Key Takeaways
- Staff overwhelmingly value driver‑assist tools that reduce fatigue on long trips, especially adaptive cruise control, lane‑keep assist, and GM’s Super Cruise, provided the system feels natural and not overly intrusive.
- Seamless smartphone integration (wireless Apple CarPlay/Android Auto) and useful camera systems (360‑degree view, backup camera) are repeatedly cited as quality‑of‑life upgrades.
- Older mechanical innovations—radial tires and four‑wheel ABS—still earn respect for the safety and confidence they delivered when first introduced.
- Frustrations center on features that feel gimmicky or profit‑driven: subscription‑based services, motorized door handles on non‑luxury models, oversized glass roofs without adequate shading, and touchscreens that replace tactile buttons.
- Privacy concerns, aggressive lane‑keeping interventions, poorly tuned hybrid power‑train software, glaring headlights, and hard‑to‑close automatic rear hatches round out the list of technologies many drivers would rather do without.
Overview of Hagerty Media’s Two‑Cents Survey
Hagerty Media invited its editors and contributors to share what modern automotive technology they appreciate and what they do not. The responses, collected from a diverse group of drivers who regularly test a wide range of vehicles, reveal a clear pattern: genuine utility and driver‑centric design win praise, while perceived gimmicks, privacy intrusions, or forced‑subscription models draw criticism. By presenting both sides, the survey offers a nuanced snapshot of how enthusiasts balance innovation with the core pleasure of driving.
Appreciated Driver‑Assist Technologies
Several writers highlighted adaptive cruise control as a game‑changer for highway commutes, noting that it lessens fatigue without demanding constant attention. Lane‑keep assist received similar praise when it functioned subtly, helping maintain lane position during long, monotonous stretches. Sajeev Mehta singled out GM’s Super Cruise, describing how allowing the car to handle steering while he scanned the surroundings made Houston traffic feel less soul‑sucking. Eddy Eckart echoed the sentiment, welcoming the extra safety net on interstate drives, provided the system remained unobtrusive and did not tempt overreliance.
Infotainment and Connectivity Wins
Wireless smartphone integration emerged as a consistent favorite. Contributors lauded Apple CarPlay and Android Auto when they operated without cables and could be controlled via familiar knobs or buttons—Mazda’s central control knob was cited as an ideal example. The convenience of having music, navigation, and messaging consolidated on one screen outweighed the clunkier, manufacturer‑specific interfaces many had previously endured. Additionally, 360‑degree camera systems earned acclaim for eliminating parking guesswork, while backup cameras were praised for simplifying trailer hitching and everyday reversing maneuvers.
Legacy Mechanical Innovations Still Valued
A nostalgic thread ran through the responses, with Steven Cole Smith recalling the first time he experienced radial tires on a rainy hill and realizing their superior grip prevented a dangerous slide. He also praised the evolution of antilock braking systems, noting how early rear‑only ABS on his Ford pickup gave way to confident four‑wheel ABS in the ’90 Chevrolet Caprice—a change that, after an instructional VHS, eliminated panic‑brake misinterpretations among police officers. These anecdotes underscore that even “old” technologies retain relevance when they deliver tangible safety benefits.
Convenient Auxiliary Features
Beyond the headline assists, several smaller conveniences drew approval. James Hewitt appreciated speed‑limit sign recognition that updated the dashboard in real time, helping him stay aware of changing limits without distraction. Greg Ingold highlighted the utility of a backup camera when hitching a trailer, noting the elimination of a spotter or repeated exits from the truck. Such features, though modest, were celebrated for solving everyday pain points without adding complexity.
Pain Points: Subscription‑Based Features
A recurring irritation was the shift toward locking useful functions behind monthly fees. Greg Ingold described his frustration with OnStar’s remote start, door‑lock control, and vehicle monitoring, which required a $15‑plus monthly subscription after a free trial expired. He felt it was “icky” to pay extra for capabilities that should be standard on a purchased vehicle, and he noted that many GM dealers observed low retention once the trial ended. The sentiment was clear: drivers resist paying repeatedly for features that feel integral to the car’s core utility.
Privacy Concerns and Data Collection
Closely tied to the subscription critique was unease about data harvesting. Eddy Eckart expressed discomfort with the idea that his driving habits and location could be monitored, even if he had nothing to hide. Others echoed worries about manufacturers potentially misusing telematics data or sharing it with third parties. The consensus was that while data can improve services, transparency and opt‑out mechanisms are essential to maintain trust.
Aggressive Lane‑Keeping Assist Implementations
Several contributors warned that not all lane‑keeping systems are created equal. James Hewitt described the Mercedes Sprinter’s lane‑keeping assist as “more dangerous than helpful,” noting that a slight drift triggered abrupt, one‑sided braking that jerked the van back into line—a maneuver that felt startling at highway speeds. Chris Stark recounted instances where aggressive lane‑keep swerved him into oncoming traffic or obstacles, reinforcing the view that such tech should assist, not overpower, the driver’s intentions.
Design Gimmicks That Miss the Mark
Motorized door handles and expansive glass roofs were singled out as unnecessary flourishes. Sajeev Mehta dismissed motorized handles on vehicles like the Hyundai Ioniq, arguing that the novelty evaporates when every model adopts it, turning a luxury touchpoint into a bland standard. He also criticized huge panoramic roofs lacking effective shades, likening the inadequate “fishing net” cover to a useless accessory in summer heat. These features, while visually striking, were viewed as solving non‑existent problems at the expense of practicality and cost.
User‑Interface Frustrations: Touchscreens vs. Physical Buttons
A strong preference for tactile controls surfaced repeatedly. Ben Woodworth lamented the replacement of physical buttons with touchscreens, arguing that flat panels increase driver distraction and reduce reliability, especially when gloves or moisture interfere with responsiveness. Chris Stark echoed this, favoring systems where music and navigation could be adjusted via knobs or stalks rather than navigating menus. The underlying message was clear: infotainment should enhance, not hinder, the driving experience by keeping essential functions within immediate reach.
Hybrid Powertrain Programming Quirks
Hybrid technology also drew criticism for its software logic. Chris Stark described “atrocious” driving experiences where the vehicle hesitated to decide between gasoline and electric power, forcing the driver to mash the accelerator while the system seemingly solved a complex optimization problem in the background. The resulting lag and unpredictable power delivery undermined the promised efficiency benefits, leaving drivers feeling that the technology was more frustrating than helpful.
Automatic Rear Hatch and Headlight Glare Issues
Additional annoyances included automatic rear hatches that could not be shut quickly by hand and headlights that produced excessive glare. Ben Woodworth noted that power‑operated hatches sometimes lingered open, preventing a swift, manual close when needed—an inconvenience when loading or unloading cargo. Several writers complained that modern high‑intensity headlights, while improving night vision, could blind oncoming drivers or reflect off rain‑slick surfaces, creating hazardous situations that offset their intended safety gains.
Reluctance Toward Fully Hands‑Free Steering
Finally, a number of contributors confessed they simply preferred to keep their hands on the wheel. Steven Cole Smith stated that he had never found holding the steering wheel and watching the road to be a hardship, and that the urge to intervene remained strong even when systems like hands‑free steering were available. This sentiment reinforced a broader theme: technology is most welcome when it supports the driver rather than seeks to replace the fundamental act of driving.
Conclusion: Balancing Innovation with Driver Preference
The Hagerty Media “Two‑Cents” feedback paints a picture of drivers who embrace innovation that genuinely eases fatigue, improves safety, or adds concrete convenience—think adaptive cruise, seamless smartphone integration, and useful camera systems. At the same time, they resist features that feel like marketing ploys, compromise privacy, or disrupt the tactile, engaged experience of driving. The overarching lesson for automakers is clear: prioritize usefulness, transparency, and driver‑centric design, and the technology will be welcomed; overreach into gimmickry or data‑harvesting will quickly erode goodwill.