That bargain price on a car may be nothing more than bait.

You see the ad, compare the numbers, and make the trip to the dealership. Then come the mandatory packages, dealer fees, and discounts you may never qualify for. Suddenly, the price that got you through the door is nowhere near the price you're expected to pay.

If you have financing arranged, say so before visiting. Confirm whether the quoted price changes if you use your own lender.

In one recent case, the Federal Trade Commission alleges the difference averaged more than $3,350, with buyers paying above the advertised price in more than 92% of the transactions examined.

For someone who has spent weeks comparing vehicles and working out a budget, that can wreck the deal. By the time the additional charges appear, the dealership already has your attention — and several hours of your day.

Thousands more than advertised

On October 8, the FTC announced a proposed settlement with Greenway Auto Group over allegedly deceptive advertising. The agency's complaint describes mandatory administrative, dealer, delivery, and processing fees, along with packages and advertised discounts unavailable to some buyers.

The FTC warned Greenway about its pricing practices in March. According to the complaint, the company responded by adding false assurances of price transparency to its websites while continuing to advertise vehicles for thousands less than their actual prices.

Under the proposed settlement, Greenway agreed to prominently advertise the actual price consumers must pay, excluding required government charges. The proposed order also prohibits misrepresentations about whether fees, products, or particular financing arrangements are required. The allegations are not findings from a contested trial.

Greenway isn't the only dealership group facing enforcement. In April, the FTC and Maryland attorney general announced a settlement with Lindsay Automotive Group that included a $3.1 million civil penalty and refunds for eligible consumers. The agencies said more than $75 million in charges could qualify for redress; that does not mean that amount has already been returned.

Their complaint alleged that buyers encountered unavailable rebates, were told they needed dealership financing to obtain advertised prices, and were charged for unwanted products such as service plans and tire-and-rim protection. Some customers allegedly pressured to finance through the dealership already had financing arranged through military credit unions.

These practices also hurt honest dealers. A business advertising a complete price can look more expensive than a competitor leaving mandatory charges out. The customer may never visit the dealership offering the real deal.

The rule is gone. The obligation remains.

The federal Combating Auto Retail Scams Rule was vacated by a federal appeals court in January 2025 on procedural grounds and formally withdrawn in February 2026. That did not make deceptive advertising legal.

In March, the FTC warned 97 dealership groups about potentially deceptive practices, including leaving mandatory fees out of advertised prices, advertising discounts unavailable to everyone, and requiring additional purchases.

The agency followed in September with price-transparency guidance for auto dealers. Its position is straightforward: advertised prices should include dealer-required charges, with an exception for government-required charges owed by the consumer.

That includes mandatory document fees. A fee does not become exempt from the advertised price simply because a state permits a dealer to charge it.

Conditional discounts can still be advertised, but the price available to any consumer should be the most prominent. A first-responder discount, for example, should not make the headline price look available to a buyer who cannot qualify.

California adds protections

While federal regulators pursue deceptive pricing under existing law, California has gone farther, giving car buyers additional protections.

California's Combating Auto Retail Scams Act, Senate Bill 766, became operative October 1. Its requirements address advertised prices, disclosures, add-on products, and record-keeping.

The law also establishes an automatic three-day cancellation right for qualifying used vehicles priced at $50,000 or less, subject to mileage, condition, and other return requirements. Buyers should review the written cancellation disclosure rather than assume every purchase qualifies or every return is free.

These are California protections; buyers elsewhere need to check their own states' rules.

Get the number before you go

Whatever regulators do next, buyers can insist on clearer information before committing an afternoon to a dealership.

Ask for an itemized, written out-the-door price for the specific vehicle. It should identify the vehicle and include dealer charges, taxes, title and registration costs, and any products included in the quote. Ask which discounts depend on your occupation, trade-in, financing choice, or other qualifications.

If you have financing arranged, say so before visiting. Confirm whether the quoted price changes if you use your own lender.

At the dealership, compare that quote with the purchase agreement. Ask about every added charge. If a product is optional and you do not want it, have it removed before signing. If the salesperson says it is mandatory, ask who requires it and where that requirement appears in writing.

Never negotiate a monthly payment until you have agreed on the total out-the-door price.

An extra $30 a month over a 72-month loan adds up to $2,160. A payment that fits your budget does not establish that every product bundled into it is worth buying.

Save the advertisement, quote, messages, and final paperwork. The FTC accepts reports of potentially deceptive dealership practices, and its guidance specifically encourages consumers to identify supporting advertisements and contracts.

Dealerships have every right to make a profit. Consumers have every right to know what they are agreeing to pay.

If a dealer cannot explain the difference between its advertisement and its contract, don't let the time you have already spent there pressure you into signing.

GM killed the oil dipstick. That's not progress.

When you pop the hood of a new pickup truck, there's something you won't find any more: the oil dipstick.

General Motors has confirmed that its new sixth-generation 5.7-liter and 6.6-liter V8 engines, coming to the 2027 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 and GMC Sierra 1500, will no longer have a conventional dipstick. Instead, drivers will check the oil level on a digital display inside the truck.

I still check my tires with a pressure gauge, even though my vehicles have tire-pressure monitoring systems.

I've been working on cars for decades, and I think this is a mistake.

Checking your oil is one of the simplest and most important things you can do to protect your engine. You pull out the dipstick, wipe it clean, reinsert it, and pull it out again. In seconds, you know whether your engine has enough oil. You can also see what the oil looks like.

You don't need to start the engine, navigate a touchscreen, or trust a sensor.

What's wrong with the old-fashioned way?

GM claims its new electronic system is designed to simplify ownership. It monitors oil levels, warns drivers when they're too low or too high, and even tells them how much oil to add.

And according to a GM engineer interviewed by Pickup Truck + SUV Talk, packaging was part of the decision: Additional fuel-injection hardware made it difficult to accommodate a traditional dipstick tube.

But here's my problem. When do you most want to check your oil? Before you start the engine.

The 2027 Silverado owner's manual instructs drivers to park on level ground, leave the engine idling at normal operating temperature, and select the oil-level display on the infotainment screen.

Think about that. You have to run the engine before you can perform a manual oil-level check.

My co-host on "The Drive," automotive analyst Karl Brauer, has dealt with this problem firsthand. His 2009 and 2012 Porsche 911s had electronic oil-level systems that required him to warm up the engine, park on level ground, and work through a series of menus.

Karl raised a question during a recent episode that gets right to the heart of the problem: What if your engine develops an oil leak overnight?

Suppose a gasket fails and oil drains out while your truck is parked. With a dipstick, you can check the level immediately, before starting the engine.

GM says its electronic system automatically warns drivers about low oil. But the owner's manual requires a warm, running engine for an accurate manual oil-level reading. Whether the system can warn you about oil lost overnight before you start the engine remains unclear.

I would prefer to have a dipstick so I can check for myself.

NurPhote/Getty Images

Sensors aren't infallible

I have owned vehicles with electronic oil-level systems, including an Audi RS5, and I didn't like giving up that simple mechanical check.

Karl also recalled owning older BMWs that repeatedly displayed low-oil warnings even though the oil level was fine. The sensor was the problem.

A malfunctioning sensor can give you a false alarm. The more troubling possibility is a faulty reading that fails to alert you to a genuine problem.

That doesn't mean GM's new system is unreliable. The technology hasn't been in customers' hands long enough to establish that. But an electronic sensor introduces another component that can fail, and there is no longer a physical dipstick to double-check it.

Know what's under your hood

I'm a firm believer that every driver should understand the basics of vehicle maintenance.

Before my children started driving, I made sure they knew how to check their oil, tire pressure, and other essential fluids. I wanted them to understand what was happening mechanically rather than simply waiting for a warning light.

I still check my tires with a pressure gauge, even though my vehicles have tire-pressure monitoring systems. I compare the reading with the recommended pressure on the driver's doorjamb.

Technology can be an excellent backup. But I don't want it to be my only source of information.

To be clear, GM isn't eliminating the dipstick from every 2027 Silverado and Sierra. The 2.7-liter TurboMax four-cylinder and 3.0-liter Duramax diesel will retain theirs. It's the new V8s that lose the familiar yellow-handled tool.

Maybe the electronic system will prove to be convenient and reliable. I certainly hope so.

But I have to wonder what we have really gained by eliminating a device that costs very little, rarely fails, and lets an owner check a critical engine fluid without even turning the key.

Sometimes the simplest technology is still the best.

BLINDED BY THE LIGHTS: Can Washington finally save American drivers from headlight hell?

If you drive at night, you know the problem. An SUV approaches from the opposite direction, and suddenly its headlights hit you like a spotlight. You squint, look toward the edge of the road, and hope you can still see your lane. If a lifted pickup is riding behind you, your mirrors can become another source of blinding glare.

When you cannot see clearly behind the wheel, that is more than an annoyance. It is a safety concern.

Are American drivers benefiting from available lighting technology, or are regulatory differences making it harder and more expensive to bring that technology to market?

Now the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is preparing to modernize federal vehicle lighting standards after years of complaints about headlight glare. Announced October 6, the rulemaking effort will examine LED lighting, automatic high beams, headlamp height and aim, and other visibility issues affecting drivers.

If headlight technology has advanced so dramatically, why are the rules governing it still struggling to keep up?

Glaring problem

America's minimum and maximum headlight brightness standards have not changed since 1997. Since then, vehicles have gained advanced safety systems, cameras, and increasingly sophisticated lighting technology. Yet the federal rules governing headlights have struggled to keep pace.

Not every LED headlight is dangerous, and not every complaint proves a vehicle violates federal standards. But headlight design, vehicle height, and improper aim can affect how much light reaches another driver's eyes. The growing popularity of taller trucks and SUVs makes the problem especially noticeable to people driving lower vehicles.

Drivers should not have to choose between seeing the road and being able to look at it without being blinded. Automakers have spent years promoting smarter vehicle technology. It is reasonable to ask why headlights cannot do a better job of illuminating the road without compromising visibility for everyone else.

Blind spot

In 2022, the NHTSA authorized adaptive driving beam headlights, technology designed to adjust portions of the high-beam pattern to reduce glare for other drivers while maintaining illumination elsewhere on the road.

The concept is straightforward. Instead of simply switching between high and low beams, the system can modify where the light shines around other vehicles. That can help drivers see more of the road without directing the full beam into someone else's eyes.

But authorization did not lead to widespread adoption. U.S. requirements differed from those used in other markets, and systems available overseas did not automatically qualify for American roads. Those differences have slowed the introduction of adaptive headlights, which have been common in Europe for more than a decade.

Are American drivers benefiting from available lighting technology, or are regulatory differences making it harder and more expensive to bring that technology to market?

Safety standards matter, but regulations should solve problems, not create unnecessary obstacles to practical solutions. NHTSA needs to explain what it learned from the 2022 decision and how its new rules will avoid repeating the same mistakes.

Safety first

Blindingly bright headlights are certainly annoying, but are they dangerous?

A 2025 study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety suggests that the danger may be overstated. Examining crash reports from 11 states between 2015 and 2023, researchers found that glare was cited as a contributing factor in just one or two out of every 1,000 nighttime crashes. That rate remained essentially unchanged over the nine-year period.

In fact, headlights have become considerably safer by several measures. In 2016, just one of more than 80 headlight systems tested by IIHS earned a good rating. By 2025, roughly half did. And the share producing excessive glare fell from 21% in 2017 to just 3% in 2025.

Better illumination has also been associated with fewer crashes. An earlier IIHS study found that vehicles with good-rated headlights had 19% fewer nighttime single-vehicle crashes and 23% fewer nighttime pedestrian crashes than vehicles with poorly rated headlights.

But IIHS acknowledges that crash reports cannot capture every instance of dangerous glare. The vehicles producing it often aren't involved in the resulting accidents, making it difficult to determine exactly what caused the problem.

Whatever the crash statistics show, drivers clearly aren't happy. A 2026 AAA survey of 1,092 American adults found that 60% considered headlight glare a problem, while 73% of those affected believed it had gotten worse over the previous decade.

Those responses are not proof that glare is causing more crashes, but they demonstrate that the concern is widespread.

Both sets of findings belong in the discussion. Regulators should measure real-world safety outcomes while investigating why so many drivers report the same problem. Dismissing those complaints is no more responsible than claiming every bright headlight is unsafe.

Dimitrios Kambouris/Getty Images

Bright future?

NHTSA's review should focus on measurable results. Can headlights illuminate the road effectively without creating excessive glare? Are lamps properly aimed? Do vehicle height and lighting design create predictable problems for other drivers? Can adaptive systems be tested consistently and approved without unnecessary barriers?

Automakers, safety researchers, lighting experts, and drivers should have a voice in developing standards that manufacturers can meet and regulators can enforce.

Drivers can help, too. Dirty windshields, damaged lamps, improper headlight aim, and unsuitable aftermarket lighting can make visibility worse. But consumers cannot fix outdated federal standards on their own.

The goal should not be to make headlights weaker. It should be to make them smarter, more effective, and less likely to blind other road users.

Washington now has another opportunity to modernize rules that have fallen behind automotive technology. The question is whether regulators will deliver sensible standards that improve visibility or create another complicated process that leaves drivers facing the same problem.

What do you think? Are today's headlights dangerously bright, or is the problem being overstated? And should automakers be required to adopt smarter lighting technology when it can reduce glare without sacrificing visibility?

Volkswagen bet big on EVs. Now it's making room for gas-powered SUVs.

Volkswagen spent years preparing for an electric future. Now it's clearing space on the assembly line for more gas-powered SUVs.

In April, the German automaker announced it would stop building its ID.4 electric crossover at its Chattanooga, Tennessee, plant. The factory would instead concentrate on higher-volume models, particularly the Atlas and Atlas Cross Sport.

The Atlas has always had one big advantage over many of its three-row competitors: space. And I mean usable space, especially in that third row.

That's quite a change of direction for a company that once regarded the ID.4 as central to its American ambitions. The electric crossover was supposed to bring Volkswagen into a new era of affordable, mass-market electric transportation. Instead, the company is making room for the kind of vehicle American families have been buying all along.

And having recently driven the redesigned 2027 Atlas, I can understand why.

Whatever happened to the people's EV?

Volkswagen's electric ambitions weren't exactly modest. After its diesel emissions scandal, the company committed billions to electrification, developing an entire family of battery-powered vehicles under its ID branding.

The ID.4, which arrived in the United States in 2021, was a particularly important part of that strategy. It offered the familiar dimensions and practicality of a compact SUV, along with the promise of lower operating costs and freedom from the gas pump.

Volkswagen even invested in producing it domestically, making Chattanooga a major part of its North American EV operation.

For a while, the numbers looked encouraging. ID.4 sales rose in 2025, helped by the federal EV tax credit, which made the vehicle substantially more attractive to buyers. But after the credit expired on September 30, 2025, sales collapsed.

According to Volkswagen's sales figures, the company sold just 338 ID.4s in the first three months of 2026, compared with 7,663 during the same period a year earlier. That's a decline of nearly 96%.

By April, Volkswagen had made its decision. ID.4 production in Tennessee was finished, although remaining inventory would be available into 2027. The company hasn't ruled out bringing back a revised version.

And the ID.4 isn't the only electric Volkswagen that's had a rough time.

I happen to love the ID. Buzz, Volkswagen's battery-powered revival of the old Microbus. The styling is terrific, there's plenty of room inside, and it's a vehicle that makes you smile just looking at it.

But every time I've driven one, I've thought the same thing: Where's the range extender? The driving range just isn't enough for a vehicle designed to take people and their families on trips. Add the high price, and you've got a tough sell.

Volkswagen skipped the 2026 model year for the ID. Buzz and has since delayed its American return until the 2028 model year.

Look, there's nothing wrong with building electric vehicles. But they have to make sense for the people buying them. Price matters. Range matters. And so does being able to get where you're going without worrying about your next charging stop.

The Atlas gets a second chance

Which brings us to the 2027 Atlas.

My co-host Karl Brauer and I recently drove the redesigned SUV at a Volkswagen event in Huntsville, Alabama, not far from the Chattanooga factory where it's built.

First of all, if you've never been to Huntsville, it's a beautiful place to drive. The roads were excellent, the scenery was gorgeous, and the weather was just about perfect.

The Atlas has always had one big advantage over many of its three-row competitors: space. And I mean usable space, especially in that third row.

I know people who have kept their Atlases for years because they love them. One family I know has driven theirs from one end of the country to the other with adults sitting in the third row and all their luggage packed inside. No complaints. That's pretty impressive.

Fortunately, Volkswagen hasn't messed that up with the redesign.

The new Atlas still has that generous passenger room, but the interior is considerably more upscale. The materials are nicer, the seats are comfortable, and there's a lot more technology.

Depending on the trim, you get upgraded seating surfaces, a large central touchscreen, digital instruments, and the kind of detailing you'd expect in a more expensive vehicle. The available Harman Kardon audio system is especially impressive. Volkswagen even offers built-in games, including classics like Tetris and Uno, that you can play while the vehicle is parked.

Now, I don't know that anyone needs to play video games in their SUV, but if you're waiting to pick up the kids or sitting around at a campsite, I can see the appeal.

Under the hood is a revised 2.0-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine producing 282 horsepower, paired with an eight-speed automatic transmission. Front-wheel drive is standard on lower trims, with all-wheel drive available.

Prices start at $43,135 and climb to $58,135 for the fully equipped SEL Premium R-Line.

One of the nice things about the Atlas is that you don't have to buy the most expensive version to get a well-equipped family vehicle. Even the base model comes with a lot of features people actually use.

Overall, I was impressed. Volkswagen has done a very nice job.

But there's one thing I don't understand.

Where's the hybrid?

The new Atlas comes with just one powertrain: that turbocharged gasoline four-cylinder.

And while it's reasonably efficient for a large SUV, an EPA-estimated 25 mpg combined with front-wheel drive and 23 mpg with all-wheel drive isn't particularly exciting when you look at what the competition is doing.

Take the 2027 Kia Telluride Hybrid.

Its 2.5-liter turbocharged hybrid system makes 329 horsepower — considerably more than the Atlas — and gets an EPA-estimated 35 mpg combined in the front-wheel-drive EX trim. Even the all-wheel-drive Telluride Hybrid gets 31 mpg combined.

That's a big difference when you're driving a three-row family SUV every day.

The Telluride Hybrid starts at $46,490 before destination, and a fully equipped version costs roughly what Volkswagen charges for its top-of-the-line Atlas.

So think about that. You've got two roomy, well-equipped, three-row SUVs. Both have attractive interiors, modern technology, and plenty of room for the family. But the Kia gives you more horsepower, substantially better fuel economy, and a longer powertrain warranty.

That's going to be a pretty easy comparison for a lot of buyers.

Hyundai and Kia have been doing an excellent job lately. They understand the American market, they offer a lot of equipment for the money, and they're giving customers a choice of gasoline, hybrid, and electric vehicles.

Volkswagen knows it's missing something. At the 2026 New York International Auto Show, Volkswagen Group of America CEO Kjell Gruner confirmed that hybrids are coming to the Atlas, Atlas Cross Sport, and Tiguan.

But we're not getting an Atlas hybrid right away. It's planned for a future midcycle refresh, which industry reports suggest could put its arrival around the 2029 or 2030 model year.

That's a long time to wait when your competitors already have theirs in showrooms.

New York Daily News/Getty Images

Giving buyers a choice

Now, Volkswagen isn't abandoning electric vehicles altogether. The company continues developing EVs for other markets, and there's certainly room for electric Volkswagens in America if they offer the right combination of price, range, and practicality.

But I find the Chattanooga decision especially interesting.

Here's a company that invested heavily in building electric vehicles in America, and now it's using that factory capacity to build more gasoline-powered SUVs. Volkswagen clearly sees where the demand is.

And changing course isn't cheap. In its April financial report, the company disclosed roughly half a billion euros in costs associated with adjusting its American product strategy.

The good news is that the redesigned Atlas is an excellent vehicle. It's roomy, comfortable, attractive, and loaded with technology. I think a lot of families are going to be very happy with it.

But I also think Volkswagen missed an opportunity by launching it without a hybrid. Kia and Hyundai already have compelling alternatives that offer better fuel economy without asking drivers to change how they use their vehicles.

That's what more buyers want: options. Some want gasoline. Some want hybrids. Some want electric. And plenty of people just want a reliable, comfortable family SUV they can afford to own and drive.

GM had big plans to move past Apple CarPlay. Drivers had other ideas.

If you don’t buy it, they’re not selling it.

I say this all the time: Consumers have more power over the auto industry than they realize.

For many drivers, CarPlay isn't an exciting feature anymore. It's plumbing. You connect the phone and expect your stuff to appear.

Automakers can announce grand plans for the future. Engineers can decide they’ve come up with something better. Executives can explain why the technology they want to give us is really what we wanted all along. But eventually somebody has to walk into a dealership and buy the vehicle.

If it ain't broke ...

The best example of this at the moment is what's going on with General Motors.

The company recently unveiled the completely redesigned user interface that will debut in the 2027 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra — GM’s highest-volume vehicles. There are new displays, Google Gemini, Google Maps, over-the-air updates, and plenty of other technology.

There's also Apple CarPlay and Android Auto. And GM says it has integrated both of them more deeply than ever before in its light-duty pickups. CarPlay or Android Auto can occupy a large portion of the screen alongside native truck functions, such as trailering information and vehicle status.

Why is this notable? Because for the past several years, GM has been preparing drivers for a future without Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, making the case that its own built-in software could do the job better.

Best laid plans

In 2023, GM laid out an ambitious plan to move away from Apple CarPlay and Android Auto in favor of its own deeply integrated software, beginning with its new electric vehicles.

There were legitimate engineering reasons for the decision. A native system can communicate more directly with the vehicle, incorporating charging, range calculations, route planning, and other functions that aren't simply being projected from a phone.

Then GM did something automakers don't always do particularly well: It asked customers what they actually wanted.

The result was a dose of reality. GM took a sweeping software strategy and adjusted it to the way people actually use their cars.

Button pushing

GM says the development process for the new Silverado and Sierra interface included customer clinics and ongoing usability testing.

According to Sebastian Bauer, GM’s executive director of human interface design, drivers complained about “hunting for controls,” taking too many steps to accomplish basic tasks, and encountering interfaces that behaved inconsistently.

So GM simplified things.

Frequently used functions, such as climate controls and camera views, were made easier to reach. Key vehicle settings are one tap away. And — an increasingly welcome sentence in any new-car announcement — GM says physical controls remain available for customers who prefer tactile feedback.

And GM had another realization: Most drivers don’t want a new digital ecosystem. They’re perfectly happy with the one already on their phones.

“People really like CarPlay and Android Auto because they’re so user-centric,” GM product executive Mike Wahlstrom said.

That sounds obvious. Apparently it took some customer research to rediscover.

GM says drivers wanted the simplicity of the phone interfaces without losing fast access to the things the truck itself does. So the new system lets both co-exist instead of forcing drivers to bounce completely between one world and the other.

Universal History Archive/Getty Images

Phone fans

Automakers increasingly think of cars as software platforms, and modern vehicles certainly need a lot of software. Cameras, driver-assistance systems, navigation, entertainment, climate controls, towing functions — all of it has to work together.

But there's also money in controlling the dashboard.

Software creates opportunities for connected services, subscriptions, and a continuing relationship with the customer long after the vehicle leaves the dealership.

The trouble is that drivers already have their own way of doing all this — using the phone in their pocket.

Our contacts, music, podcasts, messages, maps, and apps already live there. For many drivers, CarPlay isn't an exciting feature anymore. It's plumbing. You connect the phone and expect your stuff to appear.

That makes replacing it a lot harder than simply designing a technically superior dashboard.

Consumer win

Not that GM is giving up on its native software. The new Silverado and Sierra use Google built-in alongside CarPlay and Android Auto. The same underlying interface architecture is designed to expand across electric, gasoline, and diesel vehicles, and GM plans to keep adding capabilities through software updates.

But look at what happened when GM designed the system for the trucks that sell in enormous numbers.

Drivers said they were tired of digging through menus. GM reduced the number of steps. Some wanted real controls. GM kept them. And customers liked Apple CarPlay and Android Auto. GM made them work better with the vehicle rather than asking buyers to choose.

GM can call that whatever it likes. I call it listening to the customer.

6 modern car technologies that make driving worse

There is a strange thing happening to modern cars.

They keep getting more advanced. They also keep getting more annoying.

There is a reason physical knobs and switches survived for so long. You can find them by touch.

I’m not talking about technology in general. Modern safety systems have unquestionably prevented crashes and saved lives. Innovations like backup cameras and blind-spot monitoring are genuinely helpful. I’m not interested in going back to drum brakes and lap belts.

But somewhere along the way, automakers started treating every new feature as an improvement simply because it was new.

On a recent episode of “The Drive,” Karl Brauer and I were joined by the show’s former longtime host, Alan Taylor. We started going through some of the modern automotive technologies that sound impressive in a brochure but can make owning and driving a car less pleasant.

The list got long pretty quickly.

1. Cameras that watch you

New cars increasingly contain cameras aimed not at the road, but at you.

They’re called driver monitoring systems, and manufacturers say they’re there to make sure you’re paying attention — especially when advanced driver-assistance systems are steering, accelerating, or braking for you.

As Karl put it, “They’re watching you and your passengers.”

And that raises a pretty obvious question: How much monitoring are we willing to accept just because the car is capable of doing more for us?

The concern gets bigger once those cameras are part of a connected vehicle. Then the issue isn’t just what the car can see. It’s what information gets collected, where it goes, and who ultimately has access to it.

The car used to be one of the few private spaces left in modern life.

Now even the dashboard may be taking notes.

2. Microphones that listen

The microphone makes sense too.

Voice commands require one. Hands-free phone calls require one. Increasingly sophisticated digital assistants require one.

But once a connected car has microphones and a cellular connection, the privacy question gets considerably more troubling.

Voice assistants have to listen for a wake word. Sometimes they hear one when nobody actually said it. The Federal Trade Commission has warned that this can trigger unexpected recording and that voice recordings may be sent to company servers, stored, and, in some cases, reviewed by employees or contractors to improve the system.

That’s a very different proposition from the old Bluetooth microphone that simply carried your side of a phone call.

Karl described reading the Uconnect connected services agreement when he bought his Dodge Demon 170 and deciding he wanted no part of it because of the amount of vehicle and behavioral data that could potentially be collected. Uconnect’s terms also explicitly permit recording and monitoring of calls placed through certain connected services, including customer care, roadside assistance, and emergency calls.

Most buyers do not read those agreements. Maybe we should.

3. Touch screens for things that used to have buttons

This one drives me crazy.

Touch screens are terrific for maps, music, and information that genuinely benefits from a large visual display.

They are terrible replacements for controls you need while driving.

If I want to turn up the heat, adjust the fan, or open the glove box, I should not have to work through a menu system while traveling 70 miles per hour.

Tesla is probably the most obvious example. Karl brought up having to use the screen just to open the glove box.

That is not progress.

There is a reason physical knobs and switches survived for so long. You can find them by touch. Your hand learns where they are. You do not have to take your eyes off the road and aim at a little square on a screen.

Even automakers appear to be rediscovering this. GM’s new Silverado and Sierra interface, for example, was designed after customer research found drivers were tired of “hunting for controls,” and the company specifically retained physical controls for frequently used functions.

Sometimes the old solution survives because it was already a pretty good solution.

4. Automatic stop-start

Here’s a typical 2026 driving experience that would have made no sense whatsoever to someone 20 years ago. You pull up to a red light. The engine shuts off. You take your foot off the brake. The engine starts again.

Repeat dozens of times.

Automatic stop-start became common because shutting off an idling engine saves fuel. The EPA has long said the technology can improve fuel economy by roughly 4% to 5%, with the biggest gains in stop-and-go city driving.

Washington liked the idea enough to reward automakers with emissions credits for installing it. But under President Donald Trump, the EPA has changed its tune. In February, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin eliminated the credit for what the agency itself called the “almost universally hated start-stop feature,” arguing that it produced no significant environmental benefit and that the old credit overstated real-world emissions reductions.

So yes, shutting off an idling engine saves some fuel. The question is how much that saving is really worth.

Starting an engine over and over puts far more cycling demands on the starter and battery than a conventional system. That is why stop-start vehicles typically require heavier-duty starters, upgraded batteries, and additional control systems designed to survive the extra work.

In other words, “they’re designed for it” is only half the story. They have to be designed differently precisely because stop-start creates a harsher duty cycle.

AAA has noted that its fuel-savings estimates did not include the potentially higher replacement cost of those upgraded starters and batteries. AGM batteries, commonly used in stop-start vehicles because they tolerate repeated cycling better, also tend to cost more than conventional flooded batteries.

And if most of your driving is on the highway, there isn’t much idling to eliminate in the first place.

I have disliked stop-start from the beginning. Even when the restart is smooth, you can still feel and hear the car cycling on and off. And plenty of drivers seem to feel the way I do, judging by how many of them want to disable it.

If I’m going to pay for heavier-duty components so my engine can shut itself off at every red light, I’d at least like the savings to be worth the trouble.

Anadolu/Getty Images

5. Electric power steering

This one matters more to people who actually enjoy driving.

Hydraulic power steering used fluid pressure to provide assistance while retaining a relatively direct mechanical feel through the steering wheel. Electric power steering replaces much of that hardware with an electric motor.

There are good reasons manufacturers prefer it. Electric systems can improve efficiency, reduce weight, and integrate more easily with modern driver-assistance technology.

But something can be technically superior and still feel worse.

Karl noted that electric steering has improved tremendously over the years, but for many enthusiasts it still does not provide the same feedback as a good hydraulic system.

Most consumers will never care, but the people who do care really care.

Steering is one of the primary ways a car communicates with its driver. Take too much information out of it, and you may wind up with a vehicle that handles beautifully while somehow feeling less alive.

6. The connected car itself

This is really the technology behind all the others.

Your car is no longer merely a machine. Increasingly it is a computer with wheels, cameras, microphones, software, and an internet connection.

That brings enormous benefits, but it also radically changes the relationship between the car company and the owner.

Software can be updated remotely. New services can be added. Features can be sold by subscription. Data can flow back to the manufacturer. The relationship no longer necessarily ends when you drive off the dealer lot.

During our discussion, Alan joked that modern cars seem to be “watching everything we do.” I pointed out the important next step: Once the car is connected, information can leave the vehicle too.

And that is where consumers need to start asking questions beyond whether or not a feature works. Questions like:

Who controls the feature?

Who controls the data?

Can you turn it off?

When it stops working, can anyone other than the manufacturer fix it?

New cars do extraordinary things. Sometimes I just wish they would do a little less.

Car makers just saved BILLIONS in costs — but will buyers see the savings?

Attention car buyers: For once, Washington has some good news for you.

The federal government has finalized a major change to fuel-economy rules that could make vehicles less expensive for automakers to build. The new standards are projected to produce a fleet-wide average of about 34.9 mpg by model year 2031, down from the 50.4 mpg trajectory under the previous rules.

If manufacturers now face tens of billions of dollars less in projected technology costs, I want to know what happens to those savings.

The Transportation Department estimates the change will reduce manufacturers' average cost by about $1,300 per vehicle and save Americans roughly $138 billion over five years.

Room to maneuver

But the number that jumped out at me is $60.6 billion.

That's how much the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration projects automakers' technology costs will decline through 2031 compared with the previous standards. General Motors alone accounts for an estimated $20.4 billion, followed by Stellantis at $6.6 billion, Ford at $5.8 billion, Toyota at $4.5 billion, and Honda at $4.1 billion.

Those aren't small numbers. Change the economics of building a car that much, and eventually I want to see the difference on the showroom floor.

For years, increasingly aggressive fuel-economy requirements pushed automakers toward additional fuel-saving technology and complicated compliance strategies. Electric vehicles were one way of improving fleet averages, and product planning increasingly had to account for what Washington demanded as well as what customers wanted.

Meanwhile, buying a new vehicle has become painfully expensive. The average new-vehicle transaction price hit $50,089 in August, according to Kelley Blue Book.

Now automakers have more room to maneuver. NHTSA says its new rules give manufacturers more flexibility to build vehicles based on customer demand. The agency is also changing vehicle-classification rules beginning with the 2030 model year. Under the current system, NHTSA says manufacturers have incentives to modify vehicles so they qualify as light trucks, while hatchbacks, wagons, and other smaller vehicles are discouraged.

That's the sort of regulatory change car buyers may actually notice.

Automakers don't build vehicles simply because somebody in Washington thinks they should exist. They build them when the economics work.

California split

California has been pushing in the opposite direction. Its Advanced Clean Cars II program required manufacturers to meet increasingly stringent zero-emission-vehicle targets on the way to 100% by 2035. And California's influence doesn't stop at the state line. The Clean Air Act allows other states to adopt California's vehicle-emission standards, and several have done so.

Congress moved against those rules last year. On June 12, 2025, President Trump signed H.J. Res. 88 into law, disapproving the EPA waiver that allowed California to enforce Advanced Clean Cars II.

California immediately sued, arguing that Congress had improperly used the Congressional Review Act to overturn a Clean Air Act waiver. That legal fight has continued, so the underlying dispute over California's authority isn't finished.

For car buyers, though, the direction of federal policy has plainly changed. Manufacturers have substantially more freedom under the new federal fuel-economy rules to decide which powertrains they want to sell.

My position on that hasn't changed. If you want an EV, buy one. If a hybrid works better for you, buy that. If you need a gasoline-powered SUV or pickup, you should be able to buy that too.

Let the cars compete.

NurPhoto/Getty Images

No free pass

But I'm not giving automakers a free pass. If manufacturers now face tens of billions of dollars less in projected technology costs, I want to know what happens to those savings. I'm not expecting $1,300 to disappear overnight from every window sticker. Automakers still have factories, employees, suppliers, research and development, and shareholders.

But don't tell us deregulation makes cars cheaper to build and then expect consumers not to look for the evidence.

Give us better prices. Give us more equipment. Bring back vehicles that didn't make financial sense under the old rules. Build the smaller cars, hatchbacks, wagons, pickups, and SUVs people will actually buy.

And let competition sort out the rest.

There is a cost on the other side of the ledger. NHTSA projects that the less stringent standards will increase fuel costs by more than $1,600 over the life of a vehicle compared with the rules they replace. The agency also projects 4.6% more gasoline consumption through 2050.

That's worth considering, especially if you drive a lot of miles or own a large truck or SUV.

Gas prices are high right now too. But today's pump price isn't necessarily tomorrow's. Oil production changes. Markets change. Wars end and new ones begin. We're going to dig into where gasoline prices are headed in a future article because that deserves its own investigation.

Right now, I'm interested in something easier to measure. Will cheaper compliance actually mean cheaper cars?

Automakers now face tens of billions less in projected technology costs. If that really gives them more freedom to build what customers want, eventually the person walking into the dealership ought to see it.

The rules changed. Now show us the cars — and the savings.

Automakers were ready to kill the gas car. Buyers had other ideas.

Remember when the gasoline engine was living on borrowed time?

Automakers were announcing ambitious electric-vehicle plans, governments were setting targets and deadlines, and consumers were repeatedly told that the future of the automobile had already been decided. The only real question seemed to be how quickly we would get there.

Gasoline vehicles weren't merely going to lose market share. At some brands, they were supposed to disappear.

Cadillac was among the most aggressive. The company said it planned to become an all-electric brand by the end of this decade. Its own website still declares that every new Cadillac model introduced in the United States by the end of the decade will be electric.

Something interesting happened on the way to that all-electric future: People kept buying gasoline-powered cars.

So many, in fact, that Cadillac is preparing a whole new generation of them.

Revving up

GM CEO Mary Barra confirmed this summer that Cadillac's next generation of internal-combustion vehicles will begin arriving in 2027. The lineup is expected to include a new CT5 sedan and new versions of the XT5 and XT6 crossovers. The XT6 is particularly interesting because Cadillac discontinued it after the 2025 model year. Now it's coming back with a gasoline engine.

The XT5 got a reprieve too. Cadillac had been expected to kill the gasoline-powered crossover but instead extended production of the current model and approved a new generation for the U.S. market. Cadillac said it was making "necessary adjustments" to its portfolio to meet customer demand.

There's that word again: demand.

Because while automakers have been adjusting their product plans, American EV sales have been sending a message of their own.

Money talks

Look at August. Despite a record increase in hybrid sales, Kia sold just 712 EV6s, down 60% from August 2025. Hyundai sold 28 Ioniq 6 sedans — yes, 28 — a 97% decline. Its much more popular Ioniq 5 fell 51%.

Ford's numbers were even more dramatic. Mustang Mach-E sales fell 72.5% to 1,989 vehicles. Ford sold only 148 F-150 Lightnings, down 95% from the same month last year.

Honda sold 1,788 Prologues, down about 81% from August 2025. Honda has already confirmed that Prologue production will end after the 2026 model year.

Subaru's Solterra dropped almost 87%, although that one comes with a major caveat: Subaru's newer Trailseeker and Uncharted EVs helped push the company's total EV sales up for the month, and limited Solterra inventory may have contributed to its collapse.

That's why I wouldn't judge the EV market by one model or even one month's sales. Some of these vehicles are being discontinued. Others are being replaced. And August 2025 is an unusually difficult comparison because buyers were rushing to take advantage of the federal EV tax credit before it disappeared.

Market correction

But zoom out and the picture is still striking. According to the National Automobile Dealers Association, battery-electric vehicles accounted for 10.1% of new-vehicle sales in August 2025. One year later, their share had fallen to 6.2%. Overall new-vehicle sales weren't collapsing either. August sales were actually up 1.5% from the previous year on a seasonally adjusted annualized basis.

So Americans didn't suddenly stop buying cars. They became less interested in buying EVs.

That doesn't mean the electric car is dead. Far from it. Cadillac currently offers five EVs, and manufacturers continue to spend billions developing electric vehicles. Some individual EVs are selling well, and Subaru's August numbers show exactly why you have to be careful about declaring an entire technology a failure because one nameplate plunges.

But that's very different from what consumers were being told just a few years ago.

The industry's transition to EVs was often presented as inevitable and, more importantly, imminent. Gasoline vehicles weren't merely going to lose market share. At some brands, they were supposed to disappear.

Bloomberg/Getty Images

Sales force

Cadillac is a wonderful example. It didn't merely say it wanted to sell more EVs. It said it planned to be all-electric by the end of the decade. Now the company is developing another generation of gasoline-powered Cadillacs that will arrive with only a few years left on that clock.

Why? Because car companies eventually have to sell cars.

Consumers don't buy corporate transition plans. They buy vehicles that fit their lives, budgets, and driving habits. For some people, that's an EV. For others, it's a hybrid. And plenty still want an ordinary gasoline-powered car or truck. Manufacturers are finally acknowledging that reality.

I don't have a problem with electric vehicles. Build good ones. Make them affordable. Improve the charging network. Give consumers enough range and enough choices, and let them decide whether an EV works for them.

What I object to is deciding the answer first and expecting the customer to fall in line afterward. The auto industry spent years telling us where the market was going. Now the market is talking back. And judging by the gasoline-powered Cadillacs headed our way, somebody in Detroit is finally listening.

Welcome to the new traffic stop, where it's your word against AI's

Imagine being accused of a crime because a camera spotted your car near the scene. The camera wasn't wrong. Your car really was there. But you didn't commit the crime.

The police, however, are so confident in their technology that they seem to be treating your guilt as an open-and-shut case.

Isaacs said she was home asleep when troopers arrived at 4:45 in the morning and told her she had killed three people.

Chrisanna Elser doesn't have to imagine it.

Camera shy

Elser was accused of stealing a package after doorbell footage captured a woman taking it from a home. Police then searched Flock camera records for vehicles in the area around the time of the theft. They found Elser's Rivian and concluded that she was the woman in the doorbell video.

They had the wrong woman. Elser really had driven through the area that day, but she was there for a noon appointment with her tailor, more than a quarter-mile from the house where the package was stolen. Her Rivian's cameras showed her driving through without stopping.

She spent days assembling her own evidence — including location information and video from her vehicle — to show what she had actually been doing. The summons was eventually voided.

In Elser's case, the Flock camera hadn't failed. It had identified her vehicle in the area. The technology supplied one piece of the puzzle. The mistake was treating that piece, along with the doorbell video, as enough to identify the person who committed the crime.

That's an important limitation of license plate readers. They can tell police that a particular vehicle was photographed in a particular place. They can't tell them who was driving it, why it was there, or what the person inside was doing.

But what happens when the information going into the system is wrong?

False flagged

Automotive journalist Tim Esterdahl found out while driving a Range Rover Sport press vehicle in Nebraska. A Flock alert identified the vehicle as stolen, and police pulled him over. Esterdahl doesn't fault the officer, who was responding exactly as he should have to an alert for a potentially stolen vehicle.

It apparently started with a Jaguar Land Rover manufacturer license plate that had gone missing during a film production in California. Only one specific New Jersey fleet plate had been reported missing. But somewhere between that report and the Flock system, Esterdahl wrote, the information appears to have been broadened to include multiple manufacturer plates sharing the same beginning and ending characters.

Esterdahl's Range Rover had a different plate. It was flagged anyway.

Things got worse from there. Because the Range Rover was a manufacturer-owned press vehicle that had never been sold or titled through a state DMV, its VIN didn't appear in the law-enforcement database the officer was using. Esterdahl had insurance paperwork, ownership documents and authorization to drive the SUV, but sorting everything out still took about 90 minutes.

Esterdahl wasn't even the first automotive journalist stopped over the same Jaguar Land Rover fleet-plate issue.

Whether the data is accurate and someone draws the wrong conclusion from it, or bad information makes its way into the system in the first place, the result can be the same: An innocent person has to untangle the mistake.

TATTLETALE EXPRESS: School buses may soon become America's largest mobile surveillance network

VIEW Press/Getty Images

Behind bars

And it doesn't stop at inconvenience. Just ask Lindsey Isaacs.

In October 2025, a hit-and-run crash on I-4 in Florida killed three people. A Flock camera three miles away had recorded Isaacs' black Dodge Durango just two minutes before the crash.

But other evidence pointed elsewhere. Witnesses had given conflicting descriptions of the Durango, including a maroon one with a partial plate that didn't match Isaacs' plate. Investigators later found maroon paint transfer on one of the vehicles struck in the crash. Isaacs' Durango was black, only two months old, and showed none of the significant damage investigators said the vehicle involved in the crash should have sustained.

Isaacs said she was home asleep when troopers arrived at 4:45 in the morning and told her she had killed three people. Her Durango was impounded. Months later, she was arrested on eight felony charges and spent 13 days in jail.

Her attorney eventually showed prosecutors photographs of the undamaged SUV, and an inspection found it in essentially showroom condition. The charges were dropped in May. Authorities later arrested another woman driving a maroon Durango.

Think about the chain of events. A Flock camera accurately recorded Isaacs' vehicle three miles from the scene two minutes before the crash. Investigators took that data point and built a case around it despite evidence pointing to a different vehicle. Months later, Isaacs was in jail.

A license-plate reader doesn't know who committed a crime. It knows that a vehicle passed a camera. The danger comes when the certainty of the technology gets transferred to conclusions the technology itself can't support.

Fooled by tools

I'm not arguing that police shouldn't use license plate readers. They can be useful investigative tools. But there is an enormous difference between using a camera hit as a lead and treating it as proof that the registered owner committed a crime.

On August 26, Sen. Josh Hawley launched a Senate investigation into Flock Safety, seeking information about its data collection, retention, access, accuracy, and sharing practices. The investigation cited a network of more than 120,000 cameras across 49 states processing more than 20 billion vehicle scans every month.

That's a lot of information about where Americans' cars are going.

Most of the drivers of these cars aren't involved in crimes. They're going to work, taking kids to school, stopping at stores, and coming home. If government agencies are going to have access to a network this large, the public should know how the information is being used.

How long is it kept? Who can search it? Which agencies can see it? What safeguards are in place when a plate is misread, a database contains bad information, or investigators draw the wrong conclusion from an accurate camera hit?

And don't make this solely about Flock. Replace Flock with another vendor tomorrow, and the questions remain the same.

Follow the money

If taxpayers are told these systems make communities safer, show them the contracts. Show them the pricing, retention policies, access rules, and accountability provisions. If a private company provides technology that becomes part of government enforcement, there needs to be a clear answer about who is responsible when its information contributes to a false accusation.

I'm not against police using technology. I'm against treating technology as infallible.

A camera is a tool, not a judge. A database is a tool, not a verdict. And a license plate identifies a vehicle, not necessarily the person behind the wheel.

Sometimes bad information makes its way into the system. Sometimes the camera gets everything right but investigators draw the wrong conclusion from what it shows.

When that happens, the person on the receiving end can spend 90 minutes on the side of the road, days trying to clear her name or, in the worst case, nearly two weeks in jail.

Show me the evidence. Show me the accountability. And if the system gets it wrong, show me who pays.

Is charging your EV really cheaper than buying gas?

If you drive an EV, you have probably heard one argument over and over: Whatever you pay for the car, you'll save money charging it.

That can certainly be true if you charge at home, particularly if you have access to inexpensive off-peak electricity. But once you depend on public fast chargers, the math can look very different.

Put $40 or $50 worth of gasoline into an efficient RAV4, and you're buying hundreds of miles of driving range

On a recent episode of “The Drive,” my co-host Karl Brauer told me about charging a Hyundai Ioniq 5 N at a Level 3 charger. It cost him about $50.

Within 24 hours, Karl filled up his 2023 Dodge Demon 170 with E85. The bill was $47.

Yes, you read that correctly. It cost him more to charge the Hyundai than to fill a 1,025-horsepower Dodge Demon.

Power fail

That's just one experience, and charging prices vary enormously. But it illustrates something EV buyers need to understand: Electricity isn't free, and public fast charging can be surprisingly expensive.

One Chevrolet Bolt owner recently learned that lesson in spectacular fashion.

He plugged into a public charger at a Hyundai dealership and ended up with a bill for $414. The explanation, according to the report Karl and I discussed, was an extraordinary pricing structure for drivers outside the dealership's charging program: $5 per minute and $5 per kilowatt-hour.

After the driver complained, the charging company intervened and reduced the bill to about $14. So no, $414 isn't a normal price to charge a Chevrolet Bolt. But the episode demonstrates why drivers need to pay attention to what a charger costs before plugging in.

Buzzkill

Even at ordinary public fast-charging rates, the comparison with gasoline isn't always what EV advocates would have you believe.

Karl looked up public fast-charging prices before the show and found rates generally running around 40 to 55 cents per kilowatt-hour. Industry data bears out his informal survey. Paren, which tracks the U.S. fast-charging network, put the average price of public DC fast charging at 53.8 cents per kilowatt-hour in the second quarter of 2026.

Now compare that with an efficient gasoline vehicle. Karl used the Toyota RAV4 as an example. Put $40 or $50 worth of gasoline into an efficient RAV4 and you're buying hundreds of miles of driving range — while filling the tank takes minutes rather than waiting for a battery to charge.

A hybrid can make the comparison even more interesting.

Run the numbers by the mile. An EV getting around three miles per kilowatt-hour would cost roughly $18 to drive 100 miles at that average fast-charging rate. A 2026 RAV4 Hybrid rated at 43 mpg combined would cost about $7 to travel the same distance with gasoline at $3 a gallon — and about $9.30 even at $4 a gallon.

Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images

Private plug

This doesn't mean an EV is always more expensive to operate. If you own a home, plug your vehicle in overnight, and have inexpensive electricity, the economics can be very favorable. Some utilities also offer substantially cheaper off-peak rates.

But that's not everybody's situation.

Plenty of people live in apartments or condos where they can't simply plug in overnight. Others take long trips and have to use public fast chargers along the way. For those drivers, the price displayed at the charging station matters every bit as much as the price displayed at a gas station.

And electricity prices aren't uniform. They vary by location, utility, time of day, charging network, and sometimes even the particular charger you're using.

That's why I don't buy the blanket claim that an EV is automatically cheaper to fuel than a gasoline car. You have to do the math for your car, your electricity rates, and your driving habits.

Before buying an EV, find out what you actually pay per kilowatt-hour at home. Then look at the public fast-charging networks you're likely to use and check their prices. Compare those costs with the fuel economy of the gasoline or hybrid vehicle you're considering.

You may discover that charging at home saves you plenty of money.

But if you're depending on public fast charging, don't assume you're getting a bargain just because there's no gasoline going into the car.