comment: >
context: Digital speedometer, or simply giving a digital MPH is so dumb in comparison to a speedometer. The shitty part is, I can't even explain why. It just is.
  
  because you can easily interpret "rate of change" by observing how quickly a needle sweeps across a speedometer. an analog speedometer shows you speed (direclty) and acceleration (indirectly).
  it's much more difficult to interpret acceleration by trying to tell how quickly numbers are changing.
  i also find digital speedometers highly distracting. i drove my dad's car once and whenever i was rolling at slow speed the speedometer would change from double digits (10mph and above) to single digits (9mph and below). and that change from single-to-double digits was so obvious that it distracted me. every time the speed changed it drew my attention away from the road and onto the screen because it was changing from one to two numbers (or vice versa)
  i'm with you though. most technology in cars is just fluff that is used to pad the sales price. cars don't need to cost $50,000 they could easily cost significantly less if they ditched half the computers.
  another story:
  i drove a 2005 and i loved it. it got too old, so i replaced it with a 2008. it's the same car, but 3 years later and it has "fly by wire" controls meaning that when i turn the steering wheel i'm not actually turning a crank that turns a pinion that moves a rack back and forth. it means when i turn the steering wheel i am sending inputs to a computer, the computer interprets those inputs, and then applies power to the turning mechanism based on my inputs.
  it's so fucking stupid.
  i can feel the delay between when i turn my wheel or press my gas and when the car responds. there is latency. there is lag. it's under 1 second, but i can feel it.
  my last car, you could breathe on the gas pedal and feel the (subtle) response from the engine. it was instant.
  this new car, you press the pedal and it takes a half-second for the engine to respond to the command. >
  
  Facts. >
  
  Honestly, I love riding my motorcycle, which doesn't even have a gas gauge. >
  
  haha you'd hate mine then. Digital speedo, sat nav, phone connexion & music into your helmet, heated front and rear seats & grips... even has a fuel gauge!! >
  
  I ride my bike to escape from all that stuff. >
  
  Fair enough, i get that. >
  
  As far as I'm concerned, if you can't tune a car with two wires and a 12vdc light bulb, it's too new. >
  
  I'm fully adamant that the years 1995 - 2013 are the perfect balance of technology and actual driving experience. This obviously depends on the make / model and options, but generally speaking I think this nearly 20 year period is the best.
  I know nearly 20 years is a pretty wide gap, but there are a few main things that stick out to me post 2013 which is why thats my cutoff date. My three main things are even among "manuals" the popularity spike in paddle shifters, switching from hydraulic power steering to electric, and an electric accelerator. 
  There are plenty of cars in 95-2013 that offer things like heated seats, electric mirror control, etc etc, or you can add stuff like navigation and various quality of life integrations pretty cost effectively. But when cars started moving towards electronic mechanisms for a lot of their internals you lost a huge amount of synergy with a vehicle. You simply don't get the same haptic feedback from a vehicle with electronic systems than mechanical or hydraulic ones.
  I have a 02 WRX, a 95 Volvo, and an 06 Forester. I previously owned a 85 BMW 325i and BMW 525i, 65 Mustang convertible, a 74 Datsun with a LS swap and a 90 Toyota Ranger.
  I would prefer to drive any of those any day of the week over a super modern car. They are simply better to drive, and if you're a halfway decent driver give more thrills than any modern car. I've personally seen a number of accidents caused by people who depend on the safety features of modern vehicles to save them from easily avoidable accidents. >
  
  My first vehicle was a 1997 truck. Then I got a 2016 car with a back up camera and all sorts of computerized shit. For the first few years I thought it was the coolest. Now I realize it’s just more shit that can go wrong and needs to be fixed. Now I miss my 1997 truck. >
  
  not only can it go wrong, not only will it need to be fixed, but it will be impossible or damn-near impossible for you to do it yourself. it will almost certainly require you to take it into a dealership to replace those parts. >
  
  Personally, I prefer digital speedometers and the e-brake button. I love HUD displays. >
  
  was watching Bloomberg the other day, interview with GM CEO (I think?) she said "cars and trucks are really just software platforms" SMDH >
  
  Are there any companies making tech free/reduced technology vehicles or do you just have to buy a classic car these days? I mean I’d think there would be a market for vehicles that are “simple” to work on especially if they had some of the main safety features still intact. >
  
  There’s definitely a market, but unfortunately 1. that’s not where dealerships make their money and 2. Would not align with their push for electric ambitions. >
  
  Cars are also getting heavier and heavier, I hate it. Digital speed gauges are cool though, I like those. >
  
  I agree with the premise, but not the examples. For me the real shitty "improvements" are the auto wipers. I've driven cars with these things for over a decade and have never once had them work as well as just flicking a switch myself. Also, modern parking sensors are terrible to the point of being unhelpful. My car has old fashioned sensors that beep if you're about to hit something. My gf's car detects things moving around it, which sounds great in theory but I really don't need to know about the car 30 metres from us and hearing away. Equally, I've no need to know that the side of the car was briefly close to a fence about 10 seconds after I've cleared the obstacle. They're rubbish and better off without them. >
  
  Sorry, gotta downvote. I agree with you so fucking hard just thinking about it riles me up.
  Not because of the things you say, but because I really don't fucking think computer on wheels make for a good car. >
  
  i'll be honest i have to troubleshoot my tech and computers way more than my car these days >
  
  The first point is actually popular, because most of the newer cars stopped doing that, they still do analog speed and rpm meters. The digital one is already out of trend, nobody wants it. >
  
  i think this is the first sane thing i've seen on reddit all day >
  
  The worst part about replacing the E brake with a button is that it is engaged by an actuator and the car can say NONONO, which makes it very difficult to impress the ladies >
  
  As someone who has only ever driven a car with a digital speedometer: I love it. I can just glance down every now and again and check if/how much I’m speeding. It allows me to focus on not crashing the massive object I am operating while trying to not get a ticket. >
  
  How old are you where you've only ever driven a car with a digital MPH? 
  Please don't call it a speedometer. That's an insult to speedometers lol >
  
  I tend to agree. I just like what I'm used to, lol. I do like the fact that my car has Bluetooth and can make and accept phone calls/texts, and has automatic lights, but that's the extent of the upgrades I really care for. There's also the fact that the more bells and whistles a car has, the more there is to break/go wrong (same with appliances). I like some modern features, but tend to prefer simple most of the time.