Decided on i Touring, Should I Go for the Tech Package?

[blueboxdoctor]

Right, I posted a week or so ago and I have basically decided to go with the i Touring. Drove both the 2.0 and 2.5 and can't justify the price difference, that's just me, I understand why the 2.5 is desirable but I'm quite alright with the 2.0.

That aside, I'm now debating on the tech package. Here's why:

Would Like:

- CD player (call me old school but I find it easier to skip around songs this way when driving)
- Improved audio (not a Bose fanboy but I do like to crank it sometimes in the car, though have yet to try the base speakers)

Don't Care Much For:

- Dual zone climate (the car is small enough that I don't really see the point)
- Sun roof (don't have one now so I'm not stuck on them or anything)

Undecided:

- Sat Nav (currently use a GPS that works just fine, but with the way the screen is placed, I'm not sure where I'd put the GPS, currently have it on a pad that I put on the dash because the one I have is too heavy to stay on the window [got a big XL size one] so may just get a new one of those and eventually when I drag myself into the current century will just use a smartphone for maps).

Just curious to hear from those who have and don't have these features and what you think of them. Thanks for any info.

 

[larson701]

I got the tech pkg for the Sirius radio. Nice to have consistent radio on the Plains. I agree with you regarding the sunroof. No real value and extra weight. Unless something changed, the satnav is not part of the tech pkg. You will need to purchase a satnav dongle to enable the satnav, another $300. I have no use for the CD player and would rather have another USB port or 2. The dual zone climate control works well, especially welcome on those longer trips with my wife. The 2.0 is giving me exceptional fuel economy.

 

[blueboxdoctor]

I got the tech pkg for the Sirius radio. Nice to have consistent radio on the Plains. I agree with you regarding the sunroof. No real value and extra weight. Unless something changed, the satnav is not part of the tech pkg. You will need to purchase a satnav dongle to enable the satnav, another $300. I have no use for the CD player and would rather have another USB port or 2. The dual zone climate control works well, especially welcome on those longer trips with my wife. The 2.0 is giving me exceptional fuel economy.

Thanks for the reply. I don't care much for Sirius radio (it is neat, but doesn't do much for me, but then I live in an area with a lot of radio stations so losing reception hasn't been an issue). And sat nav isn't part of the tech package? Do you know if it is something I can just buy with the car for $300 (or whatever the price may be now)?

As for the 2.0, what type of mpg do you get out of it (I know what the estimate they give is but curious to see how realistic their numbers are). Also, what do you think of its power (does it ever feel like it's noticeably lacking power? I doubt this will be an issue, as I'm going from a car with a 0-60 time of 11.something seconds to a 2.0 Mazda3 that has a 0-60 of I think about 7.7 seconds).

 

[larson701]

To my knowledge, the tech pkg is needed for the nav system because of the antenna type. I may be wrong but I have only heard of nav on tech pkg cars. Asking the dealer may be a waste of time since there are subleties that the mechanics and salesmen constantly get wrong. However, look at the options packages and you may notice that the nav is associated with the Bose system, which is only available with the tech pkg. Making myself a liar, but my dealer stated that the nav could be added to the car for $600 but I think he was referring to a non-Bose infotainment car (non-tech pkg). Lots of bad info out there. Sorry if this confuses the issue.

I live in a relatively small town. A few streets are 35 mph but most residential streets are 20-25 mph. I try to use the faster outer streets that allow 35-45 mph when possible since that is the sweet spot for fuel economy. Also, as I note, I drive a manual and if you go that route, you will see the shift indicator suggesting absurdly low rpm shifts, which I follow. An automatic will take care of that for you but if you pay attention you will see the engine operating at speeds of between 1200 and 1800 rpm, very low. During the winter I regularly saw 30 mpg. My last tank was 34 mpg. All values were calculated. Pure highway fuel economy is dependent on the wind direction. That sounds like a copout but my highway speeds are around 80 mph, not good for fuel economy. I normally see between 30 to 35 mpg on the highway as a result but know it would improve tremendously if I slowed. But I do not want to get run over by the traffic. The 3 gets as good as or better fuel economy than our 2012 auto-equipped Hyundai Accent and much better than my previous 2012 Honda Civic Si. Performance of the 2.0 is adequate. For only that last reason do I miss my Si.

Hope this helped.

 

[blueboxdoctor]

To my knowledge, the tech pkg is needed for the nav system because of the antenna type. I may be wrong but I have only heard of nav on tech pkg cars. Asking the dealer may be a waste of time since there are subleties that the mechanics and salesmen constantly get wrong. However, look at the options packages and you may notice that the nav is associated with the Bose system, which is only available with the tech pkg. Making myself a liar, but my dealer stated that the nav could be added to the car for $600 but I think he was referring to a non-Bose infotainment car (non-tech pkg). Lots of bad info out there. Sorry if this confuses the issue.

I live in a relatively small town. A few streets are 35 mph but most residential streets are 20-25 mph. I try to use the faster outer streets that allow 35-45 mph when possible since that is the sweet spot for fuel economy. Also, as I note, I drive a manual and if you go that route, you will see the shift indicator suggesting absurdly low rpm shifts, which I follow. An automatic will take care of that for you but if you pay attention you will see the engine operating at speeds of between 1200 and 1800 rpm, very low. During the winter I regularly saw 30 mpg. My last tank was 34 mpg. All values were calculated. Pure highway fuel economy is dependent on the wind direction. That sounds like a copout but my highway speeds are around 80 mph, not good for fuel economy. I normally see between 30 to 35 mpg on the highway as a result but know it would improve tremendously if I slowed. But I do not want to get run over by the traffic. The 3 gets as good as or better fuel economy than our 2012 auto-equipped Hyundai Accent and much better than my previous 2012 Honda Civic Si. Performance of the 2.0 is adequate. For only that last reason do I miss my Si.

Hope this helped.

OK, yeah that's what I thought that sat nav is part of the tech package only. I figure since I'm coming from a Chrysler Cirrus, this car will be a nice improvement but yeah, I can see how going from a Si to it may be a noticeable difference. Most of the roads I currently go on are about 50-55 mph so that's not bad (of course highway driving will also come into play as well around town, but currently they're not the majority of my driving). The big thing I like about the 3 is the handling, which is a lot better than most other cars I've test driven in the segment and the overall quality of the interior is very nice, at least I think it is.