J.D. Power Study Finds Growing Frustration With Advanced Tech
J.D. Power says its 2024 U.S. Tech Experience Index Study suggests buyers of new vehicles are “becoming overwhelmed with technology features that don’t solve a problem, don’t work, are difficult to use or are just too limited in functionality.” The study is based on feedback from buyers of new model-year 2024 vehicles who are surveyed after 90 days of ownership; 81,926 buyers participated in the study.
Related: 2024 J.D. Power APEAL Study: Porsche, Mini Top List on Owner Satisfaction
Respondents rated 40 different technologies that J.D. Power divides into four categories: convenience, emerging automation, energy and sustainability, and infotainment and connectivity. From this feedback, the analytics firm generates a sort of report card for brands, as well as insights into the reception of particular technologies, which get grouped as must-haves, nice-to-haves, and those not necessary.
The Bad
“This year’s study makes it clear that owners find some technologies of little use and/or continually are annoying,” said Kathleen Rizk, senior director of user experience benchmarking and technology at J.D. Power Chief, in a statement. Among the latter group is hands-on driving assistance; its perceived usefulness score of 7.61 on a 10-point scale makes the tech one of the lowest-rated advanced driver-assistance systems in the survey. Surprisingly, hands-free versions of the tech only scored slightly higher at 7.98. J.D. Power notes, however, that “most owners appreciate features that directly address specific concerns, such as visual blind spots while backing up.”
Passenger-side infotainment screens were another unappreciated development. J.D. Power speculates that perhaps this tech would be viewed more favorably if it were used more often, as only 10% of vehicles have an occupant in the front passenger seat daily. Further, the firm notes, these displays complicate the delivery of the vehicle: “It is difficult for dealers to teach new owners how to use the primary infotainment screen, let alone a second one.”
Facial recognition, fingerprint readers and gesture controls were also criticized. J.D. Power says they fail to solve a problem owners didn’t know they had. The firm recorded 43.4 problems per 100 vehicles equipped with gesture control, with 21% of owners saying the tech “lacks functionality.” Questions about the perceived usefulness of advanced technologies are new to the study for 2024.
More From Cars.com:
- 2024 J.D. Power Initial Quality Study Now Incorporates Repair Visits, Ram Tops List
- Study: These 3-Year-Old Cars Are the Most Dependable
- These 71 Cars Earned IIHS Top Safety Pick Awards Amid Tougher Criteria
- Study: The 10 Most Wanted Features in New Cars
- Find Your Next Car
Brand Rankings
Genesis tops the brand rankings for premium brands for the fourth consecutive year, and its sister brand Hyundai takes the crown among mass-market brands for the fifth consecutive year. The average score for the 31 brands covered is only 494 on a 1,000-point scale, with just six brands scoring higher than that average.
- Genesis: 584
- Lexus: 535
- BMW: 528
- Hyundai: 518
- Kia: 499
- Land Rover: 498
- Cadillac: 487
- Mercedes-Benz: 484
- Lincoln: 482
- Volvo: 469
- Acura: 454
- Infiniti: 445
- Porsche: 444
- GMC: 439
- Toyota: 436
- Honda: 434
- Audi: 432
- Chevrolet: 432
- Subaru: 431
- Volkswagen: 430
- Buick: 427
- Jeep: 425
- Mitsubishi: 425
- Jaguar: 424
- Ram: 424
- Alfa Romeo: 421
- Mazda: 415
- Nissan: 411
- Ford: 406
- Mini: 396
- Dodge: 392
Tesla, Rivian and Polestar earned scores in the study, as well, with 786, 666 and 578 points, respectively. However, the brands were excluded from the rankings as they did not meet the study’s award criteria.
Related Video:
Cars.com’s Editorial department is your source for automotive news and reviews. In line with Cars.com’s long-standing ethics policy, editors and reviewers don’t accept gifts or free trips from automakers. The Editorial department is independent of Cars.com’s advertising, sales and sponsored content departments.
