Hooniverse Asks: What Current Car Has The Ugliest Interior?

By Robert Emslie Jan 5, 2017

full_p1882
Considering how much time you spend it it, it’s somewhat surprising how ugly a lot of new car interiors seem to be. Maybe it’s discordant textures, poorly designed controls, or just a general feeling that the designers were trying to pull something over on somebody, but some cars simply look funky inside.
Thinking about the slate of cars that have just recently been introduced or refreshed, is there one that stands out as needing the description of “having a nice personality” to get past its interior shortcomings? What do you think is the car with the ugliest interior?
Image: autohit

47 thoughts on “Hooniverse Asks: What Current Car Has The Ugliest Interior?”
  1. My fiesta has black below the windows and then beige above it. Bugs the crap outta me. Other than that, not too ugly. But mixed interior trim is a heinous crime.

    1. Deliberately mixed can be neat… for example, my ’73 Cougar (blue car with a white vinyl ‘canopy’ roof) had blue on the dashboard, center console, and carpet with white headliner, inner door panels, pillar covers, and seats.

      1. The ST versions are the ones with a solid interior. There was a wrecked FiST near me for $2500 but I just didn’t have the space. Would have been interesting.

    1. Agree. While we’re on the subject of Mercedes, I’ve also never liked that row of round air vents — reminds me of certain cheesy old dealer-installed under-dash air conditioners.

        1. Presumably one of the best cars in the world…and the dashboard looks like a “how do we fill this space?”-decision done in a few minutes. That row of buttons below the vents doesn’t make it better either.

        2. That dash is one huge continuous display. Neato-frito, huh? Well, at least as long as it works. But Mercedes doesn’t build cars for life anymore, so who cares about the second or third (or fourth, fifth) owner of a car?

          1. I miss when a luxury car had gauges like a fancy watch, rather than a boring LCD display. It’s way less luxurious to just have a screen there.

          2. Exactly. When I can buy a 10″ off-brand 1080p tablet on Amazon for ~$100, it becomes clear that an LCD panel is the cheap option.

    1. Anything other than black or grey is good. Except beige. But brown is good. The new Continental has an available blue interior which looks quite good.

    1. If you don’t like analog clocks perhaps you should not be commenting on an automotive forum. Suck it.

      1. I have a good memory of seat comfort. The Infiniti didn’t cradle me as well as a Volvo, but it was pretty good. The Kia Sorento was not good. The Toyota RAV4 was worse. Ford Escape was very good. Volvo XC60 and Land Rover Discovery Sport were top notch and shared some DNA.

      1. And it is easy to clean. You’re not going to ruin anything special with a damp cloth after a muddy day.

    1. Wow. That dash has everything! from a more than complete set of gauges to digital readouts everywhere, a complete complement of knobs and buttons, and what looks like an anatomically correct representation of a male figure.

    1. Test drove a newish Mini a few months ago, had to figure out how to shut off the rainbow disco lights around the radio. “I’m a 44 year old man, I like the Mini, but don’t need that crap!”

    2. Yeah these vents somehow look worse.
      At it’s size and price level I expect the MINI to be a little cheeky and juvenile, this doesn’t look like the interior of a lightweight runabout. Maybe I have too much seat time in the first-gen MINI with it’s cartoony plasticky interior.

      1. http://onsurga.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/2011-Chevy-Silverado-1500-Interior.jpg
        As a possibly Encyclopedia Hoonatica-worthy detail, the GMT900 came with two separate dashboards, depending on the trim (IOW, nicer Silverados got the Tahoe/Suburban dash).
        http://www.chevrolet.com/content/chevrolet/northamerica/usa/nscwebsite/en/index/all-vehicles-nav/trucks-and-vans/2017-silverado-1500/photos-and-videos/interior/jcr:content/mm_gal_c2/thumbnailArea/mm_gal_item_c2_0.img_resize.img_stage._3.jpg
        The current one is fine. There’s some cheap plastics in spots, but it works.

        1. It looks like they saw how much space they had to fill and after designing it, they expanded it 2x to use up the real estate, but took the glove box from the cruze parts bin.

    1. Yeah, you definitely get what you pay for.
      The absence of any noteworthy features does leave it surprisingly roomy, I’ll give it that.

  2. I still want a Ford Transit Connect for it’s small footprint and cavernous interior, but sadly not for it’s engine, transmission, price, features, or its overwrought dash:
    http://www.moibbk.com/images/ford-transit-connect-interior-10.jpg
    Silly gauges, blue lighting, tiny info screen, numeric keypad, no place for a phone, vertical vents, black plastic, no knee room, etc.
    Why does a front-wheel-drive utility van even need this enormous empty shifter console?!? Put it back on the column already!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 64 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop files here