- Super hard plastic on center console + rough
- Hard rough plastic bezel around analog clock
- Thinly padded doors
- Doors don't have that nice Lexus "thud" anymore and don't close properly
- Super thin glove box door
- Terrible hard plastics around the memory seat buttons
- Cheap lock/unlock switch + window switches vs nice ones from GS, RX, GX, 3IS
- Poor version of Remote Touch - controller is tiny vs RX, GS
- Cheaper feeling/looking Drive Mode Selector vs GS's

It's really a shame. In fact if they want to save money, they should use the parts bin from higher level models like the GS rather than use separate pieces

 

The 2013 ES has perhaps broadened and reshaped the target audience and scored a bullseye with me! I've cross-shopped Lexus in the past and never purchased one until now in the form of a '13 ES300h. The list of cars prequalified included the Fusion Hybrid/Lincoln MKZ, BMW 328i and X-1, Buick La Crosse e-assist, etc. I was just about to ink a deal for either Ford Hybrid variant when the scandalous EPA shortfall circulated and was confirmed. Unfortunately for BMW fuel economy was paramount, thus the search for a serious fallback ensued. Long story short, I found the ES to possess an excellent blend of attributes; whatever demerits are perceived from earlier years are immaterial. EDIT: I concur with the details posted by Hoovey2411 immediately prior, but they were acceptable to me in overall context.

To the OP question: The cost to upgrade materials is probably significant as X dollars saved times Y vehicles sold is quantifiable and germane to corporate beancounters. I suspect interior quality is also a marketing function to avoid poaching from upstream trimlines and models. Might your Lexus salesperson hope to shift an ES purchaser unhappy with a middling interior to a GS? A great example is the newly released BMW 320i, a product designed to attract upward prospective purchasers of the Avalon, Lacrosse, Azera, Taurus, etc. Dumbed-down engine aside, the interior options are few and basic to preclude cannibalization of the marquee 328i.

As an example of cost-cutting from a line with longevity, consider my mom's 2003 BMW 328i with a basic leather/wood interior; nearly every touch-surface except for the console aft of the shifter is soft-touch - and this includes some low-slung surfaces. Contemporary versions exude plenty of hard-touch materials while highly upgraded trimlines probably mitigate the issue.

 

I'm just not seeing the trend of poorer materials being used. I also don't think the average core buyer really breaks it down like we are doing here. Sales are solid, so expectations are being met.

 

it's an issue in bottom rung luxury cars. mainstream brands are improving, to the point where a new malibu has a nicer interior than a c250.

 

Correct. The mainstream has caught up with premium, upscale, and lower luxury. Tier 1's need to step it up with the lower wrung models, as it is a poor representation of their product and what they stand for.

 

There seems to be a movement among "popular, mid-range cars" toward nicer interiors. I for one, applaud that. That's the part of the car I live with, and I don't particularly care (within reason, of course) what the outside looks like. I spend far more time inside the vehicle than outside, so I'd rather have a nice office than a nice garden. I'd rather impress myself than the neighbors.

That said, it's interesting that luxury lines are not that much more expensive to manufacture than mid-market cars. With a handful of exceptions, engineering, manufacturing, engineering and labor costs are pretty close. It was once said in the late '50's that the difference between a high end Chevy and a Cadillac was about $400 in materials costs and additional features. The sale price difference was monumental - about double the price of the Chevy. Taking into account the lower volume manufacture of the Caddy, it still carried a much higher margin than it's mass-market little brother. They charge the big bucks because they can GET them.

This price differential carried over into replacement parts. A friend with an old-school FWD Eldorado discovered that the door hinges for those long heavy doors on the Eldo were shared with the Toronado, Riviera, and the Monte Carlo. The parts were identical, with the same part numbers - but the prices were entirely different, the Caddy's hinge was nearly five times the price of the Chevy's.

My wife's Volvo's alternator burned out in 1980. A "Volvo" replacement was $275, but euro manufacturers shared a lot of parts back in the 70's and 80's. It turns out that the OEM parts for the electrical systems for a large number of European cars were made by Bosch - and were directly interchangeable. Her Volvo alternator was identical to my Opel's alternator, that was about $85. Even better, that part was also shared by the early 1.8 liter Pinto engine (designed and manufactured in Germany) and available from your Ford dealer for $40. When I put the Ford alternator in my wife's Volvo, I discovered it had the same inspection tags and paint blotches as the one in my Opel. It turned out that all three engines were close cousins and shared almost all ignition parts except the key switch.

 

these things go round and round. i remember when porsche launched the boxster. the interior was TERRIBLE.

1997:



2013:

 

OMG, that is atrocious - looks like a cheap econobox!

 

+1!!!

My wife and I have been starting to look at SUVs and the Cayenne is near the top of her list and OH MY can you drop some serious $$$ on interior amenities alone... With that said, its interior is amazing (albeit, this is subjective), and the materials - leather in particular - "feel" much better than the others we've looked at.

 

Maybe so, but the car still sold like hotcakes, especially by Porsche-niche standards. Porsche had to add a second plant n Finland to help met demand. Even so, a friend of mine (who was a restaurant owner, now retired) ordered one in early March 1997 and waited almost fourteen months for delivery. It was over a year old (with depreciation) by the time he took delivery...in late April of 1998.

I agree, though, that early Boxsters had a crap interior compared to the new ones.

 

As an example. You can buy leather for cars online, its the same leather as the manufacturer uses and you can even choose the specific car manufacturer and color. If you look at the price for this, its easy to realize that 1000 dollars for the material ( as someone mentioned ) would be more than enough to cover a complete Lexus interior ( I`m talking about the plastic parts, dash and doors, not seats ) in leather .

 

Many major OEMs have discussed in interviews that the interior upgrades that could be made in cars for $500-$1000. He's right, it just wouldn't cost that much in this price range.

Now if you're talking about Bently, Maserati etc... category then all bets are off. But for mass produced materials it's amazing how much the interior could be improved for small amounts of money. The problem for the automaker is the problem that always comes about when you start multiplying $1000 x say 300,000 vehicles. That's *how* many millions?!? That's why they usually go cheap(er)...

 

except, it is not the same materials.

 

When I first scrolled to that pick of the original boxster interior I first thought it was from some cheap Dodge/Chrysler 90's econobox. The interior of the original Boxster was truly horrible especially for what it cost. When I first sat in and test drove a Boxster I was driving a 94 Mitsu Eclipse and my first impressions(aside from how slow it was) was the interior/materials/buttons were no nicer and even sub par compared to my eclipse. Everything felt and looked cheap in the Boxster from the buttons, switches, steering wheel, etc. Now the interior is very nice. The 996 911 had a pretty cheap looking and feeling interior too but it was still not nearly as bad as the Boxster.

I would pay extra for better interior quality but not several thousand dollars for it, I would much rather have high quality buttons/switches for functions over touchscreens and having to use cheap mouse controllers to navigate menu's to do many functions. I think interior and exterior designs peaked in the 90's to early 2000's and many have taken a down turn in design/quality after that. It would not cost several thousand extra to the price per car to add more quality and better materials. For $500 to $1000 they could add a good amount of quality to an interior when it comes to plastics and trim pieces.

 

Do you even know why or just ranting on the Porsche interior? They were BROKE Porsche was struggling and only new management and using the Toyota Production Method saved them. Thus we got a Boxster and 911 with nearly identical noses and interiors, this is well documented. So at least we know WHY compared to some cheap interiors with no excuse.

Well CLEARLY it worked and TODAY both cars interiors are as good as it gets. So anyone ranting on those interiors needs a history lesson on the why's behind them. Also each year they did get better and better until the new generations debuted.

Two cars that let me know people don't give a **** about interior quality were the 2001-2005 or so Altima and 1999-2003 or so TL/CL. Horrid interior quality, fake or cheap wood/leather and just an awful place to be but built to a price point and they sold like hotcakes. It was clear that the market was willing to accept horrible interiors once the car looked decent and had decent features.

To be quite frank a lot of people have no idea what a good interior is at all and that is where the word subjective comes in.