I stopped by my local, friendly Mitsu dealer to order some parts for my trunk install. While I was there, I took the opportunity to sit in the new Lancer. Much has been made of the new interior. I have to admit that I was very curious, as well. Leaving aside the styling touches, the quality of the interior plastics was rather disappointing. They felt thin, hollow, and cheap. Honestly, I did not feel like its quality was as good as that of the CT9A.
I bought my wife a 08 gts, its a fun little car. I'm not sure what you mean by quality of the plastics? Plastic is plastic to me, that like the sti owners always saying there interior is better than the evo although to me they look about the same. My little sister has a 05 lancer and compared to it the interior looks awesome, and pretty much everything about the car has been improved like the steering, stereo and multitude of gadgets.
I bought my wife a 08 gts, its a fun little car. I'm not sure what you mean by quality of the plastics? Plastic is plastic to me, that like the sti owners always saying there interior is better than the evo although to me they look about the same. My little sister has a 05 lancer and compared to it the interior looks awesome, and pretty much everything about the car has been improved like the steering, stereo and multitude of gadgets.
I'm not really sure how to respond, as it seems like we're coming from two completely different points of orientation. I can only say that I expected more, a lot more.
I just find it interesting coming from a evo ( fake carbon fiber hvac surround anyone?) standpoint that you would find the interior lacking compared to a evo's, which by all accounts is one of the biggest "flaws" that was covered in auto reviews of the evo.
The black plastic they use is the same as what you find in the 3g eclipses/stratus and as far as I can tell the evo. I'm not a plastics specialist but as far as I can tell auto plastics usually exhibit the same characteristics, so I'm trying to understand where your coming from with the feeling that they used inferior plastic, how?, why? Is it because the plastic has a matte finish as opposed to a shiny appearance ?
Don't feel singled out, I've heard this about the evo several times from wrx owners and I just don't see how the black plastic in the evo is any different than the black plastic in the wrx, I've owned both and the only difference I've noticed is the wrx has circle airvents where the evo's are rectangular, and the wrx/sti has fancier hvac knobs.
I've seen some very nice interiors when I was a mechanic at the local BMW/Porche/Audi dealership, but the plastic content of the interiors was substancially lower than you find in pretty much any vehicle under $30k.
Exhibit A and B (my evo, and my wifes lancer) bear in mind I replaced the stereo surround with the cf gauge holder. Note-the far right mismatch gauge has been replaced with a matching aem oil press.
I just find it interesting coming from a evo ( fake carbon fiber hvac surround anyone?) standpoint that you would find the interior lacking compared to a evo's, which by all accounts is one of the biggest "flaws" that was covered in auto reviews of the evo.
As I said rather clearly, my comments were not aimed at the styling; they were aimed at the quality of the materials.
FWIW, I really like the Evo's interior.
Quote:
I'm not a plastics specialist but as far as I can tell auto plastics usually exhibit the same characteristics, so I'm trying to understand where your coming from with the feeling that they used inferior plastic, how?, why? Is it because the plastic has a matte finish as opposed to a shiny appearance ?
If plastics typically seem the same to you, there's nothing to discuss simply due to a lack of a common reference point.
Quote:
Don't feel singled out, I've heard this about the evo several times from wrx owners and I just don't see how the black plastic in the evo is any different than the black plastic in the wrx, I've owned both and the only difference I've noticed is the wrx has circle airvents where the evo's are rectangular, and the wrx/sti has fancier hvac knobs.
OK.
Quote:
I've seen some very nice interiors when I was a mechanic at the local BMW/Porche/Audi dealership, but the plastic content of the interiors was substancially lower than you find in pretty much any vehicle under $30k.
If you can't identify a quality variance as it stands, looking at other cars is of little consequence. I'm glad you like the Lancer and I truly hope that you enjoy it throughout its life. My wife and I both like her Mazda3, but quality of its interior trim is similar to the new Lancer, which is to say that it's nothing to brag about. IMO, Mitsu took a step backward with the car by outfitting it with such lackluster materials.
If you could quantify this plastic quality you speak of, that would help.
I'm just trying to figure out what your idea of quality is when it comes to plastic, ie what makes it lackluster compared to other plastic trims?
If in your opinion the plastic appears "cheaper" than other plastics than thats fine, I work evenings at a local speed shop and have seen about every performance type car there is to offer, and the fact of it is the only difference between the plastics in 99% of the cars is what type of finish they form the outside(viewable), such as the pebbled look, matte, shiny, painted, etc. When you pull these pieces off for installs or for access the non viewable backside is the same, they are all about 1/8th of a inch thick and are a semi-pliable material with some type of skeleton ridge reinforcement.
I could understand it being considered cheaper compared to cars that have mostly metal alloy (aluminum for example), suede, and other more expensive textiles used for trim, but it appears to me you don't like the particular finish mitsu chose.
I'm not really trying to argue with you, your opinion is your opinion. I'm just coming from a engineering background and from what I've seen there is no "premium" auto plastic, the only difference is the finish or application of a fancy plastic paint, such is the case of the evo trim parts, which if you ever scratch you can see the layers of metallic paint.
If you could quantify this plastic quality you speak of, that would help.
I'm just trying to figure out what your idea of quality is when it comes to plastic, ie what makes it lackluster compared to other plastic trims?
How can I possibly do that without a common point of reference? You've yet to notice any difference between the quality of interior parts, seeming concentrating on their respective styling and gadgetry, so where can we go from here?
Quote:
If in your opinion the plastic appears "cheaper" than other plastics than thats fine, I work evenings at a local speed shop and have seen about every performance type car there is to offer, and the fact of it is the only difference between the plastics in 99% of the cars is what type of finish they form the outside(viewable), such as the pebbled look, matte, shiny, painted, etc. When you pull these pieces off for installs or for access the non viewable backside is the same, they are all about 1/8th of a inch thick and are a semi-pliable material with some type of skeleton ridge reinforcement.
What would you like me say? I can once again point out that you cannot tell the difference in quality regardless of materials, but what good would that do? My impressions were based on a comparative reference and yours are a result of a belief in almost complete and total parity. There's nowhere to go from here.
Quote:
I could understand it being considered cheaper compared to cars that have mostly metal alloy (aluminum for example), suede, and other more expensive textiles used for trim, but it appears to me you don't like the particular finish mitsu chose.
To me, the word "finish" means external appearance. That's not what I'm talking about, at least not entirely. You expect me to somehow reach through the keyboard and modify an impression that hasn't wavered though thorough exposure to other products. What else is there to say?
Quote:
I'm not really trying to argue with you, your opinion is your opinion. I'm just coming from a engineering background and from what I've seen there is no "premium" auto plastic, the only difference is the finish or application of a fancy plastic paint, such is the case of the evo trim parts, which if you ever scratch you can see the layers of metallic paint.
If you can't see and/or feel the difference in plastics, then there's no point to discussion, as I've maintained all along.
I'm asking you to identify what parameters do you judge the comparative quality of plastics?
The "I know quality when I see it" is opinion, so what makes the plastic cheap in your opinion, considering that all plastic with the exception of military/specialty ballistics polymers are in the most part, cheap.
You have indicated that you can determine between cheap plastic and premium plastic, so how is this determined? What criterion allows this determination?
The only difference between the evo and the lancer is the exterior side styling of the plastic, if you where to look at the back of the pieces you would see it is the same weight thickness, etc, however you feel there is a huge difference in quality. I'm just trying to figure out how you determined this.
How can I possibly do that without a common point of reference? You've yet to notice any difference between the quality of interior parts, seeming concentrating on their respective styling and gadgetry, so where can we go from here?
I can tell the difference in the quality of interior parts, using plastic is cost effective, using higher end trims pieces such as carbon fiber, aluminum, laminate wood,leather, etc cost more.
I'm asking you to identify what parameters do you judge the comparative quality of plastics?
The way it feels ( the tactile sensation), how it doesn't distort under the slightest pressure, no scratches/discoloration when rubbed against and/or pressed, no squeaks that are easily apparent upon a slight touch, its perceived density, the (tactile) "solidity" of the product and its appearance. I would tell you to compare the Lancer's plastics to the CT9A's, as you have both, but clearly that's no use.
At the risk of stating the brutally obvious, my comments should not matter, given your preferences. It really seems like you want to argue, but I don't know about what. All plastics are same to you.
Quote:
The "I know quality when I see it" is opinion, so what makes the plastic cheap in your opinion, considering that all plastic with the exception of military/specialty ballistics polymers are in the most part, cheap.
Cheap or inexpensive? There's a big difference between the two. I tried to reply to your question above and I did it to the best of my ability. I still have no idea why you keep going on with this, since you do not see a difference in quality of plastic trim, period.
Quote:
You have indicated that you can determine between cheap plastic and premium plastic, so how is this determined? What criterion allows this determination?
In addition to what was said, it's a comparative determination.
Quote:
The only difference between the evo and the lancer is the exterior side styling of the plastic, if you where to look at the back of the pieces you would see it is the same weight thickness, etc, however you feel there is a huge difference in quality. I'm just trying to figure out how you determined this.
You mean to tell me, as a self-proclaimed engineer, that you completely discount such factors as composition and makeup, and molding practices and design as playing a part in the quality equation? That's just ridiculous.
My personal experience with plastics is limited to doing production planning for a multi-million dollar injection molding plant. Even though I was not directly involved with the engineering aspects of the operation, I did see the pricing as well as the specs. Both greatly depended on which (grade) pellets, as well as their proportion, that were used to mold the piece. For whatever reason, your rationale hinges on the thickness of the piece. As an example, a 1/4" piece of rolled steel stock an be made very rigid or no more supportive than its original cut allowed, depending on the way it's shaped. Same thickness, different properties. I have to wonder which engineer is not aware of the other constrains that make that variable almost moot.
Quote:
I can tell the difference in the quality of interior parts, using plastic is cost effective, using higher end trims pieces such as carbon fiber, aluminum, laminate wood,leather, etc cost more.
Whoa, please don't play games with me. As tempting as it may have been do otherwise, I've replied to your comments respectfully, so please don't insult my intelligence with this disingenuous, obfuscatory drivel. I don't know why you felt the need to divert attention from your own words, but the fact remains that you see all interior plastics as being identical. It's like asking to explain the value of a Stradivarius to someone for whom all violins sound alike.
Let's try this. I hereby retract my comments and boldly declare that the new Lancer's interior (plastics) quality is on par or better than a $15K VW Rabbit, a $17K Civic, or the outgoing CT9A. Of course, that's nothing more than wishful thinking at best or an outright lie at worst, but as long as you're happy....
For replying respectfully you sure have put a lot of absolutes as well as assumptions towards my person.
I am well aware of composition and form affecting the characteristics and strength of the piece, however, for the purpose of covering the underworkings of the dash, a shroud if you will, how strong do you need it to be? There is no discoloration or whitening of the stock pieces of either vehicle under moderate strain, or what the typical trim pieces will be subject to.
Compared to the CT9A however, I find it particularly ironic that you insist the quality is measures above. The interior plastics in the 8-9 evo are the same as in their base model lancer, however dyed a different color, both of which were rated poorly in nearly every auto review. You will find yourself very alone in suggesting that the evo 8-9 has a quality interior, but thats not really what most of us evo owners purchased the car for.
The thing about it is there is no point in putting a higher tensile strength plastic or well engineered reinforced plastic in a automobile trim piece, since there is no benefit to the automotive manufacturer. Stronger plastics trim pieces do not make the vehicle safer, more fuel efficient, or more importantly any more profitable. Nearly all manufacturers use a nylon reinforced polymer for durability and flex using injection molding to shape the piece, the usual interior rattles are not a result of the grade of plastic but of the fastening techniques used to connect the pieces and the positioning of said pieces as well as the respective clearances.
The only reason I continued to respond to this thread is that you made a statement and gave no proof to ascertain otherwise, you merely tried to poke holes in my logic and imply that I am incapable of determining between materials.
If you where to take samples from various cars from various manufacturers, and put them through a multitude of tests comparing the strength, melting point, tolerance, etc, I don't believe you would find too many variances.
I believe this because after numerous installs and builds requiring the removal of the interior of various cars I've come to realize that the only major difference between the trim pieces is usually the exterior finish, they all have nearly the same flexibility, thickness, durability, and from the non viewable side appear to be of similiar material.
BMW for example has what most industry folks believe is a "premium" interior materials, however after tearing into more bmw's than I'd like to remember, I can say with great certainty that the plastics they use are no more durable that what you would find in a kia, they do however ensure that the viewable side of the piece is finished with a pleasant appearance by applying a semi gloss finish over the pebbled texture, it is however still the same automotive grade plastic used in nearly every vehicle manufactured these days.
Your correct, there really is no point in continuing this conversation, I did however want to ensure that anyone who comes along and reads this thread will not be put off of the next gen lancers/evos because they read on the internet that they are built using inferior plastic trim pieces, when in reality it is the same material used in nearly every vehicle.
As far as questioning my engineering knowledge, you can think what you will, I spend my time developing ballistic resistant materials for a government contractor company and the money they afford me suggests otherwise.
For replying respectfully you sure have put a lot of absolutes as well as assumptions towards my person.
I am well aware of composition and form affecting the characteristics and strength of the piece, ...
You are!? Then what's all this talk about thickness on which you've chosen to hang your hat? Clearly, you'll say whatever suits your mood at the moment.
Quote:
...however, for the purpose of covering the underworkings of the dash, a shroud if you will, how strong do you need it to be?
That's hardly the point. I hope you don't expect me to repeat myself for the umpteenth time, so please refer to my previous comments.
Quote:
There is no discoloration or whitening of the stock pieces of either vehicle under moderate strain, or what the typical trim pieces will be subject to.
Funny, the constraints I cited in my previous post were alive and well in the new Lancer. Of course, I'm not the one to whom all plastics seem the same.
Quote:
Compared to the CT9A however, I find it particularly ironic that you insist the quality is measures above. The interior plastics in the 8-9 evo are the same as in their base model lancer, however dyed a different color, both of which were rated poorly in nearly every auto review.
1. I have no idea which reviews compared the quality of both cars, or why you think that I should trust a third party in lieu of my own observations.
2. I'm fully aware the interiors are almost the same, which makes the new Lance even more of a step in the wrong direction (in this respect). Again, that has zero relevance to the thrust of my comments.
Quote:
You will find yourself very alone in suggesting that the evo 8-9 has a quality interior, but thats not really what most of us evo owners purchased the car for.
Can I have a crystal ball like yours? I'm sure that once folks begin to compare the quality of the two, some will arrive at the same conclusion. Assuming, of course, that not all plastics are alike to them.
Quote:
The thing about it is there is no point in putting a higher tensile strength plastic or well engineered reinforced plastic in a automobile trim piece, since there is no benefit to the automotive manufacturer. Stronger plastics trim pieces do not make the vehicle safer, more fuel efficient, or more importantly any more profitable.
Who cares? I'd like to ask you kindly not to insult me with strawman arguments. It's clear that you, someone who claims to be an engineer, has no idea what's involved in manufacturing plastics, however that did not stop you from pulling that comical (errr) "trump card" out of your hat. Isn't it time to call it quits? I've been asking you to do so since my fist reply, but you keep coming back with more and more feeble attempts to gain an edge. To what end? I don't know.
Quote:
Nearly all manufacturers use a nylon reinforced polymer for durability and flex using injection molding to shape the piece, the usual interior rattles are not a result of the grade of plastic but of the fastening techniques used to connect the pieces and the positioning of said pieces as well as the respective clearances.
I'm a sporting man, so let's go with that. Seeing how I clearly heard plastic squeaking when I pressed on them rather lightly, the quality of " fastening techniques used to connect the pieces and the positioning of said pieces as well as the respective clearances" are sub-par, as gauged by your comments above.
Quote:
The only reason I continued to respond to this thread is that you made a statement and gave no proof to ascertain otherwise, you merely tried to poke holes in my logic and imply that I am incapable of determining between materials.
What proof can possibly exist for an opinion that's based on a personal observation?
Your so-called logic is a self-limiting argument, as you have no personal gauge as it relates to the subject matter. Combining those two factors results in an argument that's nothing more than a self-generated, laughable intellectual paradox.
Quote:
If you where to take samples from various cars from various manufacturers, and put them through a multitude of tests comparing the strength, melting point, tolerance, etc, I don't believe you would find too many variances.
I've tried not to argue against faith all along. I see you've finally decided to illustrate my point.
Quote:
I believe this because after numerous installs and builds requiring the removal of the interior of various cars I've come to realize that the only major difference between the trim pieces is usually the exterior finish, they all have nearly the same flexibility, thickness, durability, and from the non viewable side appear to be of similiar material.
Yes, we've been here before:
It's all the same, you're an engineer who knows nothing about engineering constraints, and you see no difference in the quality of plastic materials. Let me grab a pillow....
Quote:
BMW for example has what most industry folks believe is a "premium" interior materials, however after tearing into more bmw's than I'd like to remember, I can say with great certainty that the plastics they use are no more durable that what you would find in a kia, they do however ensure that the viewable side of the piece is finished with a pleasant appearance by applying a semi gloss finish over the pebbled texture, it is however still the same automotive grade plastic used in nearly every vehicle manufactured these days.
Sure, (modern) BMW plastics are of the same quality as the new Lancer. Would you also like to assert that a Burger King Whopper is no different than a well-made burger, because they both contain meat?
Quote:
Your correct, there really is no point in continuing this conversation, I did however want to ensure that anyone who comes along and reads this thread will not be put off of the next gen lancers/evos because they read on the internet that they are built using inferior plastic trim pieces, when in reality it is the same material used in nearly every vehicle.
I see...you're looking out for that nameless fantasy buyer who'd be swayed by a semi-anonymous post on the Internet, instead of actually checking the car out for himself.
Your claims and comments speak for themselves. Given your inability to consider the relevant constrains at play say volumes about your expertise.
Quote:
As far as questioning my engineering knowledge, you can think what you will, I spend my time developing ballistic resistant materials for a government contractor company and the money they afford me suggests otherwise.
HOLD ON A MINUTE!!
You just changed your user profile to claim the above instead of claiming to be a Network Engineer. Apparently, there's an honesty issue here.
I'm always astonished by a lack of foresight at an event like this. It's as if the comments/actions play well with the writer who fails to consider that others many not be as gullible.
I changed my profile to update my current job at lockheed, not the job I had at sprint 2 years ago when I created my profile,as I figured your so intent on "winning" the argument you would most certainly check my profile for any edge.
The most you have done is talk yourself in circles and claimed I am trying to insult you, while trying to discount any quantitative properties I asked that made you come to your conclusion. It was a simple question and not a attack on your person. I found your opinion interesting because of all the cars we looked prior to purchasing the lancer I found it to have a better quality interior than many in its price range.
Your original post claimed compared to the current model evo, the new lancer interior quality was sub par
the quality of the interior plastics was rather disappointing. They felt thin, hollow, and cheap. Honestly, I did not feel like its quality was as good as that of the CT9A.
Ok so its worse than the evo even though
However, I'm fully aware the interiors are almost the same, which makes the new Lance even more of a step in the wrong direction (in this respect). Again, that has zero relevance to the thrust of my comments.
?
I'm not a plastics expert, I work with forming textiles that don't have stopping power for fragmentation and ballistics into compounds that do, using a wide variety of materials, however I'm familiar with many things automotive.
You've taken my wording out of context to suit your argument. I guess I should have been more specific, but for automotive trim parts application, plastic is plastic in my opinion.
Perhaps the particular car you sat in was a poor example, I suggest you check out a few more before drawing a concrete conclusion, as I'm sure your aware that one is not always a representation of all.
I changed my profile to update my current job at lockheed, not the job I had at sprint 2 years ago when I created my profile...
Given the shady stunts you've pulled throughout this thread, please forgive me for not relying on your word. That time had come and passed. There's no such thing as a coincidence, given the circumstances.
Quote:
...as I figured your so intent on "winning" the argument you would most certainly check my profile for any edge.
1. There's no argument to (errr) win; you simply don't like my opinion. Too bad.
2. Please consider that you keep confronting me, not the other way around. That, alone, makes your comment totally disingenuous. Any other brilliant observations that are seemingly geared to save whatever is left of your ego?
3. I wasn't looking for an "edge," nor do I need one. I have enough experience to almost expect a sudden change in documentation. I had a feeling that you modified your profile to suit this thread, and sure enough you did. You were/are dishonest. It's as simple as that, and your stunt with the profile proves it in no uncertain terms. Tell me, who do you plan to pose as next? If we were talking about bread, I'm sure you'd make yourself a baker.
Quote:
The most you have done is talk yourself in circles....
Really? Oddly enough, this thread doesn't substantiate yet another in a series of conveniently generated claims. If you don't mind my asking, are you planning to continue parroting my comments and tossing them back at me? May I suggest, "I know you are, but what am I." It may be just as childish and similarly lacking in intellectual thrust, but at least it's more honest.
Quote:
...and claimed I am trying to insult you...
Yes, I do find obfuscatory text and strawman arguments insulting. Perhaps I shouldn't, as they speak solely of your credibility, or its lack thereof as the case may be.
Quote:
....while trying to discount any quantitative properties I asked that made you come to your conclusion.
Is this some kind of a joke? "Quantitative properties" driven by an opinion based on personal observation is an oxymoron in its purest form. Are there any other straws you'd like to grasp?
Quote:
It was a simple question and not a attack on your person.
It was an insult to my intelligence. Try acting honestly.
Quote:
I found your opinion interesting because of all the cars we looked prior to purchasing the lancer I found it to have a better quality interior than many in its price range.
That's a fascinating comment, given your non-ending stipulations revolving around not being to tell any difference.
First, you spend numerous lines of text claiming that you cannot tell the difference in interior quality, but now all of a sudden you can. Which time did you lie?
Quote:
Your original post claimed compared to the current model evo, the new lancer interior quality was sub par
Who said otherwise?
Quote:
the quality of the interior plastics was rather disappointing. They felt thin, hollow, and cheap. Honestly, I did not feel like its quality was as good as that of the CT9A.
Ok so its worse than the evo even though
Even though, what?
How long do you plan to keep this going? I can go on forever, seeing how much there is to work with.
Quote:
However, I'm fully aware the interiors are almost the same, which makes the new Lance even more of a step in the wrong direction (in this respect). Again, that has zero relevance to the thrust of my comments.
?
Is there a point to this, or do you expect one to materialize out of thin air?
Wait, are you trying to point to the relevance issue, when by your own admission the interiors are almost the same? If so, please allow me to point out that parity made your comment completely irrelevant; hence my reply. You wanna try again with something less goofy? "I said, you said" games aren't much to be proud of, even as a last resort. If it'll make you happy, I can change the phrasing to something that requires no added thought.
Quote:
I'm not a plastics expert, I work with forming textiles that don't have stopping power for fragmentation and ballistics into compounds that do, using a wide variety of materials, however I'm familiar with many things automotive.
Who cares?
Quote:
You've taken my wording out of context to suit your argument.
If that were so, you could easily illustrate that and point to my supposed lack of credibility. Unfortunately, things evolved very differently. Nothing was taken out of context, as the intent of your comments was not changed. I replied to every point you made individually. You may want to try doing the same. Oh, wait, you can't, as every time you've made-up a story or attempted to pass some insipid assertion, you were confronted directly and on-point. The truth seems to be that you simply don't like being made aware of the untenable nature of your position, especially so graphically.
Quote:
I guess I should have been more specific, but for automotive trim parts application, plastic is plastic in my opinion.
I think it's safe to say that everyone reading this got the point already. Next?
Quote:
Perhaps the particular car you sat in was a poor example, I suggest you check out a few more before drawing a concrete conclusion, as I'm sure your aware that one is not always a representation of all.
Why, do other Lancers have different interior trim? Clearly, they do not.
Let me ask you again, why are you keeping this going? I'm willing to leave it as a difference of opinion, as I've said numerous times, but noooooooo. You come back and back again, claiming points more ludicrous than the next and then complaining about being caught in your own web of deceitful and dishonest behavior. Given all this, try to find a pair and not cry when you're involved in an incident of your own making. Accept some responsibility for your own fait as a welcome change.
I'm not sure where your coming up with this, lying in my own web of deceit? This isn't evom, I simply asked you elaborate on how you thought the evo's interior was made of a higher quality plastic than the new lancer.
I was referred by a few members of this board to a couple of your posts on evom, illustrating your habit of ranting on and on and dissecting everything posted to suit your arguement. Nice. I was trying to have a respectful conversation, part of which was for my own sake as I was trying to determine what made you come to your conclusion, somewhat like a market research as percieved quality or "finish" is becoming more important to the armed forces criterion when awarding contracts for military products.
When I was active duty Army the military equipment I was frequently exposed to was "ugly" and if you where to sit a gov. issue HMMWV next to its civilian counterpart, the Hummer, the Hummer looked 1000x better as it had a "fit and finish" the military version did not, even though the function of both vehicles was nearly the same with the exception of the hummer having a fancy interior/exterior and the HMMWV having a superior suspension, the Hummer retailed for $50,000 ish, where the HMMWV as it sat on our property books where $23000 a pop.
Gen. Shinseki, the former chief of staff of the Army, started a trend a few years backwhen he converted the garrision uniform utility headwear from the camoflauge patrol cap to the more visually aesthetic (albeit at the cost of comfort) black beret. His policy has trickled down in many military items, where before the appearance was meant to be subdued and have now become flashier. Personnel clothing/uniforms boots etc where not allowed to have logos or brand names, now it is allowed and the logos are prevalent.
The point of this is that part of my responsibilities is product development, and companies such as the one I work at are starting to focus on the aesthetics and ergonomics of our products and not just the function. I asked a simple question and you blew things completely out of proportion by assuming I took offense to your opinion, and repeated your apparent habit of quoting
Note-the far right mismatch gauge has been replaced with a matching aem oil press.