![]() 11/20/2013 at 19:56 • Filed to: None | ![]() | ![]() |
Personally I like the Abarth.
But, then I got to thinking (usually a bad idea)...
Then did some research (uh oh)
Decide to post it (you can stop reading now).
The "research" made me sad. When I was a Teenager there were a lot of great cars <$30k...Heck the BMW E46 M3 was only $45K and thats possibly in "the best cars of all time discussion".
So I'm thinking of all these crazy reports of "millineal's not liking cars", "no youth movement in the auto industry any more" etc. But then everyday you have guys like Bob Lutz marching out A $80K Z/28 Camaro. Not to be outdone by Willy Ford pitching us a $40K short bed light duty pick up.
But not so long ago...
New for $32K, a car with most available torque on the planet (450lb/ft)
Yes, this is a 01' Lightining, toasting a 2012 Camaro.
Heck the Ford SVT Focus was <$20K
Like something more refined and european?
You could get a BMW RWD sport wagon with a Manual (Jalopnik heavon), a coupe, or an AWD/RWD sedan all for <$30K
JDM was your flavor
How about a 287 hp Nissan 350Z or Infiniti G35 Coupe/ Sedan or an Acura RSX (w/ Hondata chip!) or a 270Hp Acura TL/CL type S
or a dominating world rally car for $25K, Subaru WRX.
I know how inflation works, but I guess it's sad because it seems like thevalue of what you got for <$30K back then, is much better than what you can get today.
Maybe i'm wrong. Show me what's out now, that's better then what was available +/- 10 years ago.
![]() 11/20/2013 at 20:01 |
|
The Ford Fiesta ST
![]() 11/20/2013 at 20:01 |
|
I would say the Abarth...but I am biased.
![]() 11/20/2013 at 20:02 |
|
Yeah it's 300 over but same point!
![]() 11/20/2013 at 20:03 |
|
GTI.
![]() 11/20/2013 at 20:07 |
|
Inflation, the EPA, new safety standards and new luxury demands are making cars more expensive to build and thus sell. However, you can still get a V8 muscle car, a hot hatch or a Toyobaru for under $30k.
$30,000 in 2000 = $40,687.46 today and for that you can still get a lot of car.
![]() 11/20/2013 at 20:23 |
|
The same technology and efficiency that goes into your new car, goes into building new cars.
Production is cheaper, quicker and more efficient then ever before.
And in most advancements, someone like the Mercedes or the VW group spends the RD costs throws the technology into their Premium models and it trickles down (ripped off) by the low end...so what are you really paying for?
![]() 11/20/2013 at 20:25 |
|
Inflation and technology. It's not like car companies are raking massive profit margins compared to what they were before.
![]() 11/20/2013 at 20:33 |
|
Subaru WRX: it's fun, fast, safe, and generally awesome. I love mine
![]() 11/20/2013 at 20:34 |
|
I dont think the tech costs are that high, could be wrong but i think its strictly markup.
For instance the Ford F series chasis and engine. for 20 years, the same chasis, drivetrain and body panels have pretty much been used for F Series, Explorers, Expeditions, Navigators.
Navigator has Leather, some extra wiring, extra row of seats and a "fancy bed cover" to differentiate it from teh basic long bed F150.
The net revenue on the base pickup is $5-15K PER unit. That means the net revenue on the expeditions/navigators in the $30-50K range.
if people stopped buying them, they'd lower the prices, and the company's would still make money, A LOT of money.
![]() 11/20/2013 at 20:38 |
|
yea but its still got the suspenssion from the 69 Mustang. which cost $3,000 new! :)
![]() 11/20/2013 at 20:47 |
|
FR-S. I love mine so much. I smile every time I get behind the wheel. The price also leaves you a few grand for mods...
![]() 11/20/2013 at 20:49 |
|
I'm sorry but 5.0 litres of displacement and 420HP out weigh your argument!
![]() 11/20/2013 at 20:53 |
|
Are you looking at strictly at he cost to build? Because most of the money they spend is used for R&D and advertising. And trucks are the highest profit-margin vehicles on the road, and small cars have the smallest margin. It costs little more to build a Fusion than a Fiesta from a materials and labor standpoint. Labor is also a consideration, I've heard that a car plant running at below 80% capacity is losing money. That's why the big 3 used to sell their small cars to rental fleets at massive discount- they had to move metal just to minimize their losses.
![]() 11/20/2013 at 21:07 |
|
no i'm just saying i dont see the technical changes warranting 50- 200% increase in price.
And most safety RD is done by companies like Mercedes (who pattens) and when the patten expires lesser vehicles add it to their cars.
Thats why the addage of whats on the Mercedes S class will be on your camry in 10 years.
![]() 11/20/2013 at 21:46 |
|
50-200% increase in price? From when, decades ago? Inflation inflation inflation.
Every company does their own safety R&D, and that's not where the cost comes from. Mercedes isn't going to sell their technology to Toyota in 10 years, and Toyota isn't just going to reverse engineer a S Class and design the new Camry that way. Luxury cars like the S Class are extremely high profit margin cars. You're paying for the development and materials yes, but you are paying a lot extra for the Mercedes-Benz S Class badge and exclusivity. Most of VW's profits come from Audi because you pay a premium for premium badges, materials and new technology.
Look at Ford. You can get everything on a Ford for less than an equivalent luxury car, they are still safe cars with high reliability and build quality. SYNC was great when it came out (before they fucked it up with MyFordTouch) and it cost far less than an equivalent (perhaps worse) system in a BMW at the time, like iDrive. Mercedes doesn't really have a low cost brand except for Smart for the tech to trickle down into, and a lot of new car technology is developed not by automakers but by suppliers- new techniques and materials come from them. A new car costs about a half billion to develop from scratch (some cost more), and that cost has to be recouped over the life of the car. New factory? Billion dollars. That's why the Volt, Veyron and first gen Prius "lost" money- they didn't sell enough to make all the money back.
![]() 11/20/2013 at 22:08 |
|
Exactly - inflation inflation inflation.
Simple proof - look at the price of other assets. Homes are exponentially more expensive now than they were in the 80s. As money loses its value the cost of labor and materials goes up. Even if you bought at the last bottom of the market around 2010 or so you'd still be paying way more than you would have a few decades ago.
Most car companies are not gouging customers. Money just isn't isn't as valuable as it was before.
![]() 11/21/2013 at 08:11 |
|
That's only said by people who haven't spent much time in one. I won an autocross season in a 2003 Mustang GT (with just shocks and springs modified) against heavily modified Mini Cooper S's and lots of other cars with much more "superior" suspension. And that's back when it wasn't nearly as well sorted and had half the horsepower.
![]() 11/21/2013 at 08:11 |
|
That's only said by people who haven't spent much time in one. I won an autocross season in a 2003 Mustang GT (with just shocks and springs modified) against heavily modified Mini Cooper S's and lots of other cars with much more "superior" suspension. And that's back when it wasn't nearly as well sorted and had half the horsepower.
![]() 11/21/2013 at 10:43 |
|
![]() 11/21/2013 at 10:53 |
|
Thats not quite how everything works. Mercedes doesnt have to sell anything...pattens expire, then are available to the public and used by everyone, free. cars are not drastically safer then they are 10 years ago. They have camaras and sensors, but thats not worth 10's of thousands of dollars.
Yes inflation, but the auto industry has not actually reflected the economy. It's just continued to rise. Homes prices did go up. Until 2007, they are actually SUBSTANTIALLY cheaper since 2007. Dont believe me ask someone in their 50's who owns their house and took a HEL out or had an offer to sell in 2007 and held out.
Inflation is a factor but it seems thats there over inflation in the auto industry because you're getting less for your money.
i.e. 2003 BMW m3 0-60, 4.5 seconds. 2013 bmw m3 0-60, 4.5 seconds.
or the 01 Ford lightining i posted smoking the 2012 camaro.
![]() 11/21/2013 at 10:56 |
|
i was joking...but implying that the increase in $ for the car is obviously not going to R&D of the suspension enhancements.
![]() 11/26/2013 at 14:53 |
|
Most definitely the FR-S. Best car you can buy for 30k. But I'd also consider the 2.0T gen coupe. Same price, limited slip diff, rwd, great looks and 275 hp from that turbo.
![]() 11/26/2013 at 15:17 |
|
Abarth was correct /Thread