What they are saying is they practice security through obscurity. Their security relies on people not knowing something that is simple to understand. This is fundamentally different from actual security where there is no easy way to defeat it no matter what you know.

Pretty embarrassing tbh. I’ve had shitboxes from 1993 that had immobiliser. No excuse for hyundai/kia

“it’s not our fault for making cars that could be stolen by literal children, it’s THEIR fault for talking about it!”

Are they also going to blame people for talking out loud?

While the lack of immobilizer is dumb it makes sense they use that rationale as a way to cast doubt on their liability in the situation.

I’m actually most surprised that insurance companies (and their own finance dept) have allowed it to happen. Eg, Subarus in the mid-2000s didn’t have immobilizers - insurance rates were very high (if allowed), eventually sales were affected and they added the feature.

How much money they could have possibly saved, considering that anyway they keys have the electronics for the remote control?

$3 per car?

in 1997 i bought a fiat panda for 5000 euro (new, was the most barebone car sold in western countries for the last 4 decades) and it came with the immobilizer on the key. If it came free in a car that in 1997 was so barebone that they glued the back windows instead of allowing passengers to breathe (no AC), how 2 decades later can be considered an expensive premium feature?

Couldn’t they offer this as a $300 optional feature that everyone would buy?

I put my key in the red flower pot don’t tell anyone