Comments on: GM to offer Bluetooth by 2009 model year

By: jackjimturkey

jackjimturkey — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 22:51:17 +0000

blueballs

By: CA36GTP

CA36GTP — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:59:48 +0000

Bluetooth is auto-speak for the final conversion of your automobile into your wife. Have fun arguing with Ford’s stupid voice-command system when it does the opposite of everything you say.

By: Get Real

Get Real — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:55:30 +0000

Bluetooth is auto-speak for “more trips to the dealership to fix.”

By: The Stig

The Stig — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:17:18 +0000

What is Bluetooth?

By: LP640

LP640 — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:53:04 +0000

^agreed i dont know where i’d be if it wasnt for nav, probably lost in a wood somewhere.

By: Fletch

Fletch — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:30:40 +0000

Dude, nav is nice, no fumbling around with maps and printed directions. Especially for visual learners like me.

Nav is worth the weight penalty.

By: injunraiv

injunraiv — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:08:05 +0000

I agree that actually having Bluetooth is great if the customer is looking for it in competing cars, but bluetooth itself is a passing fad. I also want to see GM make iPod ability standard, but they don’t seem to get it…

It doesn’t matter if it’s worthwhile, if the competition offers it GM needs to at least look into it.

BTW, OnStar turn by turn might not cut it as a nav system, Oh wait, what am I saying? OnStar is way cheaper then the average nav, is completely upgradeable, and doesn’t require you to take your eyes off the road to program in a destination. OK, no fancy screen, but that is a distration to the task at hand – DRIVING!

By: Z06ified

Z06ified — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:37:10 +0000

“What, GM waaaaaaay behind everyone else in terms of technology? Say it isn’t so.

Comment by Madcapp, posted on December19 at 11:05 am ”

Madcapp – GM has invented more automotive technology that is used everyday today than any other automobile company in the world. Get a clue before you post such nonsense.

By: LP640

LP640 — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:16:38 +0000

Gee, Thanks CA36

By: Fletch

Fletch — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:54:34 +0000

Just another gadget that contributes to the escalating cost of vehicles and stagnant fuel economy. Another module, another harness, more weight.

By: F451

F451 — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:47:14 +0000

What Lutz finally read an article in Bluetooth? I get so pissed with GM…years behind the competition on certain aspects that are so important to the customer.

By: CA36GTP

CA36GTP — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:32:31 +0000

Seems like the Onstar phone to me, which I thought was a bit lacking. A cabin mic would have to be fairly sensitive and grab some road noise.

By: Rotman

Rotman — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:25:34 +0000

Well, you have to remember where you left your earpiece and put it in and turn it on, but in your car it automatically connects when you get in, good sound over the speakers, good sound on the oither side. Only downside is the battery life.

By: CA36GTP

CA36GTP — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:09:43 +0000

LP640, I’ll pick you up tomorrow in my 1800 bluetooth-enabled Cadillac and we’ll go, alright? If you’re a really good boy, we’ll stop at McDonald’s on the way.

By: CA36GTP

CA36GTP — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:08:25 +0000

But bluetooth in a car is totally pointless and unnecessary for hands-free operation. You need a bluetooth capable phone to use with a bluetooth-enabled car anyway. So why not just cut out the expensive middleman and buy a cheap bluetooth earpiece/mic?

By: Madcapp

Madcapp — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:05:49 +0000

What, GM waaaaaaay behind everyone else in terms of technology? Say it isn’t so.

By: LP640

LP640 — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:05:36 +0000

CA36, when’s our rehab trip scheduled?????

By: Rotman

Rotman — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:59:22 +0000

Ì’m not sure how this is in the States but in many European countries you have to use a handsfree set when you want to use your cell and bluetooth is extremely easy to use.

By: Z06ified

Z06ified — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:42:33 +0000

It’s about time. I agree its mostly marketing and PR, but some buyers will actually refuse to look at or buy a car that doesn’t have that feature. It is a “nice to have” feature, that certainly should be available in all cars costing more than $30k, especially if the competition offers it.

Next, they need to offer a navigation system on their mid-size sedans like the Malibu and Aura – the OnStar thing doesn’t cut it. Especially since you can get nav on cars as low as the Corolla and Scions these days.

By: johnnycanuck

johnnycanuck — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:42:18 +0000

RHead: even people like us will one day cave to the techno-gods and be forced to admit that anything that frees up the other hand of the lumpen proletariat so that it might actually find its way on the steering wheel just might be a good thing.

I’m just worried about what the next excuse not to have both hands on the wheel will be.

By: CA36GTP

CA36GTP — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:57:18 +0000

Okay, it’s official. LP640 needs a serious intervention and a trip to drug rehab.

By: LP640

LP640 — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:53:42 +0000

this is pathetic. Bluetooth was being offered on cars in the 1800′s and by 2009 when GM catch up witht the rest of the world bluetooth will be a thing of the past.

By: CA36GTP

CA36GTP — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:49:28 +0000

I’m not much on the whole Bluetooth thing (95% gimmick), but GM really needs this for marketing purposes.

By: Rotman

Rotman — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:44:47 +0000

Even my dog comes with Bluetooth nowadays….

By: cookie4me

cookie4me — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:39:06 +0000

Another blind blunder by GM. For this, there is no excuse. When you can get bluetooth on a Nissan Sentra and not on the cutting edge sedan offered by Cadillac, you really have to wonder where GM’s head was buried. At least Ford will move less appealing product with its sync system.