Generally Buick sucks!

 

Just about all of GM interiors...

 

Cadillac is ok and that is about it. The real issue with Buick is that they try to be a luxury car when they don't even get near-luxury car right.

 

It's all in the perception by your intended customer. If a given car's target market really thought a soft touch dash was important, the MFR would find a way to make that happen and it would probably only cost them $50 per car (remember the R&D is spread over several hundred thousand cars). And what a prudent investment it would be, if it resulted in more people buying the car at say $22,400 than would have bought it before at say $21,800. The same goes for any number of features.....tilt & telescope wheel, alloys VS hubcaps, height adjustable driver's seat, premium audio system, etc.

But it's easy to find examples of cost cutting everywhere. I have a 1998 Prizm LSi (Corolla) and the interior door panels are soft touch vinyl with nice cloth inserts and padded armrests. Far nicer than the door panels on our brand new Prius, which have rock hard plastics and a cloth insert that is clearly chintzier than in the old Prizm. The Prius was a $26,000 car - the equivalent Prizm, if it was still being made, would be a cheaper car by several thousand $$$. So there's a cheaper yet similar-sized car with better interior quality, but it doesn't seem to be impeding the sales of new Priuses. And my guess is if they still did make the Prizm it would probably have a cheapened interior, too.

 

You guys are still about 5-10 years in the past. That definitely was the case with GM (and, even more so, Chrysler) interiors of that vintage. It most definitely is NOT the case with their newer interiors.....at least not IMO. And even the LaCrosse/Enclave interiors, which, unfortunately, unlike the Regal/Verano/Encore, still have that cheap plastic underneath that ornate surface-glitz, are, on the surface, what I would consider good-looking.

 

You can, of course, get a rough (though not necessarily exact) idea of what a new Prizm interior would be like from the Corolla. But I doubt that it would equal the nicely-finished trimmings of the Cruze.

Of course, IMO, that doesn't necessarily pan the Corolla's interior. With the exception of the same large wobbly, ugly-looking climate-***** found in a number of lower-line Toyotas and Scions, I've seen lots worse interiors than the Corolla's.

 

Do you even know what a rant is(you should) and the difference between a rant and observations? You should try looking the definitions up before you accuse someone else of it. If you want to talk about RANTS lets go to what you constantly do in most car threads(often totally off topic) and what you did here which is more Acura RANTING and bashing.

You could not be more wrong as usual in saying the 99-03 TL/CL had horrid interiors, I remember asking you one time to go into detail to describe exactly what was so cheap and horrible about those interiors/materials and how Lexus was so superior and your few "observations" you listed were laughable, proved you had no argument, and that you were just RANTING Your issue with Acura and those models sounds personal instead of based on any actual facts or real comparisons and observations.

I have had first hand experience with those interiors since family members owned them, I have driven them often or detailed them, they are not remotely "horrid" and one of the nicest interiors in its class, it also offered among the highest hp and best performance in its class. Please name all these competitors that had such superior interiors at that time. Competitors were the C class, 3 series, Infiniti I30-I35, Diamante, ES300-IS300, A4, Millenia, 300M, Saab 9-3, Caddy Catera, Jag X type, later the G35. None of those cars interiors were any nicer then the TL's and CL's, most were noticeably worse especially C class, Infiniti I30-I35, Saab, Catera, 300M, G35, etc. The ES, A4, and 3 series were the closest, the A4 interior was pretty nice but Audi's and VW's interiors simply don't hold up well with age, I have detailed several and have seen it.

I looked at the reviews from the main car mags and none brought up this horrid uncompetitive interior quality you go on and on about. They all say the interior is very nice with only minor things to nit pick about, if it had any glaring interior quality issues they would have noted it.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-revi...a-32-tl-type-s

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...omparison-test
(It won the comparo)

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-revi...2001-bmw-330ci
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...l/viewall.html
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ura_cl_type_s/
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...2001_acura_cl/
http://www.edmunds.com/acura/cl/2001/road-test.html

The Altima interior was not good at all but it was inexpensive and offered more size and power for its class/price, it was not even remotely comparable to the TL/CL.

The comments about the Boxster interior(funny how you attacked me and not the person who first brought it up) were about its lack of quality and had nothing to do with what financial shape Porsche was in at the time. It does not make it okay to put out poor interiors like that just because a company is in financial trouble especially for what Porsche charges/reputation. They still had the money for numerous iterations of the 996, Porsche is doing much better now and the interiors or the 911 and Boxster are still very very close.

There are plenty of examples of bad interiors from companies that were in good shape and making a lot of money and vice versa, GM and Ford in the late 70's, 80's and 90's, especially the late 90's to early 2000's with the SUV craze, they made a ton of money on those vehicles yet still had the worst interiors. Jags have nice interiors for this current generation of cars despite poor sales. Audi's had good interiors(though overhyped in my opinion) despite all their troubles in the 80's and 90's. VW has been doing great yet really lowered the quality of the interiors on the new Passat and Jetta. Toyota and Honda despite doing well have seen some more current models with lackluster interiors.

 

Which year were there changes made by a bunch of the automakers to use more biodegradable materials? I want to say it was when we started getting more of the hard plastic stuff but I just can't remember

 

The question is PAYING EXTRA for a nice interior. Have you recently? If not then your rant is just that with no basis in reality.

People need to recognize those that know between those talking about their parents car.

 

The question is a bit over-simplified, because everyone has different tastes.

Wood may look nice, but it's really not worth anything to me. I'd trade wood for upgraded leather any day. Last year, I was shopping for an SUV. The Highlander Limited has plenty of simulated wood trim. It's nice, I guess, but at the end of the day, it's all plastic, and doesn't really do anything for me.

 

^^EXACTLY my point.

 

I don't think this is a fair comparison. You should be comparing ES350 to GS350 and ES300h to GS300h (if it were available in the US). When engine size is not a factor, then the value proposition of the interior quality becomes easier to judge.

 

its still $12k-$13k... a lot imho.

and dont you pay extra for interior quality? Especially in German cars... base interiors are really bad, and it gets OK if you spend a lot of money...

 

That is a big number but having had two ES350's and looking at the cost cut '13 vs the '13 GS,well worth the extra cost to me.
The much better interior,direct injection 3.5L,12.3" Nav screen,adaptive Variable Suspension,AFS,16/18 way power seats,3 zone auto climate control etc and overall feel of the GS.Yes to me,worth the extra cost.
The discounting now is big too closing that $12K gap a bit.

 

bottom line is you pretty much get what you pay for.

if you want an interior of high quality materials, you're gonna pay.

if it's not important to you, not worth paying all the extra $ for it, unless you have no choice for the vehicle you want (for other reasons).

manufacturers that offer tons of customization to get specifically what you want (e.g., porsche) charge a LOT for the base model and a LOT for each option to provide all that flexibility. again, you get what you pay for.

to those who think a manufacturer could slap an additional $500-1000 in material cost to make a not so great interior great, you perhaps don't understand market positioning, competitive analysis, or brand management.

a 4GS interior is way nicer than a new ES interior, but it should be, given the price difference. the two models are aimed at different target markets. the ES interior is 'good enough' for its target market. haters obviously aren't middle-aged realtors, i mean aren't in that target market.