Here it is in the Saab 9-3:


They only look like plastic knives because you're close enough to see them from the side. Your eyes are playing tricks on you.

Jesda wrote:Come on, man. Be real.

AZhitman wrote:

Jesda wrote:Come on, man. Be real.

To be fair, not everyone views their dashboard gauges from eye level. So, if below is your driving position, (seems appropriate for old Cadillac/Saab drivers ) perhaps you would not see the difference in needle shape.

I also think there have been far worse dashes than what's on a 200. The designers are simply trying to style it to appear new/fresh. I'm sure many of us enthusiasts would prefer a complete set of simple traditional Veglia (think old 1950s- 1960's Ferrari) or Smith's (think 1950s-1960's old Jeeeeeaaaag) analog gauges than most of the modern, gimmicky, overstyled video game looking dashes being excrete..er made by Detroit.

I would scoff at a random floor mat looking thing with the Yokohama skyline and Mr. K's signature on it being stored in the glovebox of a Versa too.

But yeah, I certainly hate the 200 for its god awful engine and transmission most of all. The other bits are just icing on the cake.

PapaSmurf2k3 wrote:I would scoff at a random floor mat looking thing with the Yokohama skyline and Mr. K's signature on it being stored in the glovebox of a Versa too.

I'd swipe it from a rental as a souvenir.

I'd steal the WPC signature map from a rental 200 too.

Bubba1 wrote:To be fair, not everyone views their dashboard gauges from eye level. So, if below is your driving position, (seems appropriate for old Cadillac/Saab drivers ) perhaps you would not see the difference in needle shape.

You'd have to have your seat fully forward with your face in the dash, or swapping/upgrading a cluster and inspecting it.

I can't believe you guys never knew that most needles were shaped this way. NOW you have be real, because I think you bozos are pulling my leg.

Sample:

Jesda wrote:UConnect is quick, clean, and functional. There's a reason why it's good enough for six-figure exotics. It's faster and more intuitive than iDrive, MMI, COMAND, MFT/LFT, and CUE (not that any of those are that great).

You touch the object. It does its thing. There honestly isn't much difference between the Settings menus of an iOS/Android device or the settings of the 8.4 UConnect system. It's quick because it's built on top of a QNX core. If you remember back in the 90s, QNX was the only full-featured multitasking OS with a GUI and graphical browser (and web server!) that could be booted and run off a floppy. It was possible because instead of one fat OS gorging itself on resources all at once regardless of whether the system was idle, it was designed to run as a set of servers that were deployed individually as needed, on demand, in real time.

CUE and anything Ford are all terrible (doesn't help that Ford has multiple generations of wholly different systems with the same names).

I'm not talking about the architecture or even the underlying mechanical functionality, though. I'm talking about something MUCH simpler, but much easier to screw up: GUI/UX. I feel like all the current infotainment systems suffer the same issues that early Android did. Menu settings are all over the place, hidden in obtusely-labeled, unnecessarily-nested menu trees. You can't view multiple types of critical information at once. On the lower end model I rented, I could view media info OR vehicle info OR HVAC info but not all 3 at once--on a fully dynamic display, not some liquid-crystal 7-segment readout. Changing the HVAC blower mode (feet, dash, etc.) took multiple button presses buried under touchscreen layers, after pressing the correct physical "mode" button to switch to HVAC mode. So stupid.

I feel like there's a lot of focus on looking pretty and fancy but nobody at Chrysler actually USES these interfaces to discover a natural flow, which is hugely, massively critical in a vehicle cockpit where most use will require the least possible attention.

I love the ability to choose what info displays between the gauges on the dash, but everyone does that now, and I found Chrysler's implementation again plagued with "did anyone actually test this?" issues. Like the fact that messing with Cruise Control causes a popup that overrides the entire display for several seconds to notify you that the command you just initiated actually happened. Touching the brake, increasing or decreasing speed, re-activating after hitting the brake...everything causes a stupid popup that shouldn't need to obscure everything else you're looking at.

So, sure, it might be responsive and quick and slick, but if it doesn't do anything valuable with those traits, it's not doing anyone any good. I feel like in car infotainment systems are the Windows 8 of the mobile software world. They're trying really hard to be approachable, touch-friendly, and pretty and they've forgotten about actually DOING USEFUL THINGS SIMPLY.

Then again, I'm kind of a software grump and most GUIs frustrate the Hell out of me because I feel like they're just in the way. The few exceptions to that rule manage to not frustrating me by being minimal and functional first.

I really don't think anyone quite understands touchscreen interfaces yet except for Apple and (only VERY recently) Microsoft. Everyone else is kind of just fumbling around in the dark and hasn't quite made the link between natural intuition and digital interaction. ESPECIALLY not with devices (like cars) where you're combining touch and physical buttons (something that even Apple hasn't figured out yet). It just ends up a mess, but what's frustrating is that even spending 5 minutes with any of these systems, it's easy to point out what's wrong. Why can't anyone get it right?!

I don't mind having menus and settings buried in touch screen as long as there are redundant physical knobs and buttons for things that require frequent control. The Germans were really, really bad about this until very recently. Ford too.

I haven't experienced quality voice controls from OEMs either and I speak the world's clearest and most perfect English.

The temperature and volume should always have knobs or buttons. Cadillac's aesthetically pleasing but functionally annoying touch-slider is an abomination.

UConnect puts the main system functions at the bottom. From there, you hit next or roll the knob to choose a song or station. The rest (lighting/security/system setup/destination entry) are things you should be doing while pulled over anyway.

The high-end system in late model Infinitis is equally nice but the cheaper system in the Sentra and Altima needs a bit of work. iPhone pairing and bluetooth call quality are pretty bad in Infinitis, but the rest is fairly easy.

http://www.carfax.com/blog/thursday-thr ... t-systems/
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2464082,00.asp
http://www.autotrader.com/car-tips/why- ... tem-227030

PC Magazine said it best: "Chrysler's Uconnect 8.4AN infotainment system is one of the best in any car at any price."

Chrysler's software developers deserve a huge pat on the back. They freaking nailed it. Their powertrain engineers (and ZF's) deserve a stint at Guantanamo.

Also, the haptic mouse-based system used by Lexus is fun to play with. I've never used it in motion, however, so I can't say whether it's any good with the vehicle in motion.

Jesda wrote:Also, the haptic mouse-based system used by Lexus is fun to play with. I've never used it in motion, however, so I can't say whether it's any good with the vehicle in motion.

At an autoshow, I used it to search and give directions to the nearest strip club. The booth attendants weren't amused.

I agree, the 200 is crap! The thing that irritated me even more than the terrible trans was the retarded knob you have to turn to change gears! I'm surprised no one else has mentioned it.

I'm guessing not too many owners have had problems with them...yet. Give it time. though gimmicky automatic shifters are nothing new for Chrysler. There was time they offered push buttons shifters on the dash. Silly but it does lessen chance of the awkward line by your female guests, "Is that your shifter or are you happy to see me?"

dgms240 wrote:I agree, the 200 is crap! The thing that irritated me even more than the terrible trans was the retarded knob you have to turn to change gears! I'm surprised no one else has mentioned it.

It certainly drove me nuts.

Funny thing is, Jaguar has been doing rotary knob shifters for years and they're relatively well received by the public. I still think they're stupid (and did when they were new and different as well). But Jag's implementation vs Chrysler's is the perfect example of just how and what Chrysler doesn't quite understand about design. The Jag shift knob is forward and alone on the console, and retracts itself in certain conditions. It's also classy chromed metal, with a hefty feel like an studio-quality volume knob. The Chrysler implementation is a painted plastic knob with grips that looks like an oversized soda bottle lid. It's arranged alongside multiple other similar-looking and -sized knobs that control a variety of other things. It's also, for some unfathomable reason (at least for me, in the 200) the one that falls most readily to hand. I'm stunned we don't have stories of people shifting to Park when trying to turn the fan, temp, or volume down. Because Chrysler just shat a bunch of knobs onto a pedestal on the console without even the slightest hint of logic or sense, and the shifter is one of them.

No, I completely disagree. The Chrysler implementation is a knob that's large and well damped like quality audio equipment. If you need it to hide into the dashboard to avoid confusion, you shouldn't have a license. It's centered, obvious, and large. It takes 5 minutes to figure it out, at most, if at all. Turn it, drive. Done.

Knobs are way, way better than the push-button design preferred by Lincoln (and even then, I can adjust to it since shifting isn't an ongoing activity with an automatic trans).

This car deserves lots of real, well-earned scorn for substantive things like its powertrain(!) but you're a bunch of delicate, whiny snowflakes regarding everything else. If I can find some kind of enjoyment in a beater Honda or an old Toyota pickup, I fear for you softies who think a knob is jarring to your sensitivities.

Mindless negativity doesn't equate to insight or intelligence.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzRBweNKpGM[/youtube]

Mount yourselves on the nearest Christmas tree.

Jesda wrote:If you need it to hide into the dashboard to avoid confusion, you shouldn't have a license. It's centered, obvious, and large. It takes 5 minutes to figure it out, at most, if at all. Turn it, drive. Done.

A question since I don't know how it is implemented in the 200: How do you know which gear (D, N or R, or ...) you have selected?

If I have to look at the dash/screen, or down at the knob, to see which gear I have selected, then I think it is far less useful than a properly gated gear shift selector (that you can take the same 5 minutes to train your hand permanently).

In my 2003 Infiniti M45, I can move the car into gear and know whether I have selected D (or my preferred M4 setting when starting) or N or R, without even looking at the lever or at the screen. This makes it much easier to park (particularly parallel park), keep focus on traffic when pulling out of parking spaces, inside parking garages where you have to watch out for people and cars behind you, etc., etc.

The key point is "Don't make me think" about simple activity is the best design approach. Applies to web site design, menus, ... and now gear shifting too, I guess! The focus should be on any function itself, not how to invoke it.

Jesda wrote:Knobs are way, way better than the push-button design preferred by Lincoln (and even then, I can adjust to it since shifting isn't an ongoing activity with an automatic trans).

Two observations.

First is the point I made above - selecting forward or reverse, etc., should not require looking at the screen or knob. Push-buttons are only slightly better than that knob perhaps.

(Digression: my aunt had a Dodge Dart back in the sixties ... as a child, I was fascinated by its push-button automatic gear selector (my first exposure to an automatic). It was so much cooler than all the other cars I was around ... with their steering column manual transmissions!)

Second, perhaps not relevant to the class of car here, but paddle shifters in an automatic do get used, so shifting can be an "ongoing activity with an automatic trans" ... perhaps not on boring long trips, though!

But even driving around town, or setting out from the house in my wife's Acura (if I am driving her car ... she just selects D) I use the paddle shifters in S mode, without even thinking about it now.

Z

Jesda wrote:You're looking at the needles at an angle because the picture is taken up close, allowing you to see the sides, giving you the impression that they're flared outward. They aren't.

Almost -all- instrument gauges are shaped this way.

As long as the needle is narrow and thin from the front, I am fine. So, I agree with you.

By the way, the reason they taper the front "top to bottom" from one end to the other is quite simple: the light "in" these needles is not actually embedded in the needle - they are lighted from one end.

So, the taper allows the entire needle to appear fully lit, since the light comes out the front where the plastic has been roughed up and colored to refract the light forward.

The curvature is also there for a reason - the farther you get from the light source, the light intensity drops, so the increased curvature makes the entire needle look uniformly lit up the same intensity (more output the further from the light source)! Well designed consoles are set (light bulb intensity and the curvature) to do a good job with this uniform look.

In both my 2003 Infiniti M45 and my wife's 2011 Acura TSX, the needles are tapered in this manner, but look perfectly narrow and fully rectangular from the front seating position. And the color is uniform along the needle - well done design, indeed.

Also, if narrow enough and not too brightly lit, and the sides of the needles are fully transparent (like in both my cars), the sides do not "light up" and they do not appear to look like plastic knifes!

On my Infiniti, the center is not lit like a knife shape since the needles are mounted on a bigger circle, so they just look like very shallow (but curved) triangles if you look at them from an angle .. not the plastic knife shape.

One other curiosity point: The Acura actually has the needles pointing inwards - mounted on an outer ring (that is hidden away) rather than on a center post - to allow visibility to a simple display in the center. This makes the taper actually go the other way ... from the outside to the inside.

The reality is that both cars look fine from straight on in driving positions. I wonder if turning the light intensity down on the Chrysler 200 would make it less obvious perhaps ... or they did not properly let the sides of the needle be transparent (hence, too much light leakage).

Z

Finally, my only peeve (and it is totally minor, of course) is that I visually prefer the tach and speedo to be "symmetrical" about a vertical axis, although other guages (temp, etc.) can be whatever they want. Probably more due to my personal experience than anything else, I suppose.

Your picture of the Nissan and other panel does not show this symmetry, but the Saab picture does!

Z

I love getting jacked up and heated over this car stuff.

You guys are a good crowd to spar with.

szh wrote:If I have to look at the dash/screen, or down at the knob, to see which gear I have selected, then I think it is far less useful than a properly gated gear shift selector (that you can take the same 5 minutes to train your hand permanently).

I completely agree. The gated shifter is the most intuitive option. However, with an automatic you seldom change gears. The knob is, functionally, not significantly better or worse than a traditional column shifter.

With the Jaguar and Chrysler knobs there are electronic indicators on both the gauge cluster and knob with hard clicks between gears, requiring a push-turn for major functions (for example, drive to reverse).

It ends up creating a lot of storage space.

The worst, in my opinion, is the electronic shifter stalk that gives the impression of being firm in movement. I drove a diesel X5 for a few months where I'd think I put it in park but the god damn thing would start rolling.

Jesda wrote:Mindless negativity doesn't equate to insight or intelligence.

I don't think any of this is about looking insightful or intelligent. It's about discussing the differences in taste that exist between us as both car owners and carmakers. I also don't think it's mindless. For myself, I'm terminally analytical. I see a thing, and my brain immediately jumps to "why and how." It's fun to discuss, even when I'm "wrong" just because I enjoy the mechanics of it.

For an example:
Despite being strongly electro-nanny, I am a big fan of electronic park brakes--for exactly the same reasons you're a fan of the rotary shift knob. But plenty of other people will call me nuts for it, because it doesn't work like a normal park brake, which is important to them. Am I wrong? Are they wrong? No. We use our cars differently and thus have different expectations. In my case, I use a park brake for parking. I use the little skinny pedal for breaking the rear end lose, because I can modulate it to fine degrees separately from the front end. But the electro-brake haters don't do it that way, they want the mechanical modulation of the brake lever. I feel like any car with power to the rear removes the necessity for such things unless you're in the middle of a rally stage--but WRC cars aren't RWD anyway so it's all moot. At the end of the day, I prefer more console space and less clutter over something I never use in the first place.

And in that regard, I do agree with the rotary shift knob. BUT: I don't like paddle shifters for manually changing gears, and if I have a manumatic that's obedient enough to do what it's told, I'd like to do things manually. Which means I'd like a leather-wrapped knob-on-a-stick that falls where my hand is most comfortable. I rarely drive with both hands on the wheel at the same time (a side-effect of years of non-paddle shifting) and I don't really like the setup of most non-performance shift paddles anyway. The 200 is definitely NOT a car that makes me want to row my own gears (or even paddle them), so it's a non-issue there. But with the LS8's 5R55S, I'd lose my mind with knobs and a paddle.

Jesda wrote:

szh wrote:If I have to look at the dash/screen, or down at the knob, to see which gear I have selected, then I think it is far less useful than a properly gated gear shift selector (that you can take the same 5 minutes to train your hand permanently).

I completely agree. The gated shifter is the most intuitive option. However, with an automatic you seldom change gears. The knob is, functionally, not significantly better or worse than a traditional column shifter.

True. Even with manual transmissions with shifters on the steering column.

An uncle once borrowed our 1967 Toyota Corona, stopped at a light and moved the lever into what he thought was first gear. When the light changed, he let go off the clutch and almost rammed the car behind him ... "pull and up" was reverse on that car.

Jesda wrote:The worst, in my opinion, is the electronic shifter stalk that gives the impression of being firm in movement. I drove a diesel X5 for a few months where I'd think I put it in park but the god damn thing would start rolling.

I had a sorta similar experience with a Mercedes 350 rental in London last March. I had the damndest time figuring out how to get the car into gear using that stalk lever - had to ask the rental people to tell me one time. Embarrassing.

Once I learned things, it was still the most pathetic way to shift that I have ever seen:


Worst thing about the car was that it would shutdown at stops / lights to conserve gas - then when you let go of the brake, the engine would auto re-start and the transmission would re-engage. With a small lurch just as you got moving! Got pretty damn annoying after a while.

I drove an Infiniti Q50S loaner last week when my car was in for service ... 3.5L gas/electric hybrid with the same gas engine shutoff. The difference with this compared to the Merc was that the electric motor in the car prevented the lurch. The gas motor did not kick in till the car was rolling well anyway, and it was imperceptible. Even at speed, letting off the gas for more than a few seconds to coast would cause the gas motor to shut down and then come back in ... fortunately without any funny lurching.

Z

Here are pictures (not my car ... found these on the web ... not great pictures, unfortunately) of a 2003 Infiniti M45 shifter - clean and simple to use (even in manual mode):


The later M's became a bit sloppier in this regard - IMHO. But not too bad to get to the correct mode without looking ... albeit not as good as my 2003:


Jaguar certainly has experimented a lot!

2008 Jaguar SJ Vanden Plas - bit of a tortured way to shift up and down manually, I think:


2009 Jaguar XK - no manual shifting here? Do they use paddle shifters on the steering wheel?:


2015 Jaguar XK - a knob:


Z

But I digress a lot!

Let's get to the Chrysler 200 discussion ...

Z