Just to offer a different opinion, I prefer inferior controls to a touchscreen for settings.

Wheels and buttons respond faster, it forces vendors to be concise, and it doesn’t gunk up my screen.

Muscle memory forms quickly for anything that’s a “one and done” setting.

But I hate "push the volumn knob N times to intiate BT pairing, read carefully the alnum code displayed in 7 segment LED" ...

You hate modal interfaces then. A non-modal interface would initiate pairing with a fixed button, this button would do the same thing every time, and it wouldn't require other inputs. Perhaps A, B, C buttons for three connections, where pressing once auto-connects to the previously saved device and holding initiates pairing (like a radio favourites button).

A non-modal interface for controlling audio settings (volume, bass, treble, etc.) would be one knob for each function—not one knob which changes function when you click it, or having to dig seven layers deep through in a touch screen menu. I change audio settings all the time on my car depending on what I'm listening to, because there are 6 knobs for this (big volume knob, small knobs for bass/mid/treble/balance/fader.[1]

Modal interfaces in cars are bad because their results are unpredictable. Touch screens are bad because they allow for non-modal interfaces, and also because they're not tactile.

[1] https://d3inagkmqs1m6q.cloudfront.net/1517/media-photos/cp04...

> I think you can go more detailed on that and say physical controls for common, quick inputs especially ones people use while they are driving and you don't want them to look down for.

Yes, anything that could ever conceivably be needed to be used by the driver while driving must have a physical, mechanical control.

Things that can be configured while the car is parked and never need to be changed while driving, can be ok on a touch screen.