Sat Nav Obsession!

[Highlander]

Just been reading a post on the A5 forum where folk are giving someone grief for ordering an S5 without Sat Nav.

It seems to be a growing obsession with folk that cars must be fitted with it - why?

The general argument is that the resale value will be hit when you come to sell the car. If you didn't have to shell out the best part of £2000 in the first place, why should it bother you if you get £2000 less when it comes to sell it?

I admit that it looks good in the dash, but not £2000 worth of good!

I'm not opposed to nav systems, I've got a Tom Tom myself, but 99% of the time it goes unused because I know where I'm going.

My Tom Tom cost me £250 & does everything that I would want from it. Maybe when manufacturers start charging realistic prices I'll change my mind, but for now I'll continue to think that it's just a waste of money.

[techieboy]

I don't know how badly (if at all) not having OEM SatNav affects residuals. What I do know is, if I were spending £30k+ on a secondhand car, I'd sure as hell expect it to be fitted. I wouldn't necessarily rule out looking at an S5 without it but, it wouldn't be anywhere near the top of my list of cars to view. TBH, I think it's expected on an exec sports saloon/coupe these days especially on a car that costs £40k+ new.

[gizze]

Selling a car with at that level not only gets all the money back but it also becomes a mare trying to get rid of the car without it.

I would guess the S5 would be wired completely differently if it is a car with nav or without, with nav I would guess the car is hooked up using the mostbus system, meaning adding anything at a later date would be much easier, like dab radio, dab tv tuner, newer phone system, new media player interface etc. etc.

You will probably find if you are financing it properly that a car with nav will not cost you anymore a month either, because the residuals are better.

I just can't see the point of ordering a car worth what? £45-50k? without it, sure a track based car doesn't need it, but the S5 is basically a grand tourer, designed to cover serious miles quickly, and for that Nav is a must have.

[mark88]

I agree with GIzzE. A 50k car without sat nav could be quite hard to shift.

On another point, it's a joke that a TomTom costing a couple hundred quid is better than one costing 10 times more fitted to an Audi. You would have thought all these sat nav units would have driven the price of factory fitted sat navs down. Guess Not.

[Cupramax]

Not while there's still people willing to pay £2k+ for the factory unit. If we all stopped buying them the price would soon drop.

[cruiser647]

Can't say I'm fussed by Sat Nav. Buying 2nd hand, I would not necessarily look for one with Sat Nav. Can't be arsed by it. My mate used his once or twice once he got his Vectra with it, but after that, to much grief typing the locations in

However, with all certain class cars having it, you would be better off buying the car with it.

[Highlander]

[ QUOTE ]

I agree with GIzzE. A 50k car without sat nav could be quite hard to shift.

On another point, it's a joke that a TomTom costing a couple hundred quid is better than one costing 10 times more fitted to an Audi. You would have thought all these sat nav units would have driven the price of factory fitted sat navs down. Guess Not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say that the Tom Tom was better than the units fitted by Audi. Simply that I spent about a tenth of what it would have cost me for a factory fitted system & it does all that I require from it - tells me where to go!

I dare say that I'm looking at the cost from a different viewpoint to most people on the site. All my cars have been cash purchases, so I'm not looking at residual values on lease purchase deals or company car schemes.

[lesK]

IMO I wouldn't be bothered if it was fitted or not, and the tom tom may be better than the audi fitted one. Just because it cost 2k doesn't make it any better!

(This is just my opinion, before I get shot down!)

[PsYcHe]

Having used a number of factory fit satnav systems compared with the TomTom which I can update easily and add all manner of POI databses to, I really can't see the great attraction. Now if the built-in satnav had similar feateures, such as POI warnings and the ability to store the database on an SD-card, then that might make it really worth the money.

[TDiAvant]

I think price has a big thing to do with it, from what I know dealers won't touch an RS4 if it don't have nav.

The other thing to remember is that the "NAV" option in the A5 is not just nav, they upgrade the car to the MOST bus system, which you can add options like AMI, TV, SDS and SAP phone prep.

[EssFour]

Times have changed. Not so long ago it was electric windows. I remember trying to sell a Rover 414 years ago and had loads of viewers but once they realised it did not have electric windows they lost interest. That or because it was a Rover.

[techieboy]

[ QUOTE ]

IMO I wouldn't be bothered if it was fitted or not, and the tom tom may be better than the audi fitted one. Just because it cost 2k doesn't make it any better!

(This is just my opinion, before I get shot down!)

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no doubt. TomTom is a much better product for satnav and the POI functionality. It's just a shame that it doesn't integrate into the car insted of having the thing hanging off the windscreen and trailing cables all over the interior.

[Highlander]

[ QUOTE ]

The other thing to remember is that the "NAV" option in the A5 is not just nav, they upgrade the car to the MOST bus system, which you can add options like AMI, TV, SDS and SAP phone prep.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't get me started on TV in a car!!

IMHO it has to be the most pointless £850 you could ever spend!

[TDiAvant]

Errrr Why?

[Highlander]

[ QUOTE ]

Errrr Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I'm going to watch TV, it'll be sat in my living room!

[Pincher]

I'd agree that factory SatNav is a waste of money if buying from new as TomTom's do a much better job but you can't deny that it helps resale massively - I've been looking at some 2002 5 series BMW's and the ones with SatNav (and in particular the 3d DVD based ones) aren't that much of a premium over the non-Nav cars available. But I know which i would rather have.

Having said that, if the perfect car came up without it, I doubt it would put me off buying it. I'd just get a TomTom instead

[edo]

I agree the manufacturers are taking the piss, and prices are coming down slowly.

As above I wouldnt buy a used "premium" car these days without, because the difference at used time is minimal.

You also need to bear in mind a factory system like that in an A5 has advantages - no tell tale mark on the screen for theives, no cables, TMC traffic updates (without an antenna), feed from ABS so pause in GPS signal doesnt confuse it etc. Dont get me wrong - it isnt "worth" 2k, but it makes these cars tought to sell (rightly or wrongly)..

[Highlander]

I think the resale value explanation is one that's spun by dealers trying to screw us for more money.

My last car was a BMW 330 CI. When I ordered it, the dealer was horrified that I wanted a manual car. He said that the market dictated that people wanted the car with an automatic box & that I'd have trouble getting rid of it.

He also said that people spending that amount on a car would expect sat nav.

I stuck by my guns & over the 2.5 years that I had it, the same dealer approached me 4 times asking if I wanted to sell my car because they had customers looking for a car with the same spec as mine!

When I traded it in against my current car (A4 2.0 TFSI Quattro S-line SE), I actually received a better trade in value than I expected.

Getting back to the sat nav subject, it was the best part of £2000 when I bought my car. If it was £500, as it is now, I would have gone for it.

[Tarmac_Terrorist]

[ QUOTE ]

I think price has a big thing to do with it, from what I know dealers won't touch an RS4 if it don't have nav.

[/ QUOTE ]

That surprises me.

Whilst I can understand that most folks would want / expect nav on this type of car, everyones needs are unique.

Lets face it I can't imagine too many RS4's cover over 40,000 miles per year on unfamiliar roads. Many may cover as few as say 5000 miles per year in which case is sat nav required? I also suspect that the older the car becomes, the more basic principals of buying a used car apply...age, mileage and condition before spec.

[TDiAvant]

Most OEM nav unit's don't just do the nav function. The RNS-E on the RS4, is the Radio, CD, MP3(SD Cards), TV Screen (If fitted), Bluetooth Control(if fitted). Other after market devices can also be connected. It's the same of the MMI system on the A/S 5. But the MMi system also has the option of DVB-T, DAB, Parking sensors, Reversing camera, Control for central locking, status of the cars battery, etc, etc etc.

When was the last time you saw a Tom Tom do that.

[330dcoupe]

They say car insurance is now cheaper if you have Sat Nav in your car. What the f*** is that all about? I'm guessing it's some sort of safety thing - getting lost less can reduce concentration levels, thus meaning higher chances of crashing - Am i right?

[Tarmac_Terrorist]

[ QUOTE ]

Most OEM nav unit's don't just do the nav function. The RNS-E on the RS4, is the Radio, CD, MP3(SD Cards), TV Screen (If fitted), Bluetooth Control(if fitted). Other after market devices can also be connected. It's the same of the MMI system on the A/S 5. But the MMi system also has the option of DVB-T, DAB, Parking sensors, Reversing camera, Control for central locking, status of the cars battery, etc, etc etc.

When was the last time you saw a Tom Tom do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, but my Kenwood double din 7200 has Video ipod input, TV tuner facility, bluetooth phone capability and reverse camera input, SD card slot for POI's etc...almost as much as the Audi system (very few features aside. I guess the poiny I'm making here is that for £1500 you can have an excellent aftermarket system installed if for example you came across a 2nd hand model which didn't have the OEM unit specced

[mark88]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

I agree with GIzzE. A 50k car without sat nav could be quite hard to shift.

On another point, it's a joke that a TomTom costing a couple hundred quid is better than one costing 10 times more fitted to an Audi. You would have thought all these sat nav units would have driven the price of factory fitted sat navs down. Guess Not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say that the Tom Tom was better than the units fitted by Audi. Simply that I spent about a tenth of what it would have cost me for a factory fitted system & it does all that I require from it - tells me where to go!

I dare say that I'm looking at the cost from a different viewpoint to most people on the site. All my cars have been cash purchases, so I'm not looking at residual values on lease purchase deals or company car schemes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you misunderstood. *I* was saying the TomTom is better than the Audi Sat Nav, and it is.

[TDiAvant]

Or you could retrofit the OEM systems

[330dcoupe]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Most OEM nav unit's don't just do the nav function. The RNS-E on the RS4, is the Radio, CD, MP3(SD Cards), TV Screen (If fitted), Bluetooth Control(if fitted). Other after market devices can also be connected. It's the same of the MMI system on the A/S 5. But the MMi system also has the option of DVB-T, DAB, Parking sensors, Reversing camera, Control for central locking, status of the cars battery, etc, etc etc.

When was the last time you saw a Tom Tom do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, but my Kenwood double din 7200 has Video ipod input, TV tuner facility, bluetooth phone capability and reverse camera input, SD card slot for POI's etc...almost as much as the Audi system (very few features aside. I guess the poiny I'm making here is that for £1500 you can have an excellent aftermarket system installed if for example you came across a 2nd hand model which didn't have the OEM unit specced

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh stop comparing your willies boys.