New Car Quality Differences

I remember when I was a kid the differences in quality between cars was huge. Today I read review comparing cars and the difference seem small. Ok a Sonic isn't as well built as a new 911 but when you compare cars within their peers how different is the build quality?

So has the build quality of cars gotten to the point where it is only a minor difference?

And go!

Sultan wrote: So has the build quality of cars gotten to the point where it is only a minor difference? And go!

Yeah cause the interior of new cars are generally crap.

93EXCivic wrote: Yeah cause the interior of new cars are generally crap.

Did you ever sit in a k-car? A chevette? A beretta? It's not that those interiors aged badly, though they did, they were E36 M3 to start with to a degree that simply cannot be matched in a modern car. New cars might lack soul and individuality and excitement and a lot of things, but they're so much better than the recent past that it's not even funny.

we consider them crap now.. compare them to the crap from the 80s.. and you will think they are the best things ever.

The inner door skins of my '89 4Runner are cardboard.

I have noticed that recent VAG interiors are beautiful. I did hear somewhere that they went down market w/ the most recent redesigns.

I own a 2006 Impala, a 2002 Town and Country, a 2000 Sierra 2500 and a 1990 Camaro (And that is currently 18.3L if anyone is counting)... I could care less about interiors and it shows.

My 81 Camaro had giant pieces of plastic that barely fit together when new, and had aged by losing large chunks of themselves such that the resulting texture was worse then when my kids get done with the playroom.

My 2011 Caravan is amazing fit and finish and material quality. So are any minivans - they are all amazing. All of the rentals I've evr had have had amazing interior quality. The G6 I rented a few years ago still sticks in my mind as being tremendously well done.

But you were not speaking just of interiors.

I think, as far as real, measurable breakage, websites like Truedelta clearly show a narrowing gap as cars get newer. There are a lot of very good cars available right now. With some notable exceptions, the number of cars on the side of the road decrease with model year, to be sure.

mazdeuce wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: Yeah cause the interior of new cars are generally crap.

Did you ever sit in a k-car? A chevette? A beretta? It's not that those interiors aged badly, though they did, they were E36 M3 to start with to a degree that simply cannot be matched in a modern car. New cars might lack soul and individuality and excitement and a lot of things, but they're so much better than the recent past that it's not even funny.

How does that equal better?

I was more talking about the economy cars of the '90s (minus GM) compared to the economy cars of now. Hell the only new car I have been around seemed to be a pleasant place to be is a Morgan Aero 8.

i don't know or care about the materials they use in new cars- the interiors just suck.. the door panels are always like 4" thick, which cuts off interior room for my 5'11", 245 pound frame.. the center consoles are also too wide and stick out too far, which works in conjunction with the thicker door panels to squeeze me even tighter.. the dash sticks out too far to team up with the door panels and center consoles to squeeze me fore and aft to go along with the side to side squeezing.. i absolutely HATE the interior of my mom's recently acquired '08 Chevy Uplander van, and i hate absolutely everything about the interiors of the '01 and '06 Chevy pickups that my brother and my mom's fiance own.

my mom's 99 Buick LeSabre is ok, but the seats suck.. and my brother's 99 Dodge Ram 4X4 is just awful in every imaginable way.

the interiors of my 80's GM vehicles- 84 Regal T type, 86 Camaro, 87 GMC 3/4 ton pickup- might be made out of cheesy materials and have crap fit and finish, but they don't make me feel like i'm in a cocoon and they have held up really well considering they are all at least a quarter of a century old. the interior of my 97 Monte Carlo is a little worse and a lot more plasticy, but there's still room for me to stretch out and be comfortable and they at least kept the controls in all the right places and intuitive to use.

Having sat in "real" interiors that use real wood, aluminum, steel, etc the new plastic interiors all feel poor to me. They are pretty to look at, sure, but they aren't nice to touch, smell, or use. Sit in a 50's Caddy, 70's RR, 80's Jag, etc. those were good interiors. Everything now is a giant patch of grey plastic

Any thoughts on overall build quality? Such as mechanicals?

I've gotta say that I'm really impressed with the interior on my new Mazda2. It's well laid-out, the instruments are clear, the materials are well-choses and provide enough varying textures to be interesting without seeming like a mess, there are just enough accents to make the car seem a little classier without being tacky, the button and gauge lighting is great, and the seat material is sporty without being over the top. Most of all, though, it's honest in the same way cars used to be, with the tech features downplayed and out of the way, and focus on the things that are necessary for driving.

Sultan wrote: Any thoughts on overall build quality? Such as mechanicals?

What mechanicals? The throttle pedals are now microswitches connected to dozens of control boxes by miles of wiring deciding how to drive for you. Engines and transmissions no longer have dipsticks and nothing is serviceable, it's all replacement only. IMO car tech peaked in the early 2000's and has been on a steep decline ever since. It's okay though because in 10 years driving will be illegal as we all get carted around in our automated google cars.

Sigh.

novaderrik wrote: i don't know or care about the materials they use in new cars- the interiors just suck.. the door panels are always like 4" thick, which cuts off interior room for my 5'11", 245 pound frame.. the center consoles are also too wide and stick out too far, which works in conjunction with the thicker door panels to squeeze me even tighter.. the dash sticks out too far to team up with the door panels and center consoles to squeeze me fore and aft to go along with the side to side squeezing..

I seem to recall this has to do more with passing crash tests than anything else. They want you farther inboard on the car to increase side-crash safety scores, and the more they can restrict you to a specific space, the better they can design the rest of the car to protect that smaller space in an accident.

I noticed in the early 2000s that side sills started getting a lot wider, making it harder to get into cars that sat at a normal height.

My old G35 had a very nice interior, well put together, and all the switches, etc. worked well. My Cooper S definitely is a huge step down in material quality, but of course it is essentially an economy car compared to a luxury car. Some of the switch gear feels extremely cheap and flimsey, and I'm constantly worried about someone yanking the door handle and breaking it.

But it's built to a price point that's substantially lower. To get those price points, you have to cut somewhere, and that is most evident in the interior. The more you pay for a car, the nicer the interior for the most part. It's been that way forever, but our use of materials has changed over the years

eastsidemav wrote:

novaderrik wrote: i don't know or care about the materials they use in new cars- the interiors just suck.. the door panels are always like 4" thick, which cuts off interior room for my 5'11", 245 pound frame.. the center consoles are also too wide and stick out too far, which works in conjunction with the thicker door panels to squeeze me even tighter.. the dash sticks out too far to team up with the door panels and center consoles to squeeze me fore and aft to go along with the side to side squeezing..

I seem to recall this has to do more with passing crash tests than anything else. They want you farther inboard on the car to increase side-crash safety scores, and the more they can restrict you to a specific space, the better they can design the rest of the car to protect that smaller space in an accident. I noticed in the early 2000s that side sills started getting a lot wider, making it harder to get into cars that sat at a normal height.

quoted for truth.

I have driven some pretty miserable POSes.. most of them from GM that were made in the 80s.. I would take the interior from the cheapest car you can buy in the US today than most anything from the 80s

*edited disclaimer

There ARE exceptions.. but those are generally high end cars

racerdave600 wrote: My old G35 had a very nice interior, well put together, and all the switches, etc. worked well. My Cooper S definitely is a huge step down in material quality, but of course it is essentially an economy car compared to a luxury car. Some of the switch gear feels extremely cheap and flimsey, and I'm constantly worried about someone yanking the door handle and breaking it.

Interesting - I've had the same cars with the opposite opinion. The G was an '04 that had what looked like a 4" PVC pipe bisecting the dash, and an acre of cheap silver spray painted hard plastic for a center console.

In response I ordered the chrome interior trim option on the MINI. That, along with "piano black" & "lounge leather" made the MINI interior feel more upscale than the G. More to the point - both were great cars with nicer interiors than previous vehicles I had.

Go back to the old days when dashboards were steel. I think it was Ford that first came out with the padded dash. I know this doesn't really relate to quality. Yes, I thinke the small cars have come close to catching up with the bigger more expensive cars.

mazdeuce wrote: Did you ever sit in a k-car? A chevette? A beretta? It's not that those interiors aged badly, though they did, they were E36 M3 to start with to a degree that simply cannot be matched in a modern car. New cars might lack soul and individuality and excitement and a lot of things, but they're so much better than the recent past that it's not even funny.

I wouild consider the interior quality of those far better than anything made today.

I suppose it matters if you value looks or function. I like switches that work like switches, indicators that read out in English and not Egyptian Heiroglyphics, gauges that are needles on a background and not some video-game display...

novaderrik wrote: i don't know or care about the materials they use in new cars- the interiors just suck.. the door panels are always like 4" thick, which cuts off interior room for my 5'11", 245 pound frame.. the center consoles are also too wide and stick out too far, which works in conjunction with the thicker door panels to squeeze me even tighter.. the dash sticks out too far to team up with the door panels and center consoles to squeeze me fore and aft to go along with the side to side squeezing.

Man, I am almost exactly your dimensions - maybe an inch shorter and 5 pounds heavier - and I don't have any issues at all in most modern cars. Hell, I fit comfortably in an NA Miata.

I can't say for the K car.. but the chevette had a good wearing interior.. the Beretta... every one I have been in had dashes that had fallen apart, headliners than had fallen down.. and comfy seats that lacked support

Also why don't cars seem to just have radios anymore? They have to control the A/C system, radio, navigation and tell you the price of the tea in China.

Thanks for your thoughts. I feel like we are discussing the build quality between decades. The point if the post is what is the differences between new cars.

I also didn't know that new cars don't have mechanical parts. Interesting information.

Thank again

The interiors changed in no small part due to crash standards. Example: the Jensen Healey was dinged in the press of the day for its wide doors and padded dash, one word used was that it looked 'hippy', like it had a J Lo butt. That was in response to upcoming US crash standards.

Jaguar had to lose the cool toggle switch dash in the E types and go to the tablet rockers because the toggles would rip you up in a crash.

Those standards continually evolve, making changes necessary and sometimes the mfgs get caught with their pants down. For example, Isuzu had a recall on the Axiom to add padding etc to the roof side member for rollover head protection.

But here's the real point of all this: as those standards changed so did the materials. That's where all the cheap looking ABS plastic comes from: it's designed not to turn into a giant shredder in an accident. Think about what would happen to a full width wood dash in a hard enough side impact. If it broke it would be like occupying a clothes dryer along with a couple of ragged pieces of plywood.

That's also why so many 1980's cars used that cheap pressboard behind the door panel vinyl and foam. If it breaks it won't cut. It's cheaper to make too which sweetens the bottom line.

So yeah in many ways the new cars' interior quality is perceived as crappy compared to the burl walnut and triple layer chrome of yesteryear, but the truth is somewhat different.

Duke wrote:

novaderrik wrote: i don't know or care about the materials they use in new cars- the interiors just suck.. the door panels are always like 4" thick, which cuts off interior room for my 5'11", 245 pound frame.. the center consoles are also too wide and stick out too far, which works in conjunction with the thicker door panels to squeeze me even tighter.. the dash sticks out too far to team up with the door panels and center consoles to squeeze me fore and aft to go along with the side to side squeezing.

Man, I am almost exactly your dimensions - maybe an inch shorter and 5 pounds heavier - and I don't have any issues at all in most modern cars. Hell, I fit comfortably in an NA Miata.

I learned when I was trying different Soldiers in the gunner's turret in Iraq, some people need more space around them. It's not claustrophobia, it's just that some guys would hate having a few inches around them and others weren't bothered. I had a HUGE guy that was happy standing in the turret for an 8 hour mission, and a couple skinny 150 lb. guys who would get irritable up there after half an hour.

That said, if you can't get comfortable in a full-size American pick-up truck you might be in trouble...