5 Things I'm Surprised All Cars Don't Have Already

Some features that come standard in cars these days we take completely for granted. The type of stuff that if it wasn't there, we'd be very confused.  Power steering, servo-assisted brakes, a rear windscreen defroster, synchromesh in the gearbox, a parking brake - these are all things we take for granted, because cars need them in various ways to be functioning transportation appliances.  And as technology marches on, other stuff is becoming a given - it's pretty hard to find a car, any car, for sale in the US now without power windows, a radio or stereo of some sort, rear infant seat anchors, tire pressure monitors, traction control (still iffy; my 2007 Honda doesn't have it), variable-intermittent windshield wipers - even cool but useless stuff like auxiliary input jacks for the stereo, steering wheel hand controls, etc.

But there are some features on cars that have come and gone, and I just don't understand why.  I'm talking about simple, useful stuff that makes driving a car better, or easier, that wouldn't cost manufacturers much (or sometimes anything at all) to include in a car, and it just doesn't happen much these days.  Stuff like...

A Wide-Open-Throttle Cutoff On The A/C Compressor.

pictured: the best thing to do with an A/C compressor on a C900 - remove it.

Look, if my friend's 1995 Ford Ranger with a 90 horsepower 4-cylinder, an automatic, and a quarter-million miles has this and it still works, why doesn't my Honda?  Or everything?  It's not rocket surgery.  I love A/C.  North Carolina is hot. And when I'm cruising down the highway with the cruise set at 70, I don't really care or notice that the A/C compressor is on; I just appreciate the cold air.

But as far as I know, the vast majority of A/C compressors are mechanically driven - ie, a belt off the crank pulley runs through a tensioner and spins that sucker.  There are probably cars out there with electrically driven A/C compressors - I'd imagine Hybrids or cars with a stop/start function have one, so that you don't sweat to death at a stoplight in Arizona.  So the compressor puts mechanical drag on the engine, much like a supercharger, only much less fun.

So a WOT cutoff switch basically shuts the A/C compressor off when your foot hits the carpet, eliminating drag on the engine and allowing you to get on the highway (or spank that Mustang) with maximum alacrity.  Your car already HAS a switch to detect when you're at wide-open throttle; it's called the throttle position sensor, and it's a must for getting the car to run right.  And your A/C compressor already has a clutch; that's how you turn the thing off.  So why aren't these two systems linked on all cars?  Especially small-displacement engines, which suffer the worst from A/C compressor drag.  My 900 SPG was considerably harder to drive in city traffic with the A/C on.  A Mercedes S600 would not likely need this, but a Kia Rio sure does.  So why not?

A Hill Holder Function

Hilarious image courtesy of Fourwheeler.com

Another feature that you don't think anything of, until you drive a car with one, and wonder why it's not in everything with a manual transmission.  The Fiat 500 I test drove had this feature, as do a number of manual-transmission Subarus and other Fiats/Alfa Romeos, and it's simple and quite useful.  Basically, it holds the rear brakes for a few seconds when you're on a hill while you engage the clutch, so you don't roll backwards, thus putting unnecessary stress on the clutch plate - since you have to rev the motor harder to compensate for gravity.  It uses the wheel speed sensors (which every ABS car has), the rear brakes (which, again, every car has) and the clutch interlock sensor (which every manual transmission car has), and it makes life considerably easier in around-town driving, especially in hilly areas.

The killer thing is, this is not new technology: a Hill Hold Control system was first introduced by defunct carmaker Studebaker - in 1936. Sure, drivers that are familiar with a manual transmission know how to get the car going from a stop on a hill without any trouble - I've never rolled backwards into anyone or smoked the clutch starting on a hill - but it's simple, uses components that are already there, and makes life easier.  So, uhh, why not?

Detachable GPS Satellite Navigation

Factory GPS systems are terrible.  Sure, they're built into the dashboard.  Sometimes the integrate other features (HVAC, audio controls, etc) into a pretty touch screen.  But they're usually an absurdly expensive option - like, for instance, on the Porsche Boxster.  The Boxster is already a $58,000 vehicle; if you want built-in GPS satnav, it's a $3,455 option.  The base model Ford Taurus (admittedly a pretty nice car these days) starts at $25,555 - but if you want navigation to even be an option, you need to step up to the top of the line (well, besides the twin-turbocharged SHO) Limited model, which starts at $32,950.  Then adding navigation is an additional $3,850 on top of that.

And not only that, but factory navigation systems aren't that great.  Roads are constantly changing, being redirected or having additions made.  One of the main highways around Raleigh (I-540, the Northern Wake County Belt line) had new sections of a few miles opened up on both ends recently.  Factory navigation in older cars doesn't know it's there, and if you want it to, you have to pay for a costly update and go to your dealership for it.  A lot of them these days are also linked into the car itself for "safety purposes" meaning you can't program them while you're moving the car.  And while I'm sure Dodge's lawyers mean well, that's incredibly obnoxious for people that have stuff to do, and don't want to come to a rest in a parking lot just to tell the GPS to find them a gas station.

That, and modern portable GPS systems work better, are easier to update, are usually more intuitive to use, and you can get a good one for about $200.  To put that into perspective, that's about 4 tanks of gas right now, as opposed to the 77 tanks of gas the navigation in the Taurus will cost you.  I feel like those additional 73 tanks of gas more than make up for the fact that it's hanging off your window.  So what's the solution?  How about a built-in slot in the car for a portable GPS system, that has a charging plug already built into the car's wiring so you don't have to have a big old wire dangling across your dashboard?  I mean, Suzuki doesn't have the best record of making desirable cars, but the Suzuki SX4 comes standard with a Garmin Nüvi that fits into a built-in slot in a pop-up pocket on the dashboard.  Plus, if you want to use in another car, you can take it with you. Rocket science!  Why is Suzuki the only one that does this?

Cornering Lights/ Adaptive Lighting

Adaptive lighting is one of those things that you don't even know you want until you drive a car that has it.  The basic premise is that the low beams are linked (mechanically or electronically) to the steering rack, and swivel with the car when you turn, to light up where the road is going, rather than just straight ahead of you.  Modern project-beam headlights obviously do a lot better job of lighting up the road (they throw light a lot farther than sealed beams, and the pattern spread is considerably wider), but the light actually going where you're going is a lot more useful than just pointing straight ahead.  Again, this is not new technology: the first manufacturers to provide directional lighting were Skoda in the 1930's, and Tucker with their 1948 Torpedo - which had a single central headlight that swiveled with the steering rack.  The first mass-produced cars to have adaptive/directional lighting were Citroens, the DS and SM Maserati introduced in 1967 featuring low beams that swiveled with the direction of the steering.

And if that's too complicated and/or expensive for mass production, what about regular old corner lights?  Some late-model Cadillacs have had these - they're just lights mounted on the corners of the front bumper, that point outwards and light up while you're turning.  Sure, they're not as pinpoint accurate as swiveling headlights, but they're super simple - basically like foglights, but pointed outwards.  Hey, anything that helps people see better at night seems like something that should be included in cars, especially if it's simple and it's been around for a while.

Rear Fog Lights

The only real downside to this is the whole problem of people telling you "dude, you have a reverse light out."  Otherwise, it's another no-duh safety feature that cars really should have, and it's hard to see why more don't.  Front fog lights help you see when the weather is bad by projecting light lower down; rear fog lights help other people see you when the weather is bad.  A lot of European cars have had these - mainly Saabs and Mercedes-Benz models - and in all honesty, I think they should be a federal requirement on new cars.  Being able to see is great; not getting rear-ended by someone who can't see you is even better.  It's as simple as replacing one of the reverse lights with a high-wattage bulb, a red lens, and a light switch in the interior.  We don't need two reverse lights; one bright white light lets people know you're backing up.  We do need rear fog lights.  So, why isn't this more common?

These are just the first five ideas that came to mind; obviously there are a lot of other things I haven't thought of.  What features are you surprised all cars don't have at this point?  Voice your opinions in the comments section below!