2008 Buick Enclave: It Frightens and Confuses Me

James, that picture gives me chills...

James not be scared; OnStar simply regular cellphone service on Verizon network. Car have its own phone number!
 
OnStar: So easy, a caveman could use it! Oh, wait...

"I don't really understand how any of this OnStar phone stuff works nor how it's in any way superior to Bluetooth. "
 
Who said it was "superior" to bluetooth? Onstar had handsfree calling before BT was even a known entity. At this point in time its not state of the art but it was when it debuted. Thats how things work when technology is involved. I cant imagine how anyone wouldnt be able to understand and use the Onstar phone. Your car has a built in phone with a phone number. Its pretty simple.
 
For 2009 almost every GM product gets bluetooth so everyone who hates ONstar can relax.

That's just it, it's in no way superior to Bluetooth. Love the Phil Hartman/SNL unfrozen caveman skit reference!

"That's just it, it's in no way superior to Bluetooth."
 
And who said it was? Since its many years older I cant see why it would be considered superior. Some folks have no idea what BT means and for them Onstar's phone system would be fine for occasional use. Older technology often gets surpassed by newer technology. Nothing new there. When Onstar first came out with this feature many people didnt even use cell phones and there certainly wasnt any comparable voice dialing system available on non luxury cars.

PS:
 
based on what I have read in numerous LT tests of BT equipped vehicles it's very unreliable and often won't work with certain phones. Automobile mag had a LT GS430 and said they never got the BT to work correctly during the car's stay.

"Automobile mag had a LT GS430 and said they never got the BT to work correctly during the car's stay."
 
They must have some real stupid people in their editorial staff...
 
My buddy and I both got our cell phones (a Blackberry and Samsung) working in a loaner ES I got for half day.

Bluetooth is very easy to use for cell phones and the myriad of other products that use it. To suggest that is it unreliable or difficult to use is silly.

In the dictionary under "apologist," the numbers 1487 appear.

LOL
 
They should really make BT an option, because this pay for OnStar stuff is not hot.

It depends on what part of OnStar. It's automatic airbag deployment reporting is quite literally a life-saving feature. Same with other safety/security features. That would be a big selling point for me. It's navigation and phone features, however, have been surpassed by newer and better technologies.

James...dude...lol...if you are ever going to be in Little Rock, AR, you find a way to let me know. I want to buy you a beer. Or hey, maybe you're a white wine spritzer sort of guy. Whatever. Nice post as usual though.
 
Just remember, if you're in Little Rock, appletinis on me.

"It's navigation and phone features, however, have been surpassed by newer and better technologies."
 
I love single perspective jaded reviewers who pretend to speak for the entire automotive public. My parents, 63 and 58, do not own Bluetooth capable phones. If they did, they still wouldn't know how to use the feature. The sole purpose of their cell phones are to make and receive calls and they'll occasionally forget them at home or forget to fully charge before leaving. In such an event, they use OnStar for voice calling in their 2008 Impala and the feature could not be easier to use. No learning curve, no syncing, no nonsense. Bluetooth is great (when it works) but it's not the end all nor is it the only functional option.
 
"Bluetooth is very easy to use for cell phones and the myriad of other products that use it. To suggest that is it unreliable or difficult to use is silly"
 
My Treo 700p would not handshake with an Acura TL. Perhaps I am just being "silly..."
 
"They should really make BT an option, because this pay for OnStar stuff is not hot"
 
If you can read, see post #4... it says, "For 2009 almost every GM product gets bluetooth so everyone who hates ONstar can relax."
 
As 1487 said, OnStar offered hands free call functionality before the Bluetooth protocol was officially specified. If you've ever used the system, than you'd know how easily it functions. Believe it or not, some people find the system perfect for their needs.

White wine sptrizer? Appletini? Please, you insult me. I settle for nothing less than a fine Cosmopolitan. But with only a half-shot. A full shot just tastes yucky.

James, by all means, when you're in Austin, we'll go to a book club, have mojitos, and complain about our significant others. It'll be both refreshing, yet invigorating.

Perfect for a small percentage of peoples needs, carphones are old technology, why not pay the extra money and get a BT phone, they're really cheap now. Unless your grandparents are still sporting a Nokia 5120 and can't take the time out to pair a phone or have you pair a phone for 5 minutes. It's so limiting, not everyone has Verizon Worthless, and not everyone wants to pay extra for a phone you can only use in the car.
 
They should and they are, that's GREAT, because clearly everyone besides a few hates onstar and their handicapped handsfree system.

I love when you present your ridiculous opinions as facts. That's the first sign to indicate that someone holds zero credibility. Your logic remains illogical- instead of my parents using a system that they love and that works every single time, they should instead and go buy new T-Mobile phones and new car with Bluetooth, right? Yeah- makes perfect since.
 
"It's so limiting, not everyone has Verizon Worthless, and not everyone wants to pay extra for a phone you can only use in the car"
 
You don't have to have Verizon- the car will have it free for a year regardless and they'll throw in free minutes. Then again, you are an expert on all matters GM so how dare I question you? If Mazda doesn't have a feature, it must be because the said feature is pointless, correct? Does you CX-7 have bluetooth?
 
I don't know about you people, but if I want to yap on the phone while driving, I just use my bluetooth headset. The idea of chatting over the car's speakerphone for extended periods of time makes little sense to me.

I don't get why someone just doesn't call Blockbuster and complain...it's a phone number for a Buick! Get it off the list. Maybe that makes too much sense...or maybe the Buick is sooooo good otherwise, it would eliminate quite a bit of blog fodder.

"They must have some real stupid people in their editorial staff..."
 
No, the system wouldnt recognize phones. They arent stupid. Cant say the same for your ridiculous assumption though.

"Bluetooth is very easy to use for cell phones and the myriad of other products that use it. To suggest that is it unreliable or difficult to use is silly."
 
Blame the editors of automobile magazine. I read a LT test of another car and they said blackberries wouldnt sync up with the system. I believe it was a G35 in C&D. To assume this tech works every time is silly.
 
"In the dictionary under "apologist," the numbers 1487 appear."
 
I am responding to a silly comment about "not understanding Onstar" and I'm an apologist? WHat is difficult to understand? The car has a built in phone. It's pretty simply. You should have just said you don't like Onstar because its a GM exclusive feature and you prefer Bluetooth. That would've made more sense than saying Onstar is difficult to use or comprehend. Someone can call the wrong number and reach you on a house phone, cell phone or Onstar phone. The fact that you were called accidentally has nothing to do with Onstar itself. Inferring that I am an "apologist" suggests that I am excusing a system that malfunctioned. Someone called and the phone ringed so I am lost as to how Onstar was at fault. If someone had given out your cell phone number to Blockbuster by coincidence and you got the call via Bluetooth while driving I guess you would be OK.

"They should and they are, that's GREAT, because clearly everyone besides a few hates onstar and their handicapped handsfree system."
 
Who is "everyone"? A few non experts on this blog who typically have a problem with anything and everything offered by GM? Any bets as to whether or not more GM cars have been sold with Onstar than all other brands of cars combined with BT. Lets not even get into the availability of BT on import cars. On a Honda you get it when you buy Nav which GREATLY limits availability. Onstar is available on virtually every GM product. For 2009 BT will be available on GM cars as cheap as the Cobalt and you will NOT need to buy nav. On the Altima you need to buy a $3000 package to get BT capability. Again, there are advantages to Onstar and one of those is availability. I would venture to say 80% of the Hondas, Toyotas and Nissans that offer BT are sold without the feature. What good is a feature that isnt available on most model trims?
 
Also, you dont need to take time to sync anything on Onstar. Its for occasional use, not every day use. Since BT headsets are so common today I really question how many people really place a high level of importance on in car BT. My mother in law has a camry with BT (you need to buy the JBL sound system to get it) and she didnt even know the car had it or how to work it.

Not everyone lives in a major city, so Onstar has a major advantage over a normal cell phone(BT), range.
  
There is no design limitation on battery size therfore the Onstar system is going to work better in marginal reception areas. That along with all the other features available with Onstar make it good safety net for a lot of people.

I was going to mention coverage as well. In 2008 Onstar isnt a substitute for a cell phone since everyone has one, its just a supplement for occasional use. Its actually pretty advanced, you can record names and numbers for speed dialing and a lot of other stuff.

I love lamp....

Wow, at first I really did think this was a joke, because who the hell is motivated enough to dislike OnStar? It's simple, it's functional, and it's -- pay very close attention here -- FREE. Hating OnStar is like hating the cigarette lighter.
 
OnStar is fine for someone like me, who only occasionally uses the phone while driving. That would not change if I were using Bluetooth; I *really* don't like the distraction of having phone conversations while driving.
 
More importantly, OnStar has brought peace of mind to my wife, a certified Nervous Nellie: She told me that she feels better knowing that the car has the accident notification service.

"It's simple, it's functional, and it's -- pay very close attention here -- FREE. "
 
Is it always free? Did GM abolish the subscriptions?
 
I don't think Onstar is bad, I just think bluetooth is a better option for me. But as 1487 points out in most of his posts, GM is getting bluetooth so its all good.

"She told me that she feels better knowing that the car has the accident notification service."
 
And she should be. That's an excellent feature and I'd be safer knowing my non-existant family was driving around in a vehicle with OnStar.

This should finish this ridiculous comment section:
  
Hey, James, how about commenting on the car, its handling, performance, utility, quality, etc? An entire blog comment about a stupid phone call has redirected the conversation: soon we'll be reading the Verizon vs. ATT debate.
  
OnStar is a good feature. Bluetooth is a good feature. CASE CLOSED.
  
OnStar is not designed or marketed as a cell-phone replacement. I use its navigation features and saved over $2000 versus buying the built-in nav system on my Enclave. I never have to take my eyes off the road to use my OnStar navigation features. How many idiots are still fumbling with their touchscreens while swerving to avoid what they should have been looking at all along?
  
I have a portable GPS reciever that Bluetooths nicely with my Nokia, making it a portable turn-by-turn navigation system that speaks to me. I've only used it while renting: don't need it in my OnStar equipped vehicle.
  
I can say from experience OnStar has greatly improved it nav features during the last two months. Response and mapping times have been trimmed significantly, and the routing seems to have improved.
  
Finally, when I had made a wrong turn and drove my family through a not-so-nice part of Philly at night in the rain, it was nice to be talking to a human being while getting back on-track information vs having a neurotic voice telling me to "turn left here" which was into a steel-mill parking lot.

"Hey, James, how about commenting on the car, its handling, performance, utility, quality, etc? An entire blog comment about a stupid phone call has redirected the conversation"
 
We get plenty of posts on the handling, performance, etc. Onstar is a relevant subject, so calm down there.

Yes because I'm sure your parents couldn't get new phones without getting new contracts.
 
It's not "free" they start you off on a trail and if you want to keep it you're going to pay for it. It's not "free".
 
You're trying to get OnStar past as a viable Bluetooth replacement for your family, great for your family, not great for lots of other people. It's not even close to replacing Bluetooth in the car or anywhere else. Never said they should have bought new cars, new phones however are cheap. It "MAY" be an option for your parents that need to have a carphone for when they leave theirs at home. Carphones went out in the 90's for a reason.
 
If you do have Verizon they hit you up with expensive minute plans, forcing you to open up two lines. If you don't you're off to pay 14.99 plus taxes and fees for 100minutes.
 
CX-7 sure does have dealer installed bluetooth.

OnStar is relevant.
Headlining that the car frightens and confuses him because the phone rang is not.