Thrdlife

ULTIMATEORANGESS

iTrader: (4)

i must say that was one of the worst ls1 fbody road tests ever.

not that i disagree with some of the things he said its just that they had nothing good to say and i couldnt stand that guys voice in the beginning.

Wheelman916

Having owned American cars, Japanese cars, and European cars, I have to say... He's not wrong. The interior of 4th gen F-bodies is terrible compared to European and Japanese cars of the same era. Even "cheap" entry level European cars that were around the same price of an F-body.

But I disagree slightly with the exaggerated European stereotype of American cars being horrible at handling. A stock f-body isn't the best handling car on the road, but it's not too shabby either.

Tainted

iTrader: (9)

they are pretty cheap...

thunderstruck507

iTrader: (18)

I had an Audi TT from the same era and it was very close if not every bit as shitty inside as a leather interior fbody.

216StealthSS

i will agree with the interior, super cheap and plain....

Wheelman916

Wheelman916

gocartone

iTrader: (4)

I couldn't agree more about the interior, as I sit next to my B-pillar panel while the glue is drying (connector broke off at the HORRIBLE glue job GM did). I have to say that the C6 interior is every bit as horrible as the F-body when comparing to Euro or Japanese cars of even the 90s. I mean, it is little better than the F-body interior, but that's pretty pathetic when you consider it had a base price more than double and came out 10+ years later. And whoever at GM thought it was a good idea to make almost every interior panel connector one time use only needs to be shot!

The handling really depends on what he was driving as a Formula or a Z28 with the base suspension handles like a boat, and the automatic just makes it that much worse!

o2k

Agree

JoeNova

Now I know why they say that the grass is greener on the other side.

Because holy **** that stuff is green in that video. Skip to 0:56.

crimson_bird

iTrader: (4)

Sounded pretty accurate..

They gave it a good rating in the one area that brings most to the cars.. Performance. More specifically, performance for the price. You damn sure didn't get one for the interior, and certainly not for the handling. It has two useless seats in the back, aka a waste of space, which essentially makes it an unnecessarily large two seater. Luckily at least the firebirds dash and seats look a lot better than the camaro, which is a saving grace for the interior of those cars. In stock form appearance is terribly bland on a z28, so the looks aren't worth mentioning. So yeah, the reality is that if it wasn't for the motor these cars would not be worth talking about. Luckily with enough time and money you can at least upgrade most of the trouble areas.. Except the wasted interior space

o2k

but.. to be fair..not everyone got these car for the interior..

thunderstruck507

iTrader: (18)

I always forget how much worse the Camaro is inside than the Trans Am. But compared to the Trans Am I stand by my statement.

The seats in the Audi were covered in similar low quality leather which was wearing and trying to come apart at the seams, the door panels wanted to peal up, the glovebox latch was broken (common) and I had to fix it, etc.

Also the gauges are notorious for going out, both the drive motors and the digital display.

Don't expect everyone to agree, but they aren't nearly as far apart as Euro snobs want to believe. While people may argue the Audis of that time were not exactly cream of the crop, it was a comparable priced sports car from a German manufacturer. There were plenty of other quirks too but the ones above were the more noteworthy ones IMO.


I do like how you grabbed professional quality photos of Audis and amateur photos of the fbody though

Like I said, might not be completely as bad, but IMO the differences are greatly exaggerated.

crimson_bird

iTrader: (4)

^durability wise the TT may not have been leaps and bounds better, but appearance wise they're not in the same category at all. I'd take that^^ interior over the 4th gens any day, as I'm sure most would.

And I'm guessing this review wasn't written when the cars were 10+ years old, so durability couldn't be truly taken into consideration at an early stage. Looking at them both as new cars, the audis interior "looks" far better. Can't speak of actual feel, practicality or ergonomics without sitting in both though.

thunderstruck507

iTrader: (18)

Fair enough. I was never in either new but when people talk about interior quality I take it more as commenting on the materials, durability, and functionality than just the subjective aspects of aesthetics.

The Audi had the quirkest HVAC controls of any car I've ever been in. Those "*****" are push/pull switches that also rock side to side. So say you want to increase the temp: you don't turn the **** you twist it towards the right (you will feel it click like pushing a button) and it will go up one degree, then you have to keep repeating. Then there are various buttons for where it's blowing and what it's doing, it's all very odd compared to just rotating a dial.

There were similar quirks to the wipers and stuff. The seats also are on a weird kind of track where they slide on an incline instead of just front to back, makes adjusting the seat tricky to get where you want while also being properly tilted.