Craig-D

Check your residuals. Cars without Nav have a higher residual value. Why? Because 5 years or more from now buyers of used cars with built-in NAV will be stuck with hopelessly outdated and non-upgradeable Nav units. So that's why Nav-equipped vehicles have lower residual value.

patcracks

We have a DVD drive in the trunk for the navi, how bad could it be to get a new disc in 5 years?

wackura

A twenty year old Rand McNally map is still useful. They simply don't make new roads all that often, especialy in population saturated cities.

You and everyone else make a mistake when you describe nav units are nothing more than technology; they are simply realy cool maps. Some technology becomes absolutely useless, like an 8 track, but cool maps will never be completely useless.

On top of that all the pros of a slightly outdated built in system still remain over any portable unit; it's harder to steal, it's always there and you don't have to hassle puting it up and taking it down. It looks better. I'm not trying to win this argument to justify a previously made decision; I've lived with removable face stereos and radar detectors for YEARS and YEARS and I won't want to go back to messing with dash related portable electronics. Built in units improve my quality of life.

And you're not even addressing the backup cam feature.

screamace

I think the reason why a car with nav depreciates faster is becasue the bank depreciates the nav unit as "computer". Everyone knows how fast computer componnets depreciate.

Craig-D

My Nuvi is a lot harder to steal than a built-in Nav unit because it never stays in the car. Can't take what isn't in the car - that's the best anti-theft device there is. I can't take the built-in Nav unit and put it in pedestrian mode when I hike, and I can't take the built-in unit when I rent cars on vacations and business trips. So for my needs, built-in units are not a viable option. Doesn't make built-in Nav bad, just not for me (and many others).

I agree with many of your points, but it doesn't change the fact that cars with built in Nav have lesser residual value than those without. I was just addressing the inaccurate claim that a seller of a used model with Nav can command a premium over one without. Lastly, most car makers charge $2,000 for Nav. They simply aren't worth that much considering the completely voice controlled top of the line Garmin can be had for under $1,000. The fact that Acura throws a few extra goodies in for another grand over the cost of the overpriced Nav doesn't make it any better of a deal in my view. Give me all the other features of the tech package sans Nav for an extra $700 - $1000 and I'm in. So I did address the backup cam earlier in the thread when I stated it was a feature of the tech package I would have wanted to have. But I wouldn't pay for Nav I didn't want in order to get it.

wackura

I see some dubious claims that a nav unit depreciates a car 1% greater than a non-nav. That's probably within the statistical margin of error. Beyond that this has devolved into yet another pros and cons list, and neither is a clearly better choice than the other for all people. As I already said, I HATE messing with external dash accessories, an outdated map still suits my needs perfectly and the $2000 price tag wasn't an issue for me.

Actualy I just bought a used Ody with nav and aparently it was the same price or cheaper than a non nav according to the stats, so yay for me.