Modern cars are objectively superior in many aspects. They’re faster in a straight line, safer in a crash, more efficient in daily traffic, and packed with technology that would have looked like science fiction two decades ago. Yet a growing number of drivers describe a strange emotional downgrade: the car does more, but the driver feels less. Whether you agree with every complaint or not, the list is useful because it’s concrete. It doesn’t argue in vague nostalgia; it points at specific design decisions and asks what they cost in return for efficiency, convenience, and compliance.
Let’s walk through all fourteen—what they are, why they became common, and why so many enthusiasts react to them like a slow, unavoidable goodbye.1) Electric power steering: efficiency gained, feel debated
Hydraulic power steering used an engine-driven pump to circulate fluid. Electric power steering (EPS) replaces much of that with an electric motor that only draws power when steering assist is needed. That’s one reason EPS became so widespread: it can reduce parasitic engine load and improve fuel economy. Car and Driver has described mileage improvements on the order of about 1 mpg when eliminating an engine-driven hydraulic pump.
The summary you provided includes a specific figure—roughly 0.2 L/100 km savings—and that magnitude is consistent with engineering discussion of steering-system efficiency improvements in some contexts.
Where the argument turns emotional is steering feedback. Many drivers and reviewers say EPS can feel more isolated than hydraulic systems because software filters what you feel through the wheel. That isn’t universally true—some EPS systems are tuned brilliantly—but the criticism is widespread enough to be a recurring theme in car journalism and owner discussions.
The trade: measurable efficiency and packaging advantages vs. a tuning challenge: “assist” without numbness.
2) Software “rev limits” and the shrinking top end
The supplied summary complains about two things that can be separate but often travel together:
- Protective rev limiting in Park/Neutral (or limited free-revving), which many modern vehicles do implement to reduce misuse or mechanical stress in certain situations. Discussions among owners show that some cars will not rev freely past a low threshold in Park/Neutral, and manufacturers can set separate park/neutral limiters in engine control software.
- Small turbo sizing and tuning choices that favor low-end torque and emissions/efficiency goals, sometimes making high-RPM power feel less rewarding.
Not every engine is “choked,” and plenty of modern performance cars pull hard up top. But it’s true that modern powertrains are often calibrated around real-world emissions testing, drivability, and fuel economy, and that can shape the power curve and throttle behavior.
The trade: protection, compliance, and low-end punch vs. the old-school joy of a motor that begs to be wrung out.
3) CVTs: smooth efficiency, “rubber band” reputation
A continuously variable transmission (CVT) can keep the engine in an efficient RPM range instead of stepping through fixed gears. That can be great for the economy and smoothness.
But the smell can bother people. Edmunds explicitly describes the well-known “rubber band effect,” where engine speed and vehicle acceleration can feel out of sync. And Car and Driver has criticized CVTs for engine drone under throttle, even while acknowledging that the technology has improved.
Some CVTs simulate “shifts” in software to make the experience more familiar—because the market has repeatedly signaled that feel matters, even when the mechanism doesn’t need stepped gears.
The trade: efficiency and simplicity vs. a driving sensation many people find unconvincing.
4) Electronic parking brakes: convenience with real downsides
Replacing a mechanical handbrake lever with an electronic parking brake (EPB) button saves space and integrates easily with stability systems, hill hold, and automated functions.
The criticism in your summary focuses on two practical truths:
- You lose the fine, manual modulation of a lever (important to some drivers, irrelevant to others).
- Servicing rear brakes on many EPB-equipped cars may require putting the system into a service/maintenance mode, often done through diagnostic tools or specific procedures. This is a common reality in modern maintenance workflows.
Also, if a battery is dead, some EPB systems can complicate moving the car (solutions exist, but they vary by model and are not always intuitive).
The trade: packaging and automation vs. repair complexity and reduced manual control.
5) Fake engine sound through speakers: engineered emotion
Cabins got quieter. Turbochargers, insulation, and active noise control reduced the raw soundtrack. In response, some automakers amplify or synthesize engine sound through speakers. This is widely known as active sound design (or similar brand terms).
This is not speculation—it’s a recognized approach in automotive acoustics. Some drivers enjoy it; others see it as theatrical. What is objectively true is that it can create a mismatch between what you hear and what the engine physically is, because the sound is at least partially produced or shaped digitally rather than purely mechanically.
The trade: emotional engagement and perceived refinement vs. authenticity concerns.
6) The decline of manuals: economics, efficiency, and changing demand
Manual transmissions haven’t vanished everywhere, but their market share has clearly fallen. Data summarized from industry reporting shows manuals becoming a minority in major European markets in recent years.
There are multiple forces behind this:
- Modern automatics can be very efficient, and many have overtaken manuals in fuel economy in comparable setups.
- Driver-assistance systems and powertrain calibration are often simpler when the car controls shifting.
- Consumer demand has shifted—especially as hybrids and EVs grow, and as urban driving becomes more stop-and-go.
Your summary argues the manual is a key joy component because it keeps the driver actively involved. Whether you agree or not, it’s true that the industry trend is pushing toward fewer three-pedal options.
The trade: convenience, efficiency, and system integration vs. one of the last “pure” driver interfaces.
7) Lane keeping that “fights you”: when assistance feels like interference
Lane keeping assistance is designed to reduce unintentional lane departures, which can prevent crashes. But the feeling described in your summary—“the wheel pulling back”—is a real driver experience in some systems, especially with poor lane markings or construction zones.
Regulations and standards also assume drivers can override steering assistance at any time. For example, UN vehicle regulations on steering assistance specify that the driver can override assistance functions.
So the issue often isn’t that override is impossible—it’s that the moment of intervention can be surprising, or the system can misinterpret the situation. When a driver is deliberately crossing a line to avoid debris or a cyclist, a poorly calibrated system can feel like it’s making the wrong choice.
The trade: real safety benefits vs. edge cases where “help” becomes friction.
8) The era of beeps: warning overload and distraction risk
Modern cars warn you about everything: lane departure, speed limit recognition, seat belts, fatigue detection, and collision alerts. Many of these systems can reduce risk. But alert overload can also become stressful—and it can pull attention away from driving.
We don’t have to rely on vibes here: research and official guidance recognize that in-vehicle tasks and displays can increase “eyes off road” time and therefore risk.
The critique in your summary isn’t “warnings are bad.” It’s “too many warnings, too often, sometimes wrong.” That is a usability problem, and usability is safety.
The trade: more safety nets vs. a cockpit that never stops demanding attention.
9) Subscriptions for features: paying again for hardware you already own
This is one of the most controversial trends because it reframes ownership. In the past, if the hardware was installed, the feature was yours. Now, some automakers have experimented with charging recurring fees to enable features already physically present.
A high-profile example was BMW’s heated seat subscription experiment, which drew major backlash and was later rolled back in that form in many markets. The broader industry direction—monetizing software and connected services—remains active, but the “pay monthly for already-installed heated seats” version became a symbol of where consumers draw the line.
The trade: flexibility for short-term owners and recurring revenue for automakers vs. a sense that ownership is becoming conditional.
10) Haptic or capacitive steering wheel buttons: sleek, but not always loved
Physical buttons have shape and travel—you can operate them by feel. Capacitive/haptic surfaces look clean but can be triggered accidentally, and often require more visual confirmation.
This isn’t just internet complaining. Volkswagen faced significant criticism over touch-sensitive steering wheel controls, and the automotive press has reported on the company moving away from them in certain models. There have also been lawsuits alleging oversensitive controls causing unintended activation in specific vehicles.
The trade: modern aesthetics and parts consolidation vs. tactile usability at speed.
11) Fake exhaust tips: styling theater and the price of packaging
“Fake exhaust tips” usually mean visible outlets that are decorative, while the real exhaust path is hidden or exits elsewhere. Why do it? Cost, assembly simplicity, and sometimes packaging (especially with modern bumpers, aero, and emissions hardware). Commentary in automotive media has explicitly linked fake outlets to cost and manufacturing convenience.
The critique in your summary is fundamentally about honesty in design—if it looks like a performance cue, enthusiasts want it to be one.
The trade: cheaper manufacturing and flexible styling vs. credibility.
12) Piano black interior trim: photogenic, fingerprint-prone
Gloss “piano black” trim looks expensive in photos and showrooms. It also tends to show fingerprints and micro-scratches quickly in real use—something owners frequently note, and detailing communities discuss as a known issue.
This one is less philosophical and more practical: the material choice often ages poorly unless it’s protected or meticulously cleaned.
The trade: visual drama in the showroom vs. long-term day-to-day durability.
13) Tiny shifters and electronic selectors: from mechanical action to appliance logic
Traditional gear levers were mechanical interfaces with consistent movement patterns and clear tactile confirmation. Many modern cars use small electronic selectors, toggles, dials, or “stalk” shifters that send signals rather than moving linkage.
This isn’t automatically worse—some are excellent. But it does change the feel of interaction, and it can introduce inconsistency across brands. The critique in your summary compares it to operating a household appliance: the action no longer feels like you’re commanding a machine; it feels like you’re navigating an interface.
The trade: space saving and design freedom vs. losing a chunk of mechanical satisfaction.
14) Screens replacing classic instruments: the tablet takeover, plus glare and distraction
Digital clusters and large infotainment screens allow flexible layouts, maps in the gauge area, and over-the-air updates. But the “big tablet” aesthetic can also feel like an afterthought if it’s poorly integrated, and usability can suffer in sunlight or at night.
Sun glare and reflections are well-studied as factors that can harm visibility—including display visibility—under certain conditions. And beyond glare, there’s the distraction issue: the more tasks migrate into screens and menus, the more drivers risk spending time looking away from the road, which is exactly what safety guidelines aim to minimize.
Some automakers are already reacting by reintroducing physical controls for common tasks, acknowledging that touch-only isn’t always better for driving.
The trade: flexibility and features vs. attention management and interface fatigue.
So… is driving joy actually “ending”?
The most honest conclusion is: not universally, but the center of gravity has shifted.
Many of these changes exist for rational reasons:
- measurable efficiency gains (EPS),
- safety goals (lane keeping, warnings),
- packaging and manufacturing simplification (EPB, small shifters),
- consumer convenience (automatics),
- and business models shifting toward software and services (subscriptions).
What the critique in your summary captures—accurately, as a feeling that many enthusiasts share—is that the driver has become less central. The car is increasingly a platform: a quiet cabin, a suite of assistance functions, a subscription-ready computer, and a compliant emissions package. The “machine conversation” that older cars offered—steering feel, mechanical controls, simple feedback loops—has to be intentionally engineered back in. Sometimes it is. Often it isn’t.
If there’s hope here, it’s that pushback works. Companies have reversed course on unpopular controls. Some performance-oriented models still prioritize engagement. And the best modern cars prove the point: technology doesn’t have to kill driving joy—it just has to be designed with the driver, not only the spreadsheet, in mind.
Titan007
Comments