4 ms·

KIA still hasn't fixed the theft systems so it's not just Americans

kube-system 3y ago
Meh, there was never anything wrong with them. Immobilizers (or the lack thereof) have been on windows stickers as long as they've existed. Hyundai/Kia simply realized that their buyers DGAF about an immobilizer as much as they cared about being slightly cheaper than cars from other brands. And they were right, the cars sold well.
- ok_dad 3y ago
  Slightly cheaper meaning $50 to $160 according to Google. That seems like a really stupid thing to skimp on, so don't blame the consumer for this dumb decision. That's like 1% (corrected from 0.1%) of the price of a new car or something like that! What dumb engineering, what was KIA thinking?! -- Edit: I understand the reality of capitalism means a constant race to the bottom, I just don't like it. -- Edit 2: I am "posting too fast" so here is a response to a post way further down than this, so I don't lose my text I tried to comment with (Also, what the fuck HN!? I'm not one of those flame-baiters!? This is one of the few places I am comfortable talking to strangers and I get this bullshit...) I think you would have to define the minimum level of effort necessary to steal a car, then say that cars which do not pass that bar are probably defective. I would say the minimum bar should rise as tech changes, and today we could say the minimum is that an unskilled thief (a 'regular Joe') should not be able to steal a car without any specific knowledge. At least, I think that's reasonable. In this case, meth addicts could break a window and use a screwdriver to steal a car without an immobilizer, so that seems like a defective product to me.
  - kube-system 3y ago
    There's always some company that optimizes for the type of consumer who sorts by lowest price and chooses the item at the top of the list. This is that. These vehicles are aggressively priced. Immobilizers were a great idea of what to skimp on. People are buying those cars based on creature comforts and price. People DGAF about immobilizers when they're buying a car. If it gets stolen next week it doesn't matter to the manufacturer, as long as they keep selling. Which they are. Hyundai Motor sales figures are very healthy and growing.
    - rootusrootus 3y ago
      I wonder how many people check out the insurance premiums before pulling the trigger on their car purchase. If the answer is anything like 'most' then decisions like this will eventually cause people to steer away from Hyundai/Kia cars.
      - kube-system 3y ago
        Hyundai changed their tune on this issue after some insurers threatened to stop insuring certain models at all, and they're now putting immobilizers in all of their models. But I still don't think they made a mistake. They're just the victim of a social media trend. There's hundreds of other vehicle vulnerabilities out there just waiting to be the next trend. There's so many ways to maliciously mess with a car, it's mostly limited by people's imaginations.
        thfuran 3y ago
        That's maybe an argument that they didn't make an uncommonly egregious mistake, but that many cars are defective hardly means none of them are.
        kube-system 3y ago
        All cars have serious security issues. The security features on any car mostly just mitigate the most severe/commonly/easily exploited issues. Locks and electronic countermeasures merely discourage people from exploiting cars, or give the illusion of security, they don't actually provide very high security at all. People are stealing luxury cars in American cities in large numbers right now and shipping them overseas to resell. It doesn't matter how many security systems the manufacturer has put into place. It doesn't take advanced techniques or esoteric tools. All it takes is a flatbed trailer and a hand winch from the hardware store. Where's the line between security issue and defect? Is it a defect when it becomes popular to exploit? It is a defect when other manufacturers mitigate it? Seems like a matter of opinion to me, more than anything qualitative.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    $100 a pop is pretty big even if it doesn't increase sales. Airlines save millions by slightly reducing the weight of the pamphlets they put in the seats.
  - jefftk 3y ago
    > That's like 0.1% of the price of a new car These were very low end cars, much closer to $10k (1%) than $100k (0.1%).
    - ok_dad 3y ago
      True, but it's also the cost of ~3 gas tanks of gas, which to me is pretty small in the long-term ownership of a car versus the risk of dealing with it being stolen, which would take longer than the 3 weeks that gas would get you around for. I guess I think about value differently than many consumers?
is_true 3y ago
I don't think that can kill you.
- rootusrootus 3y ago
  That logic applies to the powershift you are complaining about.
  - is_true 3y ago
    A car that sometimes changes how it accelerates can kill you.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

Meh, there was never anything wrong with them. Immobilizers (or the lack thereof) have been on windows stickers as long as they've existed. Hyundai/Kia simply realized that their buyers DGAF about an immobilizer as much as they cared about being slightly cheaper than cars from other brands. And they were right, the cars sold well.

ok_dad 3y ago
Slightly cheaper meaning $50 to $160 according to Google. That seems like a really stupid thing to skimp on, so don't blame the consumer for this dumb decision. That's like 1% (corrected from 0.1%) of the price of a new car or something like that! What dumb engineering, what was KIA thinking?! -- Edit: I understand the reality of capitalism means a constant race to the bottom, I just don't like it. -- Edit 2: I am "posting too fast" so here is a response to a post way further down than this, so I don't lose my text I tried to comment with (Also, what the fuck HN!? I'm not one of those flame-baiters!? This is one of the few places I am comfortable talking to strangers and I get this bullshit...) I think you would have to define the minimum level of effort necessary to steal a car, then say that cars which do not pass that bar are probably defective. I would say the minimum bar should rise as tech changes, and today we could say the minimum is that an unskilled thief (a 'regular Joe') should not be able to steal a car without any specific knowledge. At least, I think that's reasonable. In this case, meth addicts could break a window and use a screwdriver to steal a car without an immobilizer, so that seems like a defective product to me.
- kube-system 3y ago
  There's always some company that optimizes for the type of consumer who sorts by lowest price and chooses the item at the top of the list. This is that. These vehicles are aggressively priced. Immobilizers were a great idea of what to skimp on. People are buying those cars based on creature comforts and price. People DGAF about immobilizers when they're buying a car. If it gets stolen next week it doesn't matter to the manufacturer, as long as they keep selling. Which they are. Hyundai Motor sales figures are very healthy and growing.
  - rootusrootus 3y ago
    I wonder how many people check out the insurance premiums before pulling the trigger on their car purchase. If the answer is anything like 'most' then decisions like this will eventually cause people to steer away from Hyundai/Kia cars.
    - kube-system 3y ago
      Hyundai changed their tune on this issue after some insurers threatened to stop insuring certain models at all, and they're now putting immobilizers in all of their models. But I still don't think they made a mistake. They're just the victim of a social media trend. There's hundreds of other vehicle vulnerabilities out there just waiting to be the next trend. There's so many ways to maliciously mess with a car, it's mostly limited by people's imaginations.
      - thfuran 3y ago
        That's maybe an argument that they didn't make an uncommonly egregious mistake, but that many cars are defective hardly means none of them are.
        kube-system 3y ago
        All cars have serious security issues. The security features on any car mostly just mitigate the most severe/commonly/easily exploited issues. Locks and electronic countermeasures merely discourage people from exploiting cars, or give the illusion of security, they don't actually provide very high security at all. People are stealing luxury cars in American cities in large numbers right now and shipping them overseas to resell. It doesn't matter how many security systems the manufacturer has put into place. It doesn't take advanced techniques or esoteric tools. All it takes is a flatbed trailer and a hand winch from the hardware store. Where's the line between security issue and defect? Is it a defect when it becomes popular to exploit? It is a defect when other manufacturers mitigate it? Seems like a matter of opinion to me, more than anything qualitative.
- thfuran 3y ago
  $100 a pop is pretty big even if it doesn't increase sales. Airlines save millions by slightly reducing the weight of the pamphlets they put in the seats.
- jefftk 3y ago
  > That's like 0.1% of the price of a new car These were very low end cars, much closer to $10k (1%) than $100k (0.1%).
  - ok_dad 3y ago
    True, but it's also the cost of ~3 gas tanks of gas, which to me is pretty small in the long-term ownership of a car versus the risk of dealing with it being stolen, which would take longer than the 3 weeks that gas would get you around for. I guess I think about value differently than many consumers?

is_true 3y ago

I don't think that can kill you.

rootusrootus 3y ago
That logic applies to the powershift you are complaining about.
- is_true 3y ago
  A car that sometimes changes how it accelerates can kill you.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]