Topic: Test Drive: 2015 Lexus RC 350 AWD

[OliverD]

^ The tacked on screen in the BMW above is clearly higher up than the screen in the Buick.

Possibly, but the angle of the photo for the BMW is exaggerating the difference, and the Buick has a larger screen with the bottom lower than the bottom of the BMW screen.

Say it is different, is it even close to enough to make a difference? No. It's a stupid styling decision and that's all.

It's not just the height, it's also the depth. The BMW's screen is set further back and further up. In combination that means your eyes don't have to move as far from the road to see the screen. Don't pretend that this is strictly a styling decision.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

^ The tacked on screen in the BMW above is clearly higher up than the screen in the Buick.

Possibly, but the angle of the photo for the BMW is exaggerating the difference, and the Buick has a larger screen with the bottom lower than the bottom of the BMW screen.

Say it is different, is it even close to enough to make a difference? No. It's a stupid styling decision and that's all.

It's not just the height, it's also the depth. The BMW's screen is set further back and further up. In combination that means your eyes don't have to move as far from the road to see the screen. Don't pretend that this is strictly a styling decision.

Somebody is drinking the koolaid. At best it's a few cms farther from the driver. Unless they went full HUD, it's styling.

[OliverD]

^ The tacked on screen in the BMW above is clearly higher up than the screen in the Buick.

Possibly, but the angle of the photo for the BMW is exaggerating the difference, and the Buick has a larger screen with the bottom lower than the bottom of the BMW screen.

Say it is different, is it even close to enough to make a difference? No. It's a stupid styling decision and that's all.

It's not just the height, it's also the depth. The BMW's screen is set further back and further up. In combination that means your eyes don't have to move as far from the road to see the screen. Don't pretend that this is strictly a styling decision.

Somebody is drinking the koolaid. At best it's a few cms farther from the driver. Unless they went full HUD, it's styling.

I'm not drinking any koolaid. Why are incremental improvements in ergonomics a bad thing? You act as if these screens are universally hated but that's hardly the case. I agree that some are better integrated than others. I'm not a fan of the C-class for example. But the BMW setup looks great IMO.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

^ The tacked on screen in the BMW above is clearly higher up than the screen in the Buick.

Possibly, but the angle of the photo for the BMW is exaggerating the difference, and the Buick has a larger screen with the bottom lower than the bottom of the BMW screen.

Say it is different, is it even close to enough to make a difference? No. It's a stupid styling decision and that's all.

It's not just the height, it's also the depth. The BMW's screen is set further back and further up. In combination that means your eyes don't have to move as far from the road to see the screen. Don't pretend that this is strictly a styling decision.

Somebody is drinking the koolaid. At best it's a few cms farther from the driver. Unless they went full HUD, it's styling.

I'm not drinking any koolaid. Why are incremental improvements in ergonomics a bad thing? You act as if these screens are universally hated but that's hardly the case. I agree that some are better integrated than others. I'm not a fan of the C-class for example. But the BMW setup looks great IMO.

Because it's not an improvement. uConnect is an improvement. It's easy to use, has large and easy to use iconography on a big touch screen.

The iDrive shown has a small screen with too much text, and a fiddly puck controller. You have to watch the screen to see which hot spot is active as you fumble with the controller. Placing the screen above the dash and slightly farther away doesn't make it easier to use, it just makes it ugly.

[OliverD]

Meh, I don't see the problem. I have to look at my touchscreen to use it too.

[rrocket]

Have any of you actually sat in the passenger seat in the Lexus IS ? I guess this car was given the same idiotic design team but the placement of the cup holders is exactly where the passenger's elbow is suppose to be. I couldn't believe it when I sat in it at the car show.

Man...if that annoys you, you'd cry yourself to sleep after driving my 911.  No cupholders.   

[mmret]

Your 911 is a real car made by a company that built it as a machine that was meant for drivers who enjoy driving.

True, but most of the buyers are latte drinking Blackberry addicted lawyers and bankers anyway

[rrocket]

Your 911 is a real car made by a company that built it as a machine that was meant for drivers who enjoy driving. If you haven't figured it out yet, this car is designed for people who drink lattes by the gallon and spend more time checking their email while driving than their blind spots. As such, putting the cup holders in such an idiotic position is inexcusable.  It's not like anything else important is located in this area now that lexus has completely given up on the manual transmission.

I've enjoyed driving all of my Lexus.  And when I tried out the various Lexus, I rested my arm on the leather console cover...not the cupholders.  YMMV

[wing]

Passengers do not get an arm rest put your arm in your lap haha.

They should move the shifter to the column or make it a button though.

As far as Ipads on the dash, have you seen the new TT ?   If not check back tomorrow.

[rrocket]

Passengers do not get an arm rest put your arm in your lap haha.



As far as Ipads on the dash, have you seen the new TT ?   If not check back tomorrow.

Technically true...console rests are for the driver.

Mercedes has the glued-on-iPad-look down to a fine science.

[rrocket]

All these designers need to go to the school of AUDI simplicity.

OMG..that's too funny.  My Audi was the most needlessly over-complicated car I've owned (mechanical wise).

[CanuckS2K]

When I test drove the IS last year, I thought the ergonomics of the interior and general layout was a little "meh" and I didn't find it to flow very well at all.  Materials were top notch and the seats were probably the best I've sat in though.  And I absolutely despise a lot of the vehicles now that have these "tacked on" looking tablets for their Navi screen.  MB seems to be the worst at it. 

[rrocket]

I'm talking about interior design. Ergonomics.

I know the S4's cup holders where in the same spot as the RC....IIRC.  And on one of them, the cupholders were pushed far forward and blocked either the radio or HVAC controls with a large cup in there.

We'll have quibbles with nearly every design....

[Triple Bob]

Is this mumsnet?

[rrocket]

Is this mumsnet?

What's that?

[Railton]

Is this mumsnet?

What's that?

Google is your friend.
http://www.mumsnet.com/

Question is though - how does Bob know it.
Railton

[Triple Bob]

Is this mumsnet?

What's that?

Google is your friend.
http://www.mumsnet.com/

Question is though - how does Bob know it.
Railton

Because when a thread about a nice sporty car on Pistonheads descends into talking about cup holder placement, it's what always gets brought up.

[johngenx]

Gotta love Pistonheads.

[Snowman]

I wish my car had no cup holders, The space could be better utilized for another purpose.

[Northernridge]

Everything you need to know about Mercedes: My last gen e-class had terrible cup holders in an awkward to use position – clearly an afterthought, while my new one seems like the console was designed around them...the only saving grace is that you can still close the cover.

And TB is so right.