What are your biggest annoyances with cars?

[mikeavelli]

The biggest annoyance to me are the geniuses that figure at the last minute "oh no we need a USB slot"! On most cars they are in ridiculous spots on center consoles where you have to be Mr. fantastic to get your cord to plug in.

When I used to drive the company Q50 for example it was a major PITA to find and plug something into the USB port. I used to hate taking it out since I knew how annoying it would be to put it back in.

Not to mention the infotainment on that car was a disaster. From my understanding they never resolved many of the issues and got apps working.

 

[mmcartalk]

Seat needs to be lower. I'm fairly a tall guy (6'4") and I want to sit lower in my ride. I can't see red lights when stopped at the stop line.

That's not necessarily just a seat-adjustment problem. The design and mounting of the windshield can also contribute to that.

 

[CIF]

Awesome points guys .

I totally agree on the USB and aux input problem Lexfather; that's an ergonomic issue that many automakers ignore.

Also agreed on the issue of seat height, and interior headroom space for taller people. With certain brands, this can be a real problem. I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but yet another reason I appreciate Toyota and Lexus models. I'm 6'3" myself, and even in a Toyota Corolla, I can get a comfortable seating position with comfortable headroom . Meanwhile with other brands, I face a real struggle in terms of headroom and getting a good seating position.

 

[mmcartalk]

even in a Toyota Corolla, I can get a comfortable seating position with comfortable headroom . Meanwhile with other brands, I face a real struggle in terms of headroom and getting a good seating position.

I take it, then, that you mean a Corolla without a sunroof. In many vehicles, all else equal, a sunroof's housing compromises headroom by an average inch to an inch and a half. This is usually more critical in the rear seat than up front, because the rear seat has fewer if any adjustments...up front, you can usually lower the bottom seat cushion and/or rake the setback angle to compensate, though you don't want to recline the setback angle too much, or it compromises the effectiveness of the seat-belt restraint and also that of the head-rest in a rear-impact collision.

 

[CIF]

I take it, then, that you mean a Corolla without a sunroof. In many vehicles, all else equal, a sunroof's housing compromises headroom by an average inch to an inch and a half. This is usually more critical in the rear seat than up front, because the rear seat has fewer if any adjustments...up front, you can usually lower the bottom seat cushion and/or rake the setback angle to compensate, though you don't want to recline the setback angle too much, or it compromises the effectiveness of the seat-belt restraint and also that of the head-rest in a rear-impact collision.

You're right, I did mean a Corolla without a sunroof . For the most part, I'm not a big fan of sunroofs. I prefer the sun entering through windows, rather than from above via a sunroof. Also as you pointed out, sunroofs do decrease headroom. So for me, lack of a sunroof is a win-win situation.

 

[mmcartalk]

You're right, I did mean a Corolla without a sunroof . For the most part, I'm not a big fan of sunroofs. I prefer the sun entering through windows, rather than from above via a sunroof. Also as you pointed out, sunroofs do decrease headroom. So for me, lack of a sunroof is a win-win situation.

Yep.....sunroofs let in not only fresh air and sun, but also noise, dust, pollen (for allergy sufferers), pollution, vehicle exhausts, insects, bird droppings, and potential rattles/creaks/leaks. Of course, some people like the fun of partial (sunroof) or complete open-air (convertible) driving.....and I certainly respect their opinions. I enjoy it myself once in a while (such as when I'm test-driving or reviewing a convertible), but it's not something I'd want to do regularly.

 

[CIF]

Yep.....sunroofs let in not only fresh air and sun, but also noise, dust, pollen (for allergy sufferers), pollution, vehicle exhausts, insects, bird droppings, and potential rattles/creaks/leaks. Of course, some people like the fun of partial (sunroof) or complete open-air (convertible) driving.....and I certainly respect their opinions. I enjoy it myself once in a while (such as when I'm test-driving or reviewing a convertible), but it's not something I'd want to do regularly.

I've recently heard about some serious horror stories about sunroofs on various Audi models, all of them fairly recent, starting around model years 2011 and up.

 

[Och]

I've recently heard about some serious horror stories about sunroofs on various Audi models, all of them fairly recent, starting around model years 2011 and up.

I've heard horror stories about audi sunroofs since the 90ies. A coworker of mine back in early 2000's had an A4 (I believe it was 98ish) and his sunroof would open all by itself whenever it rained.

 

[mmcartalk]

I've heard horror stories about audi sunroofs since the 90ies. A coworker of mine back in early 2000's had an A4 (I believe it was 98ish) and his sunroof would open all by itself whenever it rained.

It wasn't very long ago when German automotive electronics were the very definition of a horror story.......though probably not as bad as the infamous British Lucas systems of decades ago.

 

[CIF]

I've heard horror stories about audi sunroofs since the 90ies. A coworker of mine back in early 2000's had an A4 (I believe it was 98ish) and his sunroof would open all by itself whenever it rained.

Wow, so it looks like Audi sunroof issues are highly systemic then.

It wasn't very long ago when German automotive electronics were the very definition of a horror story.......though probably not as bad as the infamous British Lucas systems of decades ago.

Well not just electronics in this case unfortunately. Aside from the horror stories where Audi sunroofs open or don't close by themselves or do other weird things, the horror stories of the recent 2011 and up models I heard about involve a lot of mechanical and structural issues as well. Lots of stories of sunroofs leaking water while a vehicle was parked outside overnight, or other stories of a vehicle actually leaking through the sunroof during rain. These unfortunately aren't electronic issues; these are seal/fitment and structural/design problems with the sunroofs themselves.

The Germans have not shaken off the reputation of horrible electronics, but more troublesome I think are the increasing horror stories of mechanical problems on German cars as well. All these various stories of sunroof leaks on recent Audi models, all the horror stories that continue to appear about modern BMWs and fuel pump, injector, and other related issues.

So the reputation the German brands had for a long time of excellent mechanical parts no longer holds true it seems. Unreliable electronics, combined with increasingly unreliable mechanical parts makes the German Big 3 even more questionable buys IMHO. Sure one can always lease, but I'm not a big fan of leasing.

 

[Och]

The Germans have not shaken off the reputation of horrible electronics, but more troublesome I think are the increasing horror stories of mechanical problems on German cars as well. All these various stories of sunroof leaks on recent Audi models, all the horror stories that continue to appear about modern BMWs and fuel pump, injector, and other related issues.

Its not just the Germans - with all the manufacturers trying to squeeze the very last drop of fuel economy, they have to get ridiculous with absurdly high pressure direct injection fuel delivery systems. These components by design won't last as long as traditional EFI systems, but they also add even more problems, such as carbonization and high temperatures - which in turn lead to more and more problems. Days of bulletproof engines like the 3UZ-FE are gone (for better or worse) and I pity the fool that buys an out of warranty vehicle with one of these turbo charged direct injected engines.

 

[CIF]

Its not just the Germans - with all the manufacturers trying to squeeze the very last drop of fuel economy, they have to get ridiculous with absurdly high pressure direct injection fuel delivery systems. These components by design won't last as long as traditional EFI systems, but they also add even more problems, such as carbonization and high temperatures - which in turn lead to more and more problems. Days of bulletproof engines like the 3UZ-FE are gone (for better or worse) and I pity the fool that buys an out of warranty vehicle with one of these turbo charged direct injected engines.

So far most of the horror stories seem to be coming from the German makers. I agree with your thought process, but I'm not sure that applies to the Japanese as much; specifically I doubt it will apply much to Toyota. With regards to carbonization, Toyota already solved that years ago with their D4-S, and most recently their updated D4-ST system for their turbo engines. It uses both port and direct injectors together, giving a flexible range of power, torque, and fuel economy. Not only that, importantly it improves reliability because the port injectors prevent carbonization. I'm also quite confident the reason Toyota took so much time releasing a modern direct injected turbo engine for Lexus was to thoroughly design a reliable powertrain. Toyota was the first (and still one of the only) automaker to solve the carbonization problem with gasoline direct injection systems.

Toyota may not often be first adopting trends and certain technologies, but they are usually very reliable. Historically, Toyota has often bucked the trends so to speak. I remember in the 90s when turbo engines were a hassle and had various issues and problems. Then Toyota came out with the famous 2JZ-GTE in the Mark 4 Supra (and other models). In doing so Toyota came up with a bulletproof turbo engine. Now yes the modern engines are quite different than the 2JZ, but there's no reason that Toyota can't buck the trends again, so to speak.

 

[Och]

So far most of the horror stories seem to be coming from the German makers. I agree with your thought process, but I'm not sure that applies to the Japanese as much; specifically I doubt it will apply much to Toyota. With regards to carbonization, Toyota already solved that years ago with their D4-S, and most recently their updated D4-ST system for their turbo engines. It uses both port and direct injectors together, giving a flexible range of power, torque, and fuel economy. Not only that, importantly it improves reliability because the port injectors prevent carbonization. I'm also quite confident the reason Toyota took so much time releasing a modern direct injected turbo engine for Lexus was to thoroughly design a reliable powertrain. Toyota was the first (and still one of the only) automaker to solve the carbonization problem with gasoline direct injection systems.

Toyota may not often be first adopting trends and certain technologies, but they are usually very reliable. Historically, Toyota has often bucked the trends so to speak. I remember in the 90s when turbo engines were a hassle and had various issues and problems. Then Toyota came out with the famous 2JZ-GTE in the Mark 4 Supra (and other models). In doing so Toyota came up with a bulletproof turbo engine. Now yes the modern engines are quite different than the 2JZ, but there's no reason that Toyota can't buck the trends again, so to speak.

I'm well aware of Toyota's dual injection tech, thats been around since the 2GR-FSE engine has launched, and its somewhat a solution against carbonization, but it also carries twice the components so there is more stuff to break. And it's still got the direct injection, which is always suspect to being vunerable. And with manufacturers upping engine compression along with direct injection pressure, these components are just not going to last.

 

[mmcartalk]

Its not just the Germans - with all the manufacturers trying to squeeze the very last drop of fuel economy, they have to get ridiculous with absurdly high pressure direct injection fuel delivery systems.

Those ultra-high-pressure injection systems, though adapted to gas engines, were originally developed for modern diesel engines, so the air-fuel mixture could be precisely regulated and injected into the cylinders against the forces generated by the extremely high 20: 1 diesel compression ratios. In a diesel engine (although most of you probably know this already), the firing is set off by the heat of compression itself, not a spark plug, although glow-plugs are sometimes used for initial firing on start-up.

 

[IS-SV]

And what is the topic here, Oh yes...

And Toyota/Lexus DI systems themselves are hardly annoying or unreliable, many of these engines have 100-200K + miles without DI failures. I'm well aware of the reliability of these DI engines. Nav screen or water pumps are more prone to failure (yes that's annoying if and when that happens) on high mileage Lexus IS's.

 

[mmcartalk]

I remember in the 90s when turbo engines were a hassle and had various issues and problems. Then Toyota came out with the famous 2JZ-GTE in the Mark 4 Supra (and other models). In doing so Toyota came up with a bulletproof turbo engine. Now yes the modern engines are quite different than the 2JZ, but there's no reason that Toyota can't buck the trends again, so to speak.

Yep, decades ago, turbo engines could be annoying in several ways.....including their tendency to cook the lubricating oil from extreme temperatures, forming carbon/coke particles, which then circulated in the oil system and jammed up oil passages, causing components to seize. You had to start and warm them up slowly, especially in the winter, so that the impeller/compressor-shaft did not spin too rapidly before the oil warmed up. After a hard run and/or with the engine hot, you usually had to idle the engine a minute or two before ignition cutoff, so that the shaft, spinning as fast as 100,000 RPM, could slow down and/or stop before the engine's oil pressure was cut off with the ignition. A number of engineering features helped address these problems, including better-lubricating and/or all-synthetic oils that resisted carbonization, wastegates to bleed off excess turbo pressure and heat, liquid-cooled turbo-housings where the engine's coolant, circulating at about 200 degrees or so, helped keep the turbo temperatures down, and better metal alloys and other heat-resistant materials for the turbo components themselves.

 

[Och]

Those ultra-high-pressure injection systems, though adapted to gas engines, were originally developed for modern diesel engines, so the air-fuel mixture could be precisely regulated and injected into the cylinders against the forces generated by the extremely high 20: 1 diesel compression ratios. In a diesel engine (although most of you probably know this already), the firing is set off by the heat of compression itself, not a spark plug, although glow-plugs are sometimes used for initial firing on start-up.

I don't know if you're aware of this, but with diesel engines air to fuel ratio does not matter. With diesel engines there is not throttle plate, its speed is regulated by how much fuel you supply. So in essence with diesels you can not have a mixture that is lean - the engine will just run slower. Of course if you supply more fuel than can be burned, you will get poor fuel economy, lot of unburned fuel and lot of smoke, but the engine will still run just fine. This was often the case with traditional diesels there weren't direct injected, and often were naturally aspirated, and used mechanical fuel pumps.

With modern direct injected diesels they regulate the mixture with high pressure turbos and high pressure injection systems. On my relatively old Ford 6.0 powerstroke diesel, the 26,000psi electro hydraulic injectors were able to keep the truck running (albeit poorly) even after the fuel pump failed - they produced enough suction to pull fuel from the tank and pump it into the engine. My new MB sprinter van uses new piezo injectors that are injecting several times per piston stroke to keep down the noise. It generated very little noise (can hardly tell its a diesel), no smoke (but it does produce ammonia smell from the exhaust) and gets about 50% better fuel economy than the Ford, and the Ford's fuel economy was pretty good for a full size van to begin with. Newer diesels from Ford are also using piezo injectors that are operating at 30,000 psi.

And while I welcome the increased fuel economy, the increased maintenance and repair expenses easily offset it. Plus there is the higher initial cost. But at least with diesels the fuel saving is real, while I can't necessary say the same for gasoline engines with these high pressure direct injection fuel systems. One of my cars already had all injectors replaced under warranty with just 17k miles. Don't get me wrong, they are great when they are new and working as prescribed, but I don't trust them to last long term. When we are talking 30,000 psi - Toyota or not, they will eventually fail and cost a fortune in repairs.

 

[IS-SV]

One of my cars already had all injectors replaced under warranty with just 17k miles. Don't get me wrong, they are great when they are new and working as prescribed, but I don't trust them to last long term.

Bummer, yes that would be very disappointing. What car/engine had all injectors replaced at 17K?

 

[Och]

Bummer, yes that would be very disappointing. What car/engine had all injectors replaced at 17K?

N63 engine in X5. There is a recall going on (BMW calls it customer care package instead of recall). Mine was constantly running in reduced power mode during the weeks prior to having this repair done, getting progressively worse day by day.

 

[mmcartalk]

One of my cars already had all injectors replaced under warranty with just 17k miles. Don't get me wrong, they are great when they are new and working as prescribed, but I don't trust them to last long term. When we are talking 30,000 psi - Toyota or not, they will eventually fail and cost a fortune in repairs.

Did the injectors themselves actually fail and have to be replaced, or were they just gummed up with carbon deposits and other crap from using cheap cut-rate gas brands without proper detergent additives? Some gas can have enough octane for ping/knock resistance, yet still gum the engine and fuel system up from lack of proper additives. In general, though most national-name brands have an adequate deterrent package in them, Shell and Chevron, from whatI've seen, are generally considered to be the best.