This is a used 2017 Hyundai Sonata, and the seats already look

>>17320441
It entirely depends on the material.
But yes Korean cars use absolutely awful seat material in cloth.

Just clean your shit
>>17320444
>thinking its about the material
Nigga fucking please

Get it
>Detailed
fuck tard.

>dumb niggers don't know how to clean a car

File: ammo.png (541KB, 1014x630px) Image search: [Google]

541KB, 1014x630px

>>17320441
Literally an hour or two with a steam cleaner, some fabric cleaner and a soft brush would make it look like new

Just clean your car, good lord

Clean your fucking car. There are 55 Chevys with their original interior in better shape than that.
This either means that
A. The the don't build em like they used to meme is true
OR
B. Taking care of your car means it'll last
And it's much more likely to be B than A

File: FJ_Doors_Open_jpg_900x900_q100.jpg (439KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 900x675px

>>17322792

Most cars had higher quality fabrics up until the 1970s, when throwaway cars became a thing.

There are still some cars that have good interiors. Pic related, bombproof. Can even take the stock seat covers off and toss them in the washing machine if they get too filthy.

>>17322807
Not even close to being true. Cars from the 50s were more throwaway in actual use than newer cars. If cars were meant to be throw aways the average age of a car on the road today wouldn't be over double of what it was then. The yearly model change isn't really a thing anymore

>>17322823

You're absolutely wrong in every sense. Quality control was way higher and vehicles were meant to last because they were an investment. Every consumer product was made with quality in mind, it's only in more recent years that we've adopted a disposable chinkshit society of trash vehicles and other consumer goods.

You're 100% wrong, kiddo.

>>17322842
Keep telling yourself that but it simply isn't true.

>>17322940

Keep jerking off to traps and telling yourself it isn't gay, but it simply isn't true.

File: 1474171454521.gif (100KB, 805x540px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 805x540px

>>17320441
>buying gookshit

They look bad but I think they just need cleaned.

I would never choose beige let alone beige cloth....

>>17322842
not the same guy but I need to let you know you're really wrong.

Vehicles in the 20th century were all about "THE NEW MODEL" because it was hyper consumerist.

There is a reason why there are only a few thousand examples of each make from that era still around. They weren't built to last at all. They rust, they break down, you certainly couldn't get in them and just drive across the country without something going wrong.

Cars from 1998 - are much higher quality. I know that hurts you and the Boomers feelings but it is true. There is a reason why the average age of cars on the road is 11.6; one of the highest numbers that stat has ever been.

My current DD is 5 years old and runs perfectly, my grandfathers Honda is 13 years old and runs fine, my parents have an old Mercury that is pushing 11 years old and runs perfectly fine and still pulls 5k in KBB.

There is no chance in hell cars from before were built with more quality in mind. That is literally a boomer meme. I love classic cars don't get me wrong but we call them classic and put them on pedestals not because they were the best; but because they are beautiful. Cars were more artistically designed back then. Now we engineer them for performance and most of that comes down to aerodynamics.

Here is a citation for you just in case:
http://www.autonews.com/article/20161122/RETAIL05/161129973/average-age-of-vehicles-on-road-hits-11.6-years