The sheetmetal fabrication doesn't bother me. That look is popular, customers like it. The overall look doesn't bother me. But that car can't be as fun to drive as it looks.
When you do this, rear filler, to a Porsche you should consider a career at JC Whitney.
1. Why are the door pulls at the bottom of the panel where your shin would be? They chose form over function. I'm curious as to how well they operate as well considering they completely changed the angle in which the mechanical components were originally designed.
If the customer asked for it would you do it if it worked perfectly?
2. The shifter itself is too far forward. I understand that this is a challenge that's inherent with classics, but @ $100K+ it should be corrected. We corrected that issue in the Mustangs by developing our own kit and had it machined out by a local CNC shop. They undoubtedly widened the trans tunnel. They need a relocation kit to scoot the shifter back. As it is, the driver will have to reach forward to shift the car, which means he has to hunch over. Hunching over in a car with that much power is not a fun driving experience.
I believe that is a matter of opinion as it is an auto so your argument carries less weight. The shifter is in the same position as it was in 1969 and the camera angle , like a pic of set of titties look larger, makes it look out of reach.
3. The switches on the console. I agree that the switches belong on the console and not on the door, but the arm rest pad is too high, which makes for an awkward angle when reaching for the switch.
They seem to be out of the way and without sitting in it and operating them. I think you are being subjective.
4. Two monitors? Redundant. And why not finish the console all the way up the dash? The gap looks weird, especially with two touch screens.
Tthe entertainment center would be out of reach, something you are concerned with
One is the Holley tuning system that I would assume the customer asked for or was in the engine tuning package to be able to deliver the 1000+ horsepower.
I don't know but the console looks like it belongs for the era.... IMHO it doesn't look weird if you were used to and liked sitting in a 69 Chevelle.
5. The seats have no headrests and little to no side bolster support. You already have to hunch forward to drive it, this continues to take away from the driving experience.
Once again, I would guess that was customer prefence as they look like the OE seat frames were reused and they didn't have headrests.
6. In the engine bay, the AC lines come off the compressor, upwards. That's just lazy. March Performance makes a manifold that curve the AC lines downward for a cleaner look.
It's a painted engine, who cares?
7. That Chevelle has a manual brake master cylinder. Really dudes? All that ****ing money in that car, those big expensive Wilwood brakes and then a Manual master cylinder? I mean, that's fine for a guy building a nice car in his garage, but a pro-shop on a $100K+ build? No ****ing way that car should have manual brakes.