Smaller attack surface. There have been lots of issues with keyless.
Are you talking about "keyless ignition" or even for opening the doors?
If it's the former, why did you miss that? My dad's car and most recent rentals I've had were of the keyless go variety, and I don't really see how it's more practical. The one use where I can see it being better is with motorbikes, if you live in a location both with cold enough winters that you gain a lot by putting your thick gloves on while still inside and safe enough that you don't need to bother with a physical anti-theft device.
I've actually had a terrible scare with one such car rental, where the attendant brought up the car, left it running, and forgot to give me the key. My personal vehicles all have keyed ignitions, so to my mind, engine running = key in the ignition. 10 minutes later, the agency called me up, telling me not to turn off the engine because I didn't have the key. Bonus points for being in a foreign, dense city I didn't know during rush hour. Fortunately, it was pretty hot outside, so I didn't turn off the engine to keep the AC running.
My car will also not let you lock it, and beep at you like crazy if you leave your keys anywhere inside, so you can't lock yourself out. You also can't lock it from the outside while the engine is running, but I believe that's a safety feature.
I can throw my keys in my backpack, dump it in the boot and drive off, grab my backpack when I reach my destination and walk away.
A keyless entry is no better than a regular 'push to send unlock signal' fob in this regard. You have to go much further back for cars that require the key to be inserted into the door.
You say you've only ever owned cars that don't have key-turn ignition, but doesn't that mean the advantages you listed are just assumptions? Having used both, I can personally say I have never considered key-turn ignition a problem or disadvantage. I've never lost a car key the same way I've never lost a phone which I also take out of my pocket to use.
I know people who (for insurance compliance) must store their key inside a faraday box. So to use their keyless entry car they still have to "get the key out" anyway. Push button unlock and key-turn ignition are not vulnerable to those kind of attacks/thefts.
Apologies, this is what I meant by "keyless", perhaps I have my terminology mixed up. I can either walk up to my car and open the door by pulling on the handle (keyless?), or get the fob out of my bag/pocket/whatever and press the button, but there's really hardly ever a need to do the latter, unless I want to allow someone else to enter the car while I'm at a distance. I can then start it just by being in the car with the fob somewhere also in the car, but without having to have or touch or insert the key (fob), thus keyless(?).
> You say you've only ever owned cars that don't have key-turn ignition, but doesn't that mean the advantages you listed are just assumptions?
Not an assumption, I've driven plenty of key-lock and ignition cars, just not owned them. Again, my earlier terminology mix-up may have been the issue. The advantage I'm trying to address is the ability to unlock the car and start/stop and then lock it again, without having to have anything in my hands (but having something on my person).
> I've never lost a car key the same way I've never lost a phone which I also take out of my pocket to use.
I can't argue with that; I too have never lost a car key, but I'd argue that by never having to take it out of my pocket is perhaps somewhat contributing to that.
> ... must store their key inside a faraday box. So to use their keyless entry car they still have to "get the key out" anyway. Push button unlock and key-turn ignition are not vulnerable to those kind of attacks/thefts
I have to agree with you here, this is certainly one disadvantage, and is absolutely a concern of mine.
At home you throw the fob in a faraday box rather than a drawer or on the side, so it's not a great amount of effort; while you're out and about it's a risk unless you're going to carry a faraday bag on your person (which I do not), so there is a chance someone could steal your car this way while you're sat/otherwise distracted but still fairly near your car.
I'm not sure what the correct term is for this type of entry, but that's what I'm suggesting I prefer over a key I'd have to insert into the door and then into the ignition and turn, it's just more convenient.
Conversely, if you lose one, it'll cost a few hundred £££s to replace rather than a cheap key, and there's the risks of high-tech theft, so it's not without its downsides.
I will also keep power windows, steering, and seat adjustment.
I can't believe the modern style is to have the walls of the car so far away from the seats. I assume it fulfills some kind of crash safety mandate? It clearly isn't worth it.
We've gone from "pull up to the machine and take a ticket" to "pull up to the machine, park, get out of the car, take a ticket, get back in the car..."
Consumers don’t want tiny cheap cars. In the past few years, people have financed progressively more expensive cars over much longer periods, suggesting they don’t want the cheapest options.
Americans view cars as status symbols, not just transport. Hence, car companies sell cars as status symbols, not just utilitarian commodities.
SWEs view laptops as status symbols, not just tools. Hence, tech companies, like Apple, sell laptops as status symbols, not just utilitarian commodities."
You probably are thinking about a different group of people.
The tragedy of commons is that if everyone bought a lighter car, everyone would be safer, not just the drivers but pedestrians and cyclists as well. Especially if "crash compatibility" was regulated and enforced.
That's, at least, how it seems to me while not actually living in the US - feel free to let me know if I'm completely off.
The great irony of that arms race is that the bus or tram will almost always win.
That _cannot_ be the singular or even primary driver of a movement. Car manufacturers don't just make a car in a vacuum. They make what the market is asking for, and _then_ marketing steps in. Very few companies, like apple and Tesla, can foist weird stuff on consumers and have them like it. And even in those cases, they are really just building something they believe to be the faster horse.
There's a reason Tesla wanted to build and SUV and a model 3. There's a key target price point in the US for a car. No amount of marketing can make people buy a car they simply cannot afford.
And yet here we are and marketing has convinced people in the US to borrow $1.6 trillion to buy cars they cant afford.
Nobody forced these people to take our loans. The auto industry bends to trends, it doesn't create them.
The fact is, with or without marketing, people want nice things. And people have historically been willing to buy them on credit/loans. At least for our current capitalist society, that seems to be ab inherent feature.
I believe there is an ad guy from the 1960's (an old pro copywriter, a Greek, named Teddy) who managed to convince the world of just that.
But after owning it for 2 years I realised totally organically that what I really wanted was almost the same car but for £12,500, with some extra unnecessary features.
I'm so glad VW stepped in and delivered what I had been secretly desiring. A heavier, more complex car at a higher price. Thank you, VW!
Suggesting that they have no financial education... The average loan duration is something like 70 months right now, with a mind boggling 7%-10% interest rate.
People make dumb decisions if they don't have the knowledge/education, by the time they're done paying their 40k car loan they paid 60k and the car is worth 20k.
While BYD is quietly taking over in every country that doesn't have a domestic auto industry.
When BYD starts selling their $10,000 car Seagull car [1] in the US, even with a 100% tariff, it will be cheaper than anything Detroit makes.
[1] https://electrek.co/2024/05/22/byds-10000-seagull-ev-worryin...
You're making it sounds like 100% is the highest possible ceiling for a tariff, when it's a number arbitrarily set to fulfill a specific agenda and can be infinitely adjusted.
Of course if you protect your domestic car industry too much it will slowly become uncompetitive and irelevant on the international free market.
Yep, the tariffs Boeing got on Bombardier's C-Series that were the final nail in the coffin of that program and Bombardier as a serious player, and gifted a great new jet to Airbus, were 300%.
So the Chinese government is subsidizing BYD in order for them to destroy every other Chinese car manufacturer? I think the Chinese government has far less convoluted and costly schemes to control which businesses live and which die.
If I understand it correctly, your theory is like saying the US set such high tariffs and sanctions so Chinese companies adapt and get so strong they can eventually outcompete any US company and break free of any dependency.
But many of those competitors would be completely unable to operate without subsidies. Take Zhidou, which went bankrupt in 2019 after sales of EVs with range under 250 km were no longer subsidized. https://web.archive.org/web/20240926235216/https://carnewsch... They relaunched in 2024 with some help from the Lanzhou city government, offering the Zhidou Rainbow at a subsidized sales price of $3,800 to $5,500. https://web.archive.org/web/20240512094644/https://k.sina.cn...
Note that there's two different kinds of Chinese government involved here: the central government primarily wants to build up the EV industry and is mostly agnostic between manufacturers, hence the sales subsidy. Regional governments want to build up their own economy, so they give preferential treatment to companies that manufacture in their region.
So it's not, as you thought, that the central government is specifically subsidizing BYD in order for them to destroy every other Chinese car manufacturer, but that regional governments are subsidizing local competitors in order to protect them from being destroyed by BYD.
But those subsidies won't last forever, and once they run out, many manufacturers will go bankrupt (see original 2019 Zhidou bankruptcy). Once that happens, BYD will most likely be able to cement their market dominance and raise prices to finally be able to make a decent profit even on domestic sales.
Just to add some perspective. It is still cheaper than anything Detroit makes, but 10.000 USD is a bit misleading if you ignore currency policies, subsides, incentives and regulatory differentials.
For example there is a good inexpensive Reanult Clio with 1l 3-cylinder 90hp engine. I doubt any meaningful number of US customers want to buy such car, even if it is less than 20k USD.
They will spend all day griping about how hard it is to park in the city, and how much they hate the city.
While there are a fair number of cars we could park, like the VW ID.4, we couldn't get out of them while parked.
And I don't have a big car, it's basically the same size as a Kia Niro EV or Hyundai Kona.
Safety ratings are nice and all, but when faced with the very real possibility that a vehicle 3 times the mass of yours will someday hit you at 80+ miles per hour, you just have to accept the fact that Newton's second law is something that is hard to win against.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9823577/Road-warrio...
They absolutely do. The cheapest Nissan in the UK is a Juke at $29,775 ( per xe.com conversion rate ). A US-market Nissan Versa starts at $17,995.
Even removing taxes the Juke costs around $24,800.
(I don't know why Nissan isn't selling small cars in the UK any more - the Micra was very popular up until about a decade ago)
It’s a caricature of a toy 4x4 with all of the compromises that implies. Ecck.
The Chevy Spark is dead.
The Mitsubishi Mirage is dead.
etc.
In basically any other market in the world, the Nissan Versa is definitelly beyond the entry level and not the cheapest and smallest car.