That a lot of exotic cars are really, REALLY, poorly made?

Now don't get me wrong, you're hard pressed to find better build quality than a Ferrari now, but I've worked on A LOT of highly sought after exotic cars. Here's what I mean though:

Just about all Lamborghini Countach's I've seen or had in the shop have had cracked exhaust manifolds, poorly trimmed carpet, and very poorly fitting body panels. The tail lights don't really fit all that flush either and the windows seal really poorly. The paint is always pealing somewhere, the fiberglass is cracking. I mean, no matter how low the miles, these cars are build extremely poorly.

Lotus Esprits suck. They're quite possibly one of my favorite body styles ever, but the dashs look like they were pulled out of a Fiero and rival the fit and finish of a mid-80s Chevrolet Cavalier.

All Porsches up until about the 996s had interiors that dated all the way back to the late 70s. What took so long?

I have yet to be in Mercedes that didn't have something broken, somewhere in the interior that was built before 2003. Most noticeably the E55, which we tend to work on a lot, and they are built like shit, inside and out.

Now, I know that's now where any of these cars get their appeal and I'd give a pinky for a Countach, but wtf? I mean, a $100,000 car (used) with a generic head unit that was put into a dash that has a hole cut into the dash with the finesse of a chainsaw (Countach)? Looking back from the same era, although much harder to find in the same condition, you're extremely hard pressed to beat the build quality of a run of the mill Camry or Accord. Even today, Porsche and Ferrari have really launched their build quality through the roof, but every time I'm over at Lamborghini of Bellevue, the shops is filled with Murcielagos. Don't even get me started on Range Rovers, Jaguars, and Aston Martins. Kia builds a better quality automobile then the three of them combined. Like I said before, I'd love to own just about any of the cars I've mentioned, but it really is disappointing that at the $100k mark you still have to worry about your exhaust rusting out, your dash rattling apart because of some cheesy ass plastic clip holding together, or worse, your engine breaking down at 10,000 miles with a major mechanical break down.

 

Several of the examples you gave were of older cars...I'm no expert but I'd imagine most cars that are 15 years old + are going to have those kinds of issues.

Or maybe not, I really don't know. As far as the recent MB's go, that's the reputation I've always heard they had.

 

Yes, the most noticeable examples are from the 80s, but I'm also referring to Porsche all the way up until the 996, E55s all the way up to 2003, and even the most current Astons, Rovers, and Jaguars. Like I said, just be clear, I'm definitly not arguing the appeal of these cars, just the oddly poor build quality for the price tag.

 

I really like the air-cooled 911 dash. And it's from the 60s, actually.

 

if honda and toyota can get away with poor reliability and build then i'm sure they'd do it too. unfortunately (or fortunately) honda and toyota customers desire first and foremost reliable and well build cars and that is why reliability and build quality is one of the top priorities for the cars those companies build. exotics and prestigeous brand luxury cars, on the other hand, can traditionally get away with poor reliabity and possibly poor build quality because the customers of those companies do not generally put much weight on reliability and build quality as their deciding factors in buying those cars. as a result, those companies do not invest as much money into designing and building reliable and well build cars and the results show. i mean, why increase the cost of manufacturing a vehicle when you have no problem selling each and every single vehicle you produce as is. also, i think traditionally, people who buy and own high end vehicles take pride in the fact that those vehicles are so expensive to maintain. this adds more exclusivity to the ownership of those vehicles, because not only do you have to have the money to buy the car, but you also have to have enough money to maintain the car. as a result, customers tend not to complain about reliability issues and the companies don't find a need to make improvements. it is not until the past decade that buyers of high end vehicles are demanding reliability and build quality due to competition from companies like lexus, and car companies have responded.

 

I agree with you. I think the Gallardo is the best-built Lamborghini to date, and that's because they were able to use Audi's money and expertise to develop it.

Another factor is the miles driven on some of these cars. Most original owners of exotics have a few cars, and don't drive their exotic that much. By the time the second or third owner has to deal with the problems, the makers don't care any more. That's not their market and it won't affect their sales.

For relatively inexpensive cars, I think quality is more of an issue. My friend dumped his Jag XK8 after it left him stranded for the third time.

 

Exotic cars of the past were indeed poorly made. One need only look at Lambo's offerings up until the last Diablo to get an idea. Dream car or not the Countach is positively rickety in person, and the Jalpa was not any better.

I cannot comment much on Mercedes cars, but the SLs have generally been some of the most, if not the most solid German cars made. The W210 E-class had ergonomic flaws that bugged me, but the W203 C-class Sport hatch is generally considered one of the really low points of Mercedes design and build quality.

BMWs I don't think were really considered exotic until the late 90s/2000s with the significantly more powerful M cars than before.

Ferraris have generally been somewhat consistent in their quality, although the one people have always bagged on is the Mondial, which is about as "bad" as a Ferrari gets.

 

Lambos are the worst. I've seen cars with 10,000 miles on them that are falling apart. No comparrison to Ferrari. Even if the build quality has improved, I would not buy one over an F car.

 

I think we have to give a nod to the NSX for making a car that can be driven 150K miles (like an ordinary car) can be driven every day and has superior build quility as well as at the time great all around performance.

I can't say if the NSX is the first car to put this all together, but it's the one most of us think of. The Supra is another one I'd point out.

Today many cars (most) are up to high quality standards. Not evey car is a Lexus, but even Chevy and Kia etc. low model cars are far far better than the average car of 20 years ago.

I keep my old C&D magazines all the way back to ~1988. Its funny to read a comparo of 'near-luxury' class cars from back then with the top power was something like 150hp in a Maxima, these cars didn't have the safety and convenience features we take for granted in almost every car today. These cars were the 'near-luxury' with 0-60 in the 11 second range and braking distance (probably) 50% more than than todays cars.

A bit after this the NSX was released and (IMO) was more modern than most cars at that time, so much that the NSX continued for 15 years and even at the end tho under-powered and ergonomicly challanged was still a credible car.

The first Lexus LS400 did to the luxury car world what the NSX did to the sports car world.

 

I agree