Isn’t the balacing handled solely by it costing (substantially) more, and taking more production units. Why does everything have to be a trade-off on quality? In the real world, some things are just flat out better, in every aspect except cost. To honest I think there are too many quality sliders in the game, and they don’t really give any meaningful context. What’s the difference between +5 and -5 power steering?
There does need to be more description. As stated elsewhere, that will come for the steam release. Higher quality power steering could do several things, for example optimize the steering feel and turns lock:lock for whatever car you are making, making the car tamer and easier to drive (more comfortable), without losing any sort of performance feel.
Yes, of course you can balance solely by cost, but that usually is pretty dull and one-dimensional for gameplay, it’s not a very interesting or engaging compromise to make.
Regarding power-steering: yes, it is exactly as gt1cooper states. Better (/existing) descriptions are a must, we’re aware of that.
I’m probably should been more clear… It’s not so much that I don’t understand that bigger numbers are better, it’s more that I have no clue what the baseline is. Does a “0” quality, generally speaking, represent, say, a 2000’s Toyota, or an early 90s Kia.
Ahh right, yes, the quality system in general needs a proper explanation too 
Quality 0 means “the standard available to every single car maker at the time”. Quality 0 in 1999 means “standard in 1999”. For instance, a Mercedes S-Class car would be considered to have about +5 to +10 on interior/entertainment quality, one of the high revving Hondas from the 90’s would have at least +10 on top end. They could be considered “ahead of their time” in that regard. This will tie into the R&D system of the tycoon part later on.
Ok, that sort of makes sense, but there’s still a ton of wiggle room. The quality cap for companies in a captive market like Brazil are gonna be a lot lower, because they’re using like 30 year old production tooling from 2 generations ago.
To throw out an idea…what if went from 0-100% instead of -15 - +15. So, 100% would be, like 60’s Rolls Royce or something, and 0 would be Soviet-era Yugo…made on Friday afternoon after the workers have been into their weekly vodka ration. The current scale sort of implies a false center.
I dunno, maybe I’m rambling.
It always seems like it would make more sense to, eventually, and maybe this is what you mean, make some of these company-wide rather than model-specific. For instance, for stuff like traction control (or any other driver’s aid), at least on a modern CAN-BUS type architecture, generally they’ll just slot in the latest-and-greatest chip from Bosch or whatever for it. All of the controls and actuators are all computer controlled so it’s not like the bad old days where something like cruise control was a physical cam that would open the throttle.
I think quality is relative to the year only. Quality 0 in 1999 (as previously used by killrob) is common technology at it’s peak for 1999. It’s not the latest-and-greatest, but it is above last year’s technology. If a car company is cornering a market in a country with old tech, then prices will be quite low, as the tech is inexpensive. If your company tries to move in with modern tech, they will be at a hard disadvantage, as you will have higher overhead with a market which can only afford low pricing. This will force your company to sell more by reaching out to other markets, or lowering tech to keep overhead under control. Simple economics, the market will only bear what it can afford. Anything more will fail.
There is the possibility of your competitors upping their tech to meet yours, but only if you begin taking a significant share of their market through forced control. It would be very hard to make a profit selling Rolls Royce type vehicles in India as a mass consumer item. It was also very hard to sell Yugos in America in the 80’s. This does not mean it is impossible, as Hyundai and Kia have thrived in the American automobile markets, but the early years were…well…rough. They essentially jumped up and grabbed the bottom rung of the ladder, and fought their way up over the years. Now they are both “on par” with other American auto makers, for whatever that is/isn’t worth. Other companies had it much easier. Honda, Mazda, Datsun, and Toyota all moved in during the end of the “muscle car” era and capitalized on fuel efficient cars during a time when American car makers were left with their pants down screwing the pooch. Before the 1974 “oil crisis”, they were also flailing in American markets.
Basically, my point is, your car’s cost needs to match the market. If you have to degrade quality 10 years (-5ish) to be competitive, then you will. As stated in a couple of youtube videos and numerous places here on the forums, +1 tech is equal to 2 years advancement. So +10 is 20 years ahead of common technology. -10 would be 20 years behind. This will have to be considered when building cars in “captive markets” and “advanced open markets” because of cost and expectations.
As for “super light” interior, I agree quality should make it lighter, more comfortable, and more expensive. “Sport” would be a more apt term to describe it. Higher quality would make it more adept for racers and GTs, instead of more like Yugos.