Some of the numbers, while true, create the false impression that you are required to play the F-150 truck game. In fact, I recently paid under 30K for a brand new Mazda CX-5 with some extras. There was some insurance premium increase, but relatively small considering that my previous car was already 10 years old. I could have bought a new Subaru Crosstrek, quoted to me for 26K, which is far from a barebones car - a new KIA Rio S can be had for under 20K.
What's happening is that people are seeing more value out of bigger and more expensive cars, so there is a preferences shift happening.
Also, think of inflation. 22 years ago I bought a new Honda Civic EX with manual transmission for 18K, which would be around 30K today. This car would be unthinkable in today's market - barebones radio, stick shift, no camera, no screen and noisy engine. If you have the Crosstrek example in mind, cars are actually getting cheaper, at least in terms of cost-benefit (like computers got cheaper as technology improved).
>This car would be unthinkable in today's market - barebones radio, stick shift, no camera, no screen and noisy engine.
All I really want are bare-bones vehicles. I had to practically fight with the Nissan dealership to get their base-model trim. I wish manufacturers would still offer basic vehicles.
Such a vehicle is impossible to offer even if they wanted to (they don't) because things like backup cameras and other safety-related equipment are legally required. Once you require a camera, you require a screen. Once you have a screen say goodbye to your barebones radio. Et cetera.
But automakers would rather you sell you a high-margin truck or SUV than a barebones economy car, anyway. And hardly anyone would buy them even if they did offer them, as we've observed in the decline of sales of regular sedans and hatchbacks in the US over the past couple decades.
I bought brand new Honda Fit with a backup camera 9 years for 17K. There isn't some magic safety dust that is forcing the entry level prices to rise by nearly $10K.
> Once you have a screen say goodbye to your barebones radio.
This is not necessarily the case. When backup cameras were first mandated some manufacturers put the screens in the rear view mirror. The reason everyone has a screen on the dash these days is because new car buyers are often demanding smartphone integrations.
If it was purely penny pinching, they could have stuck with the cheaper smaller screens in the rear view mirror and put a blank panel in the dash instead of a stereo, like base model vehicles of the past sometimes had.
But most automakers are spending a couple of extra bucks on a nicer and more expensive screen in the dash because new car buyers don't want to spend new car money on a car with a dashboard that looks like it's from 2001, and it doesn't make sense to save $50 on a car if you can't sell it.
Not long ago, you used to be able to buy new cars without AC, power steering, power windows, power locks, automatic transmissions, painted bumpers, stereos, passenger side mirrors, cupholders, center consoles, etc. And it is still legal to do so. But consumer preferences have changed.
They are, but not really that much. Automakers frequently run harnesses with unused wires for lower trims because the expense to inventory multiple parts is more than the wire costs. So it isn't so expensive that they don't waste some wire. On many models there's already a harness run to the front of the roof for other reasons, (garage door opener, compass, safety systems, dome lights, map lights, visor lights, mirror dimmer, microphone) so the labor and assembly costs are mostly already happening anyway. We're talking tens of pennies or single digit dollars of additional cost in material at most.
If we pick a popular vehicle with this feature, a 2010 F150, there's a 16 pin connector there, with 12 wires populated. 2 are for the camera.
Does it cost more than running 10 wires there? Yes. Was it so much that Ford didn't actually ship the car that way? No.
We rented a Ford Taurus that had the camera in the rear view mirror.
It works really well. With my camera, I have to sweep from the camera to the rear view mirror, to the door mirrors, as none of them cover completely, so they all have blind spots. With the screen in the mirror, it's actually a better experience IMHO.
If you want a bare bones car, you would probably have good luck getting a 2 year old vehicle from a rental fleet. Those tend to be pretty bare bones vehicles.
It was funny, I rented a truck from Home Depot. It was brand new, less than 100 miles on the clock. And, yea, it was lucky to have paint. Automatic transmission, radio, and air conditioner were the top drawer items. Imagine taking 2 knobs, perhaps 1" in diameter, and AM/FM button, and a LED matrix display big enough to display 105.5 and a "stereo" and AM/FM light. That's how big the radio was on this otherwise large dashboard. Vinyl floors, vinyl bench seat, crank windows.
And there's something to it. There's a simplicity having a hot <-> cold slider and a fan speed knob versus arguing with a "climate control" system.
It's quite difficult to find stripped models on the dealer lot. They'd much rather upsell you the sunroof you don't want because "well, that's all we have".
I've never had a real problem ordering a car, just have to be willing to wait for it, but they've all been domestic. 3 of my last 4 cars were ordered to my spec.
Best new car dash/interior I've seen was inside a U-Haul. I'm holding onto my old cars for now. If/when EVs become default, that'll be a compelling reason to buy a new car.
I agree that buyers should have the option to purchase simpler cars. But I think backup cameras are too valuable of a safety improvement to leave out. About a year ago I saw a toddler very likely saved by the backup camera and proximity sensor. This is of course just anecdotal, but it sold me.
Yeah, I guess then you don't need a screen for display. And to be honest the proximity sensor may have had the greater effect in the situation I referenced. I could hear it beeping from where I was about 30 feet from the car.
I think the base models are there mostly to be able to advertise a more attractive starting price. I got the base trim of my car but anecdotally the dealership was getting very few of them and on the road I also see very few.
I did manage to get a base model Nissan Frontier. The features it has and lacks are pretty interesting. It's not manual adjusting mirror -- and I don't mean it's got a little knob on the inside. You roll the window down, and then push the mirror itself with your hands to adjust it. I don't mind it being so basic, but it's interesting that this exists, but not the option for manual locks or manual windows.
Manual locks require new jigs on the assembly line for the different parts. Since most people want automatic locks they can save the cost of building those jigs and the inventory management to go with them by not offering it. You only get something as an option if the profit of having the with and without version is more than just offering the "better" option to everyone.
But the other part of it is that manufacturers actually have gotten better at pricing, if better is defined as getting people to pay a little bit more than they expected. Locking pretty important stuff behind higher trim packages, or even just making it an overpriced add-on, for example.
It's upselling, sure, which they've always done (cf. all the 80s jokes about rustproofing and undercarriage protection). But they've really turned it into an art form in the last 4-5 years. I forget which make and model it was, but I was pricing out some car on a website, and you could get a blue car for, let's say $40k, but if you wanted a red car you had to also get heated leather seats, the deluxe navigation package, the deluxe safety package, different tires and hubcaps, and pay something like $46.5k. I'm fairly certain you just mix red dye into the paint rather than blue dye...
Given that the article starts off with a story about someone at the lower end of the economic spectrum being unable to afford a car, it seems borderline misleading to then discuss car affordability in terms of the average new or used car price. As you suggested, the fact that the average new car sale is $49k in no way prevents you personally from buying something like a Civic, Corolla, or Impreza and getting a perfectly good new car for half the price. It's not even like housing, where there are supply issues making things unaffordable. Car makers offer cheaper models and would presumably make more of them if more people demanded them.
Also while there is nothing wrong with spending $49k or more on a car, it's wild to me that this is the average new car sale price in the US considering the median household income is something like $75k. Spending an equivalent to 2/3 of your yearly income on a depreciating asset when there are perfectly reasonable cheaper alternatives does not seem reasonable as the rule rather than the exception. If you make a lot of money or like nice cars, sure, but as the case for the average buyer...wow.
The increase in larger vehicles on the road is making it increasingly unpleasant and unsafe to drive/ride smaller vehicles or use no vehicle at all. It's technically not required to join in, but it essentially is. The only way to avoid the unpleasantness is to join in and get one yourself.
You're right. But one thing to keep in mind, is that with full comprehensive insurance, you're also paying to cover other people's vehicles, so if the average price of a vehicle increases your premiums can too.
My premiums have increases, while my vehicle has remained the same (and no tickets/claims/incidents).
i bought a 2005 Ram 2500 for $25,000, today it would cost minimally $75,000. I actually need a truck to haul hay every week. i dread when the thing rots apart. I will have no answer.
Even if we assume your truck is now worthless, that's only $1,300 per year. More realistically, assuming you have kept it in reasonable condition, it is probably worth around $8k now, or $900 per year. That's nothing in the grand scheme of things. In your case, that's only $17 per load of hay. Approximately one small bale per load pays for it. That still leaves a lot of meat for the truck to haul – especially a 2500. It is not surprising that the price of new trucks has skyrocketed.
I too bought a truck for my farm in the same era for around the same price and I'm glad I did, because in hindsight it was an absolute steal. The ROI it has provided has been off the charts. Again, it is not surprising that new trucks have gone up in price to close the gap. Fantastic investment opportunities never last.
I bought my F350 15 years ago for $10k, if is worth 7k now. (1999, 7.8 diesel engine). However I have also paid $1000/year to ensure it, which for as little as I use it works out to nearly $.50/mile. It hasn't been a great investment (as a diesel it doesn't like to start in winter), but I can never find anyone to rent me a truck when I need one so it stays (I can rent a truck shaped vehicle with fine print that doesn't let me use it for what I want a truck for)
I think that's a special case, because large pickup trucks have moved from being work focused to being luxury vehicles. Trucks people bought in 2005 don't really exist any more new, even if the same model is still technically around.
That said though, I'm pretty sure they do still make basic work focused trucks, although they might be hard to buy outside of fleet type sales.
i really don't believe people buy 3/4 and Full ton trucks as luxury vehicles, at least not to a large degree. I certainly agree with you that a huge majority of 1/2 ton pickups are luxury vehicles. Just look at all the short beds that are sold.
Not sure how much hay we are talking, but why not buy a smaller used car with a tow hitch and a trailer? Trailers cost a fraction of what you pay in markup on a pickup over a small car and most cars are more than capable of towing a small to mid-sized trailer. Bonus: you can unhitch the trailer and have a way easier time fitting into parking spaces ;-)
The parent was talking about a weekly task, not daily. For me that would fit the description of "occasional". And a trailer the size of a pick-up truck bed would be quite easy to fit through a drive thru made for giant pickups and SUVs. Parking (especially reverse) is something you have to pick up, for sure, but once you do it is actually not that challenging and on many parking lots you can actually just pull through a double parking space without reversing at all.
I agree, I wouldn't do it for everyday jobs (for that I'd probably use a large Van or something like it) but in my experience, having a decent trailer gives you tons of flexibility for very little money.
One of the worst side-effects of COVID is it gave all of these companies an excuse/opportunity to charge much more, and then when COVID was over they were like...let's not roll anything back and see if anyone notices.
I recently bought a new SUV. I shopped entirely by email, never set foot into a dealership (except for the test drive) until signing the final papers.
I emailed every dealer within 220 miles of my location. Half never even replied and the rest tried every trick in the book to get me to the dealership before they'd give me a price.
My favorite story was an exchange with a salesman who quoted me $1,000 over MSRP. He said a year ago we were selling these at $10,000 over list price, I am saving you $9,000! I told him COVID is over and if he wanted the sale he'd have to get more competitive.
My goal had been to buy 10% under list and though I failed to achieve that I did all right. Don't think I'd buy another vehicle any other way although it took a very frustrating seven weeks.
> I emailed every dealer within 220 miles of my location. [...]
This is the way when it comes to car shopping.
When I was buying a Subaru BRZ back in 2016, I did the same thing, though I only chose the 3 closest dealers. One didn't respond, one quoted a price at MSRP, the other quoted at $2K below MSRP and included about $1K of addons for free.
Not sure why that third guy seemed desperate to sell the car, but I went there that weekend, took it for a test drive (Pretty sure I was only the second person to ever test drive it, since it had only 4 miles), signed the paperwork, and drove it home.
Though tbh, I really wish the whole dealership model would just fuck off. I personally can't stand the whole haggling song and dance. The price should be the price and that should be it.
> how did you get them to give you a price without showing up?
Ask. Let them know you're reaching out to other dealers. Be clear about your timeline for buying ("this weekend", "ready to buy today if I can get it at $X", etc) so they know you're not wasting their time. Don't discuss trade-in or financing.
Remember, if you're buying, financing and trading in (selling) at the same place, that's 3 opportunities for them to take advantage of you. So don't actually visit the dealership until you have a price, financing already secured (from someplace else, but stay open to theirs, too) and have an offer for your trade-in ready (Carvana or equivalent, at least), too.
Car and Driver also runs a service though they didn't have any dealers participating here in Michigan. But I did much better than the prices they offer. But if you don't want to do any of the work, avoid the dealer and buy a little below list they're not a bad option.
Exactly. This is what I hate about the COVID behavioral changes in companies.
The norms have shifted towards getting less for the same (or similar inflation-adjusted) money.
Earlier, you expected daily housekeeping if you stayed at a hotel or motel. Now, so many of them have moved to a "Hang a tag outside if you want the room cleaned" model. And this isn't just cheap motels. I once stayed at a 250 a night hotel that was following this model.
I wonder how many cars Nissan has to sell with a $16k MSRP to not run into some sort of truth in advertising laws. For example looking at Nissan's website there's one such car in stock (in transit) within 500 miles of me.
I tried to buy one last spring and gave up. I put down a deposit in March, was told I might get one around June. June came around and they couldn't do more than say "Maybe by Sept." Ended up buying a used car.
There is one near me, but add $245 for splash guards, $170 for floor mats, and $1115 for "destination fee", so the real price is $17,660. At least they are not adding a dealer markup.
There's nothing wrong with rear drum brakes. They last longer than disc brakes, are cheaper, and easier to service. You don't need rear disc brakes unless you're in a performance vehicle. If people really cared about braking, they'd be making cars lighter.
I interpreted GP's comment less as "drum sucks compared to disc" and more as "well, it's got brakes" being the only listed safety feature, on a car that is sold in some markets without even airbags.
It's kind of like the old "front fell off" sketch:
> [Senator Collins:] No, rubber’s out .. Um, They’ve got to have a steering wheel. There’s a minimum crew requirement.”
> [Interviewer:] What’s the minimum crew?
> [Senator Collins:] Oh, one, I suppose.
Or the Simpsons gag about the Carnivale knockoff TV set:
> It features a two pronged wall plug, pre-molded hand grip wells, durable outer casing to prevent fall-apart.
I think the comedy comes from listing “this car has brakes” as a safety feature, as that’s the only thing they could come up with. Like, of course the car has brakes, it’s a car. I suppose the steering wheel is also a safety feature as it helps you to avoid collisions in some cases…
Rear drum brakes are actually very effective. Definitely just as safe as alternatives, they are less prone to brake fade so I'd choose them in the mountains.
From the Google:
"Drum brakes can provide more braking force than an equal diameter disc brake. Drum brakes last longer because drum brakes have increased friction contact area than a disc. Drum brakes are cheaper to manufacture than disc brakes. Rear drum brakes generate lower heat."
Disc brakes are still less prone to fading out. Drums hold in the heat during long downhill runs and don't cool as quickly during repeated braking events. They may generate less heat per stop, but they also don't dissipate it nearly as quickly when they do get hot. You don't want to choose them in them mountains, they're fine for a quick panic stop or two but beyond that, you're going to be much better off with a disc brake.
How can they generate less heat when the break function is to turn movement energy via friction into heat? Energy needs to go somewhere and vibration and usually noise are not enough to make much of a dent wrt. energy.
Because they have more mass they do not get as hot for equal stopping force. However they generate the same amount of heat, it is just spread over more mass so it isn't as hot. That is also their downside: once they get hot they don't dissipate it as well and so they get brake fade faster in typical use.
They don't fade until a threshold is met. This threshold is much slower onset than rotors because of all that mass. But once it's up to temperature they do fade just like rotors and they will struggle to shed that heat quickly. That's why drums are not useful on high performance cars.
Drum brakes generate heat across a larger surface area, which means there is more surface area to dissipate the heat, under normal braking conditions. Technically as much energy is generated, but the heat dissipation is better in regular usage.
Problem with disc brakes is they have a much smaller contact surface and the heat in the area where the calliper pinches is very focussed. Shedding that heat is much more inefficient as the steel takes a while to conduct the energy to the rest of the rotor. This is why brake fade happens much quicker for those brakes, and why there is a lot of tech on fancier disc brakes for shedding that heat.
Another benefit of drum brakes is as they heat, they expand and push the drum tighter to the pad, effectively helping you brake harder as they start to fade.
Looking at the source for that, it's actually a front disc, rear drums combo which isn't entirely unknown. Ford (at least in Europe) seem like it, with stuff like the Fiesta and Focus using the same combo. As I understand it the logic is discs all round is overkill for smaller cars, and the rears need a drum anyway for the handbrake, so they just go for a split setup.
As the others point out, this is a legitimate design choice. The Mazda 2 / Toyota Yaris also had drum brakes, and these were offered for sale in the USA.
Those are the expected, if not intended, consequences of environmental legislation looking to decrease CO2 emissions. I can live with that. The real scandal is that we're not building out public transit so that people do not need to own a car in the US.
> The real scandal is that we're not building out public transit so that people do not need to own a car in the US.
Is there evidence that a large number of people actually want more public transportation? If we're talking about commuters, most people who live in suburbs and commute already have the option to drive a short distance, park and ride a bus to their jobs.
That is not the valid question. We know from other cities around the world that when transit is good many people will choose to use it.
However your question is phased in such a way as to kill hope: most people don't have the imagination to think of what great transit even is, much less how it would change their life or if they want it.
Most of the costs of a car are fixed costs: your car payment, insurance, and taxes are the same on the car if you buy it and leave it sitting in your driveway all year, or if you drive it 70,000 miles in a year. Thus once you have the car you may as well drive all the way into work and not have to deal with the local transit system. (Unless traffic is really bad or parking is expensive this is the smart thing vs a park and ride). Work is another problem with your statement - if you still need the car to do your normal shopping, get to Church on Sunday, your volleyball club games at night, or whatever else you do with your life outside of work - then the incremental cost of driving to work is trivial so you may as well (again unless traffic or parking is an issue).
The real question is can we as a society afford cars? Cars costs thousands of lives in accidents every year. Cars need a lot of space: more and more expensive lanes on are roads, and many parking lots. A great transit system would save most people a lot of money, and a lot of lives.
Well, luckily things in the US don't work this way. We don't build out unwanted infrastructure because "...most people don't have the imagination". The preferences of the ivory tower academics or 1% of non-car owners shouldn't drive transportation infrastructure decisions.
> The real question is can we as a society afford cars?
Every day, people overwhelmingly vote with their actions: YES, they want cars. NO, they don't want to make it harder or more expensive to own cars.
The small minority of Americans who choose to not have cars should stop trying to tell the rest of the population how to live. Most people do not wish to live in high-density urban areas. They do not wish to have their travel restricted to wherever a bus will take them.
Safety and emissions will continue to improve, but cars are (thankfully) here to stay.
Your 1% number is simply pulled out of thin air. A quick search suggests 10% of households do not own a car. How many of the remainder own one because there is simply no alternative in much of the country in order to access work and groceries? People are not voting, they are working with the hand they are dealt. What you are seeing reflected are the preferences of a far elite class.
Saying that prices rise because of corporate greed is the same as saying that fires burn because of oxygen. Sure, it's true, but it's not helpful because you cannot stop people from being greedy. What is useful is to look at why corporations are able to greedily increase their prices unchecked. That's usually because of some imbalance in supply and demand: in this case, why does the demand outstrip the supply? There are multiple reasons, but one of them is that governments have outlawed the sale of new ICE vehicles for 2035, increasing demand on the small supply of electric vehicles available. This has also caused manufacturers to reduce their investment in ICE vehicles, thereby further reducing supply of these vehicles, thereby increasing prices. Furthermore, electric vehicles are (at least at this moment) more expensive to manufacture.
I have a 2018 Wrangler that has gone from 120 to 190/mo over the last 2-3 years. It has 12k miles, and is driven once every 1-3 months when I go offroading/camping, beyond that it sits in my private garage. I'm 39 but do have a minor wreck in 2020 i think.
I usually have a multi-car discount that would take, say my $190 down to 160-170 or so for both cars, or maybe just add a bit to the total, it's usually a huge benefit. I just bought a 2018 Miata RF last week ($22k w/30k miles since its on topic) and it added $150 to my insurance.
I can't believe it. Yes I quoted before hand and still did it, and shopped with an insurance aggregator (thezebra). Switching from Geico to Progressive saved me a little bit but not much.
Also, anyone who loves sports cars and hasn't driven a 4th gen (I haven't driven earlier) miata.. do it. It's so fun and it's not 500hp like my last sports car that was so fast I was way over the speed limit in 2nd-3rd. I'm redlining the RF constantly and still getting 28mpg. I get to hit 1-4 to hit 60 I think. It's a really fun active drive and I can't get any body roll at all (mine has Tein coilovers).
My friend works for an insurance company and it's all the car thefts going on he said.
That actually sounds horrible and even worse than Florida not having car inspections so half the cars on the road look like they're about to fall apart.
I thought no inspections was awesome when I moved there (I build race cars) until I drove around and realized what that really meant. Nobody taking care of their cars.
I saw a ton of little trucks with window unit air conditioners built on top. Mad max there.
People like to complain about how expensive car ownership is in the USA but ignore the fact that poor people and teenagers still manage to own cars.
You can still buy a 30-40 year old Volvo for $1-2k on Craigslist that will be reliable and safe for decades of hard use with basic maintenance anyone can learn to DIY for a few hundred $ per year.
What people are actually complaining about is that the status symbol of owning a newer or expensive looking vehicle is expensive.
The fact that older vehicles massively depreciate in value even when still serviceable is a massive benefit to those on a budget. I toy with the idea of going car free to save money, but at the end of the day, owning older cars I maintain myself costs me next to nothing.
I'd like to see a source for someone who actually bought a "30-40 year old Volvo for $1-2k" and put it through another few decades of "hard use" while doing only "basic maintenance" for "a few hundred $ per year".
I'm all with you that no one in their right mind should ever pay for a new car only to have it depreciate by $10.000+ the moment they drive it off the lot. But the real winner of a strategy is buying a proven reliably car that has been well treated about 10 years after it was new, drive gently for 5-10 more years and sell it once the hefty maintenance stuff starts coming in. Also it should be the smallest, most fuel efficient car you can get away with 95% of the time. You rent or borrow a bigger car for the 5% that you can't cover with your small car.
I have done exactly that many times, but if you look at car forums with older high quality cars like 80s Mercedes and Volvos, it's not rare at all, what I am talking about is the norm.
Think about what you said- when the hefty maintenance stuff starts coming in, if someone doesn't scrap or sell the thing and just pays for all of that, you usually have about as many miles again before it starts to happen again, yet the value is through the floor. I've bought a few cheap 200k mile vehicles that had really extensive service records, usually bought new by wealthy people and maintained with no expense spared, that I put another 100-200k miles on before they needed any major work again.
If you're really thrifty, a small 80s European diesel sedan with a stickshift, like the Mercedes 190D or VW Rabbit, has fuel efficiency close to a modern hybrid, at really low cost. Not so great emissions though.
These sorts of cars ware great but are really the needles in the haystack, and you need to have a pretty good idea what to look for, find them before someone else and live somewhere where rust/road salt hasn't killed them which is not typical for most poor people and teenagers. Possible but not typical I think.
For example there's one Craigslist 190D on the east coast at $6800, I would guess a increasing amount of sorted cars wind up on BAT or similar.
Ironically, on the west coast the more long lived older cars are crazy cheap because there just isn’t enough demand to meet the supply. They still work but not many people want to drive a vehicle that old, especially if it has major cosmetic issues. There is also a fear of them being unreliable, even if it’s untrue.
Late 80s were getting near the peak of fuel economy. They had computers and fuel injection which was the last low hanging fruit. They didn't have to deal with modern emissions which often makes economy worse (they did have 1970s emissions, but many of the downfalls of those systems were sorted out). Modern engines are more fuel efficient, but modern cars are often a lot heaver and so the gains have mostly been taken away in that.
No, buying and sellling cars on CL is a hobby of mine, I'm into old European cars and do it a lot.
I recently bought an always garaged since new, like new looking 100k mile Porsche Boxster with great maintenance records for $8k, in the SF Bay area on Craigslist. It wasn't a bad deal, but not really a steal either- that's about what they go for. It's a reliable car, and my daily commuter now. The other elementary school kids getting dropped off at school in new $100k Teslas think we're crazy rich dropping off my kid in a Porsche. I often buy "nice" cars in the 8-10k range, not the cars with cosmetic issues for super cheap.
Since Volvo was the example I gave, I just did an SF Bay area search for "volvo" under $3k, and it came up with 61 results. A few look terrible, but about a third, including some of the cheaper ones look to be well maintained daily drivers with some cosmetic issues like dents or peeling paint. Personally, I'd recommend the 740 and 940 models, they are crazy cheap, but extremely good cars.
For a deal, look for cars that are well maintained with good maintenance records, but have high mileage and/or cosmetic issues. Also look at car enthusiast forums instead of Craigslist. They often have cars where hobbyists dump a ton of money into them to keep older cars in really top shape.
I agree that people buy way more car than they need. However, should poor people and teenagers have to own cars, considering they wouldn't be expected to anywhere else in the world? It's a big expense and part of the underlying problem.
Um... most poor people and teenagers still have jobs they need to get to. Usually the kind that are much less forgiving of missing work than higher paying jobs.
Why is car-only infrastructure required? In my comment I point out structural problems with American infrastructure, but your comment seems to ignore that.
My apologies, I misread your comment to say poor people and teenagers were not expected to travel anywhere!
Better non car infrastructure would be nice in the USA… I think the two main reasons it isn’t really happening are relatively low population density, and an unfortunate cultural aversion that sees public transit as “low class.” Most dense/big cities in the USA do have fairly decent public transit and are livable car free.
The next car I buy will almost certainly be from the 1980s if I can manage it.
Specifically, a first-gen Nissan 300ZX.
Partly, this is driven by personal interest in that particular car. However, I also see that there is still a healthy network of support for cars from before 2010. There are disadvantages besides the price to buying a newer car.
I have slowly rebuilt my wife's old 2000 VW Passat (B5 platform). 232K miles so far.. next year it's officially an antique, can get different plates for it.
Some nice things about this car:
Yes it has a computer, but from just before they serialized everything, so you can easily drop in a replacement (which I've done).
It was used as a taxi in some countries, so spare parts are plentiful.
Bold, knowing current tech in a car is an issue, moving to an 80's hi-tech car is mind blowing. They are known for being loaded with all kinds of 1 off proprietary tech.
My small experience owning old "reliable" cars is that they still have more issues than something new-ish. Maybe they were designed and built tougher back then, but parts still have lifespans. Fuel economy might be worse too. 20 years is already old enough that it'd be more for fun than practicality to me.
1980s turbocharged sports car, that'd be awesome but probably not cheap to drive. A clean 300ZX is also pretty valuable today.
> A replacement car is out of the question, because she barely has enough money for rent. But even if Luna had the funds to go shopping, it’s unlikely she’d find anything remotely reasonable. The average new car today sells for nearly $49,000, and the average used car lists at more than $26,000 – representing a 31% increase for new cars and nearly 40% increase for used cars since 2020, according to data from the industry group Cox Automotive.
Pretty superficial analysis. Averages are swayed by expensive cars and there many new cars available in the $20k-$30k range, i.e. well below $49k. The writer seems to think that those vehicles, which include things like Toyota Corollas, lower-end Camrys, etc. aren't "remotely reasonable".
I think this is the major driver of higher priced cars: people want luxury. In 1970 if your car got 100k miles you had bragging rights despite the car having rust holes and burning almost as much oil as gas. In that world buying a basic new car as smart: it wouldn't last long. These days anyone who would settle for a basic car can buy a use car with more luxury features and it will still be reliable for a long time. As such car makers have to focus on those willing to buy luxury.
> Quality seems to be decreasing. I found many similar stories
This is a drum that mass media beats every few years because it’s low hanging fruit.
It all comes down to the survivorship bias. In 10 years, we’re going to see a lot of these currently-new cars and admire how many of them are still on the road. In reality, the lemons were weeded out, poorer-selling models were cut and forgotten, and what is left is solidly in the middle of the bathtub curve[0].
The below is from my link. These are qualitative, objective metrics. Not anecdotal or qualitative.
> Compared to the 2021 IQS results, the 2022 version say an 11 percent increase in problems per 100 (PP100) vehicles, which is 18 PP100 worse than last year. That moves the needle to an average of 180 PP100 across the industry.
We just unloaded our 25-year-old Honda. It was getting to the point where maintenance was difficult because parts were no longer available. So we're officially car-free now. Probably just going to do zipcar or something like it when we need a car. For the amount we drive, there's no way it's worth even paying used car prices.
One way to mitigate the Insurance expense is to report the milage actually used. My insurer assumes 12K per year which is a lot more that the 7K miles per year I actually drive.
GIECO at one time let me report this via their web interface but because of research like this [1] - they make me hunt down a form sign it and return a copy. The aggravates me greatly and this research (like much of the social science research) has been shown to be unreproducible [2].
It's amazing how car prices vary around the world with taxation. Especially taking into account the purchasing power parity. The cheapest cars in US are sold as entry-level luxury cars in a place like India. The entry level cars in India are deemed to cheap to be even considered selling in the US.
For instance, a Hyundai Venue costs $20k in the US. Taking into account the PPP, an Indian has to spend nearly $80k to own the same car.
Same logic applies for phones. Your $1000 iPhone cost me nearly $4000 (again, not currency conversion but PPP).
Not everything is too bad though. App prices, books, etc are usually adjusted for PPP. Spotify Premium costs us $2/month. Books that cost $400 in the US usually cost us $5-$20.
Yes as a New Zealander it's depressing following US-based car discussions. Cars are sooo cheap in the USA. Not to mention fuel, being roughly half what we pay.
Having gas guzzling cars infesting every street is not how I imagined the future. It reminds me more of Idiocracy than Star Trek.
There are inspiring examples around the globe: my favourite systems are in Switzerland, where the trains are on time and frequent, and Luxembourg, where public transport is… publicly funded(and modern).
Additionally, it seems to me a personal 1-5 tonne vehicle is a bit excessive and a huge waste of real estate.
Just wait and see what happens when charging infra becomes more expensive than existing gas infrastructure. I've anecdotally heard from Canadians that they are approximating diminishing gains having an electric car, running costs-wise at least.
I don't think this is true. I live in Canada and the worst costs involved in charging my Tesla at a supercharger are maybe $20 for a full 'tank' but compared with $100+ for a gas car given gas prices here there's no way this is true. Here in BC there's a ton of charging competition too, so you can find far cheaper than superchargers—plenty of places where I live offer free fast charging right now if you look for them.
Also, most of the time you're charging at home. In BC, electricity prices are $0.09/kWh... so dirt cheap.
BC hydro does not reflect the whole country. In NB we pay close to $.14/kWh, and as I said that's going up this year, and the next. PEI and NS are even more, so already today we are seeing ~$40 a charge. That's with just a handful of people driving EVs. Our province needs another power station, we sell a lot of power to Maine.
Across the border in Maine it's ~.36/kWh which is getting close to your $100 a charge, granted Maine is not Canada.
As electricity demand goes up, gas demand will go down and according to economics it will just get cheaper.
I don't know what gas prices are like in Canada, but I'd expect about $40 to fill a car of Tesla size in the US. (from empty it might get up to $50). Yes gas is more, but not that much more.
I also expect most people are charging at home for much lower electric rates.
I would think charging infra would tend towards being cheaper as it's built out, if only because you don't need enormous tanker trucks trundling around cities distributing the fuel - running electric lines is almost one-and-done in comparison.
So you think that the challenges keeping grid capacity and stability up with demand are FUD? I think they are reasonable concerns, and seeing early signs of that already here. Our power costs are on track to go up significantly over the coming years, mainly because of capacity. Building new clean, scalable energy is expensive, someone has to pay for that demand.
I think these are very real, and reasonable problems on the horizon. And like I said, these costs are already being noticed. My power bill is going up by over 10% in the next two years for capacity reasons. They are paying people to put in more efficient electric heating, so we are using less and paying more. I know this is info about my own region but Europe is also heading toward these problems on a wider scale:
Also "Otherwise it’s like running your dryer". It is not, at all. If the cost of running my dryer goes up 10% that's not a big deal. Running my car at a 10% increased cost is significant. If my whole neighbourhood gets home at 5pm and plugs in, the grid would fall apart here.
You didn't really acknowledge the citations or my overall point.
"E-cars almost always have charge scheduling built-in, to charge when cheapest" if everyone charges when it's cheapest, it will no longer be cheapest. Demand drives cost.
The schedule car be changed. Though the early evening time period has a lot of spare capacity for a lot of people to charge without changing rates. That is when it tends to be windiest and so those wind turbines which they are trying to size for times of day with otherwise more demand while there is less wind as plenty of supply for your cars. (solar similar analysis but a different time when it is as peak)
Talk to me about how that works when 80% of people are charging every day. That spare capacity goes away as everyone economically chases it to the point of saturation. Everyone can change their schedule and they will all go for the cheapest, which will normalize power prices across the board, AKA no cheap power windows.
Cars are only a small part of the total energy pie, and EVs are a lot more efficient: even with 100% charging the cheap power window won't go away. It won't be as cheap, but most uses of cars are flexible enough to charge during the low price window whenever that happens to be, and the window is large enough to keep the prices down.
> Cars are only a small part of the total energy pie
If 80% of US drivers switched to electric vehicles, the total annual electricity consumption would be approximately 1,013,472,000,000 kWh (or about 1.01 trillion kWh). This calculation is based on the assumptions of an average annual mileage of 13,500 miles per vehicle, an average electric consumption of 0.34 kWh per mile, and a total of approximately 276 million vehicles in the US.
As a contrast, today's total output of power in the US is 4 to 4.5 trillion kWh. So capacity needs to increase 1/4 which is not trivial.
Caveat here is we keep the same efficiency in EVs.
Course to go to 80% would require probably 15 years. 25% / 15 years is 1.7% a year.
Does not seem like a big deal.
A question. Is the extra electricity need to power electric cars less or greater than the amount required by more air conditioning due to global warming.
which is why EVs are not a big deal. Any utility director/planner knows they are coming and factors them into their 10 year plans. They should also be building wind and solar at high rates just because they are so cheap as sources of power.
I don't deal with power utilities. But have talked to water utility managers.
Key thing. Regulated utilities can't just raise prices to generate a profit. But capital improvements are an asset that you can earn a profit on. So investment is how you can 'grow the business'
Replace the pole pig feeding your house with bigger one? The utility makes a profit off that. If it were me I'd get the utility involved in upgrading residential panels to support heat pumps and car charging.
It’s not FUD, it’s reality in California where even off-peak electricity is over $0.40 per kWh. People buy EVs in California because they’re a luxury good, not because they save money on gas.
That discount will not perpetuate infinitely. It facilitates people onboarding to EVs, but it has nothing to do with long-term infrastructure problems on the horizon as this stuff scales up to being the status quo for how people move around.
2.5 cents is not much compared to what grandparent was complaining about, 40 cents. And when capacity is strained, guess what? They'll build more.
Your defeatism (elsewhere in the thread) is a bit tiring. On the other hand, once people decided to go to the Moon. They did it and returned safely! But according to you building a power plant and laying another set of cables per region is an insurmountable problem.
Add that and solar panels at home and work parking lots... done.
> sapping her earnings with hours of unpaid commute time.
This is the real story here - transit should not be so much slower than a private car that it saps time. It is in most places, but a great transit system wouldn't be like that.
Everywhere in the world (except China, etc but here they are making sure that bent lawmakers don't allow Chinese cars to be sold in Europe for instance)
Car makers are making a huge, terrible mistake with all of this. Their greediness is making a new generation of potential car owners have to settle for inferior options such as public transportation. That influx of users will empower those alternatives until there really is no need for cars anymore. Of course the executives raising prices now won't be the same ones at the helm when the ship starts sinking.
Your last sentence sums it up, quarterly earnings are king.
I was having the conversation about the cost of soda/cola. It’s gone up significantly since Covid basically because they decided to test the elasticity of it and see how high prices would go. Turns out people are pretty addicted to their beverages of choice and they can charge a good deal more. But my feeling is, they’re eroding their pipeline of new consumers and over time this will backfire. Decades of marketing and branding being thrown away.
Public transportation is hardly an "inferior option". If done well it can be cheaper, more convenient and quicker than using your own car. It all depends on the willingness to invest the capital needed to build a system people actually want to use.
All the 80-90s car problems are intake stuff, IAC valves and all that stuff. I had so many cheap 85-95 Fords (Probe, Escort, Mustangs) and Preludes that all had pain in the ass idle air problems. The fords would always wind up dying at stop lights. Hondas I don't think got that bad but they'd rev up and down at lights, I guess keeping themselves running vs the Fords that I had to do it myself.
I'm pretty sure my 85 Cherokee had idle problems too. That jeep was scary to get on the highway. SO slow.
What's happening is that people are seeing more value out of bigger and more expensive cars, so there is a preferences shift happening.
Also, think of inflation. 22 years ago I bought a new Honda Civic EX with manual transmission for 18K, which would be around 30K today. This car would be unthinkable in today's market - barebones radio, stick shift, no camera, no screen and noisy engine. If you have the Crosstrek example in mind, cars are actually getting cheaper, at least in terms of cost-benefit (like computers got cheaper as technology improved).