Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Have you recently bought/leased a new car online and requested a home delivery due to coronavirus? A reporter would like to speak to you; please reach out to [email protected] by 4/2 for more details.
Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

Ancient Nav - 2005 Mercedes-Benz CL65 AMG Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.comEdmunds.com Posts: 10,112
edited September 2014 in Mercedes-Benz
imageAncient Nav - 2005 Mercedes-Benz CL65 AMG Long-Term Road Test

The navigation in our long-term 2005 Mercedes-Benz CL65 AMG hasn't aged well. Here's how it compares to the modern era of smartphones.

Read the full story here


Comments

  • s197gts197gt Posts: 486
    "I like the integration in the car and the better quality of the signal (satellite vs. cell towers)."

    Am I the only one who turns on the GPS in his phone when using Google Maps? Yeah, it burns up the battery and makes my phone super hot but I have it plugged in and mounted.

    Actually, though, I go back and forth between the phone and the OEM Nav in our CX-9. I like to have my phone free, but it is easier to use.
  • quadricyclequadricycle Posts: 827
    edited September 2014
    I found out a long time ago that I don't really use navigation very much, so it's not worth the cost of a factory system (for me). I'm usually where I live, so I don't need the help there, except occasionally checking where something is before getting in the car. When I'm driving out of town, I just mount my cheap yet effective aftermarket system to the windshield. Finally, when I'm out of the country I don't drive myself around very much, so I don't need help there from any electronic system.

    In the end, I didn't have to pay $1000+ for a substandard navigation that, later into my ownership, will be described as:
    - "ancient history"
    - "outdated" (X2)
    - "slow and terrible"
    - "takes forever"
    - "obsolete"
  • s197gt said:

    "I like the integration in the car and the better quality of the signal (satellite vs. cell towers)."

    Am I the only one who turns on the GPS in his phone when using Google Maps? Yeah, it burns up the battery and makes my phone super hot but I have it plugged in and mounted.

    Actually, though, I go back and forth between the phone and the OEM Nav in our CX-9. I like to have my phone free, but it is easier to use.

    Most phones use cell assisted GPS. If you lose the cell signal the GPS doesn't function as well, or in some cases at all. In the middle of nowhere you could very well lose the Nav on your phone, but you wouldn't on a factory system that only requires a view of the sky.
  • grijongrijon Posts: 147
    I am old-school when it comes to navigation; I use maps and PC-printed directions! I would never willingly pay for navigation in a car, though, when I have it included as part of my cell phone. This may not be politically correct to say, but I believe that if you truly *NEED* real-time navigation you shouldn't be at the controls of a vehicle.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    edited September 2014
    That's like saying you don't need a compass in the woods, just look at the moss on the trees. Navs are great tools (just like maps). My Garmin has saved me lots of money from needless driving around wondering how to get somewhere. And I drive a lot of roads in the boonies with no cell coverage. Want to find close gas or a place to eat? The POI will do that, not to mention the custom POI I downloaded to find pitstops. It you're really old-school like me, you know exactly why that's important. :D
  • vvkvvk Posts: 196
    The only reason I like using my car's built-in navigation is the head-up display. I find the on-windshield directions to be a lot easier to follow.

    Because it is a BMW, updates are super cheap. Almost free.
  • This is why I really don't gravitate toward factory systems. Why should I spend a couple grand for something that might require updates and/or be out of date and/or not have accurate traffic, etc. My ideal solution is to have one that ties into a service like Google Maps. Something that links to my phone and uses my data plan (ie: no extra costs) would be great as I'd have the advantage of the larger screen while having the latest technology available.
  • I like the factory Nav and always get it when buying a car, in addition to making the dash look better I hate using my phone when driving.
  • ebeaudoinebeaudoin NE IllinoisPosts: 509
    I bought a $150 Garmin nuvi with Lifetime Map Updates. I mount in on the windshield next to the driver's side A-pillar so it's out of the way. Works for me!
  • evodadevodad Posts: 135
    I have no problems with using my phone (save the few times it doesn't want to work b/c of signal) I actually just got a mount for the phone to use for in-car video when doing a track day or autox and though I haven't yet used it for those purposes, I did take it with me on a work trip and it's working wonderfully to hold my phone for nav while traversing the unknown-to-me San Diego area. To me in car looks better (when new) but the phone is more convenient, once integration is widely implemented it will be the best of both worlds.
  • schen72schen72 Posts: 433
    The best solution is something like android-auto, which allows your car's in-dash screen to be used as output for your phone. Then it will never become obsolete.
  • benson2175benson2175 Vancouver, BCPosts: 68
    Andrid-auto and similar ilk will be the best solution of integrating the phone with the car. I use Waze on my phone with a mount and plugged in and it's great. I live in the second most congested city in North America so I need the live traffic reporting to make sure I don't get stuck.
  • schen72schen72 Posts: 433
    The navigation system in my 1999 Acura TL looks better than the system in this Mercedes.
  • mercedesfanmercedesfan Posts: 365
    edited September 2014
    I agree with the negatives that others have stated here, but I still like in-dash navigation. Particularly the newer systems that allow you to send an address to your car so the navigation system is already programmed when you get in. These systems definitely become obsolete, but the maps are always able to be updated so as long as you can tolerate the interface (and honestly 1st-gen COMAND isn't that bad) these systems can always do the job.

    @schen72, I think you are really splitting hairs there. Both look terrible by modern standards. It is also worth noting, though, that COMAND had a larger, higher resolution display so in practice I would imagine it actually looks marginally better.
  • I love old navigation systems.

    My '00 Jag XJR has a nav that's much, much worse. LCD display integrated with stereo. It's about 200X300 pixels. It doesn't actually show a map - just the next direction of turn with annotation. No speech synthesis of street names. The best part about it is that it just looks like the stereo display is slightly oversized so you don't have to stare at it all the time.

    My '04 Volvo has a pop-up-from-the-dash nav that seems to be on par with the Mercedes unit. It makes some interesting navigational choices. Re-routes are particularly amusing sometimes. Google maps on my phone is far better, as might be expected considering it's connected to (essentially) a friggin' LAN, but the always-available nature of the factory system is nice to have despite the limitations.
  • schen72schen72 Posts: 433
    edited September 2014

    @schen72, I think you are really splitting hairs there. Both look terrible by modern standards. It is also worth noting, though, that COMAND had a larger, higher resolution display so in practice I would imagine it actually looks marginally better.

    You may be right about the looking better aspect. But it was torture trying to input an address into those MB nav systems.
  • @schen72,

    Different strokes for different folks. I've definitely heard a lot of people agree with you, but I never found early COMAND objectionable. The processor was sloooooow, but I found the menu structures well thought out and easy to navigate. The fact that you had to key in letters with the various hard keys made entering addresses a little more circuitous, but even so I got very fast with my wife's old E-Class. I was faster with COMAND than I was with the supposedly superior touch screen interface of the Lexus we had at the same time. The dumb touch screen required that so many inputs be repeated because it didn't recognize them the first time. I guess the moral of the story is: we should be happy with where infotainment systems are today because they universally sucked just 10 years ago.
  • schen72schen72 Posts: 433
    @mercedesfan,
    I'm sure 10 years from now people will be having similar discussions about the ancient infotainment systems in 2014 cars.
  • schen72schen72 Posts: 433
    For an example of a truly ancient navi system, I once had an Audi A6 company car (circa 1999) and that car's "navi" had no map display. They just repurposed the existing dot matrix dash display (between speedo and tach) to show the next turn along with a voice prompt. Entering addresses was with a tiny dial on the center console which literally took me 10 minutes for each address. There was much cursing and gnashing of teeth.
  • I used to worry about Nav and "infotainment" but find myself caring less and less. In a car where it's optional, I'd favor the version without the nav screen/infotainment screen because it looks cleaner and more like a car than a computer. Also, it dates the interior as it ages. They all get you where you want to go if the maps are up to date, if you need that kind of help navigating. Now that navigation is everywhere it's not a luxury item. The luxury of the CL65 is the otherworldly horsepower and torque figures, the idea that it contains twelve cylinders and two turbochargers, the shape, the pillarless hardtop design, the way it feels going down the road, and the quality of the materials you can see and feel. The gagetry is not bad but it's a sideshow to the car itself.
  • lime679lime679 Posts: 38
    I absolutely ALWAYS get the sat nav feature on my cars. I won't look at the vehicle if it doesn't offer sat nav and better headlamps than halogen lights. I like the look much better of the dash with the screen and don't want random arms poking out holding aftermarket stuff. No cords and extra.
  • The navigation in my 05 w220 is just fine with a 2013 navigation disk. Its not as snappy as a new garmin, but it operates without fault and only occasionally gets confused at multi junction points. The instrument cluster display is great and I find no issue with having to look down occasionally to see the screen. Its unnecessary for the most part though given the redundant screen in the IC. I find the whining about these systems overblown.
  • jeepsrt said:

    I like the factory Nav and always get it when buying a car, in addition to making the dash look better I hate using my phone when driving.

    jeepsrt said:

    I like the factory Nav and always get it when buying a car, in addition to making the dash look better I hate using my phone when driving.

  • need help, how to update 06 s500 factory gps
Sign In or Register to comment.