There is arguably no OEM that has made more changes to how interiors are executed than Tesla.
Presumably part of it is based on the fact that as a comparatively young vehicle manufacturer (Telsa was founded in 2003; General Motors 1908; Mercedes-Benz 1926), its engineers and designers looked at interiors with comparatively fresh eyes.
So in order to make their products clearly tech-forward—and to cut costs by using a digital interface to replace mechanical devices—Tesla instrument panels became minimalist and screen-centric.
This approach has been followed of late by several OEMs (which I found out, often, the hard way during recent judging for the Wards 10 Best Interiors: when you climb into a vehicle and wonder why the gauges are all illuminated and the center screen active yet can’t get the vehicle in gear, this is a problem. Yes, once you own the vehicle things like that become second nature. But is it a good idea in the first place? Or what if you want to open the glovebox? Isn’t a pull device or a physical button release simple and intuitive—especially more so than searching around on a screen? Side mirror adjustment? Good luck.)
In 2023-24 Tesla replaced the familiar turn-signal stalk in the Model 3 with touch-sensitive buttons on the steering wheel.
Last week the company announced—for Model 3s in China built after February 7, 2025—that for 2,499 yuan, which is about $350, owners can get a stalk retrofitted into their vehicles at a Tesla Service Center. Although reservations can be made via the Tesla app, there is the physical inconvenience of having to take one’s car to the service center to get the modification made in an approved manner.
Whether this OEM “upgrade” rolls out to other markets remains to be seen.
But it is simply silly, an ergonomic error made by Tesla.
That said, in the J.D. Power 2025 U.S. Tech Experience Index (TXI) Study released last week—which measures “how effectively each automotive brand brings new technologies to market” and combines that with “excellence in execution”—were Tesla to have been included in the official results (Tesla chooses not to participate by restricting access to customer data), it blows the proverbial doors off of all other brands.
That is, based on the TXI ranking on a 1,000-point scale, Tesla (so J.D. Power has calculated) would be at 873 points.
In the Premium vehicle segment, which would have included Tesla, Genesis has, for the fifth year running, taken the top spot with 538 points.
In the Mass Market segment, Hyundai is first—for the sixth year in a row—at 493 points.
Clearly Tesla is doing something right, turn stalk elimination notwithstanding.
It is worth knowing that the TXI looks at 40 technologies and has responses from 76,230 owners of new model year 2025 vehicles who have lived with those vehicles for 90 days (a sufficient amount of time to be delighted with or annoyed by things).
In addition to the overall scores, there are winners in specific categories, too.
In the “Comfort & Convenience” category the winners, for Premium and Mass Market models, are:
- Land Rover Defender for an advanced purification system
- Toyota Land Cruiser/Sequioa (tie) for a camera rear-view mirror
“Connected Vehicle” winners:
- Genesis GV80 for a phone-based digital key
- Hyundai Santa Fe for the same (apparently being owned by the same company can provide an advantage)
“Driver Assist”:
- GMC HUMMER EV SUV for active lane-change assist
- Hyundai Santa Fe for blind spot camera
“Electric Vehicle” has just a Mass Market model:
- Kia EV9: one-pedal driving
But what’s more interesting, perhaps, is what people are or will be troubled by.
According to J.D. Power, “Currently, problems increasingly focus on technology requiring connectivity. In the future, according to findings in the TXI Study, the next evolution of vehicle quality problems owners will likely face will be related to inconsistent performance of recognition and authentication technologies.”
And that last bit will be exceedingly vexing as it could mean trouble getting into a vehicle due to a failure of biometric authentication. (It is one thing when you iPhone doesn’t immediately recognize your face, but entirely something else when your SUV doesn’t.)
One tech that is proving to be somewhat problematic is certainly a first-world problem: Car wash mode.
Evidently, there is a function will prepare a vehicle to go through a car wash—things like preventing automatic activation of the wipers and closing all of the windows.
J.D. Power says it “is often buried within the infotainment system, making it difficult to find, which causes delays and frustration, especially in line at a car wash.” Probably more frustrating when that chain starts dragging one’s vehicle through the brushes.
According to J.D. Power, “despite its potential benefits, the complicated accessibility of the car wash mode and lack of user guidance are preventing it from becoming a widely adopted feature.”
But isn’t this something that is fundamentally a questionable feature? Every vehicle that would have such tech has simple means to make sure the windows are closed and to turn off the automatic wiper function. It is not like any of that is inconvenient. And is this something that people would likely not brag about (“My crossover automatically prepares itself to go through the car wash”).
Many OEMs have discovered that their customers are not happy with the elimination of things like volume knobs for the audio system or actual buttons or dials to adjust the HVAC system. Consequently they are putting them back in.
In the mid-1980s design expert Donald A. Norman drew attention to what is known as “user-centered design,” which, as the name implies, involves using actual people who are likely to use a product in the development of the product.
Seems like a simple thing: developing functions that are actually functional for the people who will use them.
Perhaps this will not result in a Silicon Valley aesthetic.
But given a choice between novelty and functionality, more people will opt for the latter rather than the former—especially when piloting something that weighs a couple tons at speeds in excess of 70 mph.
Many OEMs are starting to use Google Maps in their vehicles. Everyone loves Google, right?
But look at this:
How useful is that?
Compare this:
The Waze map is simpler and certainly more glance-accessible.
Funny thing: Google owns Waze.
Sometimes companies are just too clever for their own good—and for the good of those who are going to be using its products.
Long-time automotive journalist Gary Vasilash is co-host of “Autoline After Hours” and is a North American Car, Truck & Utility of the Year juror. He is also a contributor to Wards Auto and a juror for its 10 Best Interiors UX and 10 Best Engines & Propulsion Systems awards. He has written for a number of outlets, ranging from Composites Technology to Car and Driver.
The TTAC Creators Series tells stories and amplifies creators from all corners of the car world, including culture, dealerships, collections, modified builds and more.
Check out Gary’s Substack here.
[Images: Tesla, the author]
Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.
