JD Power releases its first consumer survey of tech usability in cars

At long last, JD Power has conducted an owner survey to assess high-tech features in a wide range of US vehicles, and the results are pretty mixed.

David Goldman/AP/File
Nissan electric vehicles sit on display at an auto dealership in Roswell, Ga.

It's no secret: in-car technology has become a massive weak spots for today's automakers. It's caused once-reliable brands to tumble in auto rankings; it's spawned more than a few lawsuits; and it's led us to wonder if most car companies shouldn't leave this technology to the likes of Google and Apple.

But despite those criticisms, few had taken a long, hard look at today's in-car tech to determine which brands do it best–until now. At long last, JD Power has conducted an owner survey to assess high-tech features in a wide range of US vehicles, and the results are pretty mixed.

Power conducted its first-ever Tech Experience Index Study by polling 17,864 owners and lessees of new vehicles between February and August of this year. Surveys were fielded after those folks had been driving their vehicles for 90 days.

As with other Power surveys, the Tech Experience Index asked consumers to rate their cars' technology on a scale of 0 to 1,000, with 0 equivalent to utter dissatisfaction and 1,000 expressing supreme, toe-tapping happiness. Here are some of the study's biggest takeaways:

Safety tech scores big: Among five classes of technology that Power asked respondents to rate, safety tech earned the highest satisfaction scores, with an average of 754.

Backup cameras and blind spot warning systems are hugely desirable: At least 75 percent of respondents said that they used backup cameras and blind spot warning systems every time they drive, and 96 percent of current users said that they want the technology in their next cars, too.

Navigation is a fail: Navigation technologies earned an average of 687 points from respondents, making them the lowest-ranked of all five classes.

In-dash tech has a long way to go: Well over one-third of respondents–39 percent, to be exact–weren't even willing to attempt using the technology on their dashboards. Instead, they chose to bring their own tech into the car, usually by way of a smartphone. Navigation was the tech feature most often cited as the one replaced by that outside device. 

Dealers have an effect: When dealers took time to train consumers on technology, satisfaction scores rose as much as 54 points on Power's scale.

Luxury and mass-market satisfaction rates are very similar: Among premium brands, in-car technology averaged a score of 734. Interestingly, the numbers were only slightly lower for mass-market brands, at 730. Large mass-market vehicles had the highest average technology score of 755, while small mass-market vehicles had the lowest, at 706.

Winners: BMW and Hyundai each had two best-in-class winners, with the BMW 2-Series (small premium segment), BMW 4 Series (compact premium segment), Hyundai Genesis (midsize premium segment), and Hyundai Tucson (small segment) earning top marks. Other winners included the Chevrolet Camaro (midsize segment), Kia Forte (compact segment), and Nissan Maxima (large segment).

This story originally appeared on The Car Connection.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.