"A $XX,XXX car should have..." is destroying performance cars.

"TheOnelectronic" (theoneelectronic) 07/11/2015 at 17:40 • Filed to: rants

31

61

Don’t get me wrong; I love the 991. I think it’s easily the best-looking 911 and the interior is miles ahead of the 996 and 997 before it.

But the 911 has sort of become a plush GT car compared to its origins as a small, light sports car. Even within those three liquid-cooled generations, there’s been a noticeable shift away from raw sports car feel and towards quiet refinement. Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if the back seats become usable within a generation or two. Just look at the interior of older 911’s vs. the current one:

It’s easy to blame this on crash and safety standards and all the other factors that have led cars in general to become larger and heavier, but I think it’s something else;

People aren’t willing to accept that they’re paying for a car’s performance. They look at the price and decide that if a car costs a fair chunk of money, it should look like it cost a fair chunk of money, especially on the inside.

Look at almost any criticism of the Corvette or Viper (especially before the current models)

“A car that costs this much shouldn’t have the interior of a Cobalt” or some variation thereof.

I saw it with the Toyobaru cars, and the Miata. I especially see it with the Subaru WRX/STI. People complaining that they were missing features that “You can find on lots of other cars that are a lot cheaper!” Or that “A car that costs nearly $40,000 should have a better interior.”

People seem to have this idea that interior quality, ride quality, and general luxury are just side effects of a car’s price; that any car over a certain price point should have leather seats and fifteen different types of fake wood. The idea that these things are what contribute to that price point is alien to them.

And let’s not forget, speed costs money. Always has, always will. In order to make a sub-$20,000 sedan into a hardcore performance vehicle, you have to put more money into it. In order to make a $20,000 sedan into something luxurious and high quality, you ALSO have to put more money into it. Not just in material costs, but in development and tooling costs.

So if you want both, you’re going to have to pay more money, and suddenly, rather than having a $40,000 car with the interior of a $20,000 car but the performance of a $60,000 car, or a $40,000 car with the performance of a $20,000 car but the interior of a $40,000 car, you have a $60,000 car with the performance you’d expect but the interior of a $40,000 car. And now people are complaining again, so you improve the interior and now you have an $80,000 car with the performance and interior of a $60,000 car. And you can see where this goes.

This is honestly fine for cars that are meant to be both luxurious and performance-oriented. It’s natural to expect that you’ll have to accept some compromise if you want both.

The problem is that this mentality keeps killing performance cars. The 911, M3, and probably plenty of others started off as lightweight, small sports cars that have gotten tangled up in this price/luxury codependence to the point where they’re now more of sports/luxury coupes.

Meanwhile, other cars languish or die at least in part because people don’t think they’re “worth it” because of basic interior quality. In some cases (I’m looking at you, Corvettes) a lot of that comes down to just not really trying very hard. It’s absolutely possible to make a very cheap interior that isn’t shitty.

The interiors in my WRX(07) and STI(05) were really cheap. It was about as basic an interior as you could get. But it was -good-. All the pieces were solid, everything was functional, and it wasn’t goofily overstyled. The seats were comfortable and supportive, the shifter (in the STI at least; the WRX’s 5-speed is a piece of shit) was excellent, and despite reputation I never had any rattles or squeaks. No, it didn’t have leather, or navigation, or heated seats, or 46-way power adjustable captains chairs, or a 95-speaker 12KW stereo system made out of a carbon/baby-hair composite. Yes, a similarly priced contemporary car from Lexus or Acura or someone probably had a lot nicer interior, a smoother ride, and a Navigation system that today would be an eyesore of poor design and usability, but would those cars be even remotely as fun to drive? No. Would they put down performance figures that were even close, for those people who don’t actually drive cars but just compare spreadsheets and decide which is best? Probably not.

But the next time you hear someone complain about a sports car because it doesn’t have “The interior of a $XX,XXX car”, remind them how much it might cost if it did.

415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°) > TheOnelectronic 07/11/2015 at 17:53

2

Just say NO to water cooled Porsches! I am always amazed at certain cars with inexpensive yet nice interiors and how huge companies can fuck up on others.

traderQAMobileTestAutomationMobileBoostOn > TheOnelectronic 07/11/2015 at 17:55

0

Good write up. I can see this hangin’ around the popular stories margin for a few days.

Tom McParland > TheOnelectronic 07/11/2015 at 17:59

2

Nicely done!

dogisbadob > TheOnelectronic 07/11/2015 at 17:59

4

A $10,000 car should have seats, tires, and a steering wheel :p

No really though, premium cars are expected to look, feel, and function like they gave 100% effort and took pride in their work. A cheap-ass interior makes it look like they only gave 90%. If they cut corners on the things you can see, what are they skimping out on when you can’t see?

A $100k car shouldn’t make you feel nauseous from the aroma of super glue! Especially when a $15k Hyundai has a better interior!

Also, the quality look and feel has little to do with the lightweight factor; the two are not mutually exclusive.

Toyota, especially in the 90s, had high quality interiors on ALL their cars, from the cheap Tercel all the way up to the Supra and LS400. The expemsive cars are good because their cheap cars are good too.

Herr Quattro - Has a 4-Motion > TheOnelectronic 07/11/2015 at 18:00

2

Well, the C6 ZR1 did have a terrible interior.

If I remember correctly, the seats didn’t support the weight of the occupant under acceleration, so the seats actually angled backwards.

PS9 > TheOnelectronic 07/11/2015 at 18:08

2

I’m not really seeing it. The old 911 has a spartan interior, the new 911 has a spartan interior, with a bit more leather and metal everywhere. Are you really claming that these minor upgrades and a few modern conveniences has ‘destroyed’ the 911’s performance ability? Because trim level for trim level, the 991 would have no problem at all completely dispatching it’s ancestors on any road you want to pick, and the Turbo S has earned legit supercar cred as worthy competition to the 458 and Mp4-12c.

TheOnelectronic > dogisbadob 07/11/2015 at 18:12

4

You’ll notice I devoted an entire paragraph to how great the typically panned interior of mid-2000’s Subarus was.

There’s a difference to cutting a lot of corners (Chevrolet) and just having an interior made up of cheap materials and simple workmanship (Subaru)

TheOnelectronic > Tom McParland 07/11/2015 at 18:12

1

Thank you! I was a little worried it seemed disjointed and scatter-brained. I tried to clean it up as best I could.

TheOnelectronic > Herr Quattro - Has a 4-Motion 07/11/2015 at 18:13

0

Yeah I had to take out a few of the more corvette-antagonistic lines.

Herr Quattro - Has a 4-Motion > TheOnelectronic 07/11/2015 at 18:16

0

Well still spot on, and the quality took me second to realize this was Oppo & not the FP.

dogisbadob > TheOnelectronic 07/11/2015 at 18:20

1

Yeah I know, but other cars in its class have better interiors, even at base price. If Toyota decided to make a $40,000 Corolla, people wouldn’t complain about the interior, because they use high quality even on their base models. Even without a Lexus badge, a $40k Corolla All-Trac with a twin-turbo 2AR would have a better interior than a $40k STI. A $50k ES350 has a quality interior, and so does a $25k Camry.

The Subaru’s so-called “demerits” that people panned weren’t the quality, but rather the amount of features. Just like other cheap Japanese cars. There’s a difference between cheap materials and not a lot of features.

TheOnelectronic > PS9 07/11/2015 at 18:21

2

Oh, I’m the first person to tell you that the Turbo S is a monstrous car that is probably some of the best performance for the money that you can buy.

But talking to a lot of people about the year to year changes, I’ve had several (including Douggy D) say that the 996 felt much more like a sports car than the 997, and the 997 to the 991. They’re getting faster, sure, but numbers-and-graphs performance does not always translate to a car feeling fast, or fun to drive.

The S6 will obliterate my little Focus ST in almost any number you can find, but the FoST is by far the more fun car to drive.

And you’re kind of making my point for me: the 991 has a lot more leather and metal and carbon fiber. It has heated and cooled seats, navigation, switchable suspension, switchable exhaust, a smooth automatic transmission, variable-ratio electric steering, fancy stereos from german companies, and dual-zone air conditioning. The 964 pictured has a steering wheel, five gauges, a probably shitty radio, and a stick shift.

Perhaps my main point, that did not come across well, is that the 911 is now essentially a luxury vehicle. It’s no longer primarily a sports car.

TheOnelectronic > dogisbadob 07/11/2015 at 18:23

8

I have a $30,000 base price Tacoma. People bitch about the interior CONSTANTLY.

Also, I think you maybe like Toyotas. Just a bit.

Steve in Manhattan > TheOnelectronic 07/11/2015 at 18:25

0

I have driven a mid-90s 911 (air-cooled) and a Boxster. That is the extent of my Porsche experience. I would want a 10-year-old 911 (if I were in the market) to be stable, comfortable, and tossable. Other than that I have nothing. Which is why, based on what I know, I’d get a loaded Boxster. But I don’t know much ....

LongbowMkII > PS9 07/11/2015 at 18:29

0

The Turbo has always had supercar performance. And of course the modern one would outperform the older one. The basic level porsche isn’t very luxurious, but you aren’t going to find one.

Tuned-Port-Injected-Rage > TheOnelectronic 07/11/2015 at 18:56

0

Couldn’t agree more. Great read.

Though, the Corvette interior you posted was a C5. That doesn’t have a Cobalt wheel. That’s the C6.

Funktheduck > TheOnelectronic 07/11/2015 at 19:39

0

Totally agree. I had a somewhat related conversation about this today. I’m fine with lots of features on a car I live with day to day because it’s a car you’re in a lot.

But my imaginary sports cars I own in my head I want to be about driving. I think that's why the new ND appeals to me so much. I've seen lots of people complain about it and it's lack of features for a similarly priced car. It's about the driving, not heated and cooled seats. It NEEDS to be about the driving. Like you said, they're all turning into GT cars.

Flat Six > TheOnelectronic 07/11/2015 at 20:37

10

Agree 100%. As long as ergonomics are okay, you don’t even hardly notice interior after you buy it and get used to it.

I have a 997 and some people who have never been in a Porsche seem pretty disappointed by lack of luxury or gadgets you might get in a cheaper Audi or Infiniti. Meanwhile, I enjoy the performance and quality engineering.

P5guy now GTIguy > TheOnelectronic 07/11/2015 at 20:44

0

I agree with you completely. When I told my dad how much the ND miata costs he relpied with “but I can get a 6 with way more features for that price”. You aren’t paying for the features, you’re paying for the experience.

Nauraushaun > TheOnelectronic 07/11/2015 at 21:21

9

Lotus is a fine example of this. They’ll sell you a pricey car with no equipment. They’re going under.

LongbowMkII > TheOnelectronic 07/11/2015 at 21:22

2

Perfect example of a car looked down because of interior quality, the Lotus Evora. I can’t count how many reviews I’ve read that sum the car up by saying that is is excellent to drive, yet not recommended since the interior doesn’t meet the $90k car standard.

TheOnelectronic > LongbowMkII 07/11/2015 at 21:27

0

This came across my mind as well. My mom looked at one a while back and that was her issue, along with the relative sparsity of Lotus dealers.

FlimFlamMan > TheOnelectronic 07/11/2015 at 22:17

2

Your article makes some great points, of which I agree. Thanks for posting your thoughts.

However, I do disagree about the WRX 5 speed (I have an ‘07 as well). Mine has over 126k, and that is with a VF39 since 40k. I’ve beat on it very hard, with what I describe as “mechanical sympathy” (I.e. no dumps... except when on dirt). That said, I am well aware of other peoples luck, or lack thereof, with them though.

TheOnelectronic > FlimFlamMan 07/11/2015 at 22:19

1

I never had any mechanical issue with mine, but once I drove the STI, I realized how incredibly better it’s 6-speed is just in terms of feel and response.

FlimFlamMan > TheOnelectronic 07/11/2015 at 22:21

0

Yeah the 6 speed is tits... very firm ones.

wlb50 > TheOnelectronic 07/12/2015 at 02:22

3

Part of it I think is the manufacturing costs. The majority of which is making the car a performance machine. It isn’t that much more - 10%? - making a deluxe interior. (Of course an irony is Porsche which, upon making luxurious interiors, then offers a model in the minimalist mode and has trained customers to expect to pay more). Or even go back to an early 70s Carrera vs the standard 911. Or a Ferrari F40.

You get to a certain price point, and potential customers expect an commensurate interior.

The C7 Corvette isn’t that much more than the equivalient C6, with a much nicer interior.

Personally, for my tastes, I still prefer a minimalist interior. The BMW 2002 just wouldn’t have been the same with a tarted-up interior. But the market doesn’t reflect my preferances.

wlb50 > TheOnelectronic 07/12/2015 at 02:27

1

Then Porsche will come out with a higher performance car, minimalist interior - crank windows and maybe a strap for the door, and charge the customer another $40-$50K.

TheOnelectronic > wlb50 07/12/2015 at 02:33

0

Undoubtedly.

ShiroZ31 > TheOnelectronic 07/12/2015 at 08:24

2

Counterpoint: I don’t understand new cars with whizbang touch screens to present manual climate controls. If my 84 Nissan could have auto climate control, and my 03 Toyota has dual zone auto, why is it not ubiquitous by now instead of a stupid red/blue slider that’s now on a touchscreen?

BrianGriffin thinks “reliable” is just a state of mind > TheOnelectronic 07/12/2015 at 09:27

1

Counterpoint: “Performance” is becoming a trait that’s increasingly difficult to exploit and/or is becoming less desirable. Many (most) people only drive on highways, at least around me; they’re buying that 911 for comfort and its status.

Since most drivers will only use 10-20% of the car’s performance, they'd rather it stay down from optimal in return for comfort and toys. This is also why you see fewer Land Cruisers and more Lexus RX whatever.

ljksetrightmemorialtrophydash > TheOnelectronic 07/12/2015 at 10:55

0

I’d go one further. I prefer the old, austere 911 interior to the new one. I prefer the Corvette C6 interior to the C7. Regardless of price. They were minimalist, comfortable, hard-wearing, and very ergonomic. Just what I want in a sports car.

The idea that there was something wrong with those interiors is just groupthink in action. You never hear the same criticism made of the interior of the substantially less fancy and more expensive F40, presumably because it was a Ferrari with pretensions of being a “race car for the street” (even though the Porsche and Corvette have more racing pedigree).

Comfortably Dumb > TheOnelectronic 07/12/2015 at 11:45

1

I agree to a point, I appreciate a simple elegant basic interior in a sports car but I do think that in a sports car interior it should be ergonomic, be made of decent plastics and hopefully snazzy materials like aluminum, carbon, or leather depending on the car and it’s price. I didn’t like the subaru interior because of styling and the plastics weren’t that nice but I appreciated the simplicity of it.

Biodegradable Wiring Harness > TheOnelectronic 07/12/2015 at 12:04

1

A performance car is just an aspirational thing for most people. They don’t care about the performance, it’s the success that it represents. And in their imagination this performance car they’re dreaming of has a really fancypants interior.

MacEC > TheOnelectronic 07/12/2015 at 14:10

0

Just buy a Lotus then. Porsche wants to sell cars so they put leather, NAV, etc. inside because a whole lot of people these days think that a $XX,XXX ought to have those things. I don't blame them for making good business decisions. There are raw, bare options out there if you want them.

Spasoje > TheOnelectronic 07/12/2015 at 16:32

0

Tehnology has made ‘having your cake and eating it too’ possible, to an extent: we can have a car that has a performance feel without beating you up for it. I don’t mean the macros all cars come with nowadays, just the general refinement that comes with progress.

Having said that, I side with you completely. Automakers have taken things too far...

In my own future car search, I’ve been set on a 435i or M4 for a while. Drove both and found the 435i to be less responsive and involving than my 2003 Jetta! The M4 makes up most of the difference, but it still isolates you somewhat from what you’re doing...

Or even that 991 you opened with - I adore its looks more than any other modern 911, I love how solid the cars are, I like how nice the interior can get, I even like that the manual has seven gears... But they could have done without that silly electronic e-brake. In a lot of ways, it’s the drop that overfills the glass, for me.

porschephile463 > TheOnelectronic 07/12/2015 at 17:10

0

This interior is probably one of the best ever fitted to any drivers car! There is a reason why I now own 2 of them! I really want this Porsche Classics radio though

porschephile463 > TheOnelectronic 07/12/2015 at 17:18

0

The 70’s & 80’s cars from 911’s & 80’s BMW’s were just about perfect, quality materials and good solid feel to the interior, with all the tech you actually need out of a sports car. The corvette C6 was unacceptable. At least throw a piece of leather over the cobalt dash...leather is cheap.

Grinch77 > FlimFlamMan 07/12/2015 at 19:10

1

It’s all in how you beat on it.... 90% of the people I’ve known to blow a 5spd were doing clutch dumps and launching the shit out of them.

Vzwolf > TheOnelectronic 07/12/2015 at 19:25

0

Thanks for this!

I wonder about the new Z06. They got the performance of the $100k+ ZR1, gave it a HUGE interior upgrade, added loads of technology and start the thing at $79k! Either it’s a miracle or something is missing.

Wheelerguy > TheOnelectronic 07/13/2015 at 03:19

0

If you want a combo of performance and luxury then you shouldn’t be shopping for a 911 GT3, instead, get a GTS. This car, I think, is close to that “premium performance” one kind of shopper might find.

A baby Lambo would be taken aback slightly with the insanity of the car, and would probably marry it at first sight,

but the interior is respectable and quite English-y, but still sporty and stuff.

Stan > TheOnelectronic 07/13/2015 at 08:03

2

When I bought my STi new in 2004 my girlfriend got in it and said “where’s the radio”. I told her it didn’t come with a radio and she was astonished.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > TheOnelectronic 07/13/2015 at 09:34

0

“the WRX’s 5-speed is a piece of shit”

I drove a ‘12 WRX a few years ago, thinking that it might be the replacement for my ‘05 Mazda 3s hatch. That transmission and the interior made it an immediate no sale. I need to drive the new one just to see how much they’ve improved it.

brianxl > TheOnelectronic 07/13/2015 at 09:52

0

The ‘80s 911 and M3 had a very nice interior for the time. Your quip isn’t with “nice,” it’s with “light.” Right?

jjhats > TheOnelectronic 07/13/2015 at 12:53

0

excellent write up. with that said that 911 interior was as nice as other sports cars of the era minus some extra leather in a Ferrari. what im saying is that it was on par with other competitors and was not a stripped simple driving machine. other cars didn’t have nav or power seats so the 911 didn’t either and I think the 911 is simply keeping up with its competitors as it always has. compare an e type and 911 now compare a 911 and f type. they are remarkably similar in what you get and both are above what American cars had back then.

Shiftless > TheOnelectronic 07/13/2015 at 13:45

0

All I need in a car interior is a good leather steering wheel, sport seats, manual aircon/locks/windows and a head unit with Bluetooth for my phone.

MTY19855 > TheOnelectronic 07/13/2015 at 13:52

2

Trucks got this way worse than performance cars. A pickup truck used to be a bed, a cab, and a couple of seats. As they turned into everyday runabouts for people who might haul grocery bags now and then, demand for more and more crap in them kept creeping the price up. Even a “work truck” trim is loaded with luxuries. SUVs are just as bad. As they turned into family haulers instead of actual sport utility vehicles, the demand for more and more crap sent the prices to the moon. In 1995, a 4wd Suburban was $24,000. That’s $37,500 after inflation. Twenty years later, a 2015 4wd Suburban will run you $52,000.

MTY19855 > LongbowMkII 07/13/2015 at 13:56

0

I think the Toyota Camry engine was more of a problem than the interior.

LongbowMkII > MTY19855 07/13/2015 at 14:03

0

If it makes you feel better, think of it as a Lexus engine.

E30DreaM3r > TheOnelectronic 07/13/2015 at 14:41

1

I was about ready to type up a whole thing until I read the last paragraph. With some cars where you pay for the performance (my experience being mainly the C5 Corvette), the interior is not only cheap it’s plain awful. I am willing to spend a little money to make the interior of my car NICE but why does that always mean I must also get all the unnecessary tech that’ll be outdated and likely broken before I even do the 100k service??? I miss the well sorted yet inexpensive interiors we seem to have lost somewhere in the mid 2000s. Your example of an 05 STI hits the spot on this one as well, as it’s so bare yet still feels worlds better than an 05 Camry, even if it may somehow have less features!

Berang > TheOnelectronic 07/13/2015 at 16:44

0

Think of it this way: Nobody actually wants a sports car. Least of all any Americans, where the name of the game is conspicuous consumption and perceived value.

People like the idea of owning a Porsche because it’s a cool brand they recognize. Even though they don’t really know or care about anything having to do with cars. So when somebody with money comes to a dealer and sees that a Porsche isn’t as flashy on the inside as an Escalade they walk away and take their money with them. They’re not even going to think about driving it, because that would be ridiculous. A lot of money should buy a lot of things! And preferably really big, noticeable things!

Porsche still needs to make money though. So you get plush interiors and SUVs. Make “just” sports cars and you will go out of business. Dignity and purpose won’t pay the bills.

PS: many people commenting are conflating “simple” and “cheap”. A simple interior doesn’t need to be made from crappy materials.

Andrew Daisuke > TheOnelectronic 07/14/2015 at 00:49

1

This is a good post.

DoneWithKinja > TheOnelectronic 07/14/2015 at 08:46

0

Yeah, this whole thing is really annoying, I’ve never once looked at the interior of my GT86 and thought “I wish this interior was nicer”, it feels stripped down, but it’s functional and fits the car I feel.. took my friend for a drive once and half the trip all I heard was “My car has heating seats, dual climate zone, in-dash nav, etc” And I wish I had an ejector seat option.

Autohaus Derp > TheOnelectronic 07/14/2015 at 08:56

0

I had a prodrive GB270 Hawkeye WRX - the prodrive quickshift kit made the 5 speed gearbox much more tolerable!

FordEfEx4 > MTY19855 07/14/2015 at 09:27

0

Totally agree on the trucks! I was looking for a barely used Ford F150 FX4 a few years ago. No, I don’t want a sunroof (they all leak eventually). No I don’t want a nav system (my cell phone or $150 Garmin work just fine. It took about 6 months to find one.

Now, I can’t believe the price of a new basic truck.

505 - morphine not found > TheOnelectronic 07/14/2015 at 09:31

1

I think you missed a factor here, and that is “time”. I wasn’t shopping for new cars back in the 1980s, but I have read comparison tests in magazines from back then, and I have driven numerous ‘80s cars, and the point i want to make is: the M3 and the 911 was just as luxurious on the level available at the time, as their offspring are now. To see what I mean, consider what luxury meant in the 1980s? Leather seats, PAS, central locking, electric windows, sun- or moonroof, ABS brakes, air-con, trip computer, a nice stereo and light-alloy wheels - that’s basically your lot. Good plastics and nice carpets in the interior among with ample instrumentation meant you were in a well-appointed car.

The M3 and the 911 had all of this, and no car at their price point had more.

The only thing that’s changed since is that there are now so many more bells and whistles to put into a car. But the buyers aren’t any different - they want the maximum now, just as they wanted the maximum back then.

TheChafing > TheOnelectronic 07/14/2015 at 13:50

0

Many performance cars are offered with different trim levels, though, which change what sort of interior features you get.

There was a while that the NC miata could be ordered in “club” trim, which was basically a stripper model that didn’t even have air conditioning. It also had the vinyl top, vs. the Haartz canvas top found on the ones they actually sold to people.

BMW at least claims to offer the 3 series with all sorts of interior options, and it appears you can configure the car with just the M-sport go fast parts, and not the fancy leather interior. I assume most dealers wouldn’t just have one configured like that on the lot, but I’d also assume it must be possible to custom order one if you’re prepared to pay enough for it. My local BMW dealer had a used 1 series recently that had the M-sport package and the manual, leatherette seats. I wanted it badly, but not $25K badly.

Snooder87 > dogisbadob 07/15/2015 at 11:33

1

Hah, my mom bitches about the shitty aesthetics on her ES350 all the time.

The Night Crawler > TheOnelectronic 07/15/2015 at 12:37

0

-cup holders. Can they at least have cup holders?

Andrew T. Maness > Flat Six 07/15/2015 at 17:15

1

Agree 100%. As long as ergonomics are okay, you don’t even hardly notice interior after you buy it and get used to it.

Well said, well said indeed. I never minded the quality of my WRX because I thought the ergonomics were decent, same goes for the B7 S4 that I had. Next used performance car I buy will likely be an ‘07/’08 Cayman S which continue to fall in price as their interiors become more and more dated. I don’t need nav in my sports car, I don’t mind if its there but certainly not a deal breaker.

Andrew T. Maness > dogisbadob 07/15/2015 at 17:19

2

If Toyota decided to make a $40,000 Corolla, people wouldn’t complain about the interior, because they use high quality even on their base models.

I respectfully disagree. Base model Toyota interiors are of no higher quality than a comparable Subaru and they’re certainly not more enjoyable from a design/atheistic standpoint.

Saracen > TheOnelectronic 08/01/2015 at 02:13

0

Yeah, he's basically the Baron of Beige.