Rudy

The prospect of learning how to use something with an abundance of buttons is not my issue with the interior of the Cadillac. I, too, can figure out how to work just about anything with as many buttons as you can throw at me. It's not about a button count where less buttons is more desirable, it's about how and when a button is used. In other words, is there an elegant interface or a unneccessarily complex interface? To me, the Caddy looks way more complicated than it has to be, especially considering that on top of all those buttons, there's a touch screen interface to additional functions, etc. Sure, I could eventually figure it out but that doesn't mean I'd enjoy using it...

Bimmer32

This is a matter of preference. Anybody will get use to either design philosophy in a matter of weeks if they actually own the car. What may be convenience to one person is not for another person.

By nature, most of us like to "push buttons." Look at any toddler. Some of us just like a more simplified look . . . sort of like a sleeper car look. OK, I'm starting to be bias . . .

There are luxury look like, "Look, I'm sophisticated and luxuries with all the buttons and shine." Then there are the designer look, "Simple and elegant."

Rudy

I agree that it's a matter of personal preference.

When I was a toddler (and beyond), I liked to push buttons too. Now that I've had prolonged exposure to the alternative to buttons, I realize that buttons aren't always a good thing. My belief is that there are many people out there that would agree with me but only after they've had some quality time with an iDrive type interface. The problem is that many of these people aren't willing to give an iDrive type interface a try because of the bashing it's received by the media and by sales representatives of the competition. It's a shame because these people are missing out on something that might actually end up changing the way they view these sorts of things, etc...

heezy545i

Certainly not to the same level, but do you guys think this interior shares some similarities with the CTS-V?





Here's the caddy again for comparison. It might not be the greatest, but I'm honestly impressed, especially for an American car.

westcoast550

Todays buttons and touch screens in the Caddies were like Corinthian leather in the old Chryslers , ......................lipstick for the unwashed masses! ....................some "buyers" like junked up cars and never get the "Less is More" or understated refinement of a BMW. As mentioned above the car will have measureable handling and performance specs that are close to BMW, good for the engineers !........... But the marketing guys just could'nt resist to throw all the junk in ........! :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

JPJ

I seriously considered the previous CTS-V, but the interior was a major weakness. The new interior is so much better you really can't compare.The new one has taken the mesh thing a little too far for my taste. I think the base price is going to be about $60K though -- up from about $52K when I was looking.

Rudy - don't assume GM is not doing focus groups with the right people. They have been putting a lot of effort into researching what buyers expect/prefer for each vehicle segment (against the top competition). The improvements are starting to show acorss the board -- CTS, Malibu, full size trucks, Corvette updates... You are right that the competition is not sitting still and GM has a long, long way to go, but their rate of gap closure has been pretty good lately.

GM's reputation (while largely deserved in the past) is holding them back more than their products right now. My wife has leased 2 SRX's and very likely to get a third. She has been very pleased with them. Nice size and she feels comfortable in it. Dealer is a block from her office. While I don't care for the interior, the exterior is not bad with the crisp styling and I think it has held up pretty well (not looking too dated for how long it has been out). Handling is pretty good for a crossover.

Rudy

I don't think I ever assumed they were using the wrong people for their focus groups -- I just think that the majority of people that make up a focus group might state they want a touch-screen interface because that's what they think works best for them. In my opinion, the people who feel a touch screen is better than an iDrive type interface have not spent enough time using both technologies to be able to understand what's best in the long run.

I've had the opportunity to use both for years (wife's Odyssey has a huge touch screen for just about everything) and I fully understand the perceived simplicity that the touch screen provides. You can easily see what to press, etc, for many functions so "Joe six-pack" immediately says, "I want that in my car because I can figure it out." What J6P doesn't see, is how much more efficient and safe an iDrive type system is because he's either read about how bad it is or he's played with one for a few minutes in a showroom or on a test drive. As we see from the members of the forum, just about everyone says that iDrive is great once you spend some time with it.

As far as safety's concerned, with a touch screen, it has to be located closer to the driver and since there's no tactile feedback on the "buttons," you constantly have to take your eyes off of the road to see what you're doing. Also, in my experiences, touch screens do not have as clear of an image in all lighting conditions. As we all know, these issues simply vanish with an iDrive style interface. Clearly, the Germans get it which is why you don't see touch screens on BMW, M-B, Audi, etc.

(Oh yeah, and don't get me started on the smudges and fingerprints... )

swajames

That may not be the most flattering pic but to be honest there really aren't that many buttons in there. This car is far from being the worst offender in that regard (and of course the LCI E60 increased its own button count).

cobradav

+1.

I have used touch screens in one form ( sometimes with a light pen in the early days) or another since '86 trying to launch rockets, track satellites, or find submarines. When all I had to look at was the screen itself, then yes, touch screen was ok. But as soon as my attention had to be elsewhere the touch screen lost out in usefulness to buttons. I spent several years with various engineering departments trying to get them to understand "operations" and set requirements for console operator layouts. Using switches (buttons) and/or track balls in a proper design allows for eys off operation by touch and tactile feedback. Augmented by Voice Recognition makes it even better. I recently had to rent large SUV and drive in unfamiliar areas. I used a portable NAV system that used touch screen - arrg. Most distracting thing and had a couple of near misses.

Rudy

cobradav gets it...