The old saying “variety is the spice of life” certainly applies to my car ownership experience. I’ve owned multiple models from all of the Big Three US manufacturers, and though they weren’t mine, had a long term connection with several AMC products. Lots of things distinguished all these cars from one another, but one that has stuck with me all these years were the interiors; fit and finish, quality of materials, etc. I’m sure folks will have different impressions, but here’s just my take on how they stacked up.
Rank # 1: GM. Models Owned: 1969 Olds Delta 88, 1973 Pontiac Firebird Esprit, 1980 Buick Skylark, 1981 Olds Cutlass Supreme.
What’s interesting about the GM cars I’ve owned is the Olds Delta 88 is in the Top 3, even though I bought it with over 100K miles. The Skylark, bought new, holds the distinction of the worst car to haunt my driveway. But just focusing on interiors, GM always led the way in material quality and fit and finish. The Delta 88 was three years old and had lots of miles, but the interior was still beautiful. Quality fabric in the seats meant no rips or tears, and the dash was immaculate. The controls all felt substantial – the levers and knobs all had a quality heft to them much like a Lexus of today. Same with the Firebird. I could tell somewhat of a difference between these older models and the newer Skylark/Cutlass – the material quality and fit/finish had diminished a little, though I’d still rate it above its competitors.
Rank # 2: Ford. Models Owned: 1964 Fairlane 500, 1967 Lincoln Continental, 1978 Lincoln Town Coupe, 1986 Ford Escort GT.
While GM’s interiors always felt “substantial”, Ford’s felt the opposite. Even though they were twenty years apart, the Fairlane and Escort interiors were pretty similar – not in style, but in execution. They were “adequate” – fit and finish was OK, but the materials were pretty cheap. The 1967 Lincoln’s interior was competitive with that year’s Cadillac – very nice. But the 1978 Lincoln was a letdown. The tufted leather seats were comfortable, but the leather was thinner than that in a Caddy. But the main problem was in 1978 Ford binned the Lincoln’s unique dashboard and went with a version of the one used in the Mercury Marquis and Ford LTD. All they did was add more tacky chrome trim. I loved the car, but that dash always disappointed me.
Rank # 3: Chrysler. Models Owned: 1968 Plymouth Valiant Signet, 1974 Dodge Charger.
Good ‘ole Chrysler – engineering powerhouse, weak interiors. What I remember most about the Chryslers was the cheap feeling of the knobs and buttons – they were clearly light plastic coated in chrome paint. Turning them was effortless, but not in a good way, and they all tended to “waver” when turned or pushed. The quality of the other materials was also a downgrade from GM and Ford. I remember sitting in a 77 Cordoba and thinking this interior wouldn’t fly in a T-Bird or Monte Carlo. Though it falls outside the article’s timeframe, I also had a 1999 Chrysler LHS – that interior was much nicer, especially the materials – with one exception – the plastic fake wood was cheap looking and unconvincing. I guess Bob Lutz couldn’t scare all the old Chrysler accountants away.
Rank # 4: AMC. Models Driven: 1972 Matador, 1984 CJ 7.
Please don’t view this as a knock on AMC – I’m actually a fan of the brand. But sitting in an AMC product could be pretty depressing. The 72 Matador was a staff car I used for nine months – it was a government fleet-spec car, but still a Matador – one of AMC’s top two models. The dash was a swath of cheap plastic – not only cheap but very thin. In fact, everything I touched in that car felt like hard, cheap, thin plastic. Around the same timeframe I went and looked at a new Eagle Wagon – I was surprised how expensive they were. I was doubly surprised at the cheapness of the interior – the seat cloth was very low-rent, and it had the same thin plastic as the Matador. I drove the CJ 7 for a year and loved it, and you really can’t compare it with other non-utilitarian models. But it had push/pull HVAC controls – and at least once a month, I’d pull on one and the knob would come off in my hand. You’d think that AMC would spend the penny or two to put a notch on the rod so the knob could seat itself and not come off, even if the set screw was loose – nope. We had several other CJs on the base and I asked the Motor Pool guys if that was normal – I got the standard mechanic reply – “they all do that.”
So that’s my little thumbnail on 60s/70s/80s interiors. What was your experience?
Finally a post on interiors. My favorites are tufted velour. Absolute best for me are all long gone, but 83 and 85 Chrysler RWD Fifth Avenues and 89 FLEETWOOD Brougham deElegance. OTT luxury. Love my current Town Car Signature Limited, but wish it had a similar interior.
As a Kenosha kid, got to ride in & even owned an AMC. The drivelines were simple and mostly robust, the bodies were generally strong even if not resistant enough to rust in certain key places. The interiors, otoh, were marginal to awful.
The Ambassador and Classic/Rebel/Matador exchanged back-n-forth over the years, the round speedometer & arrangement of gauges vs. the linear speedometer & other gauges arranged around that. I much preferred the linear one, much easier to read & see the other gauges and the warning lights. Actually wrecked the engine while driving a friend’s Matador by missing the temp gauge pegging – the water pump had sprung a leak. I’ll give part of the blame to AMC for burying the temp gauge under a deep plastic tunnel at the edge of the round opening, made it hard to see.
The Gremlin/Hornet’s interior comes in for special scorn. Full of plastic pieces that didn’t fit together well at all… you’d have been dissatisfied if it had been a snap-together toy. Cloth upholstery also didn’t hold up, and the seats were low and uncomfortable, with the steering wheel too high. Really diminished the perceived value of the car. Too bad they didn’t give it the Concord treatment years sooner.
Concords and Eagles on the other hand, were very plush indeed.
Two AMC’s come to mind. A ’69 Ambassador staff car. A fleet special for sure, plain black vinyl, three on the tree, vacuum wipers, stripper. The design wasn’t bad but everything about it reeked of cheep. My dad had a ’72 AMX with everything including a 401 V8. Very nice inside, I guess I’m a sucker for imitation engine turning on the dash.
I bad mouth the Amby, but it put up with abuse, ran fine on Mogas, and would do 100 on the autobahn.
Pontiacs all seemed to have great dashboards, with plenty of heavy chrome pre 1968 and nice round gauges after that. Actual gauges were available in lieu of idiot lights as a relatively low cost option and really made the dash impressive. Grand Prix was particularly nice. Things went downhill in the late eighties, when everything was cheap plastic.
’50s and ’60s GM interiors were typically of excellent quality and design, and had quite good assembly and fit, Olds and Pontiac’s were particularly attractive and of nice materials.
AMC’s interiors were universally lousy after the mid ’60s, they were not bad up to about ’65/66, but after that were especially deserving of scorn. My 2 awd Eagles and the ’87 Grand Wagoneer were equally awful, and the latter being positioned as a quasi-luxury vehicle made it particularly egregious . The materials and assembly were disappointing, trim was tacky, cheap looking plastic, trim didn’t align or was crooked, the “shag” carpeting looked and felt cheesy, none of it was up to the standard the vehicle aspired to.
Dad’s various Fords 1957 to ’72 were OK then but by the ’72 quite meh, not too bad but certainly not up to ’60s GM’s standards,
GM after ’71 had totally jumped the shark, the bean counter cruddy plastic door panels and pillar covers faded and cracked with the sun, carpets pieces sloppily glued to them didn’t help any. Dashes were cheapened. Overall a shame after what they had been.
Big Mopars were quite decent quality up to the mid ’60s, the ’62-66 B bodies dashes were not as nice. Dad’s ’67 Fury III hardtop had a quite nice interior, the flood-lit dash was great looking and had quality materials. Grandpa’s ’66 Polara interior was attractive. The Fuselage models fell down with more plastic, with tacky fake wood, hardware and door panels were certainly not up to GM’s best, the Imperial and NYer’s not much better than a Fury’s. The 3 C bodies we had in the ’70s were actually a slight improvement, but still not great. Very comfortable seats though.
Interior quality has been iffy in US models for a long time. Eventually Audi/VW showed the way for all newer cars.
Regarding 1960s interiors I will stick with the 1963 & 1966 T-Birds, both of which I experienced when new. Still have a 1966 T-Bird convertible that the interior gets much attention at car shows. Regarding the 70s I really enjoyed many long distance trips in a 1972 Mark IV, 1975 Imperial, and my 1976 Eldorado conv. When it came to comfort it was the then new Imperial with dark red tufted velour. After one straight thru drive from Richmond to Daytona Beach I was so rested after that long day I went out disco dancing that night. Of course only being 24 at the time might had something to do with my energy level.
I owned only three domestic cars from this period (in fact 3 of the 4 American cars that I’ve owned), my ‘73 Vega, ‘81 TransAm and ‘86 Ranger. Based on the H and F Body experience, I can’t rank GM interiors very highly. The Ranger was pretty utilitarian but quite good; the textured vinyl seating surfaces looked and felt great but within 4 or 5 years started to crack on the surface in a few places. The best thing about the Ranger was the leather-covered steering wheel, even though I had a fairly low trim level. It looked and felt great and held up much better than the vinyl seats. And better than the driver’s door check that failed and was not easily replaceable.
Great post. I really feel that until the 80’s GM understood that most folks spend 95% of their “car time” in the vehicle and want to be surrounded by something that’s pleasing to the eye, comfortable, and has controls that don’t break when touched. Nothing beats a Strato Bucket Seat (or Strato Bench) or Grand Prix instrument panel
My grandparents had a ’70 Delta 88 hardtop coupe, and it did have a very nice interior. Still looked good 15 years later.
It was not just the cheap materials, and poor fit and finish of domestic interiors during this era. I often found the interior design itself, to be poor, in many examples. Further emphasizing expanses of cheap plastic, poor instrument cluster designs, and a lack of interesting contrasts in textures and materials.
While the Vega exterior for example, looked very clean and European, the interiors had ugly dashboards, that appeared from tradition full-sized American cars. With dated, and out-of-place, strip speedometers.
More contrasting materials, colour variations, and contrasting patterns, would have helped many interiors. Monochromatic vinyl everywhere, simply looked terrible, besides cheap.
Great post and QOTD. Here were my impressions and rankings of the Big Four interiors from vehicles owned by either me or my family of origin. I’ll prequalify this by stating that the amount of variance in quality from worst to best isn’t huge.
4. AMC/Renault, by a slim margin to Ford. Our ’85 Renault Encore was an American build of a French design, so it had excellent instrumentation and ergonomics. The seats (AMC design) were very comfortable, but the front seats didn’t adjust for rake. That has more to do with the trim level than the car itself. The vinyl wore very well and was of good quality;
3. Ford. I absolutely loved the wide wale corduroy fabric on the seats of my ’88 Mustang, and IIRC, the ’84 Tempo had something similar. The the ergonomics and dashboard of my Mustang were also great. The letdowns with the Fords were the way the seats faded over time;
2. GM. Nice, clean, functional interiors. The interior of my ’76 Malibu Classic felt like a luxury car compared to the interiors of the newer, smaller GM cars my friends were driving (Citations, Celebrities, etc.). My parents’s ’88 Chevy Nova (NUMMI product) and ’92 Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera both had solid, well-appointed interiors that wore very well. A few points off for the mouse-fur velour and incomplete instrumentation; and
1. Chrysler. Our ’77 Plymouth Volaré has a beautiful, finely finished interior of burgundy vinyl that remained colorfast, had a nice texture, and wore beautifully. Maybe I’m also a sucker for fake wook and all things ’70s, but it was also a comfortable place to spend time during long road trips. Fit and finish also seemed decent, IIRC. The bodywork started to full-on disintegrate by the time my sister got it when it was six years old or so.
Please pardon typos.
I bought an ’86 Alliance base model, black bumpers. Had an AM radio, rear defog, carpeting, otherwise not much you could call ‘deluxe’. Owned it during the very hot summer of ’89 and vowed never again to buy a car without a/c. In the winter, the heater was quick to warm up & put out a sauna-worthy amount of heat. Learned later the heater core was recalled; it was prone to breaking & throwing hot water on passengers’ legs. It routinely made 38 mpg, good for the time.
The driver’s seat was very comfortable, with a fairly high position that made it easy to get in & out. The front seats were on a pedestal track, giving a place for rear passengers to put their feet. Made it a passable car for transporting four adults, at least if not going too far.
The instrument panel (what little of it there was… it had a speedometer, fuel gauge, and lights for hot, alt, etc.) was attractive but the speedometer needle had a funny quirk…. if the sun shone on the dial, the needle would stick wherever it was pointing, and stay there until the sun was no longer shining on it.
I accidentally shut the glove box with a pen in the door, and the hinge pins on the door broke – they were the same molded plastic as the door panel itself. Replaced under warranty.
The quality of GM interiors in the ’60 seemed to be all over the place. My parents ’66 and ’69 Catalinas had excellent interiors, but by the ’70’s the quality was gone. One of my uncles showed up one day with a ’75 Catalina-I mentally compared the interior with my parents cars and it was-Cheap-the plastics, vinyl, cloth and carpeting had a really cheap look and feel. This seemed to be standard on most GM cars of the ’70’s.
My only Ford-an ’88 Mercury Tracer had an excellent interior that held up well over the seven years I drove it. I drove a 1995 Plymouth Voyager for 81/2 years and the interior held up quite well despite the fact I was carrying show dogs in it.
My ’85 Caravan held up well too, after Gus was done trying to destroy it. We got Gus on a Saturday, and the next Monday, bought the Caravan. Gus was a chewing machine, half Pit Bull(Mom) and half ??. He had a gigantic head and the first day, he ate the carpet and sound deadening asphalt sheet in the back. He could chew very quietly. The passenger front door panel was next, then he ate, not chewed, the wiring harness for the crappy stereo when it was removed to get fixed. There were rainbow colored wires coming out of him for a few days. Once we discovered his true love, rawhide, the destruction stopped, for the most part. It stopped totally at about a year. It took almost 18 months for him to get the “Go outside, not…” For 14 years, he chewed and chewed. Before “Beef Basted Chew-Eez” came into the picture, he had eaten a basketball chunk of hall carpet, a couple of legal pads, boxes of Xmas cards, and chewed on doorframes and furniture legs. He was a nervous wreck when it was fireworks season, and thunderstorms, wind, rain on the car roof, slide whistles, and a lot of other stuff would terrify him. But if I could get him back, I would happily empty my bank account out.
At least he looks contrite in the picture!
I would generally agree, with one glaring exception: GM turn signal levers in their 1980’s incarnation felt stiff, brittle and cheap. Every time signaled a turn in Mom’s 1980 Buick Regal, it felt like a piece of hard polystyrene plastic was about to break inside the switch, and that turn would kill be the last turn it ever signaled, LOL!
Thanks for a great insightful post in interiors! I always value a nice interior as that’s where you spend your time interacting with the car for the most part. My experiences are perhaps a little after your time so based on that, I would not have ranked GM #1.
It seemed starting in about 95 their interiors all shared similar design elements. Whether on ‘new’ cars (Cavalier/Sunfire, Lumina, Blazer/Jimmy) or refreshes (Astro/Safari, GMT400) interior design was a sea of the cheapest nastiest black & gray plastics ever to be haphazardly assembled into a car. Design was clearly playskool my first car & I’m not sure many buyers bought another. This seemed to hold true well into the 2000s even with some improvements (GMT900, Vue) but still well behind the competition.
Ford OTOH seemed from the 80s on, perhaps due to the Taurus, to just improve their interiors. While still a similar sea of gray & black (Mustang, Explorer) the overall feel of materials & assembly quality was certainly ahead of GM at the time. Some (F-150) were clearly ahead of GM at the time.
My only experience with a modern GM was sitting in a Canyon Denali at the auto show this year. Everything about the interior reminded me of a 1980 Oldsmobile in a good way. They seem to get what a quality interior with American luxury should be. Now I wonder if the rest of their current lineup is up to that standard.
This was an interesting read. I think any discussion of interiors is dependent on when the car was made. For example, you picked some poor Chrysler examples, the 74 Charger especially. Chrysler interiors were quite nice up to the mid 60s and again by the late 70s. Ford’s were good in the mid 70s but terrible by the early 80s.
After the mid 60s, GM continued to do seats pretty well, but there was a LOT of cheap feeling plastic, even in Cadillacs.
Even AMC upped it’s game by the time the Concord/Eagle and Grand Wagoneer were out.
I would debate with you on the 78 Lincoln. The dash was a letdown, but everything in those cars was nicer than what was in Cadillac. The comparison is more lopsided if you go back to 1975-76.
Agree 💯% re 78 Lincoln dash…too cheap to put a newer design in so they repurposed the Grand Marquis one..