Evo X
06-24-2011, 05:51 PM
#22
Registered User
It is MUCH more durable than the E46s interior, though.
06-25-2011, 12:03 AM
#24
The interior isnt too bad but like people said it lacks in certain ares but i guarantee no one has ever not purchased the car because of it. Its similar to the cheap interior of a corvette, its definitely not the deal breaker for the car. Unfortunately the EVO X is ugly as hell on the outside. thats why ill never own one.
06-25-2011, 11:37 AM
#26
So...you expected a quality level of a Bentley while retaining such good chassis, motor, transmission, etc. in a $30K car? It's freaking $30K - one is lucky to even have any interior part, while having the aforementioned and performance of the X. Not acceptable? 
06-26-2011, 07:59 AM
#27
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The interior is awful when you compare to other cars in the 35-40k range, especially if you throw used options out there. I would take a 135i for similar price over the Evo X (which, btw, has the smallest trunk this side of a S2000) and ended up buying a used IS-F for less than they would go on a Evo X MR. I also felt that my 2006 STI had just as good, if not better, interior than the 2010 Evo X.
The Evo (and STI for that matter) were excellent value when they first came out in the US because they outperformed everything in the price range. Unfortunately they have not advanced as much as the competition since that time, and today I think they are both just overpriced compared to other options.
The Evo (and STI for that matter) were excellent value when they first came out in the US because they outperformed everything in the price range. Unfortunately they have not advanced as much as the competition since that time, and today I think they are both just overpriced compared to other options.
06-27-2011, 12:22 PM
#28
The interior is awful when you compare to other cars in the 35-40k range, especially if you throw used options out there. I would take a 135i for similar price over the Evo X (which, btw, has the smallest trunk this side of a S2000) and ended up buying a used IS-F for less than they would go on a Evo X MR. I also felt that my 2006 STI had just as good, if not better, interior than the 2010 Evo X.
The Evo (and STI for that matter) were excellent value when they first came out in the US because they outperformed everything in the price range. Unfortunately they have not advanced as much as the competition since that time, and today I think they are both just overpriced compared to other options.
The Evo (and STI for that matter) were excellent value when they first came out in the US because they outperformed everything in the price range. Unfortunately they have not advanced as much as the competition since that time, and today I think they are both just overpriced compared to other options.
06-28-2011, 09:38 AM
#29
I loved my driving experience of the EVO X. The only downside is it felt like I put a saddle on squirrel and was hanging on for dear life. Or it was stopped. It only had the two speeds.
Could not figure out how to drive it smoothly. Then again, who buys an EVO X to drive smoothly?
I'd buy one, f the interior looks. Loved the car!
Could not figure out how to drive it smoothly. Then again, who buys an EVO X to drive smoothly?
I'd buy one, f the interior looks. Loved the car!
06-28-2011, 09:50 AM
#30
Registered User
I see the interior argument for the X much the same way that I see it on the C6 vettes. People compare the interiors to other cars either in the same price range that are nowhere near them in the performance category, or they compare them to other cars with the same amount of performance, but cost much more. Yes a c6 is not going to have the same interior quality as a 911, but it also costs a lot less, and still has as good if not better performance.
The idea of both of these cars is to offer better performance than other similarly priced cars. I cannot think of any car that beats either of these cars in their respective price ranges. The reason that they can do this is because the interior is not as nice as cars that cost much more. If an X or C6 had the nicer interior, then they would cost a lot more. They would no longer be the performance "bargains" that they are.
That said, I feel that the interior quality in both cars that I have listed is more than adequate for what they do, and how much they cost.
People saying that they want their 35-40k car to have the interior of a 40k car instead of a 25-30k car, need to stop looking at it like they are getting short changed on the interior, and look at it like they are getting the performance of a 50k car in an 35-40k car.
The idea of both of these cars is to offer better performance than other similarly priced cars. I cannot think of any car that beats either of these cars in their respective price ranges. The reason that they can do this is because the interior is not as nice as cars that cost much more. If an X or C6 had the nicer interior, then they would cost a lot more. They would no longer be the performance "bargains" that they are.
That said, I feel that the interior quality in both cars that I have listed is more than adequate for what they do, and how much they cost.
People saying that they want their 35-40k car to have the interior of a 40k car instead of a 25-30k car, need to stop looking at it like they are getting short changed on the interior, and look at it like they are getting the performance of a 50k car in an 35-40k car.