The Interiors Thread.
- Thread starter Eunos_Cosmo
- 401 comments
- 47,042 views
- 11,827
- Marin County
Binge-watched a bunch of The Straight Pipes video reviews of various Mercedes yesterday. I don't believe MB has ever been so creative & even avant-garde with design, especially their latest interiors. These newer cars are really something. Get a load of the E-Class coupe:
That being said, I think they will look pretty dated in a few years, especially as everyone moves to copy them, but in the way that they will also be classic in 20 years. I still think Lexus (notably the LC500 & newest LS) have even more style and a little more taste as well, but MB has really put themselves out there, considering even 10 years ago, this is what you got in an E-Class:
That being said, I think they will look pretty dated in a few years, especially as everyone moves to copy them, but in the way that they will also be classic in 20 years. I still think Lexus (notably the LC500 & newest LS) have even more style and a little more taste as well, but MB has really put themselves out there, considering even 10 years ago, this is what you got in an E-Class:
- 15,387
- TRAPPIST-1g
- ProjectWHaT
I really like modern Mercedes interiors too
The AMG GT interior isn't too shabby either
The AMG GT interior isn't too shabby either
- 12,389
- Betelgeuse
- Beeblebrox_237
Never knew that the Opel Speedster actually had an interior like this.
But it does share obvious bits of it from its cousin, the Lotus Elise, particularly the layout, the transmission tunnel where the shifter is sitting and even the 3-spoke steering wheel design, not to mention the color of the leather seats and combination of black-silver accents as well.
Btw, I wonder why both of these roadsters don't have power windows as a standard feature during that time? Both of the examples above are MY2005.
I'm amazed that GM managed to cram some cheap looking GM plastic bits into such a minimalist interior. As for manual windows, the buyers who actually cared about amenities would have bought a Porsche. Lotus knew their target market and that they weren't interested in features, just a great drive. Keep in mind as well that the interior is easily small enough to reach across and crank open the opposite window.
- 23,969
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
- 27,210
- United Kingdom
Quite a fan of the Renault 4's interior:
The top one is an original 1961 car, the middle a 1980 (I've driven that very car, though that's not my photo) and the bottom is an early 90s version I believe. Good example of the evolution over time, and how certain features remained but others moved with the norms of the era. The column gearshift naturally remained the same throughout, albeit with slightly different gearknobs, and you can see those shelves under the dashboard are there in every version too. But the dashboard-mounted parking brake in the earlier cars makes way for a conventional lever in the late example, and obviously the dash itself changes quite a lot.
I actually quite like the late, plastic dash - but I have a thing for older cars that were brought kicking and screaming through eras far beyond their original build (like Super Beetles for instance, or 1980s and 1990s Minis).
And for the record, that dashboard-mounted shift has a lovely action. The pattern is as-per a normal car (i.e. it's on the horizontal plane), but the shift is really slick and mechanical - it's basically just a large rod which goes right over the engine to the front-mounted gearbox.
The top one is an original 1961 car, the middle a 1980 (I've driven that very car, though that's not my photo) and the bottom is an early 90s version I believe. Good example of the evolution over time, and how certain features remained but others moved with the norms of the era. The column gearshift naturally remained the same throughout, albeit with slightly different gearknobs, and you can see those shelves under the dashboard are there in every version too. But the dashboard-mounted parking brake in the earlier cars makes way for a conventional lever in the late example, and obviously the dash itself changes quite a lot.
I actually quite like the late, plastic dash - but I have a thing for older cars that were brought kicking and screaming through eras far beyond their original build (like Super Beetles for instance, or 1980s and 1990s Minis).
And for the record, that dashboard-mounted shift has a lovely action. The pattern is as-per a normal car (i.e. it's on the horizontal plane), but the shift is really slick and mechanical - it's basically just a large rod which goes right over the engine to the front-mounted gearbox.
- 29,799
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
I've often wondered about the feel of the shift in those R4s--the linkage doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence:
- 27,210
- United Kingdom
If you think about it, it's basically a solid metal rod with maybe one bush in the whole lot - it's probably more direct than most shifters.
- 27,210
- United Kingdom
The Citigolf was so weird. That dashboard is basically first-gen Skoda Fabia, I think.
- 11,827
- Marin County
All these great small european cars. Has the American auto industry ever produced a compelling small car design? They seem so anathema to American ideals...the distinction in classification I think is pretty telling. In the US, small cars are frequently labeled as "economy cars" versus "mini" or "super-mini" in Europe which convey meaningfully different things. The Nash metropolitan is one of the only design-forward American small cars I can think of:
Of course even the metropolitan was part-European, being made in England with Austin-sourced mechanicals. The only other somewhat significant small American car I can think of is the original Neon. But for everyone's safety....I won't post a photo of the interior.
Of course even the metropolitan was part-European, being made in England with Austin-sourced mechanicals. The only other somewhat significant small American car I can think of is the original Neon. But for everyone's safety....I won't post a photo of the interior.
- 29,799
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
- 11,827
- Marin County
Chrysler, like Ford, has brief moments of absolute greatness followed immediately by a decade or two of patting themselves on the back while coasting back into manufacturering despair on wheels. I'm not saying the Omni was absolute greatness, necessarily, but I wouldn't kick a GLH out of bed...
Edit: Upon further review, the Omni is actually basically French.
Edit: Upon further review, the Omni is actually basically French.
- 12,389
- Betelgeuse
- Beeblebrox_237
Only one of the most iconic cars of all time:
It's often forgotten than the original Mustang was heavily based on the Ford Falcon, and was originally intended as an affordable small car which would appeal to young men and women through good looks, reasonable performance and running costs, and reasonable practicality. The dimensions are almost identical, and the Falcon was a typical American small car of the '60s. Obviously it grew incrementally with every iteration up until the Mustang II (undoubtedly a small American car), but I would argue that by American standards the Mustang was originally a small car and has been for the majority of its life. It's been known for its performance variants, but the majority of sales have been from relatively plebeian models sold to ordinary people who want something a little bit more interesting than a compact or midsize sedan.
"Compelling" is a difficult criteria to judge, but I'd argue that the K Car and Corvair are also worth mentioning. The K Car brought Chrysler out of bankruptcy and was a sales success. It was a crappy platform that spawned some crappy cars, but from a business standpoint it was certainly compelling. It helped make Chrysler relevant again, and allowed them to compete with Ford and GM for less initial outlay. As Lee Iacocca said, the way he turned around Chrysler was by building small cars that Americans wanted to buy, and in that he succeeded. They might have been crap, but I think their historical significance is noteworthy. The Corvair is kind of the opposite. It was a surprisingly advanced car, perhaps too much so for its time, and while it was made famous as a poster child for how unsafe '60s cars were, it was no less safe than most of its contemporaries. what it did offer was a similar recipe that made cars like the Beetle such a success. It was cheap and economical, and well packaged for a car of its size. It was one of the first mass produced turbocharged cars, and both generations were lauded by the motoring press.
Last edited:
- 11,827
- Marin County
Only one of the most iconic cars of all time:
It's often forgotten than the original Mustang was heavily based on the Ford Falcon, and was originally intended as an affordable small car which would appeal to young men and women through good looks, reasonable performance and running costs, and reasonable practicality. The dimensions are almost identical, and the Falcon was a typical American small car of the '60s. Obviously it grew incrementally with every iteration up until the Mustang II (undoubtedly a small American car), but I would argue that by American standards the Mustang was originally a small car and has been for the majority of its life. It's been known for its performance variants, but the majority of sales have been from relatively plebeian models sold to ordinary people who want something a little bit more interesting than a compact or midsize sedan.
I see your point, but I have a hard time considering the Mustang to be a genuinely small car. My brother has a 1967 coupe, and it does not feel small. A 1965 Mustang is a full 5 feet longer than an original Mini. The Mustang II gets close...but lets not talk about the Mustang II....
GTV0819
(Banned)
- 6,084
- Papua New Guinea
Same. It may not be that wide yet but yes, it's still hard to consider the original Mustang as a small car because of its enormous length.
If only its size was a lot more similar to the Miata or the 1970s Celicas, then considering it a small car would sound really accurate.
- 12,389
- Betelgeuse
- Beeblebrox_237
I'm not sure I'd call it a genuinely small car, but by American standards it is a small car. In the UK a Golf isn't considered a small car but in the US it is, so standards are all relative. It's worth noting that at 182 inches long and 68 inches wide the original Mustang is shorter and narrower than a Chevrolet Cruze, Honda Civic, or Toyota Corolla.
Is the Mustang an objectively small car? Not really. Is it a small American car? I think so.
It's also worth noting that when the Mustang was introduced Ford's smallest car was the Falcon, Chevy's smallest car was the Corvair, and Dodge's smallest car was the Dart, all of which were comparable in size to the Mustang. Again, none are especially small in an objective sense, but relatively speaking the Mustang was about as small as mainstream American cars got at the time.
Last edited:
GTV0819
(Banned)
- 6,084
- Papua New Guinea
You know, although wider, this is far more smaller than the original Mustang even by American standards but then again, it first came out in 00s and it's not as famous as the latter or even against similarly sized rivals like the S2000 or Miata.
Nonetheless, I personally still find its design very alluring for some reason even during these days. I think it looks somewhat ahead of its time, too. And it also has rebadged cousins that even look better in some angles. Only if it was offered here in our homeland way back then.
Nonetheless, I personally still find its design very alluring for some reason even during these days. I think it looks somewhat ahead of its time, too. And it also has rebadged cousins that even look better in some angles. Only if it was offered here in our homeland way back then.
- 12,389
- Betelgeuse
- Beeblebrox_237
It's definitely an attractive design and I think it could have been a great success apart from one huge flaw in the design: the boot.You know, this is far more smaller than the original Mustang even by American standards but then again, it first came out in 00s and it's not as famous as the latter or even against similar sized rivals like the S2000 or Miata.
Nonetheless, I personally still find its design very alluring for some reason even during these days. I think it looks somewhat ahead of its time, too. And it also has rebadged cousins that even look better in some angles. Only if it was offered here in our homeland way back then.
Roof up:
Roof down:
By contrast, the MX-5 has a usable and fairly conventional boot with the roof up or down. It's possible that had GM made the car with a usable cargo area that it would have been able to compete quite well with the MX-5. Of course, this is GM we're talking about, so who knows what other issues the car would have had...
GTV0819
(Banned)
- 6,084
- Papua New Guinea
Ah yes. The only thing that I didn't like about its design is that the soft top doesn't really have much of cargo space to offer. But there's a coupe variant, although it's really rare to find.It's definitely an attractive design and I think it could have been a great success apart from one huge flaw in the design: the boot.
Roof up:
Roof down:
By contrast, the MX-5 has a usable and fairly conventional boot with the roof up or down. It's possible that had GM made the car with a usable cargo area that it would have been able to compete quite well with the MX-5. Of course, this is GM we're talking about, so who knows what other issues the car would have had...
If the convertible was similar to the Miata's, then maybe it could have attracted a lot of potential buyers too but at that price back then (around $30-40k), one would really think of considering it because of that non-existant cargo space. The coupe would be the better choice but I'm not quite sure if it has a accessible boot or if it's just fixed.
- 11,827
- Marin County
I guess what I'm trying to get at that truly small car design involves interesting challenges of packaging, especially with regards to the interior. I cited the European models (Like the R4) because they have novel approaches to deal with the lack of space. I don't think Mustang/Falcon designers really faced those kinds of mini-car packaging constraints. Know what I mean? It would have been interesting to see what American designers would have come up with in the 60s if they were tasked with making a truly small car. The Pacer might be the closest thing, but even those are pretty large compared to the stuff Europe was making.
edit, from a Wiki citation:
While there is a regional relativity to car sizes, the relativity of size to the human body is fixed. I think that's the difference between small-car design and cars that are merely smaller than others. Does that make sense?
