In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac:
The vast majority of all cars, even 2012's, won't make it to 200K miles. People use them, abuse them, wreck them, and everything else.
Alfa's point was that the raw number of cars aging has icreased, my counterpoint was that the percentage of cars making it compared to produced is actually decreasing. So why yes, there are more 200K+ cars than ever, as a percentage of the number built they are rarer.
So I totally misread the OP for some reason. I read interiors. I do believe there are a number of things better made on newer cars (just interiors aren't one of them). They main thing I think of is body. I mean I would be lying if I said I thought basically anything pre-'80s (and even thru the 90s) had a better body then now (exception old Mercedes, those are built like tanks and have the highest build quality of any car I have ever spent much time around). I still stand by my statement that the longest lasting cars on the road will be late '90s econoboxes.
Javelin wrote: In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac: The vast majority of all cars, even 2012's, won't make it to 200K miles. People use them, abuse them, wreck them, and everything else. Alfa's point was that the raw *number* of cars aging has icreased, my counterpoint was that the *percentage* of cars making it compared to produced is actually decreasing. So why yes, there are more 200K+ cars than ever, as a percentage of the number built they are rarer.
I think we're now looking into this far too deeply especially considering the original post was about new cars and their interiors specifically. 
But i'd be interested in seeing some data in terms of percentages making it to 200k if you've got it? I've wondered about this before.
I don't think there's any real way to get that data, except from maybe from the insurance companies. We can just use anecdotal evidence such as the frequency of cars showing up for sale with that mileage, etc.
To try and drag it back to the OP's question though (which oddly, isn't about interiors?) I think the reason most new cars are pretty much identical is that they are all sub-built by pretty much the same companies. Those tier 2, 3, etc sub-constructors all build the same seats, door panels, alternators, etc for almost all of the manufacturers. That's probably the biggest reason why quality has more-or-less "equalized".
Guys, here is a fact: yes cars do last a LOT longer than they used to. A typical 1960's American car with 100k miles on the odo was worn out. That's why odometers only had five digits (not counting tenths). The 1970's weren't any better for US cars but Japanese cars were getting a lot better in terms of mechanical longevity. Late in the '70's you started seeing the very first six digit odometers in Japanese cars. The Europeans quickly followed suit. By the mid 80's a few American cars came with six digit odometers because it was now needed.
In the 90's I saw a LOT of mid to late 80's GM cars with over 200k on the clock which rattled in every bolt but always ran. That used to be the province of Volvos and Mercedes diesels.
Nowadays I see all kinds of 1990's cars from all over the world with over way over 200k on them pretty much all the time, even with indifferent maintenance. For instance, mid '90's Camrys well over 300k are not at all unusual around her. A lot of them (particularly Japanese cars) feel as solid as they did at 50k miles. So hell yeah they last longer.
Maintenance cost is NOT the same, however. From what I have seen, the most expensive to keep running are German cars (surprise) followed by US brands and the Japanese cars are the cheapest of all to run for big mileages.
About the percentage of cars still on the road: that's more an economic thing. Here's what I mean: when the Trooper got popped from behind, I drove it away. The insurance company decided it was too expensive to repair, so they were going to turn it in as salvage. There was mechanically not a damn thing wrong with it. So a perfectly serviceable vehicle would have wound up in the boneyard merely over some dents. That's what drives the percentage of cars remaining on the road compared to the number produced.
In reply to Curmudgeon:
Actually, a lot of us are saying the same thing (that cars peaked in the late-90's to early-00's). What we're harping on is that cars have been on a skid since then. I fully expect an 02 Civic to long outlast a 12 model (hey, there's a good example of a car that went downhill).
Guys thank you for your thoughts and entertainment! Now let's talk about why NASCAR is better than F1!
Kidding! Really! Please DON"T talk about that........well maybe we could talk about why old NASCAR is better than new F1???? Still kidding....please dont'......really!
Sultan wrote: Guys thank you for your thoughts and entertainment! Now let's talk about why NASCAR is better than F1! Kidding! Really! Please DON"T talk about that........well maybe we could talk about why old NASCAR is better than new F1???? Still kidding....please dont'......really!
Old NASCAR is BETTER than new F1... but old F1 is about equal to old NASCAR IMO, which is they were bitchin'! 
Duke wrote:novaderrik wrote: i don't know or care about the materials they use in new cars- the interiors just suck.. the door panels are always like 4" thick, which cuts off interior room for my 5'11", 245 pound frame.. the center consoles are also too wide and stick out too far, which works in conjunction with the thicker door panels to squeeze me even tighter.. the dash sticks out too far to team up with the door panels and center consoles to squeeze me fore and aft to go along with the side to side squeezing.Man, I am almost exactly your dimensions - maybe an inch shorter and 5 pounds heavier - and I don't have any issues at all in most modern cars. Hell, I fit comfortably in an NA Miata.
one of my friends is 6'6", 320 pounds and drives an '89 Mustang as his summer daily driver.. i don't get it, but it is what it is..
everyone likes to "fit" into cars differently. i like to kind of stretch out a little bit.. but the weird thing is that i fit fine into the '97 Cavalier i had a few years ago, but couldn't stand the almost identical '04 Cavalier i got from my brother last summer.. but i traded it even up for a '97 Monte Carloand i love that car- it's got 207,000 miles on it and is still a beast that gets the same mileage as the '04 Cavvy. you just can't kill a good running 3.1 V6.
Back to the original topic (I think).
I've been new car shopping and I am still seeing some differences in interior quality. Of non-luxury makes, Hyundai seems head and shoulders above the rest. Honda is the most disappointing. To get a new Honda to replace our '06 with 106K miles, it would be a big downgrade in interior quality. Toyota has dropped off too. Nissan and Mazda interiors are pretty cheap, but that is par for the course for them.
ShadowSix wrote: That said, if you can't get comfortable in a full-size American pick-up truck you might be in trouble...
I don't know about this one - I have a 2 trillion way adjustable seat with heat and leather and arm rests galore - the very best GM could manage in my 2500HD. After a 17hr towing marathon in 3 days to Mid-O and back... I'm finding myself wondering if I can find a decent set of old Recaros out of a Volvo to toss in there.
In reply to Otto Maddox:
Sultan wrote: I remember when I was a kid the differences in quality between cars was huge. Today I read review comparing cars and the difference seem small. Ok a Sonic isn't as well built as a new 911 but when you compare cars within their peers how different is the build quality? So has the build quality of cars gotten to the point where it is only a minor difference? And go!
The word "interior" does not exist in this post.
In reply to tuna55:
I knew I should have gone back and read the original post.
I think build quality is pretty darn similar. The manufacturers must use equally capable robots.
Otto Maddox wrote: I think build quality is pretty darn similar. The manufacturers must use equally capable robots.
I agree - most cars, with some exceptions, are pretty darn close in reliability. Buy what you like. I still think European cars tend towards the maintenance intensive side, but not by as much as they used to.
I agree that the gap in quality (and the gap in body panels...) has gotten a lot smaller in the past few decades. Think about it this way.... what's the quality gap between a 1987 Toyota Tercel and a 1987 Hyundai Excel (or Yugo)? So what's the quality gap between a 2012 Toyota Yaris and 2012 Hyundai Accent? Much, much smaller if not gone. There are a lot of factors as to why, but I think customer expectations and a fiercely competitive marketplace have a lot to do with it.
By the way, I may take up the argument that the 911 is higher build quality than a Sonic. I've never been a fan of GM build quality, especially early models, but Porsche's aren't the most reliable things on the planet.
Klayfish wrote: I agree that the gap in quality (and the gap in body panels...) has gotten a lot smaller in the past few decades. Think about it this way.... what's the quality gap between a 1987 Toyota Tercel and a 1987 Hyundai Excel (or Yugo)? So what's the quality gap between a 2012 Toyota Yaris and 2012 Hyundai Accent? Much, much smaller if not gone. There are a lot of factors as to why, but I think customer expectations and a fiercely competitive marketplace have a lot to do with it. By the way, I may take up the argument that the 911 is higher build quality than a Sonic. I've never been a fan of GM build quality, especially early models, but Porsche's aren't the most reliable things on the planet.
My father's Sonic was delivered broken, for what it's worth.
Klayfish makes a good point, which is one I have made before. The Koreans are about on a par with Hondas at the moment. The prices are getting closer too, which is another subject entirely.
A Porsche may be a helluva lot faster than the Sonic, have better brakes more luxurious interior etc ad nauseam but again I have to agree that when you compare them in terms of reliability, suddenly there is a big closing of the gap. I submit the well known Boxster intermediate shaft issues as evidence, along with other problems. http://www.pelicanparts.com/techarticles/Boxster_Tech/13-ENGINE-Common_Engine_Failures/13-ENGINE-Common_Engine_Failures.htm
I could sort of see something like that happening in a $10-$15k econobox where cost cutting is rampant, but a premium sports car with a base price of $49,500 in 1996, $50,450 now? Mmm... not buying that. I mean, I see Isuzus which sold for ~$18k new still banging away at 300k + miles.
ShadowSix wrote: The inner door skins of my '89 4Runner are cardboard.
The firewall of my '69 Europa is cardboard. 
I guess they called it a firewall because it would burn.
Spitfires have a cardboard transmission tunnel and the panel between the fuel tank/interior is the same cardboard with vinyl over it. The Jensen has the fuel tank in the same place but has a 20 ga steel 'wall'. I guess that's the changes which take place over the years...
To be fair, at least new Porsche's don't smell like 3-day-old fish inside.
Also, Volt battery fires, Tacoma frame rust, Ford CC fires, etc, etc show that we still aren't out of the woods yet.
Javelin wrote: To be fair, at least new Porsche's don't smell like 3-day-old fish inside.
Volt fires? Come on now - you're just being silly now. One fire after a crash three days after they didn't disconnect the battery hardly qualifies. I acknowledge that GM should have set forth that procedure with, or before, the car, but come on...
You need to define what quality means...does it mean the interior looks and feels luxurious, or does it mean the interior is durable and can be washed off with a hose?
Many years ago I read a business book named Quality is Free; the author's definition of quality was "conformance to requirements." One example I remember was he said a Cadillac and a VW Beetle (remember, this was a long time ago) both had high quality, compared to their respective requirements.
In reply to tuna55:
Apparently you haven't read the formal recall or seen the news last month when one of the packs exploded in GM's plant. Just pointing out that new cars aren't as bullet-proof as some believe. It was just the first GM one to pop into my head since I was trying to be equal, but take your pick of any of their other recent recalls.engineering foibles to make the point more salient for yourself, there's plenty to choose from.
In reply to Javelin:
I don't know about bulletproof, just light years ahead of a few decades ago.
MG Bryan wrote: My father's Sonic was delivered broken, for what it's worth.
If it was delivered broken, then apparently it wasn't worth much, huh? 
You'll need to log in to post.
