"My bird IS the word" (mybirdistheword)
02/11/2018 at 10:22 • Filed to: Quality Content
2
10|
"My bird IS the word" (mybirdistheword)
02/11/2018 at 10:22 • Filed to: Quality Content | 2
| 10 |
Not the typical argument of “why are classic cars so expensive?”(ugh) but instead : Why were classic cars so much cheaper when new than contemporary cars when accounting for inflation? Or vice versa?
The truth is just as stupid as it sounds, I was watching smokey and the bandit clips on youtube. I am sorry, I know I am a cliche. Forgive me, I will shut up about the car I haven’t driven in two years. The contest had me thinking: Reynolds makes a deal to do the challenge for $80k. What is that in today’s money? $288,000. Enough in the movie to buy a new Peterbilt. several websites have told me that you can get a new truck for about $150k today.
Inversely, Reynolds’ ‘77 T/A was similarly priced to mine...~7-$9k new (wow) for a loaded special edition which equates to around $25,000 in today’s funbucks. Imagine getting...say a mustang GT platinum for that money. Instead, you might be able to buy a decent Toyota Camry. Mind you- the Trans Am was an old model by then, however it was comparable to the 280zx turbo which was high tech at the time, starting at about $1000 more. That would be about $32k today, which seems more reasonable. However, the zx turbo was about the highest performance and luxury everyman car you could get that year. Performance wise, these two blew everything else out of the water.
This for the price of this
Interestingly, a lamborghini Miura was $20k new in the sixties. That equates to getting one today for $120k. Compared to even a Huracan, at around $250k. I remember an article on the FP that says that a porsche 911 has remained about the same despite inflation and new features.... comparing that with the power of the internet: a base porsche 911 in 79($22k) is the same as a base porsche 911 today... ~$80k. Looks like they were correct. The difference between these is weird.
These could be made new for $120,000 if it wasn’t for the dang gubmint
Now, obviously, new cars have many more features, tech, ect than cars of yesteryear. However, that doesn’t explain cars like the 911 which remained the same “price” in the same periods.
How does your classic car shape up ? More or less than a comparable car? Would you be able to buy a certain car in yesteryear that you realistically wouldn’t have been able to touch today? So many questions!
(redo because writing drafts is screwy)
Maxima Speed
> My bird IS the word
02/11/2018 at 10:33 |
|
Interesting, I’m going to have to look into this more. Also OP post kinja’d, the pics didn’t post.
|
My bird IS the word
> Maxima Speed
02/11/2018 at 10:36 |
|
Damnit kinja. will edit.
interstate366, now In The Industry
> My bird IS the word
02/11/2018 at 10:38 |
|
My 1991 Prelude cost $19,000 new, which would be about $34,000 in today’s money. That would get me into a Civic Type R, not taking dealer markup into account. (My 2001 Prelude was about $26,000, which ends up about the same. So at least Honda is consistent with its top-spec models.)
Thomas Donohue
> My bird IS the word
02/11/2018 at 10:51 |
|
What CPI calculator are you using?
https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
$9,000 in 1977 is the equivalent of about $38,000 today.
Additionally, keep in mind that auto loan rates in the seventies were in the teens, whereas you can get zero or 1% financing these days for many cars. Worst case you are a looking at approx 4%
So in 1977, a new $9,000 car was ~$250 a month if you financed for four years. That’s over $1000 month in current dollars.
For $1000 a month at 3% you can get about $47,000 worth of car now.
* Lot’s of variables, and I didn’t sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.
|
My bird IS the word
> Thomas Donohue
02/11/2018 at 11:14 |
|
My sympathies lol. I used the first one that popped up on google, but all that does is shift the curve more than anything. Like, a new 911 would be cheaper ect.
fintail
> My bird IS the word
02/11/2018 at 12:08 |
|
The new Belle Epoque is one reason for inflation at the high end - the top few can afford to pay more, as they have proportionally more gold than 40 or 50 years ago.
My fintail was around 5K in the early 60s, so let’s say 50K today. Its equivalent, maybe an E43 or bottom of the line W222, is a bit more than 50K - but some MBs are hard to compare directly.
Housing in some markets is hilarious when adjusting for any CPI calculator, not even close. In 1965, you could get large waterfront houses in now-tony areas around Seattle for 40K. They’ll be 5MM++++ today.
415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°)
> interstate366, now In The Industry
02/11/2018 at 12:53 |
|
My problem is my brain still things it’s the 90's and I keep saying, they want HOW MUCH for that??
Eric @ opposite-lock.com
> My bird IS the word
02/11/2018 at 13:14 |
|
CPI is inaccurate. If you took everything into account, my parents working low-paid part-time jobs while in college in the 1970s made the equivalent of a six-figure income today. We’re talking they could afford nice modern apartments in nicer areas of the Los Angeles metro, didn’t need to go into debt to go to private colleges, owned decent cars, etc.
crowmolly
> My bird IS the word
02/11/2018 at 13:45 |
|
Not the same product anymore.
Now manufacturers have to meet stricter standards so the vehicles need to be built and designed for that. Warranties, etc are much longer than they were. They probably have to price in a few warranty claims.
However, depending on the vehicle they still might be close. In 2002 a Camaro Z28 with the LS1/T56 was around $25,000. Or your T/A could have been seen as a bargain- it was built in the best year for the F-body cousins.
|
My bird IS the word
> crowmolly
02/11/2018 at 15:28 |
|
Yeah, but it doesn’t explain cars that were the same price or more expensive comparatively