Originally Posted by
m907
Most people on these forums is what I meant. I'm curious why panoramic ones are a problem. Is it because they let glare in somehow?
Glare, light generally, and the associated heat. With one exception, every vehicle I've driven that has a panoramic moonroof has only a flimsy thin perforated partition inside the cabin. They're terrible and do not block the light at all on a bright sunny day. They let in lots of light and heat. I believe that the one vehicle that had a panoramic moonroof and a hard, completely opaque partition inside the cabin was a Lincoln SUV that I rented from Hertz. I might be wrong about which vehicle it was though. I do know that this panoramic moonroof problem is pervasive with European luxury brands. While not the sole reason I opted for a different car when I was in the market, I will say that the inability to even order a car without a panoramic moonroof was a factor in deselecting certain models from Jaguar, Mercedes-Benz, and Volvo.
Living in the hot summer climate of Texas, I want to keep as much light and heat out of the cockpit as possible. And, yes, eliminating glare is important too. I just do not understand why some luxury brands do not even offer moonroof deletion as an option.
How many UC stations have you been to? I've noticed a lot of tendencies at airports I visit often, usually which ones are generous and which are stingy with their nicer cars.
I'm doing this off the top of my head and restricting it to the calendar years 2018-2020 but in no particular order: ATL, DAL, DFW, IAH, PDX, SFO, SJC, TPA, RIC, CVG, MIA, MCI, PHX, BDL, BWI, EWR, ONT, BUR. There may be a few more UC stations I've visited but those 18 are the ones that immediately come to mind.
Among those, PDX and MCI were decent; ATL/DAL/DFW consistently terrible across multiple visits; and the rest all indistinguishably average.