patrick.net

Sorry but I disagree completely with this thread.

We are talking about a metric ton or more of metal and plastic and a lot of refined processing to put it together. Often there are hundreds of chips/computers as well. Another easy way to see that cars are not overpriced is to look at the margins of car manufacturers. They are very low, and the producers need to get bailed out every now and then. I would agree that there has been an increase in nominal prices, you can thank the Fed for that (and they also understate the true amount of inflation in their index).

Cars have also gotten much more reliable over the past 20 years. Consumer Reports specifically points this out. 20 years ago you had to worry that your car would break down on the way out the dealership, today that just does not happen and the difference between different brands is not that great. We make a huge deal out of individual incidents (like the Toyota acceleration problem, which turned out to be mostly human error of pressing the wrong pedal) but statistics clearly show a strong improving trend.

As for MPG, engines have gotten much more efficient, although most consumers have chosen to offset this with bigger cars, and the producers have responded. But the choice is still yours to trade down to a "smaller" model with great MPG. For example a Corolla today is at least as big as a Camry of the 90s and gets much better MPG.

Since average salaries have stagnated, and vehicle prices have risen in some cases. So in specific comparisons you may be correct. However in GENERAL cars are far cheaper in terms of VALUE.

From the article where I found the chart:

"One example is a 1949 Lincoln Cosmopolitan convertible. The car cost $3,948 in 1949. It had a V8 engine that got 152 HP and 8 miles per gallon. There were no airbags, no seatbelts and few modern features.

Today in 2008 you can get a Mazda Miata for $20,635. The Miata has 166 HP and gets 22 MPG city/ 27 highway. It has front side airbags, anti-lock brakes, an AM/FM CD player and remote entry as standard features.

The Miata will likely last twice as long as the Cosmopolitan. In the 1950's to 1970's a car would not be expected to last over 100,000 miles. But todays cars should last for 150,000 to 200,000. The new cars are MUCH safer. If you look at fatality rates per miles driven, from 1966 to 1996 the fatality rate per 1 million miles driven dropped from 5.5 to 1.7."

http://www.freeby50.com/2008/11/history-of-new-car-costs-and-average.html

Here is some more specific data points. I think the trick when comparing vs 90s is to look at a "smaller" model, which really is the same size

Toyota Camry 1992: 21 MPG mixed – 97 cft passenger volume
Toyota Corolla 2012: 29 MPG mixed - 92 cft passenger volume

Ford Escort 1995 24 MPG mixed - 91 cft passenger volume
Ford Focus 2012 31 MPG mixed - 90 cft passenger volume

The new "small" model will also have a ton of features that the "better" model did not have in the 90s (ABS, electronic stability control, airbags).

Robber Baron Elite Scum says

No dealing with slimly overly-nice fake sales people who refuse to give you a fair price because they want YOU to pay for their commission.

The Dealerships have a legal binding agreement, that the factory wont sell the public a car for that much cheaper. Factory direct was never about getting the car cheaper, you go FD to get options the dealer doesn't have.

[...]

Robber Baron Elite Scum says

Who Thinks Cars Are an Over-Priced Old Technology?

Absolutely. Cars are so 20th century. We don't need smart cars. We need smart highways.

The solution: computer driven personal maglift vehicles running on 3D highways.

What's a 3D highway? You build lanes in all three dimensions, including height. And the vehicles are all electric with the energy delivered by the highway.

The benefits

1. No pollution.
2. No greenhouse effect.
3. No need for expensive, heavy batteries.
4. No need for wasting energy transporting fuel.
5. No dependency on foreign oil.
6. No accidents (computer controls).
7. Much, much faster travel. (100 mph inner city speeds)
8. No intersections.
9. No auto insurance needed.
10. Cheaper cost of energy since it's electric and given on demand.
11. No traffic jams since many more highway lanes can be built in 3D than in 2D.
12. No delays for construction since a lane does not have to close to build or maintain another lane.
13. No drunk drivers. Since the computer drives, you can be shitfaced and still get from place A to B quickly and safely.
14. No incompetent drivers, student drivers, old drivers, cell phone drivers, etc.
15. No road rage.
16. You get have sex during your commute to work. Or, if you prefer, get other work done.

The only disadvantage:
This would great so many jobs that it would end the depression and high unemployment plaguing the U.S. today. Yeah, that's the only cost I could think of.

Smart Car, Clown car, Who buys because of it's name anyway ! Why couldn't they make it look a little less like some U-Haul trailer and more like this ?

The Costco Auto program will save ya a chunk a money. Saved over seven grand on a VW TDI wagon, a few years back.

drtor says

Cars have also gotten much more reliable over the past 20 years

Hard drives have also gotten much more reliable over the past 20 years. But are they as expensive? No.

So that logic of something being more reliable from it's ancient counterpart doesn't warrant it to be more expensive nor the same price.

Maybe you are right and it's just a case of salaries being way too low which I also think might be a contributer.

The revolution will be on two wheels, not four.

EBGuy says

The revolution will be on two wheels, not four.

Wheels are so stone age. There's nothing revolutionary about them.

Maglifts. 'Nuff said.

Dan8267 says

he solution: computer driven personal maglift vehicles running on 3D highways.

What's a 3D highway? You build lanes in all three dimensions, including height. And the vehicles are all electric with the energy delivered by the highway.

Love this idea in theory... But California can't even keep their normal highways maintained or build onto existing highways effectively. I think the 170 to 5 intersection has been under construction for like 3 years now and probably won't be done for another 3 years... It's a horrible bottleneck merging from the 170 to the 5 N and vice versa.

It's amazing how we underutilize our civil engineers and work crews. Sometimes I'm shocked we every were able to build skyscrapers and our transportation infrastructure in the first place.

That's the problem, it's not old technology. But, if they put all the engineering into one good car and one good truck, it sure would save the end consumers money, someone would always know how to fix it, part production would be all the same, cheaper, better, etc.
Since they all have the same engine, traffic would be smooth, less accidents, etc.

I get tired of watching all these old clunkers people driving around, they smoke, leak lots of fluids, it's the American way.

Cars are overpriced! So better rent!

everything says

if they put all the engineering into one good car and one good truck

No matter how good the car is, it still has a fundamental flaw, human driver.

drtor says

Ford Escort 1995 24 MPG mixed - 91 cft passenger volume
Ford Focus 2012 31 MPG mixed - 90 cft passenger volume

The new "small" model will also have a ton of features that the "better" model did not have in the 90s (ABS, electronic stability control, airbags).

I don't know where you are getting your number from but a 2012 Ford Focus is smaller than a 1995 Ford Escort, which is smaller than an Escort made in the 1980's.

That any my 1995 Ford Escort gets > 30MPG mixed.

We became a one car family 3 years ago. We paid cash for a new car 7 years ago from a heloc and then paid that off over a year or two and deducted the interest.

My husband uses an electric bike and loves it. We estimate a savings of about $7500 to $9500 from dumping the second car. Sometimes we swap out and I use the bike and a couple times a year we rent from enterprise.

KILLERJANE says

My husband uses an electric bike and loves it. We estimate a savings of about $7500 to $9500 from dumping the second car. Sometimes we swap out and I use the bike and a couple times a year we rent from enterprise.

Electric bikes are amazing. You get most of the health benefits of bicycling, but with a huge reduction in physical effort, so you won't show up at work all sweaty like you do riding a regular bike. And unlike with cars, pollution is negligible, there are no restrictions on who can use them, and they take up almost no space -- how can you not love them?

The only improvement I'd like to see with electric bikes is some kind of covering so that you can use them in bad weather without having to wear full-body rain gear. Maybe something like the pizza-delivery motorbike at the top left here, only but with side panels added:

Highways would need to get special lanes added so that you could be safe in one of these things, but that should be doable. As long as electricity doesn't spike in price in the next few years!

The article says this:

"Yes prices are actually going down this decade."

But...

If last year's model had optional features like iPod hookups and silly $25 LCDs that were priced at $1500 and this year's model includes those "features" for free, and if the price goes up by $1500 (forcing to pay for the options you don't necessarily want or need), then the BLS says there was no inflation.

Someone said this:

"When I was a kid in the early 80's you were lucky if a car made it to 100,000. Now its more or less expected they last at least 200,000."

You are speaking of American cars. They were absolute junk. Many of them would not last even 50,000 miles with out a new engine, paint job, etc.

Btw, lots of American manufactures really screwed up in the 80's: Fender and Gibson guitars, and Harley Davidson. They all got better in the 90's.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Tony Manero says

I say everyone should be driving the 1971 Dodge Challenger and learn how to shoot out the window while tooling along on dirt roads at 120+ MPH

Will a Dodge Charger do?

http://www.youtube.com/embed/G5rjwBXTT8k

If getting from point A to B is your concern, then no, cars are not totally overpriced. They last for many years, and are very safe today due to vast amounts of research and development to engineer and produce.

But cars are also products, like a handbag, watch, or a pair of shoes. Style is important to some, such as myself. I like getting from point A to B in style and like to enjoy my driving experience as well. Sure it costs more, but it's all about what's important to each person.

From the link page...
"For the last 20 years during 1987 to 2007 prices have only risen an average of 0.9% per year."

That is total bullcrap. In 1987 there were still several models of new cars under 9K.

Average Price for new car in 1987 $10,3055.00
The average price of a new car today is running at $30748, up 6.9% from a year ago.

That is a 200% increase, if the author's statement were fact then it would be a 20% increase.

http://www.azcentral.com/business/consumer/articles/2012/04/09/20120409why-average-new-car-prices-hit-record.html

KILLERJANE says

My husband uses an electric bike and loves it.

Try doing that in places outside of coastal California. ;)

Vicente says

"One example is a 1949 Lincoln Cosmopolitan convertible. The car cost $3,948 in 1949. It had a V8 engine that got 152 HP and 8 miles per gallon. There were no airbags, no seatbelts and few modern features.

its rather stange since a 1963-64 ford mustang cost $2,500 NEW when it came out.

zzyzzx says

I bought my 1995 Ford Escort new for $12K (drive away price). Any comparable new car costs about 2X as much, and gets the same gas mileage. For what a new car costs, I can replace the engine and transmission in my Escort many many times over, so it really makes no financial sense to buy anything new.

If the homeowner isn't insulted by your offer...you didn't bid low enough!!!

You can get a brand new Nissan Versa for $11k msrp. More power than the Escort, similar mpg, far safer if you crash, less likely to crash due to abs, esc, quieter, more features.

I will admit however that the Versa sedan is strange looking. The Versa hatch is also kind of strange looking, but at least in an interesting way. The sedan looks like a child's drawing of a car.

FWIW cars in the US are a deal compared to the rest of the world. In Europe, China, and elsewhere, the same car will cost more. It's true that you can buy more stripped cars (QQ, Chery) but compare a US-made Honda or Buick to a China-made Honda or Buick (same design) and it's cheaper in the US.

KILLERJANE says

My husband uses an electric bike

Pics? (of the electric bike, not the husband).

SiO2 says

You can get a brand new Nissan Versa for $11k msrp. More power than the Escort, similar mpg, far safer if you crash, less likely to crash due to abs, esc, quieter, more features.

If I want to just move myself, I'd buy a used car for much cheaper (a beater, if my existing beater is unfixable). A Versa is significantly smaller than my Escort and doesn't have the cargo carrying capability. A Scion tC would be needed to be equivalent. However, the gas mileage of a tC sucks, and it's not made in USA.

CaptainShuddup says

From the link page...
"For the last 20 years during 1987 to 2007 prices have only risen an average of 0.9% per year."

That is total bullcrap. In 1987 there were still several models of new cars under 9K.

Average Price for new car in 1987 $10,3055.00
The average price of a new car today is running at $30748, up 6.9% from a year ago.

That is a 200% increase, if the author's statement were fact then it would be a 20% increase.

I agree, but more importantly one would have to compare the pricing on new cars to wage growth and not inflation numbers (irregardless of whose inflation numbers you are using).

housingcasino4865 says

Someone said this:

"When I was a kid in the early 80's you were lucky if a car made it to 100,000. Now its more or less expected they last at least 200,000."

You are speaking of American cars. They were absolute junk. Many of them would not last even 50,000 miles with out a new engine, paint job, etc.

My 1985 Ford Escort begs to differ. It lasted me 11 years and ~160,000 miles before the engine compression got too low to be drivable.

how long an engine & car lasts also depends on HOW it's driven NOT how long it's been driven.

Many people judge a car by it's mileage but very few judge it based upon the MANNER it was driven in it's mileage.

After a professional car race where the car has only been driven say 500 miles...

The entire engine needs to be rebuilt, the transmission is ready to fall apart, the brakes are completely gone, the tires are trashed, the suspension is no good, the wheels need to be aligned, rotors changed, drive train needs replacement...

The car is basically garbage since the repair costs would exceed making it worthwhile to repair.

Just because a car has low mileage does not necessarily mean it has a longer life left and vice versa.

Wear & tear is going to happen from use but that wear in the mechanical parts can very easily be expedited through a more aggressive and demanding manner which pushes the mechanical parts more.

Perfect Example of a 1964 Car Lasting 500,000 miles

http://www.youtube.com/embed/oJ-bKnWfYO4

Bottom line: Never buy a car that has been used by some young teenager or someone who has likely to have abused the thing or a car that gives reflags of being raced or used in a aggressive manner.

zzyzzx says

A Versa is significantly smaller than my Escort and doesn't have the cargo carrying capability. A Scion tC would be needed to be equivalent. However, the gas mileage of a tC sucks, and it's not made in USA.

Your Escort is based off of a Mazda. Hardly an American car.

edvard2 says

When I was a kid in the early 80's you were lucky if a car made it to 100,000.

Robber Baron Elite Scum says

how long an engine & car lasts also depends on HOW it's driven NOT how long it's been driven.

Baloney to both. Clean oil determines engine life since leaded gas has been phased out. Cars went 100k when using leaded gas. When the switch to unleaded happened in the early to mid 70's engines started lasting 200-300k easily. Lead deposits were very hard on rings and oil. Oil was filthy in 500 miles using leaded gas.

I change oil every 3k. I drove a 69 fairlaine to 220k till rust killed it, a 79 fiesta to 290k till ex fiance rear ended a van full of greeks (you can't make this stuff up), and an 86 5.0 mustang to 270k till I moved overseas and had to sell it. None were burning oil. The mustang had lots of hard running, including many, many runs at raceway park in englishtown. That car was like owning an anvil. The only thing I ever replaced in 15 years was brake pads (lots, fox mustangs had crappy brakes), clutch (twice), water pump (once), alternator (once), fuel pump (once), shocks/struts (once), hoses(twice), battery(?), and starter(once). Pretty damn good for a reworked fairmont econobox.

The distribution model of cars is outdated for most urban people's needs. Here in austin we have a bunch of small smart cars called "car 2go" in the city where you can rent them by the minute.

I'd sell my car and use them if my boring job was within walking/biking distance, then just rent a car for night / weekend things.

edvard2 says

zzyzzx says

A Versa is significantly smaller than my Escort and doesn't have the cargo carrying capability. A Scion tC would be needed to be equivalent. However, the gas mileage of a tC sucks, and it's not made in USA.

Your Escort is based off of a Mazda. Hardly an American car.

It's hard to determine these days what nationality a car is given where parts are made, manufacturing is and of course how the company is incorporated.

The new Chrysler are actually made in Windsor Ontario. A fair amount of cars were based off of others as chassis were standardized on a platform (delta I think was one by gm)

An argument can be made as to why they didn't motorcycles. Heck diesel ones can have sky high gas economy, forget about 40....try 100+.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_motorcycle

edvard2 says

Your Escort is based off of a Mazda. Hardly an American car.

It's based off the previous Escort AND a Mazda Protege. The engine is made in Michigan of a Mazda redesign (that sucked) and the same JATCO automatic transmission that several auto companies use. The car itself was assembled in Michigan. Having had the previous Ford Designed Escort as well, I liked the Ford version better, since it didn't drop valve seat like mad, like the Mazda version did. That and the Ford version had easily replaceable heater cores (a common problem on these cars). The Escorts that came after mine (2007-2003) had nothing from Mazda in them, which all by itself should tell you something.

I think cars suck big time and I ride my bike literally triple the miles I drive a car in a year. In my area lots of super fat and lazy people drive huge SUVs to go and get Dunkin Donuts, Bud Light and scratch tickets. They act as if they own the roads and are on important missions in their pig wagons. Now and theyn we have arguments and I enjoy smashing their cars with my bike lock if they piss me off.

Last year I bought my wife a 2011 Prius which is nice. I have an Infiniti which is dumb, I hate it, birds like to shit on it. We buy Toyota Matrix cars for our employees and give them iPhones and gps track them to make sure they are not driving around wasting gas or buying donuts.

I think more folks should telecommute and get rid of their cars. And big trucks and SUVs should only be sold to people with construction licenses who can prove they have work and a real need for a purpose built vehicle like that.

Also we have bought all of our personal and company cars with cash since 1998. We have one Nissan Versa, three Matrix, one Prius and my Infiniti. Cheap, low miles or new, Japanese made and all cash purchase is the only way to buy if you buy at all. If you live in the city you don't need a car. This is a simple topic.

Icabod says

And big trucks and SUVs should only be sold to people with construction licenses who can prove they have work and a real need for a purpose built vehicle like that.

Disagree.

That would be unconstitutional.

Rest of your posts I agree with. +1

Icabod says

If you live in the city you don't need a car. This is a simple topic.

Agree. +1

You can always buy a moped with a 49cc that does 100mpg for only $2,000 which can be driven with a regular driver's license.

The insurance will only be at most $600 a year and the gas at $600 a year.

That's $1200 a year for insurance and gas. Just add in another $200-300 for maintenance to be safe but I doubt the maintenance would be that much. Maybe $100.

You can fit that 49cc moped in your apartment in Manhattan. It's lightweight, small and can easily be put inside.

So NO parking expenses (except if you are going around manhattan to work/shop and need to park. But you may even be able to take the scooter inside depending on the employer.)

So $2000 plus the tax for purchase price. Then $1300-$1500 the most for gas, insurance and maintenance for the scooter. Maybe even less than that,

Not bad at all. Considering if you buy a piece of shit car for $2000 and then pay $$200-400 a month for gas, $100 a month insurance (probably more), expensive parking cost and your maintenance costs are sky high because it has a shit load of problems.

But than again... You most likely do not need a car in the city. Most people don't at all and it's really expensive to keep a car in the city.

It's a headache to drive around as well and then find parking to wherever the hell you are going.

I guess a bike and public transportation would be best. Maybe a moped possibly if spending just a little more would not be a problem. Only problem is that mopeds are stolen a lot and parking may also be just as hard.

I wish public transportation was quicker and more convenient in Los Angeles, but cars are unfortunately very necessary. The only thing that stops me from riding a moped or motorcycle is knowing that I'll one day be run over and killed by a wannabe actress texting and rushing in her SUV to her audition for the role of bimbo #4.