> It is interesting to note that as time goes by, what was fancy once eventually becomes 'standard' and the features get into the mid-range priced cars as well. Auto-shift is probably a good example. Automatic rear trunk opener is another and so on.

Is that because the high-end carmakers invest R&D in reducing costs of making these fancy door panels, which trickles down into mid/low-end cars? (I've heard similar things said for other more software-related car features like traction control or abs, but I'm interested if this is also the case for manufacturing)

> high-end carmakers invest R&D

A lot of high-end carmakers these days are owned by big car-manufacturer conglomerates. For example, Volkswagen owns Lamborghini, Bugatti, Bentley, Audi, and Porsche; Chrysler owns Maserati and owned Ferrari until a couple years ago; Ford owned Jaguar and Aston Martin in the 90s and 00s. So the trickle-down is really very direct: From the luxury makes of a conglomerate into the consumer makes.

Yes. Auto makers don't build cars all by themselves in one single factory. There is a huge supply chain.

So initially supplier 'A' may create a non-standard item for a new niche car. Eventually they make it available for other cars too. As more and more manufacturers pick up the 'new item' for their cars, the cost of manufacturing starts coming down as economy of scale kicks in.

The above is just one example, my point is that non-standard items cost high to manufacture, and as others start to improvise/ replicate the cost starts to come down.

This is a good point. A new WRX is probably more capable, and would probably compare favorably, to pretty high end cars from 15-20 years ago.

There are also cars like the Stingray Corvette, which have dramatic visual designs and are still attainable by middle class individuals who have done pretty well, if they want. If you debadge a red Corvette Grand Sport and take it to LA, people will very likely mistake it for a "lambo" or a Ferrari.