Opinions and Impressions

It's great!

I love the styling. I think that the big rectangular headlights, big rectangular bumpers and thick B pillar give the car a chunky-rugged sporty look. Some cars have polite, bland, 'generic' styling at the front end... small headlights, a black grid grille >>> but the Samara is styled much more definitely and aggressively.
I think it's well proportioned. On some other angular 1980s hatches, the body of the 2 door variant is shortened, and this makes the roof above the rear side windows too short; and in many modern 2 door cars whole back section looks too short - the car looks stubby. But the Samara's proportions are good.
Of the various body styles (3 door hatchback, 3 door van, 5 door hatchback, and saloon) the 5 door hatch is my favourite.

Visibility is great. I suppose that's something it shares with other 1980s hatchbacks, because it's partly to do with the general styling trend. Most more modern cars (and the trend is increasing) have rounded downward sloping bonnets that make it difficult to see where the corners of the car are (I've recently driven a 2002 Toyota Corolla and a 1995 (or 1996?) Mazda Astina, for two examples), high rear ends that reduce visibility out the back window (a 1998 Hyundai Excel I've driven recently, as one example) and thick 'C' pillars which also reduce visibility. The Samara has the best visibility of any car I've driven.

I also like the front seats. They don't appear to be anything special (side support on the back and especially the seat base is not substantial) but they provide just the right amount of support at the right spot for my particular back. Sweet Kay did a lot of long distance driving - including from one side of Australia to the other - and sometimes slept in the driver's seat, and she thought highly of them too. She sat in a number of different seats while shopping around for her new car, but found none of them as comfortable as the Samara's.

In Australia the Samara is not well thought of.
In some cases the care taken in assembly may not have been the best. However, from reading comparative reviews of the car when it was new, I think that most of the Samara's poor reputation came from the fact that it was just a little less 'nice' or refined than cars from other makes. (Maybe Russia in 1988 was less concerned and experienced with 'consumer niceties' than the West and Japan?) IT'S A PERFECTLY GOOD CAR, just 5% less polished. Supposedly. Sitting in and driving mine, I can find nothing to complain about.

I'm fascinated and delighted by what a technological marvel this car is. Anyone who has owned a 1980s or later car won't find these things in any way novel, but for me, it is interesting to see some of the many design advances since my other main car, a 1958 Hillman Minx, was made:
Disc brakes (front); thermostatically controlled engine fan; cabin fan (hot and cold); instruments in front of the driver (instead of in the centre); 5 speed gearbox; multi speed window wipers (including intermittent); rear wiper; rear window demister; window washers; front wheel drive; radial tyres (instead of crossplys); practical hatchback body; folding rear seat; hazard lights; reversing lights; comfortable bucket seats; seat back angle adjustable; stereo radio cassette player; 16 fuses (the Hillman has 1 !); transverse engine contributes to compact size; a cunning dual circuit brake design - even if there is a problem, this makes it less likely that all brakes will fail at once (2 of the 4 should still work); overhead camshaft; seatbelts; cloth trimmed seats;....

On the other hand, as far as narrowness of gaps and consistency of gaps goes, the panel fit of the Hillman is better. (However, my car had had a bump or two, so maybe that affected it?)