History is full of cars that have so much going for them. These cars might look great, be reliable, or even be properly fast, but for some reason, the automaker just whiffed it when it came to the interior. What great car is let down by its interior?
The impetus for this Autopian Asks is a battle I’ve had within myself for years now. I consider myself to be a pretty big fan of the Chevrolet Corvette. To me, a Corvette is an ‘I made it’ car right alongside an early Audi R8 V10. One of my favorite Corvettes is perhaps everyone else’s least favorite, the C4.
Many years ago, when I was a kid, I found myself in a U-Haul ‘Neighborhood Dealer.’ While my parents were busy signing a rental agreement on a truck, I was drawn to the Corvette in the middle of the small building. It was a red C4 convertible with a tan top and a matching tan interior. This one was early enough to have the C4’s trick digital dash. It was love at first sight.
As an adult, my feelings have changed. I keep seeing cheap early Corvette C4s for sale, and I always end up stopping just short of pulling the trigger. As much as I dig the digital dash, the rest of the dashboard of the early C4 just turns me off. I think it’s the square-ness of it all.
Take a look:
So, my Corvette ambitions have changed since I was a kid. I know I cannot afford a C6 right now, so I’m now finding myself looking at later C4s with the refreshed dashboard, as well as C5s.
For a more modern car, my pick would be the Chevrolet HHR. I stand firm on my belief that the HHR was one of GM’s greatest, most underrated regular cars. I also think it’s better than most versions of the Chrysler PT Cruiser. I had an HHR in my fleet once, and it regularly got better than 30 mpg, and it was as trustworthy as an old family dog. Something I adored about the HHR was its flat roof. Combined with its fold-flat seats that were level with the load floor, the HHR made for a brilliant budget camper.
So, I say what I’m about to say with a bunch of love. The HHR’s interior was a huge demerit to how awesome it was. The A-pillars were large enough to obscure multiple pedestrians in them, and nearly every touchpoint was rough, pebbled plastic.
This was something that the PT Cruiser managed to do better. Its interior was also miles of plastic, but Chrysler’s plastic felt a bit more pleasing to touch and look at. Still, the HHR was a great car, and if money were no object, I’d take an HHR SS and have someone cover the plastic in vinyl or suede or something.
Now, I must choose a different brand here because I don’t mean to be picking on General Motors here. Look, I love GM enough to have bought one of its buses! The other vehicle that I keep stopping myself from buying because of its interior is the early second-generation Dodge Ram. I love the music of a Cummins 5.9, and I adore the mini big rig looks. But it all falls apart the moment I get in the cab of an early one.
I suppose there’s nothing specifically wrong with the interior; it just doesn’t make my heart flip like the exterior does. I don’t know, maybe I’m expecting such a bold truck to have a bit more spice inside. I dislike the Ram’s interior so much that, when a friend offered to sell me a rust-free Ram Cummins for $5,000, I passed. The guy who bought that truck experienced a transmission failure almost immediately after buying it, so I guess I dodged a bullet. But I wasn’t even concerned about the transmission. If someone made an old Cummins with a newer interior, I’d probably be all over it!
What about you? What really great vehicle was let down by its interior?
C4, C5, C6, C7, GTD.
Wasn’t this question just recently asked on ye ol’ site?
The 2017 Chevy Bolt EV. I test drove one in when they came out. I loved the Bolt’s torquey powertrain, but the interior and especially the seats were crap. The seats lacked support and reminded me of the seats in a 1995 Cavalier. Someone on the forums called them “lawn chairs.” GM started installing vastly better seats in the Bolt around 2022.
P.S. Not everyone is with me on this site, but I really enjoy electric cars. I’ve been excited about them since the 90s. I have owned a few of them and test driven dozens of different models. Many EVs drive just like a 2017 Bolt, but none have worse seats.
Anything made by TVR.
https://www.dubicars.com/images/7b1d3d/r_960x540/generations/generation_65c6148389d75_2004_tvr_tuscan_mk_i_-_interior_%289030945113%29.jpg?6
They’re weird, bulbous, uncoordinated. They look like a B-movie director told the art department to design an alien spaceship cockpit that has to look completely extraterrestrial.
Yeah but the cars weren’t that great either.
The stick in that Dodge looks like the one in the school bus in which I used to ride to school. I’m sure it doesn’t have the snick snick of a Mazda or Honda.
The Corvette’s interior shown was a product of its era. So, it has an honest feeling.
And I’d take it over a modern-day Mercedes. German cars with their VDO gauges looked so elegant back in the day.
Im sure ill get plenty of flak, but ive always hated the fiero interior.
Such a fun looking car and yet, has a an interior that felt like they forgot to make one and slapped some crap in last second.
Slapped enough to make other gm interiors seem well thought out, besides the g body malibu/monte carlo/ elcamino dash.
When I saw the thumbnail of the ’90s Dodge Ram, along with the title, I thought you were going to mention the seats. They’re terrible. I love these trucks from the moment they hit the market, and it was another six or seven years before I finally got to drive one, my boss’s truck that I used to run an errand at work. I don’t think I’ve ever sat in a more uncomfortable driver’s seat in my life. And it wasn’t because it was a worn-out work truck or anything, because this was a four or five year old daily driver truck with less than 70,000 miles, and otherwise pretty loaded with options. Whatever made that seat terrible, it was made terrible at the factory.
Having owned a C5 Vette going with that. Fairly good seats but terrible rubbery buttons on doors, stereo head unit same as a Chevy Cavalier, cheap plastics abounded, stalks straight up gm parts bin. Door handles, key fob, same as my Olds Intrigue I had. At least car itself was good and seats decent and mine (then new) no squeaks or rattles.
Had a rental HHR once. It wasn’t too bad, but I had to transport a bunch of equipment in the cargo area. The hard plastic surfaces caused everything to slide and slam around any time I changed speed or took a corner.
I rented an HHR one time too. Horrendous interior made of cheap plastic. Reminded me of being in an Chevy Express van. In terms of the driving experience, the HHR was… a bit better than an Express van, I guess.
I actually prefer the original 2nd-gen Ram interior to the facelifted version from its later years. The original is squarish and unassuming, and suitably truck-ish.
The re-designed interior is pure Daimler-Chrysler crap — all a bit too blobby-looking and just overall made cheaper. And the main top of the plastic dashboard cracks apart and disintegrates horribly.
I have a ’99 with the facelifted interior and have never cared for it. But I got the truck for a song, so it’s the bad with the good I guess.
You should see what the dash looks like when it all gives up and goes to turbodiesel Valhalla.
Everything works, but few could identify what it is.
On the plus side, if your dash is in good shape, you might sell it for a lot.
My 4WD is completely mad max inside now.
Finishing touch is a carpet dash cover intended to save the dash sitting on top of the internal organs.
Ha! Mine is held together by layer of mixed dust, dirt and oily diesel residue since the air conditioning quit years ago and I just keep all the windows open in warm weather. Not that it really smokes, but, well, older diesels still manage to be dirtier than gasoline powered cars.
And since it’s a Rust Belt truck, it’s got the sort of looks that only David could love… Yeah, never going to get a lot for it, but it’s earned its keep several times over.
You can have the fuel pump tuned for efficiency.
My exhaust is clear with a larger turbo and injectors.
Cummins says if you clean the engine internals, you can restore compression.
They have a kit and Kano has a chemical cleaner friends have used on semis with success, so seems valid.
My Cummins has a near perfect dash, but my 4WD is a 1500 with only the suggestion of a dash.
Ex Florida truck with a 318
Great name!
Where’s that F40 writeup that just came through a week or two ago?
(There’s a cat making biscuits on me right now it’s hard to source links)
OBS chevy may be the best passenger truck ever built, aside from the interior that looks like a stack of carboard boxes.
That’s only the early OBS. The ’95+ models had the far nicer rounded-off interior that ended up in the next generation as well, with only minor changes.
The ’97+ ones were the best: newer interior, Vortec engines, 4-wheel ABS, dual airbags. Some might argue against the last two of those, but I’d rather have them than not. The ABS in my ’98 worked very well.
When I bought mine, they had an ’89 RCLB V6 and the ’98 RCSB V8 on the lot. The older one was cheaper and in just as good condition, but man, those HVAC and stereo controls…no thanks.
Yeah, the 95+ interior basically ran through 06, where as the previous interior extended back to the early 80s. I really liked the Vortec engine, but after replacing 2 fuel injection spiders in 3 years I was looking for something else, if they could have installed a standard fuel rail on those engines it wouldn’t have been nearly as big of a pita.
True, it’s not a fun job. But at least the injectors gave you an excuse to replace the intake manifold gaskets before they started leaking!
Ironically, I’d purchased one of the upgraded MPFI spiders to install when I did my intake manifold gaskets, and found the PO had already performed that fix. Oops.
The worst thing about my 2005 Chrysler 300C was the cheapo interior with plastic that looked like it was sourced from Little Tykes or Playskool. Fortunately it had great seats.
Answer: Almost every Pontiac from 1980+. Every 1980-2015 Chrysler. And every 2015+ Toyota.
Many Toyotas from mid aughts to mid teens had some pretty nasty interiors.
The cars drove good and will last until the end of time, but costs were seriously cut on the interiors.
Comparing a first gen Toyota Matrix to a second gen is pretty shocking when you look at the interior. Material quality and fit and finish dropped dramatically with the second gen. Same with the second to third gen Sienna.
My Toyota executive buddy at the time actually told me not to buy a second gen Matrix because there was so much cost cutting compared to the first gen.
I grew up in a ’93 Previa, and it’s interior had significantly better quality and fit and finish than my current 2016 Sienna.
Nevertheless, these cars are just as durable as anything that came before, and the shitty interiors hold up remarkably well over time.
The Plymouth prowler interior was an unforgivable sin.
Parts bin Chrysler crap, minivan drivetrain complete with 4 speed auto, and a supercar price, all packed into a chassis that was actually quite special.
The Prowler wasn’t that expensive. Yes, it was quite a bit more than even a Mustang GT convertible or Camaro, but it was still about 10% cheaper than a base Corvette convertible. And based on what I could find, it wasn’t all that much slower than that C5 either after Chrysler upped the power in 1999. For sure the interior was way too much Neon for how cool the chassis and styling was, but I at least think it was still a fairly reasonably priced car for how exotic it looked and still offered decent performance.
Even then, the interior was pretty unique. No other Chrysler vehicle had a gauge cluster anything like it. The biggest stand out was the radio, HVAC controls, and the transmission selector. That’s not bad.
The unjustified hate the Prowler gets is ridiculous. Plus, the claim it was a minivan drivetrain is just straight bullshit. The 3.5 in the Prowler was never used in any minivan, and every non-sedan that got it, got it well after the Prowler did.
The 4.0 variant of the V6 was used in Town & Countries, but again, that was 10 years after the Prowler was initially released. So, it’s more accurate to say that minivans got Prowler engines.
And that Autostick wasn’t bad. It’s not like Chrysler had a halfway decent manual to choose from at the time too.
And everyone forgets that shoe-horning in a Magnum V8 would have been dumb, because it would have been a lot more weight, worse performance, and compromised the good looks.
And no, don’t show me that Hellcat Prowler. That engine didn’t exist back then, that car doesn’t have to meet crash standards of back then, and even if those two things weren’t issues, it would have like doubled the price of the car.
The Prowler is fine. It could have been better, but I totally understand why it ended up being what it was. Still looks great if you ask me. And the trailer was freaking awesome.
The gear selector, HVAC controls and radio look like they just came out of an Intrepid.
The hate is justified.
Chrysler built a minivan engine, but didn’t put it into a minivan until a decade later.
Sorry, I should have said Interpid engine, you know, for the prestige.
The 4 speed auto was bad, because it had no business being there. Real sports cars of the era were usually manual only.
One thing that’s not bullshit, the Magnum V8 was pretty unimpressive.
They should have designed the Prowler for a reworked aluminum Magnum from day one.
Every other car that ever looked like this had a V8 under it’s hood, so the excuses are lame.
A higher price would have been justified if Chrysler actually did this properly.
It looks really good, that’s what makes it so much more disappointing.
What cars are those?
“What cars are those?”
The Model A hot rods that the Prowler was paying homage to.
Ford made open wheel, convertible, V8, Model As at the factory?
So, a little background on the Prowler.
In the 90s, hot rod Model As were all the rage among wealthy geezers.
These model As were originally built in like the 30s, so the ones in the 90s weren’t brand new from Ford but rather custom cars built with parts that were not from the factory.
Plymouth was trying to make an homage to those cars, so that geezers could buy their hot rod straight from the factory, but they failed.
Model As were all straight fours.
The price would have been reasonable were it not for the powertrain.
Many groaned about the V6 at the time of this car’s introduction, but I actually thought it was cool because the power level was ok.
I now strongly disagree with my 16 year old self.
I mean I wouldn’t mind owning an RT10 Viper, Mustang, Firebird, Solstice, Corvette, or most other American sports cars from the era, but I would never consider one of these.
Even with the power upgrade, these were still much slower than the C5, and would still be bested by a Mustang GT most days.
Saddling this thing with a 4 speed auto was the kind of decision making that got Chrysler to where it is today.
The styling was great, and the chassis was pretty sweet.
Another corporate boardroom tragedy.
They weren’t that much slower. Sure, 0-60 doesn’t tell everything, but it does tell a lot. And 4 speed autos were still very common at the time and most competitors had 4 speeds if you selected the auto. Yes, no manual was disappointing, but unless you were GM or the Viper, the manual offered was disappointing too.
1999 Prowler
MSRP: $39k
0-60: 6s
1999 Mustang SVT Cobra vert manual:
MSRP:$32k
0-60: 6s
1999 Firebird Trans Am vert manual:
MSRP: $34k
0-60: 5.3s
1999 Camro SS Z28 vert manual:
MSRP $32k
0-60: 5.3s
1998 C5 vert manual
MSRP: $46k
0-60: 4.9s
None are really the car I would actively seek, but if I had to pick, I’m picking a Prowler every time over a 4th gen Camaro/Firebird, most any SN95, and any non-Z06 C5.
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison-test/a15140826/1999-ford-mustang-cobra-convertible-vs-chevrolet-camaro-ss-convertible-pontiac-trans-am-convertible-comparison-test/
The Germans weren’t regularly faster either: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison-test/a66107164/2001-convertible-archive-comparison-test/
Yeah, everything you listed there is a convertible, because convertibles are always much slower and heavier than their original coupe counterparts.
In coupe form, every one of the cars listed would embarrass the Prowler in a drag race, and wouldn’t sound like you’re trying to hoon your Mom’s Voyager.
The Prowler was born as a convertible, which gave it a relatively lightweight chassis.
The Prowler’s chasis should make it a hero on a race track, but the 4 speed auto would really sour the experience.
The more I read about the Prowler, the more disappointing it gets. I mean, the F-ing V6 had an iron block?
This Halo car officially killed the Plymouth brand.
If I was offered a Prowler for the same price as the other cars you mentioned, I would go for the Prowler as well, because they seem to be worth a lot.
If I’m paying market value, I’d never consider the Prowler.
There’s just too many great options for that kind of money.
Also, I fall into the category of people that are never disappointed with a manual.
Everyone is free to like what they like though, and that’s perfectly fine.
Why wouldn’t you compare it to other convertibles? Most people looking at convertibles primarily want the convertible part over almost anything else. If you want a coupe, you’re probably not even going to considering a Prowler. Trying to line it up against coupes just seems like an apples to oranges type comparison to try and make it look worse.
It went aluminum block in ’99 and ended up within 5 or 10 hp of the then standard 4.6L in the Mustang GT while being a whole lot lighter. Prowlers are more expensive than it’s period competitors for good reason, it’s a very very unique, well engineered, and cool car.
None of your excuses are convincing me in any way.
If I’m shopping for a sports car, I want the quickest and lightest version of that car.
Also, it’s crazy that it was so much lighter than a Musrang GT yet it was so much slower because of the slushbox.
One things for sure, between the two of us, you’re the only one that is going to be prowling around in a Prowler.
If you’re shopping for a sports car in 2025 and you end up with an underbaked shitheap like an SN-95 Mustang GT, that says more about your tastes than it does the guy who bought a Prowler.
And the C5 Corvette was always designed to be a convertible just like the Prowler was, so was in fact not “much slower and heavier” than its coupe counterpart.
I don’t have an SN95 Mustang and I’m not shopping for one. I suppose that will please you, because you really seem to hate SN95 Mustangs.
If I was at a car meet and someone had a nice clean tastefully modified SN95, I would probably stop by and take a closer look and maybe even speak to the owner.
If I see a Prowler, I’ll keep walking, because I don’t appreciate the car and I know that the owner and myself are very different in terms of what cars we like.
I’m sorry if I’ve hurt yours or anyone else’s feelings here by sharing my opinion on the Prowler, it wasn’t meant as a personal insult.
After reading all the replies here and doing some more research on the Prowler, I still really don’t like it, for all of the same reasons I listed above.
Sorry again.
The Volvo 200 and 700 series. Don’t get me wrong, the design is unique and quirky, but I’m not sure what I hate more, the map pockets integrated in the doors that are obtrusive and easy to break or the quality of the plastics in general. Although it’s unfair to judge old plastics, the Volvo’s interior plastics from the 80s and 90s aged like a slice of American cheese on the sidewalk in summer. Everything became brittle within a few years and would shatter upon regular, or even delicate, use.
No one is mentioning Maserati? c-mon!
some guy wanted to trade one for my Porsche, my car was twice the age of that.
I mean when I saw gorgeous exterior, pretty glorious engine sound, I knew about the mental gearbox, but the interior I could not make excuses for it. Not only was the Chrysler, but i feel it fas the crappiest things they found in the parts bin.
Let me explain – you know those satin soft finishes? yes those, they look like velvet when they are new and after years they started ..uhm melting? disintegrating
As touched the buttons their skin wanted to come with my fingertips, and everywhere you touched it was that disgusting stickiness, and it was in the exact places where you have to touch …what made it worse is that visually looked ok One other thing is that while melting they started emanating some sort of weird smell. The closest experience I had was a super cheap satin mouse that was given for free as a trinket at some convention and after a while if you would put your hand on it and it will stick to your hand leaving a nice schmoo beind. almost felt like touching a snail
https://youtu.be/EUQQz5FvqVE?si=EKxXeMu3fgfpIfSP&t=510
Haha!
C5 interiors were of course the object of derision for many these days, but as you noted, pretty much all thing GM at the turn of the century were blobs of plastic it seemed.
these days though it is all about the screens that make an interior bad to me. the base ecoboost mustang with 2 Microsoft surfaces tack onto the crash bar kills those for me. though I will say the Tesla’s bland and boring interiors were the first and are the worst to me. I feel like Elon pulled the old Emporers new clothes trope on so many sheep by calling that crap luxury.
Controversial take: The Citroën DS from 1969 to 1975. It is still a nice interior, make no mistake. But, the earlier dashboards (yes, more than one alteration) were so much nicer to look at, that I have seriously considered to change my dashboard to an older type dashboard. The last dashboard is black, mostly straight lines. The earlier dashboards are curvy, with different materials.
The article notes the early C4 Corvette as having a challenging interior. It does, with a lot of questionable design elements and ugly shapes and hollow DaimlerChrysler-esque plastics; on top of space being at kind of a premium in areas and that pre-facelift C4’s are particularly rattly and creaky vs the facelift ones with the much nicer jet fighter interior.
The C5 interior is far, far worse; all the more notable because the car itself (other than steering feel) is otherwise such a comprehensive leap forward from the C4. Terrible feeling controls that are ugly to look at, are assembled poorly with huge tolerances and are frequently mounted on brittle-feeling surfaces that you can’t see; all mixed up with Cadillac Cimarron-levels of parts sharing (but without the benefit of literally sharing parts, so if you need a replacement for your Silverado HVAC panel you can’t actually just go get one out of a junked Silverado). Even the seats are terrible; which at least the similarly-bad 996.1 mentioned in the comments a few times managed to avoid.