@dfelt I can delve a bit with CarPlay, Drew might be able to explain Android Auto better. Basically, both systems are able to mirror your smartphone and provide some of the applications that can be used in the vehicle's head unit. That includes the mapping software both come with (Apple Maps for CarPlay, Google Maps for Android Auto). The picture I have in this post shows Apple Maps being used on Volkswagen's headunit. Hopefully, this clears up some confusion. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dfelt said:

Is the Apple Play and Google Play integration not supposed to fix this problem of sucky Nav's?

Big problem that was created by the OEMs was they want to charge $500 for a Nav update. That DVD update is just so overpriced when you have your smartphone maps being updated all the time during the year. 

This has been my biggest complaint to GM about not using smart Nav's that update all the time over their satellite system.

GM could have destroyed the competition by giving continuous updates to their auto nav systems over the OnStar network. They could have done this years before anyone thought of Google or Apple play. Yet that "We have to nickle and dime the consumer", is what has hurt more than helped them.

@Drew Dowdell @William Maley Guys, can you expand on the Google / Apple Play system? Does it give you the smartphone maps on the built in car nav system? Or what is the details here? My mind is drawing a blank and I think this would be a great write up on the inner workings of this system.


This. Nobody wants to pay $500-1,000 for Nav that needs a $200 update every 2 years to stay semi-accurate. That's not even touching the bigger problem. Many of these nav systems just suck to use. Poor graphics, glitchy and slow operation, terrible voice recognition, dreadful user-friendliness, tiny screens, bad directions are some issues that plague many a Mfr's OEM nav systems. 

 

As for Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, they work very well, but so far, makers are slow to integrate these features. Many, such as Toyota, just seem to be adamant about using their own systems, which are woefully outdated and inferior in operation. It's like they've decided they are capable of outdoing everyone else, when in reality they just all need to start with a clean slate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sometimes use mine(mazda 6), but mostly to get my bearings and to use a reference of how long or how far to places.
 

my updates are like ~$90 for , 4?, updates a year or like $50 for 1 update. i still use a garmin sometimes with lifetime free updates. i usually only do this when i don't have a passenger and i know the route is close enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a racket (updates).
I have a dedicated GPS I use frequently for work. I updated it via the web. Now I get a start-up screen when I run the GPS that says my maps are 55 months out of date. Pfft. 

In all my wanderings, there's been 1 new road about 1/8-mile long that my GPS shows me driving over an expanse of 'grass'. 'Update every 2 years to be semi-accurate'? Hyperbole. Once every 5 years would more than suffice. Any OEM pedaling 4 updates a year is simply fleecing the customer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not surprised at all.  First off most people drive places they know, they drive back and forth from work, to the grocery store, to family's house, etc.  They don't need NAV for 90% of their driving.   Secondly, almost everyone has a phone that is as new or newer than their car, so their phone will probably have a better nav system anyway.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's ironic is that drivers are passing on the in-car NAV and deviating to their phones; they don't care for the in-car NAV but they LOVE the accident avoidance. 

I'm reasonably sure it has nothing to do with looking at their phones. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two questions: do GM cars use Apple or Android for their maps?  If not, then how can anyone best avoid a NAV system without sacrificing features and amenities in a GM vehicle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never had a reason for in-car nav.... I'm sure I will have a vehicle with one sooner or later, but it just seems like a pointless feature to me.  I always have a smart phone with me and maps....even when I'm traveling and in a rental car, haven't needed to use one since I have my phone..

Edited by Cubical-aka-Moltar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

our van has NAV but we never use it.  Got a thing in the mail from Chrysler to update it for $149.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I've used my iphone's maps on the Malibu's Apple CarPlay now a few times.  It's been ok so far.  I haven't been real adventurous with figuring out how it works exactly but the way it displays the maps is cleaner and obviously similar to the phone itself.

Apple CarPlay on the whole is intermittently handy, but really is in its infancy and I find it clunky at times.  Between that and hating Siri, i don't use it as much as maybe i thought i would.  It's better used on long drives.  Probably worth it itself for the maps use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rarely use the Encore's NAV anymore and I've already told Albert the next vehicles won't have it.  I use Waze as my NAV app because I want the police and traffic alerts.  Since I have to carry two phones for work anyway, I just use one of them for NAV and music. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I rarely use the Encore's NAV anymore and I've already told Albert the next vehicles won't have it.  I use Waze as my NAV app because I want the police and traffic alerts.  Since I have to carry two phones for work anyway, I just use one of them for NAV and music. 

Pretty much what we do also.

Share this post


Link to post
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.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      Infotainment systems are one the banes of the automotive world. From confusing interfaces and controls, to issues with crashing and features not working. Add distracting drivers to this list.
      The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety worked together with researchers at the University of Utah to measure the time it took to complete the task, and the visual and mental demand on the driver. 120 drivers were asked to perform various tasks such as operating the stereo and putting in information for navigation system using all input methods - touchscreen, physical controls, and voice commands. They would do this in 30 different vehicles on a two-mile stretch of road going 25 mph.
      The results are sadly not surprising. On average, it took drivers 24 seconds on average to finish many common tasks. Inputting an address in the navigation system could take more than 40 seconds. At 25 mph, that time is more than enough to travel the length of four football fields.
      “Some in-vehicle technology can create unsafe situations for drivers on the road by increasing the time they spend with their eyes and attention off the road and hands off the wheel. When an in-vehicle technology is not properly designed, simple tasks for drivers can become complicated and require more effort from drivers to complete,” said Dr. David Yang, executive director of the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
      AAA rated the 30 vehicles based on how much demand is put on a driver. None of 30 vehicles scored what AAA considers to be low demand. 11 vehicles scored high while 12 vehicles were rated at very high.
      “Our objective assessment indicates that many of these features are just too distracting to be enabled while the vehicle is in motion. Greater consideration should be given to what [infotainment] features and functions should be available to the driver when the vehicle is in motion rather than to what [infotainment] features and functions could be available to motorists,” the study stated.
      Source: AAA
      Press Release is on Page 2


      New Vehicle Infotainment Systems Create Increased Distractions Behind the Wheel
      AAA Foundation study reveals in-vehicle technology takes one step forward, two steps back WASHINGTON, D.C. (Oct. 5, 2017) – New vehicle infotainment systems take drivers’ eyes and attention off the road and hands off the wheel for potentially dangerous periods of time, according to new research from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. Drivers using in-vehicle technologies like voice-based and touch screen features were visually and mentally distracted for more than 40 seconds when completing tasks like programming navigation or sending a text message. Removing eyes from the road for just two seconds doubles the risk for a crash, according to previous research. With one in three U.S. adults using infotainment systems while driving, AAA cautions that using these technologies while behind the wheel can have dangerous consequences.
      AAA has conducted this new research to help automakers and system designers improve the functionality of new infotainment systems and the demand they place on drivers.
      “Some in-vehicle technology can create unsafe situations for drivers on the road by increasing the time they spend with their eyes and attention off the road and hands off the wheel,” said Dr. David Yang, executive director of the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. “When an in-vehicle technology is not properly designed, simple tasks for drivers can become complicated and require more effort from drivers to complete.”
      The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety commissioned researchers from the University of Utah to examine the visual (eyes off road) and cognitive (mental) demand as well as the time it took drivers to complete a task using the infotainment systems in 30 new 2017 vehicles. Study participants were required to use voice command, touch screen and other interactive technologies to make a call, send a text message, tune the radio or program navigation, all while driving down the road.
      Programming navigation was the most distracting task, taking an average of 40 seconds for drivers to complete. When driving at 25 mph, a driver can travel the length of four football fields during the time it could take to enter a destination in navigation—all while distracted from the important task of driving. Programming navigation while driving was available in 12 of the 30 vehicle systems tested.
      None of the 30 vehicle infotainment systems produced low demand, while 23 systems generated high or very high levels of demand on drivers:
      12 systems generated very high demand 11 systems generated high demand 7 systems generated moderate demand Overall Demand by Vehicle
      Low
      Moderate
      High
      Very High
      N/A Chevrolet Equinox  LT  
      Ford F250 XLT
      Hyundai Santa Fe Sport
      Lincoln MKC Premiere
      Toyota Camry SE
      Toyota Corolla SE
      Toyota Sienna XLE
      Cadillac XT5 Luxury  
      Chevrolet Traverse LT
      Dodge Ram 1500
      Ford Fusion Titanium
      Hyundai Sonata Base
      Infiniti Q50 Premium
      Jeep Compass Sport
      Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited
      Kia Sorento LX
      Nissan Maxima SV
      Toyota Rav 4 XLE
      Audi Q7 QPP  
      Chrysler 300 C
      Dodge Durango GT
      Ford Mustang GT
      GMC Yukon SLT
      Honda Civic Touring
      Honda Ridgeline RTL-E
      Mazda3 Touring
      Nissan Armada SV
      Subaru Crosstrek Premium
      Tesla Model S
      Volvo XC60 T5 Inscription
      “Drivers want technology that is safe and easy to use, but many of the features added to infotainment systems today have resulted in overly complex and sometimes frustrating user experiences for drivers,” said Marshall Doney, AAA’s president and CEO.
      Frustration resulting from unsatisfactory use of these systems increases cognitive demand and increases the potential for distracted driving.
      “AAA has met with interested auto manufacturers and suppliers to discuss our findings. We welcome the opportunity to meet with other interested parties to discuss the report’s recommendations and ways to mitigate driver distraction,” added Doney.
      According to a new AAA public opinion survey, nearly 70 percent of U.S. adults say that they want the new technology in their vehicle, but only 24 percent feel that the technology already works perfectly.
      “Some of the latest systems on the market now include functions unrelated to the core task of driving like sending text messages, checking social media or surfing the web — tasks we have no business doing behind the wheel,” continued Doney. “Automakers should aim to reduce distractions by designing systems that are no more visually or mentally demanding than listening to the radio or an audiobook. And drivers should avoid the temptation to engage with these technologies, especially for non-driving tasks.”
      Researchers developed an advanced rating scale to measure the visual (eyes off road) and cognitive (mental) demands and the time it took to complete a task experienced by drivers using each vehicle’s infotainment system. The scale ranged from low to very high levels of demand. A low level of demand equates to listening to the radio or an audiobook, while very high demand is equivalent to trying to balance a checkbook while driving. AAA believes a safe in-vehicle technology system should not exceed a low level of demand. 
      Researchers found that most infotainment systems tested could easily be made safer by simply following clearly stated federal recommendations such as locking out text messaging, social media and programming navigation while the car is in motion. In 2012, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released a set of voluntary safety guidelines advising automakers to block access to tasks when vehicles are not parked.
      “These are solvable problems. By following NHTSA’s voluntary guidelines to lock out certain features that generate high demand while driving, automakers can significantly reduce distraction,” said Jake Nelson, AAA’s director of Traffic Safety Advocacy & Research. “AAA cautions drivers that just because a technology is available while driving does not mean it is safe or easy to use when behind the wheel. Drivers should only use these technologies for legitimate emergencies or urgent, driving related purposes.”
      A total of 120 drivers ages 21-36 participated in the study of 30 new 2017 model-year vehicles. The latest report is the fifth phase of distraction research from AAA’s Center for Driving Safety and Technology. The Center was created in 2013 with the goal of studying the safety implications for how drivers interact with new vehicle technologies when behind the wheel. Visit AAA.com/distraction to learn more.

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      Infotainment systems are one the banes of the automotive world. From confusing interfaces and controls, to issues with crashing and features not working. Add distracting drivers to this list.
      The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety worked together with researchers at the University of Utah to measure the time it took to complete the task, and the visual and mental demand on the driver. 120 drivers were asked to perform various tasks such as operating the stereo and putting in information for navigation system using all input methods - touchscreen, physical controls, and voice commands. They would do this in 30 different vehicles on a two-mile stretch of road going 25 mph.
      The results are sadly not surprising. On average, it took drivers 24 seconds on average to finish many common tasks. Inputting an address in the navigation system could take more than 40 seconds. At 25 mph, that time is more than enough to travel the length of four football fields.
      “Some in-vehicle technology can create unsafe situations for drivers on the road by increasing the time they spend with their eyes and attention off the road and hands off the wheel. When an in-vehicle technology is not properly designed, simple tasks for drivers can become complicated and require more effort from drivers to complete,” said Dr. David Yang, executive director of the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
      AAA rated the 30 vehicles based on how much demand is put on a driver. None of 30 vehicles scored what AAA considers to be low demand. 11 vehicles scored high while 12 vehicles were rated at very high.
      “Our objective assessment indicates that many of these features are just too distracting to be enabled while the vehicle is in motion. Greater consideration should be given to what [infotainment] features and functions should be available to the driver when the vehicle is in motion rather than to what [infotainment] features and functions could be available to motorists,” the study stated.
      Source: AAA
      Press Release is on Page 2


      New Vehicle Infotainment Systems Create Increased Distractions Behind the Wheel
      AAA Foundation study reveals in-vehicle technology takes one step forward, two steps back WASHINGTON, D.C. (Oct. 5, 2017) – New vehicle infotainment systems take drivers’ eyes and attention off the road and hands off the wheel for potentially dangerous periods of time, according to new research from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. Drivers using in-vehicle technologies like voice-based and touch screen features were visually and mentally distracted for more than 40 seconds when completing tasks like programming navigation or sending a text message. Removing eyes from the road for just two seconds doubles the risk for a crash, according to previous research. With one in three U.S. adults using infotainment systems while driving, AAA cautions that using these technologies while behind the wheel can have dangerous consequences.
      AAA has conducted this new research to help automakers and system designers improve the functionality of new infotainment systems and the demand they place on drivers.
      “Some in-vehicle technology can create unsafe situations for drivers on the road by increasing the time they spend with their eyes and attention off the road and hands off the wheel,” said Dr. David Yang, executive director of the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. “When an in-vehicle technology is not properly designed, simple tasks for drivers can become complicated and require more effort from drivers to complete.”
      The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety commissioned researchers from the University of Utah to examine the visual (eyes off road) and cognitive (mental) demand as well as the time it took drivers to complete a task using the infotainment systems in 30 new 2017 vehicles. Study participants were required to use voice command, touch screen and other interactive technologies to make a call, send a text message, tune the radio or program navigation, all while driving down the road.
      Programming navigation was the most distracting task, taking an average of 40 seconds for drivers to complete. When driving at 25 mph, a driver can travel the length of four football fields during the time it could take to enter a destination in navigation—all while distracted from the important task of driving. Programming navigation while driving was available in 12 of the 30 vehicle systems tested.
      None of the 30 vehicle infotainment systems produced low demand, while 23 systems generated high or very high levels of demand on drivers:
      12 systems generated very high demand 11 systems generated high demand 7 systems generated moderate demand Overall Demand by Vehicle
      Low
      Moderate
      High
      Very High
      N/A Chevrolet Equinox  LT  
      Ford F250 XLT
      Hyundai Santa Fe Sport
      Lincoln MKC Premiere
      Toyota Camry SE
      Toyota Corolla SE
      Toyota Sienna XLE
      Cadillac XT5 Luxury  
      Chevrolet Traverse LT
      Dodge Ram 1500
      Ford Fusion Titanium
      Hyundai Sonata Base
      Infiniti Q50 Premium
      Jeep Compass Sport
      Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited
      Kia Sorento LX
      Nissan Maxima SV
      Toyota Rav 4 XLE
      Audi Q7 QPP  
      Chrysler 300 C
      Dodge Durango GT
      Ford Mustang GT
      GMC Yukon SLT
      Honda Civic Touring
      Honda Ridgeline RTL-E
      Mazda3 Touring
      Nissan Armada SV
      Subaru Crosstrek Premium
      Tesla Model S
      Volvo XC60 T5 Inscription
      “Drivers want technology that is safe and easy to use, but many of the features added to infotainment systems today have resulted in overly complex and sometimes frustrating user experiences for drivers,” said Marshall Doney, AAA’s president and CEO.
      Frustration resulting from unsatisfactory use of these systems increases cognitive demand and increases the potential for distracted driving.
      “AAA has met with interested auto manufacturers and suppliers to discuss our findings. We welcome the opportunity to meet with other interested parties to discuss the report’s recommendations and ways to mitigate driver distraction,” added Doney.
      According to a new AAA public opinion survey, nearly 70 percent of U.S. adults say that they want the new technology in their vehicle, but only 24 percent feel that the technology already works perfectly.
      “Some of the latest systems on the market now include functions unrelated to the core task of driving like sending text messages, checking social media or surfing the web — tasks we have no business doing behind the wheel,” continued Doney. “Automakers should aim to reduce distractions by designing systems that are no more visually or mentally demanding than listening to the radio or an audiobook. And drivers should avoid the temptation to engage with these technologies, especially for non-driving tasks.”
      Researchers developed an advanced rating scale to measure the visual (eyes off road) and cognitive (mental) demands and the time it took to complete a task experienced by drivers using each vehicle’s infotainment system. The scale ranged from low to very high levels of demand. A low level of demand equates to listening to the radio or an audiobook, while very high demand is equivalent to trying to balance a checkbook while driving. AAA believes a safe in-vehicle technology system should not exceed a low level of demand. 
      Researchers found that most infotainment systems tested could easily be made safer by simply following clearly stated federal recommendations such as locking out text messaging, social media and programming navigation while the car is in motion. In 2012, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released a set of voluntary safety guidelines advising automakers to block access to tasks when vehicles are not parked.
      “These are solvable problems. By following NHTSA’s voluntary guidelines to lock out certain features that generate high demand while driving, automakers can significantly reduce distraction,” said Jake Nelson, AAA’s director of Traffic Safety Advocacy & Research. “AAA cautions drivers that just because a technology is available while driving does not mean it is safe or easy to use when behind the wheel. Drivers should only use these technologies for legitimate emergencies or urgent, driving related purposes.”
      A total of 120 drivers ages 21-36 participated in the study of 30 new 2017 model-year vehicles. The latest report is the fifth phase of distraction research from AAA’s Center for Driving Safety and Technology. The Center was created in 2013 with the goal of studying the safety implications for how drivers interact with new vehicle technologies when behind the wheel. Visit AAA.com/distraction to learn more.
    • By William Maley
      Automakers have been trying different technologies and ideas in an effort to boost fuel economy and reduce emissions. On paper, the new technologies do make a difference. But in the real world, it is a completely different matter. 
      Emissions Analytics, an independent U.K.-based company has been investigating what technologies actually make a difference in reducing emissions and fuel consumption. For the past four years, the company has tested over 500 vehicles in the U.S. since 2013 in real-world driving situations. Globally, it has tested over 1,000 vehicles. Next month, the company will be releasing a study showing which of those technologies help and hurt.
      "You can only decide if you have the right information. The EPA sticker is — I would say — good up to a point, but we can give a lot more information," said Nick Molden, Emissions Analytics' founder and CEO.
      Their data shows that over four years of testing in the U.S., there is "no actual improvement in overall fuel economy and no decrease in CO2 emissions," despite new technologies and complex powertrains.
      EA's data also revealed that downsized turbo engines show huge discrepancies between the EPA's findings and the real world. In the lab, the engines aren't put under stress and can produce high fuel economy figures. But it is a different story out in the real world when the turbos are engaged to keep up with traffic and becomes less efficient than a non-turbocharged engine.
      "Downsizing is a good thing up to a point. You go past a certain inflection point and actually you can find that the real-world mpg will actually get worse if you go too small," said Molden.
      "As soon as you start going below 2 liters, that's where we start seeing the gaps open up between EPA sticker and real world."
      The study did deliver some good news for hybrids. EA found traditional hybrid vehicle provided high fuel economy figures and reduced emissions. Other technologies such as multispeed transmissions, adding lightness, and picking the right tires provide a meaningful impact.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      Automakers have been trying different technologies and ideas in an effort to boost fuel economy and reduce emissions. On paper, the new technologies do make a difference. But in the real world, it is a completely different matter. 
      Emissions Analytics, an independent U.K.-based company has been investigating what technologies actually make a difference in reducing emissions and fuel consumption. For the past four years, the company has tested over 500 vehicles in the U.S. since 2013 in real-world driving situations. Globally, it has tested over 1,000 vehicles. Next month, the company will be releasing a study showing which of those technologies help and hurt.
      "You can only decide if you have the right information. The EPA sticker is — I would say — good up to a point, but we can give a lot more information," said Nick Molden, Emissions Analytics' founder and CEO.
      Their data shows that over four years of testing in the U.S., there is "no actual improvement in overall fuel economy and no decrease in CO2 emissions," despite new technologies and complex powertrains.
      EA's data also revealed that downsized turbo engines show huge discrepancies between the EPA's findings and the real world. In the lab, the engines aren't put under stress and can produce high fuel economy figures. But it is a different story out in the real world when the turbos are engaged to keep up with traffic and becomes less efficient than a non-turbocharged engine.
      "Downsizing is a good thing up to a point. You go past a certain inflection point and actually you can find that the real-world mpg will actually get worse if you go too small," said Molden.
      "As soon as you start going below 2 liters, that's where we start seeing the gaps open up between EPA sticker and real world."
      The study did deliver some good news for hybrids. EA found traditional hybrid vehicle provided high fuel economy figures and reduced emissions. Other technologies such as multispeed transmissions, adding lightness, and picking the right tires provide a meaningful impact.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)
    • By William Maley
      J.D. Power has announced the results of their inaugural Tech Experience Index (TXI) Study. The study focused on the experience of owners with a vehicle's technology features such as infotainment and safety during the first 90 days. The good news is the average satisfaction score was 730 out of a possible 1,000 points.
      But owners aren't impressed with their vehicle's navigation system. It earned the lowest average score of 687 in the study. More than half of the owners surveyed said they never even used the system, using the navigation function on their phones. Nearly a third who said they used the navigation system only used it for two weeks before resorting to their phones, citing issues with entering a new destination. Voice commands was also a pain point for many owners as the system didn't understand the commands and have to be repeated multiple times.
      “For any technology in a vehicle, it’s critical that the owners want it, are aware they have it and know how to use it. It is alarming how many technologies consumers have in their vehicle but aren’t using because they don’t know they have them or don’t know how to use them. Both of these knowledge gaps have long-term implications for future demand,” said Kristin Kolodge, executive director of driver interaction & HMI research at J.D. Power.
      On the flipside, owners really like collision avoidance technologies. Such features as a backup camera, blind spot warning, and lane keep assist earned the highest average score in the study of 754. Also, 96 percent of owners who have these safety features in their current vehicle want to have them in their next vehicle.
      Source: J.D. Power
      Press Release is on Page 2


      Safety Technologies Have Highest Satisfaction; Navigation Lags
      DETROIT: 10 Oct. 2016 — BMW and Hyundai each have two models that rank highest in overall customer experience with vehicle technology in their respective segment, according to the J.D. Power 2016 U.S. Tech Experience Index (TXI) Study,SM released today.
      The inaugural study measures a vehicle owner’s experiences, usage and interaction with driver-centric vehicle technology at 90 days of ownership. The major technology categories analyzed in the study include collision protection; comfort and convenience; driving assistance; entertainment and connectivity; navigation; and smartphone mirroring.
      BMW models that rank highest in their segment1  are the 2 Series (small premium segment) and 4 Series (compact premium segment), while the Hyundai models that rank highest are the Genesis (midsize premium segment) and Tucson (small segment). Model-level rankings and awards include 2016 model-year vehicles that were all new or redesigned within the past three years.
      Other models that rank highest in their segment are the Chevrolet Camaro (midsize segment); Kia Forte (compact segment); and Nissan Maxima (large segment).
      Safety Technologies Reign
      Among the vast array of technologies available in new vehicles, those that assist with collision avoidance have the highest usage and the highest overall satisfaction. Additionally, they are the technologies owners most want in their next vehicle, according to the study.
      Collision avoidance technologies—such as blind spot warning and detection, lane-keeping/centering and back-up camera/warning systems—are collectively part of the collision protection category, which has the highest overall satisfaction among the five groups of technologies included in the study index scores, with a score of 754 on a 1,000-point scale. In contrast, owners are least satisfied with their navigation systems (687).
      “For any technology in a vehicle, it’s critical that the owners want it, are aware they have it and know how to use it,” said Kristin Kolodge, executive director of driver interaction & HMI research at J.D. Power. “It is alarming how many technologies consumers have in their vehicle but aren’t using because they don’t know they have them or don’t know how to use them. Both of these knowledge gaps have long-term implications for future demand.”
      Back-up camera/warning and blind spot warning and detection are the most often used technologies, with at least three-fourths of owners saying they use the technology every time they drive. Additionally, they are the most in-demand technologies, with 96% of current owners of the technologies saying they want each of the features in their next car.
      Other industries beyond automotive are keeping a close eye on in-vehicle technologies. For example, the insurance industry is closely tracking the use of safety-related technologies that, while potentially increasing claims costs when a vehicle is damaged, also help prevent or mitigate collisions and protect occupants when there is an accident. Auto insurers have been slow to add discounts for newer safe driver technologies, but that is beginning to change. Liberty Mutual Insurance offers a vehicle safety discount for teens driving a vehicle equipped with safety features, such as a lane departure warning system; adaptive cruise control; and collision preparation systems.2
      “As auto insurers begin to offer discounts for vehicle safety features, this may help raise consumer awareness that they actually have these technologies and the knowledge to use them properly,” said Jessica McGregor, director of the insurance practice at J.D. Power.
      The Role of the Dealer
      Even if owners are aware they have an in-vehicle technology doesn’t mean they will use it.
      Among owners who say they never use a specific technology, 39% indicate they bring another device into their vehicle to replace certain technologies that are already present. Of those who bring in another device, navigation is the feature most often replaced. Furthermore, 57% of owners who bring in another device say they never used the in-vehicle equipment before bringing this outside device into the car to replace the vehicle’s features. Of the 43% who have used it, 56% stop using it within the first month.  
      “The dealer plays a critical role in whether or not a technology is used,” said Kolodge. “When the dealer takes the time to explain the technology or provide a demonstration, it not only makes the owner aware they have the technology, but also helps them understand how to use it, which means they are more likely to use it, continue to use it and, because they see the value, want it in their next vehicle.”
      Among owners who learn how to operate the technologies from their dealer, overall satisfaction is 25-54 points higher, compared with those who learn how to operate the technologies from another source or from prior experience. Technologies that owners say are difficult to use (DTU) put a strain on satisfaction.  Across all technologies, there is an average 98-point drop in satisfaction when owners have DTU issues.
      DTU problems not only deteriorate satisfaction, but they also affect the vehicle’s quality. Even though it may operate as intended, when a technology is difficult for an owner to use or understand, it is likely to be considered a quality issue. For example, navigation system difficult to use/poor location is the sixth most common problem in the J.D. Power 2016 U.S. Initial Quality StudySM (IQS). Owners who learn how to use their navigation system from the dealer report 2.0 problems per 100 vehicles (PP100) fewer navigation DTU problems than those who do not get a dealer explanation.
      “By taking the time to show the technology to the new owner, the dealer can mitigate DTU issues, improving both satisfaction and quality,” said Kolodge. “The navigation system is just one area. If the dealer explains all or many of the technologies to the new owner, it can have a dramatic positive effect on the ownership experience.” 
      Gap between Premium and Non-Premium Is Narrow 
      Overall owner satisfaction with new-vehicle technology averages 730. Satisfaction among premium vehicle owners is slightly higher at 734, compared with 730 among non-premium owners.
      Overall satisfaction varies greatly by segment. Satisfaction is highest in the large segment (755), followed by the small premium segment (735); compact premium segment (732); midsize premium segment (731); compact segment (727); midsize segment (725); and the small segment (706).
      “It’s not just how much technology you have in the vehicle, but how well it’s delivered,” said Kolodge. “The technology’s usability and how well it is integrated into the vehicle are critical—that has to be done right.”
      The 2016 U.S. Tech Experience Index (TXI) Study is based on a survey of 17,864 vehicle owners and lessees. Awards are based solely on responses from the 13,269 consumers who purchased or leased a new 2016 model-year vehicle in the previous 90 days that has been considered an all-new or redesigned vehicle within in the past three years. The study was fielded from February through August 2016.
  • My Clubs

  • Who's Online (See full list)