I work on my own cars now (as a hobby really) and one of the reasons the new cars are so expensive is they are much more complicated. A lot of this seems to be over-engineering IMO. This is alluded to in the article, but not explicitly stated.
The cars I work on are from the early 90s and everything is very simple to understand.
e.g. Electronics are normally simple circuits that aren't much more complicated than what you would find in a door bell and finding faults is normally just tracing wires and using a multi-meter. I had issues with the brake lights / reverse lights not working, the issue turned out that the spade like connector in the fuse box was pushed through and was making partial contact. Price to fix this was £0.
EDIT: Just remembered this isn't accurate. I had to buy a new reverse light. The entire reverse light assembly was ~£20. So the price to fix was about £20. The light assembly itself was like a big bicycle light.
My newer car needs a OB-II scanner to diagnose anything with a phone app. While this is arguably quicker it can be misleading. Sometimes it will be telling you that something is malfunctioning but it is really the sensor itself. These sensors are £200-£300 a piece. Replacing 4 glow plug sensors cost me £800. I was paying essentially to make the "you must service your engine" light to go away. There was nothing wrong with engine itself.
Yes, if they would make a basic car like in the past I would buy it. Everyone has to sell you too much, I want a simple car, I don't want either the stereo, I will add my own later (I can put it one that is better than the factory one for a cheaper price, but in a modern car replacing the stereo is almost impossible). There are a ton of useless sensors, the sensor that tells you if you have a flat tire (I think I can notice myself), the emergency call button (while everyone has a mobile phone these days), automatic regulating seats (pulling a lever is too much difficult), dual zone clima control (it's the same space in the same car, why I would want to set 2 different temperatures?), etc.
And in all this useless things that they put in a car, they no longer provide you with a spare tire, just an useless repair kit...
Some of those “useless” sensors like tire pressure or backup camera are required by law. Even if you get a bare bones hatchback (manual transmission, manual locks, manual windows etc.) they’ll be forced to include those.
The problem isn't that they're effective. It's that they're a regulatory solution to the complaints that the same demographics had 20yr ago (it's too easy to back a big fashionable in the 00s SUV over a kid) and as a result of it now all cars have crap rear visibility because there's no reason to be good when you have the camera.
The primary factor that correlates with reverse cameras reducing backup accidents is age - people over 70 have higher backup accidents rates without cameras/sensors. FTA:
> When averaged between the 2 automakers, effects were significantly larger for drivers 70 and older (38% reduction) than for drivers younger than 70 (1% increase); effects were significant for older but not younger drivers.
A big SUV is probably an exacerbating factor, though.
Also, for any kind of car, rear cameras and sensors decrease impacts while parallel parking. I see far fewer damaged bumpers on newer cars these days.
Visibility has gotten worse in many vehicles as a crash safety thing. Rear visibility is so blocked because the "beltline" of cars has moved up as crash standards get more stringent. A car that has a small rear window and high 'beltline' will do better in a crash.
TBH, I'm hoping we have front-view cameras that maybe kick in at under 20kph or something.
Front visibility is famously poor on SUVs and trucks, and even aside from pedestrians, I suspect there are a lot of small but very expensive bumper taps because you mis-judged the distance to the crap at the back wall of your garage.
There was a woman who backed over her own kid in the driveway. For some reason, she was not imprisoned for vehicular manslaughter. So instead of not being in prison, she spent the next half decade lobbying congress to make backup cameras mandatory. And it happened. So now everyone's car costs $3k more.
It would have been cheaper to put her imprison than impose a $3k cost per every car sold in America since 2018.
Lots more people need to be imprisoned for manslaughter, and lots of people need their license taken away for "backing crashes".
> A 2012 Harris poll suggests that the public agress with the mandate despite the technology’s costs. NHTSA says adding a backup camera to a car without an existing display screen will cost around $159 to $203 per vehicle, shrinking to between $58 and $88 for vehicles that already use display screens. The Harris poll found that consumers care more about safety features like backup cameras than they do about multimedia systems.
I'm not sure where you're getting your $3k backup cameras from; the camera is a $30 part, and pretty much every new car has a screen in it already.
People don't understand and appreciate additional costs until they actually have to pay them. You can see this play out over and over again with additional tax increases jn response for new and improved public services - or customers asking businesses to do a "Made in America" product line, but then not putting their money where their mouth is and actually paying the upcharge for a MiA product.
A similar argument could be made for any safety feature that adds cost to vehicles--literally, all of them. If a death is preventable and adds on a relatively inconsequential amount to the cost of a vehicle, then it is the morally correct choice optimize for safety.
The logic doesn’t scale. You can’t impose arbitrary and subjectives thresholds to gloss over this fact. The obvious conclusion is that safety is one of many moral factors to balance.
You do not think a mother killing her own child is punishment enough? It's very unlikely she intentionally planned to kill her child in this manner to cover it up as an accident.
Besides backup cameras have use beyond just making sure a child is not behind you, such as assisting with parking, or seeing if there is oncoming traffic when there is a larger vehicle parked next to you.
AFAIK some automakers also cut down on the number of sensors by doing stuff like reading the already implemented sensor(s) for the ABS to provide the tire pressure warning function.
Eh, you really don't want a car without ABS, though. For motorcycles, I kinda get it since you can't do some stunts with ABS, but on a car, it has zero benefit nowadays. Mandatory ABS, seatbelts and airbags would be the big things for me, followed by sexy, modern ESP, TC for powerful RWD cars and collision warning beeper (no autobrake at high speed, that shit's deadly and I hate that it can't be permanently disabled separate to the beeper).
It’s required because it’s a safety issue. I think that’s the intent behind almost all mandatory sensors. That’s why the post put “useless” in quotes. I’m highlighting just that it may be required because it’s needed for safety.
However, many motorcycles have ABS as optional equipment and many people (non-stunters) don’t opt in for it. Meaning, many people don’t recognize (or don’t care enough to pay) the safety aspect.
I never thought about ABS while purchasing my little 250cc Kawasaki Ninja about 20 years ago, but in retrospect, I wish I had it! Skidding isn’t as bad for vehicles with 3+ wheels; they stay upright, at least. It had rained earlier that evening, and for whatever reason (skill, pavement change, oily film on the road surface, etc) when I braked before a turn the back-end slipped out from under me. Luckily, I walked away with just a sprained shoulder, broken thumb, and a spot on my kneecap worn down to the bone.
I thankfully was wearing riding gloves, helmet, and boots; the pavement wore through several layers of the leather, my hands would have been shredded like my knee, or worse.
Using ABS sensors to justify new regulation is a circular argument if those ABS sensors were installed because of regulation. I was arguing otherwise, that ABS would be installed in a big majority of cars no matter what, and that gives a non-circular argument.
Looking up some data, it was about 75% of cars and rising in 2007, so not as high as I expected but still pretty high. There's some circularity but I'd say it's mostly not circular.
I posted that they are installed for legal reasons. The other commenter posted that less sensors are required because they piggyback on another system. That other system is also legally required. That is a circular rationale because it’s still pointing to a legally mandated sensor. Nearly all new cars have ABS due to safety mandates.
You seem to imply that the legal and safety are independent. I am saying they are linked.
Ie there wouldn’t be a legal reason if it weren’t for the safety reason. So pointing to the safety is why it’s a circular argument.
It’s like disagreeing that smoke detectors are because they are legally required in homes because people want them anyway for safety reasons. Both can be true at the same time because they both are related to the same risk mitigation.
In any event, the OP was that some people don’t want those sensors, my point is they aren’t optional.
> So pointing to the safety is why it’s a circular argument.
You're confusing me. How about I explain my understanding of what makes things circular.
Generic hypothetical: Regulation requires a part. Cars put the part in because of regulation. Later, people amending the regulations consider something else that requires that part, and they justify it as having negligible cost because that part is already in cars. Because that part is there from regulation, it's to a strong extent regulation justifying itself, and it's circular.
Does your understanding of circularity differ from that?
Now, consider a variant: Regulation requires a part. But it doesn't matter because cars have that part anyway. Later, people amending the regulations consider something else that requires that part, and they justify it as having negligible cost because that part is already in cars. Because that part is not there from regulation, it's not regulation justifying itself, and it's not circular.
Does that make sense? You could imagine the part is "wheels" for the variant. Regulations that imply wheels are not using circular arguments when they say 'cars have wheels anyway, that's not a cost of this regulation'.
“I don’t need regulated sensors installed because I have a regulated sensor installed” is a circular argument.
Now much of what you bring up is tangential. But one thing I think we think differently about is that each of the premises you laid out starts with regulation. I differ because i see regulation as a response to a prior underlying risk. In other words, the risk exists before the regulation. So I don’t view regulation as a “self-licking ice cream cone”, or excusing for its own sake, but rather a risk mitigation. That’s why an ABS sensor can be used for monitoring pressure: it’s not the sensor that matters but whether the risk os appropriately mitigated.
> But one thing I think we think differently about is that each of the premises you laid out starts with regulation. I differ because i see regulation as a response to a prior underlying risk.
In this case there's a risk. By my argument applies to regulations that involve risk and it also applies to regulations that don't involve risk.
> “I don’t need regulated sensors installed because I have a regulated sensor installed” is a circular argument.
I almost agree, but I think the motivation matters.
"I don’t need regulated sensors installed because I have those sensors already to follow regulations" is a circular argument.
"I don’t need regulated sensors installed because I have those sensors already for reasons unrelated to regulations" is not a circular argument. If no regulations existed already, it's not circular. If they did exist but they didn't change your behavior then it's not circular.
>it also applies to regulations that don't involve risk.
Which are those? Because so far, this conversation has been about TPMS and ABS regulation. I’m beginning to think the discussion is more about dogmatic feelings about regulation than the topic at hand.
Again, your argument is based on following regulations for the sake of regulation and I don’t agree that’s why regulations exist. I believe they exist to mitigate risk. Sometimes they can be poorly executed, and sometimes they can be for a risk you aren’t acutely aware of or one you don’t care about, but that doesn’t mean the risk is non-existent.
Well like I mentioned earlier, there's a regulation that cars have wheels, right? That's not a risk thing.
> I’m beginning to think the discussion is more about dogmatic feelings about regulation than the topic at hand.
No, it's just explaining my logic. Using a more abstract example makes it easier to focus on the logic.
> Again, your argument is based on following regulations for the sake of regulation
No it's not.
> and I don’t agree that’s why regulations exist.
I never said that's why regulations exist.
I never said anything about why regulations exist.
I'm so confused.
I'm just talking about whether a certain kind of rule is circular or not...
It's not a very important point, to be fair. But you seem to think I'm making some wildly different points from what I intend, and I'm not sure why there's such a communication breakdown.
Honestly, good! I am so tired of these insane "I want nothing but an engine" spiritual boomers. They are making the road far more dangerous for everyone.
Yes, I will force you to have automatic emergency breaking in your Model T hotrod. Yes, you will be mad. Yes, the road will be a lot safer. No I don't care about your boomer rage about technology. No you don't want to live with India tier road laws/standards - even if - and especially if - you think you do!
FWIW, I’m one of those people but geared (ha) towards reliability. I’ll take the ABS and TPMS, but I don’t want “bells and whistles“ of touch screens and air conditioned seats. I’m after safety and reliability more than creature comforts.
I love my camera but I've noticed that I tend to look around less, which is bad because a camera doesn't cover everything.
ABS is a no brainer. So is ASR.
TPMS is awesome coz face it, I have never and will never regularly check my tire pressure. Remember how they taught you to check the oil regularly? Who ever did that?
I want real knobs so I don't have to look away from the road and do climate controls and radio by feel on the side. Much safer.
But automatic braking is another one of those two edged swords. I almost had a car behind me crash into me recently because the car in front of me decided to abruptly slow down and turn left. I reacted and went slightly to the right to get around and the car in front of me was turning further away as well. But then the dang emergency breaking system hit the brakes and startled me. For a second I couldn't do anything then I hit the brakes too until a second later I realized it was BS and the car behind me was getting awfully close real fast and I instead hit the gas.
These systems are still quite bad in judging objects that go left-right or opposite. The cruise control slows down immensely for a car on front of me taking an exit for no reason. And on the other hand it reacts way too late if another car suddenly switches into your lane when you're about to overtake them. And that's for different cars from different manufacturers and different model years so I doubt it's a unique experience.
I get what you're saying but that driver behind you did not almost crash into you because you decided to abruptly slow down. He almost crashed into you because he did not maintain a safe following distance, wasn't paying attention, etc.
It's insane how normalized terrible driving is. I don't even mean following the law at this point. It's much more basic than that and applies to every vehicle in every context. You must drive in such a way to be able to stop in time if the vehicle in front of you decides to apply max braking. This is dictated by the laws of the universe we exist in, not by some rule arbitrarily decided by humans.
Even consumers voted with their pocketbooks in favor of this towards the end given the failure of the Nissa Versa and the Toyota Yaris in the American and Canadian market.
Also, there's a reason those $15K Toyotas, Suzukis, and Mitsubishis are sold in Thailand and India, and not in Japan - they don't even meet safety standards in their home country (and it's Toyota, Suzuki, and Mitsubishi that essentially sets standards for all of Japan).
Automotive companies like Toyota create different platforms based on the kind of market. All emerging markets use the IMV [0] platform except China, which has it's own separate platform because of China's JV and ToT requirement.
Ofc, HN skews towards gearheads and people who seem to have been born in the 1960s-80s, so it won't have great reception.
From what I've seen with regulation this isn't the case, rather the opposite is true. The more we force it, the more understood it becomes and eventually it fades into the background and nobody cares. We've already had this exact conversation in the 80s with seatbelts.
Believe it or not, there were a lot of good arguments against seatbelts. And they were genuinely believed. And they were popular. And, they are now well past extinct.
Seatbelts on new cars is on a wholly different level than "I'm gonna force existing vehicles to take mandatory upgrades at great cost because F you". The level of public compliance you're likely to see with the latter would make the people removing emissions systems from diesels look like good little goose stepping in line central europeans.
> It is very frustrating when people misstate other people's beliefs
I agree. It is also frustrating when people don't recognize or cry foul when their personal beliefs are restated within homotopy equivalence, perhaps (I speculate) because they think it weakens an already weak argument. Perhaps even moreso for those stating the equivalence because there is not argumentative advantage to be gained by expressing said frustration regarding said response.
Or at least it could be. I'm actually feeling indifferent on the topic.
> There are politicians and activists that have been pushing for lower car ownership and they do it openly.
Words are cheap, words and rallys and activist productions moreso, show the policy that impacts national and international production.
You are making the serious suggestion that a significant portion of the average cars cost is artificial in order to make people not buy them? And the extremely powerful automotive lobby is just fine with this?
It isn't unheard of that business will collude with government to "pull the ladder up behind them". I've worked in companies where that has been their stated strategy.
if i am a hardcore environmentalist, i throw regulations at cars to make prices eye wateringly high. car makers are aligned due to ensuing profit
if i am a hardcore environmentalist, i throw regulations at homebuilding to make housebuilding excruciating. homeowner voters are thrilled by the ensuing valuations
Tire sensors and backup cameras are dirt cheap though. Maybe lane warning and collision avoidance are a bit more but they’re both 10+ year old technology, they can’t cost that much. Also all of these things are good. Redoing the steering wheel or using 22” wheels or adding heating for each individual ass cheek… that I don’t need, and it adds to the cost.
There are countless scenarios where cars are operated in close proximity for over an hour, like rural highway traffic or metro corridor traffic.
Every time a TPMS battery dies in these circumstances, the vehicle shouldn't pair with random TPMS sensors around it. Especially when we're talking about logic of a regulated safety system. It's a little better that it is deterministic, and follows an explicit pairing process.
> Every time a TPMS battery dies in these circumstances, the vehicle shouldn't pair with random TPMS sensors around it.
Random sensors around it that aren't already paired to their own car.
Also it could wait for you to complete an entire trip or two.
> Especially when we're talking about logic of a regulated safety system.
"Safety" in the sense that the little warning light usually gets you to do something about it eventually? Is this data going into anything where the correctness is a big deal?
As always with RF propagation, it depends. They're frequently in the 315Mhz band, so should be roughly similar to garage door openers, remote controls, etc.
> Random sensors around it that aren't already paired to their own car.
There's no handshake -- TPMS sensors are generally unencrypted broadcast devices. A car will see a lot of sensors. (and you can set up an antenna and track cars driving down your street) The "pairing" is simply the vehicle remembering which ones is theirs.
> Also it could wait for you to complete an entire trip or two.
It could. Now add the complication of: spare tires. And also, some but not all vehicles store the positionality of the sensor, so they can tell you which tire is low.
But if you're going to give the system so much hysteresis, you might as well just save the money and use the ABS-sensor based system that other vehicles use. These don't require any additional sensors or programming, but they are slower to react and don't provide pressure readings. The reason automakers use direct sensor systems is to provide a more direct and immediate reading.
> "Safety" in the sense that the little warning light usually gets you to do something about it eventually? Is this data going into anything where the correctness is a big deal?
It is a big enough deal that the reason many cars have them is to comply with the legal requirement that they have them. Before the light (and better cars have textual warnings), you'd have to manually check your tire pressure to identify an underinflated tire, leading to many people driving on them for extended periods of time and experiencing rapid unscheduled failures.
Even if you do a walk around, under-inflated tires are typically not distinguishable from normally inflated tires. Especially on today's cars with shorter and stiffer sidewalls.
I had a rental Mercedes with a leak in a tire recently... a tire was at something like 15psi but looked visually the same as the other tires. I absolutely do a walk around on all of my rentals and take pictures, but I would have had no clue if it weren't for TPMS. I would have driven it until it failed.
Tires can have low enough pressure to affect vehicle handling without being visually low, you simply cannot measure tire pressure visually. That's why even tire shop workers use a gauge instead of eyeballing it.
The tool is $10, the two minute walkaround of undoing your pressure caps, measuring the pressure, and redoing them, every trip, adds ~1000 minutes/year.
... Or you could just have the manufacturer spend $30 to embed this into the car's dash.
For similar reasons, your car also comes with a fuel gauge, and doesn't require hand-cranking to start.
If you really want car prices to come down, have the manufacturers fire most of their workers and replace them with robots (I'm not sure if the robots will make for a good consumer base, but that's someone else' problem.)
Look at a BYD car factory versus any one ran by the American auto dinosaurs, and that's where you'll find the price delta.
Anything that takes control away from me I am not interested in. I am both legally and financially liable for anything the car does. I am also not trusting my life to some poorly maintained software written by someone in another country.
You've had backup cameras often fail? You must be very unlucky. After many years of driving and riding in cars with backup cameras, I have never seen one not work, let alone "often" not work.
Where is the ubiquitously proven support for the assertion that backup cameras don't increase safety?
Deliberately re-framing an argument to force me to accept a conclusion, while misinterpreting what I said is disingenuous.
I've read several of your replies towards me and I can tell that you either unable or unwilling see my point of view. So there is no point in having a discussion with you.
If you want to use "often don't work properly" as an argument, then people are allowed to challenge that argument.
I guess they shouldn't have assumed you were speaking from experience, but I don't think that's a big deal. That's not forcing you to accept any conclusion. If it happens "often" you should have examples and/or data. If you don't then maybe you should reconsider if it actually is "often".
And they directly asked for data that it doesn't increase safety.
That's not unwillingness to see your point of view. If you provide quality evidence, you can win them over.
I am specifically talking about things that take over control of the vehicle.
I've had lane assist fight me when trying to move lanes. I apparently wasn't turning the wheel enough and it thought I was drifting (I wasn't).
I've had another hire car refuse to move backwards without me putting it into reverse. It had anti-rollback measures. I didn't know what was going on. All my other cars would rollback (I drive manuals). Now I know technically you shouldn't coast backwards but it was maybe a foot.
Sure it does. You can tune it to get better performance or fuel economy. (Tbf, you can do the same by fuel mapping your injectors, but it would probably void any warranty).
What you seem to be alluding to is that the automated features give you different performance than what you were expecting and you have little recourse. The same could be said for your fuel injectors.
Owners of car companies, to make more money. More disposable, more expensive cars, in less easily entered industry. How else will they keep BYD and others from coming in?
The average age of an American car is, at the moment, 14 years[1]. That means that there are about as many 28+ year old cars on the road as there are new cars.
Repairability becomes somewhat less relevant when reliability is better out-of-the-box.
Not to be too nit picky, but I think you’re conflating median and average. The median age is probably lower because the age distribution skews older due to vintage cars and such. But you are right about cars lasting much longer today. At the same time, I think there is a point that they are also less repairable. (I’ve heard horror stories of $7k+ touch screen replacements, which control everything from the radio to the HVAC).
Vintage cars are a tiny fraction of the vehicle base, and due to demand and population growth, and the fact that an old car had to have been a new car at some point, there is an immediate bias towards having more newer cars.
Also, unlike with money and wealth and other metrics where averages aren't very useful, the distribution of car ages does not have a tail of incredible outliers. There aren't a lot of billion-year-old cars driving that average away from the median.
Look, it's entirely possible that 'this time it'll be different', and we'll regress on this metric, but at the moment the data does not support it.
It doesn't compute like that because the minimum age is zero. So a long tail of fewer people driving stuff that's older than 28yr reduces the number of people driving things 14-28yr by greater than one each.
Sure, why not. Those are features people consider valuable and we'd continue to have them.
Save perhaps rarely if ever used seating positions (middle rear of the super stripped down V6 Mustang they make like 10 of so they can advertise a starting MSRP or some other comparable niche) I don't think seatbelts are going away anywhere they matter.
Ditto with headlights and tail lights, drivers find them useful. Perhaps we'd see a delete option used by fleet buyers who intend to equip the vehicles with alternative lighting.
The point of my post was to understand why those sensors exist ubiquitously to point to why removing them isn’t necessarily easy or smart. You seemed to have interpreted it completely wrong.
But what do we do about externalities, like when the value is for other people? I don’t get much value out of my turn signals, but I assume other drivers do…
Do you blindly assume that regulators are right 100% of the time? If they aren't , then by virtue of regulation being never removed in the long run, you will end up with inflated regulation for which some of it is done for no good reason.
This is absolutely true. This is how housing prices have gotten so bad in the United States, through incredibly insane zoning and all the other land use regulation around it.
Is there a particular regulation you would prefer to remove? If you list something specific, let's talk about other alternatives to removing the regulation that could cause better outcomes without reducing supply in that market.
From what I'm seeing after some basic googling, there is a fairly pronounced effect in terms of collision rates when people have backup cameras. And a small screen hooked up to a camera is pretty benign in terms of complexity.
If the US weren't so obsessed with enormous cars with terrible visibility, I think this would be a different conversation.
I'm pretty sure backup cameras are required because they reduced children being run over and killed... You can't see a small kid behind your car with by just mirrors or turning your head.
Many cars and especially SUVs and trucks are tall enough in front that you could not see a small child right in front of the vehicle. Wide A-pillars also create blind spots that can hide pedestrians and bicycles. Where are the calls for forward- and side- facing cameras to eliminate this claimed risk?
Anyone who has ever driven a car will note that they have ~200 degree peripheral vision to observe things moving in front of you, while the limited FOV of your mirrors does not provide that for what's behind you.
Unless you really struggle with object permanence, a child somehow ending up in front of you without you seeing them is not a frequent occurrence, compared to one ending up behind you.
But yes, American cars are stupid big and should be smaller.
>The C pillars are too large and the body too high for you to get good sight to anything behind you in a modern vehicle.
Which is the work product of the 2000s era of "legislate to make cars better" advocacy.
90s SUVs rolled a lot, so they changed the rules to require them be strong, Strong made them hard to see out of in reverse so they added cameras. Now because both are regulatory required, at substantial cost, you can't even make a small vehicle that doesn't have both.
It's not like the Subarus and Volvo wagons of the 00s were lacking in rollover strength or rear visibility, but now that you have to have the features by law and when all the dust of engineering tradeoffs settles the modern analogues wind up just as bad to see out of as everything else, because why wouldn't you if you're required to have the mitigation technology. No reason for 2020s Subaru shove that stupid steel bar in the pillar (at great expense) to keep it sleek and skinny when they have to have the fat pillar mitigation tech installed by law.
How many times we gonna run laps of this feedback loop before we decide the problem is systemic?
Backup cameras being required by law is a consequence of cars being absolutely disgustingly large for any average use case, at least in the US where I live.
I go to South America a lot to visit family and for business and the cars by and large are much more maneuverable, small and nimble, and you can actually see most things around you.
But then every time I get back on my first car ride I'm greeted with an absolute monstrosity of a vehicle. Even the average sedan feels gargantuan. Due to this people can't realistically see very well behind them. Never mind the fact that most cars the rear windshield isn't even that large anymore, and in some vehicles head checks don't even work well because the columns are right in your view.
I understand some of this is in the name of "safety", but realistically it feels like it trading one safety measure - safety for the people inside the vehicle - at the expense of another - those outside the vehicle.
That is false. Safety engineering sometimes only mitigates risk, but often reduces it to practically zero, such that people have to be deliberately negligent to prevail in bringing about a safety incident. E.g. elevator holds 15 people, yet 45 somehow jam themselves in as a stunt.
Partial safety mitigation isn't so much how safety engineering works; it's how it ducks out of working due to non-engineering reasons. If any safety issue remains, that means engineering was not done in that regard: the safety engineers were excused from the requirement to design anything for that risk.
I had a flippant stupid reply. So they got a stupid flippant response.
Typically when you are reversing and there is likely to be something sat behind your vehicle (like a child or a pet). You are parked. You can you know look before you get in the car.
If you have parking sensors it will alert you to something walking behind you anyway.
The point being made is there are way to deal with this without the need for a rear camera.
> Typically when you are reversing and there is likely to be something sat behind your vehicle (like a child or a pet). You are parked. You can you know look before you get in the car.
The point being made is that there are ways of mitigating the risk. That for some reason you are other people don't believe can be done at all. This is patently false.
Also just because there is a camera and a screen doesn't mean people will look!
> Is a backup camera not a way "of mitigating the risk" when reversing?
You knew I was referring to other methods mitigation the risk and decided to get a quick jab in at me. That was disingenuous. I don't appreciate it.
> Which is easier, installing them in new vehicles, or making a billion drivers undertake remedial training in basic safety?
Driver awareness can be done through other means than re-training.
> If you say so. I've gotten angry on here, but it takes a lot more than someone who thinks they can see through their bumper.
I never said that and obviously don't believe that. Funny how at the start of this reply you were pretending you weren't engaging in that behaviour. I wouldn't bother replying, you won't get another one.
Of course, ideally people see the child and do not hit it. When atypical incidents happen, we call them accidents, and when they start happening at rates we find unacceptable we often engineer solutions to make those accidents less likely.
This is why we have seat belts instead of telling people "you idiot you should have used the brakes!"
Don't patronise me. You've done it twice now. I find it extremely irritating.
The point being made is that many of these things can be mitigated by better driver training or driver aids which are much simpler & cheaper (I am likely to fit parking sensors in my older cars, kits are cheap).
If you find out a way to retrain everyone on the road more cost-effectively than a $30 backup camera, do implement it. (Don't forget figuring out how to get people to maintain those skills.)
Until then, I'm glad my car has some safety features that protect me when I get rear-ended in stopped traffic by someone who wasn't paying attention.
So you accept that better driving training would be better.
> If you find out a way to retrain everyone on the road more cost-effectively than a $30 backup camera, do implement it. (Don't forget figuring out how to get people to maintain those skills.)
As time goes on, older people stop driving either they stop driving (they realise they are too old to drive) or they die.
If you implement better driver training. Then newer driver have to do that training. So over the overall minimum standard improves.
A $30 camera is something that doesn't improve the overall minimum driving standard. It is a band-aid over a bigger problem.
> Until then, I'm glad my car has some safety features that protect me when I get rear-ended in stopped traffic by someone who wasn't paying attention.
Crumple zones have been standard in cars for like 30 years now. That rear camera isn't going to help you.
> So you accept that better driving training would be better.
Oh, certainly! But it needn't be exclusive. (And "teach people better" is a lot harder than running a wire to a $30 camera.)
> As time goes on, older people stop driving either they stop driving (they realise they are too old to drive) or they.
They drive far, far too long on average. I'd love to see an annual requirement to pass a driving test over 60, but… old people vote.
> A $30 camera is something that doesn't improve the overall minimum driving standard.
Sure. It improves the "backing up" bit only.
> Crumple zones have been standard in cars for like 30 years now. That rear camera isn't going to help you.
Both are safety mitigations, for different aspects of driving.
I'm glad I can both survive a rear-end crash and being reversed over by someone driving a Hummer with a six foot high blind spot in the back. I don't have to pick one improvement, which is great.
> Oh, certainly! But it needn't be exclusive. (And "teach people better" is a lot harder than running a wire to a $30 camera.)
But earlier you were pretending that it was the case. Interesting.
Do you not remember?
> I'm glad I can both survive a rear-end crash and being reversed over by someone driving a Hummer with a six foot high blind spot in the back. I don't have to pick one improvement, which is great.
Are you saying the mandated camera doesn't stop someone from reversing over you or that the hummer doesn't have the camera, but won't kill you because the camera is mandated by law in other vehicles?
> But earlier you were pretending that it was the case. Interesting.
Hardly. Just that "teach people" is tough, expensive, and time consuming. "Install a $30 device" is not. (In your now flagged last-last-last reply to me, you advocated for PSAs. As we all know, they worked great to stop texting while driving!)
> Are you saying the mandated camera doesn't stop someone from reversing over you or that the hummer doesn't have the camera and the hummer won't kill you because the camera is mandated by law.
I'm saying I'm glad the Hummers now have backup cameras, because they sure as shit can't see me with the windows/mirrors.
> No you were pretending that it couldn't be done. You specifically said earlier people were too stupid to learn because many people couldn't tie up their shoelaces.
This remains entirely true. That's part of why it's tough, expensive, and time consuming. People do dumb things. Much of safety is figuring out ways to lessen opportunities to do so, and mitigating damage when they manage it.
See, for example, aviation/medical safety, which take the approach that individuals making mistakes is an indictment of the system that permitted that mistake to occur. We engineer them away, as much as possible, with pretty great success overall.
> I knew that. I thought I deliberately misinterpret the sentence so you would be forced to clarify. You did to me several times in the other thread.
No, I still wanna know how you stop time between checking behind your car and getting in, starting it up, and backing out, so no kid/pet/whatever can run behind it in those 10-15 seconds.
I do a lot of work on my own vehicles. I think a lot of the responses are from people who do not.
Paying for vehicle repair labor is basically a tax. They're making it harder and harder to fix your own car. I spent the afternoon yesterday trying to find headlight assemblies that didn't need to be coded to work correctly. Headlights.
All the outrage about right-to-repair around here, and nobody realizes the frog is almost boiled around repairing cars.
I agree that there are lots of useless things in cars, but the tire pressure sensors on my base trim 2013 Honda recently saved me a big headache.
I recently pulled out of a business and the "low tire pressure light" turned on right away. "Hmm?" My next stop was 1/4 mile away, and it still felt okay. At the next parking lot I checked all the tires with my gauge and found one was 10psi low. On closer inspection the nail was right on top. Sure enough I'd picked up a little nail. It was a slow leak, and I wouldn't have heard the hiss. If not for the sensor I might not have noticed I'd gotten a flat until I got on the freeway.
PSA: Check your spare's air pressure. Mine was supposed to be 60psi. It had 40psi, which was good enough to get me to the tire store. I checked the spare when I got home - the tire repair crew had bumped it up to 55psi.
My dad was leaving on a trip recently. Because 'spare tire psi' was on my mind I checked his spare - it was only 25psi.
Spoken like someone who hasn't owned a late model car.
>I can put it one that is better than the factory one for a cheaper price
As someone who used to be involved in the car audio competition scene, those days are long gone. Modern sounds systems are great, and tightly integrated into the A/V system.
>the sensor that tells you if you have a flat tire
The sensor will tell you when there's a rapid drop in pressure. You won't notice the flat until you're near driving on the rim.
>the emergency call button (while everyone has a mobile phone these days), automatic regulating seats (pulling a lever is too much difficult), dual zone clima control (it's the same space in the same car, why I would want to set 2 different temperatures?)
Old man yells at great features.
>they no longer provide you with a spare tire, just an useless repair kit...
Yeah, they provide roadside assistance. Because changing your tire on the side of the road is dangerous (as is driving on the donut).
> Yeah, they provide roadside assistance. Because changing your tire on the side of the road is dangerous (as is driving on the donut).
As is waiting on the side of the highway for an hour (possibly in the winter, possibly in the dark) until AAA arrives. Also, allowing you to pay for roadside assistance isn't the same as "providing" it.
I found a similar thing on a cheap water heater. California requires an additional sensor to ensure the heating chamber doesn't overheat. It's not common generally, and the error messages when it triggers are not that helpful. After a few years of intermittent water heater failures, I finally realized that there was this sensor that was causing all the problems. I bypassed the sensor with a 1K resistor, confirming the issue, then had a new sensor sent out under warranty. Quick swap and it's been back to normal. I never found any documentation or repair advice that even considered that the sensor might be bad, and since it was California-only, most repair guides or technical documentation didn't mention it.
It's really easy to have a sensor failure that indicates a major repair is needed, when the actual issue is the $1 sensor.
I was shocked that we started replacing glow plugs one at a time.
I drove a 2002 diesel Jetta for a few years. $80 for all four glow plugs. It’s a no brainer to do them all. This was probably ~2015, it was old when it was written off.
This year, the cheapest I could find one (yes, just one) for my 2013 was $135 online. Cheaper online than a mechanic friend of mine could get it through any of his sources.
There is a compression sensor in there now adding cost, apparently.
Aside, I had never heard of a glow plug, after working on a few generations of cars... I figured it might be a US vs rest of the world thing with naming something like a "spark plug".
But I looked it up and for the benefit of anyone else who's never worked on diesel, it's part of the diesel ignition cycle it seems. TIL!
Diesel being injected into the engine isn't ignited by a spark, but spontaneously by compression. This can't happen if the temperature in the cylinder is too low.
Having your fuel being ignited by the engine running, as opposed to something like a spark plug, has interesting side effects like dieseling and runaway.
I do have some beef with the prices of these electronic gadgets in the car. 300€ price for a new sensor or something similar? Sensor costs are usually a single digit or below. Somehow vendors found a way to inflate that price and this is destroying the repairability.
With the prices of sensors, I was astonished and I thought the garage was having me on. I looked up the prices online and the garage weren't taking the mickey (it was withing 10-15% of what they quoted me).
> A lot of this seems to be over-engineering IMO. This is alluded to in the article, but not explicitly stated.
I think a large part of the problem is that a sort of very scientific "modify a single variable at a time" type of engineering culture permeated academia a couple decades ago and now we're reaping what we sow.
The sort of practical "I snipped this corner so now they pack neatly four to a box from the supplier and I altered that curve so now there's clearance for more types of wrenches around the bolt head and I smoothed out the rib shape for die longevity and in doing all that I reduced the mass by 6.5%" type stuff that engineering culture used to look up to has been replaced with KPI chasing "You told me to reduce mass by 6% and I reduced mass by 7%, 2nd and 3rd order consequences be damned" engineering culture that used to be fairly confined to the rich half of a certain continent is now what is worshipped.
And likewise you get spiraling complexity because the only thing holding it back is the bean counters (when doing so is a priority) whereas before there was kind of natural restraint keeping it back on both sides. So as they go around updating platforms and models and sub-assemblies as whatnot the compliance ratchets up, unless the mandate at the time is to reduce it.
Same ... I'm still running an early 2000's Toyota and got myself a VW Beetle 1969 just for the fun of it ... love maintaining them as they're so simple and rewarding and parts are cheap! ... And I can in no way be called a mechanic.
I've been lusting over the ioniq 5 for a couple of years but I'm just thinking, in 10 years time I'll be knee deep in your last paragraph ... I like long lasting cars
Yep. There a bunch of minor issues with my vehicle that I was procrastinating on, but the brakes lights not working is very illegal and unsafe, so that had to be fixed before I drove it. Was really pleased once I realised what the issue and managed to fix it.
All the newer cars feel like iPods with wheels and the driving experience is horrible. I am not interested in them.
I think in time we see a similar trend with EVs. They are, by many metrics, vastly less complicated in terms of hardware. Software, of course, is another matter.
You think that software isn't complex because you've never seen it.
What should it do when the throttle pedal goes from 0 to 99 percent? That's likely an electrical issue, not a driver command to plow through the school zone. I could probably think of a dozen such scenarios, and the true number is probably in the hundreds. They all have to be proofed mathematically. With redundancy.
There is fundamentally no difference between a golf car and an electric car other than a higher top speed and more powerful motor.
> What should it do when the throttle pedal goes from 0 to 99 percent?
How fast? 0->99% in 1 second is likely the user gunning it. 0 to 99 percent in a millisecond is likely a fault. In either case, the simplest solution is a capacitor in-between the signal and throttle. Doesn't need to be particularly beefy to get the job done.
The problem is you are thinking about this as a software problem when it's an electrical problem. There are a lot of electrical components that have instantaneous response times, well known curves, and perform exactly the jobs you'd want faster than what you can do with software.
You want to minimize the amount of software between the accelerator and the motor precisely because you want to make the car as responsive as possible. Putting software in the middle creates delays and needs for very complex real time software and more expensive components.
But an EV has instant torque; going 0-99% in one second is probably unwise and not fixed by a capacitor. Software's what helps us not strip the rubber off the tires, or mitigates a slipping wheel on ice. It's a lot more than a capacitor at work.
The gas pedal on an EV isn't connected to a passive rheostat gating the entire power output of the vehicle.
It's a low-voltage sensor. A capacitor can swallow a transient of a 0.1v signal bursting to 5v for ten milliseconds, and then software converts it into whatever "sport mode acceleration curve" the marketing department calls for.
> There is fundamentally no difference between a golf car and an electric car other than a higher top speed and more powerful motor.
That's the most willfully ignorant statement I've seen all week. It's like stating that there's fundamentally no difference between a giant squid and a fruit fly, because both consume organic matter and can propel themselves. Probably the only interchangeable part between the golf cart and the electron electric car is the tire valve stem cover. And most everything else operates on completely different principles, even if superficially they look similar.
Tell me, what's the different principles that an BEV motor uses and a golf cart motor?
What's the fundamentally different principle that the battery operates on?
Rather than just say "nuh uh". Educate me and other commenters on where the differences lay.
Because honestly, I think you're the ignorant one. You think because they are a different shape they have different operating principles.
There are differences, obviously, a golf carts doesn't need airbags, HVAC, or crumple zones. However, when it comes to the drive train, about the only fundamental difference is that BEVs have bigger motors and bigger batteries.
There's a reason average people have been able to convert their ICE vehicles into BEVs. It's that the most complex part is storing the batteries and attaching the motor.
Are they actually proving correctness in the auto industry as a matter of course? My understand (could be out of date) was that there were a few partnerships with universities for a small part of the stack.
That's a wild statement from someone who has never built a commercial ev. Like all industrial hardware, the portion protecting from what shouldn't happen is twice as complex as the section regarding what should be happening.
There are certainly safety devices that I elided over. For example, checking the battery temperature is pretty crucial.
But, my argument is that EVs aren't complex. I could even grant your 2x number for safety measure and you'd still end up with a much simpler device than you can pull off with a comparable ICE engine.
I'd also point out that a lot of the parts are already "off the shelf".
There's a reason we saw a slew of pop-up BEV manufacturers all at once. It's because the manufacturing complexity is simply a lot lower than it is for an ICE line. There are far fewer parts, far less complex parts, and the parts are more readily available.
> The cars I work on are from the early 90s and everything is very simple to understand.
If you were to take an older, simple to understand car, and add all of the modern features through aftermarket addons, you would end up with a car that is no longer simple to understand. They were simple to understand, because the feature set was simple compared to a modern car. (And I miss them dearly - can't wait to retire to find the time to find that love again!)
I read an article yesterday about how a simple nail puncture besides affecting tire sensor light, throws off traction control, abs, and all sorts of computing. what would be a 15 minutes patch and go job turns into an hour job of resetting computers and sensors.
I recently had to replace a traction control sensor on my BMW -- it was a pain (and would've been expensive if I had a pro do it), so I can relate.
But it's worth noting that modern traction-control makes life wildly safer for the average driver up north. I was driving an icy Vermont ski road with winter tires, but (because I hadn't yet fixed the sensor) no traction control. There were 2 pretty terrifying moments and I'm an experienced driver. Your average American can't even drive manual, there's no way they're compensating for low-traction winter mountain roads properly in all cases. I'd rank it more critical than any of the backup camera, TPMS or FCW features, and maybe on par with ABS for those of us in cold areas.
Now if I lived in LA, I'd just hold down the "DTC" button to disable traction control on bootup and forget about it.
Any recommendation how to start learning repairing a car? I have absolutely zero experience. A friend of mine said just learn to change a tyre first and I have been procrastinating since.
I went down this route in the early 2010's. In preparation for an over landing expedition I wanted to have mechanical knowledge to be a sort of "mechanic" on the trip so I bought a bunch of "project cars" and began tinkering. While it WAS a lot of fun and I feel smarter, it was a total waste of time.
To save you all the trouble of all I went through, it was fun debugging mechanical stuff, but ultimately there is no "self-reliant car owner"
It all comes down to tools and parts. You need easy access to a lot of both or else you are limited to extremely ugly temporary fixes which amount to super gluing your engine back together.
On our overland trip, when we had an issue, it turned out impossible to fix without a massive lift and air tools, so all my years prep was essentially reduced to having a few extra words I could tell the actual mechanic capable of performing the fix.
If you still want to go down this route I recommend the book "zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" and have 4 Saabs you can have lol. I'll even throw in the clutch kit you can't install without a custom Saab tool.
> but ultimately there is no "self-reliant car owner"
We are rare, but we exist. Prior to moving on from it due to an unrelated injury, for the decade prior I did all my own work including numerous engine swaps on my vehicles.
However, this is because as noted, I had the tools and parts. I had all the spanners and sockets I needed, easy access to parts via wreckers and parts networks, and had my own engine crane and stands. My vehicle of choice for most of that time was 2x 1987 Toyota MR2 AW11's.
I mostly got into it because it was my "non computing" hobby for the most part. And for the time I spent engaged in it, I really enjoyed it.
I got a fixed gear bike with the promise it'd be easily fixable at home. The reality is you need a special tool for more than half the things you'd wanna swap/change
Commit to doing all the maintenance on your car yourself to start getting comfortable with it. Easy jobs to start:
-replace cabin air filter
-check for even tread wear
-top up the wiper fluid
-replace the windshield wipers
-take off a wheel and look for tears in rubber bushings or grease leaking from seals.
-replace anything broken like switches, trim pieces, etc.
Assuming it’s a gas car:
-replace engine air filter
-inspect spark plugs
-check fluid levels: brake fluid, engine oil, coolant
-check 12V battery voltage with the engine off and also running
-change the oil
Gosh, I didn't realize people weren't learning these things anymore, just as a matter of normal life.
I'm an early(ish) Millennial woman from the suburbs, from a family with no meaningful mechanical knowledge or training of any kind, and I've done most of these things.
I would have considered myself pretty ignorant about cars prior to reading your comment. Thanks for shifting my perspective to seeing myself as having at least a useful basic familiarity with things!
Great comment because I wondering the same thing. Do people not do any of those things on their own anymore? At a minimum, changing the oil was something I did with my dad as a kid. The hardest thing I've done was probably change a starter.
ICE's are conceptually pretty simple. Anyone who has built a computer should be able to do basic car maintenance if they want to. The electronics is what makes newer cars more complicated, and I assume EVs even more so.
It probably varies between EV manufacturers, but my Tesla Model 3 has been the easiest vehicle to self maintain that I’ve owned yet. Mostly due to how little maintenance there is, but also because of the completely open and online factory service manuals and parts manuals.
It’s ridiculously easy to look up a part number, order it online from wherever is most convenient, and follow the steps in the manual to replace it.
I had the opposite experience with my 10-year-old Model S.
Most parts could only come from Tesla, including the Bilstein struts (a part number Bilstein refuses to sell to anyone but Tesla). $900 per corner.
USB port between the console? $400. I found a used one on eBay, fortunately.
When the wheel rotation sensor receiver went bad, it cost $2500 for them to install and reprogram the replacement, because they "upgraded" to a different mfr. When that one started to go bad (water ingress, which wasn't cured by the new part), I sold the car and said good riddance.
The vast majority of people make a very stupid decision by selling to a dealer and not selling private party.
A lot of Americans become very low IQ in the context of any car related financial decisions. Off loading their vehicles is one of the classic examples of this. Do NOT sell to your dealer. Carvana is the only exception and only because you can easily offload messed up cars to them without disclosing it.
It depends. I've gotten good prices from CarMax before, but like the other responder said, you have to research.
The other thing is that it's not always low IQ, but many people value simplicity. Do I want to show a car, deal with cashiers check fraud, flakey people, etc... or do I want money literally right now? I've sold cars to CarMax and I've sold cars and boats privately. The private price I think I can get has to be considerably more than what I can get with zero hassle.
Your friend is right IMO. Do something simple first. Like a broken piece of trim, replace a light bulb, change the wiper blades yourself and build yourself up. I had repaired bicycles/motorcycles before hand.
Past that. I literally go on YouTube and watch someone do the task I intend on doing. I have the service manual downloaded for the car (people dump scans of the manuals online as PDFs) and a Haynes Manual (about £20).
Over the last 6 months. I've gone from barely being able to change the wiper blades to replacing a turbo.
I bought an older vehicle(s) that have a good aftermarket parts market and are known to be easy to work on. The simpler / less refined the car is the easier it is to work on.
A word of warning. Usually these things are simple, but not always. Either way, you'll get your hands dirty, and mind off other things.
The YT video for changing my cars' front light bulbs was less than two minutes. After half an hour and a lot of scratches / bruises, I thought I got it done. Started the car, checked the light goes on and off. Scrub hands from dust and dirt, be happy.
Mandatory inspection two months later found out that it was pointing so badly off that their targeting device could not even get a reading. In other words, I had been blinding oncoming traffic. Car didn't pass inspection, I was defeated, and took it to the mechanic.
He also spent twenty to thirty minutes on readjusting the bulb, before it was done and up to spec. It costed only 15 euro, though, as they also expected it to be a 30 second operation.
I guess my point is, don't get discouraged when things don't work immediately, or don't work exactly like a manual / video makes you think. Often it's a learning experience, and while those can be fun, they also sometimes are very much not.
(I'm also a complete novice, and not particularly enjoying the experience, just not affluent enough to pay for all of the maintenance work.)
I don't think there's any incentive for them to scam like that. The inspection shop I took it to was not a repair shop. Also further inspections for the repairs can be performed in any qualified shop.
I had to replace the full wiper system on what is a project vehicle (which I intend to daily once it is all fixed). It took me several months to get the wiper system all working again.
The main problem I ran into was
- Parts that were marked as compatible that were absolute rubbish. You would there is little difference between one brand of wiper arm and another. Apparently not!
- It takes 2 days to order a part from the internet. The nearest part supplier is a 30-40 mile drive. So if you forget to order a part you are either waiting another 2 days or you have a 2 hour drive.
As a result. I ended up rebuying all the parts about 2 times and I should have gone to a local parts dealer where they give you either Genuine, OEM or quality aftermarket. The thing is that I compared the genuine parts that did work with the ones I bought from ebay and visually there is little difference. So now I only buy Genuine, OEM or quality aftermarket.
It is all part of the learning experience. Even though at the time it was frustrating.
Lightbulbs are horrendous these days. On my first car they were like changing a room light bulb, you just reached in and changed the bulb. More recent cars I've had to take the battery out or pull out the whole headlight assembly. It's good to have an idea of how the bits of the car fit together and the main components but significant maintenance is only for hobbyists or people with a lot of time on their hands.
When I was first driving I went through how to change a wheel with my dad and also brake blocks, oil changes that kind of thing. Even my dad who has rebuilt engines from scratch normally goes to the mechanic for everything now.
For what it's worth, headlight alignment is not something a lot of people think about or even realize is a thing - it's just changing bulbs, right?
With any DIY car repair, you always run the risk of things like this, where you don't-know-what-you-don't-know. But it's still worth the ride and the lesson, imo.
YouTube is fantastic if you already diagnosed the problem and know what part you need to replace. You just follow along with the video, pausing while you go. It’s perfect.
YouTube is kind of shit for diagnosis, though. Most of the videos just gloss over it. “Hey guys! So, my fuel pump is dead, so here’s a video on how to replace it!” Ok, thanks, but how did you figure out it was the fuel pump? Not a lot of YouTube content along those lines.
I've found the best knowledge on that front are youtubers who buy beater old cars, get them running again and maybe even restore them to resell at a profit.
Their videos are between 20-60 minutes and run through the general process of going from no-crank-no-start to running, which is basically the same for all gas-powered cars. Diesels are a little different.
You need two things for your engine to run: fuel flow, and spark. If it starts but doesn’t run everything follows from there. If your starter motor doesn’t turn it over start there instead.
Buy POS 30yo car and just start getting it in shape to be daily drivable. You can typically screw things up three times over before it'd be cheaper to pay someone.
All you really need is the internet. China tools via Amazon are "fine".
Not disagreeing, just elaborating, about “fine” Chinese Amazon tools.
I needed safety wire pliers to assemble some brake rotors. The metal in the ones I got on Amazon was softer than the metal wire they came with such that the cutting edges got little wire-sized dents in them and increasingly useless the farther I got along in the job.
Returned those afterward. Junk.
But there’s other stuff I’ve gotten from RANDOMLETTERS Amazon that’s actually holding up “ok.”
Also, Harbor Freight is a better source of ok/fine tools where you don’t need quotes around those words.
The saying goes Harbor Freight is probably good enough for any tool you can afford to have fail. If your physical safety depends on it or if you use it so much that failure would cause a lot of downtime, you should probably spend a little more.
Theses kinds of questions have no easy answer. Ive done a lot of my own auto work including an engine swap with a friend years ago. This stuff comes with experience but it helps to grow up with an engineer father with a machine shop. It also helps enormously to have gear head friends and have a life long interest in mechanical workings.
Repairing a car these days is not the same as it used to be but I would start with the basics: maintenance items. As you mentioned, changing a tire is a good first step as it will teach you how to secure and jack up a car *safely*. You should also get familiar with tire pressure, acceptable tread wear and tire rotation. Once the tire is off you'll see the brakes and the suspension components. Disc brake pads are simple to change and a good next step: two bolts, caliper slides off, pop out pads, compress piston, insert new pads, slide and bolt back on, done. Under the hood, there are a few educational and simple maintenance items like checking and changing your: air filter, oil and oil filter, brake fluid reservoir, coolant level, and power steering fluid. The above items are like 90%+ of all garage visits.
These items are all part of various subsystems which make up a car so as you work your way through you will get a feel of what things do. With experience you'll be comfortable with popping the hood and getting your hands greasy. I also want to mention that you can and will get hurt, scrapes, small cuts and bruises are not uncommon, it's rough work at times. Take your time, be safe, wear ppe, and work with someone if you can.
Don't worry, would be my main advice. Find an official service manual online and follow it. Avoid following YouTube advice without checking the manual as well. Many people on there are not the smartest and will make things difficult for themselves or dangerous for no reason. (I only like M539 Restorations and The Workshop nowadays)
Aside from that, get a clunker or, even better, a motorcycle to work on (if they float your boat, of course). Motorcycles are wonderful because everything is easy to reach, light and usually kinda sexy for the year and price.
Again, don't worry too much. You can rebuild an engine if you have the tools and follow the manual. It's all just following steps. Just don't get clever if you're lacking a tool or something. Take a break, get what you need, don't start doing "clever" things because you feel like it's life and death to finish something right this moment, and you'll be good.
Edit: Oh yeah, and a welding course is probably a good idea down the road. I keep delaying it, but it'd be useful, and it'll also surely be kind of fun.
Youtube is one of the best resources. Almost every time something goes wrong, I was able to find a video of someone fixing that part, usually on the same model of vehicle.
Scanning for codes is useful too, every manufacturer has their own scan tool. For example BMW has ISTA+, Ford has Forscan.
I think that as right to repair laws become more prevalent, there will be more information generally available.
Youtube kinda sucks for anything that isn't an enthusiast car with a big following but is old enough that it went past beater car and to "you don't see these much anymore" status before Youtube became a thing. Thankfully paper manuals are good and cheap for that kind of stuff.
I've done this for a little while, it was fun. Something I didn't expect going in is that 90% of my time was spent in removing parts that were rusted stuck, or hard to apply torque to (e.g. a bolt in the middle of an engine somewhere with very little clearance)
Unless your car is very new, you have all the stuff you need to learn to change a tire in the trunk. Watch 2 short YouTube videos and go do it. It'll take you half an hour. You should use a torque wrench but if it was that critical, one would be in your trunk.
After that, look up your maintenance schedule, pick a job, then go figure out if you can.
When you get into bigger jobs, have a tow company and shop ready in case you run into problems. Mobile mechanics may also be an option.
Look at your local community colleges if you are in the US. a lot of them have classes for simple every day car repair to classes to become a certified mechanic
The reality is that learning how to repair modern cars yourself without the help of someone experienced is a great way to get yourself killed.
You might not know about Harbor Freight jackstands being far overrated and thus kill yourself by assuming that they will hold their rated load.
You almost certainly cannot find more than some youtube videos about how to do things on your post 2015 vehicle. Haines and other repair manual companies don't exist or on life support and haven't made a new guide since 2020 at the latest.
The average entry level talent, i.e. the folks at Jiffy Lube/Vavoline, are often doing things so wrong that it'd be better to never try to "learn" in an environment where they will impact and strip your oil plug, up-sell grandmas with fake dirty filters and "blinker fluid" stories, etc.
If you don't have an actual experienced mechanic to learn from (i.e. someone who can strip and put back together an engine and it runs perfectly) - don't even bother! I'm not joking and I'm exactly like you in that I want to learn to work on cars! But I've learned that the tactics that allow you to get to making 300K a year in tech without much of being taught by other people do NOT work with cars. You WILL need to socialize with a master mechanic. There's no other way.
oh btw - most of the stuff like oil and car related gunk that will touch you when you work on cars is TOXIC AS HELL. Same with what you will breathe (most people don't mask when they should in a garage and they often don't ventilate too).
Do these even still exist? And is it reasonable to get one road-legal somewhere like the U.S. for less than the cost of buying one (once you assign at least some value to your time)?
I'm not in the US so no idea ... but according to answer in Google:
> All Caterham models are imported as rolling chassis. They are street legal in the U.S. under EPA kit-car regulations and can be registered through processes specific to individual states.
I'd love a kit car that wasn't ridiculously expensive and/or designed to be raced. But I can understand that the kind of people who would invest the time in building a car would be okay with those propositions.
I wonder if there's a market for building something purely utilitarian, like a little hatchback or something, as a kit vehicle - with the express purpose of learning a lot of automotive principles along the way.
Fuel pipe from pump (tank) to engine is a single, molded, hard-plastic and inflexible pipe. Connecting it to new quick release attachments on either end requires a heat gun. At the factory they can heat-shrink the connectors onto the pipes as there is no fuel in the car.
When my quick-release snapped off[1] while I was replacing the fuel pump, dealer quoted my ZAR17,500 for a replacement pipe. To actually install it would require removing everything under the car because it is inflexible and molded to the shape of the car.
Older cars had less efficient (i.e. thicker OD pipes with the same ID) fuel pipes, but they were flexible and easy to route. They used standard clamps which are available for cents right now. The advantage of the newer pipes is that:
a) Cheaper to install (done by robots), and
b) With the quick release joiner, easy for a robot to snap on the connections on either end.
With the older, cheaper and repairable flexible pipes, the manufacturing process required a human. The more expensive pipes result in a cheaper-to-assemble car, even if the BOM is higher.
-----------------------------------
2. Heater blower motor refusing to come on.
The AC units (including heater and blower motor) are controlled by low-current signals. This lets the unit have a rotary encoder when the human wants to adjust blower speed manually while still allowing the microcontroller to adjust blower speed when the user simply sets a target temperature.
This requires an additional current-splitter to limit the current to the blower motor (controlling the speed) while maintaining the voltage. When the blower is spinning at a low speed current is dumped into a heat sink and the blower gets very little current. At high speed no current needs to be dumped and the blower can spin at full speed.
My current limiter melted. This required a manufacturer-only replacement, as the digital signals controlling it are completely opaque to the technician (me) fixing the car.[2] Older cars without the rotary encoder had physical switches that switched the blower motor between one of 5 output speeds. Anything in the older system that broke can be replaced by standard switches and relays.
Anything, even the smallest component, in the newer HVAC system that breaks means you have to hope like hell that the manufacturer is still making parts for the car.
In this scenario, a 1995 mid-range car is going to outlive a 2025 mid-range sedan.
-----------------------------------
3. Engine and transmissions!
This is the big one: a 2015 car that, after 20 years, has a worn out slushbox, might have to be thrown away! Why? Because if you are unable to replace the clutches and springs and other parts inside the slushbox due to lack of parts availability, you can't simply swap in a new one, or replace it with a manual - the car is going to throw up a dozen diagnostic codes and probably won't even start.
That 1995 mid-range car? The engine and transmission are not coded to work with each other only. Swap in a Toyota v6 engine+transmission into a broke-ass Ford? Sure, why not?
Same with the radio. In older cars the radio was a swappable unit with standard sizes. In new cars the infotainment system is rarely a regular shape, and in those cars where it is nothing but a screen, it's still hooked into the CAN bus to deliver warnings!
You can upgrade your 1995 mid-range car to use the latest in infotainment technology (maps, voice commands, etc) by simply buying a head unit off Amazon. You cannot upgrade your top-off-the-range Range Rover, Mercedes Benz or Audi just 4 years after purchase!
-----------------------------------
My point is this: the older cars can, with simple mechanical and electro-mechanical non-manufacturer parts, effectively run until humanity just doesn't have fuel anymore. The newer cars will, once the manufacturer stops producing parts for them, have to be scrapped.
There is little incentive for the manufacturer to continue producing parts for a 10-year old car, and that gets even smaller as the car ages.
In fact, I completely expect, as time goes on, that manufacturers would (if they haven't started already) code each component to the VIN or secret key so that parts from a breakers yard won't run in any other car even if it's the same model.
Their preference is: When the radio breaks, it's time to buy a new car or live without a radio.
--------------------
[1] Plastic that over time got brittle.
[2] With a lot of work and lugging my ancient 'scope to the car, I could have worked out what signals were being sent (if digital; analogue would have been easier of course, requiring only a multimeter), designed a circuit around a MOSFET or similar and used a tiny microcontroller to read the signals and control the current.
Planned obsolescence of durable goods is a nasty, brutal thing. MEs and SWEs in the space ought to be speaking out loudly about the abuse of their trade.
It does seem everything is over-engineered or under-engineered and cannot be taken apart. The Electrical stuff I mentioned because I was working on it over the weekend.
It's pretty simple (in the US, can't speak for elsewhere).
There are 2 big factors at play:
1. Margins. Manufacturers make huge margins on expensive vehicles and very slim margins on cheap vehicles. The numbers differ, but I think even in the lead up to the 2008 crisis automakers had to sell 5-10 "econobox" cars to make the profit they made on one luxury car, SUV, or truck.
2. Normalization of debt. For many Americans, having a monthly car payment in perpetuity is considered acceptable. Car loans have their place and can be used responsibly, but due to marketing, sales tactics, and cultural sensibilities what often ends up happening is that people start from a monthly dollar amount and then work forwards to buy the most expensive vehicle they can, even if it means taking the loan term out to 72 or 84 months. It's also very normal for people to never pay off their car, instead trading in the vehicle after 3-5 years and rolling equity in the loan over to their next car. Obviously, this consumer habit is great for dealers, manufacturers, creditors and buyers of consumer debt, as well as the US Government and investors -- it's just not ideal for the consumers themselves if they're trying to preserve wealth and build savings.
These two factors create an environment increasingly hostile to the cheap entry level car. Consumer demand is low since most don't spend responsibly, and automakers don't really want to make or sell them because the margins are so slim.
My reptilian-brain logic prevents me from even considering getting a loan for car. Houses increase in value, therefore it makes a certain amount of sense to get a loan / mortgage for the purchase of a house (but mainly because no-one - in the world in which I live - can afford to buy one cash).
Cars decrease in value, very quickly. Getting a loan for a car is throwing more money away than buying a car in the first place.
Having said that, I'm immune to a lot of 'social norms' so I've been fine driving my tired-looking 20-year old Outlander soccer mum car or our 10+ year old grannymobile Nissan Leaf.
There are situations in which a loan for a car may be necessary, but I'd have to be a really tight spot to consider it, and I'd be absolutely minimising the size / length of it.
It's not merely an issue of obtaining materially desirable consumer goods though; lots of folks get car loans because they can't afford to buy a car, even a cheap car, without one. So it's either, don't get a car and give up a lot of opportunities or hope you live in a place with decent public transit (which is not a given in many places in the US)
> lots of folks get car loans because they can't afford to buy a car, even a cheap car, without one.
Then they shouldn’t get a new car, full stop. Older used cars can be perfectly serviceable with some research into lemon patterns and a pre-purchase inspection by a trusted mechanic. I have found the vlogger Car Wizard to be particularly accurate in his assessments of which used vehicles are great buys and which ones you need to stay the hell away from.
None of my cars are less than two decades old, and none of them cost me more than a new one would, even after the purchase price and all repairs, maintenance, and fuel are added up. If you manage to choose wisely, it is unlikely that you would ever pay more on a used vehicle, even over literal decades, than you would with a new car.
Now sure, you will never be able to own a new shiny. You will never be able to peacock around in a brand-new vehicle. But trying to impress people via copious displays of wealth is a fool’s errand. Intentional attempts at external validation always are.
You can always get an used car for practically any amount of money. A lot of time an used car is even more reliable than a new shiny car full of useless electronic components.
To me buying new cars is just throwing away money, simply because at the moment you brought the car out from the dealer the car just is worth 3/4 of the price you payed it, and when you have to resell it in 10 years it is worth almost nothing.
Unfortunately many people don’t see cost, debt, and cars that way.
Imagine you get your first car, it’s used and a bit run down but you’re paying $250/month on a modest loan. Nothing crazy but you needed a loan and a car that was modestly reliable.
You get a couple of small raises, eventually the car is in the shop more and you feel you deserve a better car because of the hard work and long hours. You see ads for a new car at just another $100 per month on TV. $350/month would be tight, but you feel you’ve earned it.
You go to the dealership only to find the car you really want is closer to $500/month which you can’t afford.
The salesman says “let me see what i can do,” comes back from the finance office, and voila! Got the payment down to $375/month. It’s more than you initially expected but maybe you just don’t go out to eat as much. You’re sick of your old rust box, always in the shop. And you’ll probably get a raise soon too. So you sign.
And bam, you got a 6, 7, or even 9 year car loan. You don’t realize how much insurance will increase. You haven’t had a new car yet so you didn’t even think excise tax would be that much (for the first year of a new car its typically a lot) and now you’re struggling in debt with a new car that lost 20-35% of it’s value right off the lot, so you’re underwater on the loan.
Long winded story to say for many people a car is an emotional extension of themselves. Identity even, and it’s difficult to break that into a more utilitarian mindset. Thus justifying the high cost and debt is easier than if you were looking at it as just a way to get to point A and B
> A lot of time an used car is even more reliable than a new shiny car full of useless electronic components.
And a lot of time it isnt. Not everyone wants too or can afford to take that gamble. Sure, i've had luck with it, but that's because I can perform my own work upto and including dropping and replacing an engine if I need too.
On the other hand i've seen people who could least afford it end up with total stinkers that drained their wallets.
>You can always get an used car for practically any amount of money.
sure, but you'll quickly make up the difference in repair costs when the bucket of bolts you paid ~1k for starts breaking down every 3-4 months.
And, of course, you'll have to make arrangements to get to work to pay for those repairs while the car is in the shop. Which may have it's own associated costs if you're using uber or a taxi or whatever.
Better hope little Timmy has a way to get to soccer practice as well. And hopefully there's no other appointments that have to be accommodated for. It was pretty difficult getting time off to get that bum tooth checked out...
> you'll quickly make up the difference in repair costs when the bucket of bolts you paid ~1k for starts breaking down every 3-4 months.
A lack of adequate maintenance and a failure to identify lemon patterns when choosing the vehicle is always something that can be trivially avoidable.
I’ve had vehicles for over a decade where the repairs on it amounted to a hundred or so a year, at most. Right now I’m swapping out a CV shaft on a 2001 Mazda 626 that has seen ZERO major work done on it in its entire life.
Do the oil changes at twice the recommended cadence, keep on top of every tiny problem, and any vehicle whose entire model line has never demonstrated systemic issues will continue to be highly reliable and low cost to operate. For example, many years of the Crown Victoria fall into this category. The 1997 and 2007 models, in particular, were absolutely bulletproof if maintained correctly.
Even when purchasing a used vehicle, there are many vloggers out there that can help you avoid lemon lines - entire model years that should be avoided - in favour of vehicles that will stand the test of time. Car Wizard is one of my more favourite ones, despite disagreeing with some of his more blanket opinions (European cars, for example).
> To me buying new cars is just throwing away money
Why should a car manufacturer care about your preferences if you're never going to buy new from them?
It's annoying but people like us who care about things like TCO are probably never going to buy new cars under any circumstances, so our concerns about electronic components don't motivate designers.
Even if we might help residual values of leases and buy used parts, our influence over car companies is radically lower than new car buyers.
I think the way most people rationalise it, it's a pre-requisite for having a job. So it's income-generating and therefore morally ok to take out a loan for it.
You could list a few, otherwise I'm just guessing at what you mean.
Your work requires expensive gear - maybe it's a car, or smartphone, or computer, or ebike, or HVAC tools, or camera, or musical instrument - why not pay for them over time as they help generate income?
They do, by a lot, if they're in desirable cities. Probably what's really increasing in value is the grandfathered permission to have built a house, but there's no way to separate that from the house.
Every part of the house depreciates without maintenance. At some point the house will depreciate and the lot will be worth less than it would be if the house was already demolished.
> Every part of the house depreciates without maintenance. At some point the house will depreciate and the lot will be worth less than it would be if the house was already demolished.
That really depends on the market. There are areas near me where property prices have increased so rapidly they outpace any losses from depreciation. Not necessarily a good thing of course as it does lead to very expensive houses and difficulty with people trying to buy their first house.
Maybe houses made out of paper that you have in the US would, since just after 100 years they have to be demolished and built again. But houses made of concrete, that we have in Europe, just increase in value.
Yes, maybe you have to renovate the interiors, such as new floors, new electrical/hydraulic, new heating system, etc., but that is usually a small expense in contrast with the price of building an house from scratch.
Old brick house is just another old house. Moisture problems in the foundation area, no heat insulation on the roof and walls. Probably wooden beams in the floor. Everything is old and outdated decades ago. I am certified electrician in Germany as a hobby and work in such properties very often.
Meanwhile new house is cool in summer and warm in winter. It’s silent with spacious rooms. It is also not affordable for most people too. Old house is a middle ground when one doesn’t have enough money. There is no way to upgrade in sane way old house to modern standards.
No, because the value of permission to build a house on the lot can be a lot more than the cost of renovating it (even when that renovation cost is higher than the cost of building a new house on that lot). If you don't have another way to get that kind of permission (e.g. maybe it's illegal for you to contribute to the unaffiliated PAC supporting the mayor's reelection campaign because you're a noncitizen) it can be virtually priceless.
Getting a loan for a car seems quite natural to me. A car provides service flows over a long period, so why not pay for it over a similarly long period? In the first year or two the car's value is probably below the outstanding loan amount, but beyond that it's likely to rise above it, so you're free to sell and walk away from the arrangement.
Granted, high interest rates might make this a bad deal, but the principle seems sound. I bought my previous car on a 7-year bank loan at 2.5% and didn't regret it.
Given that the car drops nearly 50% value as it leaves the lot, I'm not sure how this every pencils out before maybe 10 years 100k+ miles...Maybe these days given how hot the used car market is (driven by the expensive nature of newer vehicles), but again this is a chicken/egg problem.
Your loan is exceedingly abnormal or from a past time as the average loan % in the US is much higher on that time scale.
It loses (less than) 50% relative to the list price, which is an important reason not to pay the list price. I'd estimate that the last new car I bought lost less than 10% relative to the price I actually paid (although selling via a dealer would probably lose another 10% or so).
On the loan rate: yes, fully agreed, this was an unusually good rate, and that makes the arrangement much more attractive.
Your logic works out fine if you don't mind a dash of risk (e.g. from a job loss). But when I ran the numbers from my perspective it didn't seem worth it. (I might be doing my math wrong).
Let's say I get a car that costs $30k, I put $10k down, and I take a loan out using the numbers above rounded up just for napkin math (1% APR, 4% savings account).
After one year:
```
$30,000 x 0.04 = $1,200 from savings account interest
$1,200 x 0.33 = $396 in TAXES from the interest (assuming you earn over $145k/year in California)
$30,000 x 0.01 = $300 in loan interest
Total earned = $1,200 - $396 - $300 = $696
```
Don't get me wrong, $696 isn't _nothing_ but I personally would rather have the feeling of not owing people money then an extra $696 at the end of the year. Add in depreciation from getting a new car and it's almost a wash.
>> I could pay off my car tomorrow. But I'll have more money in the end keeping that cash in the bank. Why would I pay it off early?
> Your logic works out fine if you don't mind a dash of risk (e.g. from a job loss).
I notice that no part of your comment actually describes this risk. What is it? Assuming you have the cash in hand, and it's earning more interest than the interest on your car financing, how would losing your job affect the situation?
The only effect I see is that it will dramatically increase the amount of that extra interest you actually collect, by lowering your tax rate.
I don't live in California, taxes are less. There is no risk from a job loss, I could pay it off tomorrow. You're also only looking at one year of a several year loan.
Sure, more expensive buying a new car. But I was going to get a new car anyways, the question is loan or no loan.
I don't care too much about depreciation. It'll probably be in my garage for a decade or more so that's just paper losses today, and once again I was going to buy new anyways.
I thought this was the main reason to take the loan given an opportunity. The longer the money is with me, I could use it as an investment(mostly S&P 500)
It depends. There are a whole bunch of weird complex financial interactions between the mfg, the dealer, and the loan provider (who is often also an arm of the manufacturer). There can definitely be situations where the dealer makes off better by getting you into a loan even though the loan provider is almost sure to lose money on it.
The cash is fungible, so for a fixed amount of money and interest rate it really doesn’t matter if the thing you’re buying depreciates or not (assuming you’re buying both things anyway).
100%. And it doesn’t help that large cars as a cultural touchstone/status symbol really took off. Even if a $25k car existed most people wouldn’t buy it(even if they “should”).
I'll have my 2020 Subaru Impreza paid off in a couple months. That was just under $24k. I don't think the price has gone up much on the Impreza in the last 5 years.
False equivalence. You can do without cigarettes and alcohol, but not without cars in majority of the United States. Only about 10% of the adults smoke vs car ownership in American households is 90% with almost 40% owning more than one car. Comparing what you necessity with a discretionary expense isn’t fair.
Comparing what you necessity with a discretionary expense isn’t fair.
A car might be necessity, but spending more than say $15-20k max on a (second hand) car is a discretionary expenses for the vast majority of people doing so.
I think the bigger issue is the need for a car. In most of the US, everything is built with the assumption you'll be driving to it (workplaces, stores, facilities, etc).
So everyone has to have a car. So your social mobility is limited by the fact that you need to have the money for the expenses that go with it in the first place.
3-4 cities with decent to good transit are the exception, but the fact that they're so desirable and with such high housing prices means that they aren't really accessible either.
Cash For Clunkers took a ton of used vehicles off the market
Stricter environmental standards have also taken otherwise working cars off the market, by preventing used dealerships from selling them in general, and making it more difficult/more expensive to insure them
The days of buying a used car for 2 grand are long gone
Cash for Clunkers was important not because of the volume of cars it took off the market but because price points are sticky.
Before C4C garbage cars that ran but probably needed something were "I want it gone, $500". After C4C the same vehicles sold at the C4C price and the price point has more or less stuck. It completely turned the beater car market upside down.
That's a little steep, but you gotta grade mileage on a curve -- if it's reasonably maintained, it'll keep trucking for a lot longer than that, it should be plenty for a starter car. I mean, I'm biased, since I drive a (very well maintained when I bought it, high mileage) 2007 Prius that I bought for ~7.5k...8, 9 years ago? and I'm still getting ~40mpg and it survived some pretty questionable maintenance and care on my part.
10 grand feels steep, but for a solid car that'll easily last another ten years with minimal maintenance, good fuel economy, I don't know that you can do much better these days, and it doesn't feel unreasonable.
Oh, sure, I was thinking of a car relatively comfortable parents could get a kid without overspending or spoiling too much, it's not super in reach for a kid working part time.
Sure, totally. I was perhaps assuming a certain level of affluence from a HN commenter discussing buying a car for their daughter, but it's true that I described a heavily used premium economy car rather than the complete "at-least-it-starts" clunker that represents the actual bottom of the market.
In Europe, the average age for buying a new car is 50.
This means that most of the cars sold are second-hand.
Most people think that the car is a luxury and prefer to focus on their home first, then their family, and after that, their car.
I am from Brazil and although most cities are 100% built around cars, public transportation IS an option and mostly works and is (somewhat) affordable.
Unlike the US, if a place is 1km away as the eagle flies you can get there by walking ~1.5km max. And there are bus services and although often overcrowded or with low service, they do run and you can plan your life around them.
Yet everyone still buys a car as soon as they can afford one (or often if they can't). And they use it for commuting to work every day.
To get to the point that Europe is in where even rich people don't want cars or if they have one it is for weekend trips. You need to do a lot better than this.
Unfortunately getting the US to be like Europe in this regard is not really viable, but it could get to the point where Brazil is where the poorer people can afford to not own a car.
In some big cities in Brazil they do a lot of low-cost things like dedicated bus-lanes that actually make some high-demand trips shorter by bus. Progress in this area needs to be incremental, there is little point in investing crazy amounts of money in one big project. Instead the investing should be lower and constant.
sometimes one big project can make a big difference, like a new rail-bridge or metro. But in general getting people into busses is more efficient even if that means rich people still won't want to get into that bus.
> To get to the point that Europe is in where even rich people don't want cars or if they have one it is for weekend trips. You need to do a lot better than this.
It's not like that in all of Europe either, the further you go from Western Europe, the worse the public transit gets. The Balkans are probably the worst, you need a car if you live outside a city as rail and even busses are slow, unreliable, or just not an option in your place.
It is like that in Western Europe as well, "if you live outside a city" you need a car. However small cities don't have the massive gridlocks that big cities have so they can support a car-centric life.
And sure taking a train sure is faster/nicer for long travel, but in practice what matters the most for the economy and people's life/health is the daily commute which mostly happens inside cities.
But you don't quite get how it is in the US (and Canada). In the US it is "if you live *inside* a city" you need a car*, no matter if small, large, or metropolis.
> the daily commute which mostly happens inside cities
Well, some countries are far more centralized than others. The daily commute to/from cities is a huge problem where I live, to the point that cities are flooded mostly with outside commuters. Trains and busses could solve that very elegantly, but nobody’s investing in that.
the further you go from Western Europe, the worse the public transit gets.
It's not really an East-West thing. Downtown Sofia for example has much better public transportation than many 'secondary' and rural towns in Germany and France.
But that's Downtown Sofia, how about the rest of the land? That's what I'm trying to say - yes, it's fine if you live in cities, but outside of that, it's not so easy. Whereas Western Europe invests much more in having efficient transit in smaller and rural towns.
Yeah, getting rich people in buses is probably impossible. But making 90 % of all journeys cheaper and more convenient for 90 % of people is pretty doable.
>having a monthly car payment in perpetuity is considered acceptable.
I think that really depends on what part of America. At least where I grew up around a bunch of middle class conservatives listening to eg Dave Ramsey (who has other problems IMO) most people think of you as reckless/irresponsible for doing that sort of thing.
Dave Ramsey is perfect for the type of people who need Dave Ramsey. If you’re a standard deviation or two above the median person in terms of having your shit together and being smart about personal finance you can do a few things more optimally than he would recommend, but the advice that works for that person could easily ruin most people.
Agreed. For example, he strongly advises paying off one's house first. While this is good advice for many/most who struggle to save and invest, it's not optimal for maximising returns on a given portfolio. If the interest rate is below expected investment returns (minus tax and other subsidies, discounted for volatility), it can often be optimal to invest rather than pay down mortgage debt. It also means more liquidity in the case of sickness and redundancy. Equity in one's home can be difficult to access without some hefty fees or interest rates.
I was always confused why he was popular until someone told me to think of Dave Ramsey like vaping. It's great if you're currently a 2 pack a day cigarette smoker, but bad if you don't currently smoke. That cleared it up for me.
> I think that really depends on what part of America.
And the age of the cohort... Millennials (1980 to '95-ish) have had student loans since as far back as they can remember. What's _another_ never-ending monthly payment?
My wife and I are millennials and we paid off our student loans within a couple years once I started my career. I don’t even remember if it was before or after we got married and we’ve been married for over a decade now. Maybe we’re fortunate but I can’t imagine still having a monthly student loan payment.
Of course I also absolutely hated being in debt and having a monthly payment to begin with so I made it a priority to solve that problem asap. Likewise, I have always paid cash for every car I’ve bought. My only never-ending monthly payment is my mortgage and the alternative to that is paying rent which I like even less.
Fundamentally it’s a mindset thing. I also don’t buy taxi rides for my Chipotle orders.
I have a very similar mindset, but, man, mortgages hurt. At least when paying rent the money goes towards a real person. With a mortgage such a big chunk of the payment is the interest that just goes to this faceless entity that is the bank.
Most of my landlords were faceless entities too. Obviously I’d rather the house be paid off but I didn’t have $300,000 in cash and I have to live somewhere.
I'm a younger (1994) Millennial and borrowed just $10k to finish my degree. I paid it off the first year I was employed. Very few of my friends still have loans. I'm pretty sure if you got yourself into a never-ending monthly payment situation you probably shouldn't have gone to college to begin with.
I grew up around a bunch of middle class conservatives in the Southern USA and almost all of them were into debt on house, car, often even taking loans to pay for kids private school.
And you'd never know until the family divorced and their lifestyle drastically decreases.
Dave Ramsey has to be relatively new because debt was extremely extremely common among conservatives in the US (no idea about liberals didn't live among them)
Houses are a depreciating asset. They require constant maintenance expenses just to hold their value. It's the land under the house that's the appreciating asset.
Sort of. In a lot of areas, the cost of the house has skyrocketed in the last few decades. One factor is that you can’t buy an empty lot and then build a 20 year old $250k house on it in most markets. If you want to build a house, that house will be new (obviously — relocating an old house is a real pain), and the costs of construction are silly. This effect inflates the value of old houses in a lot of markets.
Of course, in markets that don’t have plenty of inventory of both empty lots and lots with old houses, it can be hard to value the house by itself.
It seems there's a whole spectrum from lifting houses to put a new first floor below them, to moving them a bit, to moving them several blocks in a city. (to big building projects too, historically)
I saw a house in progress being moved, 30 years ago. Great thing to take a kid to see!
It is done, albeit rarely due to how expensive and complex an operation it is. My friend's mother moved her house a few kilometers across some farmland. It was a rather large 2 story tall house, with a basement. It had to be moved to a plot that had a similar foundation and basement prepared for it.
Maybe - we’re trying to sell a deceased family member’s block of land that might be worth more in the market if we demoed the building because it’s unliveable.
Cars are a necessity in pretty much most of the country. Even in areas with good public transit, people who are most likely to go into debt to buy a car are also more likely to live further away from public transit and commute for work. Outside of New York, I can’t think of another city where living without a car is really an option.
Well, around Chicago some of the smaller suburbs have a nice little downtown and are on a train line into the city. If you lived near that you might get by just using online shopping and uber if you occasionally needed to go somewhere. There is bus service too but it's not that good.
But in general, and in the larger suburbs yes you would be pretty inconvenienced without a car. But that is true of suburbs everywhere.
Philly's transit access can be hit or miss, but when transit lines up, it's transformative. I moved from central PA to a Philadelphia suburb in 2006, a three minute walk to a regional rail station. It was an hour fifteen into the city (most of the time), and I'll take 1:15 on the train over 0:45 of driving every time. After a few months of figuring things out, we dropped from two cars to one.
Now I own a rowhome in the historic district of the city, we're opening the first floor as a museum within the next year, and I walk everywhere. All forms of transit (bus, trolley, trackless trolley, subway, light rapid transit, train, ferry) take contactless payment (finally) and these days, rideshare fills in the gaps.
Wages are higher in the suburbs, but I can get to a sizable international airport in 15 minutes by car, to the Amtrak station in 20 minutes via $3 subway, and I can walk to grocery/hardware/bakery as well as bars/restaurants/galleries/venues/museums/etc.
A car used to be a very, very important part of my life, and now it's more of a luxurious convenience.
Bay Area (including SF) public transportation is generally terrible, definitely not at all a great option for people who can’t even live in SF but have to commute to SF because of how expensive it is.
If you are forced to commute into SF for your job, then make living close to BART a top priority. (Many years ago, I met many people who suffered through that daily commute, but refused to make living near BART a priority. It was dumb to watch.) BART is a miracle train system (hybrid commuter rail/metro/subway), even if the coverage isn't great.
Or Caltrain. The new electrified Caltrain is a massive improvement: it runs at least every half hour all day, every day. I don’t know whether it was intentional on the part of the agency, but they stumbled upon the obvious phenomenon that many people will not use a transit system that runs too infrequently and that, conversely, if you have infrequent trains with low ridership, your ridership might return if you increase frequency.
Most of the people I knew lived in East Bay, but you raise a great point! The peninsula also has insufferable car traffic, but can be avoided during daily commutes by carefully planning your home around Caltrain.
Just because it’s in top 10 within the country doesn’t mean it is great and that people don’t need to rely on cars most of the times. “Just live near BART” is a laughable proposition since half the BART stations outside of SF do not have enough housing around them and the ones that do, have high density luxury apartments that aren’t exactly affordable to people outside tech and other high paying careers. Then there’s the question of “do I also work near BART?”, “buy groceries near bus stations?” Or “go to the hospital only near public transit?”. Answer to all of those questions is “No and I still need a car”.
Nobody said it isn't debt. The difference is that it is debt that makes sense: you can't realistically buy land without it, and houses tend to appreciate so the interest costs are less of a problem - they just represent the time value of money.
Most other debts people incur personally are to buy things they could save for, which go down in value. Like cars.
Ramsey is very niche. People who are good with money will find his advice some combination of obvious and bad. People who are bad with money will tend to either not want his advice, or have a hard time following it. A few people are in a sweet spot where they’ll actually follow it.
There's often companies willing to compete with small margins. For example, grocery store business is already known for small margins in the US, and one of the recent winners that's been expanding a lot is Aldi, which is known for its consistently low prices, so it's unlikely their margins are any better.
You can still buy a new subcompact car (like a Renault Clio or Skoda Fabia) in Europe for under 20k EUR.
The more interesting question is why these cars disappeared in the US. And while many of the factors discussed here are true for both EU and US (inflation, interest rates, manufacturer profit margins etc) I am surprised no one mentioned the 'SUV loophole' of US regulations that effectively boosted the SUVs (off-road vehicles are classified as non-passenger automobiles with everything that entails, notably much less stringent emission standards) and made the small cars unprofitable to make in comparison.
If you had spent it, you might still be alive, and if you aren't, it's hardly wasted, since you no longer need it.
Jokes aside, I live in the UK, and occasionality I see vehicles here that are entirely too big and unnecessary for our roads.
There was a lady driving what I think was a Defender 130 (I don't know modern LRs too well), it was far too big for the parking spaces in the tiny car park we were in, she could only just see over the steering wheel, and she had no chance of seeing my 5yo child I was walking back to my car with; who's quite tall for 5 but didn't reach over the height of the bonnet.
I’m not sure, a lot of people seem quick to blame children for “darting” in to the road instead of accepting responsibility for operating a dangerous machine.
People lay the blame on children and their parents because if they choose to do their best bipedal impression of a deer there's really nothing a driver can do. One could be going 10mph and if a child darts out from parked cars at the right time you're gonna hit them. Heck, adults get hit by forklifts and other heavy equipment going single digit speeds all the time and even workplaces that separate traffic nearly completely don't eliminate them at scale.
Ignoring extremists is easier than preventing (or reducing to a point that you stop complaining) these accidents at the limit, so that's what society does. Tough luck.
The average car driver is NOT putting enough active attention into their driving and could in many cases break fast enough to prevent the accidents that do happen. Furthermore, the average car driver has not been trained on how to actually handle extremely rapid braking situations. A lot of people are downright wusses about dealing with the "whiplash" of actually hard braking their cars. I'd even claim that over half of all drivers have not seriously applied their brakes at 100% at a speed above 20mph EVER!
Slow reaction times, of the kind that could be easily corrected by more strict laws around who and how licenses are given, are easily the #1 reason for preventable pedestrian deaths from cars.
This is a solvable problem and the Euros have far less of these stupid kinds of situations for a reason. I WILL blame most drivers who "kill children" for their laxidazy assumption that they can reduce their idle concentration just because "it hasn't happened to them".
Also all of this discourse is really arguments for requiring all cars to have active automatic emergency braking for pedestrians and other cars.
Reducing speed limits to 30 kph where there might be kids running out from between vehicles is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, yet drivers oppose this.
SUVs parked on the side of the street make it difficult to see even adults as they try to cross the street. It’s not the humans doing a reindeer impression, it’s the cars doing a forest impression
If nothing else, they'll roll up and off the hood of a typical subcompact instead of be pancaked by the 60" vertical wall that is the front of most modern trucks and SUVs.
The main point here is that it sounds a lot like a zero sum game, people are struggling to catch a bigger share of a limited "safety" pie while manufacturers instigating the mass war are watching their profits increase.
It's not clear at all to me how a crash involving two SUVs is much safer than, say, a 2 bike crash, and in fact there is a particular type of accident (front-overs of children) than trucks are strongly susceptible to and would never happen with lower mass / shorter vehicles. This all points towards a runaway tragedy of the commons that can be solved by limiting vehicle mass.
Except they're not though. Buyers are juggling many more criteria and safety is only a "nice to have" after fitness for purpose is achieved. Like no amount of internet fanboys screeching about Volvo's safety record will make someone who wants a roadster buy one over a Miata.
While I'm sure there is some amount of the affect you're describing the lion's share of it is likely CAFE rules favoring larger footprint vehicles effectively discounting SUVs causing them to be a better bang for your buck.
>It's not clear at all to me how a crash involving two SUVs is much safer than,
It is by the simple physics of having more distance to dissipate force over and less distance between the occupants and stuff in the cabin.
> This all points towards a runaway tragedy of the commons that can be solved by limiting vehicle mass.
Which will never happen because the same exact upper middle class demographics that screech all over the internet about safety are the exact same people who would see their buying choices degrade as a result of such.
If you would have to pay for mass (taxes etc) that would most probably influence people to go lighter. It also makes sense because heavier cars cause more road damage.
Is this a personal theory, a hunch, or do you have data or citations?
> of having more distance to dissipate force over and less distance between the occupants and stuff in the cabin.
So what we need are bigger vehicles made out of lighter materials, to increase the distance and reduce the forces, perhaps some comically large Styrofoam bumpers protecting our bikes? Now, I can get behind that.
> safety is only a "nice to have"
Buyers are a diverse group, you know. There is a substantial segment that rates safety as a the top priority, and there is very little doubt the SUV mass race is strongly related to the "perception of safety" larger vehicles provide, of course not to the actual safety reality and externalities they incur to the rest of society.
Another substantial segment is driven by the "perception of masculinity" their large vehicles provides. You couldn't make up this level of lameness.
>Is this a personal theory, a hunch, or do you have data or citations?
Find any "professional" talking on record about small car safety and they will lament the reduced space for crumple zones, reduced distance from head to structure, etc.
>Another substantial segment is driven by the "perception of masculinity" their large vehicles provides. You couldn't make up this level of lameness.
I suspect the number of people who see a big truck as projecting masculinity is in fact smaller than the people who enjoy that other people will assume they bought the truck for that reason and dislike or be offended by it.
You're giving people way too much credit here. People and, more specifically, Americans (who I know) will do some incredible feats of mental gymnastics to avoid taking personal responsibility -- despite what their bumper stickers and favorite politicians say. It's always someone else's fault and they're always (somehow ...) the victim.
> I am surprised no one mentioned the 'SUV loophole' of US regulations that effectively boosted the SUVs (off-road vehicles are classified as non-passenger automobiles with everything that entails, notably much less stringent emission standards) and made the small cars unprofitable to make in comparison.
This has become the irrelevant part because "does it have an electric motor in the powertrain" has become more important to fuel economy than vehicle size. There are hybrid SUVs that get better MPG than non-hybrid sedans, to say nothing of the full electric ones.
Which is another reason the average price is increasing. Hybrids have a lower TCO even though they have a higher initial purchase price. People who can do the math realize that paying more up front for a hybrid or full electric is paying less long-term. But then the market for lower priced new cars declines, because the people who can afford a new car can afford to pay a little extra for long-term savings and most of the people who can't afford to do that were buying used to begin with.
>People who can do the math realize that paying more up front for a hybrid or full electric is paying less long-term.
Can they? In long term maintainability decides. And hybrids usually has it with maintainability pretty bad. Large area of potential breaking, expansive spare parts usually with strong vendor-lock.
Hybrids are very costly in maintainability, even if you are privileged elite that buys hybrid and in two years resell it and buy brand new car, even then hybrids looses comparatively big percent of its original cost.
So people that buys hybrids, usually CAN NOT do the math.
- Regenerative braking can significantly reduce brake pad wear
Edit: - AWD is an electric motor on the rear axle. No driveshaft or transfer case required.
As long as you drive it regularly and keep up with scheduled maintenance, you don't have to do anything for well over 100,000 miles.
Replacing the traction battery after 10~15 years is cheaper than the additional maintenance required for regular cars.
1: Yes, it has an “e-CVT”. Which is just a set of fixed planetary gears. All “shifting” is done through varying the power output of two electric motor-generators.
No starter and no alternator? Hybrids don’t have an electric motor or a way to turn mechanical power into electrical power? Also they don’t have timing belts?
I’m not super convinced that accessory belts are a major cause of maintenance. I only recall having to do that once at around 120k miles.
I think there is a good argument to be made that implementations like Toyotas HSD are more reliable than plain ICE, but you’re not making it here.
Since I was specifically talking about Toyota hybrid, let me elaborate…
The gas engine has a timing chain and chain-driven oil pump. Everything else runs off the DC-DC converter.
The transmission is two motor-generators and an ICE directly connected by fixed gearing. This is used to start the engine.
The ICE in a hybrid doesn’t need any accessories beyond what the electric drivetrain already provides. Therefore, it does not have a starter or alternator.
There are a lot fewer moving parts that can break or wear out.
It’s a pretty elegant system that bolts a bare ICE to what is otherwise an electric car.
CVTs are generally less reliable than traditional transmissions, especially under heavy loads. You get better mpg in exchange. You don’t have an alternator, but you have a much more expensive electric motor. You don’t have a turbocharger, but in exchange you lose performance at highway speeds. So like most engineering problems, it’s all about tradeoffs.
Despite the name, "eCVT"s are mechanically unrelated to the CVTs used in gasoline cars. They are mechanically similar to a differential, and have extremely low failure rates.
I thought the Toyota Prius had been winning lowest TCO contests since it came out. I'm still driving my '07, and yeah, it's finally time to look at replacing it, but it's 18 years old and has almost a quarter million miles on it. Maintaining it hasn't been noticeably more expensive than, say, the older Civics I drove before it.
The Toyota hybrid system has basically no wear items. There are no clutches, belts, or delicate hydraulic systems. The whole thing is made with big hardened steel ring gears and two electric motors. There are taxis in Vancouver with over a million KM clocked with nothing other than fluid changes and brakes/suspension.
That’s not been my experience. Hybrids have several major advantages on the maintenance side. Regenerative braking means brakes need to be replaced far less often and keeping the engine off so frequently means it gets far less ware in city driving.
Electric motors outlast the vehicle, and significant battery degradation only results in slightly worse fuel economy.
There are a handful of significantly different hybrid designs. Some of the early designs were in fact just electric drivetrains slapped on to existing gasoline drivetrains, and were more complicated than their gasoline counterparts. But most of the designs that are more popular today are not that. Many of them eliminate some of the most problematic parts on gasoline cars and replace them with solid state components.
>Hybrids have a lower TCO even though they have a higher initial purchase price.
Is this conclusion based just on fuel consumption? From a relatability standpoint, it doesn’t make sense at first blush because you have to have both ICE and EV parts in series in the drivetrain; the total reliability can’t be higher than the individual components of they’re in series.
Depending on the drive trains being compared, the hybrid drivetrain may be overall mechanically simpler than an ICE. A series hybrid can easily have fewer moving parts, fewer friction spots, less reliance on fluid motion through little channels, etc.
And then you're also keeping the moving parts more in their happy zone of temperature, speed, and load instead of needing them to operate in as wide of conditions.
A hybrid, by definition, combines an ICE and electric drivetrain. While I understand it could be designed for a more efficient range of operation* how could it negate the downsides of an ICE-only design if it requires an ICE? (Are we conflating EV and hybrid?)
* This also means each segment is less globally efficient, meaning the system is less efficient if it has to limp along if one part is inoperable
The design of a powersplit hybrid (like a Prius) allows for consolidation and elimination of a number of common failure items on a traditional ICE vehicle.
- pure ICE needs mechanical gears or a belt-style CVT. a HV power source and 2 electric motors enable the use of a dead simple planetary gear set to change the ratio between ICE and the wheels.
- ICE needs a starter and an alternator. psd hybrids use the existing electric motors and a dc-dc converter to do those jobs
- belt powered components (e.g. A/C, power steering) are replaced by more reliable electric versions powered by the high voltage battery
- ICE needs small displacement, high compression, turbo'd engines to meet power and efficiency targets. Hybrids can get away with wheezy but efficient and reliable low-compression engines because the electric motors make performance acceptable
- ICE cars need to run their engine anytime they are moving. Hybrids will have 20+% lower runtime and that runtime will be spent at optimal RPMs and with minimal stress as bursts in acceleration are assisted by the electric motor.
The pure ICE transmission is probably far more mechanically complicated than the transmission of a series hybrid.
The pure ICE engine and transmission has to deal with some of the most stressful times the motor can handle, extremely high torque demands coming from a stop. Its far less stressful for an electric motor to generate good torque at such low RPMs.
I think you’re still conflating EVs and hybrids. A hybrid has an ICE that is distinct from the mechanical transmission. Hybrids tend to run off the ICE at high speeds because it’s more efficient and use the ICE to charge the battery.
A series hybrid or parallel series hybrid will often have a far simpler transmission in terms of moving parts and what not. You're right, they'll use the gas motor for power going highway speeds, but they're still a lot simpler. Many hybrids effectively only have a single speed for the ICE motor in their "transmission", some have 2-4, compared to modern ICE transmissions which are like 7+ gears.
Note, I do agree, there are some hybrid drive trains that are more complicated than their ICE counterparts, but it is not a given. Many hybrids are a good bit simpler in the end.
One example of a simpler setup would be Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive. e-CVT's can be radically simpler mechanically.
Yes, that’s why I put deliberately put “series” in my original post.
The math is clear: in series, the system reliability cannot be greater than any single part.
So if the claim is that hybrids are more reliable than ICE, there needs to be some sort of discussion about why you think the ICE is more reliable. You keep bringing up transmissions when the main point is related to the ICE.
Transmissions are required for ICE vehicles they aren’t required for hybrids. It’s one of the many failure points that can be removed.
As to in series being more complicated, starter/alternator + battery already has all the mechanical complexity of a barebones series hybrid. You could technically take a standard ICE car change only electronics and get some of the benefits of a hybrid. Obviously for reliability you’d want beefier electric motors, and … before you know it you’re building a more robust system than a pure ICE.
Yes, so the claim is that the complexity electric motors + batteries + planetary gears + all the ICE/electric interfaces are more reliable than a traditional transmission. I’m open to that argument but nobody has really elaborated in detail. Admittedly, I’m slightly skeptical (at least in the case of a manual gearbox) but would like to hear more detail.
> all the ICE/electric interfaces are more reliable than a traditional transmission
The argument goes like this,
ICE cars have an alternator (electric motor 1), starter (electric motor 2), battery, and transmission. A beefier alternator (generator) + starter (electric motor driving the car) + battery adds less complexity than a transmission. That’s the simplest EV design where the engine only ever charges the battery. It’s perfectly viable for a long range plug in hybrid that only ever uses the engine on long trips.
The downside is batteries have conversion losses, so most hybrids have various ways of directly using engine power which then adds complexity. But ultimately hybrids are more complicated than EV’s but very much can be simpler than modern ICE cars.
PS: Technically some old ICE designs like dynastart used to do the same as hybrids where the same electric motor acted as a starter and alternator but in modern ICE vehicles the tradeoff around now little time the starter is needed and how little power the alternator needs to generate means it’s more efficient to separate it out. http://www.isettadoc.com/files/dynastart.pdf
Thanks for taking the time to detail it. I think that’s a reasonable take.
A couple caveats:
1) most modern hybrids use the ICE at higher speeds for efficiency, right? What does that mean in terms of added complexity and reliability?
2) somewhat of a tangent, but in the original post was regarding cost of ownership, and reliability was brought into the discussion because cost is a function of reliability. But the alternator vs electric motor aspect misses the original point about cost, considering the motor may cost 8x-10x to replace.
All that to say, reliability and cost of ownership is complicated. I was pushing back on the overly simplistic takes and appreciate you adding some nuance.
> most modern hybrids use the ICE at higher speeds for efficiency, right? What does that mean in terms of added complexity and reliability?
It really depends on the type of hybrid in question. Those are series, series-parallel, or parallel. Some hybrids essentially just use an electric motor to assist in a traditional ICE-like drivetrain (parallel). This is the kind of setup you'll see in something like the Ford Explorer Hybrid or most of Honda's hybrid systems. In these cases, the electric motor just sits in the regular ICE drive train and supplies additional power especially in low efficiency ranges along with regenerative braking.
In an e-CVT setup (series-parallel) like what you would find in a Ford Escape Hybrid or most Toyotas using a Toyota Hybrid System or Hybrid Synergy Drive, the overall mechanical complexity of the system is considerably less.
> most modern hybrids use the ICE at higher speeds for efficiency, right? What does that mean in terms of added complexity and reliability?
There’s a lot of tradeoffs involved which I’m not an expert on. However, ICE cars need an engine capable of low end torque and a good efficiency across a huge RPM range, hybrids can use a much simpler engine design optimized for where the engine operates best because the EV side handles the low end just fine.
A hybrid engine is also used for fewer hours of operation over its lifespan so in general (because exceptions exist) the gas engine in an hybrid is more reliable than the gas engine in an equivalent ICE. That said, car manufacturers can use up that margin to save weight etc so it’s not a guarantee.
In the end it’s a huge design space, saying something is a hybrid doesn’t actually tell you much about what’s under the hood.
> most modern hybrids use the ICE at higher speeds for efficiency, right? What does that mean in terms of added complexity and reliability?
A typical ICE is most efficient when running at moderate load and somewhere between 1800 and 3000 RPM. That's what happens naturally at highway speeds, which is why traditional ICE cars get better MPG on the highway than in the city, and why hybrids run the engine on the highway.
Hybrids gain a large advantage in stop and go traffic because then they can recover energy through regenerative braking and contribute it back when accelerating, which allows the ICE to either run within its peak efficiency range or not run at all.
So on the highway a hybrid is basically doing the same thing as a normal car. It might eek out a little more efficiency by using electric boost when going up hill and regen when going down hill to keep the engine load more consistent, but it's nearly the same. But highway miles are what put the least amount of wear on a car.
It's stop and go traffic that causes the most wear because then you're putting high loads on the engine during acceleration (and using lower gears which require more engine revolutions per distance traveled) and burning through brake pads during deceleration. Which is the thing hybrids avoid doing by using the electric motor.
> But the alternator vs electric motor aspect misses the original point about cost, considering the motor may cost 8x-10x to replace.
When alternators or starter motors go bad it's commonly the components like brushes in DC alternator/generators or the clutch pulley or solenoid that hybrid motors don't have to begin with because hybrids typically use AC motors permanently connected to the drive shaft. AC motors are extremely reliable and will typically outlast the rest of the vehicle.
Ok, let's say you go stupid simple for the transmission and have a super basic classic four-speed manual.
Right off the bat, you've got clutch wear. In that e-CVT, there are no sliding clutches. Everything is connected all the time. Immediately, we see a wear component that will eventually need replacing. Not might need replacing, will need replacing. It is a consumable part, designed to wear.
You now have cable assemblies which will eventually stretch over the life of the car. Those will eventually need adjustment. Once again, these just don't exist at all with the e-CVT system.
Now you have a shifter and gear selector. This will need to slip in and out of other gears. Often this is not a perfect shift, imparting wear on the transmission components. Once again, you don't have a gear selector in an e-CVT, this wear never happens. This wear can cause premature failure of the transmission. This is largely controlled by the skill of the operator, sure.
Just a few quick examples. But this is then also an incredibly basic manual transmission, you won't find such a thing on pretty much any recent mass market car. These days you'll see complicated automatics with servos and what not to control the gear ratios, massively more gear ratios, rely on fluid channels to push things around inside, rely on computers to operate them effectively, etc.
And as Retric mentioned, there are analoges for most of the hybrid components in a pure-ICE car. You already have a DC motor set to drive the car in the starter motor. You already have an inverter, the alternator. You're not really adding a ton of new things, you're just massively upsizing some of the things you already have and massively simplifying a lot of the other components.
>there are analoges for most of the hybrid components in a pure-ICE car.
The error in this is in assuming the analogs have equivalent reliability or cost in each system.* (The original point is about cost of ownership). They don’t. So, while both have batteries, the reliability and cost of each is very different. Same with the ICE component etc. My issue is broad generalizations about reliability without speaking to the nuance.
I’m not set against the idea of a hybrid being more reliable or cheaper, but more against the superficial generalization.
* also the analogs miss some of the complexity. Yes, both have a battery, but a hybrid requires high voltage and auxiliary batteries, meaning the battery system is by definition more complex.
> The error in this is in assuming the analogs have equivalent reliability
The majority of my comment points out how the equivalent analoge on the pure ICE is massively less reliable than the hybrid. Who is ignoring the reliability of the different components here again?
Sure, there is a HV and a LV battery. They're both solid state devices and thus generally pretty reliable when it comes to cars. The LV battery faces far less wear. The overall system is considerably more reliable in the hybrid than the same in the ICE. It's near impossible to generally talk about the prices of something like the HV battery, it varies greatly based on what models you're talking about. One car might have a replacement used battery that's good for many years be $700, another might be extremely bespoke and rare and be $10k. If I were to judge prices of pure ICE transmissions based on extremely rare hyper cars I might say an ICE transmission replacement costs $20k or more. The details matter greatly when judging TCO on potentially low market cars.
If your point is you can’t talk specifics about price of ownership, you’ve wasted both of our time during this entire discussion. That’s what it’s about. A better answer would have just been like the commenter below, who said the information is hard to come by. A hardliner stance where there’s a lot of uncertainty isn’t a great hill to die on.
The hyper car argument is really just a digression and it cuts both ways (which I think was the posters point). If you want to compare hyper car prices, you need to compare hyper gas-only to hyper hybrid. But that’s not really germane to the generalizations being used here.
Where is your 98% claim coming from? The other poster made no such claim.
The irony is there is published info on TCO from companies like Edmunds and Kelly Blue Book. We can take umbrage with some of the factors or weighting, but it’s a better starting point in real data than anything bright up so far. A claim could easily be crafted using such information that addresses everything I’ve raised (maintenance, depreciation, different designs, etc). Yet the discussion seems almost wholly based on vibes and near-ideological bias. It reads to me as conclusions searching for data instead of the other way around.
The best I can tell from that information, TCO is largely a wash. For comparable manufacturers/designs, TCO over the first 5-10 years seems to be about the same. You can pick some designs that favor one side or the other, but in general they are roughly within 10% (usually considerably less) of one another. Given the uncertainty due to the variables in question, it seems reasonable to conclude there aren’t strong conclusions on TCO differences between them.
That's the thing though, you're lumping all hybrid drivetrains in together and assuming they're all equally reliable and equally have the same TCO math, as if "hybrid" means only one thing. I've been trying to tell you, "hybrid" means a lot of different things and really shouldn't be seen as one technology, "depending on drive trains compared" and all. Which is why I made a big point of mentioning my usage of "series", which flew right over your head.
When I'm talking about a bespke battery on a low-market car, I'm not talking about some hybrid supercar. I'm talking more about the hybrid compliance car trim levels that are only really sold in small numbers in some markets, like the Ford Explorer Hybrid. You practically won't find them in most states, they were essentially only delivered to a few markets in very small numbers. Its components are far more bespoke and thus expensive to find replacements. Pretty much nobody makes remanufactured batteries for this car. It's a parallel hybrid, so it still has all the complexity and reliability of the traditional ICE drive train. This is pretty much true of a lot of "the same ICE car, but now hybrid!" They're often going to be low production models, bespoke batteries, and probably a parallel hybrid. And I agree, good chance the TCO won't work out in the hybrid's favor in the end.
Compared to something like the Prius or Maverick Hybrid or the new RAV4, which are extremely mass market. These have a much different drive train than that Explorer Hybrid, being e-CVTs. There's a big market for remanufactured batteries since there are so many more out there. Parts are considerably cheaper, and thus they have (or will probably have, the new RAV4s are still new) low TCO.
Its not fair to group the Explorer Hybrid and the Maverick together as one category of "hybrid", since they're such different designs on how they operate leading to radically different outcomes on TCO.
>you're lumping all hybrid drivetrains in together and assuming they're all equally reliable and equally have the same TCO math
I’m not though, you’re just making that assumption. For example, as “comparable manufacturers” if I select Toyota (because it has a reputation for reliability) I can compare the Prius to the Corolla (because they’re both at a similar price point in their respective categories). This “should” favor the Prius because the Corolla has a CVT (which is known to be less reliable) but TCO comes out about 8% lower for the Corolla. I’m not lumping all together, I’m deliberately trying to make reasonable comparisons.
Now I could also pick and choose to go the other way with a similar comparison. The end result seems to be that there is a distribution of differences that are reasonably close, but with enough variance to say it looks like a wash in TCO. Point being, strong conclusions may not be warranted.
>Which is why I made a big point of mentioning my usage of "series", which flew right over your head.
It did not go over my head. In fact, I brought it up in the very first post before you responded. [1] I even reminded you of that [2]. This is why I’m saying it seems like you are reflexively responding without actually reading for comprehension or clarity.
That’s fair. But looking at the numbers for my locale, the effect size is extremely small: about 0.6% cheaper. So, to piggyback on the points made earlier, if we have high variance and small effect size, we probably shouldn’t be making any strong claims. The more appropriate conclusion is that there is no difference, or not strong enough data to make a claim one way or the other.
It’s not that small of an effect size relative to the upfront price difference. Subtraction of the initial cost of the non hybrid from both numbers is very reasonable because you know what that is for both.
Also, the payback for a more expensive upfront car at year 5 on a car likely to last ~26 years doesn’t mean they are also equal for the next 21 years.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding your point, but TCO factors in the upfront cost, including financing assumptions. I can’t think of a good reason why you’d want to disregard upfront cost when calculating TCO; it’s probably the #1 determining factor for most people buying a car. (And not to belabor the point, but the original claim was about TCO).
I’m not sure I would use the 25+ life because that doesn’t reflect how long a person will keep it. The depreciation captured by the TCO is a better representation of that effect.
I’m not discarding all costs, I’m looking at the difference in upfront costs.
Suppose I’m paying cash and it’s an extra 2,000$ by my TCO drops by 0.1% over 5 years is that a worthwhile investment? Without knowing what the car costs you can’t tell.
What matters is the difference in cost vs the difference in TCO. You’re buying a car either way.
I don’t think that’s an unreasonable take, but it does move us away from the generalization that hybrid TCO is lower. It’s like instead saying “Hybrid TCO will be lower if you pay in cash and live in a high fuel cost area.”
That’s a more nuanced take by adjusting the assumptions. Sometimes adjusting them is warranted, and sometimes it’s just to game the outcome you wanted.
It doesn’t change if something lowers or increases the TCO, it only scales the impact relative to the costs.
The cash on hand bit isn’t the only take, but if you’re comparing 5 year loans and only keeping the car for 5 years then you can ignore time value of money. Suppose the monthly payment is 50$ more and you save 60$ a month, sure it’s only saving 10$/month but that’s essentially free money.
It’s becoming a tired discussion, but this has already been covered. For someone willing/capable of dropping $30k-$50k in cash, $10/mo. is certainly a small effect size. Under certain cases, hybrid TCO will be lower. For example, if you’re buying an SUV, drive a lot, pay cash, and live in a high fuel cost locale. But that shouldn’t lead to a logical leap that hybrid costs are lower in the general case. (They still may be, but nobody has shown good, generalizable data to that point.)
I said loan not paying cash. We’re comparing if the drive train is superior, and the most cost efficient new car is a car. Upgrading to a 50k SUV is inherently a different question that has little to do with the drivetrain.
> They still may be, but nobody has shown good, generalizable data to that point.
The general case of someone keeping a vehicle for 8 years and driving 15k miles per year isn’t close, as long as we’re keeping everything else the same. EX: A 2025 Ford Escape ST-Line Elite has a hybrid option for an extra 1,205$. If the base price is significantly higher than 2,000$ you’re not comparing drive trains but options.
Plug in Hybrids are a separate category dependent on your local electric prices.
> Ah, ok. I didn’t realize “series” is a specific term of art in the EV space.
You acknowledged you did not originally understand what "series" meant when I was talking about a "series hybrid". And your "reminding me" is you continuing to show you were not aware of what my usage of the word "series" meant in terms of hybrid drivetrains and instead "using it in the pure reliability domain sense". And your first comment points out you didn't get the idea that a series hybrid doesn't have a lot of the same ICE components, instead it seems you had a parallel hybrid design in mind.
> but TCO comes out about 8% lower for the Corolla
In what timeframe comparison, 5-year? How many miles? Which gas markets, is gas $3/gal or $5? What does a 10-year comparison look like? Are you including residual value on the cars after that 5-year period to see a total cost after depreciation? What does a used comparison look like? And yes, why not compare the Corolla ICE vs Corolla Hybrid, wouldn't that be a more apt comparison? One is a sedan and one is a hatch, they're different cars with different branding presence.
Looking at the numbers, drawing that out from a 5-year comparison to a 10-year comparison (or more) would probably tilt the math towards the Prius being cheaper in the end, and I'd imagine even more so at a 15-year point. But we don't actually have these numbers, and these are projections of what these cars might have in terms of TCO, not any detailed study of actual TCO.
I was being polite to the other poster so I can address the more germane claim in their reply without getting derailed by explaining why the less important point was irrelevant. The fact is the series “term of art” in the reliability domain and the hybrid engineering terminology mean the same thing. They are derived from the same concept.
The numbers come from the Edmunds site. Eg fuel cost by locality, 15k miles a year etc. You can look at the site for all their assumptions, but some of it is proprietary.
>But we don’t actually have these [TCO] numbers
Exactly! So why are you making strong conclusions in the absence of data?! This is why it comes across as if you are an ideological argument instead of a data-literate one.
“I don’t have any data, but it just makes sense to me” is not the type of curious discussion I was after.
> So why are you making strong conclusions in the absence of data?!
I'm not even making that strong of a conclusion. I'm saying "depends" and what not, because I agree it can be fuzzy and not a hard 100% rule that hybrids are cheaper TCO. But I can make some amount of conclusion because I can look at a trend line and extrapolate especially when equipped with extra knowledge about how these systems work and doing my own projections on potential repair costs at a longer interval.
A 5-year TCO evaluation on a new car generally isn't going to figure in the differences between a motor failure or a transmission failure. They won't include a HV battery failure. Depending on fuel price differences it may not even cover initial pricing disparities but could come close. But I can see a rebuilt transmission can often be $2k or more with a lot of labor, and a rebuilt transmission can still be a roll of the dice. A remanufactured battery is easier to test pack health and know the state of the device and can often be only a few hundred dollars and easy to replace.
As you mentioned, the average ownership period of a car is a little over 8 years. The average life of a car far longer than that. Three years more of gas savings on that average first owner, considerably more over the life of the car. And someone especially concerned with TCO will probably be more interested in buying used and paying cash, not having to deal with as much depreciation and finance charges, and probably have their car longer than average.
> I don’t have any data
We do have some data, we have knowledge of how these systems work, we can see trends in component prices and more can make overall projections from it. Following the trend lines from the data we have, the hybrids do usually pay off in TCO. Am I a bit just taking a gut estimate for a general state of things? Sure. But I think I've sure shared a lot of logic as to why that would probably be that way. It is not just some completely empty guess with nothing backing it at all as you seem to suggest.
98% just meant not rare, as the person referenced “rare cars” vs everything else.
I’ve already looked at that those real work TCO numbers for a bunch of cars, that’s part of why I’m saying they’re reliable and lower TCO.
But there’s a big difference between saying that on average these things break down less across all hybrids and saying every single hybrid model is more reliable.
I agree there’s a difference. The OP I originally responded to made the claim “Hybrids have a lower TCO even though they have a higher initial purchase price.” That’s a general claim, and I was seeking information that can support it. I’ve largely received strong general conclusions based on weak general evidence. When pushed, people will seem to cherry pick specific cases, which to you point, isn’t good enough to support the original general claim. Perhaps we’re looking at different data (in which case I’d be interested in understanding why you like one set over the other), but in aggregate, I couldn’t find strong evidence that supports on side or the other.
The majority of hybrids ~70% fall under these models:
Toyota RAV4 Hybrid, Toyota Highlander Hybrid, Toyota Prius, Toyota Camry Hybrid, Honda CR-V Hybrid, Ford Escape Hybrid, Ford Fusion Hybrid, and Honda Accord Hybrid which have a lower TCO than their gas’s equivalents.
I don’t think we need to consider low production edge cases, to make a statement about the general case.
We may be seeing differences in locality, but the first one I checked (Escape) did not support your claim. The gas variant was cheaper than both the hybrid (8% lower) and the plug-in hybrid (24% lower) in TCO. I think this just speaks to my previous point about variance impacting our ability to make strong general claims.
Make sure you’re comparing equal trim levels. PHEV has
18-inch wheels
Heated front seats
Heated steering wheel
Partial vinyl and cloth upholstery
13.2-inch infotainment touchscreen
Navigation system
Adaptive cruise control (adjusts speed to maintain a constant distance between the Escape and the car in front)
Lane keeping system (makes minor steering corrections to help keep the vehicle centered in its lane)
Evasive steering assistance (enhances the forward collision mitigation system with steering-based collision avoidance)
Rear parking sensors (alert you to obstacles that may not be visible behind the vehicle when parking)
Good point. After adjusting for trim level, the gas is still cheaper but not as dramatically.
If I had to guess, you may be getting numbers from a high fuel cost locale. In the end, I don’t think the conclusion that it’s largely a wash is unreasonable. There will be areas with higher cost and those with lower cost.
you and Retric are using different definitions of "series". A "series hybrid" is a specific term describing a design that uses an ICE engine to generate electricity that powers an electric motor. This design replaces the transmission completely because the ICE rpm doesn't need to be matched to the wheel speed and the electric motor has a much wider RPM range.
Many series hybrids do have a way to power the wheels directly with the engine at highway speeds but it's generally much simpler than a full transmission. Most Honda hybrids for instance have a single clutch that connects the ICE to a "6th" gear.
> You keep bringing up transmissions when the main point is related to the ICE.
Ah, ok. I didn’t realize “series” is a specific term of art in the EV space. Thanks for clarifying. I was using it in the pure reliability domain sense (similar to the use in electrical circuits)
>less parts -> more reliability
This is the general heuristic but only true if the components in each system are equally reliable (and specific to the original claim about cost of ownership, equal in cost). I don’t think that’s true, and am asking for a nuanced breakdown.
For example, the hybrid ICE may be more reliable for good reasons (eg consistent RPM). Or the traditional battery may have half the reliability, but 1/50th the cost. All of that factors into cost of ownership.
> I don’t think that’s true, and am asking for a nuanced breakdown.
In my experience this kind of nuanced info is unfortunately pretty hard to come by. MFGs know it but have no interest in sharing it. Same for taxi operators (though the number of hybrids in taxi fleets is pretty staggering). Fleet operators usually only look at the first 5 years so longer term maintenance and repairs aren't studied all that rigorously. That said, here's a 5-year fleet TCO analysis where HEVs on average were 6k cheaper than ICE: https://www.afla.org/news/692431/The-Hybrid-Value-Propositio...
Also, here is an analysis from 2016 showing that the 2005 Prius had the lowest 10 year maintenance cost of any model. Toyota had only been making hybrids for 7 years at that point. That level of reliability for a new technology is pretty impressive: https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1104478_toyota-prius-hy...
> (and specific to the original claim about cost of ownership, equal in cost).
speaking to this piece, it can be hard to gauge because its not all that common for companies to sell very similar trims in hybrid and non-hybrid. The two PSD hybrid examples off the dome are the corolla which is +$1500 for hybrid and the first-gen maverick which was -$1100 for the hybrid (before Ford knew the hybrid would sell like hotcakes, then they cranked the price up).
Perhaps Ford just wanted to burn cash but imo PSD hybrids are likely very competitive in terms of per unit cost, which would hopefully translate into lower repair costs. Toyota has also just switched to hybrid only for the Rav4, which is one of the best selling models on the planet. That would be a pretty bold move if they weren't very confident about the reliability and TCO (basically their entire brand value) or their ability to make money selling them (cost vs consumer value prop).
I didn't limit the original discussion to just an ICE motor versus an entire hybrid power train, I explicitly stated, "Depending on the _drive trains_ being compared, the hybrid _drivetrain_...". In the end people don't give a shit about if the motor is reliable, they care about if the car is reliable. The car, which includes a transmission and a heck of a lot more stuff in it. In the end the reliability of the drivetrain is more important, as that includes the reliability of the ICE and all the other stuff needed to make the car go.
If you want to focus on just the ICE part, then sure mechanically the ICE motor in a hybrid drivetrain will be similarly designed to an ICE-only drivetrain. But an ICE car is more than just an ICE motor. And to have that ICE motor actually be useful, it needs to be paired with other components. As you've aptly stated, the reliability of the system overall is extremely related to the reliability of all the components. Namely, having more complicated and less reliable components anywhere in the system makes the whole system less reliable. Having to have an incredibly complicated transmission with tons of friction points and sliding parts and fluid channels relying on specific viscosities of oil is massively more complicated mechanically than a few fixed-ratio planetary gearsets.
But guess what, even if you ignore the rest of the hybrid drive train and focus on just comparing the ICE motors, the ICE in a hybrid will probably outlive the ICE on a similar ICE-only car experiencing a similar usage pattern. The ICE in the hybrid with an e-CVT or similar will pretty much only exclusively operate in its most efficient and lowest stress ranges, while that pure-ICE vehicle needs that gas motor to work in every condition even if it is high stress.
> there needs to be some sort of discussion about why you think the ICE is more reliable
I don't think the ICE is more reliable than the hybrid. I've been arguing the opposite. The gas motor may be similarly reliable in a full ICE, but a lot of the other stuff around it becomes less reliable.
Even then thinking about things like water pumps and AC compressors and what not, a lot of that gets to be more reliable working with their own extremely reliable DC motors going exactly the speed they want to go at instead of having to be tied to engine RPMs and belts and clutches and what not wherever they want to be instead of needing to be in the path of the belt. You don't have a wimpy barely sized alternator, you have a much more reliable AC motor/generator along with an inverter and well-sized battery supplying plenty of electrical power to the system which then has a much more stable voltage for your 12V system. You don't have to put nearly as much CCA load on your 12V battery, you won't run it down as much, it stays in its optimal voltage more often, etc.
You seem to be getting wrapped around the axle (ha) to have an argument and not reading my point well.
>having more complicated and less reliable components anywhere in the system makes the whole system less reliable.
This is my entire point, because the hybrid has many of the same components. Yet you get focused on individual components like transmissions instead of elaborating on the system reliability. I’ll concede that the hybrid ICE may be more reliable (that’s what I meant by asking you to provide details why the ICE is more reliable). But my point is that a more complicated system in series requires all components to be substantially more reliable to have an overall equivalent system reliability.
Consider the life of a traditional ICE engine is about the same as the batteries of a hybrid. Even if the hybrid ICE has a life 30% longer, it doesn’t make the overall system last longer. For round numbers, say the traditional ICE and hybrid batteries have a 200k mile median life (50% reliability).
That means the combined (series) R(hybrid ICE) * R(planetary gears) * R(hybrid electric motors) has to be greater than R(traditional transmission). Maybe that’s the case, and I’m asking for details and specifics.
Now obviously, it’s more complicated because there are other failure modes in each system and cost differentials as well. From the get-go, you seemed focused on individual component reliability. But unless you’re talking specifics about the system reliability you’re tilting at windmills.
> This is my entire point, because the hybrid has many of the same components.
So we both agree, a hybrid and a full-ICE will have many of the same components overall. They both need a battery. They both need some kind of transmission. They both need some kind of inverter. They will both have some kind of electric motor in them. In terms of actual number of components, the hybrid and the ICE are actually pretty similar.
But then we both agree, some of those components in the pure ICE are far more mechanically complicated. Higher mechanical complexity, more moving parts, etc generally means less reliability, agree? And one part of that system being radically less reliable makes the whole system less reliable, correct?
> That means the combined (series) R(hybrid ICE) * R(planetary gears) * R(hybrid electric motors) has to be greater than R(traditional transmission).
No, your math would that for the pure ICE would be R(gas ICE) * R(traditional transmission). Your ICE car isn't going to go very far without a motor to spin the transmission. And that traditional transmission is far less reliable than the fixed planetary gears. Comparatively, electric motors are extremely reliable, and chances are your hybrid gas motor will be more reliable for the same kind of required output. So, R(hybrid ICE) > R(gas ICE).
So yes, generally speaking R(hybrid ICE) * R(planetary gears) * R(hybrid electric motors) > R(gas ICE) * R(traditional transmission). Largely because that R(traditional transmission) is so absolutely terrible in comparison to R(planetary gears) * R(hybrid electric motor). Which is why I'm talking about the transmissions so much, and yet you're continuing to ignore it.
>your math would that for the pure ICE would be R(gas ICE) * R(traditional transmission).
No, that was already baked in. I purposefully linked the R(gas ICE) = R(hybrid batteries). Note they were both dropped out of their respective calculation. Just like a hybrid isn’t going to go very far without batteries, but you left that reliability out of your hybrid equation. It seems you’re more interested in arguing that reading posts in good faith, so I don’t think it’s productive to continue the discussion.
> The math is clear: in series, the system reliability cannot be greater than any single part.
We both agree with this statement. The system reliability cannot be greater than any single part. In a traditional ICE, there are multiple systems which are radically less reliable than a hybrid with an e-CVT, while generally untrue of the reverse. So, with "the system reliability cannot be greater than any single part", and we can see there are parts of one system that are less reliable, which system is then logically the less reliable one? Not looking at cost at the moment, just reliability.
That is purely talking about e-CVTs and reliability of specific designs, and not necessarily reliability of all hybrids. In the end, the reliability of "a hybrid" can vary wildly. Is it a pure series hybrid we're talking about? A series-parallel e-CVT? A different kind of series-parallel? A parallel? A parallel hybrid is an example of a hybrid that probably does have worse reliability overall, as you still have all the complexity of a traditional ICE but then adding additional systems adding further complication. You're not trading away the complexity of the traditional ICE in this setup, just adding to it. All different reliability metrics on just the basic design concepts, not even then thinking about differences in reliability in manufacturing and what not across different car makers. Some car manufacturers tend to have more mistakes in actually producing things, and a good design might not actually hit planned reliability if they're not actually making the things right.
On top of that, when comparing TCO you'll see differences based on production volumes of that car. A hybrid that was only a compliance car trim level sold in only California in low volumes for a couple of model years with a bespoke battery is probably stupid expensive ($3000+) for a replacement battery after a decade. A hybrid that was mass market with many hundreds of thousands produced with long generations will have tons of used/remanufactured/aftermarket batteries on the market and might only cost $800. A lot of hybrids from the past tend to fall into the first category and not the second and were made as parallel drivetrains with notable exceptions being things like the Prius which routinely is listed as one of the lowest TCO cars out there.
Just asking for a TCO comparison of "a hybrid" compared to "a traditional ICE" is massively oversimplifying and misunderstanding the complexity of that question. Theoretically, one couldn't even say "what is the TCO of a traditional ICE vehicle?" Are we talking an F-250 Superduty or a Kia Rio or a Ferrari F40? Ignoring purchase price, each of these have radically different operating costs per mile. Which vehicle are we talking about?
This is why my original comment started off with "Depending on the drive trains being compared..." I'm not saying every hybrid will always be more reliable than every traditional ICE. It depends on which cars you're comparing.
The Corolla hybrid is only $1500 more than the base model and gets 50MPG combined vs 35MPG. The break even for 15k miles/year is 2.5-4.3 years given the highest and lowest US prices as of today (California@$4.59, Texas@$2.70).
They are disappearing in europe too. Emissions and other required by law equipment costs just as much on cheap car as it does on expensive one. At some point, cheap cars stop beinf cheap, just a bit cheaper but with way worse quality, so they stop making sense.
It's true that affordable European models are disappearing. The average mid-range offering from, say, Volkswagen, has become quite surprisingly expensive.
But this is why Chinese cars are taking over in Europe. Half the new cars I see are from Geely, BYD, Chery, etc. These average about 20,000-25,000 EUR new.
My own opinion, having looked into the matter a bit, is that you'd have to be insane to buy a Volkswagen or BMW at 2-3x the price. If I were in the market for a new car, I wouldn't consider anything but a Chinese car.
> so 20k-equivalent from 2015-2019 is already above 25k just by inflation.
Its not inflation alone ... The same brand/car type, tends to have seen a 75% price increase over the mentioned periode.
Something that used to cost 20k euro in the 2015 periode, is now around 35k euro. That is not "inflation". An we are talking same trim, same electronics, same gasoline engines.
Cars beyond a few items (as long as we do not talk about jump from gas to electric) have really not changed that much. There was a big jump from the 90's to the 2000, in terms of electronics (and sensors that are the bane for most car mechanics).
Prices have gone up so much, that it resulted in my 15 year old second hand car, being sold now for more, then when i bought it (and that inc the increased km's driven and age). That is not a normal market and is not explained by simple "inflation".
Its part inflation, a large part greed, and do not forget the consolidation / lack of competition over the year. People overlook how many car brands are now part of the same group. This resulted in less competition because multiple "brands" increased prices over the same period, when its really the same company, using parts in between each other, and your mostly paying for a different shell and "brand name / past reputation".
That is why Chinese car makers are able to enter the EU market so easily, despite the market protection with import taxations.
If you can offer a true hybrid with all the trims like solar roof, full electronics, the works at 36k, and the next EU competitor for the same options is 48k (and a less efficient hybrid aka, electronic boost only)... And that included the import taxation.
Its ironic that we need to do market protection because our own brands got caught sleeping at the wheel.
Here in the UK, the price of the base-spec Dacia Sandero (and comparable cars like the Kia Picanto and Hyundai i10) has more than doubled in six years. The C1, 108 and Up! have been discontinued, as have a raft of other cheap small cars.
That's partly explained by inflation, but also by the massive amounts of extra safety equipment mandated by the General Safety Regulation. The bill of materials for cheap cars has increased by thousands of euros, because they're legally required to have cameras and radar.
A Dacia Spring is still around £11k at the cheapest dealers, Sandero about £16k, and a Renault Clio about £17k, Kia Picanto £15k. All for bottom end variants with no extras, but gets you there.
It's not just prestige. Who wants a 65 HP engine? I need my 110 HP to get away from bad situations. And like the article said. The cheaper cars are more expensive than before and the more luxury ones are still expensive obviously but not much more than they used to be.
> why compare with their 'average mid-range offering'?
Because when it comes to features and trim, the average Geely or BYD is essentially on that level (or better). They tend to be quite large and very polished.
It's certainly true that Renault has some inexpensive models -- the Clio is another one that can be had for ~20k EUR -- but they are indeed small.
Yes, you can buy a Dacia for below 20kEur, but even those have gotten far more expensive lately. It used to be that around 10 years ago, a Dacia Logan (typical station wagon family car) could be had for 11kEur. Nowadays the comparable Dacia Duster (SUV instead of station wagon, but somewhat similar slightly smaller internal space) will set you back 18kEur. Most of this price hike is claimed to come from mandatory electronics like eCall, collision avoidance, fatigue sensors, more complex bodywork due to crash requirements, as well as more complex engines due to emission controls.
With your quoted Renault EV models, you really have to be careful, often they don't give the full price but just the price without battery. The battery has to be bought or rented separately.
You can't really compare prices for "European cars" like that without specifying the country you're buying in. When I go to Renault's website, the starting price is €24990. Prices vary country by country, as do incentives, subsidies, and taxes.
I’d actually argue that it’s not the cost of Chinese cars but their actual offerings. Compared to the state of Chinese cars a decade ago their current product products are really interesting and offer features that European, American and other Asian models don’t. There’s a great channel called wheels boy on YouTube that’s worth checking out.
I know very little about cars but it seems to be on parity with the rest of the market. The days of Chinesium are over. Or rather, you’re seeing very similar quality no matter which country the product was ”designed” in, as they like to put it. All of the old quality consumer brands have cheaped out and are same or worse than no-name brands on Amazon. I just bought a Miele vacuum that’s ”designed in Germany”. Very flimsy build quality.
So why not skip the middleman and go directly to the source? The only annoyance for me is the ridiculous white labeling. Most no-name brands are seemingly coming from the same factories / same designs, so it’s often impossible to find quality reviews. Probably partly Bezos fault because Amazons review system are less trustworthy than a used car dealership. So I’d rather pay more for known flaws than the hit-or-miss gamble of no-name brands with fake reviews. I hope Chinese merchants catch up, because they’re losing customers for no particularly good reason. I just want the reviews, warts and all.
What about the hardware that has also been manufactured in Europe though ? (Alternatively, South Korea/Japan.)
I have been putting my trust in these.
(Also looking for 3+ years of manufacturer warranty, guarantees of 10ish years for replaceable parts, high reparability scores...)
Hopefully, they won't let me down.
(Also, never buying on Amazon. Had to break that rule a few times of course over the past decade, but only for <100€ items.)
> If I were in the market for a new car, I wouldn't consider anything but a Chinese car.
The problem with these are a few things:
1. service network. When something goes kaput with a VW, BMW, Mercedes, Ford, GM, Toyota and even Tesla, there's ample service stations available to get the car back up and running. With a Chinese manufacturer no one but car nerds has heard about? Good luck finding anyone willing to even touch the thing, much less have that specific manufacturer's tooling to deal with computer problems.
2. spare parts logistics. Even the richest and most successful of the last 20 years worth of automotive startups has serious trouble getting spare parts to broken cars. Why should some random Chinese brand be any better than that?
3. Crash safety. "Chinesium" alloy is a meme at this point, but one based on truth. Who guarantees that the manufacturer didn't cheap out on production runs after the review/crashtest rating units went out?
4. Battery safety. Batteries are already hard enough to pull off at scale without sending an armada of tiny little bomblets around the planet... who guarantees that there is no supply chain fuckery going on?
Your understanding of what’s happened with Chinese cars is 15 years out of date. They’re really good now, even better in some ways. And honestly, it’s just the push that the legacy car builders needed.
They might be good, but service network/spare part logistics is a huge issue at least in Europe. We can also expect some of them will go bankrupt because of the current price war. Of course European manfuacturers can also go bankrupt but at least spare parts will still be available by parts/aftermarket manufacturers, will this be the case for these too?
- The "chinesium" meme thing is a joke, you realize that, right? This is not a serious objection. Even the original greentext from ~2013 was really dumb, with the purchaser not running adequate tests.
- CATL is pretty much the undisputed champion of making high-end batteries.
These regulations are probably used for protectionism. The consumer has to pay for that though. I don't think the market for new cars within the EU can exist for very long with these rules in place.
They partially demand systems that aren't fully developed yet, it is a completely insane thing to do. I guess other manufacturers pushed the EU to install the requirements to protect the dwindling domestic market.
- those prices are generally tied to financing (you really can't buy it cash at those prices, you need to finance it through them at crazy 7/8%+ rates)
> those prices are generally tied to financing (you really can't buy it cash at those prices, you need to finance it through them at crazy 7/8%+ rates)
I can't talk for the rest of the continent, but in the UK we've got "price on the road" advertising laws here. So if you turn up to a dealership with £20k and ask for a new car that's advertised at £20k, you'll be sold a car for £20k in cash. The dealer might try to up-sell you for financing, but you can just say "I'm paying in cash, and I don't want any extras", and they'll complete the payment & paperwork in record time so that they're able to move onto a more profitable financed sale elsewhere.
This depends on the EU country, I've just checked official Skoda site for our country and I found brand new 157 Skoda Fabia models available for the same day pickup below 20k without any special financing (from these 85 below 18k, and 22 below 16k)
Looking up the Clio and it's $31,500 / €27,000, but that's partly due to the taxes on cars where. I'd guess however that you almost can't buy it.
The pricing is meant to hit a price point, in this case just below 200.000DKK. That's a promotional price, chance are that very few cars, if any, with that base package, have ever been made or imported. You can probably get it, but you'd have to wait a few months for it.
Don't forget about Dacia, which is Renault's cheaper brand. You can even buy a Spring EV for under 20k - quality is what you'd expect, but for many people it is not an issue.
Small cars are disappearing in the EU as well. E.g. Audi will discontinue (or have already discontinued) their A1 model (and it was the perfect little car).
VAG cars are weird, I've had both an Audi A1 and a VW Up (short lease for work); they are basically the same car, both had a 3 cylinder, 1 liter engine, similar interiors, etc. But the A1 had the sports look package and generally a fancier feel to it. But VAG uses the same base for a lot of models and brands (VW, Audi, Skoda, SEAT); quality wise there's not much difference between them, but price wise they are, with Skoda being the 'budget' brand and Audi the premium. They also own Porsche but I don't know if they use the same base, I presume not... even though with the amount of Cayennes you see on the road here they sell Porsches at similar rates as upmarket VW / Audi cars.
Yep. I think SEAT are the pick of the VAG brands. Their marketing isn't about being cheap, but they're aimed at the youngest market segment, who also have the least money, so in my experience have the best prices.
Pre-COVID we got a new Leon ST — essentially a Golf estate/station wagon — for about a third off the list price: £13K instead of £20K (I know: those prices sound semi-mythical now).
On the other end you have Audi, whose premise seems to be: "So you want a VW, but you want to pay hugely over the odds for it? Certainly sir, step right this way."
Renault at least are keeping the small car flame alive with the 5 and a new version of the Twingo. Audi's product strategy at the moment seems to be "try everything and pivot" so they might even end up relauching the A2 by accident.
The smallest class like the Daihatsu Cuore are already gone. The small cars that are left are significantly larger than the former version that shared the same nameplate. For example the Yaris is a SUV now.
Can't really blame the manufacturers. The EU requires so much equipment on cars that you can't really turn a profit on a $10k car (like the Aygo/C1/107 was ~10 years ago). So if your car is going to cost $20k because of all the stuff it has to have it might as well be a bit bigger.
I’m not quite sure the safety equipment is to blame. Modern cars coming out of China go well beyond regulations, while still having great a price/features ratio.
Even very cheap cars like the “Dongfeng Box” have multiple airbags, emergency braking, lane keeping, etc, and safe to assume a lot of the components VW/Toyota use for these come from the same chinese suppliers.
I bought a used 2015 Daihatsu Move for $3000 last year, I love it. It has physical controls for everything except the windows and mirrors (I mean, still physical controls, but those are hooked up to motors). And it also has a simple stereo with USB audio. Gets incredible gas mileage. Perfect.
You mean 23k usd? Corolla is 22k msrp i.e under 20k euro. Nissan versa is 20k msrp. Then account for the fact that Americans have higher income than Europeans.
I found that saving money on the car helps a bit, but not much -- the insurance costs are usually the dominant factor. Almost no one here seems to be talking about that.
Isn’t your argument basically saying that people choose to buy larger cars when the government doesn’t step in and penalize people for doing so? European regulators basically just forcing people to buy smaller cars is what that sounds like.
Also Europeans make less money, pay more taxes, and have less access to credit, so they can’t afford more expensive cars like many Americans. Hence the market catering more to people less willing to spend a lot of money on a car.
The poorest American state, Mississippi, is richer per-capita than most European countries, including France.
> The poorest American state, Mississippi, is richer per-capita than most European countries, including France.
The state, maybe. The missisipian, not so much - considering their Human Development Index is right in between that of Hungary and Bulgaria, at the very bottom of the EU. How great is it to be able to buy expansive cars if you can't get access to education, healthcare, retirement, and will find yourself in the street if you lose your job.
Mississippi, like all US states, has free K12 education. It also offers free college education at public universities to anyone who scores well on college admittance tests. (In many countries, people can't access college at all if they didn't perform academically.)
About 25% of Mississippians are on free government healthcare (Medicaid/CHIP). About 21% are on very-cheap government healthcare (Medicare.) Additionally, many hospital systems in the state are owned by state and local governments, and offer free services (roundaboutly) to residents.
Mississippians, like others Americans, are eligible for Social Security in retirement, and have access to unemployment insurance.
Of course Mississippi is not some sort of welfare state paradise, but it's tiresome polemic and exaggeration to claim that people "can't get access to education, healthcare, retirement, and will find [themselves] out on the street if [they] lose [their] job."
No, US also has rules for cars. It just has much more stringent rules for smaller cars, so SUVs and trucks have an unfair advantage.
It's like if smaller cars are taxed at 30% and larger cars at 10%, of course there are going to be more large cars compared to a place that taxes both at 30% or 10%.
> Also Europeans make less money, pay more taxes, and have less access to credit, so they can’t afford more expensive cars like many Americans
Funnily your last point invalidates your first. Most Americans are loaded on debt, which impacts how much actual money they have left over at the end of the month. How many Americans can't stomach a $1000 surprise bill again?
> Isn’t your argument basically saying that people choose to buy larger cars when the government doesn’t step in and penalize people for doing so? European regulators basically just forcing people to buy smaller cars is what that sounds like.
No, you're looking at this the wrong way. US regulators make bigger cars more lucrative for manufacturers, so they only do that. EU regulators mostly focus on safety and emissions, which also slightly favours bigger cars (whose bigger price absorbs the safety features better), but not nearly to the same extent. Two of the biggest EU car groups (Stellanti and Renault) both are publicly asking to reduce some of the burden for smaller cars to be able to make cheaper small cars. On the other hand, US manufacturers (even Stellantis' Jeep, Dodge, Ram) don't mind just churning oversized monstrosities.
> The poorest American state, Mississippi, is richer per-capita than most European countries, including France.
GDP per capita doesn't mean what you think it does. Everything being overpriced in the US, and everything needing to have a middleman inflates GDP figures. Take health insurance, Americans pay multiple times what Europeans pay, to stuff the pockets of multiple for profit institutions and middlemen. GDP figures look better in the US, but really, which way is more efficient? Health outcomes are better across the EU, and the amount of medical bankruptcies is also telling.
> GDP per capita doesn't mean what you think it does. Everything being overpriced in the US, and everything needing to have a middleman inflates GDP figures. Take health insurance, Americans pay multiple times what Europeans pay, to stuff the pockets of multiple for profit institutions and middlemen. GDP figures look better in the US, but really, which way is more efficient? Health outcomes are better across the EU, and the amount of medical bankruptcies is also telling.
Healthcare is a particularly _atypical_ example to choose, and the particularly poor health outcomes of MS are only partly explicable by healthcare cost/access: it's also cultural and lifestyle issues. So it's rather disingenuous to say "take health insurance", as though it can be used by analogy to comprehensively explain other aspects of American finance.
You don't need recourse to GDP, you can just look at household income which really is higher. Most things do _not_ actually have inflated prices relative to European countries.
Would I rather live in Mississippi than France? Are Mississipians living better lives than French people? I mean it depends on where specifically, but almost certainly no. Of course having more money doesn't necessarily make a place better to live in.
But that doesn't invalidate "people have more money available to spend on cars and easier access to credit to finance that purchase over five years at favorable interest rates" as part of the reason why Americans choose to spend more money on cars.
You really don't have to take every point of discussion of difference between the US and European countries as an obligation to rant about how much better Europe is on tangential topics.
> You don't need recourse to GDP, you can just look at household income which really is higher.
Income would include the money being immediately spent to cover debt (be it student loans, mortgage, medical, car).
> Most things do _not_ actually have inflated prices relative to European countries
I'm struggling to think of things which aren't inflated. Only one I can come up with is gas/petrol/fuel, because there are much less taxes on it. Everything else I can think of is more expensive in the US - healthcare, transportation, food (groceries, and absurdly so for restaurants, for worse quality at that), various types of recreation (cinema, theatre, netflix and co, cable, watching live sports, concerts) internet, phone bills. Electricity is way too location dependent so I'll skip that one.
> But that doesn't invalidate "people have more money available to spend on cars and easier access to credit to finance that purchase over five years at favorable interest rates" as part of the reason why Americans choose to spend more money on cars.
Are interest rates favourable? There are multiple concerning trends (like car payments being one of the top household expenses and people struggling with that, people owing more on car loans than what the vehicle is worth, etc. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/10/15/american-consumers-are-incre... )
> You really don't have to take every point of discussion of difference between the US and European countries as an obligation to rant about how much better Europe is on tangential topics.
I'm not ranting, I'm correcting a wrong comparison using a wrong metric incorrectly. I don't know what is it with Americans reassuring themselves with GDP metrics, but it's very confusing why anyone would throw in GDP numbers when talking about disposable income and the car market.
Everything else I can think of is more expensive in the US...food
Where in Europe are you? Because I've always found food ridiculously cheap in the US compared to the Europeans countries I've lived in or visited for an extended enough period of time that I had to regularly go food shopping (Scandinavia, UK, Germany, Switzerland). You can get 3 chickens, each 3 times the size of the chickens I'm used to, for what I pay for 2 chicken breasts. Many restaurants will give you a serving that could feed a family of 4 for what I might pay for starter back home.
I'm genuinely struggling to understand where you are pulling these conclusions from because they don't fit the trivially searchable data, nor do they fit the anecdotal conclusions that I think most people would make from spending time in these places.
> Are interest rates favourable? There are multiple concerning trends (like car payments being one of the top household expenses and people struggling with that, people owing more on car loans than what the vehicle is worth, etc. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/10/15/american-consumers-are-incre... )
Yes, they're more favorable. The interest rates available to US consumers on auto purchases are lower than those available to UK consumers. And again, it's a case where your need to moralize is getting in the way of the topic: I'm saying that easier access to credit is a contributor to Americans spending more on cars. You are saying "oh, but Americans then struggle with auto loans". Yes! These are not conflicting statements. You seem to be attaching a value judgement that isn't there to the statement that "Americans are able to spend more on cars". It doesn't have to be a good thing, but that doesn't necessarily make it untrue.
> I'm not ranting, I'm correcting a wrong comparison using a wrong metric incorrectly. I don't know what is it with Americans reassuring themselves with GDP metrics, but it's very confusing why anyone would throw in GDP numbers when talking about disposable income and the car market.
You were the first person in this thread to bring up GDP per capita! The person you are replying to said "richer". You're the one interpreting this to be a GDP reference, but it doesn't need to be since it's also true with regards to disposable income.
I also don't understand why you think it's people "reassuring themselves". I don't need reassuring of anything on this topic, and I'm not sure why you think you know what beliefs I might hold about the relative merits of living in MS versus various European countries. I think it's a pretty basic ability to be able to decouple the question of "is the median american is willing and able to spend more money on a car than the median german?" from "which country has an overall higher standard of living?".
> Standard plan is £5.99 in UK, €7.99 in france, $7.99 in the US. So the US is the cheapest of those after currency conversion
Standard with ads, which is distorting because ads have a different cost and benefit (more expensive and lucrative in the US). Standard Standard is 14.99€ in France, £12.99 in the UK, $17.99 in the US.
> US median price in 2022: $10.53. In the UK, £7.69 == $10.54 (uncanny tbh)
I like how you picked France, not Poland at $27, Spain at $35, UK at $35, Ireland at $39, Belgium at $42, Italy at $44, Germany at $46, etc.
> I'm genuinely struggling to understand where you are pulling these conclusions from because they don't fit the trivially searchable data, nor do they fit the anecdotal conclusions that I think most people would make from spending time in these places.
From visiting the US multiple times over relatively extended periods (few weeks at a time) over the past few years, while living and travelling extensively over the EU. Plus anecdotes from the internet. A lot of things are more expensive, when you count everything (tax, tips, etc).
> Yes, they're more favorable
You said they're favourable, not more favourable than e.g. in the UK. What's the average APR?
> You were the first person in this thread to bring up GDP per capita! The person you are replying to said "richer".
The only metric by which Mississipi is "richer" than France is GDP/GDP per capita.
> Standard with ads, which is distorting because ads have a different cost and benefit (more expensive and lucrative in the US). Standard Standard is 14.99€ in France, £12.99 in the UK, $17.99 in the US.
so it's 30 cents cheaper per month on that basis. that doesn't really support the claim.
> I like how you picked France, not Poland at $27, Spain at $35, UK at $35, Ireland at $39, Belgium at $42, Italy at $44, Germany at $46, etc.
I picked France because I had specifically mentioned France previously. I'm aiming to be consistent.
> Plus anecdotes from the internet.
It all becomes clearer.
> You said they're favourable, not more favourable than e.g. in the UK. What's the average APR?
I said "better access to favorable rates", not that every person is getting good rates. For what it's worth I would say that any interest rate that's below the expected return on money in the SP500 is quite favorable.
> The only metric by which Mississipi is "richer" than France is GDP/GDP per capita.
Clearly untrue: it has higher household disposable income, almost certainly the most relevant statistic.
I really don't think you're sincerely interested in this topic, you just want to dunk on America.
Ah this old Chestnut whereby agitators use the comparable GDPs of Bavaria and Mississippi as a KPI indicating Europe's lack of economic prowess.
In fact, it's just a scathing indictment of wealth inequality in Mississippi where life expectancy is 10 years less and infant mortality 400% higher than in Bavaria, despite their similar GDPs.
For better or worse the EU is run as a Society whereby the US is run as an Economy, a fact conveniently forgotten in these apples/oranges comparisons.
Fiat has just announced and produced the Panda, which is also a cheap vehicle. Also the Tipo was very cheap (15-20k) and Dacia makes also cheap, but good cars.
I still don't understand the urge in the US to own a Truck at any cost
> I still don't understand the urge in the US to own a Truck at any cost
Prior to the pandemic's impact on prices, trucks generally offered better TCO. I struggle to imagine that still holds true in the current landscape, but the shift has happened recently enough that we don't really have a good picture of what the total cost is over a sufficiently long period in light of how the world has changed.
So, right now, amid many unknowns, people are gambling on the past being indicative of the future. They might get burned hard, or they might come out smiling in the end. Time will tell. When it does, and assuming it shows that the TCO benefit is no longer there, you will start to see movement away from them. People aren't completely irrational – but they are slow.
Honestly, there are two different main drivers of US automobile pricing. The first was a combination of fuel efficiency and safety regulations that when combined were difficult to meet. One side effect is that all vehicles got larger so they could be in a different vehicle class and therefore have a lower fuel efficiency standard, and then in other cases the engines were made smaller with turbos added to make up the horsepower loss. The second driving force is just consumer expectations. Many companies did make cheaper vehicles that still met the regulatory burdens and people simply didn't want them.
With inflation pressures, layoffs, and other downward pricing pressures, we should expect consumer preferences to change, but I also expect that the global vehicle fleet will continue to age (especially as most vehicles are of sufficient quality that they needn't be replaced).
What a counterproductive comment in a world where the average SUV is something a lot closer in qualities to a traditional car than a traditional SUV.
Ford's linup is a great example how you people harping on SUVs actively detract from the discussion. What you call the Flex, the Ecosport and the C-max doesn't really matter. They're obviously by virtue of their attributes much closer to a "car" than they are to a traditional truck-ish SUV.
Every OEM's lineup has examples of this (Honda Crosstour anyone?).
The OEMs could make these things very cheaply if they wanted, look at the Maverick, a brand new model debuting at 25k. But they don't, why?
Do you consider a Ford Flex to not be a SUV ? Thing's huge and most other example you provided are either clearly SUV or are bigger than they need to be to be a "normal" car.
The Flex is close to identical in form factor and size to a pre-oil crisis station wagon. Probably has less ground clearance too. It takes the honesty of a professional political to call it an SUV.
Are you comparing to the car market of 50 years past to justify a vehicle that is more akin to a tank than a modern regular car?
Like you say, the term itself is meaningless but it does encompass the current class of vehicles that are needlessly big, heavy, and so high of the ground that some tanks literally have better forward vision than those SUVs.
I don't really care what Americans drove 50 years ago, I care that most cars sold here (EU) are way oversized for practically no reason that the consumer cares about.
I'm comparing to pre-oil crisis land yachts because I don't want a bunch of nit picking jerks to complain that it's wider than the 1990ish county squire or caprice wagon I would have preferred to to compare it to on account of the comparable internal dimensions.
Because a big part of owning a vehicle is summer roadtrips, ski vacations, visiting family, moving stuff. An SUV is simply more convenient. I've also found road maintenance is getting worse where I live, it's almost necessary having an SUV or truck just to navigate the suburbs.
Also the (semi) compact crossover has kind of killed the compact car. You get more space, better ground clearance, for a decent price.
What you don’t mention are the increased negative externalities of your larger vehicle, including a higher chance of killing people, more road space used for parking, worse visibility for others, etc.
Most SUVs (crossovers) have the same or smaller footprint than the equivalent sized sedan.
Keep in mind nowadays most SUVs aren't trucks with the cab extending to the rear instead of a bed. They're cars that are slightly lifted with a taller profile. As an example, I have a Hyundai Elantra, which is longer than the equivalent Hyundai SUV (Tucsan)...
It's not like she bought a 4Runner or Suburban. She bought a Honda compact car that's been stretched on the vertical access.
We all spend the 2000s listening to the "they're less safe because they roll over more" screeching broken record and while statistically that was true to an extent nothing really came of it, everyone decided that yeah they do but they like the tradeoff. You just sound like a 2020s cover of that. Why ought I to take your hand wringing seriously?
Man, I really hit that one out of the park with my choice of the word "insufferable"
These typical crossovers that most people buy are more or less a direct replacement for the sedans they used to buy. Sure they're probably statistically worse at the margin but people derive a bunch more utility out of them than the sedans they replaced, which is why the form factor is carried over as best they can to the compact and subcompact hatches (impreza, c-max, etc). You have every right to tell people they ought not to be doing what benefits them because of some nebulous change at the margin that's only visible once you apply a bunch of statistics, and I have every right to call you a moron over it. But what do I know, I drive a minivan.
99% of people with an SUV will never use the "sport utility" aspect of it, and they could do all of the things you listed better with a minivan (Sienna/Odyssey/etc).
But the driver would have to sit lower in a minivan. Which is what SUVs are really about, the ego boost one gets from sitting higher up (and the associated feelings with being able to not have to settle for a minivan, and being able to waste a little money).
I don't follow this logic at all. We have a Model Y SUV. We use the space of its hatchback and frunk frequently, and it's much more efficient to drive than a Sienna or Odyssey. There's no logical reason to conclude a minivan would be better for our purposes.
A model Y is not anywhere near an SUV, regardless of classification for tax purposes. It's also not comparable because it is all electric.
The form factor of a typical SUV, such as an X7 or Land Cruiser or Explorer or Suburban, is inherently more wasteful than a minivan. The only thing those offer 99% of people is that they allow the driver to sit higher up, and be able to say they are not driving a minivan. Otherwise, the minivan provides more utility in every way.
All of this stuff (in the manner 99% of people use their vehicle, i.e. not climbing rocky terrain like in the commercials) is easier to do in a minivan than an SUV. And I'm sure an electric minivan would be better than an electric SUV, except at signaling you can afford to forego the extra utility.
Also no, an ID Buzz in an electric minivan, and I wouldn't inherently say it's better than an electric SUV. It gets pretty poor range and efficiency, and so a smaller SUV like a Model Y can make more sense if you don't need that extra storage capacity.
They should drive a goods vehicle then. The one time I have driven a Transit van (a Ford model popular in the UK) I was looking down on cars and SUVs - even a Rolls at one point. It was amusing (and a lot easier to drive than I imagined).
Nothing my family couldn't do with plain Honda Civics. If you want more space in the back, there are also long versions of VW Passat and various Skoda models. Heck, SUVs usually have way less trunk space than those - they're just taller than your average sedan, but not any longer. You can see outside just fine, and get around with 5-6L/100km efficiency.
A VW Passat is a pretty long vehicle, a Škoda Kodiaq is actually shorter. Less length = easier to park, especially in Europe.
And I'm old enough that I used to do everything with a beater compact car (Saab 900 Turbo, was lots of fun) when I was young, it was fine, ish. Now I have a family, and if I want to bring along the in-laws as well it's more efficient and generally easier to bring 1 large vehicle versus 2 small ones.
I think that's more relevant with really large vehicles. An SUV is generally somewhere in the range of 1.5-3 tons whereas a loaded semi truck can weigh up to 40 tons. If a road is designed to handle 40 ton vehicles then i have a hard time believing that 2-3 ton vehicles make much of a difference compared to a 1.5 ton vehicle.
A semi truck with a trailer will distribute those 40 tons over a larger area due to more and larger tires, but I am assuming that it still impacts a larger ground pressure on the road than a personal car - at least when loaded.
It's not so much ground pressure as axle group loading.
You can think of roads as basically retaining walls as they're a hard compacted mass of stuff "floating" in otherwise fairly fluid ground. Sure, high point loads can damage the top surface (not really a problem since anything on tires is fairly low point load) but it's the overall weight you're asking it to bear that causes the pressure to just kinda mush the wall over.
I'm currently in the Czech Republic where the roads are about 100x better than my city of 1 million+ in Canada... No, it's an issue with our government.
IME it's a big part of it for a lot of people. People don't buy a car for what they do with it every day, they buy it for what they do with it a few times a year. If you have a boat on a trailer, you buy a vehicle that can pull the trailer. If you drive to the mountains in winter a few times a year, you buy a higher clearance AWD vehicle so that you can skip chain control.
You might say that this irrational and that people might be better off renting something on the occasion that they need to tow something, or go on a long road trip, or fit more than five people in their car. But people are irrational and they really do make these choices!
In addition, renting a large car for a few days is really expensive. If you have to do this 5-10 times a year, over 10 years of ownership, I'm not so sure that buying small and renting large make sense financially. Not to mention the inconvenience and loss of flexibility from having to collect and drop off a rental car, which typically isn't exactly right around the corner, especially in rural areas.
This is a great example of how factually incorrect narratives -
so long as they align with a preferred agenda (which is that things
are not affordable any more) - it gets upvoted.
Reality check:
- In 2025, there are 12 new car models available under $25,000
- In 2005, there were around 10 new models under $15,000 (25k adjusted by inflation)
So the premise that “cars used to be much more affordable” is not true. This article is full of misleading or outdated information that distorts the real trend.
Average new car price is very misleading. When you buy a car, they don't charge you the average, they charge you what the specific car you're buying costs. If there are a dozen cheap car options for sale, it is irrelevant to me that there are also some more expensive options for sale.
2005 accord is 5 inchers longer, a couple inches wider and has a longer wheelbase. This results in larger interior space and trunk space. While cars are in fact getting bigger and heavier, in this case it's not as egregious.
you also could compare internal dimensions between 3: 2005 accord vs 2025 civic vs 2025 accord, I kinda believe 2025 civic will be closer to 2005 accord.
But I mostly referred on class in general: 2005 accord was basic appliance economy car, while 2025 accord has many more accura like luxury features besides drivetrain.
Yep, model inflation. I have an early 2000s Accord and it's smaller than most Civics I see on the road, and with fewer features than a base model Civic.
For under 47k, (off the top of my head) you can buy a Subaru BRZ, Toyota gr86, Toyota gr Corolla, Honda Civic type r, Subaru WRX, VW gti... None of those are budget conscious family cars so something is off with that average car price you quoted.
You can buy a Nissan versa for under 18k today. https://www.nissanusa.com/vehicles/cars/versa-sedan/specs-tr... .
You need car interest rates to understand actual "car affordability" at any particular time. ZIRP era was far cheaper than right now where most new cars are 6% for highly qualified buyers (800+ credit rating)
Also, cars today last longer, have more features for your dollar, and are significantly safer and in many cases (i.e. toyota small cars like the corolla) can get 50+ mpg without the anemic and underpowered engines of the past.
> - In 2005, there were around 10 new models under $15,000 (25k adjusted by inflation)
You'll need to provide hard evidence for this. I was pretty young in 2005 but $15.000 would get you a decent car (though not a pickup). That being said, it is possible we have more models now under 25.000 but what $15/25k used to buy you (segment wise) has downgraded.
You are 100% correct. I was a senior in college and my beater died. I went to the Mazda dealer and talked them down to $13k on a brand new Mazda3. My payment was like $280.
Now inflation adjusted that is supposedly just shy of $22k. But it’s not the full story. That car was actually very nice for the time and to get an equivalently nice car today it’s not going to be a bare bones Nissan Versa or something like that.
To share an anecdote on the more recent side of the spectrum, I bought a new 2025 Toyota Corolla LE two months ago. It's probably the cheapest vehicle Toyota makes. My cost before tax and title (not sure if that should be included or not) was $23k. It's a pretty great car. Highway averages like 45-50 MPH (25-35 city), it's comfortable, has Car Play, and everything else you'd expect in a car now.
I'll say that the two things I'm used to having in a car that this one doesn't (since it's such a base trim) is automatic seat adjustment (not a big deal, I kind of prefer it since the automatic seats on my last vehicle died) and no remote start.
All that to say that I think that inflation adjusted measure can still get you a fine car. As for the argument about income vs inflation in GP, I have no idea.
I think the problem here is that we are comparing against price inflation (not salary inflation). If every company increased its prices, then that's the inflation. Customers will feel ripped off if their salaries didn't at least match inflation.
In other words, if your salary in 2005 was $50k when Mazda was $13k; then your salary should be $82k for a $22k Mazda3 to be the same price. Currently, a Mazda3 starts at $24k and will probably run at $26-27k: https://www.mazdausa.com/vehicles/mazda3-sedan
> All that to say that I think that inflation adjusted measure can still get you a fine car. As for the argument about income vs inflation in GP, I have no idea.
Kind of. But my understanding is that most salaries haven't caught up to inflation especially in the last few years when the US economy had the worst inflation.
Salary inflation is much trickier to measure because it is confounded by years of experience increasing, getting promotions, etc. The distribution of the working population by seniority also changes over time so it's not self-correcting across the distribution. Assuming you have a good way of measuring it, (salary inflation/price inflation) would be an interesting Financial Quality of Life measure.
You can use real median household income [0] and real median personal income [1] to gauge potential salary inflation (real meaning CPI adjusted).
The median American household and American has gotten significantly richer than in 2005, but in the 2020-23 period, income growth slowed due to the pandemic and the subsequent slow restart of the economy.
The last time we saw similar retractions were during recessions like the 1990-93 recession, the Dot Com Bust, and the Great Recession. Turns out the "vibe check" in the early 2020s were right.
Tl;dr - the median American feels poorer in the early 2020s than they did in 2019, but they have much more earning power than they ever did before 2018. I would not be surprised if this played an outsized role in voter dynamics in the 2024 election
Hence why I also provided personal income, but both data points show a significant correlation between dual-income households since the 1980s, so that is a moot point.
Also, as at this point 1980 is 45 years ago - almost 2 generations, almost like using the 1960s as a frame of reference in 2005.
At this point we've been a country of dual earners in a household for 2 generations now. It's best to assume that is the default given the overlap.
The Mazda 3 has gotten nicer too. I test drove one that had a HUD, adaptive cruise control with lane keeping, heated seats and paddle shifters among other features that are standard on all models.
Those are all things that were only available on luxury cars, if at all, in 2005.
In 2025 the base option package would have been a five figure option package in 2005.
>I think the problem here is that we are comparing against price inflation (not salary inflation)
This current period of inflation is caused by the dollar losing its value due to massive over printing by the Federal Reserve. People should feel ripped off, but I think you're directing your anger at the wrong target.
TBF if you go by new-car pricing now, manual has more value than a base-trim automatic. (And the automatic transmissions now are better than the automatics available in 13k cars back then.)
What do you mean by more value? In Europe manual is cheaper than automatic. In USA there are only high-performance vehicles offered with manual. However even then Elantra N is cheaper with manual.
I’m most familiar with Canadian pricing, and since a while, it’s been more common for manuals to be more significantly more expensive than automatic. e.g it’s like $10k extra for a manual Mazda 3 or a Cadillac CT4-V or $15k extra for a manual Mustang. This commonly is because manuals are limited to higher trim levels... but that’s kinda like EVs for some models - even if the trim is upgraded, it’s still $10k more expensive.
But you compare different cars. If you compare the same high performance vehicles (but not luxury) where there are both options - then manual often is the same or cheaper.
For many manual enthusiasts, a Mazda3 GX is effectively the “same car” as a Mazda3 Sport GT, with the significant difference being that the latter has manual transmission.
For me, most of the differences between a GX and a Sport GT, other than the transmission, are about as relevant as the paint colour, so telling me that they’re not comparable is like saying that I can’t compare two cars because the manual version is only available with an expensive quad-coat matte paint job. To me, that fancy paint job isn’t relevant - what’s relevant is that the manual transmission costs $10k more.
$15k would buy you a base-trim 2005 Corolla with an automatic or one level up with a manual.
In 2025, you can buy the LE or SE trim Corolla for under $25k, either of which are vastly better cars than the 2005 in any dimension you wish to measure. Safety, technology, comfort, performance. All improved.
That said, we picked up one of the cars on this list for well under $15,000 in 2010. (And it's still going strong! Never needed a major repair.) Which doesn't really mean anything, just throwing out yet another anecdote to highlight that nobody's presented any information that actually supports or contradicts the major premise that cars are getting less affordable. Segmenting your data by picking arbitrary cutoffs (like $25,000) has its own chapter in the classic book How to Lie With Statistics.
I’m just saying that I 100% understand that you think it was “cheaper before” but there is no data to show that. I honestly feel the same.
Toyota Corolla was 13k in 2000: https://www.kbb.com/toyota/corolla/2000 - 25 years ago.
The core of my argument is this: today’s news manipulates perception by playing on emotions, which ultimately distorts the truth.
This article isn’t overly political, which makes it easier for us to debate without resorting to calling each other Nazis or communists. But when it comes to politics, distortion of truth happens all the time.
Bold of you to talk about distortion of truth when you are the main perpetrator of it in this thread.
Your claim of "only 10 models under $15k in 2005" is patently false, based on logic where the "Forbes 30 under 30" list is evidence that only 30 people exist younger than 30.
So yeah I guess your core argument is true, but you demonstrated by perpetuating it...
Please find a car which is missing. I was unable to find a single one.
And I also made the mistake with the list for 2025: there are 20 cars less than 25k in 2025.
See? You found problem with 2005 but you happily ignored that fact that I missed cars from 2025.
Why? Because it fits your world view. And that is how marketing works: you are convinced that cars are getting more expensive and no amount of data will change your view.
And posts on hubspot like this are paid by companies not making sub-$25k cars.
We haven't even started discussing your 2025 list, I'm just criticizing that you used a "top 10" list as a source saying "there were only 10 vehicles that existed meeting this criteria".
Meanwhile, if you look at your other sources, the Pontiac Sunfire link you posted shows that one did MSRP just over $15k, despite it being on your "top 10" list.
You really are in no position to criticize other people for "no amount of data will change your position", when all the data that you have presented so far is some combination of misleading, incorrect, or hallucinated.
Everything that has increased by more than income growth has gotten less affordable. Thankfully it seems to be happening to all the most expensive things housing, vehicles, education, healthcare, etc (/s incase not obvious)
In 2024 Toyota in Thailand introduced a cheap pick-up that is a bit under 15.000 USD when THB is converted to USD. I think it's rather neat - the basic model is /very/ basic, but lots of options to customize.
This doesn't really have anything to do with the US though. Importing that vehicle is not possible for another 24 years and USD$15k goes a lot farther in southeast Asia than it does in the US. For the past half century there has been a plethora of cheap pick-up trucks available in Asia and that has not carried over to the US.
The first 4 or 5 pickups in that infographic is the Toyota Land Cruiser, not the Hilux. Although this infographic is pretty funny, it's not accurate I'm afraid.
I know this has issues. There is a more accurate one out there somewhere with actual year/models, armament specs and the conflict in which the pic was taken but I don't have quick access to it.
Toyota uses a separate platform called IMV [0] in developing countries that doesn't meet safety standards in EU, Canada, Japan, the US, or the UK.
A lot of safety features such as around crumple zones or even airbags (in the case of the Toyota Champ) don't exist in the IMV platform.
Australia allows them (excluding the Champ), but they watered down their car safety standards in order to seal FTAs with ASEAN (2009), China (2015), and India (2022), leading to the last Australian automotive factory shutting down in 2017.
Once you start adding those safety features (and build the associated testing infra), costs end up comparable to those in Central Europe - as can be seen with the domestic and international prices of Western-oriented export models from China (Zeekr X/Volvo XC30) or India (Toyota Hyryder/Toyota Urban Cruiser).
In addition to what the sibling points out, in this case of a light pickup truck the chicken tax also applies which adds 25% tariff: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax
Mostly regulatory nonsense. US has very specific requirements that mean cars driven in the US have to be basically specifically designed for the US. Other than that main problem is tariffs.
While I do agree with you, I think you have to account for income as well, and not only the car price (even if adjusted for inflation) to determine affordability.
Pretty sure inflation adjusted median income has increased from 2005 to 2025. But it sure doesn't feel like it. I wonder if other costs such as housing and healthcare have gotten less affordable affecting the real affordability. Inflation adjustments should capture this, but it feels like it doesn't.
Housing, healthcare, childcare, and education have become more expensive. These are the biggest expenses for most people and are necessities. So the percentage of income available for other expenses has definitely decreased. Not sure about real wages though.
In theory, inflation is supposed to capture those increases. The median real wage has gone up about 10-15% from 2005-2025. In theory, it should be more affordable. It doesn't feel that way to me, but maybe there are numbers I'm missing, or the way we measure inflation and apply it to affordability is broken.
Yes, this measure is called "Real Wages" and has been increasing basically since 2013 (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q). But as you point out, that measure uses CPI, which doesn't weigh mortgage/rent and healthcare affordability as heavily it would need to match what the average family experiences.
They do not have a source. This happens on HN constantly: someone shits on the article with no basis in reality and no source, and their comment gets voted to the top and dominates the discussion.
After the supply chain crisis which saw used car prices look like new car prices, the used market really never came back to a sane level. I also wonder how many people are in the market for cars old enough to not have all of the telemetry tracking, "everything is computer" touchscreen nonsense which could be having an effect on the supply/demand of that part of the used car market. I recently bought a car specifically with those features in mind.
Issue was every manufacturer slashed production during the pandemic either intentionally or due to parts shortages, so cars built during the pandemic years are abnormally scarce.
Add in that used car loans always have higher interest rates than new car loans, if you're buying with anything other than cash there still isn't that much of a discount on gently used/certified vs new.
You have to really go back a few years or get a relatively high mileage before you start finding cheap options again.
Yes, only inflation is not the only thing you need to factor in. If you really want to answer the question of "are people correct in complaing about car prices?", you need to factor in how much money they have to spend on what.
A first ballpark figure would be calculating how much that pricebracket of car would be as a fraction of a median persons income or better even: how many hours they needed to work to get it – if you want to know if something is harder to get, this is the crucial info.
Just adjusting inflation like that is doing exactly what you critique others for only from the other direction..
I can't speak to the specific years, but there's no doubt that a fair number of small, less expensive, cars have been knocked off - the Rio, the Prius C, the Fiesta... I think there are more than just those (though maybe some of it is lineup consolidation, considering the eventual Kia K3). At the same time, some of the remaining options have had (IMO) huge MSRP hikes.
But you are right that a lot of the price increases relatively track inflation. It may just be that cars going up at the rate of inflation and used cars depreciating less, combined with uneven wage growth and high maintenance and repair costs is leaving a lot of consumers feeling pressured.
Though it's hard to track this down in a way that seems accurate, cars that are under 10 years old and 100k miles always seem remarkably close to MSRP to me, while those that are over those thresholds often seem massively depreciated, but that's anecdote and I haven't done a study. Interest rates me be another piece of the story. When I last bought a car they were basically zero or 1% I think. It gave the latitude to use debt w/o much thought. Very different now.
Which is to say, I do think it's plausible that it's true that some segment of the car market is tracking inflation, and that cars aren't affordable any more.
If that's the case, there's probably more going on, and it may not all be on the cars. Once again, venturing into anecdote, I know multiple people who've had significant wage increases since prepandemic, don't have much if any lifestyle inflation, and somehow seem to be in the position of finding cars and homes less affordable despite making quite significantly more. I'm not really sure exactly what's going on, but the way people are feeling doesn't match the numbers for a fair number of folks with above average incomes, and I can only imagine it must be a lot worse for those w/ less.
You are incorrect. Prius C in 2005 was $21,510 (not really "less expensive") and that is about $34,827.67 in 2025. (See: https://www.kbb.com/toyota/prius/2005/)
Comparing one model (which actually isn’t even the same model) over time doesn’t make sense. Also you’re moving the goalposts here, $28,350 base is not “cheap”
There are a bunch of nice Toyotas in the USA with MSRP just under 25K right now, including the Corolla Hybrid, which is pretty sweet considering how fuel efficient it is. https://www.toyota.com/
Not to mention how much more functionality present day cars have. (mentioned in a couple comments elsewhere, but things like airbags/backup cameras/other sensors etc).
Well of course, but tech gets cheaper over time too. Just look at the price and power of today's MacBook air vs 10 years ago. You get way more value for money as you should
All cars have become a lot more bigger. I was just watching the movie Jewel of the Nile on Disney+. There was a scene, where a dictator and the protagonists cram into to Rolls Royce of 80s and I just thought the average suv these days has more interior space...
While flight travel has got cheaper by making seats more compact and planes more efficient, the cars go the opposite direction - drive luxuriously like kings and burn the planet with bigger and bigger gas guzzlers...
For functionality meant to protect people outside the car (eg. automatic braking, or pedestrian airbags) there is a very good case for it being mandatory.
Unfortunately those are often not on the list of mandatory features.
Electronic stability control doesn't sound like it adds any meaningful costs over ABS. Backup cameras are a cost but not a huge one. What else is there?
ESC in effect mandates the same hardware as the highest end ABS systems and adds throttle by wire on top of that.
Pretty much every AWD car can do "dumb" ABS that uses pedal pressure to run with just the sensors the AWD system uses (front axle speed and rear axle speed) but you need an expensive ABS system with a pump and a throttle by wire system if you want to be able to have the system do stuff when no foot is on the brake.
You can make ABS systems without the pump. They take use the driver's input instead. That's how lots of early systems worked. You give up a little stopping distance in the case where one axle or one side of the car has a ton more traction than the other (think like driving in the gutter of a really strongly crowned road in a downpour) but they work pretty good and are CHEAP, like real cheap.
Throttle control is necessary because you need to lock the driver out of the throttle for ESC. Think of ESC as basically preventing soccer moms from mashing the pedal and getting sideways unnecessarily. Depending on how sideways they get initially the ESC programming is going to want to drag certain brakes to help get everything good again and that requires a pump since the driver's foot isn't there to give pressure (it might still be on the gas).
There's a lot of features that aren't mandatory, but exist in just about any model so they might as well be. It used to be cheaper to get a manual transmission, now there are very few available, and usually on enthusiast models. Very few cars don't have power locks and windows. New cars generally have a touchscreen entertainment system. etc.
- boomers like classic sports and muscle cars. They feel nostalgia towards them because those are the cars high school and college kids used to actually drive
- people who are looking for affordable cars buy used. That market has evaporated. I remember in the late 90s-2000s the newspaper had a junker section where you could get cars (that started) for $100. Imagine what you could get for $2000
- when inflation goes up you lose savings and don’t necessarily get a corresponding wage increase. So just saying it’s equal according to inflation does not mean it’s equal in terms of work hours or job training requirements
I have been thinking more about that recently. It’s very strange we convinced ourselves we were being economically efficient while destroying productive resources.
Not everyone was convinced -- it was pretty transparently
1) a subsidy to the car industry
2) an effort to hasten the proliferation of in-car surveillance tech
Reminds me of the argument of "cars used to be more sturdy than today, where any hit is a total"
Um... Looking at videos of crashing old cars into new cars, the old cars DO NOT hold up to new cars in terms of breaking. The only difference is in old cars the engine would stay intact and the occupants not, while in the new cars its the opposite.
Did you even read the article before making your comment? It is actually data driven like you are demanding, while your own comment is not beyond the most basic sense. A superficial count of models below $25,000k MSRP is not adding to the discussion.
Example 1:
The article claims that the affordable Nissan Versa Note cost $16,545 in 2019 and was discontinued. But not saying that this would be $21,168 in today’s dollars and they leave out an important detail: Nissan still sells the Versa in the US, just not the Note hatchback version. The current Nissan Versa starts at $17,190 according to Nissan’s own website: https://www.nissanusa.com/vehicles/cars/versa-sedan.html
That’s actually about 20% less expensive than the inflation-adjusted number from 2019.
Example 2:
And then they claim that price increase is: 29.2% - just 3% more than inflation (but they did not want to mention total PCI). But even that number of 29.2% cannot be verified on BLS.gov nor fred.stlouisfed.org . I uploaded FRED and BLS data to chatgpt o3 and it says that new vehicle prices increased 22% from 2019 to 2025 - actually less then inflation:
2019: 146.220
2020: 149.091
2021: 166.653
2022: 176.463
2023: 178.269
2024: 177.552 fred.stlouisfed.org (slight dip from 2023)
2025: ~178.7 (May 2025)
Overall, from 2019 to mid-2025 the index increased from ~146 to ~179, amounting to about a 22% cumulative rise in new vehicle prices.
The reason the US car industry does not want a $25k car is that the financing opportunities are crap for a car of this low cost.
In the same way that airlines exist to offer you a miles based credit card, the US car dealerships survive by offering you a loan for the car. Or perhaps, a car to go with your structured finance opportunity.
It was a funny experience going to buy a used car with my partner a few years ago. Being a little naive I'd assumed being a cash buyer was a plus as they'd guarantee a quick sale, but as soon as the salesman realised he wasn't going to be signing a finance deal you could see him lose interest entirely. kinda funny to think they're in the business of selling loans rather than cars.
Or if you come with your own financing. I usually talk to the "finance guy" at the dealership because (so I've been told) they sometimes run promotions and can give you a rate better than your bank but lord heavens I've never seen it.
They once offered me more than double the rate of my bank and for 2.5 times the term length. I'm sure that $150/mo or whatever payment for the rest of our life is attractive to someone but I just laughed. They really don't like people who are looking to minimize total interest paid.
When I bought my latest car ~2 years ago, the dealer's rate was something like half a percent higher than my banks. On a 3 year loan and with the $1000 kickback for taking the dealer financing, it ended up being marginally cheaper to take their loan.
unless there's illegal collusion, someone will see a market opporunity and step in to fill it.
That said, a quick search for new cars under $25k: Chevrolet Trax $20.5k, Nissan Versa $17.2k, Hyundai Venue $20.5k, Kia Soul $20.5k, and Nissan Kicks $22k. Other options include the Toyota Corolla $22.3k, Hyundai Elantra $22.1k, and Volkswagen Jetta $22.5k
There is market opportunity, China has found it, but the US won't allow them to be imported because it undercuts everyone else so thoroughly. The US automotive market is extremely far from being a free and open market. You can't just build a car to a set of standards and automatically be allowed to sell them, there are substantial legal and political barriers that cost tons of money to overcome, which doesn't make financial sense to anyone with that amount of money to just sell low margin vehicles.
I strongly agree with a generalization of the article - that cars have increased in price relative to their quality and value to the point that it's nationally problematic. There's a whole pile of cars that have gone from sub $20k to the high $20ks and above. Most of the cars you list will also have essentially non-optional packages, delivery charges, and more costs rolled into their price. At the same time it's not easy to find used cars that don't cost nearly as much as new cars unless they're pretty old and high mileage.
And it seems clear there's no rational reason that cars should subject to a higher rate of inflation than any other good.
It seems very clear that somehow the market is broken. Whether it's because new competition is impossible because only the established can achieve the necessary economies of scale, protectionist regulation,the dealership model, or something else, it's pretty clear something is broken. Just like with much of the rest of things in the US and maybe the world.
Illegal collusion is not the only thing that can prevent a competitive market. Large barriers to entry and imperfect information are two other textbook examples.
The small and quasi-loophole to getting a good used car deal is buying a hail damage car. I genuinely don't understand why cars were made to have shiny paint. Cars drive on dirty roads with insects and pebbles abound. Paint doesn't matter. Car washes are crazy, except to abait rust
It’s a lot easier to clean a shiny surface than a matt one.
Try clean a house ceiling versus a house wall - though anyone sane wouldn’t paint a ceiling matt, or for that matter, even contemplate painting a ceiling.
Confirmation bias but a very good friend did this: bought back the hail damaged car from the insurer in preference to keeping the undamaged VW Beetle, sold the beetle, has been driving the hail damaged car with the minimum legal insurance to third parties for 15 years since. She's streets ahead in costs of car ownership and drives long and short distance, urban and country.
The issue you'll face is when you go to sell it – any noticeable hail damage means you are getting 1/2 the resale value if you can even find an interested buyer.
Driving a car until the wheels fall off generally doesn't make financial sense. Keeping an old car on the road gets really expensive unless you have the space, time and skills to do all the work yourself. Then there is the opportunity cost of not having access to your car for days/weeks at a time while it is being repaired. Finally you have the stress of not being quite sure if your car will start when you turn the key or get you where you want to go.
From both an economic and quality of life point of view, you are better driving your car until it starts to get slightly unreliable and then quickly trade it in for a slightly newer used car. Buy a 5-10 year old car, drive it for 5-10 years, then trade it in for a 5-10 years old car is probably pretty close to an optimal strategy.
Same with technology. If you aren't rich, selling around the time the next model comes out is actually a great way to avoid paying full price for your modern tech.
With Apple stuff, waiting more than 1-2 cycles means you've missed the ability to recoup most of your costs AND you got to use an old device for an extra year... yay?
More like extra 2 or 3 years, so yes, yay. Consumption is consumption, you don't get things for free.
If the phone only lasted 1 more year, then the resale price of the phone would reflect that. Either the collective market of buyers lacks the information to evaluate this (doubt), or you got lucky finding the one buyer willing to overpay.
You also always pay full price, because when you buy a new phone (or anything), you always have the option to buy the used or keep using the old one. Cost is opportunity cost, which is defined as your choice minus your second best choice.
> Consumption is consumption, you don't get things for free.
While this is true, desirability in the used market doesn't work linearly. Apple devices fall off quickly in value after 2 years. If you buy early in the product cycle, selling as soon as you can buy the next year's model has proven to be the most economic way, because resale on last year's model is still great but 2 years ago is in the tank.
I've been upgrading yearly since 2007 and my spouse waits 3-5 years between phones. Doing the math, over the years I've spent less overall because of the value of sales when I trade up vs. their phone was worth sub-$200 when I sold it recently, because it was older than a few years.
Prices are all jacked up vs what you get because a historical surplus of very well kept cars on the used market has lead to every idiot on the internet being told they're somehow magical.
A badge on the grill doesn't make 100k the of uber miles that the 3rd owner put on or being habitually driven low on some key fluid by the 4th owner any less destructive.
I ran a Corolla with a holed sump, and no measurable oil. I was going to scrap it.
After 3 months it was going ok so took it to a mechanic. They repaired it, said ‘don’t do that’ and it carried on for another 5 years before I sold it.
At some point, even a Corolla will need a repair or maintenance significantly more expensive than the remaining value offered by the old car. It sounds like if you drove it for 3 months without oil, you didn't have a lot of options at the time or you might have put oil in your car in the meantime?
> Faffing about selling cars and buying newer ones is a waste of money.
Depends. No reason to pour money into a depreciating asset that you trust your life with.
I saw an early 2000s small car get into a ~30mph collision recently and ... I wouldn't drive an early 2000s car after that. A lot of people do, and they probably should try to get something with more modern safety equipment.
Is it savings if you buy an item worth less and you pay less? You're just buying a damaged item at that point ... which is worth less to everyone
That isn't getting "deal" unless you plan to never liquidate... cars generally don't get used up like a can of soda, so the dent actually matters when you go to sell it.
> That isn't getting "deal" unless you plan to never liquidate... cars generally don't get used up like a can of soda, so the dent actually matters when you go to sell it.
Yes, but it mattered already when you bought it!
In other words, the dents were already priced in when you paid for it, so you paid less. They'll like be priced even lower when you sell it after 5 years of usage.
You cannot generally get a loan on a car with much hail damage. Buyer pool now significantly smaller = less value, must sell for less to attract one of the few potential buyers.
This means for most people trying to unload their hail damaged car, they get to sell to dealer at auction pricing (aka rock bottom prices, penny on the dollar value), sell it to an auction yourself, or hope someone on CraigsList is desperate for a car enough they don't care it's a golf ball.
It's interesting how something like this might be hard to understand if you haven't been through it. Previously working in the car industry, not understanding this is actually common among car buyers and a source of frustration for people who get stuck in their low-value, hail damaged cars.
Think about something other than a car: If I buy something that is normally worth X, but it is damaged and is now worth 0.3X and there I pay 0.3X I did not save 0.7X off what I got... I got something worth what I paid.
You cannot extract value from a deal where you were paying less because you received less (aka damaged and less valuable property with less market value).
TLDR: When you buy a hail-damaged car, you get a discount. When you sell a hail damaged car you give a discount. The discount you give is always lower than the discount you get, hence you come out ahead in dollar values.
------------------------------------------------
I get all that (and will address specific comments below), but first, look at it this way:
1. The selling price of the car without hail damage at 3 years old is `$X`.
2. The selling price of the car with hail damage at 3 years old is `$X - $Y`, where `-$Y` is the value of the hail damage (hence it is negative).
3. The selling price of the car with hail damage at 9 years old is `$X - $Y - $Z`, where `-$Z` is the value of the depreciation (also why it is negative).
Since the car selling price never gets to zero or below AND $Z flattens out over time, $Y must also flatten out over time! IOW it is also asymptotic.
This means that the discount of buying a hail-damaged car (the `-$Y`) is large for a new car and small for an old car.
In practical terms, in the context of buying, using and then selling a hail-damaged car:
1. You buy a $30k car and get a discount of (say) $10k due to hail damage.
2. Six years and many miles later that car, which might have sold for $10k without hail damage, will now sell for only $7k.
You got a discount of $10k and only gave a discount of $3k. You're $7k up.
> If I buy something that is normally worth X, but it is damaged and is now worth 0.3X and there I pay 0.3X I did not save 0.7X off what I got... I got something worth what I paid.
You are conflating `value in market` and `value of utility`. Whatever you are paying for a product, you pay that only because the value you get from the that product is greater than the amount of money you are paying.
Hail damage does not reduce the utility value of a car by even a single cent. It will transport your cargo and passengers exactly the same and with exactly the same levels of safety, comfort and reliability that its non-hail-damaged counterpart would.
The utility of a hail-damaged car is exactly the same as the utility of its undamaged counterpart. The difference in price between a hail damaged car and its undamaged counterpart is the exact monetary value placed by the market on "how pretty is it?"
My last car got minor hail damage across many panels, it was a difficult PDR for some reason - when I traded it in it was worth 1/4 what KBB would have been for a similar year and mileage without dents
Even trying to sell it myself for around 1/3 KBB "good" value took 2 months because the next buyer can't get financing on a car worth very little, so you have to find a cash buyer who doesn't care how their new ride looks. It's rare for anything other than $2,500 cars
It depends. It doesn’t make sense to not get a car you can afford for 0% interest. I could have outright paid for my current vehicle but over the 3 years at 0% interest I earn 6% to make a few thousand over the lifetime of the loan.
I assume the comment you quoted means “a car you could afford to pay cash for, but will instead invent the total cost while making payments on the 0% interest loan.”
I think the problem here is "you can afford" vs "you can pay for"
if you're willing to spend the time and effort doing interest rate arbitrage for a few hundred dollars, maybe you can pay for a certain car, but i'm really not sure you should be
This is exactly true. Dealership profit centers are loan origination and extended warranty origination. Parts/Service is designed to pay the bills. (Source: My dad has been selling new cars for 40+ years)
(This is kinda like the Costco model where they aim to break even on all sales with profit only being the membership fees).
proud owner of a financed 2024 manual nissan versa here :) but yeah the dealership made almost no money and I put down a deposit when it was a couple months from coming in at a location far from where I live. it's a $20k car though.
One fact not mentioned in the article - Americans now owe $1.64 trillion in auto loans, and cars make up 9% of all consumer debt in the country. In fact we now owe more on cars than student loans. The average loan term is rising - almost 6 years now. 60-day delinquency on auto loans is at 6.6%, the highest ever recorded, and is as high as 9% in some states.
So while car prices keep going up, people also keep going deeper into debt to buy one they can't afford.
You can blame manufacturers or banks, but ultimately the problem is unchecked consumerism and treating cars as a status symbol, which is sadly pervasive in this country.
Problem is if the US consumer had the “moral awakening” you propose (and to be clear you are claiming that basically we are in this situation due to the weak moral character of the average American) then coincidentally our entire economy would begin to crumble.
It’s not just car loans, our entire economy works because of debt, and has for at least the last 20 years.
The idea that nearly every one benefits financially from this behavior and yet we see this behavior at scale solely and coincidentally because of a sudden mass moral failing is a bit hard to believe.
Almost all cars have turbos, all have abs/airbags/cameras... even counting the seat foam & covers, wheels, door cars... how cheap do you think a vehicle safe and comfortable for humans can be?
The average car has tons of moving parts that have to be weatherproof, shakeproof, pothole-ready... stuff consumer tech doesn't dream of. It also has to be repairable, be engineered to meet all the regulations in various countries so the manufacturer doesn't make 15 versions for different countries...
A lot of things are overpriced in the world; I'm not sure cars in general are high on this list. If you want a car similar to a high end 2015 car, the 2025 Jetta has more than anything you could have gotten in 2015 and I'd say with inflation the price is lower today when you account for inflation.
I had a Jetta as a service loaner recently and it drove great. $25k cars are still out there, you just can't get a $25k 4Runner.
Almost all cars have turbos since that's about the only way to get similar performance out a sub-1L three-cylinder engine that you could get from a cheap, naturally aspirated 1.6L iron block back in the 90's. Emission and safety standards are nice, but the customer pays for it.
> cheap, naturally aspirated 1.6L iron block back in the 90's
VW sold the 2.0L naturally aspirated engine that made about 115 horsies and got a whopping low-30s mpg on the highway until 2015 in the base model US Jetta.
The same engine I had in my 1993 Jetta. Legitimately available since the 70s.
Thank goodness regulations forced that engine off the market. The only upside was it had decent torque... it wasn't even reliable after all those years!
Exactly. Same reason Europe hung onto manuals so long. Only way to make that kind of car drive good in a pre-turbo and direct injection era was to give the user the option to wind it out and shift when they pleased.
The thing you're missing here is that the automakers have spent billions upon untold billions of dollars lobbying politicians and on PR campaigns targeted at the public to convince people that literally the ONLY way American cities could possibly exist is in a form that is utterly dependent upon the automobile.
Transit ridership in the US was higher in the 1950s than it is today and it was the automakers that killed public transit. They literally bought up popular and profitable public transit companies just to shut them down so people would be forced to drive.
The problem isn't "Consumerism" it's a culture of car dependency that's largely the result of intentional action on the part of the automakers to grow and protect their profits.
The reason there's so much auto loan debt in the US is people literally HAVE TO OWN a car just to get to work to support their families in the vast majority of US towns and cities. People don't want to go into debt just so they can buy some shitty fucking KIA so they can sit in traffic for two+ hours a day so they can get to one of their three minimum wage jobs, but when the alternative is being unemployed and homeless, a lot of folks will do what they have to do to provide for themselves and their families.
In the rural midwest, it's extremely common to see dumpy trailers with one or two 75k new super duties parked outside.
I don't get it at all, and thought "well, maybe they didn't have a choice and needed it for work?" before realizing any old used truck would probably work as well(if not better).
I have to say it's a status symbol, a weird one at that. I'm more in awe of rat rods and fixed up old trucks than brand new ones, YMMV I guess.
Sure, status is a factor. But for people who do a lot of driving, having a nice car really benefits their quality of life. No one wants to spend hours every day in a miserable little penalty box.
This is very subjective. The cars people today call a "little penalty box" are easily equivalent or better to many of the luxury cars of the 1990s. Bluetooth, AC, ABS, backup camera. There's almost nothing that isn't required / standard. Plus they tend to be the efficient 35+ mpg cars.
I can't speak for every car. I test drove a Civic and did not find it comfortable (way back in ~2007) and that was mostly due to my own dimensions, but I found the 2007/2008 Honda Fit seats great, as well as the 2014 Mazda 3 I had owned.
As comfortable as an $80K car? In some cases, no, but often more comfortable than the luxury cars of a few decades ago. Hardly a penalty box!
I disagree relatively wholeheartedly. Beyond some absolute basic comforts (that I would argue have been well catered to in the last 25-odd years), it's mindset. Unfortunately mindset has a fair percentage of 'status' wrapped up in it.
Price of vehicle seems to have little bearing on the comfort of driving anymore, other than if you're tall and being shoved into something small like a Yaris (although at 6'4" my Saturn S-series wasn't bad at all). Cars seem to keep getting more aggravating to sit in, not less, and doubly so for "premium" stuff people like to buy. Manufacturers keep jamming what feel like racing seats into everything (everything has to have "racing" parts) and other things that make no sense at all for the task at hand, like enormous wheels with rubber band tires. It was way easier and more comfortable to log huge miles on older stuff like 90s and early 00's Chevy trucks (even the S10s) or a regular old Impala or Saturn as they were way, way more comfortable and not a persistent bloated irritation to drive.
Cars must be the textbook case of Stockholm syndrome. People keep buying Audi/BMW/Mercedes and European cars in general for god knows what reason (even though when they inevitably need service, it is always an expensive nightmare, among other big problems), they buy stuff that is functionally useless and stupid looking like CUVs (many of which which have less interior room than a Camry, burn more fuel and still ride and drive like ass), and have caused the market for full size body on frame trucks to turn completely on its head (hard to find anything other than pavement queen king ranch doodoo trucks that will cost you at least your first born son). This whole "it's shit if I don't pay a huge premium, and it's shit if it's not huge and loaded to the gills with useless shit you're never actually going to miss or use but will cost a small country's GDP to even flash to pair up when you need to R&R" is something that's probably one of life's great mysteries to me.
I don't know why inflation is dismissed so quickly. The article lists the industry average price increase as 29.2% and the inflation value I got out of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics calculator[1] was 26.2%. So sure, "this isn’t just a case of inflation affecting the entire vehicle market" [emphasis mine], but it is mostly that.
Saying you can't compare car prices to inflation because cars are in the CPI... We're really doing this?
New cars make up about 4% of the CPI, and used cars around 3%, so together they’re only a small part of the inflation basket. If new car prices doubled tomorrow and nothing else changed, headline inflation would rise by about 4%, but car prices would have increased 92% relative to inflation.
Inflation measures the decline in the value of money over time. If car prices rise significantly more or less than that decline can explain, that’s meaningful. If they don't... that's not.
Then it’s pointless to compare nearly anything to inflation, which means inflation isn’t very useful. You can still find many product categories increasing in price more slowly than inflation. Some much higher than inflation. So it is useful to compare inflation
But the question we're asking is why the price of cars went up. "Inflation" isn't an answer. Inflation is what we call the price of cars going up. It still happens for a reason...
If the cars prices simply follow inflation, then there is no point in writing an article about why car prices in particular have gone up. Just write about inflation in general.
Energy costs going up, raw materials costs going up, employees asking for raises because of the higher cost of living... And you have an explanation not just for cars but all industries.
No. Inflation is what we call the value of money going down. As evidenced by needing to part with more of it in exchange for a standard basket goods.
It is fundamentally different to ask whether cars cost more because money is worth less, or whether cars cost more because we are making them less efficiently.
The ancestor comment points out that most of the change can be attributed to the former and as cars are only a small percentage of the inflation basket then it is reasonable to conclude that this is indeed the prime reason for the price rise.
The fundamentals of civilization would be a lot clearer if we measured the value of things in energy instead of a floating currency.
Or, to put it another way, going by the thread ancestor we expect the price of cars to have risen around 26.2% due to currency devaluation. If the price of cars has risen 29.2% it is more or less pointless to look at the car industry for an explanation. The price has risen by roughly what we'd expect if they were doing what they've been doing with no real changes.
Inflation is a result of too much money being created than what is needed by the growth of the economy. Average price increase that we use to estimate it is just a useful proxy.
Inflation is always the main contribution to price increase. It only makes sense to compare price raise above or below inflation if you want to unearth factors specific to any given product or industry.
I've never found that econ 101 logic credible. Even if money supply is ultimate the reason for prices going up, there's an intermediate step where somebody actually set a higher price. And there was a cause for their thinking. Not just "well there's more money going around so we can charge more " or "our parts and labor cost more so we've got to bump prices", but a synthesis of all that that decides the price to set, the types of cars to make, whether to sell and market a 'discount' model, etc.
So even though inflation may feed into that stuff, there's plenty of causality to inspect. Why aren't there cheaper cars? Not because there's more money, but because nobody decided to make and sell a cheaper car. That's the stuff that we should be asking about. Not waving our hands and saying 'sucks, inflation'. The inflation happens at the speed it does because of things like this.
The reason may well be: who would sell a car, or a car part, or their labor, for less when there's so much money going around? But we can still ask plenty of questions about that. Cause I'm pretty damn sure the labor isn't raking in the difference at a rate matching inflation. And it sure seems like there's plenty of room to compete on price, so if no one's doing that effectively, why not?
> there's an intermediate step where somebody actually set a higher price
Yes. But the most common reason for setting up higher price is because you can, because there's more money flowing in the economy than it should be. Going into details is in the grand scheme of things about as useful as rearranging chairs on the Titanic.
> Why aren't there cheaper cars? Not because there's more money, but because nobody decided to make and sell a cheaper car. That's the stuff that we should be asking about.
Yes. But we should be asking why cars are 3% more expensive, because their prices rose by 29% while the inflation is "only" 26% (don't remember exact numbers), not why car prices rose 29%. If you don't deduct inflation you are interested in wrong things because large numbers make you think there's a drastic reason.
Does 3% even deserve and explanation? Isn't it fully explained by toxic advertising making consumer want heavier car year after year, that naturally cost more?
Inflation is completely possible with no change in money supply. This is handled in economics with the idea of the "velocity of money" which conceptually captures the large range of factors by which prices can increase due to factors beyond money supply, for example an energy price shock or changing consumer and business expectations that result in changes in spending and investment patterns.
> Inflation is completely possible with no change in money supply.
Money supply always changes. But yes, inflation is possible without changing money supply, if for example economy shrinks or there's some process that reactivated dormant capital that people had just sitting around and not being used by the economy.
In the end it's always the same thing. More money than it should be. It's just that "should be" is very complex and "more money" only a little bit simpler.
$1 in Jan 2005 is only 1.69 today, not $4 because the velocity of money has decreased dramatically as it has pooled towards the top of the income/wealth spectrum where it doesn't get spent or productively invested.
Bulk of it is that, but some of it is that larger economy needs more money to run. So while there was 4 food money supply increase the legitimate demand also increased somewhat. Exact numbers might be hard to pinpoint because we tend to measure economy in dollars but still it wouldn't be $4 even if the rich didn't get disproportionately wealthy from this supply.
cars inflating faster than overall/average inflation of the economy is significant.
I suspect the reason is that a car's parts are numerous, and because specific inflation affects different components, there's a good chance that a car's component has more inflation than other products in the economy.
And because inflation has an expectation driven aspect, suppliers that know inflation is happening is going to raise their prices more to combat it pre-emtively. This happens throughout the entire supply chain.
Thus, the end result is that a car's inflationary pressure is higher.
This can quickly turn into a philosophical debate rather than an economic one. Which value went up first, the chicken or the egg?
Personally, I think the way it makes the most sense is thinking of inflation as the change in the value of money rather than the change in the cost of goods, in large part because costs rise for non-goods too. For example, my employer pays me more today than they did in 2019 despite my employer not selling any goods or buying many goods outside of laptops for their employees and they obviously don't care about my personal expenses when determining annual raises.
While not being a petrol head I was still living in a lala land where you could buy a brand new car for 10k EUR. Nothing fancy, just "a car".
Obviously it turned out to be not true.
After some digging it turned out that in the last 10 years the price of cars went double. Literally double. Same car, like Fiat Panda, with the same engine and configuration, that ten years was worth one potato is now worth exactly two potato.
Long story short, the entry level car now costs close to 25k EUR. [1]
But here's the kicker.
While subvenstions seem to fail in most cases for regular people - like gvt giving people money to buy apartements equals to apartments being equally more expensive - it seems to work wonders for automotive thanks to Chinese.
EU offers up to 10k EUR subvention for electric cars and with that in mind you can get something like BYD Dolphin for slighly less than 20k EUR. Which is mind blowing. The car is comparable to Volvo XC40. Of course this is just an example and there is plentiful of other options.
[1] If you're not familiar or comfortable with EUR just think 1 EUR is 1 USD and you'll be fine.
> Long story short, the entry level car now costs close to 25k EUR. [1]
Just this February I bought brand new 2024 Clio for ~17k EUR, gas+LPG. At least until July it was super easy to get even better deals on small/compact cars with ICE engine. Hybrid engines are closer to 25k EUR.
> EU offers up to 10k EUR subvention for electric cars and with that in mind you can get something like BYD Dolphin for slighly less than 20k EUR. Which is mind blowing.
BYD Dolphin? MSRP for that car where I am is at 2.99m JPY(17k EUR, 20k USD). You guys are getting screwed.
Higher transport costs, plus very large tariffs on Chinese electric cars. The EU believes (quite accurately), that there wouldn't be much of a EV industry if they let the real prices stand on their own. So there's the big tariff, and a rebate that blanks it, but also subsidizes the EU competitor.
The UK discontinued EV direct subsidy, and the Dolphin is still only £17k. Chinese economics is just built different. I am extremely tempted to try one.
>After some digging it turned out that in the last 10 years the price of cars went double. Literally double. Same car, like Fiat Panda, with the same engine and configuration, that ten years was worth one potato is now worth exactly two potato.
You communicated the concept perfectly. Anyone holding onto a pile of say 10k cash in 2015 have exactly 5k cash value in 2025. But here's a hidden kicker. Storing any functional vehicle in cheap storage is turning out to be a sold form of investing.
>EU offers up to 10k EUR subvention for electric cars and with that in mind you can get something like BYD Dolphin for slighly less than 20k EUR.
"The EU" does not offer subsidies for any car, some member states do (And I have never heard of a subsidy of 10k per car). On the contrary, Chinese cars are strongly tariffed by the EU.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, however, until someone provides a link, I label this post "hyperbullshit".
Chinese EVs are certainly strongly tariffed. The below Reuters article highlights how BYD are apparently shifting to plug-in hybrid sales to avoid the 27% tariff the EU imposes on its pure battery electric vehicles (plug-in hybrids attract a reduced 10% tariff).
It's a europeanism. In both French and German (and probably other EU languages) the word for "subsidy" is something like "subvention" so native speakers of these language often reach for an unnatural word in English.
Btw other examples include "actually" which is used to mean "currently", and "eventually" which is used to mean "maybe".
Personally I'm torn whether to consider this incorrect use of the language as it is quite widespread. Maybe it would be better to consider this as the emergence of a new dialect.
I actually double checked the word "subvention" on google to see if I'm not misspelling it and the results said I was correct. But yes, I used that word because it was direct translation from my language.
Other examples you gave are also correct.
Engrish is hard.
EDIT: as a kicker I will add that while working for BigCo I was resposible for taking care of colleages coming from abroad and the very first thing I was telling them after saying "hello" was "do not ever ask anyone how are you". ;)
Yeah, a thing can be ready to be used/eaten/etc. What confuses me sometimes is, for example, a doctor writing some notes on their computer and then saying to me "now you are ready", meaning that we're done and I can go.
"Eventually" is the worst false friend I think. Because in english it implies certainty while in latin languages it only implies possibility. But since the meanings are so close, it looks legit in context 90% of the time.
"Actually" does look out of place when used in english with the latin meaning so it's safer.
It's probably a new dialect if speakers of it understand each other, and also understand when usages of their dialect are wrong.
European flavored English has existed for a while though since the existence of the EU as an institution has required a lot of English learning and writing as one of its official languages.
English being just one of the official EU languages would not have mattered much. No one is picking up Portuguese or Polish, even though they are also official languages and have been for a long time.
The important fact is that English is the lingua franca of both trade and administration in the EU. People sometimes still learn some French and German, but the vast majority of international EU discussions are in English, both in the EU bureaucracy and in business circles.
Some already consider this a new dialect. It's called Euro English[1]. There are some more examples in that wikipedia article. Not just synonyms, but grammar as well.
oh, and to add to your vocabulary - the word pathetic, especially around Elbonia, can be used with the intention of saying something is full of "pathos".
Yes, but repair costs haven't gone down and the E30 will need maintenance and repair at $10k euro. Time without a car or an unreliable car also doesn't work for most working people these days.
Have a car that's effectively uninsurable and then spend months sourcing parts that are not chinesium whenever something breaks? For the same 10k you can get F30 which is not even in the same league as a daily people mover and is actually repairable.
I pay $130 a month to insure my E30. All OEM parts are 98% available and you can do tons of repairs yourself if you're so inclined, it's the Thinkpad of cars. I've run my E30 with raised suspension and some hardcore winter tires and I got through some insanely tough northern winters no problem. I get all my parts via FCPEuro. Here [0] you can see all parts in the car in a 3D way along with prices. Also has a Bentley service manual making maintenance a breeze. Brilliant car/community. Also gets 7.0L/100KM 40 years later.
First of all, that statement is entirely untrue. These cars aren‘t 10k in most (all?) of the EU for example. As far as I know, these 10k cars are really only a thing in china and some SEA markets (I am not sure if these cars are really that cheap adjusted to purchasing power in these markets).
Beyond that, the chinese EV brands are in market capture mode right now. The competition is cut throat and the margins are extremely thin.
It‘s a market skimming strategy that will presumably be a last man standing scenario. If the winner(s) are decided, prices will definitely not remain as low as they are right now in some places.
> Beyond that, the chinese EV brands are in market capture mode right now. The competition is cut throat and the margins are extremely thin.
BYD is profitable. Admittedly that's more of an exception than a rule for Chinese EV brands, but BYD is also the most important.
> It‘s a market skimming strategy that will presumably be a last man standing scenario. If the winner(s) are decided, prices will definitely not remain as low as they are right now in some places.
Even if most of the brands disappear we're very unlikely to get to an n=1 monopoly scenario. Even a couple dozen or so companies competing in the EV space should prevent margins from getting too high.
In the olden days the ICE industry was at times run by fewer than 10 companies per country, that was enough competition to prevent consumers getting too screwed by pricing.
American expat living in Thailand reporting in. I think the cheapest car in Thailand is the 2025 Suzuki Celerio which is a 5 seater hatchback. At the current exchange rate it's $9,800 brand new. Of course this figure is not adjusted for purchasing power (so what?). We have BYDs here and I haven't really looked at them but pretty sure a few are under $25K.
If Americans can't get a new car for under $25,000 but Southeast Asia can get them for under $10K, something is wrong. If the entry level car is 2.5x more expensive in America it means Americans are getting fleeced. I haven't lived in America for a long time and I feel like this makes it very obvious to me when the BS machine over there is in full spew. Free markets drive consumer prices down to the cost of production.
I don't know the auto industry in detail but it is an extensively documented fact that America has few free markets left, and they've been replaced by cartels - each industry has a couple of crooks at the top who rotate between private and public jobs. On the public side they come up with excuses to not enforce the anti-trust laws that are on the books, and they add regulations that raise the cost of business. On the private side they come up with ways to improve margins which usually involve fucking consumers.
Let's not make excuses for the criminals. America needs free markets and cheaper cars. Elite lawlessness is the cause of increased costs in America.
> If Americans can't get a new car for under $25,000 but Southeast Asia can get them for under $10K, something is wrong.
If they were perfectly interchangeable, sure. But if nothing else, lets look at safety and emissions regulations -- different regulatory regimes will absolutely put different requirements onto the build and components. Not an expert in automotive regulation in SEA vs. US, but I'd buy this argument more if the comparison was between, say, Europe and the US.
There's also likely a bunch of soft cost differences -- dealership dynamics, etc. that add a fair amount to the sticker price, and those probably do have some merit to your case.
There are market dynamics here as well, Americans don’t want to buy a car like the Celerio, most brands have equivalent cars selling in developing countries and Europe but they don’t bring them here because Americans mostly want to buy SUVs.
You could get a Mirage on discount at many dealer's lots for 10k just a few years ago, they weren't hot sellers. They were selling at 4% of the volume of the Camry. Drive one and it's immediately obvious why Americans weren't buying them.
Few years ago? Okay, few is 2 or 3 years. I see MSRP for a base model of Mirage in 2023 was $16,245... 2022 was $14,625? When I was buying a car in that time period, there were no discounts below MSRP anywhere I looked for almost anything. Especially anything cheap. I've read a lot of reports of big mark ups for even Mirage's during that time period.
COVID wasn't a good time to buy anything. Companies go where the profits are, if americans were buying tons of smaller cars instead of large trucks and suvs, the companies would be building that.
All Asian/European carmakers have tons of options available everywhere else they could bring here but they don't cos people just don't buy them. Even sedans are harder to sell today, the US is its own cosmos and trying to coerce it into "small family car" when all the ads are about being a rugged f150 driver is very hard.
Look at how people talk about minivans here, all about "the emasculation of men". It would require a lot of leadership to change the market perspective on these cars or americans getting very poor for it to work. It is also incredibly convenient, I myself drive a large SUV that's larger than the average WW2 tank and its insanely convenient to have that much space for a family of 6.
If American car manufacturers think no one will buy them anyway, I think we should let in all the cheap EVs that are available and see how it plays out then. Can't be worse off.
Up until 2024 there were no restrictions on cheap Chinese EVs that didn't apply to any other car. The cheap ~$10k Chinese EVs simply don't meet US safety standards.
There has been constant political discourse in the U.S. about keeping cheap Chinese EVs out of the United States (yes, I know Polestar and Volvo are owned by Chinese corporations, they are older and at higher price point). You may have missed this in the last couple years if you're not from the US, but it would be hard to miss if you're from here.
I didn't miss it, which is exactly why I specified "up until 2024" which was when policies regarding Chinese EVs changed.
Further up this thread the discussion was about Asian market cars that are still sub $10k. There are both gasoline and EV vehicles that exist in this price range, but they are very different than the types of cars sold in the US market. They're more similar to off-road low-speed utility vehicles (and some are literally sold for this purpose in the US).
If you look at the western markets where there are Chinese EVs, higher safety standards, and higher buyer expectations, you'll see that they're very closely priced.
The idea that other countries have equivalent cars that are cheaper just doesn't hold water. Asia has cars that are cheaper because you get less car.
As another example here, the cheapest BYD sold in the UK is the Dolphin Surf starting at $25,614 (18,650 GBP). Even if it doesn't require any changes to meet US regulations (which many cars do), I don't think many Americans are going to run out to buy what is considered a microcar here, just to save $2500 over a Leaf, that Americans already don't buy. It certainly isn't going to compete with the Corolla or Corolla Hybrid which starts at $22,325/$23,825 respectively.
the cost to produce SUV is not significantly higher than sedan, but prices and margins are higher.
so the American customer is getting fleeced on SUVs much worse than on sedan, because SUV margins are higher (and thats why OEMs are switching to SUVs)
The Seagull (aka "Dolphin Surf" in other countries) seems to cost 18560 GBP in the UK, or 11.780€ in Spain. Haven't checked out other countries, but clearly "Chinese EVs (BYD Seagull/Dolphin Surf/Dolphin Mini) are $10k worldwide except USA" isn't 100% correct.
Seems fine to leave something like that unmentioned, as a quick check reveals it not to be true at all.
The footer mentions the PVP (recommended pricing) is 11.780€, which is after the government MOVES III rebate which removes 7K, which would explain the difference.
> So if you saw the pretax figures it'd probably be true
But why would I look at the pretax figures? Who would look at that, unless you're doing a business purchase? It basically has no meaning for the average person since they'll never buy anything without the taxes anyways.
Because the title of the article is stated in pretax figures....
Apples to Oranges
You might as well add in the lifetime maintenance costs while you're at it (would be very useful to know technically ... Maybe BYD makes it up on repairs or something)
> Because the title of the article is stated in pretax figures....
How do you know that? Neither the submission article (hubspot) or the article referenced by the parent comment (gmauthority) mentions anything about the figures being pretax or posttax, why would they default to talking a price no one else would use?
> You might as well add in the lifetime maintenance costs while you're at it
If that's something you have to pay up front to get the car, then yeah, add it to whatever figures you reference. But I don't think that's how it works normally, so how is that the same thing at all?
The submission says MSRP, which doesn't include tax, financing, title, or registration in the US.
Americans paid $25k for $18k sticker price vehicles a decade ago. Now they're paying $32k for $25k vehicles. People I talk to who have new cars say their payments are from $500-800/mo, often for longer than 60 months.
If my 20 year old Toyota ever quits, I'll probably build what amounts to a street legal go-kart and invest in another, larger cooler and freezer.
I remember as a kid my parents making the decision on where to buy big ticket purchases based on tax rates. The local big city had a higher sales tax rate that the smaller big city further from us. I don't know when that no longer was true as the tax rate seems to be flat across the state now.
Others are sharing the sales tax rates by state, which is not the same as the auto sales tax rate by state, which is typically lower. Notably, there are a few states with no auto sales tax.
People have been known to cross state lines to purchase cars, to save a few hundred dollars on the purchase. In any case, a $10k vehicle is not going to cost over $11k post-tax in any state.
That's how people in the USA typically talk about prices, and it is what all displayed prices in the USA (from food on the menu to car prices) represent. Since the article is talking about US car prices, it's the only relevant thing to compare.
Otherwise, feel free to adjust $10k -> $12.5k or whatever the VAT is in your region.
Completely untrue. Maybe in China or SEA but not for the rest of the world.
Chinese manufacturers have come a long way and I wish I could buy one in the US but they are also pricing at razor thin margins to starve out competition.
That's just competition doing its job. The rate of profit, just like every other price, is supposed to fall to the minimum sustsinable level in capitalism.
Nobody was debating whether that was right or wrong simply that any cheap prices are a short term anomaly and not sustainable for those businesses.
The fact still stands, very rarely are Chinese EVs priced like that and it’s really only for the bare bones budget ones that barely meet local safety standards. I think about VF in Vietnam they have a 2 door 4 seater that’s $12k. Only a single airbag and I doubt any real modern crash standards built in. Works great for that market but not for the US.
A country's government sees an opportunity to invest into a promising new technology that could reap tremendous economic benefits. Such benefits include new jobs, new income, the ability to increase social/political capital worldwide, and help usher in a world that is that much less reliant on oil.
That's what countries in the first world are supposed to do.
When we say Chinese government subsides, we are not talking about tax reductions or interest free business loans, we are talking about the Chinese government itself operating the business and selling the products at a steep loss in order to undercut and wipe out incumbent global competition in the world market so that China becomes the primary worldwide supplier of those particular goods.
This has already happened to consumer electronics, power tools, manufacturing equipment, solar panels, and batteries.
The strategy is especially effective on products with a high startup cost in markets that have to deal with high amounts of regulation and labor unions because being government-owned means you get to skip all that. There's no reason to expect that cars won't be next.
> When we say Chinese government subsides, we are not talking about tax reductions or interest free business loans, we are talking about the Chinese government itself operating the business and selling the products at a steep loss in order to undercut and wipe out incumbent global competition in the world market so that China becomes the primary worldwide supplier of those particular goods.
Where did you get that information? There were previous investigations by the EU Commission about Chinese government subsides, and "tax reductions or interest-free business loans" were the main allegations.
We've done similar things when it comes to military and military-adjacent technology.
If a government believes in the potential and promise of a given technology and wants to dominate in that sector, it should be allowed to. That's the premise of worldwide capitalism and markets. Capital is allocated to where the owners of said capital wish to allocate it to, and that's the free market at work.
Well, it’s a bad thing for countries whose economies include manufacturing and aren’t China, sure. The obvious threat is that they will do what they did with manufacturing capacity and just kill the industry in other places.
Do we want to get to a point where every industry is completely run by whichever country is willing to throw the most money at it?
How is that different from funding US companies with VC money fueled by a propped-up market, driven by printing $2 trillion in debt a year and benefiting from being the world's reserve currency (USD recycling on the stock market etc)? The end game seems to be the same.
>Do we want to get to a point where every industry is completely run by whichever country is willing to throw the most money at it?
The whole point of specialization of industry is that yes, we absolutely should be OK with that. If that's where China wants to specialize and deploy resources, let them.
Yeah, that’s the sort of thinking that gutted in the middle class in the western world over the last 40 years. And it also presupposes that once they succeed, they won’t then stop it, let prices increase, and move onto the next one until they own it all.
And we've been completely okay with that, as long as it's not the Chinese government doing it. Jeffrey can do it, Elon can do it, Warren can do it, George/Barack/Donald/Joseph/Donald can do it, but woe betide us if Xi does it!
I'm not saying it's a good or a bad thing, and I completely understand the long-term ramifications. I've quite literally done biz with the CCP.
However, we've chased cost-cutting measure after cost-cutting measure in order to please the shareholder class at the expense of the working class, and this is the result. We shouldn't be surprised.
No, you asked if it was a bad thing and I explained why yes, it is very much a bad thing for some people. Allowing it to continue will cost a lot of people good jobs here.
China historically does it in a way where they orchestrate cartel like behavior and will dump inventory on the market at low prices to kill off international competition. Some of it is altruistic but not all of it.
That's the geopolitical advantage of being the world's manufacturing hub.
Foresight is required when dealing with such entities, not hindsight.
If my electric car comes in at 1/4th the price of an American built one, so be it. The tradeoff here is that in countries that aren't engulfed by rent-seeking capitalists who only answer to themselves, countries like China have a policy goal and will make sure the state utilizes the private sector to meet the goal.
For example, Mr. Musk could easily take some of that $450 billion net worth of his and make his cars considerably cheaper. He has taken enormous subsidies and kept his cars expensive. In China, the state would not let someone with that amount of capital take subsidies, and most certainly wouldn't allow them to bribe the government with the government's money.
Kind of a strange take. I think your thoughts derailed after the first sentence. Advantage? I guess but it’s also cartel like behavior that the rest of the world mostly avoids hence when selective tariffs are often put on China in those areas.
We've (the west) effectively encouraged this sort of behavior. OUTSOURCE IT ALL TO CHINA! Our corporations and shareholders have most certainly reaped the benefits from this. Our politicians have made a lot of money this way, too. Lots of people have deliberately turned a blind eye to this sort of behavior and didn't think about the long term ramifications of pushing everything to be built in China.
Call it cartel like behavior, fine.
China is merely playing the hand it has been dealt and looking out for itself and the survival of its economy and political apparatus. Trade is one way to do so, another is technological progress.
We've subsidized capitalists taking the risk to develop this tech. China has bypassed the ownership class and gone straight to the manufacturers. Some of those capitalists have enriched themselves when they should have passed those costs off to make their products cheaper to stay competitive - that's the whole point of subsidies. Instead, one of those capitalists chose to instead take the subsidies, keep his cars expensive, and make himself the wealthiest person on earth.
You’re not wrong about Western complicity, but let’s not pretend that “playing the hand you’re dealt” means “forming state-guided monopolies and dumping at a loss to wipe out global competitors.” That’s not just survival, that’s industrial warfare with Chinese characteristics.
And yeah, we subsidized Musk, dumb move but the answer isn’t to copy a system where the state decides who wins, loses, and what the price tag is. That’s not market efficiency, it’s command capitalism with a smile.
Don’t hate the game? Buddy, the game is rigged. China just rigged it better.
An example is the section 179 tax break for cars over 6000 pounds - the one your roofing contractor used for her F250 or your real estate agent used for his Suburban.
The former doesn’t exist in any meaningful sense and the latter is not a subsidy, it’s a tariff. It doesn’t make American cars cheaper elsewhere, it makes foreign cars more expensive here.
Other nations aren’t at risk of losing their auto industries domestically because of either.
No evidence was provided for the assertion to begin with, why must the contrary provide evidence but not the base assertion? You provided an opinion with no facts and then criticized me for doing the same.
But the evidence is other countries aren’t complaining that Ohio offering tax credits to get a a Ford plant to go there instead of Pennsylvania is gutting their automotive industry. Which is exactly the issue we’re discussing.
Any such tax credits are simply American states competing against other American states, and have little to no ramification on the overall cost of an automobile, even domestically, let alone globally.
Meanwhile, China is doing loads of very well documented things that would make the automotive industry impossible for anyone outside of China if not for protectionist policies. Many other countries (basically any that make automobiles) are instituting tariffs as a result.
I am the original person already claiming that China plays games. Amazing how threads twist.
Fair enough—China’s not losing sleep over whether Ford picks Ohio or Pennsylvania. But that doesn’t change the fact that state-level tax breaks are still subsidies. Public money influencing private decisions is the definition, whether it’s across borders or state lines.
And just to be clear, I never said they were globally material—you did. I asked for evidence on your claim that they don’t exist in any meaningful sense and leave an equally unbacked claim as you did. Funny how that upsets you so much.
You’re right, tariffs aren’t subsidies. They just function like one by kneecapping foreign competition so domestic automakers can overcharge with a straight face.
Actual subsidies?
-Federal: ATVM loans (e.g., Tesla, Ford), $7.5K EV tax credits.
-State: Georgia gave Rivian $1.5B. Tennessee handed VW ~$500M. Michigan’s tossed cash at GM like it’s confetti.
So yeah, no subsidies at all, just billions in “non-subsidy” market distortion to keep the hometown heroes afloat.
So, can you provide any substance to the conversation?
They actually receive some of the highest subsidies of any companies in the US.
Some examples include:
* Politicians often give automakers often receive state and local tax breaks in exchange for constructing plants in their jurisdictions
* Federal grants and incentives for clean energy initiatives
* The infamous 2008 bailouts, where for example, the US Treasury bought enough GM shares that they became the controlling shareholder, effectively nationalizing the automaker.
Electric vehicles eliminated the need for manufacturers to sell (usually small and cheap) efficient ICE cars in the US.
For years, CAFE regulations have meant that manufacturers must meet minimum fleet fuel economy averages or else pay fines. In order to sell more profitable but less fuel-efficient F-150s, Ford also needed to sell little Fiestas or Focuses. In order to sell Suburbans, Chevy also needed to sell Cavaliers or Sonics. But now that Ford can sell Mustang Mach-Es and Chevy can sell Blazer EVs for 50 or 60 grand AND get credit for something like 100 MPG equivalent, there's no longer any incentive for them to spend huge sums developing cheap cars that will net tiny profits (if any).
if you don't believe in market regulations, this is confirming evidence of the distortions of trying to regulate an open market.
If you believe in climate change, this is evidence of how the vested interest behind profit in cars manipulates the intent of the regulations, to continue to get what they want.
It's a bit fish/bicycle, but the point is, we wanted more people to drive smaller, cheaper, less polluting cars. We didn't want the car manufacturers to find ways of maximising sell, including boosting F150 and F250 class truck sales to mummies on the kindy run.
Sounds like something a functional Congress could address after the flaws in the legislation became evident. Then, they keep revising it as manufactures try to do anything but comply. If it costs the manufacturers engineering money to try to circumvent the intent of the regulation, they learn to follow the intent instead. It's not so much an argument against regulation as it is against a dysfunctional Congress. I don't think anyone was rooting for that anyway.
> It's a bit fish/bicycle, but the point is, we wanted more people to drive smaller, cheaper, less polluting cars. We didn't want the car manufacturers to find ways of maximising sell, including boosting F150 and F250 class truck sales to mummies on the kindy run.
Unfortunately, the whole thing wasn't built right for the goal. Setting the mpg bar lower for bigger footprint vehicles is on the one side realistic, but on the other side made it hard to build compliant small vehicles. Small trucks in particular disappeared; some say the market wasn't there, but annual sales of the Ford Ranger were pretty decent in 2005-2010 [1]. 2005 was more than the rest, but there were a couple facelifts, and the Chevy S-10 ended production in 2004, so there was probably some spillover from that. (The 2005-2012 Chevy Colorado isn't significantly bigger than the S-10 though). Post the mid 2010s, small trucks basically don't exist, even when small truck names are used. Supposedly Toyota and Subaru are going to bring one back, but we'll see if it happens.
Some sort of special small car class, with benefits, would be needed. Like the kei cars in Japan. Maybe not that small, and maybe not that small of an engine, but that idea of a smaller than normal footprint, but still highway capable, if only just. There is a federal 'low speed vehicle' thing, but the restriction to streets with speed limits 35 mph or less makes it hard to go anywhere in a lot of places. It's not a reasonable alternative to a regular car for most. There's also some recent push to formalize legal use of kei cars in many US states, but federal import restrictions mean they do have to be fairly old (or have expensive and destructive testing), which further restricts the market.
Strange article based on incorrect information. My son and I are buying car and there are so many under 25k. In total there are 12 new models. Adjusted to inflation things did not change a lot in last 20 years (in 2005 there were 10 models less than 15k).
- 2025 Nissan Versa – Starting at $18,330
- 2025 Hyundai Venue – Starting at $21,395
- 2025 Kia Soul – Starting at $20,490
- 2025 Nissan Sentra – Starting at $21,590
- 2025 Nissan Kicks – Starting at $21,830
- 2025 Hyundai Elantra – Starting at $22,125
Ok
- 2025 Kia K4 – Starting at $21,990
- 2025 Toyota Corolla – Starting at $22,325
- 2025 Chevrolet Trailblazer – Starting at $23,100
- 2025 Subaru Impreza – Starting at $23,495
- 2025 Buick Envista – Starting at $23,800
- 2025 Toyota Corolla Hybrid – Starting at $23,825
The answer is to buy a car off lease, that has 20,000 miles on it and is 20-40% cheaper than the new price. It is nearly identical to a new car and has 90% of its useful life remaining.
I mean that's just not the reality anymore. You could perhaps get 10-15% of the price knocked off here in the US, but 20-40% isn't accurate for anything besides high-volume luxury compact sedans, and even then you're skewing much closer to 20-25% in most regions.
Corollas in a High Cost-of-Living Area (HCOLA) that are ~3 years old, and under 30K miles, and all under $20,000. So... 20% or more off MSRP?
(The SE starts above $24k, the LE is a bit cheaper.)
I picked a hard example, but I bet for any car less popular and in demand than a Corolla (and in more normal areas), you can readily find them for 20% off MSRP at the 2-3 year old, 20-30k mark.
Agreed, there are some cars under 25k, however for some of these its difficult to find a dealer with a base model, they all have a bunch of "useless" upgrades that you won't want that inflate the price. I'd be curious if you an actually get an Impreza for under $25k.
They don't mention the amount of mandatory additions to the car from government regulations. Obviously not the only factor but it's certainly a factor. Cars now have 6 to 8 airbags, backup cameras, more high strength steel, automatic breaking systems etc etc. I love the safety that those all bring, but it's not free.
Aka how to shoot yourself in the foot and hand over the market to Chinese manufacturer. In Europe, only Renault created a low cost brand (Dacia).
Once chinese brands become commonplace everywhere, tradional carmakers will have a hard time taking back market share. In Europe they closed or are closing the last HCOL factories, killing any remaining brand loyalty.
Yeah, a better title for the article is how western automakers are going to go extinct. Sure the US might decide to block Chinese cars (apparently the EU isn't), but they can't force the rest of the world to buy $65,000 American built cars when the alternatives are less than 1/3rd of that price.
A larger question is how much the cheap Chinese cars are dependent on a long chain of government subsidies from the mines to the local infrastructure and what happens when China's investment driven growth cycle comes to an end. If the solar panels are any comparison, the Chinese automakers are losing a lot of money despite grandiose subsidies.
There are at least two different ways to interpret the data on industrial policy support for EV makers.
China’s trading partners could point to 15 years of sustained regulatory and financial support for domestic producers, which has fundamentally altered the playing field to make it much harder for others to compete in China or anywhere else where Chinese EVs are sold.
By contrast, defenders of China could point out that the data show that subsidies as a percentage of total sales have declined substantially, from over 40% in the early years to only 11.4% in 2023, which reflects a pattern in line with heavier support for infant industries, then a gradual reduction as they mature.
In addition, they could note that the average support per vehicle has fallen from $13,860 in 2018 to just under $4,800 in 2023, which is less than the $7,500 credit that goes to buyers of qualifying vehicles as part of the U.S.’s Inflation Reduction Act.
It would be interesting to compare that to Western and US support for fossil fuel cars with substantial government support of the oil and gas industry.
> These estimates reflect the combination of five kinds of support: nationally approved buyer rebates, exemption from the 10% sales tax, government funding for infrastructure (primarily charging poles), R&D programs for EV makers, and government procurement of EVs.
The first two (and maybe part of the fourth) I can understand, but the rest are too much of a strech to count as a government subsidy. Every government builds roads and other car-related infrastructure. Every government purchases vehicles for its own use. Every government subsidizes R&D in new fields.
There are a growing number of electrical cars priced below 25K euro in the EU and a few below 20K even. I mention electrical cars because that's where all the growth is. Electrical cars are now becoming cheaper than the cheapest ICE cars. You mentioned Dacia. VW is bringing out the ID2 next year. There's a few Stellantis models from e.g. Citroen. And of course BYD is now selling cheap cars in the EU as well. And those are just the vaguely European cars (lots of Chinese components involved). Japanese, Korean, and Chinese manufacturers are also growing their EV market here. Notably absent (except for a handful of Ford compliance cars and Tesla) are US manufacturers.
The article is specifically about the US market, which because of the tariff situation is becoming highly distorted. The local producers are making what are increasingly US only models that can't really compete internationally. This excludes mass produced small cars because they can't do them competitively any more as that would require high volumes and export markets. But mostly US car makers are struggling with export markets. There are a few exceptions to this of course.
In China, the competition is pretty brutal right now and it's starting to spill over to other markets. That's all about budget cars and redefining what a budget car actually is. Any export markets where US manufacturers still have any ambitions are being affected by this. BYD and other Chinese manufacturers are gaining market share (at the cost of other manufacturers) all over Asia, Central and South America, Australia, Africa, Europe, etc. Even Mexico and Canada are not off limits and these are the primary export markets for GM and Ford.
> In Europe, only Renault created a low cost brand (Dacia).
Dacia did force other european auto makers to maintain at least one low cost ish model. Not an entire brand but still. Sometimes just for the eastern european market. Skoda Rapid comes to mind.
But even Dacia is succumbing to the auto manufacturer mindset. Every year the models get larger, more default features are added and the cars get more expensive.
The sad thing is it'll be a slow death. As American / German / Japanese still hold cultural cachet over Chinese/ Vietnamese cars, the companies will delude themselves into going off a cliff till a new gen comes and doesn't care about that cachet and just cares about price
In the US, if they were allowed and priced as low as I hear they can be (without excessive tariff, etc) then I'd expect it would only take 5-10 years. Assuming they are in fact similar on quality/reliability to what we're used to. The people willing to take a risk to save money or get more for their money would start the wave, word would spread, then people who can afford any brand will jump on board as they've heard it is not really risky as they expected.
Problem is, we'll probably never let Chinese vehicles in as it is an existential threat to the US auto industry. It's odd because we allow Japanese, Korean, etc. but we have political beef with China as a global power rivaling ours.
I don't know. Lately the basic expectation even for Temu Chinesium it to work and work well. So I have been taking chances on bigger and bigger ticket items that are made in china and are of good quality for a fraction of the price of the western things. Made in China doesn't carry such big stigma lately. So I don't think that the headwinds toward them (unlike everything изделано в СССР) are that strong. I mean can't be worse than a Renault.
welp, guess my corolla needs to last until I die. I spent about $9k usd (in australia though) on it second hand pre covid and I'm just gobsmacked at the prices of vehciles now even years post covid. I make good coin and I just can't see how non-"enthusiasts" can justify spending so much money on their vehicle. there are houses in my suburb with 3-4 of these expensive, new model cars out front.
It is. From Australia's largest Toyota dealer I know that ~70% of new car sales are financed. A proportion of the rest would be funded by home equity but that is harder to measure.
An interesting trend that I've heard from multiple dealership (friends and family) - the number of people being rejected for financing has dramatically increased in the past 12 months. There are some dealership areas now where a third of applicants are being turned down.
in 2021 my beloved Honda Fit got totaled. I bought it new in 09 and only had 80K miles on it. They don't sell new ones in North America any more. So I bought a Kia Rio. They don't make those any more. I don't really like it but with the current chaos in the economy I'm not trading it in any time soon.
I was in the UK for the first time last month and was struck by how many hatchbacks and sedans they have that we don't in North America.
The UK is heading down the same path, the best selling car used to be the Ford Fiesta but it has been discontinued now. VW have dropped the Up. Skoda aren't replacing the current Fabia. The general trend is towards bigger SUV's.
The second hand market isn't great because we stopped making cars during Covid so there is a dearth of four/five year old models.
The only light at the end of the tunnel is EV's are now comparable to their ICE equivalents price wise.
And it's even more ridiculous because we don't even have the space for these things. People driving round in these monstrosities, struggling down narrow lanes or into parking spaces. Is nobody able to see further than their nose? What are you going to do when everyone has one? I suppose demand bigger roads, more parking etc. And who's going to pay for that? A classic tragedy of the commons.
The dwindling of small hatchbacks in the US is so disappointing it’s difficult to put into words. They were the perfect little suburb grocery grabbers, and now you can’t buy them without overpaying for a used one. The next best thing is a sedan that’s longer and harder to maneuver and park despite having markedly worse cargo space and utility, and to get a hatch (not just a liftback) you’re forced into crossovers/SUVs which carry a chunky price premium.
What I wouldn’t do to bring the Fit and Yaris hatch back to the US market.
If you want AWD a crosstrek or impreza are good little hatchbacks, ignore the "cross" in the name, its much more hatchback than it is a mini-SUV. It is sad that so many of the other little hatchbacks are gone (ex. fit, vibe, etc).
The closest Honda is probably what I replaced my 2007 Fit with: the hatchback Civic. It's a little longer, and has less usable cargo height, but otherwise is similar enough. (It tolerates my height better too.) Also available in fun, fast versions.
The closest thing to affordable and comfortable I could find this past year after maintenance costs pilling up on my ‘15 Ford Fiesta (that I got for a staggering $14k post college) was a Honda HRV Sport. Has all the basics, incredible sensing system, lots of space decent gas mileage and drives well at around 28k in Ohio. My partner has an Accord and honestly its a better car. Incredibly good gas mileage, reliable, perfect for an A to B person that doesnt want to worry about their car.
The dealer inventory model is the real killer here. The article mentions that only ~20% of US buyers pre-order cars, compared to Europe where build-to-order is common. This fundamentally changes the economics.
When I worked at a dealership software company, we saw the data firsthand - dealers would rather sit on one $80k truck for 60 days than move five $25k sedans in the same timeframe. The financing alone makes it worthwhile. A buyer financing an $80k vehicle at 7% over 72 months generates ~$20k in finance reserve profits that get split between the dealer and lender. The $25k car? Maybe $3-4k if you're lucky.
The Maverick situation is particularly telling. Ford designed an actually affordable truck, and dealers immediately marked it up 25% because they could. That's not a supply chain issue - that's dealers extracting maximum value from artificial scarcity.
What's interesting is that direct-to-consumer models (Tesla, Rivian, etc.) haven't really attacked this market segment either. You'd think cutting out the dealer would make sub-$25k vehicles viable again, but even they're chasing higher margins upmarket.
The only real solution I see is Chinese EVs eventually forcing the issue. BYD is selling the Seagull for ~$11k in China. Even with tariffs, that could land here under $25k and completely reset consumer expectations. Until then, we're stuck with dealers optimizing for finance profits over volume.
it’s a shame that they’re spending so much of their capital on manufacturer side customizability. An electric vehicle is a firmware update away from being a stick welder already; make the truck one way and ship it with a pair of jumper cables, a box of 6011, and a pallet of tube steel.
Outside of having what amounts to a couple of shells and removable seats that can be mounted to the box (and a removable rear panel from the cab to join them to create a single 'interior' when using them), the majority of their BTO options are really basic module swaps where most of the complexity comes from managing inventory of the various SKUs than anything else.
As somebody with a '99 Ford Ranger, the Slate is incredibly appealing as nearly every other manufacturer has completely abandoned the compact pickup market; although it has the same issue that the Ford Maverick and Honda Ridgeline do, it's a unibody design. If they actually launch I may end up getting one if they release some BTO options to slot a double-din mount and door-mounted speakers in to handle runs to the hardware store and towing lighter loads on paved roads, but I really wish somebody would do a compact frame-on-body pickup again for those of us that drive poorly maintained dirt roads in forested/mountainous terrain where some body damage (and thus, the cheaper repair costs associated with body-on-frame designs are nice to have) is always lurking around the corner.
[Seriously, I understand the difficulties of batteries and such with EV's and that's likely part of why the Slate is designed this way. But, for people like me who actually need a pickup to do pickup things, not haul groceries, it's frustrating when you're accustomed to being able to replace a side-panel on the box for less than your insurance deductible if something falls on it. And that's without even bringing up the obvious disadvantages when it comes to towing and payload capacity.]
> Seriously, I understand the difficulties of batteries and such with EV's and that's likely part of why the Slate is designed this way.
In 2000, Ford had an EV Ranger, and Chevy had an EV S-10. Neither with great range, of course. It should be easier to do with modern batteries. Attach the batteries to the frame under the bed, put the bed on top, all engineering problems solved.
I guess I should clarify, the unibody design makes it cheaper to do this in a compact design, given the extra material you would need to protect modern LiFePO4 cells from physical damage compared to the SLA batteries the EV Ranger and EV S-10 both used (which could pretty much take a bullet and not end up with a volatile reaction), as well as space efficiency with packing the cells.
The F-150 Lightning is body-on-frame, so I know it's entirely feasible, but the same reasons Ford went with a unibody for the Maverick are probably doubly relevant for something like the Slate (cost and weight). I'm going to quietly hope they succeed with this and somebody (Slate or otherwise) makes a proper compact EV pickup designed to get dirty. If not, maybe the market for EV conversion kits will further develop and I'll just yank the V6 out of my Ranger and slap an electric drivetrain in it.
Huh? I thought the Slate body panels are fiber reinforced Polypropylene, basically a cheaper somewhat less intense performance sibling of that ultra tough fiber reinforced nylon that power tools are made of since about that battery tool manufacturer war really took off?
Yeah, there's a frame underneath, but the panel itself shouldn't even really care about tanking a shopping card, it's main weakness is how soft the PP is to sharp objects...
Yeah, but I'm not talking about a shopping cart denting the side of the box. My family owns some forested land on butte near where I live, 8' wide dirt roads carved through the hills with very abrupt drops, pine trees and loose rock damaged by weather threatening to fall a few feet and ruin your day, and wild growth that likes to suddenly scratch your paint at best when you're heading down an oft-used path for the first time in a year. Let's not even talk about wildlife being wildlife.
Like I said, my Ranger is not a grocery carrier, the 2015 Impala I drive day-to-day handles those tasks. The pickup gets used, towing my ATV and jon boat, hauling stuff around for camping trips, carrying firewood around, and generally getting rough and dirty away from civilized society. That's why, at best, the Slate is appealing to at least handle hardware store runs or hauling my boat (trailer and the boat are easily within the 1,000 lb towing limit on it) to the lake; but it's still not a replacement for what I have. Also really need e-AWD from an EV pickup to get over (or out of) some things, the Maverick is also a flop here because it only has AWD (which an EV can get away with because of the insane torque electric motors can provide, but an ICE or hybrid pickup without 4L is going to get stuck somewhere).
Yeah, a "mid-sized" pickup would check all of those, but even relatively compact ones like my step-mothers GMC Canyon have a notably larger turning diameter, which is why I want a proper compact pickup (another area the Maverick fails miserably, 40 foot turning circle for something that small is...words fail me.)
As an aside, the other downside to unibody pickups is their towing capacity, but with a new option package added to the current model year even the Ford Maverick can match the 2 ton capacity of my Ranger (although Ford saw fit to derate mine to 1 ton because it's a 5-speed; it's fully capable of towing 4,000 lbs, albeit not very fast, if you know how not to burn up a clutch.)
Note that those rebates would be entirely killed under the current Trump budget bill [1], so we'll see what happens.
I also love the concept, it's a bunch of things I've been looking for but unable to find in the US market. The final price/availability as well as repairability are going to be the dealmakers.
I may be cynical but I think this is all marketing. From what I've seen there is so much upselling built into the concept that if this ever comes out that I don't think many people will be driving around the 20K model.
I was in the market looking for a used SUV for my wife to haul around our kids last year. Dealing with dealers who wouldn't budge even a few hundred off the inflated listing prices, the interest rates on financing and then the insane insurance costs was not pleasant. I have an old Subaru beater that I was also thinking about upgrading but after this whole fiasco I decided to spend some money to fix body and small mechanical issues myself and drive this thing another 10 years hopefully. It's just not worth it.
Yeah, haggling over used cars is dead and buried. The market doesn't accommodate it in a world where there's more demand for used than ever.
1. More people got priced out of new cars.
2. More people are driving their cars longer.
3. Caravana and other online predatory loan machines are outpaying dealerships for cars, and flipping them for nearly credit card level interest rates.
Also, us millennials don't want to deal with that shit anyway. List the price, keep it near KBB value and you have a deal.
You obviously have not been following Subaru, while what you are saying was once true, it has not been true for several years now.
Google "Subaru battery", read about all of the additional electrical problems that are the result of Subaru being unwilling to fix a problem that is the end result of them selling your data.
Subaru stopped making reliable cars somewhere around 2014.
Would make sense - why protect a market that no US manufacturer seems to want to support!
Of course the US manufacturers are hoping that you'll just take out a loan, preferably with them (this is how they make their profit - financing and servicing) and buy something far more expensive than you want/need.
As someone working for the German automotive industry I see part of the reason being a nearly constant crisis situation. Software is another part that seems to consume a huge amount of resources for little outcome. See Cariad from Volkswagen for an example.
Suppliers suffer from a constant flood and drought of contracts. Crisis -> We need so save money -> Supplier contracts are frozen or cancelled -> "Oh, we can't do stuff ourselves/We need help" -> Supplier had to let go experienced staff, hire cheap/unexperienced replacements/outsource -> Quality suffers and costs explode -> Repeat. Also not paying/delaying payments drives more suppliers out of business.
You also better promise the impossible because the cheapest offer wins. One time I got a PowerPoint as the technical drawings for electric charger test station. Just some black boxes, lines and names. That was the documentation. I should help the project management with documentation of the current state, but had to provide quite a bit of engineering in addition. Also had to talk to the Chinese supplier directly (nobody in the team spoke Mandarin). What a joy.
Another financial point with impact on birth rates and demographics.
It is now very difficult (I can count with my fingers) to find a <100k car that can have 3 child seats in a row. Or that can sit 7 people that is not a SUV pedestrian child killer.
That's the answer here. They can build cars better, cheaper, faster than we can.
Instead Ford wants to sell a 80k SUPER F-250 BIG MANN TRUCK. All for what, you to drive 10 minutes to Walmart, buy groceries and drive back.
The best car is the one you don't own. No payments, insurance, parking tickets.
Unfortunately most American cities are centered around driving. So much money , and space wasted on these multi ton metal boxes. In many places most(much) of the city is literally just parking spaces.
We do want affordable Chinese EVs, the same way we want Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Kia, Hyundai, Subaru (all among the best selling auto manufacturers in the USA every year). You can't buy them because the government and domestic car companies don't want you to.
We hardly put any miles on it (maybe 15k a year). To get around locally we ride our bikes mostly here in the city.
We do use it for our small business (essential) and also to to a large RV trailer which we use to live in 2-4 months a year visiting loved ones and just decompressing.
The things people don't usually talk about is the total cost of ownership.
One can buy a new F250 diesel for $80k, drive it for 6 years towing heavy loads and working hard. And sellnit for more than half what they paid for it. During that time the only costs are routine maintenance, no major repair bills.
One can also buy a luxury car or SUV, say a BMW, for the same price and 6 years later it is most certainly not worth half what they paid for it, and they typically paid tens of thousands in repair costs.
The next argument people make is that a big truck is inefficient. The simple fact is my F250 diesel gets the same as your BMW M3. But it can be used for work, and is.
Financially, I would argue that it makes no sense to buy a new vehicle above $50k that isn't a diesel pickup.
From experience talking to friends and sales people plenty of folks with 60 to 80k incomes find themselves in 50k plus vehicles.
I suspect for the majority of truck buyers, if credit wasn't as easily available, they'd find alternatives.
The only reason the typical person can buy an 80k truck is they can get a loan.
Let's say their was a hypothetical car loan limit of 1/4th of your annual income. A lot of people would find out really fast they don't need a massive truck.
Manufacturers would in turn adjust accordingly. A 15k car, maybe without a bunch of touch screens, is possible.
This is probably why cars are cheaper in China, credit isn't as available.
> Let's say their was a hypothetical car loan limit of 1/4th of your annual income. A lot of people would find out really fast they don't need a massive truck.
So much this. Similar "unbounded" pressure on student loans / tuition. It keeps going up because students are able to get loans.
Comparing the average income around here to MSRP of vehicles I see around here and it's clear that a lot of people are driving around in something that approximates a second mortgage!
Another (possibly bigger) reason cars are cheaper in China is because their government subsidizes the heck out of BYD and the likes. It would be like if Tesla didn’t have to pay anything to build their factories.
Not sure if this is a tongue in cheek joke, but Tesla has benefited massively from federal subsidies as well as local dog and pony shows of small municipal factory sites.
It wasn’t a joke, but I do see your point. US subsidies for EVs are massive as well. I guess I just hadn’t dug into the numbers. Now I’m not sure who gives more subsidies, the US or China.
The federal tax credit in the US is much higher than the Chinese equivalent it appears. But the factory and R&D subsidies are much harder to compute.
>>"The issue with America is the vast majority of truck buyers really can't afford an 80k truck."
I would say that's not what matters in this discussion (comparing trucks vs cars).
I would also say the same sentence is true for cars, most Americans can't afford 80k cars.
What I am saying is you are not accurate. Most trucks in the US are not 80k trucks bought by suburban folks to buy groceries in. Most trucks are bought by fleets, by small businesses, etc. They're the standard white fleet specs, not the high end trucks. They're bought by farmers, ranchers and drywallers. Most.
Just because you don't hang around in those circles and only see your suburban neighbors and their trucks doesn't mean that's the overall trend.
Everything you highlight here is also true for cars, and worse even.
I'm not justifying anything, I don't owe you $%&#, I am saying you are wrong and giving evidence as to why.
Why the personal insult? Mods is this ok per HN policy?
I use and need it for work, yes big heavy things also need to be done in cities too. I noted this in my original comment. It's very tacky to personally insult a working person for the tools of their trade. You don't like the fact that a plumber needs a plumbing truck? How would a window installer get the windows to the jobsite? How do you bring diesel engines to install in their final locations?
And you are absolutely wrong on the repair of BMWs and especially Audis. Just look at used cars for those brands from a few years ago. You are right on maintenance, but I'm talking about repairs. Things breaking and needing replacement or repair. Anyone who has owned those brands will tell you. Also part prices are a big difference.
If you want a small car buy a Carolla, Camry or a Lexus. I'm not saying buy a big truck.
I'm saying it makes no sense to buy a vehicle over $50k that isn't a diesel pickup, except for "comfort" or "status".
If you don't need one for work, then buy a Camry. They're really nice.
They weren't personally insulting you, they were describing antisocial behavior generally, and reasons why people might be prejudiced against drivers of large trucks.
Prior to that comment, you hadn't said anything indicating you personally partook in that antisocial behavior.
You know what, I was out of line with that language. My apologies.
Others are right, I intended to imply "the vibe of the person" you expect when you see an F-250 in a city where even Civic park up on the curb to avoid being clipped. And that being a social cost that any Joe/Jane/Jordan pays in that situation.
Regardless, I'm not really trying to defend myself, just apologize. It was wrong of me and that choice of language was dumb, careless, inflammatory, and just plain rude.
Although I agree that Trucks are not needed by majority of the people that buy them in the US. The reason for high truck prices is 25% tariff on imported trucks for the last 50 years ie lack of competition.
Likewise - it's funny to me that $25,000 is cited as an "affordable" price for a car, when that's almost double what I spent on the most expensive car I've ever owned (a Land Rover Discovery II, which was a lovely machine). I cannot imagine what it would feel like to look at a $60,000 price tag and think, "yes, this would be a sensible use of money".
I've done the math a few times and it just makes no sense to own a car for me. Public transport is the fastest way to get to work, and for everything else I can uber every time PT isn't the best option and still come out cheaper than buying the most budget new car.
Cars are a reflection of ones personality here in the Midwest. Some grow out of it or never subscribe to the mentality. It's certainly cheaper to bicycle, weather and health permitting.
Though car driving and ownership are a big cultural phenomenon, especially among men 18-50.
Environment as well. In terms of "safety" it is unfortunately very risky to bike (or even walk) in my area due to the sprawling roads everywhere. Drivers don't look out for anything other than large boxes, and I've quickly had way too many close calls to consider it useful.
Public transportation is seen as only a thing for children and/or the poor, at least in too many of my circles.
Politicians and the public don't seem willing to invest to overcome the chicken and egg problem. Doesn't help that the legacy transport we do have is neglected, further harming it's reputation.
Do you have example of places with density similar to US where public transport works well? Australia has some in urban centres, but otherwise car centric. Same in NZ. Elecric bus to my place costs 8x more than driving EV (before it was taxed)
California has only a slightly lower population density than France. France has 27,000km of operating passenger rail tracks, California 2,600km (similar to Ireland, a country of 5 million people not noted for its public transport, with a lower population density than California).
This is a weird form of American exceptionalism where people insist that the US can't have the nice things that all other rich countries have, because Density. And this might even be true if you're talking about, say, Wyoming. But it absolutely isn't an excuse for places like California or Florida.
The density issue isn't country wide, but about metro areas. See Spain: If you look at the entire country and divide by population, it looks like the one of the least dense countries in Europe. But what if instead we look at where people live? Get the population density of the square kilometer where each person lives, and divide by number of people, so completely empty space doesn't count for anything. Then you see Spaniards live in areas denser than Liechtenstein. And guess what? Spain has top notch public transport, including high speed rail, because every endpoint is dense. I am right now sitting in a town, population around 100k, with higher population density than New York's Upper East side. We don't even have that much public transport, because only the elderly and the disabled need it, given that I can be on any given edge of town by walking 2 kms. In your typical US suburb, that gets you nowhere.
So it's not country density, but population center density. Single family homes with yards and individual garages make public transport pretty bad, as the catchment rates of each stop just don't have enough people. Just put the people closer together, and have more farmland/forest around the town.
Whilst I can spiel off complaints, public transport in Australia gets my kid to and from school everyday, and myself to and from work in two different cities, everyday, without being late. (When the union isn't striking).
Not to whom you're directing your question, but I drive the short distance to the car park at the interchange/station, then catch the bus the long distance to the city.
It's a great setup, and/but the very specific infrastructure[0] that I use only services maybe a quarter of the city's mid-suburbia. There's other public transport that services plenty of the rest though.
Auckland is an incredibly busy city, on the same kind of world scale as Sydney, as far as my understanding goes.
The interchange has a four level car park that fills up to about three quarters full by 8am-ish. A secondary car park was just finished maybe a couple of years ago, with an additional ~50% capacity.
Australia kind of gives you the choice. The inner city areas have great PT, great public spaces and some awesome outdoor walkable retail/food streets. But then you've also got the outer suburbs which is a hellscape similar to the US.
It's also not that expensive to rent inner city or buy an apartment. The outer suburbs mostly exist because people have a mentality of invest in land at any cost, even if it means living in a wasteland and commuting 3 hours a day.
Which tells you that ChatGPT is essentially useless.
Like, why post this? The difference between the two figures is so vast as to be pointless, and it likely just made them up anyway. This is something that you can actually look up.
A lot of people barely make enough to pay rent before factoring in a car.
Your options end up being iffy used cars or financing. The used car market is a nightmare, you can easily end up with a lemon, but legally you have no real recourse.
If Bob sells Bill a used car, and the engine explodes 2 days later Bob owes Bill nothing.
This doesn't always happen, but it's a concern.
Finance a car and you'll probably spend a significant portion of your income just commuting.
Vs living in a transit centric city where bus/metro fair is a nominal cost
I can hear street racing noises from a highway three miles away! I used to think it was just a few blocks away because I could hear it but I looked at a map. A few people install aftermarket exhausts/noise makers critics call "fart cans." After a recent police crackdown the amount of racing noise at night decreased greatly.
Not a dig at the vehicle; that's a different thing. Rather, I notice that this truck doesn't seem to spend much time as a, ya know, truck.
With other trucks it's less obvious because they don't have a built in bed cover. I suspect many of them also spent very little time trucking, at least here in this suburb. Perhaps it's different in more agricultural areas.
I'm in an agricultural area, have been in and around agriculture and mining for many decades, I can't see anyone buying a cybertruck for any practical reason.
I've seen the offroad performance videos, the cybertruck isn't anything to write home about wrt to either ground clearance or scrabble factor (broken road hill climbing, etc).
Other cheaper vehicles perform as well or better.
The tray area is a nightmare, three side access to tools is good, totally flat tray backs are good, side rails for tie downs are good, ability to custom fit racks for carrying stuff (long lumber, or glass and or panels, etc), etc. are all the kinds of practical choices that dictate a practical utility purchase .. none of these are things at which the cybertruck shines.
An intelligent flatbed setup (what I think the Australians call "trays") is usually way better than a regular bed (barring maybe aerodynamics). A good Bradford or Circle D flatbed (as examples) can take way, way more punishment than a regular bed, and it's real easy to bring a forklift up and load pallets on the side, add boxes or tie downs, etc. One major reason you don't see a lot of them in the states is that many insurers (if you tell them you've put an flatbed on -- even a pretty aluminum one on a mini truck) will automatically assume the truck is being used in some sort of revenue service, and charge you significantly more expensive commercial rates no matter what you tell them.
One of our favourite bits of kit is a twin axle trailer my father built back in the 1970s.
It's got slaved brakes (electrical now, once hydraulic), Hayman-Reese family anti sway bars, uprights and rings on the tow arms to hold gas bottles and spare tyres, and a flat bed.
The smart setup there is removable side and back walls to convert between flat tray and shallow box with sides, and a removable hood with three gull wing doors (so that the tray is a lockable and weather proof space (useful for camping). It's easy to change configuration between the three states.
Our prefered vehicle of choice is a four door family sedan with boot, the trailer can be added for those odd two tonne loads of manure, gravel, straw, sand, etc that get carted about.
Everything else starts getting into dedicated task vehicles - tractors, harveters, chase trucks, etc. The last thing we acquired was an ex military twelve tonne truck with shoulder high tyres on it and enough clearance for pre schoolers to walk under .. it can climb hills, waddle across gullies, and carry 5 tonne of water for fire control (the reason for purchase and fitting).
I live in suburbs between San Jose and. San Francisco and see a few Cybertrucks in single family home driveways and apartment parking lots - it feels more like a status symbol of some kind, see a lot more of other pickup trucks, though more common in less affluent areas.
I've only ever seen one in that mocking picture of trying to fit a motorcycle in it vs. a Kei truck. I still reserve my full judgment though for if I ever get to have extended personal time with one, though I have been soured on the whole thing. The concept was cooler than the final product for sure.
I go back and forth on how much weight to give the "not being used for truck stuff" criticism. (Maybe because I own a small 2006 Ranger that, while sometimes being used for truck stuff, is mostly used for stuff any vehicle can do. I also put on a cheap bed cover for the first time last week...) I think I'm more partial to the "not ever used for truck stuff" criticism -- that makes it more similar to buying powerful PC hardware. If you aren't ever making use of it, what's the point? But if you only use it from time to time, that seems totally fine. Optionality is generally good, especially when you actually use the options, but of course there's a cost-benefit analysis people don't seem to make with modern car financing.
I'd like to see a cybertruck towing a camper in the wild, as that seems to be a thing some of my older relatives do with their big trucks.
I saw both a Rivian and a Cybertruck at an RV park just a month ago. No idea what kind of range they get towing but I was impressed someone was actually using them as real trucks. The vast majority of vehicles were three-quarter-ton or better trucks.
This is such an odd statement. Just because it's electric doesn't mean there's no concept of efficiency.
Large EVs are pretty silly for exactly that efficiency reason - they may have "400" miles of range, but they do so by packing the biggest possible battery which weighs a ton, wasting even more range per kilowatt-hour beyond the worse aerodynamics.
And then because the battery is so massive, it takes way longer to charge for the same range, so now you need a higher current charger at home and maybe even need to upgrade your home electric service instead of just using a standard 15A circuit to top up a small EV every night enough for a typical day's commute.
It's not that there is no concept of efficiency, it's that an electric car gets a free 2x reduction in emissions.
And sure you can't use a normal plug very well, whatever. Even without any amp increase, going up to 240 volts will let you charge up that commute and more.
F-450 King Ranch Super Deluxe.. all made from plastic and guaranteed not to last longer than 8 years. Most engines of new vehicles are sleeved and cannot be rebuilt in the spirit of designed for manufacturing and profits > designed for durability.
Yep. Then add in all the regulatory systems. DEF, EGR, Catalytic Converter, Turbo, 10 speed transmissions. They're all fragile and fall out of warranty coverage easily.
RAM is apparently going to use plastic control arms in it's new vehicles.
I've been watching WheelsBoy youtube channel a lot, he covers Chinese cars in China: https://www.youtube.com/@Wheelsboy - I don't know if this is the best source, but it's been eye opening to watch.
You're not wrong, but I think there's another factor, too. (And I drive a 2017 F150)
I would love to sell my truck and get something smaller. But I just got a repair estimate of almost $2500 to replace the from facing camera in my wife's Odyssey, and the Bluetooth stack in my truck has never really worked properly for phone calls. With cars becoming increasingly. "Software defined vehicles" I don't feel comfortable purchasing a $50k+ car that might have software bugs, or may not be supported for over 5-10yrs. I'm currently thinking very seriously that the best options are either to buy used or to lease.
Moreover, I'm thinking the overall percentage of private vehicles that are leased is going to continue to increase as time moves on, until the big mfrs are essentially acting as huge rental fleet operators.
2016 F-150 here…just keep it. At this point I’m going to run mine into the ground. No way I would spend whatever Ford is asking for nowadays for a new one.
I’ve got a used lightning, with a 1500 ram and a 1500 gmc before that. The Ford is by far the best truck we’ve owned.
In fact, the other two were so unreliable and underpowered that I’ll never buy a GM or Stellantis (chrysler/dodge/ram/fiat) product again.
Anyway, definitely hold onto the 2016/17 Fords vs switching brands. I’ve driven lower trim line Fords slightly older than that, and they were also way ahead of the newer GM and Ram trucks that we had.
I'm always a little surprised anyone buys American cars at all. For a while they used to make larger trucks than anyone else did but even that's not really the case anymore, it's all just overpriced garbage with a popular brand.
Regulations prevent the sale of small, cheap trucks in the US. I'm so sick of "BIG MANN TRUCK" being blamed on ego. The kind small basic of truck you used to be able to buy just doesn't exist any more and it's been regulated out of existence. The Maverick doesn't even stand-in very well for this and Ford can barely keep up with the demand.
The sweet spot has always been a 1 year old used car with low miles. There’s lots of those for less than or about $25k. Honda, Toyota, and Mazda have models in those ranges that will easily last a decade.
If you don’t drive much yourself, “low miles” after a couple years doesn’t matter quite as much. e.g. I bought my car at a couple years old with 40k miles already, but in the following twelve years I’ve only run it up to about 115k miles, so I’ve turned it from a “high-mileage two-year-old car” into a “low-mileage 14-year-old car”.
I've bought a couple of those and never again. They're usually former rental cars and people best the shit out of them. I've had so many stupid things break
Even better, a 3 year old used car with low miles.
In 2016 I picked up a 2013 320i Sport w/ 22k miles on the clock for $18.5k. The sticker on the car was just over $36k. I did have to fly to a relatively remote town (Ogden Utah) and drive it home to San Diego, so that was an extra $320 for the plane ticket/shuttle/gas and 14 hours out of a saturday.
It was almost out of warranty, so pre-purchase I paid a local shop $110 to do a similar inspection to what BMW does for CPO and it only needed brake pads. Aside from the brake pads and scheduled maintenance, eventually replaced the tires, so about $2000 in maintenance over that period. Sold it for $14.5k w/ 50k on the clock 6 years later.
Could have held onto it much longer but was eager to do the nomad thing as covid was clearing up.
I looked into that when I was buying a car in 2020 and I found the price discount wasnt nearly as big as I thought it was going to be plus the car was out of warranty plus all the parts now had 10k miles of wear on them. A new set of tires is like $1200. I was able to spend a few grand more for a brand new car of the same model.
It might be a German car thing, as the value drops precipitously once it's close to out of warranty. There were barely any savings on cars that were within a year old, whereas I was able to get something for half sticker that was nearly the same vehicle.
It can also depend on the popularity of a given car in a particular area. In 2012 we wanted to buy a lightly used Honda Fit, which were quite popular in our city. But, possibly because of that popularity, the prices of used Fits weren't that much less than a new one, so we ended up getting a new one instead.
Following on my original comment - I saved about $4k over the next cheapest option (which would have still been a very good discount vs. new) simply by expanding my range from 150 miles to 500 miles and finding one in the middle of nowhere. Having the salesperson/owner drive the car over to a mechanic to do a CPO-like audit of its condition greatly reduces the risk of a more remote purchase.
A one way ticket from San Diego to Vegas was $180, and a 2 hour shuttle from there to St. George (mistakenly said Odgen above) was only $20. The salesperson from the dealership picked me up from the bus station and after a brief test drive and some paperwork I got on the road for the 450 mile drive back. I left home on the train to the airport at 9am, and was back at home with my new to me car at 11pm that night.
Considering we're on "Hacker" News, it's very much a worthwhile process to hack considering the cost savings vs. actual effort.
Why would anyone sell a good car with one year old and low mileage? It's a lottery ticket: it could go well, or the car might be already damaged. I personally know a bunch of people that bought second hand and are "my car is only a couple of years old, and I found the engine / gearbox / frame is damaged. Lets repair it barely and sell it ASAP to recover some money". But weirdly, they go to the second hand market again, thinking they are the only smart ones doing that. They all know a mechanic that ensures the car is OK, just like they did with the first one.
I was very disappointed when searching the used car market for cars with low mileage, only to found they are almost as pricey as new but I don't know how they have been taken care of. A lot of them come from the rental business. I paid a bit premium (2K or so) for my new-zero-kilometer car, and after 6 years is as good as new, as it is cared like a baby.
Spending $25k on a car (if they exist) is just an insane thing to do in my opinion. In the UK we are quite lucky in that the used car market is very good. I always just buy a ~£1,000 diesel and run it into the ground, then rinse and repeat.
I think in 17 years of motoring I've spent around £5,500 in total on cars.
It is a shame people run them into the ground. If looked after and a bit of money (not a lot of money) spent they would work well for another decade or two.
Its more expensive with the cost of labour in the UK to keep a car going, especially once it starts needing welding. We apply a lot of salt to the roads in the winter so after 20 years most cars will need welding work.
Second hand cars are also cheaper in the UK compared to other countries because we're right hand drive so there aren't as many markets that they can be exported to second hand.
I live in the UK. Cars aren't that cheap (at least for something half decent), labour costs are dependant on what is being done. While the roads do get salted, rust is more dependant on the vehicle model. Also there are preventative measures you can take that aren't that expensive again rust.
I MOT it (obviously) and service every year but if I know something needs doing that's going to be expensive I just live with it. Especially if it's electrical because that can be a mine field and cost lots of labour time. Sometimes I try and make repairs myself and learn something in the process
A friend and I bought a car with a busted door for £100 some years ago, we got a cheap replacement door, incompetently resprayed it to be roughly the colour of the rest of the car and sold it, for £100 :-|
I wonder if there's a business model in leasing cars from Mexico to Americans and swapping around once a year to get around the problem of having Mexican plates. Then you can get Chinese cars into America.
This made me laugh out loud thank you. They will clamp down on this so fast though. If its something that will help the average joe it will never get done but something like this threatens leadership so it will get shut down in record time.
If theres any Chinese entrepreneurs that have a line into their EV companies reading this, use some of that China speed and get on this now. You might as well squeeze out a little profit before they clamp it down! :D
Everything in here matches with my experience in the auto industry, but I don't think it gets the whole truth. Car companies, particularly the American and German brands, make the vast majority of their money from new car buyers and leasers, not the used car market. Over the past few decades, OEMs have focused almost exclusively on serving those customers, to the detriment of virtually everyone else. Those are very different customers than the people who want to buy $25k cars. Worse, even if you do sell that kind of vehicle, it depreciates and goes right back into circulation on the used market competing against the new cars because the customers are ultimately very utilitarian and lack brand loyalty, unlike the higher end customers. You can't even count on those higher end customers to reliably purchase the higher trim models because of the "status" aspects of a cheap car.
It's a tough market that OEMs don't want to be in, so they cede it almost entirely to foreign OEMs that haven't moved upmarket yet. Foreign OEMs are structurally incapable of selling cars at those prices (by design), so the bottom end of the market gets hollowed out to nothing but a few "loss leader" vehicles.
Is anyone following Slate auto? They claim to be making a suburban pickup in the Ford Ranger size for ~20k. I've been cautiously optimistic about my reservation.
They apparently optimized for cost and molecularity, most notably by removing the infotainment system, which apparently is the biggest warranty / "feature" cost center.
It's a pretty car but I feel like they are mostly just selling a story about cost savings. Third party carplay screens can be bought for $150 so that just can't be very meaningful. The real cost savings is that it's a cheaply built EV with a small battery. Plus it's hard to get excited talking about the price a startup is claiming to sell cars at, before any have made it to consumers.
That being said the car looks sweet. I hope we have more startups making retro-vibe electric cars since the barrier to entry is much lower than with combustion engines.
Apparently (and I'm paraphrasing), the cost of the screen is not much. There's the cost of controls integration, at least, but also feature segmentation and warranty servicing. Apparently that's a lot of work to provide / cover and infotainment is one of the top warranty items. So it makes it a lot cheaper to just add a rack for your off the shelf bluetooth speaker.
Just tossing in my two cents - half the $25K cars people are asking for do exist, or did, but we’re basically banning them from the country with tariffs. It’s like we’re saying, “nah, we don’t really want cheap cars.”
Look at something like the Dolphin from China - it’s going for $8K–$9K USD over there. Ship a whole fleet of them and you’re still well under $25K. And we’re not talking junkers either - these are electric, decent build quality, ~300km range. Like... what exactly are we protecting here?
Feels like we’re pricing affordability out of the market on purpose.
In 2014 I got a very nice and very basic brand new sedan for about $14k. That's not so long ago, but the car market in the US seems to get worse every year. (cost, newer models are bloated and overly-expensive, etc.) My only advice would be to buy now (ideally something used) since I can only imagine things will be even worse in a few years.
Yup, we bought a new base model Corolla in 2016 and there’s no sensible way to upgrade or get something nicer. We put 70k miles on it in 9 years. We’ve looked into upgrading more than once, we could easily afford it, but anything that would be a true upgrade (bigger and nicer) is just such a ridiculous waste of money given how inflated car prices have been since Covid. Add to that that the nicer car will then also be much more expensive to keep on the road…and it just makes no sense.
Emissions, mileage, crash safety standards in the USA punish smaller more fuel efficient cars. The larger the wheel base or "shadow" of the vehicle the easier for it is to meet Federal standards.
This is why nobody sells small pickup trucks here. It is a lot easier for Ford to produce F150s that get 25-30ish mpg then it is to produce small trucks that get 40-50.
The Maverick is the only exception and it isn't really that small and it is also a hybrid.
Essentially the Federal government made selling small cheap cars infeasible in this country.
Also because vehicles last a lot longer thrifty Americans avoid buying new vehicles. They would rather buy a used one and let somebody else absorb the depreciation hit.
And when buying a used car most people are going to want a used mid-ranger or higher end car then buying a used economy car.
Car manufacturers that cannot build affordable cars are going extinct. 12000$ for a new electric car in China. That is the real competition.
I don't care about the prestige of owning a car, it is a utility for me that will never be worth 60000$. You can pay me 500000$ yearly and I would reconsider.
I get that they dump loans and the government allows for subsidies. But on the other hand car manufacturers already outsourced everything they could to other countries for larger profit margins anyway.
They act no different than companies like Apple or Google. So at least as a customer I need to profit from that too, I have no interest of paying large margins for nothing.
Why should only companies profit from cheap labor?
The problem is that on the long run you lose the knowledge to produce physical goods locally, all it takes is a few years and once it's gone it's extremely hard to build it back.
The other problem is that if there is a war, a pandemic or anything impacting production and/or deliveries your country is now alone. If 80% of your economy is based on tourism and other services but what you now need are cars, masks or weapon parts you're in for a bad time
> I get that they dump loans and the government allows for subsidies.
It's the same in the US/EU, all these companies would have died long ago if they were not propped up now and then
I wouldn't advocate outsourcing labor to cheaper countries. That this is how it ends was predictable for the automotive industry, so I don't really feel sympathy if they cry now.
As a consumer I just want to have the cheap prices now too because outsourcing is a fait acompli.
The article compares 2025 prices to 2019 prices. We've had high inflation building upon high inflation for the past several years, so I'm not shocked that prices are higher. We might as well ask where the $1 menu went at fast food restaurants. Yesterday's prices are long gone.
I might be alone, but I miss the ridiculously simple all manual cars/trucks with crank windows, 5 speed and a clutch, and just the simplest damn interior.
I don't want all the damn gadgets, those things inevitably break and then cost thousands to fix.
I’d be interested to see what this does to overhead costs of businesses that actually need a large vehicle.
I have a small horse farm and drive a 2010 F-150. I haul horses, 900lb. hay bales, feed, lumber for repairing fences and building shelters, etc.
If my truck breaks down I am going to have to scrape through used inventory to find something that fits my needs. I don’t need leather, 16 cameras, seat warmers, and a high end sound system. I need a truck that can get done everything I need around the farm, and I need it to be cheap enough that I’m not worried about it getting scratched.
All cars seem to be luxury vehicles now, I don’t know what folks are doing the just need something more utilitarian.
ICE cars have peaked. ICE car from 2012 is almost no different from ICE car in 2025 other than entertainment value and this is why every manufacturer is targeting premium market even with solved ICE technology.
I recently needed to buy a car and my criteria was essentially I wanted least expensive new car on the market (I know I could have gone used but for this particular need I wanted a new car). The number of new vehicles that start under $20k is slim pickings. There are, what, maybe 3 in the US (if you don't count a couple that are discontinued)? And once you get into tax and title, you're going over $20k anyhow. Plus, with interest rates as they are, I don't know how the average person in Amercia affords a new vehicle these days.
The US seems insulated from the downward pricing pressure of Chinese cars. In most of the rest of the world, you can get a Chinese car ~30% (by my estimate) cheaper than a European or American one. It'll probably have more options and additions, too. I'm not sure how they'd do on reliability or safety, but it's generally hard to compete with them. Some of them offer 1M kilometer 10-year warranties.
Regulation is regularly increasing the cost of a car by demanding more. For example, if you demand all new cars have a rear-backup-camera, then you added a cost.
Govt is intentionally trying to cause at least 2% inflation. If you assume only 2% average over 50 years. A $25,000 car then is only about $9000 today; an untenable proposition. Lets be realistic, do you genuinely think no government in 50 years will exceed 2%?
Dont know if this is available in US and Europe markets but I would consider Mahindra XEV 9e, BE 6E and BE 9E to be in the $25k segment and afaik, they are the best in the class for that price point ( in terms of looks and maybe even features ). I dont know if these are being exported out of India right now, but they definitely should be hitting the US and UK markets sometime soon.
I'm not about this whole discussion - go to your favorite car sales website and filter for new cars and, say, 20,000 Euros. I see roughly 7000 cars for sale in Germany on mobile.de - of course, a lot of them will be instances of the same type of car, but there is variety and offers from multiple brands, both international and European.
I have one and it’s awesome. You also don’t have to worry about someone snatching items out of the bed.
The biggest downsides are (1) I’m reluctant to put anything gross back there (vs throwing a trash bag in the bed like I used to with my truck), and (2) people see a van, assume you’ll drive obnoxiously slowly, and preemptively cut you off in traffic lest they get stuck behind you.
Infiniti is on the list of highest price increases. The reality is that nobody is actually buying any of their newer models. They dropped the ball in 2010s and playing catch up in 2020s. Nobody is going to pay $100k for QX80 when you can get an GX550/Escalade/Yukon for similar money.
This is all part of the continuing trend toward luxury - brands are abandoning the middle class and below, focusing on higher margins and lower volume - brands make more money, engage with easier buyers and have to work less. I don’t know how all this works in the end but it does seem to be a real trend.
I'm personally super upset with basically all non-Chinese brands. They used the post-covid inflation to drive prices up and like many people are saying here, now the 12k entry-level car is a 25k car.
I bought a brand new VW T-Cross in 2021 for 19k and now the entry price is 27k, for the same exact car. It's insane. I understand people want bigger cars and even price conscious costumers are now going for compact suv (VW T-Cross instead of a Polo) so makers are definitely cashin in on this.
But there is also a Greed side to this story. Automakers have hiked prices, customers have kept buying and we finally (i hope) reached a breaking point. Jeep prices were apparently too high and sales plunged.
All of this makes me actually quite happy for the arrival of Chinese manufacturers. The price/quality ratio is extremely good and when i see the price i finally feel that it's a good deal. It makes me want to buy that car, while with most European manufacturers i'm just thinking of being scammed!
In 2004 my parents bought a brand new Skoda Fabia with 40kW engine (around 50hp). The car was pretty basic (no AC, no display etc.) and small, but it served our family of 4 for long time (still does!). The cost was 12.000 Euros. Nowadays the same car starts at 20.000 Euros.
To be fair that's with 20 years of inflation (roughly 1.55x since 2004, €18,600 today), and that car today would have 90+bhp. I'm ignoring things like head unit/ac because they're things you'd probably rather not have and not pay for by the sounds of it.
But why do you need a car in Singapore? I can't take my kid to school or buy groceries without a car here, it is a basic necessity and I hate it. But you have amazing transit and high density.
Tourists get this impression by staying in the city centre. However, if you live in an outer neighborhood, what would be a 15 min car ride can easily become a 40 minute journey on public transport if you have to walk to the train station, take the train, and perhaps take a bus for the last mile. Now imagine you have a kid in tow or an elderly parent.
Yes, public transit is not a necessity here like in the States, but it's a nice convenience to have, and plenty of people are wealthy enough to pay for it.
Americans like to upgrade their cars, not unlike their cell phones, and they often have a monthly car payment (or two) that never permanently goes away.
That makes some sense to me, but if the goal is to always have a nice car, doesn't it makes much more sense to lease? The monthly payments will be a few hundred bucks less and you can upgrade every 2-3 years. And from what I understand, leasing agents like to give incentives after your first lease to keep you in the cycle.
Personally, if I were aiming for the most economical option, I'd lease a Nissan Leaf for ~$300/mo.
> ... but if the goal is to always have a nice car, doesn't it makes much more sense to lease? The monthly payments will be a few hundred bucks less and you can upgrade every 2-3 years.
Leasing a car always includes an initial payment (in the several thousands) and typically have severe penalties for exceeding allotted mileage, any damage (even if only cosmetic), and/or if mandatory dealer maintenance is not adhered.
The monthly payments are not as disparate as one might think when the initial payment is amortized over the course of the lease along with dealer maintenance expenditures.
IIRC, at one point Ford priced the Model T (which ultimately became the Ford Taurus decades later) to be at or near the US individual average annual income and maintained this price structure throughout.
With last year's lowest (by state) average annual income being Mississippi at $45k, there is little reason for any car manufacturer to produce a $25k MSRP vehicle.
In 2080, Apple introduced the Macbook Air. The first version was a mixed bag. The 2010 revision was a game-changer. Competitors just couldn't compete with the hardware you got for $1200 (13"). It was an excellentcompromise between power, weight, efficiency and price. This lasted years. After awhile, 4GB of RAM was light and a non-Retina display was somewhat lacking but it was still good. A $1000 laptop is almost disposable compared to a $3000+ laptop.
But this created a problem for Apple: it was too cheap. About a decade ago, the cult of thinness took over. The Air was replaced by the 12" Macbook that was too underpowered. It only had 1 port, which doubled as a power connector. We got the (awful) butterfly keyboard. And of course we got the Touch Bar. Rumor has it that this all happened because Johnny Ive no longer had Steve Jobs pushing back against him.
All of these things only existed to increase the ASP (average selling price) of Macbooks. There's no other reason.
My point here is that companies don't want to produce cheap, quality, commoditized goods. They want high prices (because that means high profits). Apple didn't want cheap Macbooks. Car manufacturers don't want cheap cars. This is how capitalism works.
Worse though is that these high prices are used as a weapon to drive down wages. These auto makers will say "our labor costs are too high" and try and reduce wages and/or remove benefits, often under the threat of moving jobs overseas. Then you dig a little deeper and find out that about 5% of a car's sticker price is labor costs.
The chase for ever-increasing profits ultimately means cutting costs and increasing prices. Always.
> But this created a problem for Apple: it was too cheap. About a decade ago, the cult of thinness took over. The Air was replaced by the 12" Macbook that was too underpowered. It only had 1 port, which doubled as a power connector.
The 12" MacBook did _not_ replace the Air; it was a niche within a niche. The Air continues to be Apple's best-selling laptop, and starts at $999 (the $1200 price you give in 2010 is equivalent to about $1800 adjusted for inflation).
(In retrospect the 12" MacBook seems like a clear mistake, but at the time there was a bit of a bubble in subnotebooks, and Intel was making lavish promises for its ultra-low-power chip lines which turned out to be nonsense.)
> We got the (awful) butterfly keyboard. And of course we got the Touch Bar.
Only in the expensive laptops; the Air continued to be the cheap option.
I cannot reply to each comment which mention "EU" or "Europe", so I write this one.
Why do you speak about EU/Europe as a whole? There is no such thing. I thought it is, but, now, when I moved to "Europe", I see that ti was illusion.
Prices are different across countries. Do you think Poland, Portugal and the Netherlands have same prices? HA! Compare prices in the Netherlands and its neighbor Belgium. I didn't compare prices for (new) cars, but I did for new motorcycles. Difference can be up to 20%. And it is two of three countries which are known as "Benelux", not two countries on different edges of EU.
Choice is difference between countries too, there are models which are present in one country and not in the orthers. Heck, even selection of a food is drastically different in two Lidls (two supermarkets of same chain) on different sides of Netherlands/Germany border in 10km vicinity!
Many people say that they see that almost all new cars they see are BYD & others — there is no BYD in Netherlands, for example. There is Lynk & Co (which is Volvo / Geely / Zeekr), and it's all of Chinese brands.
There is no such single entity as "Europe" or "EU". Different countries are very different in available goods, prices, taxes and regulations. Yes, there are global things, like GDPR or emission regulations (Euro 5/Euro 6), but still there are a plenty room for difference.
And even "single economic area" is illusion: you cannot simply register car or motorcycle bought in Portugal or Belgium in the Netherlands, you need to pay local VAT, local ecological taxes, etc. So no, there is no "lifehack to buy car or motorcycle in Belgium and save 20%.
The "lifehack to buy car or motorcycle in Belgium and save 20%" is a Dutch only problem, as the Dutch Government makes car (and house) ownership extreme expensive. There is a reason why so many better off Dutch people buy properties and cars across the border, live in Belgium or Germany, and travel each day to work in the Netherlands.
For the rest of the EU, you can buy a Polish car, and register it in Germany for a few hundred euro's.
And FYI: The united states is the same. You can not just move cars across states if you live in a different state. It requires local registration per state (with different requirements), and local number plates.
Second: Yes, prices can differ for the same car, in different countries. And manufactures deliberately make it harder to price compare cars by changing the trim on each car / region. So the same car in Germany may have more features that are not present on the same car in Poland. And yet, again, in the States prices often differ per state. For the same reason why a Polish car can be trimmed down to be cheaper, vs a German version of the car: Not every state has the same medium income. So car manufacture / dealers, price match the cars and options, according to the local demographic.
The rest is a useless discussion as this is regional food, vs regional companies. You may discover that in the US, despite the same global brandnames, there are often large differences between stores, based upon the regional eating habits, and local food producers. Yes, there is more standardization because of the global monopoly level of food production but regional is still a major thing.
> There is no such single entity as "Europe" or "EU". Different countries are very different in available goods, prices, taxes and regulations.
First off, its EU, not Europe. People simply associate the EU with Europe. That is a common issue and not something to nitpick about.
You may be surprised how much we already standardized across the EU. Have you ever left the Netherlands? I mean, not just cross border travel but actual work / live? If you did that now, 10 years ago, or 20 years ago, each time the difference are huge (as in easier and easier). A lot of laws and rules are now standardized across the EU. Hell, i remember the days that getting a piece of paper involved notarization and legalization, now its just a quick call to the ambt and you get a EU version of the paperwork. Valid in all EU states.
Rather no, as I'd moved to the Netherlands 2.5 years ago from outside of EU and don't have any rights to work outside the Netherlands :-)
It is not strict "No" because I've spent a lot of time (like, more than a yer on the span of 10 years, so more than month per year) in Germany on my previous work (in "business trips") and can compare everyday/household activities, but not bureaucratic or legal side of life, of course.
What I could compare is my experience as immigrant in the Netherlands with experience of my friends with same background as immigrants in Germany (lot of my friends had moved to Munich and Berlin same time I'd moved to Amsterdam). And difference is striking (in favor of the Netherlands). My experience with banks, IND (immigration department), Gemeente (municipality) and now even with mortgage (Which is cheaper than rent!) is much, much smoother that same experience of all my friends who choose Germany. Mortgage especially: no friends of mine could get approve for mortgage in Germany, even some of them who have salary significantly large than mine (like, x1.5 larger).
I'm assuming this is the Mirage, which is one of the cars we own for the family (the other is an old Odyssey to fit all the kids). The Mirage is an absolute joy to own: its simple 3cyl engine gets 50mpg if I'm careful. We live in a very rural area (i.e. walking and biking for a big family is impossible and dangerous), so having something economical to drive is a huge help. We drive it any time we aren't taking the whole family somewhere!
Of course in the article, I see the Mirage is noted as discontinued. How frustrating.
Absolutely. While I personally don't advocate buying anything new, if you gotta, it's a great way to go.
My previous car was a 2015 Mazda 3 Grand Touring bought with 8,000 miles on it for $20k (about $26-27k MSRP new). All the luxuries and bells and whistles!
I don't know if it's due to social media distraction, very effective advertising business models, or lack of financial literacy but I have noticed that over the last 10 years, most people have been willing to pay literally any price for the things they want.
It wasn't always like this. It used to be that price hikes were met with consumer backlash, media attention, and people simply not buying that thing which forced companies to correct their pricing.
The fact that most people will happily pay any price they can afford (on credit, when) seems to be the main thing contributing to high food, car, and housing prices, which negatively impacts the poor and those who bust their ass to be frugal.
Last time I bought a car, my family kept pushing me to buy new, avoid used.
All new cars were crap and expensive. People wanted me to buy a Hyundai HB20 with a crappy engine that couldn't climb the hill where my house was located.
I ended buying a used Mitsubishi Lancer GT, the thing had same engine as Evo (minus the turbo), leather seats, roof window, rear camera and so on. For half of the price of the HB20.
Sadly Mitsubishi discontinued those and went on to join the SUVmania where your cheapest car is a big as a SUV externally, but that has cramped interior and none of SUV features.
You put to words what I intuitively feel about the auto industry.
Most brands have cost cut the crap out of their vehicles to the point where many used models seem to be better vehicles especially when talking interior quality.
One example that was striking to me was the interior quality of the MK4 Volkswagen Jetta compared to later models of Jetta and Golf.
My current vehicle has CarPlay/Android Auto, a “dumb” infotainment system with no ability to phone home or snitch on me to insurance companies, and it has physical controls for everything.
When it comes time to replace my vehicle, what am I going to find on the market that’s actually better than that? I’m going to be stuck with a gigantic touch screen and a bunch of glitchy safety suites that are beeping at me constantly.
In this modern age, the new vehicle markup at dealerships is completely unnecessary in the USA. Besides inflation, I would say this is a top contributor to the loss of <$25K vehicle.
The crappy experience I had with my last vehicle (~8 years ago):
1. Shop for rates on auto loans
2. Shop for particular brand/model of vehicle (online)
3. Once decided on brand/model, go to local "{{ random entity }} of {{ manufacture }}" dealership
4. Test drive the model you are interested in
5. Once decided you will continue with purchase, then you "start talking numbers"
6. Initial sales guy will always say something like "oh, this is the lowest we can go" (it was something like $5000 over MSRP for the model + options)
7. Then counter with some offer ("$500 + MSRP")
8. Sales guy does some pitch and tries to get you to budge. If you stand your ground here, he/she will "begrudgingly" go back to their manager to get approval
9. You may get approved, or not. But occasionally they will counter. Repeat 6-8 until settled on sales price (including tax, title fees). Known as the "out the door" price. One time I did have to "walk out" when sales person wouldn’t agree on price. Also they will employ as many high pressure sales tactics here as possible. Also best to keep your cards close to your chest, they will try to get you to use their in-house finance (big kickbacks for them). Have had success getting near MSRP by leading them on to thinking I would use their in-house financing.
10. They will now refer you to their finance guy to finish and finalize the paperwork. But it doesn’t stop there. That finance guy will try to load you up on as many unneeded services to pump the sales price. I’m talking extended warranty, gap insurance, paint protectors at significant dealership markup. Usually the GAP insurance isn’t too bad but have to go through process of hearing the pitch and declining each service. Then there is the junk fees such as "document fees" that range from $100-300.
11. Finally, after declining and accepting additional services. You come to the actual payment decision : in house or external financing? Usually, the sales guy would have already run your information through their financing backend to determine creditworthiness prior to financing guy so they have an idea where they can lose out on initial purchase price and recoup on kickback. Occasionally, the rates are better than what you can secure from your bank or credit union. But it’s very rare. It’s in their interest to get you to agree to an higher APR than what you really deserve. At this point, pop out the preapproval letter and compare the offers.
12. On rare occasion, they will try to pull back the deal but at this point it’s better to close and increase sales for month rather than dwell about one barely profitable transaction. Finally, the paperwork is signed.
All of this unnecessary back and forth when it can just be boiled down to a few steps at most.
1. Go to showroom (or online)
2. Browse basic models
3. Decide on options and put downpayment on car
4. (In 3-4 weeks) Deliver vehicle to home or preferred destination. Have it quickly inspected for any defects in transportation. Then deliver final payment and get your new car
277+ comment on this thread when we all know the answer - cars are deliberately over priced, at full price level, so the monthly finance payments relative to depreciation forecasts look good to the buyers (renters) and there is a room for negotiations and offers.
I work on my own cars now (as a hobby really) and one of the reasons the new cars are so expensive is they are much more complicated. A lot of this seems to be over-engineering IMO. This is alluded to in the article, but not explicitly stated.
The cars I work on are from the early 90s and everything is very simple to understand.
e.g. Electronics are normally simple circuits that aren't much more complicated than what you would find in a door bell and finding faults is normally just tracing wires and using a multi-meter. I had issues with the brake lights / reverse lights not working, the issue turned out that the spade like connector in the fuse box was pushed through and was making partial contact. Price to fix this was £0.
EDIT: Just remembered this isn't accurate. I had to buy a new reverse light. The entire reverse light assembly was ~£20. So the price to fix was about £20. The light assembly itself was like a big bicycle light.
My newer car needs a OB-II scanner to diagnose anything with a phone app. While this is arguably quicker it can be misleading. Sometimes it will be telling you that something is malfunctioning but it is really the sensor itself. These sensors are £200-£300 a piece. Replacing 4 glow plug sensors cost me £800. I was paying essentially to make the "you must service your engine" light to go away. There was nothing wrong with engine itself.
Yes, if they would make a basic car like in the past I would buy it. Everyone has to sell you too much, I want a simple car, I don't want either the stereo, I will add my own later (I can put it one that is better than the factory one for a cheaper price, but in a modern car replacing the stereo is almost impossible). There are a ton of useless sensors, the sensor that tells you if you have a flat tire (I think I can notice myself), the emergency call button (while everyone has a mobile phone these days), automatic regulating seats (pulling a lever is too much difficult), dual zone clima control (it's the same space in the same car, why I would want to set 2 different temperatures?), etc.
And in all this useless things that they put in a car, they no longer provide you with a spare tire, just an useless repair kit...
Some of those “useless” sensors like tire pressure or backup camera are required by law. Even if you get a bare bones hatchback (manual transmission, manual locks, manual windows etc.) they’ll be forced to include those.
They are required by law in no small part because car manufacturers want it to be. Compliance is a moat.
Rearview cameras are effective: https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/bibliography/ref/2130
I agree with having simpler SKUs, but rearview camera is not where to start
The problem isn't that they're effective. It's that they're a regulatory solution to the complaints that the same demographics had 20yr ago (it's too easy to back a big fashionable in the 00s SUV over a kid) and as a result of it now all cars have crap rear visibility because there's no reason to be good when you have the camera.
The primary factor that correlates with reverse cameras reducing backup accidents is age - people over 70 have higher backup accidents rates without cameras/sensors. FTA:
> When averaged between the 2 automakers, effects were significantly larger for drivers 70 and older (38% reduction) than for drivers younger than 70 (1% increase); effects were significant for older but not younger drivers.
A big SUV is probably an exacerbating factor, though.
Also, for any kind of car, rear cameras and sensors decrease impacts while parallel parking. I see far fewer damaged bumpers on newer cars these days.
Visibility has gotten worse in many vehicles as a crash safety thing. Rear visibility is so blocked because the "beltline" of cars has moved up as crash standards get more stringent. A car that has a small rear window and high 'beltline' will do better in a crash.
TBH, I'm hoping we have front-view cameras that maybe kick in at under 20kph or something.
Front visibility is famously poor on SUVs and trucks, and even aside from pedestrians, I suspect there are a lot of small but very expensive bumper taps because you mis-judged the distance to the crap at the back wall of your garage.
Funny story about this.
There was a woman who backed over her own kid in the driveway. For some reason, she was not imprisoned for vehicular manslaughter. So instead of not being in prison, she spent the next half decade lobbying congress to make backup cameras mandatory. And it happened. So now everyone's car costs $3k more.
It would have been cheaper to put her imprison than impose a $3k cost per every car sold in America since 2018.
Lots more people need to be imprisoned for manslaughter, and lots of people need their license taken away for "backing crashes".
https://www.cars.com/articles/lawmakers-to-jump-start-backup...
> A 2012 Harris poll suggests that the public agress with the mandate despite the technology’s costs. NHTSA says adding a backup camera to a car without an existing display screen will cost around $159 to $203 per vehicle, shrinking to between $58 and $88 for vehicles that already use display screens. The Harris poll found that consumers care more about safety features like backup cameras than they do about multimedia systems.
I'm not sure where you're getting your $3k backup cameras from; the camera is a $30 part, and pretty much every new car has a screen in it already.
People don't understand and appreciate additional costs until they actually have to pay them. You can see this play out over and over again with additional tax increases jn response for new and improved public services - or customers asking businesses to do a "Made in America" product line, but then not putting their money where their mouth is and actually paying the upcharge for a MiA product.
I’d say 99% of drivers care about backup cameras more than about how hard it’s to replace spark plugs.
ill never appreciated paying an additional costs
>So now everyone's car costs $3k more.
$3000 for a backup camera, okay.
The screen and the camera is $3k
There's no reason for the screen other than the camera, therefore the camera is $3k
Source? A cell phone can be made much cheaper and has all the required parts.
A similar argument could be made for any safety feature that adds cost to vehicles--literally, all of them. If a death is preventable and adds on a relatively inconsequential amount to the cost of a vehicle, then it is the morally correct choice optimize for safety.
The logic doesn’t scale. You can’t impose arbitrary and subjectives thresholds to gloss over this fact. The obvious conclusion is that safety is one of many moral factors to balance.
You know prison sentences won't save any children, right?
And taking away licenses is acting too late.
You do not think a mother killing her own child is punishment enough? It's very unlikely she intentionally planned to kill her child in this manner to cover it up as an accident.
Besides backup cameras have use beyond just making sure a child is not behind you, such as assisting with parking, or seeing if there is oncoming traffic when there is a larger vehicle parked next to you.
I’m sure that factors in, but let’s not pretend that safety is also major contributor
I often wonder what it's like to think everything is some grand corporate conspiracy.
I often wonder what it's like to put words into other people's mouths.
AFAIK some automakers also cut down on the number of sensors by doing stuff like reading the already implemented sensor(s) for the ABS to provide the tire pressure warning function.
That becomes circular logic because ABS is also required by law
Eh, you really don't want a car without ABS, though. For motorcycles, I kinda get it since you can't do some stunts with ABS, but on a car, it has zero benefit nowadays. Mandatory ABS, seatbelts and airbags would be the big things for me, followed by sexy, modern ESP, TC for powerful RWD cars and collision warning beeper (no autobrake at high speed, that shit's deadly and I hate that it can't be permanently disabled separate to the beeper).
My point is that the features are there because a regulatory body has made it a requirement. It doesn’t mean it’s a bad requirement.
Then I think your point is wrong for ABS. Yes it's required but in almost all cases I bet it's not there because it's required.
That’s the circular part.
It’s required because it’s a safety issue. I think that’s the intent behind almost all mandatory sensors. That’s why the post put “useless” in quotes. I’m highlighting just that it may be required because it’s needed for safety.
However, many motorcycles have ABS as optional equipment and many people (non-stunters) don’t opt in for it. Meaning, many people don’t recognize (or don’t care enough to pay) the safety aspect.
I never thought about ABS while purchasing my little 250cc Kawasaki Ninja about 20 years ago, but in retrospect, I wish I had it! Skidding isn’t as bad for vehicles with 3+ wheels; they stay upright, at least. It had rained earlier that evening, and for whatever reason (skill, pavement change, oily film on the road surface, etc) when I braked before a turn the back-end slipped out from under me. Luckily, I walked away with just a sprained shoulder, broken thumb, and a spot on my kneecap worn down to the bone.
I thankfully was wearing riding gloves, helmet, and boots; the pavement wore through several layers of the leather, my hands would have been shredded like my knee, or worse.
Using ABS sensors to justify new regulation is a circular argument if those ABS sensors were installed because of regulation. I was arguing otherwise, that ABS would be installed in a big majority of cars no matter what, and that gives a non-circular argument.
Looking up some data, it was about 75% of cars and rising in 2007, so not as high as I expected but still pretty high. There's some circularity but I'd say it's mostly not circular.
I posted that they are installed for legal reasons. The other commenter posted that less sensors are required because they piggyback on another system. That other system is also legally required. That is a circular rationale because it’s still pointing to a legally mandated sensor. Nearly all new cars have ABS due to safety mandates.
> I posted that they are installed for legal reasons.
Yes you did.
How can I make it clearer that I disagree.
> That is a circular rationale because it’s still pointing to a legally mandated sensor.
It's circular if the legal mandate is why those sensors are installed. If they'd be installed anyway then it's not circular.
You seem to imply that the legal and safety are independent. I am saying they are linked.
Ie there wouldn’t be a legal reason if it weren’t for the safety reason. So pointing to the safety is why it’s a circular argument.
It’s like disagreeing that smoke detectors are because they are legally required in homes because people want them anyway for safety reasons. Both can be true at the same time because they both are related to the same risk mitigation.
In any event, the OP was that some people don’t want those sensors, my point is they aren’t optional.
> So pointing to the safety is why it’s a circular argument.
You're confusing me. How about I explain my understanding of what makes things circular.
Generic hypothetical: Regulation requires a part. Cars put the part in because of regulation. Later, people amending the regulations consider something else that requires that part, and they justify it as having negligible cost because that part is already in cars. Because that part is there from regulation, it's to a strong extent regulation justifying itself, and it's circular.
Does your understanding of circularity differ from that?
Now, consider a variant: Regulation requires a part. But it doesn't matter because cars have that part anyway. Later, people amending the regulations consider something else that requires that part, and they justify it as having negligible cost because that part is already in cars. Because that part is not there from regulation, it's not regulation justifying itself, and it's not circular.
Does that make sense? You could imagine the part is "wheels" for the variant. Regulations that imply wheels are not using circular arguments when they say 'cars have wheels anyway, that's not a cost of this regulation'.
I’ll try to put it more succinctly:
“I don’t need regulated sensors installed because I have a regulated sensor installed” is a circular argument.
Now much of what you bring up is tangential. But one thing I think we think differently about is that each of the premises you laid out starts with regulation. I differ because i see regulation as a response to a prior underlying risk. In other words, the risk exists before the regulation. So I don’t view regulation as a “self-licking ice cream cone”, or excusing for its own sake, but rather a risk mitigation. That’s why an ABS sensor can be used for monitoring pressure: it’s not the sensor that matters but whether the risk os appropriately mitigated.
> But one thing I think we think differently about is that each of the premises you laid out starts with regulation. I differ because i see regulation as a response to a prior underlying risk.
In this case there's a risk. By my argument applies to regulations that involve risk and it also applies to regulations that don't involve risk.
> “I don’t need regulated sensors installed because I have a regulated sensor installed” is a circular argument.
I almost agree, but I think the motivation matters.
"I don’t need regulated sensors installed because I have those sensors already to follow regulations" is a circular argument.
"I don’t need regulated sensors installed because I have those sensors already for reasons unrelated to regulations" is not a circular argument. If no regulations existed already, it's not circular. If they did exist but they didn't change your behavior then it's not circular.
>it also applies to regulations that don't involve risk.
Which are those? Because so far, this conversation has been about TPMS and ABS regulation. I’m beginning to think the discussion is more about dogmatic feelings about regulation than the topic at hand.
Again, your argument is based on following regulations for the sake of regulation and I don’t agree that’s why regulations exist. I believe they exist to mitigate risk. Sometimes they can be poorly executed, and sometimes they can be for a risk you aren’t acutely aware of or one you don’t care about, but that doesn’t mean the risk is non-existent.
> Which are those?
Well like I mentioned earlier, there's a regulation that cars have wheels, right? That's not a risk thing.
> I’m beginning to think the discussion is more about dogmatic feelings about regulation than the topic at hand.
No, it's just explaining my logic. Using a more abstract example makes it easier to focus on the logic.
> Again, your argument is based on following regulations for the sake of regulation
No it's not.
> and I don’t agree that’s why regulations exist.
I never said that's why regulations exist.
I never said anything about why regulations exist.
I'm so confused.
I'm just talking about whether a certain kind of rule is circular or not...
It's not a very important point, to be fair. But you seem to think I'm making some wildly different points from what I intend, and I'm not sure why there's such a communication breakdown.
Relevant search terms include “body-in-white”
Honestly, good! I am so tired of these insane "I want nothing but an engine" spiritual boomers. They are making the road far more dangerous for everyone.
Yes, I will force you to have automatic emergency breaking in your Model T hotrod. Yes, you will be mad. Yes, the road will be a lot safer. No I don't care about your boomer rage about technology. No you don't want to live with India tier road laws/standards - even if - and especially if - you think you do!
FWIW, I’m one of those people but geared (ha) towards reliability. I’ll take the ABS and TPMS, but I don’t want “bells and whistles“ of touch screens and air conditioned seats. I’m after safety and reliability more than creature comforts.
It's a two edged sword.
I love my camera but I've noticed that I tend to look around less, which is bad because a camera doesn't cover everything.
ABS is a no brainer. So is ASR.
TPMS is awesome coz face it, I have never and will never regularly check my tire pressure. Remember how they taught you to check the oil regularly? Who ever did that?
I want real knobs so I don't have to look away from the road and do climate controls and radio by feel on the side. Much safer.
But automatic braking is another one of those two edged swords. I almost had a car behind me crash into me recently because the car in front of me decided to abruptly slow down and turn left. I reacted and went slightly to the right to get around and the car in front of me was turning further away as well. But then the dang emergency breaking system hit the brakes and startled me. For a second I couldn't do anything then I hit the brakes too until a second later I realized it was BS and the car behind me was getting awfully close real fast and I instead hit the gas.
These systems are still quite bad in judging objects that go left-right or opposite. The cruise control slows down immensely for a car on front of me taking an exit for no reason. And on the other hand it reacts way too late if another car suddenly switches into your lane when you're about to overtake them. And that's for different cars from different manufacturers and different model years so I doubt it's a unique experience.
I get what you're saying but that driver behind you did not almost crash into you because you decided to abruptly slow down. He almost crashed into you because he did not maintain a safe following distance, wasn't paying attention, etc.
It's insane how normalized terrible driving is. I don't even mean following the law at this point. It's much more basic than that and applies to every vehicle in every context. You must drive in such a way to be able to stop in time if the vehicle in front of you decides to apply max braking. This is dictated by the laws of the universe we exist in, not by some rule arbitrarily decided by humans.
+1.
Even consumers voted with their pocketbooks in favor of this towards the end given the failure of the Nissa Versa and the Toyota Yaris in the American and Canadian market.
Also, there's a reason those $15K Toyotas, Suzukis, and Mitsubishis are sold in Thailand and India, and not in Japan - they don't even meet safety standards in their home country (and it's Toyota, Suzuki, and Mitsubishi that essentially sets standards for all of Japan).
Automotive companies like Toyota create different platforms based on the kind of market. All emerging markets use the IMV [0] platform except China, which has it's own separate platform because of China's JV and ToT requirement.
Ofc, HN skews towards gearheads and people who seem to have been born in the 1960s-80s, so it won't have great reception.
[0] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_IMV_platform
The more you try to force this stuff. The more of reaction in the opposite direction you will get.
From what I've seen with regulation this isn't the case, rather the opposite is true. The more we force it, the more understood it becomes and eventually it fades into the background and nobody cares. We've already had this exact conversation in the 80s with seatbelts.
Believe it or not, there were a lot of good arguments against seatbelts. And they were genuinely believed. And they were popular. And, they are now well past extinct.
Seatbelts on new cars is on a wholly different level than "I'm gonna force existing vehicles to take mandatory upgrades at great cost because F you". The level of public compliance you're likely to see with the latter would make the people removing emissions systems from diesels look like good little goose stepping in line central europeans.
What a bigot.
In for a penny, in for a pound. Good luck getting any serious enforcement on that boondoggle.
I would rather live with India tier roads than <wherever you're from> tier opinions.
> Yes, I will force you to have automatic emergency breaking in your Model T hotrod.
Fantasy cope, you can't even force emissions testing in most counties.
US is bizarre here. You lead in car safety features yet mostly ignore yearly car checks.
Spiritual boomers?
Regulations will make cars unaffordable which is exactly what they are pushing for
This is an old and tired argument. There is no secret cabal at the wheel trying to make cars unaffordable for the purposes of social control.
There is an old and tired cabal of manufacturers wanting to generate a moat and push prices up high.
Nobody says it is a secret cabal. It is very frustrating when people misstate other people's beliefs
There are politicians and activists that have been pushing for lower car ownership and they do it openly. Motivations for this vary.
> There is an old and tired cabal of manufacturers wanting to generate a moat and push prices up high.
Two things can be true at once.
> It is very frustrating when people misstate other people's beliefs
I agree. It is also frustrating when people don't recognize or cry foul when their personal beliefs are restated within homotopy equivalence, perhaps (I speculate) because they think it weakens an already weak argument. Perhaps even moreso for those stating the equivalence because there is not argumentative advantage to be gained by expressing said frustration regarding said response.
Or at least it could be. I'm actually feeling indifferent on the topic.
> There are politicians and activists that have been pushing for lower car ownership and they do it openly.
Words are cheap, words and rallys and activist productions moreso, show the policy that impacts national and international production.
You are making the serious suggestion that a significant portion of the average cars cost is artificial in order to make people not buy them? And the extremely powerful automotive lobby is just fine with this?
I live in the UK.
It isn't unheard of that business will collude with government to "pull the ladder up behind them". I've worked in companies where that has been their stated strategy.
Pulling up the ladder behind you means cutting off competition. Not cutting off your own production.
if i am a hardcore environmentalist, i throw regulations at cars to make prices eye wateringly high. car makers are aligned due to ensuing profit
if i am a hardcore environmentalist, i throw regulations at homebuilding to make housebuilding excruciating. homeowner voters are thrilled by the ensuing valuations
see: california
Tire sensors and backup cameras are dirt cheap though. Maybe lane warning and collision avoidance are a bit more but they’re both 10+ year old technology, they can’t cost that much. Also all of these things are good. Redoing the steering wheel or using 22” wheels or adding heating for each individual ass cheek… that I don’t need, and it adds to the cost.
You can't replace a tire sensor without getting it coded. Complete bullshit.
A car on a busy highway needs to know which sensors belong to itself. Some cars are a PITA to program, but many can be done with cheap tools.
> A car on a busy highway needs to know which sensors belong to itself.
A sensor you were paired to disappears. Now a new sensor is showing up, and it sticks with you for an entire hour.
Sounds pretty easy for a computer to figure that puzzle out.
There are countless scenarios where cars are operated in close proximity for over an hour, like rural highway traffic or metro corridor traffic.
Every time a TPMS battery dies in these circumstances, the vehicle shouldn't pair with random TPMS sensors around it. Especially when we're talking about logic of a regulated safety system. It's a little better that it is deterministic, and follows an explicit pairing process.
> rural highway traffic
How big is the range on one of these?
> Every time a TPMS battery dies in these circumstances, the vehicle shouldn't pair with random TPMS sensors around it.
Random sensors around it that aren't already paired to their own car.
Also it could wait for you to complete an entire trip or two.
> Especially when we're talking about logic of a regulated safety system.
"Safety" in the sense that the little warning light usually gets you to do something about it eventually? Is this data going into anything where the correctness is a big deal?
> How big is the range on one of these?
As always with RF propagation, it depends. They're frequently in the 315Mhz band, so should be roughly similar to garage door openers, remote controls, etc.
> Random sensors around it that aren't already paired to their own car.
There's no handshake -- TPMS sensors are generally unencrypted broadcast devices. A car will see a lot of sensors. (and you can set up an antenna and track cars driving down your street) The "pairing" is simply the vehicle remembering which ones is theirs.
> Also it could wait for you to complete an entire trip or two.
It could. Now add the complication of: spare tires. And also, some but not all vehicles store the positionality of the sensor, so they can tell you which tire is low.
But if you're going to give the system so much hysteresis, you might as well just save the money and use the ABS-sensor based system that other vehicles use. These don't require any additional sensors or programming, but they are slower to react and don't provide pressure readings. The reason automakers use direct sensor systems is to provide a more direct and immediate reading.
> "Safety" in the sense that the little warning light usually gets you to do something about it eventually? Is this data going into anything where the correctness is a big deal?
It is a big enough deal that the reason many cars have them is to comply with the legal requirement that they have them. Before the light (and better cars have textual warnings), you'd have to manually check your tire pressure to identify an underinflated tire, leading to many people driving on them for extended periods of time and experiencing rapid unscheduled failures.
Either you can see the tire is low visually, or when you hear a thump-thump-thump you know you blew a tire.
I do not agree with your point. I do understand it, don't agree.
TPMS essentially automates people checking their tires because the reality is most people do not do a walk around on their car before driving.
In theory, we could use a dipstick in our fuel tank but most of us prefer an automated gage.
Even if you do a walk around, under-inflated tires are typically not distinguishable from normally inflated tires. Especially on today's cars with shorter and stiffer sidewalls.
I had a rental Mercedes with a leak in a tire recently... a tire was at something like 15psi but looked visually the same as the other tires. I absolutely do a walk around on all of my rentals and take pictures, but I would have had no clue if it weren't for TPMS. I would have driven it until it failed.
Tires can have low enough pressure to affect vehicle handling without being visually low, you simply cannot measure tire pressure visually. That's why even tire shop workers use a gauge instead of eyeballing it.
The tool is like $10.
The tool is $10, the two minute walkaround of undoing your pressure caps, measuring the pressure, and redoing them, every trip, adds ~1000 minutes/year.
... Or you could just have the manufacturer spend $30 to embed this into the car's dash.
For similar reasons, your car also comes with a fuel gauge, and doesn't require hand-cranking to start.
If you really want car prices to come down, have the manufacturers fire most of their workers and replace them with robots (I'm not sure if the robots will make for a good consumer base, but that's someone else' problem.)
Look at a BYD car factory versus any one ran by the American auto dinosaurs, and that's where you'll find the price delta.
I agree this is bullshit, although when I swapped from Summer to Winter tires I fixed this by putting tape over the sensor light in the Winter.
Anything that takes control away from me I am not interested in. I am both legally and financially liable for anything the car does. I am also not trusting my life to some poorly maintained software written by someone in another country.
Being legally and financially liable doesn't bring back the kid you ran over because you couldn't see them with your mirrors or turning your head...
Mandating driving aids (that often don't work properly) won't fix this problem either.
What does increase safety is better driver training. This has be ubiquitously proven BTW.
You've had backup cameras often fail? You must be very unlucky. After many years of driving and riding in cars with backup cameras, I have never seen one not work, let alone "often" not work.
Where is the ubiquitously proven support for the assertion that backup cameras don't increase safety?
Deliberately re-framing an argument to force me to accept a conclusion, while misinterpreting what I said is disingenuous.
I've read several of your replies towards me and I can tell that you either unable or unwilling see my point of view. So there is no point in having a discussion with you.
If you want to use "often don't work properly" as an argument, then people are allowed to challenge that argument.
I guess they shouldn't have assumed you were speaking from experience, but I don't think that's a big deal. That's not forcing you to accept any conclusion. If it happens "often" you should have examples and/or data. If you don't then maybe you should reconsider if it actually is "often".
And they directly asked for data that it doesn't increase safety.
That's not unwillingness to see your point of view. If you provide quality evidence, you can win them over.
Do you drive a fuel injected car or do you prefer the “control” of adjusting your carburetor?
Not being snarky, just pointing out we’re often guilty of picking and choosing rather than applying first principles.
That don't directly take control away from me.
I am specifically talking about things that take over control of the vehicle.
I've had lane assist fight me when trying to move lanes. I apparently wasn't turning the wheel enough and it thought I was drifting (I wasn't).
I've had another hire car refuse to move backwards without me putting it into reverse. It had anti-rollback measures. I didn't know what was going on. All my other cars would rollback (I drive manuals). Now I know technically you shouldn't coast backwards but it was maybe a foot.
> I've had lane assist fight me when trying to move lanes. I apparently wasn't turning the wheel enough and it thought I was drifting (I wasn't).
You're telling on yourself here. Use your turn signal and lane assist won't fight you.
>That don't directly take control away from me.
Sure it does. You can tune it to get better performance or fuel economy. (Tbf, you can do the same by fuel mapping your injectors, but it would probably void any warranty).
What you seem to be alluding to is that the automated features give you different performance than what you were expecting and you have little recourse. The same could be said for your fuel injectors.
Who is they? Why would they "push for" that?
Owners of car companies, to make more money. More disposable, more expensive cars, in less easily entered industry. How else will they keep BYD and others from coming in?
The average age of a car on the American roads has been increasing every year.
How does this square with your theory that cars are becoming 'more disposable'? They seem to be running longer than ever before.
To play devils advocate, “disposable” doesn’t necessarily mean “unreliable”. It just means that it’s harder to fix once it does break.
The average age of an American car is, at the moment, 14 years[1]. That means that there are about as many 28+ year old cars on the road as there are new cars.
Repairability becomes somewhat less relevant when reliability is better out-of-the-box.
[1] A decade ago it was 11 years.
Not to be too nit picky, but I think you’re conflating median and average. The median age is probably lower because the age distribution skews older due to vintage cars and such. But you are right about cars lasting much longer today. At the same time, I think there is a point that they are also less repairable. (I’ve heard horror stories of $7k+ touch screen replacements, which control everything from the radio to the HVAC).
Vintage cars are a tiny fraction of the vehicle base, and due to demand and population growth, and the fact that an old car had to have been a new car at some point, there is an immediate bias towards having more newer cars.
Also, unlike with money and wealth and other metrics where averages aren't very useful, the distribution of car ages does not have a tail of incredible outliers. There aren't a lot of billion-year-old cars driving that average away from the median.
Look, it's entirely possible that 'this time it'll be different', and we'll regress on this metric, but at the moment the data does not support it.
It doesn't compute like that because the minimum age is zero. So a long tail of fewer people driving stuff that's older than 28yr reduces the number of people driving things 14-28yr by greater than one each.
Yeah! Let's get rid of requirements for headlights and seatbelts, and brake lights, too. Why do we need all that? /s
Sure, why not. Those are features people consider valuable and we'd continue to have them.
Save perhaps rarely if ever used seating positions (middle rear of the super stripped down V6 Mustang they make like 10 of so they can advertise a starting MSRP or some other comparable niche) I don't think seatbelts are going away anywhere they matter.
Ditto with headlights and tail lights, drivers find them useful. Perhaps we'd see a delete option used by fleet buyers who intend to equip the vehicles with alternative lighting.
The point of my post was to understand why those sensors exist ubiquitously to point to why removing them isn’t necessarily easy or smart. You seemed to have interpreted it completely wrong.
Let’s use regulation for actual safety issues, and not to increase the barrier of entry for foreign vehicles. It drives up the cost of all vehicles.
Agree. Far too much paraphernalia in cars. My garden cart runs fine with 2 wheels why car need 4. It is just inflate cost.
Gotta love a strawman once in a while
If those things are so important to people, they'll happily pay extra for them. Let the market decide! /s
Yes, but without the sarcasm.
But what do we do about externalities, like when the value is for other people? I don’t get much value out of my turn signals, but I assume other drivers do…
Oh, wait. That’s what regulators are for :-)
> Oh, wait. That’s what regulators are for :-)
Do you blindly assume that regulators are right 100% of the time? If they aren't , then by virtue of regulation being never removed in the long run, you will end up with inflated regulation for which some of it is done for no good reason.
This is absolutely true. This is how housing prices have gotten so bad in the United States, through incredibly insane zoning and all the other land use regulation around it.
Is there a particular regulation you would prefer to remove? If you list something specific, let's talk about other alternatives to removing the regulation that could cause better outcomes without reducing supply in that market.
The tyre pressure sensor you can make an argument to be required by law as uneven tyre pressures can negatively effect handling.
However the backup camera being required by law is absolutely ridiculous. You can just either use the mirrors or turn your head.
From what I'm seeing after some basic googling, there is a fairly pronounced effect in terms of collision rates when people have backup cameras. And a small screen hooked up to a camera is pretty benign in terms of complexity.
If the US weren't so obsessed with enormous cars with terrible visibility, I think this would be a different conversation.
> You can just either use the mirrors or turn your head.
I can see quite a lot in my backup cam that is in a visual blind spot in both of my cars.
I'm pretty sure backup cameras are required because they reduced children being run over and killed... You can't see a small kid behind your car with by just mirrors or turning your head.
Many cars and especially SUVs and trucks are tall enough in front that you could not see a small child right in front of the vehicle. Wide A-pillars also create blind spots that can hide pedestrians and bicycles. Where are the calls for forward- and side- facing cameras to eliminate this claimed risk?
Anyone who has ever driven a car will note that they have ~200 degree peripheral vision to observe things moving in front of you, while the limited FOV of your mirrors does not provide that for what's behind you.
Unless you really struggle with object permanence, a child somehow ending up in front of you without you seeing them is not a frequent occurrence, compared to one ending up behind you.
But yes, American cars are stupid big and should be smaller.
Low tire pressure affects:
It's wins all the way around.You still don't need a sensor built into the vehicle to check it. A tyre pressure gauge you can buy on amazon for £5.
The C pillars are too large and the body too high for you to get good sight to anything behind you in a modern vehicle.
>The C pillars are too large and the body too high for you to get good sight to anything behind you in a modern vehicle.
Which is the work product of the 2000s era of "legislate to make cars better" advocacy.
90s SUVs rolled a lot, so they changed the rules to require them be strong, Strong made them hard to see out of in reverse so they added cameras. Now because both are regulatory required, at substantial cost, you can't even make a small vehicle that doesn't have both.
It's not like the Subarus and Volvo wagons of the 00s were lacking in rollover strength or rear visibility, but now that you have to have the features by law and when all the dust of engineering tradeoffs settles the modern analogues wind up just as bad to see out of as everything else, because why wouldn't you if you're required to have the mitigation technology. No reason for 2020s Subaru shove that stupid steel bar in the pillar (at great expense) to keep it sleek and skinny when they have to have the fat pillar mitigation tech installed by law.
How many times we gonna run laps of this feedback loop before we decide the problem is systemic?
My non-SUV C pillar is still wide because it has an airbag in it.
Yep, I always agreed with backup sensors but a camera is overkill.
Backup cameras being required by law is a consequence of cars being absolutely disgustingly large for any average use case, at least in the US where I live.
I go to South America a lot to visit family and for business and the cars by and large are much more maneuverable, small and nimble, and you can actually see most things around you.
But then every time I get back on my first car ride I'm greeted with an absolute monstrosity of a vehicle. Even the average sedan feels gargantuan. Due to this people can't realistically see very well behind them. Never mind the fact that most cars the rear windshield isn't even that large anymore, and in some vehicles head checks don't even work well because the columns are right in your view.
I understand some of this is in the name of "safety", but realistically it feels like it trading one safety measure - safety for the people inside the vehicle - at the expense of another - those outside the vehicle.
You must have quite the impressive neck if you can reproduce the same view a backup camera does.
You can also turn your body a bit as well.
I have tried this before but I have never been able to make the bumper transparent.
The reason this law exists is because small children (e.g 3ft tall) were getting run over.
Seriously, go put a large suitcase immediately behind your rear bumper and try to see it without a camera. You can't.
If you put a child size doll right under the rear wheel, can you see that in the camera? Or under a front wheel, for that matter?
Solve the problem completely or else admit that it's just for twits who can't parallel park.
> Solve the problem completely
That's just simply not how safety engineering works. Safety features mitigate risk, none of them solve it.
That is false. Safety engineering sometimes only mitigates risk, but often reduces it to practically zero, such that people have to be deliberately negligent to prevail in bringing about a safety incident. E.g. elevator holds 15 people, yet 45 somehow jam themselves in as a stunt.
Partial safety mitigation isn't so much how safety engineering works; it's how it ducks out of working due to non-engineering reasons. If any safety issue remains, that means engineering was not done in that regard: the safety engineers were excused from the requirement to design anything for that risk.
Do you believe, that I believed that I could see through the bumper?
No, I believe your flippant answer was made with disregard for the need to do so.
I had a flippant stupid reply. So they got a stupid flippant response.
Typically when you are reversing and there is likely to be something sat behind your vehicle (like a child or a pet). You are parked. You can you know look before you get in the car.
If you have parking sensors it will alert you to something walking behind you anyway.
The point being made is there are way to deal with this without the need for a rear camera.
> Typically when you are reversing and there is likely to be something sat behind your vehicle (like a child or a pet). You are parked. You can you know look before you get in the car.
You can.
And then the kid/pet moves. They do that.
The point being made is that there are ways of mitigating the risk. That for some reason you are other people don't believe can be done at all. This is patently false.
Also just because there is a camera and a screen doesn't mean people will look!
> The point being made is that there are ways of mitigating the risk.
Yes, like a backup camera.
> Also just because there is a camera and a screen doesn't mean people will look!
The number who will is well above zero.
(This critique also applies to your proposed mitigations, yes?)
> Yes, like a backup camera.
Well you've just twisted what I said because you are getting angry. So we will leave it there.
Is a backup camera not a way "of mitigating the risk" when reversing?
Which is easier, installing them in new vehicles, or making a billion drivers undertake remedial training in basic safety?
> you are getting angry
If you say so. I've gotten angry on here, but it takes a lot more than someone who thinks they can see through their bumper.
> Is a backup camera not a way "of mitigating the risk" when reversing?
You knew I was referring to other methods mitigation the risk and decided to get a quick jab in at me. That was disingenuous. I don't appreciate it.
> Which is easier, installing them in new vehicles, or making a billion drivers undertake remedial training in basic safety?
Driver awareness can be done through other means than re-training.
> If you say so. I've gotten angry on here, but it takes a lot more than someone who thinks they can see through their bumper.
I never said that and obviously don't believe that. Funny how at the start of this reply you were pretending you weren't engaging in that behaviour. I wouldn't bother replying, you won't get another one.
You are coming across as weirdly unhinged about this.
> You knew I was referring to other methods mitigation the risk…
Yes, I do. And I'm wondering why this one doesn't count.
> Driver awareness can be done through other means that re-training.
Such as?
(Ironically, the serious answer to this is "stuff like backup cameras". Which improve driver awareness when backing.)
> I never said that and obviously don't believe that.
You: "However the backup camera being required by law is absolutely ridiculous. You can just either use the mirrors or turn your head."
How do you use those two techniques to see things in the blind spot behind the bumper without its being transparent?
[flagged]
Of course, ideally people see the child and do not hit it. When atypical incidents happen, we call them accidents, and when they start happening at rates we find unacceptable we often engineer solutions to make those accidents less likely.
This is why we have seat belts instead of telling people "you idiot you should have used the brakes!"
Don't patronise me. You've done it twice now. I find it extremely irritating.
The point being made is that many of these things can be mitigated by better driver training or driver aids which are much simpler & cheaper (I am likely to fit parking sensors in my older cars, kits are cheap).
> mitigated by better driver training
Oh, well, if it's that easy! Just retrain 1.2 billion people, some of whom still don't know how to tie a shoelace reliably.
> Oh, well, if it's that easy!
They have been mandating that in most UK countries for decades and it is definitely one of the reasons why roads are safer now.
> Some of whom still don't know how to tie a shoelace reliably
Your true colours finally show. All the people are too stupid to learn how to do anything. BTW this is called the "Bigotry of low expectations".
> Your true colours finally show. All the people are too stupid to learn how to do anything.
All? No. Some? Absolutely. Five minutes on the road demonstrates it.
Probably should have had better driver training ;-)
Yes, they should.
If you find out a way to retrain everyone on the road more cost-effectively than a $30 backup camera, do implement it. (Don't forget figuring out how to get people to maintain those skills.)
Until then, I'm glad my car has some safety features that protect me when I get rear-ended in stopped traffic by someone who wasn't paying attention.
> Yes, they should.
So you accept that better driving training would be better.
> If you find out a way to retrain everyone on the road more cost-effectively than a $30 backup camera, do implement it. (Don't forget figuring out how to get people to maintain those skills.)
As time goes on, older people stop driving either they stop driving (they realise they are too old to drive) or they die.
If you implement better driver training. Then newer driver have to do that training. So over the overall minimum standard improves.
A $30 camera is something that doesn't improve the overall minimum driving standard. It is a band-aid over a bigger problem.
> Until then, I'm glad my car has some safety features that protect me when I get rear-ended in stopped traffic by someone who wasn't paying attention.
Crumple zones have been standard in cars for like 30 years now. That rear camera isn't going to help you.
> So you accept that better driving training would be better.
Oh, certainly! But it needn't be exclusive. (And "teach people better" is a lot harder than running a wire to a $30 camera.)
> As time goes on, older people stop driving either they stop driving (they realise they are too old to drive) or they.
They drive far, far too long on average. I'd love to see an annual requirement to pass a driving test over 60, but… old people vote.
> A $30 camera is something that doesn't improve the overall minimum driving standard.
Sure. It improves the "backing up" bit only.
> Crumple zones have been standard in cars for like 30 years now. That rear camera isn't going to help you.
Both are safety mitigations, for different aspects of driving.
I'm glad I can both survive a rear-end crash and being reversed over by someone driving a Hummer with a six foot high blind spot in the back. I don't have to pick one improvement, which is great.
> Oh, certainly! But it needn't be exclusive. (And "teach people better" is a lot harder than running a wire to a $30 camera.)
But earlier you were pretending that it was the case. Interesting.
Do you not remember?
> I'm glad I can both survive a rear-end crash and being reversed over by someone driving a Hummer with a six foot high blind spot in the back. I don't have to pick one improvement, which is great.
Are you saying the mandated camera doesn't stop someone from reversing over you or that the hummer doesn't have the camera, but won't kill you because the camera is mandated by law in other vehicles?
I am not sure what to make of this statement.
> But earlier you were pretending that it was the case. Interesting.
Hardly. Just that "teach people" is tough, expensive, and time consuming. "Install a $30 device" is not. (In your now flagged last-last-last reply to me, you advocated for PSAs. As we all know, they worked great to stop texting while driving!)
> Are you saying the mandated camera doesn't stop someone from reversing over you or that the hummer doesn't have the camera and the hummer won't kill you because the camera is mandated by law.
I'm saying I'm glad the Hummers now have backup cameras, because they sure as shit can't see me with the windows/mirrors.
[flagged]
> No you were pretending that it couldn't be done. You specifically said earlier people were too stupid to learn because many people couldn't tie up their shoelaces.
This remains entirely true. That's part of why it's tough, expensive, and time consuming. People do dumb things. Much of safety is figuring out ways to lessen opportunities to do so, and mitigating damage when they manage it.
See, for example, aviation/medical safety, which take the approach that individuals making mistakes is an indictment of the system that permitted that mistake to occur. We engineer them away, as much as possible, with pretty great success overall.
> I knew that. I thought I deliberately misinterpret the sentence so you would be forced to clarify. You did to me several times in the other thread.
No, I still wanna know how you stop time between checking behind your car and getting in, starting it up, and backing out, so no kid/pet/whatever can run behind it in those 10-15 seconds.
I do a lot of work on my own vehicles. I think a lot of the responses are from people who do not.
Paying for vehicle repair labor is basically a tax. They're making it harder and harder to fix your own car. I spent the afternoon yesterday trying to find headlight assemblies that didn't need to be coded to work correctly. Headlights.
All the outrage about right-to-repair around here, and nobody realizes the frog is almost boiled around repairing cars.
I presume you're gonna buy a Slate truck?
https://www.slate.auto/en
Yes!! If it turns out to be not vaporware, which lets be honest is probably a reasonably high probability.
I don't want a truck, but if they do that approach for a minivan or a sedan, and they can get it to market, I'd 100% go for that. It sounds amazing.
Is it available in a hybrid or ICE?
I agree that there are lots of useless things in cars, but the tire pressure sensors on my base trim 2013 Honda recently saved me a big headache.
I recently pulled out of a business and the "low tire pressure light" turned on right away. "Hmm?" My next stop was 1/4 mile away, and it still felt okay. At the next parking lot I checked all the tires with my gauge and found one was 10psi low. On closer inspection the nail was right on top. Sure enough I'd picked up a little nail. It was a slow leak, and I wouldn't have heard the hiss. If not for the sensor I might not have noticed I'd gotten a flat until I got on the freeway.
PSA: Check your spare's air pressure. Mine was supposed to be 60psi. It had 40psi, which was good enough to get me to the tire store. I checked the spare when I got home - the tire repair crew had bumped it up to 55psi.
My dad was leaving on a trip recently. Because 'spare tire psi' was on my mind I checked his spare - it was only 25psi.
FWIW repairing tyre is easier than putting on spare. So long it’s not a rare sidewall puncture.
Spoken like someone who hasn't owned a late model car.
>I can put it one that is better than the factory one for a cheaper price
As someone who used to be involved in the car audio competition scene, those days are long gone. Modern sounds systems are great, and tightly integrated into the A/V system.
>the sensor that tells you if you have a flat tire
The sensor will tell you when there's a rapid drop in pressure. You won't notice the flat until you're near driving on the rim.
>the emergency call button (while everyone has a mobile phone these days), automatic regulating seats (pulling a lever is too much difficult), dual zone clima control (it's the same space in the same car, why I would want to set 2 different temperatures?)
Old man yells at great features.
>they no longer provide you with a spare tire, just an useless repair kit...
Yeah, they provide roadside assistance. Because changing your tire on the side of the road is dangerous (as is driving on the donut).
Plenty of used jalopies out there for you.
> Yeah, they provide roadside assistance. Because changing your tire on the side of the road is dangerous (as is driving on the donut).
As is waiting on the side of the highway for an hour (possibly in the winter, possibly in the dark) until AAA arrives. Also, allowing you to pay for roadside assistance isn't the same as "providing" it.
I found a similar thing on a cheap water heater. California requires an additional sensor to ensure the heating chamber doesn't overheat. It's not common generally, and the error messages when it triggers are not that helpful. After a few years of intermittent water heater failures, I finally realized that there was this sensor that was causing all the problems. I bypassed the sensor with a 1K resistor, confirming the issue, then had a new sensor sent out under warranty. Quick swap and it's been back to normal. I never found any documentation or repair advice that even considered that the sensor might be bad, and since it was California-only, most repair guides or technical documentation didn't mention it.
It's really easy to have a sensor failure that indicates a major repair is needed, when the actual issue is the $1 sensor.
I was shocked that we started replacing glow plugs one at a time.
I drove a 2002 diesel Jetta for a few years. $80 for all four glow plugs. It’s a no brainer to do them all. This was probably ~2015, it was old when it was written off.
This year, the cheapest I could find one (yes, just one) for my 2013 was $135 online. Cheaper online than a mechanic friend of mine could get it through any of his sources.
There is a compression sensor in there now adding cost, apparently.
Aside, I had never heard of a glow plug, after working on a few generations of cars... I figured it might be a US vs rest of the world thing with naming something like a "spark plug".
But I looked it up and for the benefit of anyone else who's never worked on diesel, it's part of the diesel ignition cycle it seems. TIL!
A glow plug is basically a heater.
Diesel being injected into the engine isn't ignited by a spark, but spontaneously by compression. This can't happen if the temperature in the cylinder is too low.
Having your fuel being ignited by the engine running, as opposed to something like a spark plug, has interesting side effects like dieseling and runaway.
Fully agree with what you are saying.
I do have some beef with the prices of these electronic gadgets in the car. 300€ price for a new sensor or something similar? Sensor costs are usually a single digit or below. Somehow vendors found a way to inflate that price and this is destroying the repairability.
With the prices of sensors, I was astonished and I thought the garage was having me on. I looked up the prices online and the garage weren't taking the mickey (it was withing 10-15% of what they quoted me).
Car manufactures make probably more money on parts than selling new cars
They do. But they make even more on interest from financing. And interest depends on the price you pay, so cheap cars cut into their profits.
> A lot of this seems to be over-engineering IMO. This is alluded to in the article, but not explicitly stated.
I think a large part of the problem is that a sort of very scientific "modify a single variable at a time" type of engineering culture permeated academia a couple decades ago and now we're reaping what we sow.
The sort of practical "I snipped this corner so now they pack neatly four to a box from the supplier and I altered that curve so now there's clearance for more types of wrenches around the bolt head and I smoothed out the rib shape for die longevity and in doing all that I reduced the mass by 6.5%" type stuff that engineering culture used to look up to has been replaced with KPI chasing "You told me to reduce mass by 6% and I reduced mass by 7%, 2nd and 3rd order consequences be damned" engineering culture that used to be fairly confined to the rich half of a certain continent is now what is worshipped.
And likewise you get spiraling complexity because the only thing holding it back is the bean counters (when doing so is a priority) whereas before there was kind of natural restraint keeping it back on both sides. So as they go around updating platforms and models and sub-assemblies as whatnot the compliance ratchets up, unless the mandate at the time is to reduce it.
Same ... I'm still running an early 2000's Toyota and got myself a VW Beetle 1969 just for the fun of it ... love maintaining them as they're so simple and rewarding and parts are cheap! ... And I can in no way be called a mechanic.
I've been lusting over the ioniq 5 for a couple of years but I'm just thinking, in 10 years time I'll be knee deep in your last paragraph ... I like long lasting cars
Yep. There a bunch of minor issues with my vehicle that I was procrastinating on, but the brakes lights not working is very illegal and unsafe, so that had to be fixed before I drove it. Was really pleased once I realised what the issue and managed to fix it.
All the newer cars feel like iPods with wheels and the driving experience is horrible. I am not interested in them.
I think in time we see a similar trend with EVs. They are, by many metrics, vastly less complicated in terms of hardware. Software, of course, is another matter.
Software doesn't have to be complex. The most complex piece of software EVs absolutely need is the BMS and the charging protocol.
Everything else is super basic. There's a reason some of the earliest vehicles were EVs.
You think that software isn't complex because you've never seen it.
What should it do when the throttle pedal goes from 0 to 99 percent? That's likely an electrical issue, not a driver command to plow through the school zone. I could probably think of a dozen such scenarios, and the true number is probably in the hundreds. They all have to be proofed mathematically. With redundancy.
Out of eye, out of mind.
There is fundamentally no difference between a golf car and an electric car other than a higher top speed and more powerful motor.
> What should it do when the throttle pedal goes from 0 to 99 percent?
How fast? 0->99% in 1 second is likely the user gunning it. 0 to 99 percent in a millisecond is likely a fault. In either case, the simplest solution is a capacitor in-between the signal and throttle. Doesn't need to be particularly beefy to get the job done.
The problem is you are thinking about this as a software problem when it's an electrical problem. There are a lot of electrical components that have instantaneous response times, well known curves, and perform exactly the jobs you'd want faster than what you can do with software.
You want to minimize the amount of software between the accelerator and the motor precisely because you want to make the car as responsive as possible. Putting software in the middle creates delays and needs for very complex real time software and more expensive components.
But an EV has instant torque; going 0-99% in one second is probably unwise and not fixed by a capacitor. Software's what helps us not strip the rubber off the tires, or mitigates a slipping wheel on ice. It's a lot more than a capacitor at work.
This is a belt-and-suspenders thing.
The gas pedal on an EV isn't connected to a passive rheostat gating the entire power output of the vehicle.
It's a low-voltage sensor. A capacitor can swallow a transient of a 0.1v signal bursting to 5v for ten milliseconds, and then software converts it into whatever "sport mode acceleration curve" the marketing department calls for.
And I'd argue there's really no reason it couldn't be much more complicated than a rheostat and a static circuit to get the desired curve.
I can't find the actual circuitry, but I'd not be surprised if that was what the EV1 did in the 90s.
Software adds flexibility, it isn't a necessity.
Low-voltage wring and sensors to the pedal are cheaper and lighter and probably less susceptible to some failure modes.
Tell me, what's the different principles that an BEV motor uses and a golf cart motor?
What's the fundamentally different principle that the battery operates on?
Rather than just say "nuh uh". Educate me and other commenters on where the differences lay.
Because honestly, I think you're the ignorant one. You think because they are a different shape they have different operating principles.
There are differences, obviously, a golf carts doesn't need airbags, HVAC, or crumple zones. However, when it comes to the drive train, about the only fundamental difference is that BEVs have bigger motors and bigger batteries.
There's a reason average people have been able to convert their ICE vehicles into BEVs. It's that the most complex part is storing the batteries and attaching the motor.
https://youtu.be/dXCTXxL5lr0?si=8FF_5_bkErZVl5UD
Are they actually proving correctness in the auto industry as a matter of course? My understand (could be out of date) was that there were a few partnerships with universities for a small part of the stack.
That's a wild statement from someone who has never built a commercial ev. Like all industrial hardware, the portion protecting from what shouldn't happen is twice as complex as the section regarding what should be happening.
There are certainly safety devices that I elided over. For example, checking the battery temperature is pretty crucial.
But, my argument is that EVs aren't complex. I could even grant your 2x number for safety measure and you'd still end up with a much simpler device than you can pull off with a comparable ICE engine.
I'd also point out that a lot of the parts are already "off the shelf".
There's a reason we saw a slew of pop-up BEV manufacturers all at once. It's because the manufacturing complexity is simply a lot lower than it is for an ICE line. There are far fewer parts, far less complex parts, and the parts are more readily available.
> The cars I work on are from the early 90s and everything is very simple to understand.
If you were to take an older, simple to understand car, and add all of the modern features through aftermarket addons, you would end up with a car that is no longer simple to understand. They were simple to understand, because the feature set was simple compared to a modern car. (And I miss them dearly - can't wait to retire to find the time to find that love again!)
I read an article yesterday about how a simple nail puncture besides affecting tire sensor light, throws off traction control, abs, and all sorts of computing. what would be a 15 minutes patch and go job turns into an hour job of resetting computers and sensors.
I recently had to replace a traction control sensor on my BMW -- it was a pain (and would've been expensive if I had a pro do it), so I can relate.
But it's worth noting that modern traction-control makes life wildly safer for the average driver up north. I was driving an icy Vermont ski road with winter tires, but (because I hadn't yet fixed the sensor) no traction control. There were 2 pretty terrifying moments and I'm an experienced driver. Your average American can't even drive manual, there's no way they're compensating for low-traction winter mountain roads properly in all cases. I'd rank it more critical than any of the backup camera, TPMS or FCW features, and maybe on par with ABS for those of us in cold areas.
Now if I lived in LA, I'd just hold down the "DTC" button to disable traction control on bootup and forget about it.
Any recommendation how to start learning repairing a car? I have absolutely zero experience. A friend of mine said just learn to change a tyre first and I have been procrastinating since.
I went down this route in the early 2010's. In preparation for an over landing expedition I wanted to have mechanical knowledge to be a sort of "mechanic" on the trip so I bought a bunch of "project cars" and began tinkering. While it WAS a lot of fun and I feel smarter, it was a total waste of time.
To save you all the trouble of all I went through, it was fun debugging mechanical stuff, but ultimately there is no "self-reliant car owner"
It all comes down to tools and parts. You need easy access to a lot of both or else you are limited to extremely ugly temporary fixes which amount to super gluing your engine back together.
On our overland trip, when we had an issue, it turned out impossible to fix without a massive lift and air tools, so all my years prep was essentially reduced to having a few extra words I could tell the actual mechanic capable of performing the fix.
If you still want to go down this route I recommend the book "zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" and have 4 Saabs you can have lol. I'll even throw in the clutch kit you can't install without a custom Saab tool.
> but ultimately there is no "self-reliant car owner"
We are rare, but we exist. Prior to moving on from it due to an unrelated injury, for the decade prior I did all my own work including numerous engine swaps on my vehicles.
However, this is because as noted, I had the tools and parts. I had all the spanners and sockets I needed, easy access to parts via wreckers and parts networks, and had my own engine crane and stands. My vehicle of choice for most of that time was 2x 1987 Toyota MR2 AW11's.
I mostly got into it because it was my "non computing" hobby for the most part. And for the time I spent engaged in it, I really enjoyed it.
> so all my years prep was essentially reduced to having a few extra words I could tell the actual mechanic capable of performing the fix
That is valuable as well, in some places car mechanics could be eager to let's say make repairs more costly than needed
I got a fixed gear bike with the promise it'd be easily fixable at home. The reality is you need a special tool for more than half the things you'd wanna swap/change
I imagine a car is x100 worse
That isn't true. You are overstating the problem. I've built a custom fixed gear. I have 3 custom tools. They cost me £45 all together.
My current toolbox for the car is:
- Socket set (£50 halfords)
- Spanners (I already had these I guess £20-30)
- Allen Keys (£5)
- Several different types of Cir-clip pliers (£20-40)
- A battery powered soldering iron (£50-100). I have no mains power where I work on the vehicle.
- A lighter (£1)
- Mole-grips (£10-15)
- Axel Stands (£50)
- A Jack. (£100)
- Fuse Pullers (£3)
- Tub of Grease / Copper Grease (£15)
- Toolbox (£10)
- Stubby Screwdrivers (£10)
Changing the bottom bracket
Changing any of the bearings
Tuning the spokes on the wheels
Changing the cog
All require special tools that cost more than 45 pounds
Only the several wrenches, Allen keys (because none are the same size), chain break and tire-changing plungers cost less
Every nut and every screw has a different size. It's madness
> I'll even throw in the clutch kit you can't install without a custom Saab tool.
With a lot of swearing and heaps of scrap metal to find the right sized scrap you can will power it out I promise.
I have the book around for several years. Time to flip it open before my children do lol Thanks for the wise words!
thank you for saying this, I feel less bad about not knowing anything about fixing cars now.
Commit to doing all the maintenance on your car yourself to start getting comfortable with it. Easy jobs to start:
-replace cabin air filter -check for even tread wear -top up the wiper fluid -replace the windshield wipers -take off a wheel and look for tears in rubber bushings or grease leaking from seals. -replace anything broken like switches, trim pieces, etc.
Assuming it’s a gas car: -replace engine air filter -inspect spark plugs -check fluid levels: brake fluid, engine oil, coolant -check 12V battery voltage with the engine off and also running -change the oil
Gosh, I didn't realize people weren't learning these things anymore, just as a matter of normal life.
I'm an early(ish) Millennial woman from the suburbs, from a family with no meaningful mechanical knowledge or training of any kind, and I've done most of these things.
I would have considered myself pretty ignorant about cars prior to reading your comment. Thanks for shifting my perspective to seeing myself as having at least a useful basic familiarity with things!
Great comment because I wondering the same thing. Do people not do any of those things on their own anymore? At a minimum, changing the oil was something I did with my dad as a kid. The hardest thing I've done was probably change a starter.
ICE's are conceptually pretty simple. Anyone who has built a computer should be able to do basic car maintenance if they want to. The electronics is what makes newer cars more complicated, and I assume EVs even more so.
It probably varies between EV manufacturers, but my Tesla Model 3 has been the easiest vehicle to self maintain that I’ve owned yet. Mostly due to how little maintenance there is, but also because of the completely open and online factory service manuals and parts manuals.
It’s ridiculously easy to look up a part number, order it online from wherever is most convenient, and follow the steps in the manual to replace it.
I had the opposite experience with my 10-year-old Model S.
Most parts could only come from Tesla, including the Bilstein struts (a part number Bilstein refuses to sell to anyone but Tesla). $900 per corner.
USB port between the console? $400. I found a used one on eBay, fortunately.
When the wheel rotation sensor receiver went bad, it cost $2500 for them to install and reprogram the replacement, because they "upgraded" to a different mfr. When that one started to go bad (water ingress, which wasn't cured by the new part), I sold the car and said good riddance.
If you want to sell a few year old used car, the paper trail of the professionally done service is a bonus.
Maybe private party, but I've saved this stuff up before and dealers DGAF.
The vast majority of people make a very stupid decision by selling to a dealer and not selling private party.
A lot of Americans become very low IQ in the context of any car related financial decisions. Off loading their vehicles is one of the classic examples of this. Do NOT sell to your dealer. Carvana is the only exception and only because you can easily offload messed up cars to them without disclosing it.
It depends. I've gotten good prices from CarMax before, but like the other responder said, you have to research.
The other thing is that it's not always low IQ, but many people value simplicity. Do I want to show a car, deal with cashiers check fraud, flakey people, etc... or do I want money literally right now? I've sold cars to CarMax and I've sold cars and boats privately. The private price I think I can get has to be considerably more than what I can get with zero hassle.
I've done the math every time I've traded in a car. It's not always worth it, because of the additional time investment, effort, and travel required.
I am still a somewhat of a novice.
Your friend is right IMO. Do something simple first. Like a broken piece of trim, replace a light bulb, change the wiper blades yourself and build yourself up. I had repaired bicycles/motorcycles before hand.
Past that. I literally go on YouTube and watch someone do the task I intend on doing. I have the service manual downloaded for the car (people dump scans of the manuals online as PDFs) and a Haynes Manual (about £20).
Over the last 6 months. I've gone from barely being able to change the wiper blades to replacing a turbo.
I bought an older vehicle(s) that have a good aftermarket parts market and are known to be easy to work on. The simpler / less refined the car is the easier it is to work on.
A word of warning. Usually these things are simple, but not always. Either way, you'll get your hands dirty, and mind off other things.
The YT video for changing my cars' front light bulbs was less than two minutes. After half an hour and a lot of scratches / bruises, I thought I got it done. Started the car, checked the light goes on and off. Scrub hands from dust and dirt, be happy.
Mandatory inspection two months later found out that it was pointing so badly off that their targeting device could not even get a reading. In other words, I had been blinding oncoming traffic. Car didn't pass inspection, I was defeated, and took it to the mechanic.
He also spent twenty to thirty minutes on readjusting the bulb, before it was done and up to spec. It costed only 15 euro, though, as they also expected it to be a 30 second operation.
I guess my point is, don't get discouraged when things don't work immediately, or don't work exactly like a manual / video makes you think. Often it's a learning experience, and while those can be fun, they also sometimes are very much not.
(I'm also a complete novice, and not particularly enjoying the experience, just not affluent enough to pay for all of the maintenance work.)
> In other words, I had been blinding oncoming traffic.
Most modern cars blind oncoming traffic anyway. Either that or 20%+ of morons riding around with high beams and blue/purple LED retrofits.
You may have been defeated by the inspection, but the battle for headlight brightness/alignment was lost years ago.
Or maybe their "alignment" tool was a scam you got robbed of 15 euros?
I don't think there's any incentive for them to scam like that. The inspection shop I took it to was not a repair shop. Also further inspections for the repairs can be performed in any qualified shop.
I had to replace the full wiper system on what is a project vehicle (which I intend to daily once it is all fixed). It took me several months to get the wiper system all working again.
The main problem I ran into was
- Parts that were marked as compatible that were absolute rubbish. You would there is little difference between one brand of wiper arm and another. Apparently not!
- It takes 2 days to order a part from the internet. The nearest part supplier is a 30-40 mile drive. So if you forget to order a part you are either waiting another 2 days or you have a 2 hour drive.
As a result. I ended up rebuying all the parts about 2 times and I should have gone to a local parts dealer where they give you either Genuine, OEM or quality aftermarket. The thing is that I compared the genuine parts that did work with the ones I bought from ebay and visually there is little difference. So now I only buy Genuine, OEM or quality aftermarket.
It is all part of the learning experience. Even though at the time it was frustrating.
Lightbulbs are horrendous these days. On my first car they were like changing a room light bulb, you just reached in and changed the bulb. More recent cars I've had to take the battery out or pull out the whole headlight assembly. It's good to have an idea of how the bits of the car fit together and the main components but significant maintenance is only for hobbyists or people with a lot of time on their hands.
When I was first driving I went through how to change a wheel with my dad and also brake blocks, oil changes that kind of thing. Even my dad who has rebuilt engines from scratch normally goes to the mechanic for everything now.
For what it's worth, headlight alignment is not something a lot of people think about or even realize is a thing - it's just changing bulbs, right?
With any DIY car repair, you always run the risk of things like this, where you don't-know-what-you-don't-know. But it's still worth the ride and the lesson, imo.
YouTube is fantastic if you already diagnosed the problem and know what part you need to replace. You just follow along with the video, pausing while you go. It’s perfect.
YouTube is kind of shit for diagnosis, though. Most of the videos just gloss over it. “Hey guys! So, my fuel pump is dead, so here’s a video on how to replace it!” Ok, thanks, but how did you figure out it was the fuel pump? Not a lot of YouTube content along those lines.
I've found the best knowledge on that front are youtubers who buy beater old cars, get them running again and maybe even restore them to resell at a profit.
Their videos are between 20-60 minutes and run through the general process of going from no-crank-no-start to running, which is basically the same for all gas-powered cars. Diesels are a little different.
You need two things for your engine to run: fuel flow, and spark. If it starts but doesn’t run everything follows from there. If your starter motor doesn’t turn it over start there instead.
You also need air and compression! And if you want the engine to run longer than a few minutes, cooling.
Buy POS 30yo car and just start getting it in shape to be daily drivable. You can typically screw things up three times over before it'd be cheaper to pay someone.
All you really need is the internet. China tools via Amazon are "fine".
Not disagreeing, just elaborating, about “fine” Chinese Amazon tools.
I needed safety wire pliers to assemble some brake rotors. The metal in the ones I got on Amazon was softer than the metal wire they came with such that the cutting edges got little wire-sized dents in them and increasingly useless the farther I got along in the job.
Returned those afterward. Junk.
But there’s other stuff I’ve gotten from RANDOMLETTERS Amazon that’s actually holding up “ok.”
Also, Harbor Freight is a better source of ok/fine tools where you don’t need quotes around those words.
The saying goes Harbor Freight is probably good enough for any tool you can afford to have fail. If your physical safety depends on it or if you use it so much that failure would cause a lot of downtime, you should probably spend a little more.
Theses kinds of questions have no easy answer. Ive done a lot of my own auto work including an engine swap with a friend years ago. This stuff comes with experience but it helps to grow up with an engineer father with a machine shop. It also helps enormously to have gear head friends and have a life long interest in mechanical workings.
Repairing a car these days is not the same as it used to be but I would start with the basics: maintenance items. As you mentioned, changing a tire is a good first step as it will teach you how to secure and jack up a car *safely*. You should also get familiar with tire pressure, acceptable tread wear and tire rotation. Once the tire is off you'll see the brakes and the suspension components. Disc brake pads are simple to change and a good next step: two bolts, caliper slides off, pop out pads, compress piston, insert new pads, slide and bolt back on, done. Under the hood, there are a few educational and simple maintenance items like checking and changing your: air filter, oil and oil filter, brake fluid reservoir, coolant level, and power steering fluid. The above items are like 90%+ of all garage visits.
These items are all part of various subsystems which make up a car so as you work your way through you will get a feel of what things do. With experience you'll be comfortable with popping the hood and getting your hands greasy. I also want to mention that you can and will get hurt, scrapes, small cuts and bruises are not uncommon, it's rough work at times. Take your time, be safe, wear ppe, and work with someone if you can.
It is not incredibly different once you pull off the plastic engine cover and get a cheap code reader.
Don't worry, would be my main advice. Find an official service manual online and follow it. Avoid following YouTube advice without checking the manual as well. Many people on there are not the smartest and will make things difficult for themselves or dangerous for no reason. (I only like M539 Restorations and The Workshop nowadays)
Aside from that, get a clunker or, even better, a motorcycle to work on (if they float your boat, of course). Motorcycles are wonderful because everything is easy to reach, light and usually kinda sexy for the year and price.
Again, don't worry too much. You can rebuild an engine if you have the tools and follow the manual. It's all just following steps. Just don't get clever if you're lacking a tool or something. Take a break, get what you need, don't start doing "clever" things because you feel like it's life and death to finish something right this moment, and you'll be good.
Edit: Oh yeah, and a welding course is probably a good idea down the road. I keep delaying it, but it'd be useful, and it'll also surely be kind of fun.
Youtube is one of the best resources. Almost every time something goes wrong, I was able to find a video of someone fixing that part, usually on the same model of vehicle.
Scanning for codes is useful too, every manufacturer has their own scan tool. For example BMW has ISTA+, Ford has Forscan.
I think that as right to repair laws become more prevalent, there will be more information generally available.
Youtube kinda sucks for anything that isn't an enthusiast car with a big following but is old enough that it went past beater car and to "you don't see these much anymore" status before Youtube became a thing. Thankfully paper manuals are good and cheap for that kind of stuff.
I've done this for a little while, it was fun. Something I didn't expect going in is that 90% of my time was spent in removing parts that were rusted stuck, or hard to apply torque to (e.g. a bolt in the middle of an engine somewhere with very little clearance)
Unless your car is very new, you have all the stuff you need to learn to change a tire in the trunk. Watch 2 short YouTube videos and go do it. It'll take you half an hour. You should use a torque wrench but if it was that critical, one would be in your trunk.
After that, look up your maintenance schedule, pick a job, then go figure out if you can.
When you get into bigger jobs, have a tow company and shop ready in case you run into problems. Mobile mechanics may also be an option.
Look at your local community colleges if you are in the US. a lot of them have classes for simple every day car repair to classes to become a certified mechanic
The reality is that learning how to repair modern cars yourself without the help of someone experienced is a great way to get yourself killed.
You might not know about Harbor Freight jackstands being far overrated and thus kill yourself by assuming that they will hold their rated load.
You almost certainly cannot find more than some youtube videos about how to do things on your post 2015 vehicle. Haines and other repair manual companies don't exist or on life support and haven't made a new guide since 2020 at the latest.
The average entry level talent, i.e. the folks at Jiffy Lube/Vavoline, are often doing things so wrong that it'd be better to never try to "learn" in an environment where they will impact and strip your oil plug, up-sell grandmas with fake dirty filters and "blinker fluid" stories, etc.
If you don't have an actual experienced mechanic to learn from (i.e. someone who can strip and put back together an engine and it runs perfectly) - don't even bother! I'm not joking and I'm exactly like you in that I want to learn to work on cars! But I've learned that the tactics that allow you to get to making 300K a year in tech without much of being taught by other people do NOT work with cars. You WILL need to socialize with a master mechanic. There's no other way.
oh btw - most of the stuff like oil and car related gunk that will touch you when you work on cars is TOXIC AS HELL. Same with what you will breathe (most people don't mask when they should in a garage and they often don't ventilate too).
Everyone starts with no experience. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
This seems like a really nice starting point: https://www.howacarworks.com/video-course/
Get to understand the internals and then dive into specifics...
build one from scratch (kit car)
Do these even still exist? And is it reasonable to get one road-legal somewhere like the U.S. for less than the cost of buying one (once you assign at least some value to your time)?
I'm not in the US so no idea ... but according to answer in Google:
> All Caterham models are imported as rolling chassis. They are street legal in the U.S. under EPA kit-car regulations and can be registered through processes specific to individual states.
source https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/2015-caterham-seven-360-sta...
So, no, then? Even before valuing your labor at anything, they're more expensive than a lot of cars that come assembled.
I'd love a kit car that wasn't ridiculously expensive and/or designed to be raced. But I can understand that the kind of people who would invest the time in building a car would be okay with those propositions.
I wonder if there's a market for building something purely utilitarian, like a little hatchback or something, as a kit vehicle - with the express purpose of learning a lot of automotive principles along the way.
Any recommendations?
If I had the space+money, I'd go for a Factory Five kit: https://www.factoryfive.com/mk5/complete-kit/
and add an LS drivetrain.
caterham https://caterhamcars.com/en/models/assembly
There's more to it than 'electronics'.
Here's my more recent fixes:
-----------------------------------
1. The fuel pipe saga.
Fuel pipe from pump (tank) to engine is a single, molded, hard-plastic and inflexible pipe. Connecting it to new quick release attachments on either end requires a heat gun. At the factory they can heat-shrink the connectors onto the pipes as there is no fuel in the car.
When my quick-release snapped off[1] while I was replacing the fuel pump, dealer quoted my ZAR17,500 for a replacement pipe. To actually install it would require removing everything under the car because it is inflexible and molded to the shape of the car.
Older cars had less efficient (i.e. thicker OD pipes with the same ID) fuel pipes, but they were flexible and easy to route. They used standard clamps which are available for cents right now. The advantage of the newer pipes is that:
a) Cheaper to install (done by robots), and
b) With the quick release joiner, easy for a robot to snap on the connections on either end.
With the older, cheaper and repairable flexible pipes, the manufacturing process required a human. The more expensive pipes result in a cheaper-to-assemble car, even if the BOM is higher.
-----------------------------------
2. Heater blower motor refusing to come on. The AC units (including heater and blower motor) are controlled by low-current signals. This lets the unit have a rotary encoder when the human wants to adjust blower speed manually while still allowing the microcontroller to adjust blower speed when the user simply sets a target temperature.
This requires an additional current-splitter to limit the current to the blower motor (controlling the speed) while maintaining the voltage. When the blower is spinning at a low speed current is dumped into a heat sink and the blower gets very little current. At high speed no current needs to be dumped and the blower can spin at full speed.
My current limiter melted. This required a manufacturer-only replacement, as the digital signals controlling it are completely opaque to the technician (me) fixing the car.[2] Older cars without the rotary encoder had physical switches that switched the blower motor between one of 5 output speeds. Anything in the older system that broke can be replaced by standard switches and relays.
Anything, even the smallest component, in the newer HVAC system that breaks means you have to hope like hell that the manufacturer is still making parts for the car.
In this scenario, a 1995 mid-range car is going to outlive a 2025 mid-range sedan.
-----------------------------------
3. Engine and transmissions!
This is the big one: a 2015 car that, after 20 years, has a worn out slushbox, might have to be thrown away! Why? Because if you are unable to replace the clutches and springs and other parts inside the slushbox due to lack of parts availability, you can't simply swap in a new one, or replace it with a manual - the car is going to throw up a dozen diagnostic codes and probably won't even start.
That 1995 mid-range car? The engine and transmission are not coded to work with each other only. Swap in a Toyota v6 engine+transmission into a broke-ass Ford? Sure, why not?
Same with the radio. In older cars the radio was a swappable unit with standard sizes. In new cars the infotainment system is rarely a regular shape, and in those cars where it is nothing but a screen, it's still hooked into the CAN bus to deliver warnings!
You can upgrade your 1995 mid-range car to use the latest in infotainment technology (maps, voice commands, etc) by simply buying a head unit off Amazon. You cannot upgrade your top-off-the-range Range Rover, Mercedes Benz or Audi just 4 years after purchase!
-----------------------------------
My point is this: the older cars can, with simple mechanical and electro-mechanical non-manufacturer parts, effectively run until humanity just doesn't have fuel anymore. The newer cars will, once the manufacturer stops producing parts for them, have to be scrapped.
There is little incentive for the manufacturer to continue producing parts for a 10-year old car, and that gets even smaller as the car ages.
In fact, I completely expect, as time goes on, that manufacturers would (if they haven't started already) code each component to the VIN or secret key so that parts from a breakers yard won't run in any other car even if it's the same model.
Their preference is: When the radio breaks, it's time to buy a new car or live without a radio.
--------------------
[1] Plastic that over time got brittle.
[2] With a lot of work and lugging my ancient 'scope to the car, I could have worked out what signals were being sent (if digital; analogue would have been easier of course, requiring only a multimeter), designed a circuit around a MOSFET or similar and used a tiny microcontroller to read the signals and control the current.
Planned obsolescence of durable goods is a nasty, brutal thing. MEs and SWEs in the space ought to be speaking out loudly about the abuse of their trade.
It does seem everything is over-engineered or under-engineered and cannot be taken apart. The Electrical stuff I mentioned because I was working on it over the weekend.
It's pretty simple (in the US, can't speak for elsewhere).
There are 2 big factors at play:
1. Margins. Manufacturers make huge margins on expensive vehicles and very slim margins on cheap vehicles. The numbers differ, but I think even in the lead up to the 2008 crisis automakers had to sell 5-10 "econobox" cars to make the profit they made on one luxury car, SUV, or truck.
2. Normalization of debt. For many Americans, having a monthly car payment in perpetuity is considered acceptable. Car loans have their place and can be used responsibly, but due to marketing, sales tactics, and cultural sensibilities what often ends up happening is that people start from a monthly dollar amount and then work forwards to buy the most expensive vehicle they can, even if it means taking the loan term out to 72 or 84 months. It's also very normal for people to never pay off their car, instead trading in the vehicle after 3-5 years and rolling equity in the loan over to their next car. Obviously, this consumer habit is great for dealers, manufacturers, creditors and buyers of consumer debt, as well as the US Government and investors -- it's just not ideal for the consumers themselves if they're trying to preserve wealth and build savings.
These two factors create an environment increasingly hostile to the cheap entry level car. Consumer demand is low since most don't spend responsibly, and automakers don't really want to make or sell them because the margins are so slim.
My reptilian-brain logic prevents me from even considering getting a loan for car. Houses increase in value, therefore it makes a certain amount of sense to get a loan / mortgage for the purchase of a house (but mainly because no-one - in the world in which I live - can afford to buy one cash).
Cars decrease in value, very quickly. Getting a loan for a car is throwing more money away than buying a car in the first place.
Having said that, I'm immune to a lot of 'social norms' so I've been fine driving my tired-looking 20-year old Outlander soccer mum car or our 10+ year old grannymobile Nissan Leaf.
There are situations in which a loan for a car may be necessary, but I'd have to be a really tight spot to consider it, and I'd be absolutely minimising the size / length of it.
It's not merely an issue of obtaining materially desirable consumer goods though; lots of folks get car loans because they can't afford to buy a car, even a cheap car, without one. So it's either, don't get a car and give up a lot of opportunities or hope you live in a place with decent public transit (which is not a given in many places in the US)
> lots of folks get car loans because they can't afford to buy a car, even a cheap car, without one.
Then they shouldn’t get a new car, full stop. Older used cars can be perfectly serviceable with some research into lemon patterns and a pre-purchase inspection by a trusted mechanic. I have found the vlogger Car Wizard to be particularly accurate in his assessments of which used vehicles are great buys and which ones you need to stay the hell away from.
None of my cars are less than two decades old, and none of them cost me more than a new one would, even after the purchase price and all repairs, maintenance, and fuel are added up. If you manage to choose wisely, it is unlikely that you would ever pay more on a used vehicle, even over literal decades, than you would with a new car.
Now sure, you will never be able to own a new shiny. You will never be able to peacock around in a brand-new vehicle. But trying to impress people via copious displays of wealth is a fool’s errand. Intentional attempts at external validation always are.
You can always get an used car for practically any amount of money. A lot of time an used car is even more reliable than a new shiny car full of useless electronic components.
To me buying new cars is just throwing away money, simply because at the moment you brought the car out from the dealer the car just is worth 3/4 of the price you payed it, and when you have to resell it in 10 years it is worth almost nothing.
Unfortunately many people don’t see cost, debt, and cars that way.
Imagine you get your first car, it’s used and a bit run down but you’re paying $250/month on a modest loan. Nothing crazy but you needed a loan and a car that was modestly reliable.
You get a couple of small raises, eventually the car is in the shop more and you feel you deserve a better car because of the hard work and long hours. You see ads for a new car at just another $100 per month on TV. $350/month would be tight, but you feel you’ve earned it.
You go to the dealership only to find the car you really want is closer to $500/month which you can’t afford.
The salesman says “let me see what i can do,” comes back from the finance office, and voila! Got the payment down to $375/month. It’s more than you initially expected but maybe you just don’t go out to eat as much. You’re sick of your old rust box, always in the shop. And you’ll probably get a raise soon too. So you sign.
And bam, you got a 6, 7, or even 9 year car loan. You don’t realize how much insurance will increase. You haven’t had a new car yet so you didn’t even think excise tax would be that much (for the first year of a new car its typically a lot) and now you’re struggling in debt with a new car that lost 20-35% of it’s value right off the lot, so you’re underwater on the loan.
Long winded story to say for many people a car is an emotional extension of themselves. Identity even, and it’s difficult to break that into a more utilitarian mindset. Thus justifying the high cost and debt is easier than if you were looking at it as just a way to get to point A and B
> A lot of time an used car is even more reliable than a new shiny car full of useless electronic components.
And a lot of time it isnt. Not everyone wants too or can afford to take that gamble. Sure, i've had luck with it, but that's because I can perform my own work upto and including dropping and replacing an engine if I need too.
On the other hand i've seen people who could least afford it end up with total stinkers that drained their wallets.
>You can always get an used car for practically any amount of money.
sure, but you'll quickly make up the difference in repair costs when the bucket of bolts you paid ~1k for starts breaking down every 3-4 months.
And, of course, you'll have to make arrangements to get to work to pay for those repairs while the car is in the shop. Which may have it's own associated costs if you're using uber or a taxi or whatever.
Better hope little Timmy has a way to get to soccer practice as well. And hopefully there's no other appointments that have to be accommodated for. It was pretty difficult getting time off to get that bum tooth checked out...
> you'll quickly make up the difference in repair costs when the bucket of bolts you paid ~1k for starts breaking down every 3-4 months.
A lack of adequate maintenance and a failure to identify lemon patterns when choosing the vehicle is always something that can be trivially avoidable.
I’ve had vehicles for over a decade where the repairs on it amounted to a hundred or so a year, at most. Right now I’m swapping out a CV shaft on a 2001 Mazda 626 that has seen ZERO major work done on it in its entire life.
Do the oil changes at twice the recommended cadence, keep on top of every tiny problem, and any vehicle whose entire model line has never demonstrated systemic issues will continue to be highly reliable and low cost to operate. For example, many years of the Crown Victoria fall into this category. The 1997 and 2007 models, in particular, were absolutely bulletproof if maintained correctly.
Even when purchasing a used vehicle, there are many vloggers out there that can help you avoid lemon lines - entire model years that should be avoided - in favour of vehicles that will stand the test of time. Car Wizard is one of my more favourite ones, despite disagreeing with some of his more blanket opinions (European cars, for example).
> To me buying new cars is just throwing away money
Why should a car manufacturer care about your preferences if you're never going to buy new from them?
It's annoying but people like us who care about things like TCO are probably never going to buy new cars under any circumstances, so our concerns about electronic components don't motivate designers.
Even if we might help residual values of leases and buy used parts, our influence over car companies is radically lower than new car buyers.
[dead]
I think as a proportion of the total amount loaned, the people using car loans to bu 10-15k used Toyotas because they have to is quite low :(
I think the way most people rationalise it, it's a pre-requisite for having a job. So it's income-generating and therefore morally ok to take out a loan for it.
Which is just so many degrees of insane that it's even hard to list all of them.
You could list a few, otherwise I'm just guessing at what you mean.
Your work requires expensive gear - maybe it's a car, or smartphone, or computer, or ebike, or HVAC tools, or camera, or musical instrument - why not pay for them over time as they help generate income?
I mean that you shouldn't need a car to get a job, for absolutely all types of work.
For example a doctor or a waiter doesn't need a car to do their job, once they're at their workplace.
The US is basically forcing everyone to commute by car, except for select and limited geographies.
Houses do not increase in value. Land property does (usually). Houses decrease.
> Houses do not increase in value.
They do, by a lot, if they're in desirable cities. Probably what's really increasing in value is the grandfathered permission to have built a house, but there's no way to separate that from the house.
Every part of the house depreciates without maintenance. At some point the house will depreciate and the lot will be worth less than it would be if the house was already demolished.
> Every part of the house depreciates without maintenance. At some point the house will depreciate and the lot will be worth less than it would be if the house was already demolished.
That really depends on the market. There are areas near me where property prices have increased so rapidly they outpace any losses from depreciation. Not necessarily a good thing of course as it does lead to very expensive houses and difficulty with people trying to buy their first house.
Maybe houses made out of paper that you have in the US would, since just after 100 years they have to be demolished and built again. But houses made of concrete, that we have in Europe, just increase in value.
Yes, maybe you have to renovate the interiors, such as new floors, new electrical/hydraulic, new heating system, etc., but that is usually a small expense in contrast with the price of building an house from scratch.
Old brick house is just another old house. Moisture problems in the foundation area, no heat insulation on the roof and walls. Probably wooden beams in the floor. Everything is old and outdated decades ago. I am certified electrician in Germany as a hobby and work in such properties very often.
Meanwhile new house is cool in summer and warm in winter. It’s silent with spacious rooms. It is also not affordable for most people too. Old house is a middle ground when one doesn’t have enough money. There is no way to upgrade in sane way old house to modern standards.
No, because the value of permission to build a house on the lot can be a lot more than the cost of renovating it (even when that renovation cost is higher than the cost of building a new house on that lot). If you don't have another way to get that kind of permission (e.g. maybe it's illegal for you to contribute to the unaffiliated PAC supporting the mayor's reelection campaign because you're a noncitizen) it can be virtually priceless.
The best kind of correct.
They do if your municipality is run by idiots who levy ever increasing regulatory burden on new construction.
Every new edition of the IBC makes my hovel worth more relatively because the cost to create an alternate just keeps on going up.
Depends. My (UK) house is 125 years old. Its depreciating days are well behind it.
How can a house stop depreciating if every part of it and everything in it becomes older as time passes?
The only thing stopping depreciation is regular maintenance which costs money.
A fancy old house is more fancy than a new fancy house.
If it is maintained.
In that basic sense, yeah, OK.
You don't sell the house without land anyway. What matters is that the set of land+house increases in value.
Getting a loan for a car seems quite natural to me. A car provides service flows over a long period, so why not pay for it over a similarly long period? In the first year or two the car's value is probably below the outstanding loan amount, but beyond that it's likely to rise above it, so you're free to sell and walk away from the arrangement.
Granted, high interest rates might make this a bad deal, but the principle seems sound. I bought my previous car on a 7-year bank loan at 2.5% and didn't regret it.
Given that the car drops nearly 50% value as it leaves the lot, I'm not sure how this every pencils out before maybe 10 years 100k+ miles...Maybe these days given how hot the used car market is (driven by the expensive nature of newer vehicles), but again this is a chicken/egg problem.
Your loan is exceedingly abnormal or from a past time as the average loan % in the US is much higher on that time scale.
It loses (less than) 50% relative to the list price, which is an important reason not to pay the list price. I'd estimate that the last new car I bought lost less than 10% relative to the price I actually paid (although selling via a dealer would probably lose another 10% or so).
On the loan rate: yes, fully agreed, this was an unusually good rate, and that makes the arrangement much more attractive.
[dead]
Lots of loan rates out there for <1% APR. Easy to get savings accounts at 4%+ these days.
I could pay off my car tomorrow. But I'll have more money in the end keeping that cash in the bank. Why would I pay it off early?
Your logic works out fine if you don't mind a dash of risk (e.g. from a job loss). But when I ran the numbers from my perspective it didn't seem worth it. (I might be doing my math wrong).
Let's say I get a car that costs $30k, I put $10k down, and I take a loan out using the numbers above rounded up just for napkin math (1% APR, 4% savings account).
After one year:
```
$30,000 x 0.04 = $1,200 from savings account interest
$1,200 x 0.33 = $396 in TAXES from the interest (assuming you earn over $145k/year in California)
$30,000 x 0.01 = $300 in loan interest
Total earned = $1,200 - $396 - $300 = $696
```
Don't get me wrong, $696 isn't _nothing_ but I personally would rather have the feeling of not owing people money then an extra $696 at the end of the year. Add in depreciation from getting a new car and it's almost a wash.
>> I could pay off my car tomorrow. But I'll have more money in the end keeping that cash in the bank. Why would I pay it off early?
> Your logic works out fine if you don't mind a dash of risk (e.g. from a job loss).
I notice that no part of your comment actually describes this risk. What is it? Assuming you have the cash in hand, and it's earning more interest than the interest on your car financing, how would losing your job affect the situation?
The only effect I see is that it will dramatically increase the amount of that extra interest you actually collect, by lowering your tax rate.
I don't live in California, taxes are less. There is no risk from a job loss, I could pay it off tomorrow. You're also only looking at one year of a several year loan.
Sure, more expensive buying a new car. But I was going to get a new car anyways, the question is loan or no loan.
I don't care too much about depreciation. It'll probably be in my garage for a decade or more so that's just paper losses today, and once again I was going to buy new anyways.
I thought this was the main reason to take the loan given an opportunity. The longer the money is with me, I could use it as an investment(mostly S&P 500)
Is the negotiation of these loans separate from the negotiation of the car price? If not I suspect the margin is just being shifted to the asset price
It depends. There are a whole bunch of weird complex financial interactions between the mfg, the dealer, and the loan provider (who is often also an arm of the manufacturer). There can definitely be situations where the dealer makes off better by getting you into a loan even though the loan provider is almost sure to lose money on it.
They were willing to go cheaper with the loan than without it, about the same as what the total interest is on the loan.
The cash is fungible, so for a fixed amount of money and interest rate it really doesn’t matter if the thing you’re buying depreciates or not (assuming you’re buying both things anyway).
I think the cost of a car is a huge drag on the upward mobility on the lower income earners in the U.S.
100%. And it doesn’t help that large cars as a cultural touchstone/status symbol really took off. Even if a $25k car existed most people wouldn’t buy it(even if they “should”).
The base Ford Maverick just edged over $25K for 2024. Now it's $26K. It's not a "real truck" but considerably larger than any econobox.
Maybe it's the exception that proves the rule?
Article suggests the Maverick was selling quite well when it was below $25K. Dealers marked it up.
It’s still selling quite well.
I'll have my 2020 Subaru Impreza paid off in a couple months. That was just under $24k. I don't think the price has gone up much on the Impreza in the last 5 years.
So do the cost of cigarettes and alcohol. Things they burn a larger proportion of their money on than higher earners.
False equivalence. You can do without cigarettes and alcohol, but not without cars in majority of the United States. Only about 10% of the adults smoke vs car ownership in American households is 90% with almost 40% owning more than one car. Comparing what you necessity with a discretionary expense isn’t fair.
Comparing what you necessity with a discretionary expense isn’t fair.
A car might be necessity, but spending more than say $15-20k max on a (second hand) car is a discretionary expenses for the vast majority of people doing so.
I think the bigger issue is the need for a car. In most of the US, everything is built with the assumption you'll be driving to it (workplaces, stores, facilities, etc).
So everyone has to have a car. So your social mobility is limited by the fact that you need to have the money for the expenses that go with it in the first place.
3-4 cities with decent to good transit are the exception, but the fact that they're so desirable and with such high housing prices means that they aren't really accessible either.
Because they are buying new and financing it
Well, the used car market has also been decimated
Cash For Clunkers took a ton of used vehicles off the market
Stricter environmental standards have also taken otherwise working cars off the market, by preventing used dealerships from selling them in general, and making it more difficult/more expensive to insure them
The days of buying a used car for 2 grand are long gone
Cash for Clunkers was important not because of the volume of cars it took off the market but because price points are sticky.
Before C4C garbage cars that ran but probably needed something were "I want it gone, $500". After C4C the same vehicles sold at the C4C price and the price point has more or less stuck. It completely turned the beater car market upside down.
Also many used cars end up in eg Guatemala where the lower cost of labor means that fixing cars is cheaper.
New car prices affect used car prices. I've been in the market for a used car for my daughter, and the prices on used are crazy as well.
I mean what's a 10-year-old Prius in passable condition cost? It can't be that bad, surely?
https://www.edmunds.com/toyota/prius/2015/
10 grand it seems? That's pretty rough, especially with that mileage
That's a little steep, but you gotta grade mileage on a curve -- if it's reasonably maintained, it'll keep trucking for a lot longer than that, it should be plenty for a starter car. I mean, I'm biased, since I drive a (very well maintained when I bought it, high mileage) 2007 Prius that I bought for ~7.5k...8, 9 years ago? and I'm still getting ~40mpg and it survived some pretty questionable maintenance and care on my part.
10 grand feels steep, but for a solid car that'll easily last another ten years with minimal maintenance, good fuel economy, I don't know that you can do much better these days, and it doesn't feel unreasonable.
> I don't know that you can do much better these days, and it doesn't feel unreasonable
It's pretty unreasonable as a class of "starter car" though
I can't imagine many teens working a min wage job for a summer and having a car afterwards if they cost like this
Oh, sure, I was thinking of a car relatively comfortable parents could get a kid without overspending or spoiling too much, it's not super in reach for a kid working part time.
Even expecting parents to buy the car for their kid is kinda weird to me really
I had to get my own job and save to buy my own first car. It was 2k
If it had been 10k it would have taken forever to afford on part time minimum wage
My parents definitely did not have a spare 10k laying around to buy me a car. And if a family has more than one child, then what?
Sure, totally. I was perhaps assuming a certain level of affluence from a HN commenter discussing buying a car for their daughter, but it's true that I described a heavily used premium economy car rather than the complete "at-least-it-starts" clunker that represents the actual bottom of the market.
In Europe, the average age for buying a new car is 50. This means that most of the cars sold are second-hand. Most people think that the car is a luxury and prefer to focus on their home first, then their family, and after that, their car.
I am from Brazil and although most cities are 100% built around cars, public transportation IS an option and mostly works and is (somewhat) affordable.
Unlike the US, if a place is 1km away as the eagle flies you can get there by walking ~1.5km max. And there are bus services and although often overcrowded or with low service, they do run and you can plan your life around them.
Yet everyone still buys a car as soon as they can afford one (or often if they can't). And they use it for commuting to work every day.
To get to the point that Europe is in where even rich people don't want cars or if they have one it is for weekend trips. You need to do a lot better than this.
Unfortunately getting the US to be like Europe in this regard is not really viable, but it could get to the point where Brazil is where the poorer people can afford to not own a car.
In some big cities in Brazil they do a lot of low-cost things like dedicated bus-lanes that actually make some high-demand trips shorter by bus. Progress in this area needs to be incremental, there is little point in investing crazy amounts of money in one big project. Instead the investing should be lower and constant.
sometimes one big project can make a big difference, like a new rail-bridge or metro. But in general getting people into busses is more efficient even if that means rich people still won't want to get into that bus.
> To get to the point that Europe is in where even rich people don't want cars or if they have one it is for weekend trips. You need to do a lot better than this.
It's not like that in all of Europe either, the further you go from Western Europe, the worse the public transit gets. The Balkans are probably the worst, you need a car if you live outside a city as rail and even busses are slow, unreliable, or just not an option in your place.
It is like that in Western Europe as well, "if you live outside a city" you need a car. However small cities don't have the massive gridlocks that big cities have so they can support a car-centric life.
And sure taking a train sure is faster/nicer for long travel, but in practice what matters the most for the economy and people's life/health is the daily commute which mostly happens inside cities.
But you don't quite get how it is in the US (and Canada). In the US it is "if you live *inside* a city" you need a car*, no matter if small, large, or metropolis.
* Except for a few metro areas
> the daily commute which mostly happens inside cities
Well, some countries are far more centralized than others. The daily commute to/from cities is a huge problem where I live, to the point that cities are flooded mostly with outside commuters. Trains and busses could solve that very elegantly, but nobody’s investing in that.
the further you go from Western Europe, the worse the public transit gets.
It's not really an East-West thing. Downtown Sofia for example has much better public transportation than many 'secondary' and rural towns in Germany and France.
But that's Downtown Sofia, how about the rest of the land? That's what I'm trying to say - yes, it's fine if you live in cities, but outside of that, it's not so easy. Whereas Western Europe invests much more in having efficient transit in smaller and rural towns.
Yeah, getting rich people in buses is probably impossible. But making 90 % of all journeys cheaper and more convenient for 90 % of people is pretty doable.
>having a monthly car payment in perpetuity is considered acceptable.
I think that really depends on what part of America. At least where I grew up around a bunch of middle class conservatives listening to eg Dave Ramsey (who has other problems IMO) most people think of you as reckless/irresponsible for doing that sort of thing.
Dave Ramsey is perfect for the type of people who need Dave Ramsey. If you’re a standard deviation or two above the median person in terms of having your shit together and being smart about personal finance you can do a few things more optimally than he would recommend, but the advice that works for that person could easily ruin most people.
Agreed. For example, he strongly advises paying off one's house first. While this is good advice for many/most who struggle to save and invest, it's not optimal for maximising returns on a given portfolio. If the interest rate is below expected investment returns (minus tax and other subsidies, discounted for volatility), it can often be optimal to invest rather than pay down mortgage debt. It also means more liquidity in the case of sickness and redundancy. Equity in one's home can be difficult to access without some hefty fees or interest rates.
I was always confused why he was popular until someone told me to think of Dave Ramsey like vaping. It's great if you're currently a 2 pack a day cigarette smoker, but bad if you don't currently smoke. That cleared it up for me.
> I think that really depends on what part of America.
And the age of the cohort... Millennials (1980 to '95-ish) have had student loans since as far back as they can remember. What's _another_ never-ending monthly payment?
My wife and I are millennials and we paid off our student loans within a couple years once I started my career. I don’t even remember if it was before or after we got married and we’ve been married for over a decade now. Maybe we’re fortunate but I can’t imagine still having a monthly student loan payment.
Of course I also absolutely hated being in debt and having a monthly payment to begin with so I made it a priority to solve that problem asap. Likewise, I have always paid cash for every car I’ve bought. My only never-ending monthly payment is my mortgage and the alternative to that is paying rent which I like even less.
Fundamentally it’s a mindset thing. I also don’t buy taxi rides for my Chipotle orders.
I have a very similar mindset, but, man, mortgages hurt. At least when paying rent the money goes towards a real person. With a mortgage such a big chunk of the payment is the interest that just goes to this faceless entity that is the bank.
How does it not bother you? :)
Most of my landlords were faceless entities too. Obviously I’d rather the house be paid off but I didn’t have $300,000 in cash and I have to live somewhere.
Yep okay, fair enough!
I'm a younger (1994) Millennial and borrowed just $10k to finish my degree. I paid it off the first year I was employed. Very few of my friends still have loans. I'm pretty sure if you got yourself into a never-ending monthly payment situation you probably shouldn't have gone to college to begin with.
I grew up around a bunch of middle class conservatives in the Southern USA and almost all of them were into debt on house, car, often even taking loans to pay for kids private school.
And you'd never know until the family divorced and their lifestyle drastically decreases.
Dave Ramsey has to be relatively new because debt was extremely extremely common among conservatives in the US (no idea about liberals didn't live among them)
Houses are debt, but are generally and appreciating asset
Cars are a depreciating asset. It usually does not make sense to go into debt to get one
Houses are a depreciating asset. They require constant maintenance expenses just to hold their value. It's the land under the house that's the appreciating asset.
Sort of. In a lot of areas, the cost of the house has skyrocketed in the last few decades. One factor is that you can’t buy an empty lot and then build a 20 year old $250k house on it in most markets. If you want to build a house, that house will be new (obviously — relocating an old house is a real pain), and the costs of construction are silly. This effect inflates the value of old houses in a lot of markets.
Of course, in markets that don’t have plenty of inventory of both empty lots and lots with old houses, it can be hard to value the house by itself.
> relocating an old house is a real pain
Has relocating an old house even been done? (Assuming the house wasn't built to be movable.)
As the other comments note, yep, it's been done.
It seems there's a whole spectrum from lifting houses to put a new first floor below them, to moving them a bit, to moving them several blocks in a city. (to big building projects too, historically)
I saw a house in progress being moved, 30 years ago. Great thing to take a kid to see!
Somewhat recently in SF. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/23/san-francisc...
It is done, albeit rarely due to how expensive and complex an operation it is. My friend's mother moved her house a few kilometers across some farmland. It was a rather large 2 story tall house, with a basement. It had to be moved to a plot that had a similar foundation and basement prepared for it.
Yeah, it's a thing for a certain type of historic building.
See https://patch.com/massachusetts/lexington/historic-house-mov... as an example
It's not even really the land, it's the cuts + certificate of occupancy which have both been made artificially harder to get for a number of reasons.
While I agree with your point about land, Im not so sure it is true about the house, given changing costs of labor, code compliance, and materials.
Is there really a meaningful difference when you’re not able to buy one without buying the other?
Maybe - we’re trying to sell a deceased family member’s block of land that might be worth more in the market if we demoed the building because it’s unliveable.
Cars are a necessity in pretty much most of the country. Even in areas with good public transit, people who are most likely to go into debt to buy a car are also more likely to live further away from public transit and commute for work. Outside of New York, I can’t think of another city where living without a car is really an option.
Chicago. Probably a few other big cities.
Yes, but you have to live in the City. The suburbs are impossible without a car.
Well, around Chicago some of the smaller suburbs have a nice little downtown and are on a train line into the city. If you lived near that you might get by just using online shopping and uber if you occasionally needed to go somewhere. There is bus service too but it's not that good.
But in general, and in the larger suburbs yes you would be pretty inconvenienced without a car. But that is true of suburbs everywhere.
You'd be fine in basically all of the inner-ring suburbs except maybe on the south side.
Boston. DC. Chicago.
I’ve heard Philly and SF as well, but have never been.
Philly's transit access can be hit or miss, but when transit lines up, it's transformative. I moved from central PA to a Philadelphia suburb in 2006, a three minute walk to a regional rail station. It was an hour fifteen into the city (most of the time), and I'll take 1:15 on the train over 0:45 of driving every time. After a few months of figuring things out, we dropped from two cars to one.
Now I own a rowhome in the historic district of the city, we're opening the first floor as a museum within the next year, and I walk everywhere. All forms of transit (bus, trolley, trackless trolley, subway, light rapid transit, train, ferry) take contactless payment (finally) and these days, rideshare fills in the gaps.
Wages are higher in the suburbs, but I can get to a sizable international airport in 15 minutes by car, to the Amtrak station in 20 minutes via $3 subway, and I can walk to grocery/hardware/bakery as well as bars/restaurants/galleries/venues/museums/etc.
A car used to be a very, very important part of my life, and now it's more of a luxurious convenience.
Bay Area (including SF) public transportation is generally terrible, definitely not at all a great option for people who can’t even live in SF but have to commute to SF because of how expensive it is.
San Francisco is in the top 10 cities in the US for public transit usage. You can see the stats here: https://www.sf.gov/data--vision-zero-benchmarking-commute-me...
If you are forced to commute into SF for your job, then make living close to BART a top priority. (Many years ago, I met many people who suffered through that daily commute, but refused to make living near BART a priority. It was dumb to watch.) BART is a miracle train system (hybrid commuter rail/metro/subway), even if the coverage isn't great.
Or Caltrain. The new electrified Caltrain is a massive improvement: it runs at least every half hour all day, every day. I don’t know whether it was intentional on the part of the agency, but they stumbled upon the obvious phenomenon that many people will not use a transit system that runs too infrequently and that, conversely, if you have infrequent trains with low ridership, your ridership might return if you increase frequency.
Most of the people I knew lived in East Bay, but you raise a great point! The peninsula also has insufferable car traffic, but can be avoided during daily commutes by carefully planning your home around Caltrain.
Just because it’s in top 10 within the country doesn’t mean it is great and that people don’t need to rely on cars most of the times. “Just live near BART” is a laughable proposition since half the BART stations outside of SF do not have enough housing around them and the ones that do, have high density luxury apartments that aren’t exactly affordable to people outside tech and other high paying careers. Then there’s the question of “do I also work near BART?”, “buy groceries near bus stations?” Or “go to the hospital only near public transit?”. Answer to all of those questions is “No and I still need a car”.
New Orleans.
It’s interesting how the language allows a weird cognitive out. It’s not debt, it’s a mortgage and they ‘own’ the home.
It's not a weird cognitive out, there are major differences, legal and financial between say credit card debt and a mortgage on a house.
Nobody said it isn't debt. The difference is that it is debt that makes sense: you can't realistically buy land without it, and houses tend to appreciate so the interest costs are less of a problem - they just represent the time value of money.
Most other debts people incur personally are to buy things they could save for, which go down in value. Like cars.
That’s the out. I’ve seen many people explain what their debts are and don’t think of their mortgage as one.
Ramsey is very niche. People who are good with money will find his advice some combination of obvious and bad. People who are bad with money will tend to either not want his advice, or have a hard time following it. A few people are in a sweet spot where they’ll actually follow it.
A good portion of them did get a mortgage. To my knowledge none of them have car payments, most drive used beaters like I do.
The solution to number one is more competition: a new company willing to take smaller margins to gain market share.
Economies of scale says before you can build a cheap car you must first be a large company
One possibility is companies that are already established overseas entering the US as a new market for them.
Seems like all the new entrants would rather compete at the high end.
There's often companies willing to compete with small margins. For example, grocery store business is already known for small margins in the US, and one of the recent winners that's been expanding a lot is Aldi, which is known for its consistently low prices, so it's unlikely their margins are any better.
This is partly contrary to the article - which claims that demand for inexpensive cars is high enough to cause their price to increase over MSRP.
the interest on those loans is maddening
Why? Auto loan interest rates are currently below the historical average.
You can still buy a new subcompact car (like a Renault Clio or Skoda Fabia) in Europe for under 20k EUR.
The more interesting question is why these cars disappeared in the US. And while many of the factors discussed here are true for both EU and US (inflation, interest rates, manufacturer profit margins etc) I am surprised no one mentioned the 'SUV loophole' of US regulations that effectively boosted the SUVs (off-road vehicles are classified as non-passenger automobiles with everything that entails, notably much less stringent emission standards) and made the small cars unprofitable to make in comparison.
Also, the more SUVs are driven, the less safe people feel (and arguably are), accelerating the need to buy an SUV for safety reasons.
On the other hand, if you kill someone in a traffic accident, you feel shit the rest of your life.
This is true. On the other hand, if you get killed in a car accident... You also feel shit the rest of your life.
But at least you didn't waste $ on a big car.
If you had spent it, you might still be alive, and if you aren't, it's hardly wasted, since you no longer need it.
Jokes aside, I live in the UK, and occasionality I see vehicles here that are entirely too big and unnecessary for our roads.
There was a lady driving what I think was a Defender 130 (I don't know modern LRs too well), it was far too big for the parking spaces in the tiny car park we were in, she could only just see over the steering wheel, and she had no chance of seeing my 5yo child I was walking back to my car with; who's quite tall for 5 but didn't reach over the height of the bonnet.
> If you had spent it, you might still be alive, and if you aren't, it's hardly wasted, since you no longer need it.
Only if you crash right after you bought the car ...
I’m not sure, a lot of people seem quick to blame children for “darting” in to the road instead of accepting responsibility for operating a dangerous machine.
People lay the blame on children and their parents because if they choose to do their best bipedal impression of a deer there's really nothing a driver can do. One could be going 10mph and if a child darts out from parked cars at the right time you're gonna hit them. Heck, adults get hit by forklifts and other heavy equipment going single digit speeds all the time and even workplaces that separate traffic nearly completely don't eliminate them at scale.
Ignoring extremists is easier than preventing (or reducing to a point that you stop complaining) these accidents at the limit, so that's what society does. Tough luck.
The average car driver is NOT putting enough active attention into their driving and could in many cases break fast enough to prevent the accidents that do happen. Furthermore, the average car driver has not been trained on how to actually handle extremely rapid braking situations. A lot of people are downright wusses about dealing with the "whiplash" of actually hard braking their cars. I'd even claim that over half of all drivers have not seriously applied their brakes at 100% at a speed above 20mph EVER!
Slow reaction times, of the kind that could be easily corrected by more strict laws around who and how licenses are given, are easily the #1 reason for preventable pedestrian deaths from cars.
This is a solvable problem and the Euros have far less of these stupid kinds of situations for a reason. I WILL blame most drivers who "kill children" for their laxidazy assumption that they can reduce their idle concentration just because "it hasn't happened to them".
Also all of this discourse is really arguments for requiring all cars to have active automatic emergency braking for pedestrians and other cars.
Reducing speed limits to 30 kph where there might be kids running out from between vehicles is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, yet drivers oppose this.
SUVs parked on the side of the street make it difficult to see even adults as they try to cross the street. It’s not the humans doing a reindeer impression, it’s the cars doing a forest impression
If the child darts into the road without space for you to stop, not even you driving a subcompact can save them...
If nothing else, they'll roll up and off the hood of a typical subcompact instead of be pancaked by the 60" vertical wall that is the front of most modern trucks and SUVs.
You are making assumptions about empathy levels in other people, using your own as a basis. On a meta level, this isn't surprising!
I suspect there is a correlation between people who choose big cars, and empathy levels below yours.
The main point here is that it sounds a lot like a zero sum game, people are struggling to catch a bigger share of a limited "safety" pie while manufacturers instigating the mass war are watching their profits increase.
It's not clear at all to me how a crash involving two SUVs is much safer than, say, a 2 bike crash, and in fact there is a particular type of accident (front-overs of children) than trucks are strongly susceptible to and would never happen with lower mass / shorter vehicles. This all points towards a runaway tragedy of the commons that can be solved by limiting vehicle mass.
The situation reminds of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
Except they're not though. Buyers are juggling many more criteria and safety is only a "nice to have" after fitness for purpose is achieved. Like no amount of internet fanboys screeching about Volvo's safety record will make someone who wants a roadster buy one over a Miata.
While I'm sure there is some amount of the affect you're describing the lion's share of it is likely CAFE rules favoring larger footprint vehicles effectively discounting SUVs causing them to be a better bang for your buck.
>It's not clear at all to me how a crash involving two SUVs is much safer than,
It is by the simple physics of having more distance to dissipate force over and less distance between the occupants and stuff in the cabin.
> This all points towards a runaway tragedy of the commons that can be solved by limiting vehicle mass.
Which will never happen because the same exact upper middle class demographics that screech all over the internet about safety are the exact same people who would see their buying choices degrade as a result of such.
If you would have to pay for mass (taxes etc) that would most probably influence people to go lighter. It also makes sense because heavier cars cause more road damage.
> It is by the simple physics
Is this a personal theory, a hunch, or do you have data or citations?
> of having more distance to dissipate force over and less distance between the occupants and stuff in the cabin.
So what we need are bigger vehicles made out of lighter materials, to increase the distance and reduce the forces, perhaps some comically large Styrofoam bumpers protecting our bikes? Now, I can get behind that.
> safety is only a "nice to have"
Buyers are a diverse group, you know. There is a substantial segment that rates safety as a the top priority, and there is very little doubt the SUV mass race is strongly related to the "perception of safety" larger vehicles provide, of course not to the actual safety reality and externalities they incur to the rest of society.
Another substantial segment is driven by the "perception of masculinity" their large vehicles provides. You couldn't make up this level of lameness.
>Is this a personal theory, a hunch, or do you have data or citations?
Find any "professional" talking on record about small car safety and they will lament the reduced space for crumple zones, reduced distance from head to structure, etc.
>Another substantial segment is driven by the "perception of masculinity" their large vehicles provides. You couldn't make up this level of lameness.
I suspect the number of people who see a big truck as projecting masculinity is in fact smaller than the people who enjoy that other people will assume they bought the truck for that reason and dislike or be offended by it.
You're giving people way too much credit here. People and, more specifically, Americans (who I know) will do some incredible feats of mental gymnastics to avoid taking personal responsibility -- despite what their bumper stickers and favorite politicians say. It's always someone else's fault and they're always (somehow ...) the victim.
> I am surprised no one mentioned the 'SUV loophole' of US regulations that effectively boosted the SUVs (off-road vehicles are classified as non-passenger automobiles with everything that entails, notably much less stringent emission standards) and made the small cars unprofitable to make in comparison.
This has become the irrelevant part because "does it have an electric motor in the powertrain" has become more important to fuel economy than vehicle size. There are hybrid SUVs that get better MPG than non-hybrid sedans, to say nothing of the full electric ones.
Which is another reason the average price is increasing. Hybrids have a lower TCO even though they have a higher initial purchase price. People who can do the math realize that paying more up front for a hybrid or full electric is paying less long-term. But then the market for lower priced new cars declines, because the people who can afford a new car can afford to pay a little extra for long-term savings and most of the people who can't afford to do that were buying used to begin with.
>People who can do the math realize that paying more up front for a hybrid or full electric is paying less long-term.
Can they? In long term maintainability decides. And hybrids usually has it with maintainability pretty bad. Large area of potential breaking, expansive spare parts usually with strong vendor-lock.
Hybrids are very costly in maintainability, even if you are privileged elite that buys hybrid and in two years resell it and buy brand new car, even then hybrids looses comparatively big percent of its original cost.
So people that buys hybrids, usually CAN NOT do the math.
Toyota hybrids are much cheaper to maintain.
- No engine belts
- No starter
- No alternator
- No transmission(1)
- No torque converter
- No turbochargers
- Regenerative braking can significantly reduce brake pad wear
Edit: - AWD is an electric motor on the rear axle. No driveshaft or transfer case required.
As long as you drive it regularly and keep up with scheduled maintenance, you don't have to do anything for well over 100,000 miles.
Replacing the traction battery after 10~15 years is cheaper than the additional maintenance required for regular cars.
1: Yes, it has an “e-CVT”. Which is just a set of fixed planetary gears. All “shifting” is done through varying the power output of two electric motor-generators.
No starter and no alternator? Hybrids don’t have an electric motor or a way to turn mechanical power into electrical power? Also they don’t have timing belts?
I’m not super convinced that accessory belts are a major cause of maintenance. I only recall having to do that once at around 120k miles.
I think there is a good argument to be made that implementations like Toyotas HSD are more reliable than plain ICE, but you’re not making it here.
Since I was specifically talking about Toyota hybrid, let me elaborate…
The gas engine has a timing chain and chain-driven oil pump. Everything else runs off the DC-DC converter.
The transmission is two motor-generators and an ICE directly connected by fixed gearing. This is used to start the engine.
The ICE in a hybrid doesn’t need any accessories beyond what the electric drivetrain already provides. Therefore, it does not have a starter or alternator.
There are a lot fewer moving parts that can break or wear out.
It’s a pretty elegant system that bolts a bare ICE to what is otherwise an electric car.
CVTs are generally less reliable than traditional transmissions, especially under heavy loads. You get better mpg in exchange. You don’t have an alternator, but you have a much more expensive electric motor. You don’t have a turbocharger, but in exchange you lose performance at highway speeds. So like most engineering problems, it’s all about tradeoffs.
Despite the name, "eCVT"s are mechanically unrelated to the CVTs used in gasoline cars. They are mechanically similar to a differential, and have extremely low failure rates.
Thanks for clarifying! It does seem like the planetary design would be more reliable (but the point able heavy loads may still apply)
The gears easily handle the instant torque of electric motors from thousands of full-throttle standing starts.
The electric motors are the limiting factor when it comes to continuous performance. You really don’t want to tow anything heavy with a hybrid.
If you need to tow things a lot, get a pickup truck or a heavy-duty SUV with a gas engine.
The e-CVT is _not_ a typical belt driven CVT like the crap Nissan puts in everything. It's better known as a Power-Split-Device.
https://eahart.com/prius/psd/
I thought the Toyota Prius had been winning lowest TCO contests since it came out. I'm still driving my '07, and yeah, it's finally time to look at replacing it, but it's 18 years old and has almost a quarter million miles on it. Maintaining it hasn't been noticeably more expensive than, say, the older Civics I drove before it.
The Toyota hybrid system has basically no wear items. There are no clutches, belts, or delicate hydraulic systems. The whole thing is made with big hardened steel ring gears and two electric motors. There are taxis in Vancouver with over a million KM clocked with nothing other than fluid changes and brakes/suspension.
https://eahart.com/prius/psd/
That’s not been my experience. Hybrids have several major advantages on the maintenance side. Regenerative braking means brakes need to be replaced far less often and keeping the engine off so frequently means it gets far less ware in city driving.
Electric motors outlast the vehicle, and significant battery degradation only results in slightly worse fuel economy.
There are a handful of significantly different hybrid designs. Some of the early designs were in fact just electric drivetrains slapped on to existing gasoline drivetrains, and were more complicated than their gasoline counterparts. But most of the designs that are more popular today are not that. Many of them eliminate some of the most problematic parts on gasoline cars and replace them with solid state components.
>Hybrids have a lower TCO even though they have a higher initial purchase price.
Is this conclusion based just on fuel consumption? From a relatability standpoint, it doesn’t make sense at first blush because you have to have both ICE and EV parts in series in the drivetrain; the total reliability can’t be higher than the individual components of they’re in series.
Depending on the drive trains being compared, the hybrid drivetrain may be overall mechanically simpler than an ICE. A series hybrid can easily have fewer moving parts, fewer friction spots, less reliance on fluid motion through little channels, etc.
And then you're also keeping the moving parts more in their happy zone of temperature, speed, and load instead of needing them to operate in as wide of conditions.
Could you elaborate further?
A hybrid, by definition, combines an ICE and electric drivetrain. While I understand it could be designed for a more efficient range of operation* how could it negate the downsides of an ICE-only design if it requires an ICE? (Are we conflating EV and hybrid?)
* This also means each segment is less globally efficient, meaning the system is less efficient if it has to limp along if one part is inoperable
The design of a powersplit hybrid (like a Prius) allows for consolidation and elimination of a number of common failure items on a traditional ICE vehicle.
- pure ICE needs mechanical gears or a belt-style CVT. a HV power source and 2 electric motors enable the use of a dead simple planetary gear set to change the ratio between ICE and the wheels.
- ICE needs a starter and an alternator. psd hybrids use the existing electric motors and a dc-dc converter to do those jobs
- belt powered components (e.g. A/C, power steering) are replaced by more reliable electric versions powered by the high voltage battery
- ICE needs small displacement, high compression, turbo'd engines to meet power and efficiency targets. Hybrids can get away with wheezy but efficient and reliable low-compression engines because the electric motors make performance acceptable
- ICE cars need to run their engine anytime they are moving. Hybrids will have 20+% lower runtime and that runtime will be spent at optimal RPMs and with minimal stress as bursts in acceleration are assisted by the electric motor.
The pure ICE transmission is probably far more mechanically complicated than the transmission of a series hybrid.
The pure ICE engine and transmission has to deal with some of the most stressful times the motor can handle, extremely high torque demands coming from a stop. Its far less stressful for an electric motor to generate good torque at such low RPMs.
Just two quick examples.
I think you’re still conflating EVs and hybrids. A hybrid has an ICE that is distinct from the mechanical transmission. Hybrids tend to run off the ICE at high speeds because it’s more efficient and use the ICE to charge the battery.
> A series hybrid
A key part of my original statement.
A series hybrid or parallel series hybrid will often have a far simpler transmission in terms of moving parts and what not. You're right, they'll use the gas motor for power going highway speeds, but they're still a lot simpler. Many hybrids effectively only have a single speed for the ICE motor in their "transmission", some have 2-4, compared to modern ICE transmissions which are like 7+ gears.
Note, I do agree, there are some hybrid drive trains that are more complicated than their ICE counterparts, but it is not a given. Many hybrids are a good bit simpler in the end.
One example of a simpler setup would be Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive. e-CVT's can be radically simpler mechanically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_Synergy_Drive
Yes, that’s why I put deliberately put “series” in my original post.
The math is clear: in series, the system reliability cannot be greater than any single part.
So if the claim is that hybrids are more reliable than ICE, there needs to be some sort of discussion about why you think the ICE is more reliable. You keep bringing up transmissions when the main point is related to the ICE.
Transmissions are required for ICE vehicles they aren’t required for hybrids. It’s one of the many failure points that can be removed.
As to in series being more complicated, starter/alternator + battery already has all the mechanical complexity of a barebones series hybrid. You could technically take a standard ICE car change only electronics and get some of the benefits of a hybrid. Obviously for reliability you’d want beefier electric motors, and … before you know it you’re building a more robust system than a pure ICE.
Yes, so the claim is that the complexity electric motors + batteries + planetary gears + all the ICE/electric interfaces are more reliable than a traditional transmission. I’m open to that argument but nobody has really elaborated in detail. Admittedly, I’m slightly skeptical (at least in the case of a manual gearbox) but would like to hear more detail.
> all the ICE/electric interfaces are more reliable than a traditional transmission
The argument goes like this,
ICE cars have an alternator (electric motor 1), starter (electric motor 2), battery, and transmission. A beefier alternator (generator) + starter (electric motor driving the car) + battery adds less complexity than a transmission. That’s the simplest EV design where the engine only ever charges the battery. It’s perfectly viable for a long range plug in hybrid that only ever uses the engine on long trips.
The downside is batteries have conversion losses, so most hybrids have various ways of directly using engine power which then adds complexity. But ultimately hybrids are more complicated than EV’s but very much can be simpler than modern ICE cars.
PS: Technically some old ICE designs like dynastart used to do the same as hybrids where the same electric motor acted as a starter and alternator but in modern ICE vehicles the tradeoff around now little time the starter is needed and how little power the alternator needs to generate means it’s more efficient to separate it out. http://www.isettadoc.com/files/dynastart.pdf
Thanks for taking the time to detail it. I think that’s a reasonable take.
A couple caveats:
1) most modern hybrids use the ICE at higher speeds for efficiency, right? What does that mean in terms of added complexity and reliability?
2) somewhat of a tangent, but in the original post was regarding cost of ownership, and reliability was brought into the discussion because cost is a function of reliability. But the alternator vs electric motor aspect misses the original point about cost, considering the motor may cost 8x-10x to replace.
All that to say, reliability and cost of ownership is complicated. I was pushing back on the overly simplistic takes and appreciate you adding some nuance.
> most modern hybrids use the ICE at higher speeds for efficiency, right? What does that mean in terms of added complexity and reliability?
It really depends on the type of hybrid in question. Those are series, series-parallel, or parallel. Some hybrids essentially just use an electric motor to assist in a traditional ICE-like drivetrain (parallel). This is the kind of setup you'll see in something like the Ford Explorer Hybrid or most of Honda's hybrid systems. In these cases, the electric motor just sits in the regular ICE drive train and supplies additional power especially in low efficiency ranges along with regenerative braking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Motor_Assist
In an e-CVT setup (series-parallel) like what you would find in a Ford Escape Hybrid or most Toyotas using a Toyota Hybrid System or Hybrid Synergy Drive, the overall mechanical complexity of the system is considerably less.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_Synergy_Drive
> most modern hybrids use the ICE at higher speeds for efficiency, right? What does that mean in terms of added complexity and reliability?
There’s a lot of tradeoffs involved which I’m not an expert on. However, ICE cars need an engine capable of low end torque and a good efficiency across a huge RPM range, hybrids can use a much simpler engine design optimized for where the engine operates best because the EV side handles the low end just fine.
A hybrid engine is also used for fewer hours of operation over its lifespan so in general (because exceptions exist) the gas engine in an hybrid is more reliable than the gas engine in an equivalent ICE. That said, car manufacturers can use up that margin to save weight etc so it’s not a guarantee.
In the end it’s a huge design space, saying something is a hybrid doesn’t actually tell you much about what’s under the hood.
> most modern hybrids use the ICE at higher speeds for efficiency, right? What does that mean in terms of added complexity and reliability?
A typical ICE is most efficient when running at moderate load and somewhere between 1800 and 3000 RPM. That's what happens naturally at highway speeds, which is why traditional ICE cars get better MPG on the highway than in the city, and why hybrids run the engine on the highway.
Hybrids gain a large advantage in stop and go traffic because then they can recover energy through regenerative braking and contribute it back when accelerating, which allows the ICE to either run within its peak efficiency range or not run at all.
So on the highway a hybrid is basically doing the same thing as a normal car. It might eek out a little more efficiency by using electric boost when going up hill and regen when going down hill to keep the engine load more consistent, but it's nearly the same. But highway miles are what put the least amount of wear on a car.
It's stop and go traffic that causes the most wear because then you're putting high loads on the engine during acceleration (and using lower gears which require more engine revolutions per distance traveled) and burning through brake pads during deceleration. Which is the thing hybrids avoid doing by using the electric motor.
> But the alternator vs electric motor aspect misses the original point about cost, considering the motor may cost 8x-10x to replace.
When alternators or starter motors go bad it's commonly the components like brushes in DC alternator/generators or the clutch pulley or solenoid that hybrid motors don't have to begin with because hybrids typically use AC motors permanently connected to the drive shaft. AC motors are extremely reliable and will typically outlast the rest of the vehicle.
> at least in the case of a manual gearbox
Ok, let's say you go stupid simple for the transmission and have a super basic classic four-speed manual.
Right off the bat, you've got clutch wear. In that e-CVT, there are no sliding clutches. Everything is connected all the time. Immediately, we see a wear component that will eventually need replacing. Not might need replacing, will need replacing. It is a consumable part, designed to wear.
You now have cable assemblies which will eventually stretch over the life of the car. Those will eventually need adjustment. Once again, these just don't exist at all with the e-CVT system.
Now you have a shifter and gear selector. This will need to slip in and out of other gears. Often this is not a perfect shift, imparting wear on the transmission components. Once again, you don't have a gear selector in an e-CVT, this wear never happens. This wear can cause premature failure of the transmission. This is largely controlled by the skill of the operator, sure.
Just a few quick examples. But this is then also an incredibly basic manual transmission, you won't find such a thing on pretty much any recent mass market car. These days you'll see complicated automatics with servos and what not to control the gear ratios, massively more gear ratios, rely on fluid channels to push things around inside, rely on computers to operate them effectively, etc.
And as Retric mentioned, there are analoges for most of the hybrid components in a pure-ICE car. You already have a DC motor set to drive the car in the starter motor. You already have an inverter, the alternator. You're not really adding a ton of new things, you're just massively upsizing some of the things you already have and massively simplifying a lot of the other components.
>there are analoges for most of the hybrid components in a pure-ICE car.
The error in this is in assuming the analogs have equivalent reliability or cost in each system.* (The original point is about cost of ownership). They don’t. So, while both have batteries, the reliability and cost of each is very different. Same with the ICE component etc. My issue is broad generalizations about reliability without speaking to the nuance.
I’m not set against the idea of a hybrid being more reliable or cheaper, but more against the superficial generalization.
* also the analogs miss some of the complexity. Yes, both have a battery, but a hybrid requires high voltage and auxiliary batteries, meaning the battery system is by definition more complex.
> The error in this is in assuming the analogs have equivalent reliability
The majority of my comment points out how the equivalent analoge on the pure ICE is massively less reliable than the hybrid. Who is ignoring the reliability of the different components here again?
Sure, there is a HV and a LV battery. They're both solid state devices and thus generally pretty reliable when it comes to cars. The LV battery faces far less wear. The overall system is considerably more reliable in the hybrid than the same in the ICE. It's near impossible to generally talk about the prices of something like the HV battery, it varies greatly based on what models you're talking about. One car might have a replacement used battery that's good for many years be $700, another might be extremely bespoke and rare and be $10k. If I were to judge prices of pure ICE transmissions based on extremely rare hyper cars I might say an ICE transmission replacement costs $20k or more. The details matter greatly when judging TCO on potentially low market cars.
If your point is you can’t talk specifics about price of ownership, you’ve wasted both of our time during this entire discussion. That’s what it’s about. A better answer would have just been like the commenter below, who said the information is hard to come by. A hardliner stance where there’s a lot of uncertainty isn’t a great hill to die on.
That’s not quite what they said, in 98% of hybrids sold these components are significantly more reliable than in ICE cars.
He can’t speak to the last 2%, but I doubt your in the market for a hyper car and really this concerned about TCO.
The hyper car argument is really just a digression and it cuts both ways (which I think was the posters point). If you want to compare hyper car prices, you need to compare hyper gas-only to hyper hybrid. But that’s not really germane to the generalizations being used here.
Where is your 98% claim coming from? The other poster made no such claim.
The irony is there is published info on TCO from companies like Edmunds and Kelly Blue Book. We can take umbrage with some of the factors or weighting, but it’s a better starting point in real data than anything bright up so far. A claim could easily be crafted using such information that addresses everything I’ve raised (maintenance, depreciation, different designs, etc). Yet the discussion seems almost wholly based on vibes and near-ideological bias. It reads to me as conclusions searching for data instead of the other way around.
The best I can tell from that information, TCO is largely a wash. For comparable manufacturers/designs, TCO over the first 5-10 years seems to be about the same. You can pick some designs that favor one side or the other, but in general they are roughly within 10% (usually considerably less) of one another. Given the uncertainty due to the variables in question, it seems reasonable to conclude there aren’t strong conclusions on TCO differences between them.
> For comparable manufacturers/designs
That's the thing though, you're lumping all hybrid drivetrains in together and assuming they're all equally reliable and equally have the same TCO math, as if "hybrid" means only one thing. I've been trying to tell you, "hybrid" means a lot of different things and really shouldn't be seen as one technology, "depending on drive trains compared" and all. Which is why I made a big point of mentioning my usage of "series", which flew right over your head.
When I'm talking about a bespke battery on a low-market car, I'm not talking about some hybrid supercar. I'm talking more about the hybrid compliance car trim levels that are only really sold in small numbers in some markets, like the Ford Explorer Hybrid. You practically won't find them in most states, they were essentially only delivered to a few markets in very small numbers. Its components are far more bespoke and thus expensive to find replacements. Pretty much nobody makes remanufactured batteries for this car. It's a parallel hybrid, so it still has all the complexity and reliability of the traditional ICE drive train. This is pretty much true of a lot of "the same ICE car, but now hybrid!" They're often going to be low production models, bespoke batteries, and probably a parallel hybrid. And I agree, good chance the TCO won't work out in the hybrid's favor in the end.
Compared to something like the Prius or Maverick Hybrid or the new RAV4, which are extremely mass market. These have a much different drive train than that Explorer Hybrid, being e-CVTs. There's a big market for remanufactured batteries since there are so many more out there. Parts are considerably cheaper, and thus they have (or will probably have, the new RAV4s are still new) low TCO.
Its not fair to group the Explorer Hybrid and the Maverick together as one category of "hybrid", since they're such different designs on how they operate leading to radically different outcomes on TCO.
>you're lumping all hybrid drivetrains in together and assuming they're all equally reliable and equally have the same TCO math
I’m not though, you’re just making that assumption. For example, as “comparable manufacturers” if I select Toyota (because it has a reputation for reliability) I can compare the Prius to the Corolla (because they’re both at a similar price point in their respective categories). This “should” favor the Prius because the Corolla has a CVT (which is known to be less reliable) but TCO comes out about 8% lower for the Corolla. I’m not lumping all together, I’m deliberately trying to make reasonable comparisons.
Now I could also pick and choose to go the other way with a similar comparison. The end result seems to be that there is a distribution of differences that are reasonably close, but with enough variance to say it looks like a wash in TCO. Point being, strong conclusions may not be warranted.
>Which is why I made a big point of mentioning my usage of "series", which flew right over your head.
It did not go over my head. In fact, I brought it up in the very first post before you responded. [1] I even reminded you of that [2]. This is why I’m saying it seems like you are reflexively responding without actually reading for comprehension or clarity.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44422207
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44424531
> compare the Prius to the Corolla
That’s not a direct comparison. Toyota sells hybrid and non hybrid corolla’s and the hybrids are cheaper to own @ 5 years here.
https://www.edmunds.com/toyota/corolla/2024/cost-to-own/
https://www.edmunds.com/toyota/corolla-hybrid/2024/cost-to-o...
That’s fair. But looking at the numbers for my locale, the effect size is extremely small: about 0.6% cheaper. So, to piggyback on the points made earlier, if we have high variance and small effect size, we probably shouldn’t be making any strong claims. The more appropriate conclusion is that there is no difference, or not strong enough data to make a claim one way or the other.
It’s not that small of an effect size relative to the upfront price difference. Subtraction of the initial cost of the non hybrid from both numbers is very reasonable because you know what that is for both.
Also, the payback for a more expensive upfront car at year 5 on a car likely to last ~26 years doesn’t mean they are also equal for the next 21 years.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding your point, but TCO factors in the upfront cost, including financing assumptions. I can’t think of a good reason why you’d want to disregard upfront cost when calculating TCO; it’s probably the #1 determining factor for most people buying a car. (And not to belabor the point, but the original claim was about TCO).
I’m not sure I would use the 25+ life because that doesn’t reflect how long a person will keep it. The depreciation captured by the TCO is a better representation of that effect.
I’m not discarding all costs, I’m looking at the difference in upfront costs.
Suppose I’m paying cash and it’s an extra 2,000$ by my TCO drops by 0.1% over 5 years is that a worthwhile investment? Without knowing what the car costs you can’t tell.
What matters is the difference in cost vs the difference in TCO. You’re buying a car either way.
I don’t think that’s an unreasonable take, but it does move us away from the generalization that hybrid TCO is lower. It’s like instead saying “Hybrid TCO will be lower if you pay in cash and live in a high fuel cost area.”
That’s a more nuanced take by adjusting the assumptions. Sometimes adjusting them is warranted, and sometimes it’s just to game the outcome you wanted.
It doesn’t change if something lowers or increases the TCO, it only scales the impact relative to the costs.
The cash on hand bit isn’t the only take, but if you’re comparing 5 year loans and only keeping the car for 5 years then you can ignore time value of money. Suppose the monthly payment is 50$ more and you save 60$ a month, sure it’s only saving 10$/month but that’s essentially free money.
It’s becoming a tired discussion, but this has already been covered. For someone willing/capable of dropping $30k-$50k in cash, $10/mo. is certainly a small effect size. Under certain cases, hybrid TCO will be lower. For example, if you’re buying an SUV, drive a lot, pay cash, and live in a high fuel cost locale. But that shouldn’t lead to a logical leap that hybrid costs are lower in the general case. (They still may be, but nobody has shown good, generalizable data to that point.)
I said loan not paying cash. We’re comparing if the drive train is superior, and the most cost efficient new car is a car. Upgrading to a 50k SUV is inherently a different question that has little to do with the drivetrain.
> They still may be, but nobody has shown good, generalizable data to that point.
The general case of someone keeping a vehicle for 8 years and driving 15k miles per year isn’t close, as long as we’re keeping everything else the same. EX: A 2025 Ford Escape ST-Line Elite has a hybrid option for an extra 1,205$. If the base price is significantly higher than 2,000$ you’re not comparing drive trains but options.
Plug in Hybrids are a separate category dependent on your local electric prices.
> It did not go over my head.
> Ah, ok. I didn’t realize “series” is a specific term of art in the EV space.
You acknowledged you did not originally understand what "series" meant when I was talking about a "series hybrid". And your "reminding me" is you continuing to show you were not aware of what my usage of the word "series" meant in terms of hybrid drivetrains and instead "using it in the pure reliability domain sense". And your first comment points out you didn't get the idea that a series hybrid doesn't have a lot of the same ICE components, instead it seems you had a parallel hybrid design in mind.
> but TCO comes out about 8% lower for the Corolla
In what timeframe comparison, 5-year? How many miles? Which gas markets, is gas $3/gal or $5? What does a 10-year comparison look like? Are you including residual value on the cars after that 5-year period to see a total cost after depreciation? What does a used comparison look like? And yes, why not compare the Corolla ICE vs Corolla Hybrid, wouldn't that be a more apt comparison? One is a sedan and one is a hatch, they're different cars with different branding presence.
Looking at the numbers, drawing that out from a 5-year comparison to a 10-year comparison (or more) would probably tilt the math towards the Prius being cheaper in the end, and I'd imagine even more so at a 15-year point. But we don't actually have these numbers, and these are projections of what these cars might have in terms of TCO, not any detailed study of actual TCO.
I was being polite to the other poster so I can address the more germane claim in their reply without getting derailed by explaining why the less important point was irrelevant. The fact is the series “term of art” in the reliability domain and the hybrid engineering terminology mean the same thing. They are derived from the same concept.
The numbers come from the Edmunds site. Eg fuel cost by locality, 15k miles a year etc. You can look at the site for all their assumptions, but some of it is proprietary.
>But we don’t actually have these [TCO] numbers
Exactly! So why are you making strong conclusions in the absence of data?! This is why it comes across as if you are an ideological argument instead of a data-literate one.
“I don’t have any data, but it just makes sense to me” is not the type of curious discussion I was after.
> So why are you making strong conclusions in the absence of data?!
I'm not even making that strong of a conclusion. I'm saying "depends" and what not, because I agree it can be fuzzy and not a hard 100% rule that hybrids are cheaper TCO. But I can make some amount of conclusion because I can look at a trend line and extrapolate especially when equipped with extra knowledge about how these systems work and doing my own projections on potential repair costs at a longer interval.
A 5-year TCO evaluation on a new car generally isn't going to figure in the differences between a motor failure or a transmission failure. They won't include a HV battery failure. Depending on fuel price differences it may not even cover initial pricing disparities but could come close. But I can see a rebuilt transmission can often be $2k or more with a lot of labor, and a rebuilt transmission can still be a roll of the dice. A remanufactured battery is easier to test pack health and know the state of the device and can often be only a few hundred dollars and easy to replace.
As you mentioned, the average ownership period of a car is a little over 8 years. The average life of a car far longer than that. Three years more of gas savings on that average first owner, considerably more over the life of the car. And someone especially concerned with TCO will probably be more interested in buying used and paying cash, not having to deal with as much depreciation and finance charges, and probably have their car longer than average.
> I don’t have any data
We do have some data, we have knowledge of how these systems work, we can see trends in component prices and more can make overall projections from it. Following the trend lines from the data we have, the hybrids do usually pay off in TCO. Am I a bit just taking a gut estimate for a general state of things? Sure. But I think I've sure shared a lot of logic as to why that would probably be that way. It is not just some completely empty guess with nothing backing it at all as you seem to suggest.
98% just meant not rare, as the person referenced “rare cars” vs everything else.
I’ve already looked at that those real work TCO numbers for a bunch of cars, that’s part of why I’m saying they’re reliable and lower TCO.
But there’s a big difference between saying that on average these things break down less across all hybrids and saying every single hybrid model is more reliable.
I agree there’s a difference. The OP I originally responded to made the claim “Hybrids have a lower TCO even though they have a higher initial purchase price.” That’s a general claim, and I was seeking information that can support it. I’ve largely received strong general conclusions based on weak general evidence. When pushed, people will seem to cherry pick specific cases, which to you point, isn’t good enough to support the original general claim. Perhaps we’re looking at different data (in which case I’d be interested in understanding why you like one set over the other), but in aggregate, I couldn’t find strong evidence that supports on side or the other.
The majority of hybrids ~70% fall under these models:
Toyota RAV4 Hybrid, Toyota Highlander Hybrid, Toyota Prius, Toyota Camry Hybrid, Honda CR-V Hybrid, Ford Escape Hybrid, Ford Fusion Hybrid, and Honda Accord Hybrid which have a lower TCO than their gas’s equivalents.
I don’t think we need to consider low production edge cases, to make a statement about the general case.
We may be seeing differences in locality, but the first one I checked (Escape) did not support your claim. The gas variant was cheaper than both the hybrid (8% lower) and the plug-in hybrid (24% lower) in TCO. I think this just speaks to my previous point about variance impacting our ability to make strong general claims.
Make sure you’re comparing equal trim levels. PHEV has
18-inch wheels Heated front seats Heated steering wheel Partial vinyl and cloth upholstery 13.2-inch infotainment touchscreen Navigation system Adaptive cruise control (adjusts speed to maintain a constant distance between the Escape and the car in front) Lane keeping system (makes minor steering corrections to help keep the vehicle centered in its lane) Evasive steering assistance (enhances the forward collision mitigation system with steering-based collision avoidance) Rear parking sensors (alert you to obstacles that may not be visible behind the vehicle when parking)
Good point. After adjusting for trim level, the gas is still cheaper but not as dramatically.
If I had to guess, you may be getting numbers from a high fuel cost locale. In the end, I don’t think the conclusion that it’s largely a wash is unreasonable. There will be areas with higher cost and those with lower cost.
you and Retric are using different definitions of "series". A "series hybrid" is a specific term describing a design that uses an ICE engine to generate electricity that powers an electric motor. This design replaces the transmission completely because the ICE rpm doesn't need to be matched to the wheel speed and the electric motor has a much wider RPM range.
Many series hybrids do have a way to power the wheels directly with the engine at highway speeds but it's generally much simpler than a full transmission. Most Honda hybrids for instance have a single clutch that connects the ICE to a "6th" gear.
> You keep bringing up transmissions when the main point is related to the ICE.
less parts -> more reliability
Ah, ok. I didn’t realize “series” is a specific term of art in the EV space. Thanks for clarifying. I was using it in the pure reliability domain sense (similar to the use in electrical circuits)
>less parts -> more reliability
This is the general heuristic but only true if the components in each system are equally reliable (and specific to the original claim about cost of ownership, equal in cost). I don’t think that’s true, and am asking for a nuanced breakdown.
For example, the hybrid ICE may be more reliable for good reasons (eg consistent RPM). Or the traditional battery may have half the reliability, but 1/50th the cost. All of that factors into cost of ownership.
> I don’t think that’s true, and am asking for a nuanced breakdown.
In my experience this kind of nuanced info is unfortunately pretty hard to come by. MFGs know it but have no interest in sharing it. Same for taxi operators (though the number of hybrids in taxi fleets is pretty staggering). Fleet operators usually only look at the first 5 years so longer term maintenance and repairs aren't studied all that rigorously. That said, here's a 5-year fleet TCO analysis where HEVs on average were 6k cheaper than ICE: https://www.afla.org/news/692431/The-Hybrid-Value-Propositio...
Also, here is an analysis from 2016 showing that the 2005 Prius had the lowest 10 year maintenance cost of any model. Toyota had only been making hybrids for 7 years at that point. That level of reliability for a new technology is pretty impressive: https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1104478_toyota-prius-hy...
> (and specific to the original claim about cost of ownership, equal in cost).
speaking to this piece, it can be hard to gauge because its not all that common for companies to sell very similar trims in hybrid and non-hybrid. The two PSD hybrid examples off the dome are the corolla which is +$1500 for hybrid and the first-gen maverick which was -$1100 for the hybrid (before Ford knew the hybrid would sell like hotcakes, then they cranked the price up).
Perhaps Ford just wanted to burn cash but imo PSD hybrids are likely very competitive in terms of per unit cost, which would hopefully translate into lower repair costs. Toyota has also just switched to hybrid only for the Rav4, which is one of the best selling models on the planet. That would be a pretty bold move if they weren't very confident about the reliability and TCO (basically their entire brand value) or their ability to make money selling them (cost vs consumer value prop).
> the main point is related to the ICE
I didn't limit the original discussion to just an ICE motor versus an entire hybrid power train, I explicitly stated, "Depending on the _drive trains_ being compared, the hybrid _drivetrain_...". In the end people don't give a shit about if the motor is reliable, they care about if the car is reliable. The car, which includes a transmission and a heck of a lot more stuff in it. In the end the reliability of the drivetrain is more important, as that includes the reliability of the ICE and all the other stuff needed to make the car go.
If you want to focus on just the ICE part, then sure mechanically the ICE motor in a hybrid drivetrain will be similarly designed to an ICE-only drivetrain. But an ICE car is more than just an ICE motor. And to have that ICE motor actually be useful, it needs to be paired with other components. As you've aptly stated, the reliability of the system overall is extremely related to the reliability of all the components. Namely, having more complicated and less reliable components anywhere in the system makes the whole system less reliable. Having to have an incredibly complicated transmission with tons of friction points and sliding parts and fluid channels relying on specific viscosities of oil is massively more complicated mechanically than a few fixed-ratio planetary gearsets.
But guess what, even if you ignore the rest of the hybrid drive train and focus on just comparing the ICE motors, the ICE in a hybrid will probably outlive the ICE on a similar ICE-only car experiencing a similar usage pattern. The ICE in the hybrid with an e-CVT or similar will pretty much only exclusively operate in its most efficient and lowest stress ranges, while that pure-ICE vehicle needs that gas motor to work in every condition even if it is high stress.
> there needs to be some sort of discussion about why you think the ICE is more reliable
I don't think the ICE is more reliable than the hybrid. I've been arguing the opposite. The gas motor may be similarly reliable in a full ICE, but a lot of the other stuff around it becomes less reliable.
Even then thinking about things like water pumps and AC compressors and what not, a lot of that gets to be more reliable working with their own extremely reliable DC motors going exactly the speed they want to go at instead of having to be tied to engine RPMs and belts and clutches and what not wherever they want to be instead of needing to be in the path of the belt. You don't have a wimpy barely sized alternator, you have a much more reliable AC motor/generator along with an inverter and well-sized battery supplying plenty of electrical power to the system which then has a much more stable voltage for your 12V system. You don't have to put nearly as much CCA load on your 12V battery, you won't run it down as much, it stays in its optimal voltage more often, etc.
You seem to be getting wrapped around the axle (ha) to have an argument and not reading my point well.
>having more complicated and less reliable components anywhere in the system makes the whole system less reliable.
This is my entire point, because the hybrid has many of the same components. Yet you get focused on individual components like transmissions instead of elaborating on the system reliability. I’ll concede that the hybrid ICE may be more reliable (that’s what I meant by asking you to provide details why the ICE is more reliable). But my point is that a more complicated system in series requires all components to be substantially more reliable to have an overall equivalent system reliability.
Consider the life of a traditional ICE engine is about the same as the batteries of a hybrid. Even if the hybrid ICE has a life 30% longer, it doesn’t make the overall system last longer. For round numbers, say the traditional ICE and hybrid batteries have a 200k mile median life (50% reliability).
That means the combined (series) R(hybrid ICE) * R(planetary gears) * R(hybrid electric motors) has to be greater than R(traditional transmission). Maybe that’s the case, and I’m asking for details and specifics.
Now obviously, it’s more complicated because there are other failure modes in each system and cost differentials as well. From the get-go, you seemed focused on individual component reliability. But unless you’re talking specifics about the system reliability you’re tilting at windmills.
> This is my entire point, because the hybrid has many of the same components.
So we both agree, a hybrid and a full-ICE will have many of the same components overall. They both need a battery. They both need some kind of transmission. They both need some kind of inverter. They will both have some kind of electric motor in them. In terms of actual number of components, the hybrid and the ICE are actually pretty similar.
But then we both agree, some of those components in the pure ICE are far more mechanically complicated. Higher mechanical complexity, more moving parts, etc generally means less reliability, agree? And one part of that system being radically less reliable makes the whole system less reliable, correct?
> That means the combined (series) R(hybrid ICE) * R(planetary gears) * R(hybrid electric motors) has to be greater than R(traditional transmission).
No, your math would that for the pure ICE would be R(gas ICE) * R(traditional transmission). Your ICE car isn't going to go very far without a motor to spin the transmission. And that traditional transmission is far less reliable than the fixed planetary gears. Comparatively, electric motors are extremely reliable, and chances are your hybrid gas motor will be more reliable for the same kind of required output. So, R(hybrid ICE) > R(gas ICE).
So yes, generally speaking R(hybrid ICE) * R(planetary gears) * R(hybrid electric motors) > R(gas ICE) * R(traditional transmission). Largely because that R(traditional transmission) is so absolutely terrible in comparison to R(planetary gears) * R(hybrid electric motor). Which is why I'm talking about the transmissions so much, and yet you're continuing to ignore it.
>your math would that for the pure ICE would be R(gas ICE) * R(traditional transmission).
No, that was already baked in. I purposefully linked the R(gas ICE) = R(hybrid batteries). Note they were both dropped out of their respective calculation. Just like a hybrid isn’t going to go very far without batteries, but you left that reliability out of your hybrid equation. It seems you’re more interested in arguing that reading posts in good faith, so I don’t think it’s productive to continue the discussion.
Apologies for misreading your other comment.
> The math is clear: in series, the system reliability cannot be greater than any single part.
We both agree with this statement. The system reliability cannot be greater than any single part. In a traditional ICE, there are multiple systems which are radically less reliable than a hybrid with an e-CVT, while generally untrue of the reverse. So, with "the system reliability cannot be greater than any single part", and we can see there are parts of one system that are less reliable, which system is then logically the less reliable one? Not looking at cost at the moment, just reliability.
That is purely talking about e-CVTs and reliability of specific designs, and not necessarily reliability of all hybrids. In the end, the reliability of "a hybrid" can vary wildly. Is it a pure series hybrid we're talking about? A series-parallel e-CVT? A different kind of series-parallel? A parallel? A parallel hybrid is an example of a hybrid that probably does have worse reliability overall, as you still have all the complexity of a traditional ICE but then adding additional systems adding further complication. You're not trading away the complexity of the traditional ICE in this setup, just adding to it. All different reliability metrics on just the basic design concepts, not even then thinking about differences in reliability in manufacturing and what not across different car makers. Some car manufacturers tend to have more mistakes in actually producing things, and a good design might not actually hit planned reliability if they're not actually making the things right.
On top of that, when comparing TCO you'll see differences based on production volumes of that car. A hybrid that was only a compliance car trim level sold in only California in low volumes for a couple of model years with a bespoke battery is probably stupid expensive ($3000+) for a replacement battery after a decade. A hybrid that was mass market with many hundreds of thousands produced with long generations will have tons of used/remanufactured/aftermarket batteries on the market and might only cost $800. A lot of hybrids from the past tend to fall into the first category and not the second and were made as parallel drivetrains with notable exceptions being things like the Prius which routinely is listed as one of the lowest TCO cars out there.
Just asking for a TCO comparison of "a hybrid" compared to "a traditional ICE" is massively oversimplifying and misunderstanding the complexity of that question. Theoretically, one couldn't even say "what is the TCO of a traditional ICE vehicle?" Are we talking an F-250 Superduty or a Kia Rio or a Ferrari F40? Ignoring purchase price, each of these have radically different operating costs per mile. Which vehicle are we talking about?
This is why my original comment started off with "Depending on the drive trains being compared..." I'm not saying every hybrid will always be more reliable than every traditional ICE. It depends on which cars you're comparing.
Only if you keep them for a long time. Most people drive around 15k miles, the gas difference ends up to about $2500/yr.
If you drive a lot, different story.
The Corolla hybrid is only $1500 more than the base model and gets 50MPG combined vs 35MPG. The break even for 15k miles/year is 2.5-4.3 years given the highest and lowest US prices as of today (California@$4.59, Texas@$2.70).
Not really. Toyota dealers are filth. The ones around here were trying to sell my neice one for $5000 over sticker as a “market adjustment”.
It’s better in other regions, but you couldn’t pay me to buy a Toyota.
> Hybrids have a lower TCO
not sure about this; hybrids require maintaining both an ICE and a electric motor/battery
The Prius may be an exception but that model has been around for a very long time.
A lot depends on gas prices, of course.
They are disappearing in europe too. Emissions and other required by law equipment costs just as much on cheap car as it does on expensive one. At some point, cheap cars stop beinf cheap, just a bit cheaper but with way worse quality, so they stop making sense.
It's true that affordable European models are disappearing. The average mid-range offering from, say, Volkswagen, has become quite surprisingly expensive.
But this is why Chinese cars are taking over in Europe. Half the new cars I see are from Geely, BYD, Chery, etc. These average about 20,000-25,000 EUR new.
My own opinion, having looked into the matter a bit, is that you'd have to be insane to buy a Volkswagen or BMW at 2-3x the price. If I were in the market for a new car, I wouldn't consider anything but a Chinese car.
Just because they are not heavily advertised, doesnt mean they don't exist.
Dacia Sandero/Duster/Spring exist. (Renault)
Citroen C1, Toyota Aygo, Peugeot 108, (VW up!.)
Considering Volkswagen Group:
With a choice of Skoda Fabia/Seat Ibiza/VW Polo you would go for Skoda or Seat, not the VW brand itself if you dont care about marque but price.
But prestige is a huge factor still, so people would still go for an overpriced Golf for no apparent other reason
Also 20k-equivalent from 2015-2019 is already above 25k just by inflation. Car manufactures have strong unions so that stuff comes around fast.
So you simply can't expect the old sub 20k cars anymore, that's 25k now.
> so 20k-equivalent from 2015-2019 is already above 25k just by inflation.
Its not inflation alone ... The same brand/car type, tends to have seen a 75% price increase over the mentioned periode.
Something that used to cost 20k euro in the 2015 periode, is now around 35k euro. That is not "inflation". An we are talking same trim, same electronics, same gasoline engines.
Cars beyond a few items (as long as we do not talk about jump from gas to electric) have really not changed that much. There was a big jump from the 90's to the 2000, in terms of electronics (and sensors that are the bane for most car mechanics).
Prices have gone up so much, that it resulted in my 15 year old second hand car, being sold now for more, then when i bought it (and that inc the increased km's driven and age). That is not a normal market and is not explained by simple "inflation".
Its part inflation, a large part greed, and do not forget the consolidation / lack of competition over the year. People overlook how many car brands are now part of the same group. This resulted in less competition because multiple "brands" increased prices over the same period, when its really the same company, using parts in between each other, and your mostly paying for a different shell and "brand name / past reputation".
That is why Chinese car makers are able to enter the EU market so easily, despite the market protection with import taxations.
If you can offer a true hybrid with all the trims like solar roof, full electronics, the works at 36k, and the next EU competitor for the same options is 48k (and a less efficient hybrid aka, electronic boost only)... And that included the import taxation.
Its ironic that we need to do market protection because our own brands got caught sleeping at the wheel.
Cars are a large enough part of the budget that they might just drive a significant part of inflation by themselves.
Are we sure that inflation numbers have not been underreported ?
Here in the UK, the price of the base-spec Dacia Sandero (and comparable cars like the Kia Picanto and Hyundai i10) has more than doubled in six years. The C1, 108 and Up! have been discontinued, as have a raft of other cheap small cars.
That's partly explained by inflation, but also by the massive amounts of extra safety equipment mandated by the General Safety Regulation. The bill of materials for cheap cars has increased by thousands of euros, because they're legally required to have cameras and radar.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/plmrep/COM...
A Dacia Spring is still around £11k at the cheapest dealers, Sandero about £16k, and a Renault Clio about £17k, Kia Picanto £15k. All for bottom end variants with no extras, but gets you there.
It's not just prestige. Who wants a 65 HP engine? I need my 110 HP to get away from bad situations. And like the article said. The cheaper cars are more expensive than before and the more luxury ones are still expensive obviously but not much more than they used to be.
There are cheaper European cars than VW (and why compare with their 'average mid-range offering'?).
The new (and widely liked) Renault 5 EV starts at around €21K, for instance. Probably a bit smaller than something made in China for the same money, but not worlds apart. https://www.renault.fr/vehicules-electriques/r5-e-tech-elect...
> why compare with their 'average mid-range offering'?
Because when it comes to features and trim, the average Geely or BYD is essentially on that level (or better). They tend to be quite large and very polished.
It's certainly true that Renault has some inexpensive models -- the Clio is another one that can be had for ~20k EUR -- but they are indeed small.
Yes, you can buy a Dacia for below 20kEur, but even those have gotten far more expensive lately. It used to be that around 10 years ago, a Dacia Logan (typical station wagon family car) could be had for 11kEur. Nowadays the comparable Dacia Duster (SUV instead of station wagon, but somewhat similar slightly smaller internal space) will set you back 18kEur. Most of this price hike is claimed to come from mandatory electronics like eCall, collision avoidance, fatigue sensors, more complex bodywork due to crash requirements, as well as more complex engines due to emission controls.
With your quoted Renault EV models, you really have to be careful, often they don't give the full price but just the price without battery. The battery has to be bought or rented separately.
Renault ended their battery leasing program in 2021: https://www.carbuyer.co.uk/news/168706/new-renault-zoe-price...
The Renault 5 prices in gmac's link is with battery.
> It used to be that around 10 years ago...
10 years ago, a Doener Kebab was also only half the price it is today though ;)
You can't really compare prices for "European cars" like that without specifying the country you're buying in. When I go to Renault's website, the starting price is €24990. Prices vary country by country, as do incentives, subsidies, and taxes.
Still a €25k car, but that's still a $29k car.
I’d actually argue that it’s not the cost of Chinese cars but their actual offerings. Compared to the state of Chinese cars a decade ago their current product products are really interesting and offer features that European, American and other Asian models don’t. There’s a great channel called wheels boy on YouTube that’s worth checking out.
I know very little about cars but it seems to be on parity with the rest of the market. The days of Chinesium are over. Or rather, you’re seeing very similar quality no matter which country the product was ”designed” in, as they like to put it. All of the old quality consumer brands have cheaped out and are same or worse than no-name brands on Amazon. I just bought a Miele vacuum that’s ”designed in Germany”. Very flimsy build quality.
So why not skip the middleman and go directly to the source? The only annoyance for me is the ridiculous white labeling. Most no-name brands are seemingly coming from the same factories / same designs, so it’s often impossible to find quality reviews. Probably partly Bezos fault because Amazons review system are less trustworthy than a used car dealership. So I’d rather pay more for known flaws than the hit-or-miss gamble of no-name brands with fake reviews. I hope Chinese merchants catch up, because they’re losing customers for no particularly good reason. I just want the reviews, warts and all.
What about the hardware that has also been manufactured in Europe though ? (Alternatively, South Korea/Japan.)
I have been putting my trust in these. (Also looking for 3+ years of manufacturer warranty, guarantees of 10ish years for replaceable parts, high reparability scores...)
Hopefully, they won't let me down.
(Also, never buying on Amazon. Had to break that rule a few times of course over the past decade, but only for <100€ items.)
> If I were in the market for a new car, I wouldn't consider anything but a Chinese car.
The problem with these are a few things:
1. service network. When something goes kaput with a VW, BMW, Mercedes, Ford, GM, Toyota and even Tesla, there's ample service stations available to get the car back up and running. With a Chinese manufacturer no one but car nerds has heard about? Good luck finding anyone willing to even touch the thing, much less have that specific manufacturer's tooling to deal with computer problems.
2. spare parts logistics. Even the richest and most successful of the last 20 years worth of automotive startups has serious trouble getting spare parts to broken cars. Why should some random Chinese brand be any better than that?
3. Crash safety. "Chinesium" alloy is a meme at this point, but one based on truth. Who guarantees that the manufacturer didn't cheap out on production runs after the review/crashtest rating units went out?
4. Battery safety. Batteries are already hard enough to pull off at scale without sending an armada of tiny little bomblets around the planet... who guarantees that there is no supply chain fuckery going on?
Your understanding of what’s happened with Chinese cars is 15 years out of date. They’re really good now, even better in some ways. And honestly, it’s just the push that the legacy car builders needed.
They might be good, but service network/spare part logistics is a huge issue at least in Europe. We can also expect some of them will go bankrupt because of the current price war. Of course European manfuacturers can also go bankrupt but at least spare parts will still be available by parts/aftermarket manufacturers, will this be the case for these too?
That's a very reasonable argument. Personally I'd only go with a larger brand. Those Zeekers are very compelling and look good (European designed):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvnZ0mTCBng
People used to say the same things about Japanese cars...
These are quite laughable, even disingenuous-seeming, objections.
- Everywhere they're sold there is a service center and parts are cheap. As for "Chinese manufacturer no one but car nerds has heard about":
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automotive_manufacture...
- The "chinesium" meme thing is a joke, you realize that, right? This is not a serious objection. Even the original greentext from ~2013 was really dumb, with the purchaser not running adequate tests.
- CATL is pretty much the undisputed champion of making high-end batteries.
These regulations are probably used for protectionism. The consumer has to pay for that though. I don't think the market for new cars within the EU can exist for very long with these rules in place.
They partially demand systems that aren't fully developed yet, it is a completely insane thing to do. I guess other manufacturers pushed the EU to install the requirements to protect the dwindling domestic market.
In what way are they disappearing ? Here's one for less than £12k. https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-search?advertising-location...
> like a Renault Clio or Skoda Fabia
Few caveats:
- those are generally promotional prices
- those prices are generally tied to financing (you really can't buy it cash at those prices, you need to finance it through them at crazy 7/8%+ rates)
- you can wait for the car even 10 months
> those prices are generally tied to financing (you really can't buy it cash at those prices, you need to finance it through them at crazy 7/8%+ rates)
I can't talk for the rest of the continent, but in the UK we've got "price on the road" advertising laws here. So if you turn up to a dealership with £20k and ask for a new car that's advertised at £20k, you'll be sold a car for £20k in cash. The dealer might try to up-sell you for financing, but you can just say "I'm paying in cash, and I don't want any extras", and they'll complete the payment & paperwork in record time so that they're able to move onto a more profitable financed sale elsewhere.
This depends on the EU country, I've just checked official Skoda site for our country and I found brand new 157 Skoda Fabia models available for the same day pickup below 20k without any special financing (from these 85 below 18k, and 22 below 16k)
Looking up the Clio and it's $31,500 / €27,000, but that's partly due to the taxes on cars where. I'd guess however that you almost can't buy it.
The pricing is meant to hit a price point, in this case just below 200.000DKK. That's a promotional price, chance are that very few cars, if any, with that base package, have ever been made or imported. You can probably get it, but you'd have to wait a few months for it.
Don't forget about Dacia, which is Renault's cheaper brand. You can even buy a Spring EV for under 20k - quality is what you'd expect, but for many people it is not an issue.
> (you really can't buy it cash at those prices, you need to finance it through them at crazy 7/8%+ rates)
Often the case, but then you can get the loan and pay it off immediately for a fee.
Not really, there's 43 brand new Clios available for pickup in Romania right now, starts at €17100, with the full hybrid €21000 before incentives.
14 Skoda Fabias in stock starting at €17625; €20500 if you want a few options and an automatic gearbox.
Spot on. most cars sold in the US are actually light trucks.
Not to mention that those subcompacts of today are as large as a compact car of 30 years ago.
Small cars are disappearing in the EU as well. E.g. Audi will discontinue (or have already discontinued) their A1 model (and it was the perfect little car).
VAG cars are weird, I've had both an Audi A1 and a VW Up (short lease for work); they are basically the same car, both had a 3 cylinder, 1 liter engine, similar interiors, etc. But the A1 had the sports look package and generally a fancier feel to it. But VAG uses the same base for a lot of models and brands (VW, Audi, Skoda, SEAT); quality wise there's not much difference between them, but price wise they are, with Skoda being the 'budget' brand and Audi the premium. They also own Porsche but I don't know if they use the same base, I presume not... even though with the amount of Cayennes you see on the road here they sell Porsches at similar rates as upmarket VW / Audi cars.
Yep. I think SEAT are the pick of the VAG brands. Their marketing isn't about being cheap, but they're aimed at the youngest market segment, who also have the least money, so in my experience have the best prices.
Pre-COVID we got a new Leon ST — essentially a Golf estate/station wagon — for about a third off the list price: £13K instead of £20K (I know: those prices sound semi-mythical now).
On the other end you have Audi, whose premise seems to be: "So you want a VW, but you want to pay hugely over the odds for it? Certainly sir, step right this way."
That's the VAG marketing strategy. Share most parts, have the customer pay for the brand.
With VAG, at least everyone knows the deal.
E.g. Mercedes uses Renault engines in the less-fancy models, but most customers are kept in the dark about that.
Wait till you hear about the parts on a lamborghini
What’s funny is the VW parts used in Lambos are actually an improvement over what they used to be.
The Cayenne is a Touareg with Porsche bits and special options. Particularly the rear doors of the second gen of both models are interchangeable.
Renault at least are keeping the small car flame alive with the 5 and a new version of the Twingo. Audi's product strategy at the moment seems to be "try everything and pivot" so they might even end up relauching the A2 by accident.
The smallest class like the Daihatsu Cuore are already gone. The small cars that are left are significantly larger than the former version that shared the same nameplate. For example the Yaris is a SUV now. Can't really blame the manufacturers. The EU requires so much equipment on cars that you can't really turn a profit on a $10k car (like the Aygo/C1/107 was ~10 years ago). So if your car is going to cost $20k because of all the stuff it has to have it might as well be a bit bigger.
I’m not quite sure the safety equipment is to blame. Modern cars coming out of China go well beyond regulations, while still having great a price/features ratio.
Even very cheap cars like the “Dongfeng Box” have multiple airbags, emergency braking, lane keeping, etc, and safe to assume a lot of the components VW/Toyota use for these come from the same chinese suppliers.
Or get a new simple Kei car in Japan for $9500
https://autoc-one.jp/daihatsu/move/newmodel-5030993/
I bought a used 2015 Daihatsu Move for $3000 last year, I love it. It has physical controls for everything except the windows and mirrors (I mean, still physical controls, but those are hooked up to motors). And it also has a simple stereo with USB audio. Gets incredible gas mileage. Perfect.
You mean 23k usd? Corolla is 22k msrp i.e under 20k euro. Nissan versa is 20k msrp. Then account for the fact that Americans have higher income than Europeans.
I found that saving money on the car helps a bit, but not much -- the insurance costs are usually the dominant factor. Almost no one here seems to be talking about that.
Isn’t your argument basically saying that people choose to buy larger cars when the government doesn’t step in and penalize people for doing so? European regulators basically just forcing people to buy smaller cars is what that sounds like.
Also Europeans make less money, pay more taxes, and have less access to credit, so they can’t afford more expensive cars like many Americans. Hence the market catering more to people less willing to spend a lot of money on a car.
The poorest American state, Mississippi, is richer per-capita than most European countries, including France.
> The poorest American state, Mississippi, is richer per-capita than most European countries, including France.
The state, maybe. The missisipian, not so much - considering their Human Development Index is right in between that of Hungary and Bulgaria, at the very bottom of the EU. How great is it to be able to buy expansive cars if you can't get access to education, healthcare, retirement, and will find yourself in the street if you lose your job.
Mississippi, like all US states, has free K12 education. It also offers free college education at public universities to anyone who scores well on college admittance tests. (In many countries, people can't access college at all if they didn't perform academically.)
About 25% of Mississippians are on free government healthcare (Medicaid/CHIP). About 21% are on very-cheap government healthcare (Medicare.) Additionally, many hospital systems in the state are owned by state and local governments, and offer free services (roundaboutly) to residents.
Mississippians, like others Americans, are eligible for Social Security in retirement, and have access to unemployment insurance.
Of course Mississippi is not some sort of welfare state paradise, but it's tiresome polemic and exaggeration to claim that people "can't get access to education, healthcare, retirement, and will find [themselves] out on the street if [they] lose [their] job."
HN folks get their kicks from insulting the southern US states. I blame stereotypes perpetuated by Hollywood.
Some of us even live there.
> expansive cars
Probably a typo, but accurate. Gotta have my truck.
No, US also has rules for cars. It just has much more stringent rules for smaller cars, so SUVs and trucks have an unfair advantage.
It's like if smaller cars are taxed at 30% and larger cars at 10%, of course there are going to be more large cars compared to a place that taxes both at 30% or 10%.
> The poorest American state, Mississippi, is richer per-capita than most European countries, including France.
GDP and its consequences has been a disaster for the human race
> Also Europeans make less money, pay more taxes, and have less access to credit, so they can’t afford more expensive cars like many Americans
Funnily your last point invalidates your first. Most Americans are loaded on debt, which impacts how much actual money they have left over at the end of the month. How many Americans can't stomach a $1000 surprise bill again?
> Isn’t your argument basically saying that people choose to buy larger cars when the government doesn’t step in and penalize people for doing so? European regulators basically just forcing people to buy smaller cars is what that sounds like.
No, you're looking at this the wrong way. US regulators make bigger cars more lucrative for manufacturers, so they only do that. EU regulators mostly focus on safety and emissions, which also slightly favours bigger cars (whose bigger price absorbs the safety features better), but not nearly to the same extent. Two of the biggest EU car groups (Stellanti and Renault) both are publicly asking to reduce some of the burden for smaller cars to be able to make cheaper small cars. On the other hand, US manufacturers (even Stellantis' Jeep, Dodge, Ram) don't mind just churning oversized monstrosities.
> The poorest American state, Mississippi, is richer per-capita than most European countries, including France.
GDP per capita doesn't mean what you think it does. Everything being overpriced in the US, and everything needing to have a middleman inflates GDP figures. Take health insurance, Americans pay multiple times what Europeans pay, to stuff the pockets of multiple for profit institutions and middlemen. GDP figures look better in the US, but really, which way is more efficient? Health outcomes are better across the EU, and the amount of medical bankruptcies is also telling.
> GDP per capita doesn't mean what you think it does. Everything being overpriced in the US, and everything needing to have a middleman inflates GDP figures. Take health insurance, Americans pay multiple times what Europeans pay, to stuff the pockets of multiple for profit institutions and middlemen. GDP figures look better in the US, but really, which way is more efficient? Health outcomes are better across the EU, and the amount of medical bankruptcies is also telling.
Healthcare is a particularly _atypical_ example to choose, and the particularly poor health outcomes of MS are only partly explicable by healthcare cost/access: it's also cultural and lifestyle issues. So it's rather disingenuous to say "take health insurance", as though it can be used by analogy to comprehensively explain other aspects of American finance.
You don't need recourse to GDP, you can just look at household income which really is higher. Most things do _not_ actually have inflated prices relative to European countries.
Would I rather live in Mississippi than France? Are Mississipians living better lives than French people? I mean it depends on where specifically, but almost certainly no. Of course having more money doesn't necessarily make a place better to live in.
But that doesn't invalidate "people have more money available to spend on cars and easier access to credit to finance that purchase over five years at favorable interest rates" as part of the reason why Americans choose to spend more money on cars.
You really don't have to take every point of discussion of difference between the US and European countries as an obligation to rant about how much better Europe is on tangential topics.
> You don't need recourse to GDP, you can just look at household income which really is higher.
Income would include the money being immediately spent to cover debt (be it student loans, mortgage, medical, car).
> Most things do _not_ actually have inflated prices relative to European countries
I'm struggling to think of things which aren't inflated. Only one I can come up with is gas/petrol/fuel, because there are much less taxes on it. Everything else I can think of is more expensive in the US - healthcare, transportation, food (groceries, and absurdly so for restaurants, for worse quality at that), various types of recreation (cinema, theatre, netflix and co, cable, watching live sports, concerts) internet, phone bills. Electricity is way too location dependent so I'll skip that one.
> But that doesn't invalidate "people have more money available to spend on cars and easier access to credit to finance that purchase over five years at favorable interest rates" as part of the reason why Americans choose to spend more money on cars.
Are interest rates favourable? There are multiple concerning trends (like car payments being one of the top household expenses and people struggling with that, people owing more on car loans than what the vehicle is worth, etc. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/10/15/american-consumers-are-incre... )
> You really don't have to take every point of discussion of difference between the US and European countries as an obligation to rant about how much better Europe is on tangential topics.
I'm not ranting, I'm correcting a wrong comparison using a wrong metric incorrectly. I don't know what is it with Americans reassuring themselves with GDP metrics, but it's very confusing why anyone would throw in GDP numbers when talking about disposable income and the car market.
Everything else I can think of is more expensive in the US...food
Where in Europe are you? Because I've always found food ridiculously cheap in the US compared to the Europeans countries I've lived in or visited for an extended enough period of time that I had to regularly go food shopping (Scandinavia, UK, Germany, Switzerland). You can get 3 chickens, each 3 times the size of the chickens I'm used to, for what I pay for 2 chicken breasts. Many restaurants will give you a serving that could feed a family of 4 for what I might pay for starter back home.
> netflix and co
Standard plan is £5.99 in UK, €7.99 in france, $7.99 in the US. So the US is the cheapest of those after currency conversion
> cinema
US median price in 2022: $10.53. In the UK, £7.69 == $10.54 (uncanny tbh)
> groceries
https://www.lovemoney.com/gallerylist/360768/what-a-basket-o... puts the US at $52.80, France at $51.08.
I'm genuinely struggling to understand where you are pulling these conclusions from because they don't fit the trivially searchable data, nor do they fit the anecdotal conclusions that I think most people would make from spending time in these places.
> Are interest rates favourable? There are multiple concerning trends (like car payments being one of the top household expenses and people struggling with that, people owing more on car loans than what the vehicle is worth, etc. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/10/15/american-consumers-are-incre... )
Yes, they're more favorable. The interest rates available to US consumers on auto purchases are lower than those available to UK consumers. And again, it's a case where your need to moralize is getting in the way of the topic: I'm saying that easier access to credit is a contributor to Americans spending more on cars. You are saying "oh, but Americans then struggle with auto loans". Yes! These are not conflicting statements. You seem to be attaching a value judgement that isn't there to the statement that "Americans are able to spend more on cars". It doesn't have to be a good thing, but that doesn't necessarily make it untrue.
> I'm not ranting, I'm correcting a wrong comparison using a wrong metric incorrectly. I don't know what is it with Americans reassuring themselves with GDP metrics, but it's very confusing why anyone would throw in GDP numbers when talking about disposable income and the car market.
You were the first person in this thread to bring up GDP per capita! The person you are replying to said "richer". You're the one interpreting this to be a GDP reference, but it doesn't need to be since it's also true with regards to disposable income.
I also don't understand why you think it's people "reassuring themselves". I don't need reassuring of anything on this topic, and I'm not sure why you think you know what beliefs I might hold about the relative merits of living in MS versus various European countries. I think it's a pretty basic ability to be able to decouple the question of "is the median american is willing and able to spend more money on a car than the median german?" from "which country has an overall higher standard of living?".
> Standard plan is £5.99 in UK, €7.99 in france, $7.99 in the US. So the US is the cheapest of those after currency conversion
Standard with ads, which is distorting because ads have a different cost and benefit (more expensive and lucrative in the US). Standard Standard is 14.99€ in France, £12.99 in the UK, $17.99 in the US.
> US median price in 2022: $10.53. In the UK, £7.69 == $10.54 (uncanny tbh)
2022 is distorted due to Covid.
> > groceries
> https://www.lovemoney.com/gallerylist/360768/what-a-basket-o... puts the US at $52.80, France at $51.08.
I like how you picked France, not Poland at $27, Spain at $35, UK at $35, Ireland at $39, Belgium at $42, Italy at $44, Germany at $46, etc.
> I'm genuinely struggling to understand where you are pulling these conclusions from because they don't fit the trivially searchable data, nor do they fit the anecdotal conclusions that I think most people would make from spending time in these places.
From visiting the US multiple times over relatively extended periods (few weeks at a time) over the past few years, while living and travelling extensively over the EU. Plus anecdotes from the internet. A lot of things are more expensive, when you count everything (tax, tips, etc).
> Yes, they're more favorable
You said they're favourable, not more favourable than e.g. in the UK. What's the average APR?
> You were the first person in this thread to bring up GDP per capita! The person you are replying to said "richer".
The only metric by which Mississipi is "richer" than France is GDP/GDP per capita.
> Standard with ads, which is distorting because ads have a different cost and benefit (more expensive and lucrative in the US). Standard Standard is 14.99€ in France, £12.99 in the UK, $17.99 in the US.
so it's 30 cents cheaper per month on that basis. that doesn't really support the claim.
> I like how you picked France, not Poland at $27, Spain at $35, UK at $35, Ireland at $39, Belgium at $42, Italy at $44, Germany at $46, etc.
I picked France because I had specifically mentioned France previously. I'm aiming to be consistent.
> Plus anecdotes from the internet.
It all becomes clearer.
> You said they're favourable, not more favourable than e.g. in the UK. What's the average APR?
I said "better access to favorable rates", not that every person is getting good rates. For what it's worth I would say that any interest rate that's below the expected return on money in the SP500 is quite favorable.
> The only metric by which Mississipi is "richer" than France is GDP/GDP per capita.
Clearly untrue: it has higher household disposable income, almost certainly the most relevant statistic.
I really don't think you're sincerely interested in this topic, you just want to dunk on America.
Ah this old Chestnut whereby agitators use the comparable GDPs of Bavaria and Mississippi as a KPI indicating Europe's lack of economic prowess.
In fact, it's just a scathing indictment of wealth inequality in Mississippi where life expectancy is 10 years less and infant mortality 400% higher than in Bavaria, despite their similar GDPs.
For better or worse the EU is run as a Society whereby the US is run as an Economy, a fact conveniently forgotten in these apples/oranges comparisons.
It’s more culture than anything. Germany is absolutely run like an economy btw.
It's also roads. On narrower roads smaller cars feel better and you have a lot more narrow roads in Europe.
> You can still buy a new subcompact car (like a Renault Clio or Skoda Fabia) in Europe for under 20k EUR.
They're also on their out around these parts, very unfortunately.
Fiat has just announced and produced the Panda, which is also a cheap vehicle. Also the Tipo was very cheap (15-20k) and Dacia makes also cheap, but good cars.
I still don't understand the urge in the US to own a Truck at any cost
> I still don't understand the urge in the US to own a Truck at any cost
Prior to the pandemic's impact on prices, trucks generally offered better TCO. I struggle to imagine that still holds true in the current landscape, but the shift has happened recently enough that we don't really have a good picture of what the total cost is over a sufficiently long period in light of how the world has changed.
So, right now, amid many unknowns, people are gambling on the past being indicative of the future. They might get burned hard, or they might come out smiling in the end. Time will tell. When it does, and assuming it shows that the TCO benefit is no longer there, you will start to see movement away from them. People aren't completely irrational – but they are slow.
Honestly, there are two different main drivers of US automobile pricing. The first was a combination of fuel efficiency and safety regulations that when combined were difficult to meet. One side effect is that all vehicles got larger so they could be in a different vehicle class and therefore have a lower fuel efficiency standard, and then in other cases the engines were made smaller with turbos added to make up the horsepower loss. The second driving force is just consumer expectations. Many companies did make cheaper vehicles that still met the regulatory burdens and people simply didn't want them.
With inflation pressures, layoffs, and other downward pricing pressures, we should expect consumer preferences to change, but I also expect that the global vehicle fleet will continue to age (especially as most vehicles are of sufficient quality that they needn't be replaced).
Even in Denmark, which has over 100% tax on cars, you can get a new vehicle for $20k
What a counterproductive comment in a world where the average SUV is something a lot closer in qualities to a traditional car than a traditional SUV.
Ford's linup is a great example how you people harping on SUVs actively detract from the discussion. What you call the Flex, the Ecosport and the C-max doesn't really matter. They're obviously by virtue of their attributes much closer to a "car" than they are to a traditional truck-ish SUV.
Every OEM's lineup has examples of this (Honda Crosstour anyone?).
The OEMs could make these things very cheaply if they wanted, look at the Maverick, a brand new model debuting at 25k. But they don't, why?
Do you consider a Ford Flex to not be a SUV ? Thing's huge and most other example you provided are either clearly SUV or are bigger than they need to be to be a "normal" car.
The Flex is close to identical in form factor and size to a pre-oil crisis station wagon. Probably has less ground clearance too. It takes the honesty of a professional political to call it an SUV.
Are you comparing to the car market of 50 years past to justify a vehicle that is more akin to a tank than a modern regular car?
Like you say, the term itself is meaningless but it does encompass the current class of vehicles that are needlessly big, heavy, and so high of the ground that some tanks literally have better forward vision than those SUVs.
I don't really care what Americans drove 50 years ago, I care that most cars sold here (EU) are way oversized for practically no reason that the consumer cares about.
I'm comparing to pre-oil crisis land yachts because I don't want a bunch of nit picking jerks to complain that it's wider than the 1990ish county squire or caprice wagon I would have preferred to to compare it to on account of the comparable internal dimensions.
I got no good frame of reference, but google seems to suggest it's around 13% bigger than a typical station wagon.
How is this car not considered a massive SUV?
This thing is so huge, I cannot comprehend the American carbrain if it's considered "average" for them
Because a big part of owning a vehicle is summer roadtrips, ski vacations, visiting family, moving stuff. An SUV is simply more convenient. I've also found road maintenance is getting worse where I live, it's almost necessary having an SUV or truck just to navigate the suburbs.
Also the (semi) compact crossover has kind of killed the compact car. You get more space, better ground clearance, for a decent price.
What you don’t mention are the increased negative externalities of your larger vehicle, including a higher chance of killing people, more road space used for parking, worse visibility for others, etc.
But mentioned: the increased road damage by heavier vehicles.
The Forth Power Law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
Most SUVs (crossovers) have the same or smaller footprint than the equivalent sized sedan.
Keep in mind nowadays most SUVs aren't trucks with the cab extending to the rear instead of a bed. They're cars that are slightly lifted with a taller profile. As an example, I have a Hyundai Elantra, which is longer than the equivalent Hyundai SUV (Tucsan)...
I'll be sure to let my elderly mother know she's making society worse by going with the HRV instead of the Civic.
In a world where ~half of all SUVs are some poof-ed up variant of a compact car a nuance free opinion like yours is just insufferable.
Yet you suffer it.
And yes, your mother is more likely to kill someone in a larger, heavier, vehicle. I don’t see how anything you said refutes that.
It's not like she bought a 4Runner or Suburban. She bought a Honda compact car that's been stretched on the vertical access.
We all spend the 2000s listening to the "they're less safe because they roll over more" screeching broken record and while statistically that was true to an extent nothing really came of it, everyone decided that yeah they do but they like the tradeoff. You just sound like a 2020s cover of that. Why ought I to take your hand wringing seriously?
Because I’m expressing myself politely and clearly without resorting to childish attacks?
Man, I really hit that one out of the park with my choice of the word "insufferable"
These typical crossovers that most people buy are more or less a direct replacement for the sedans they used to buy. Sure they're probably statistically worse at the margin but people derive a bunch more utility out of them than the sedans they replaced, which is why the form factor is carried over as best they can to the compact and subcompact hatches (impreza, c-max, etc). You have every right to tell people they ought not to be doing what benefits them because of some nebulous change at the margin that's only visible once you apply a bunch of statistics, and I have every right to call you a moron over it. But what do I know, I drive a minivan.
99% of people with an SUV will never use the "sport utility" aspect of it, and they could do all of the things you listed better with a minivan (Sienna/Odyssey/etc).
But the driver would have to sit lower in a minivan. Which is what SUVs are really about, the ego boost one gets from sitting higher up (and the associated feelings with being able to not have to settle for a minivan, and being able to waste a little money).
I don't follow this logic at all. We have a Model Y SUV. We use the space of its hatchback and frunk frequently, and it's much more efficient to drive than a Sienna or Odyssey. There's no logical reason to conclude a minivan would be better for our purposes.
A model Y is not anywhere near an SUV, regardless of classification for tax purposes. It's also not comparable because it is all electric.
The form factor of a typical SUV, such as an X7 or Land Cruiser or Explorer or Suburban, is inherently more wasteful than a minivan. The only thing those offer 99% of people is that they allow the driver to sit higher up, and be able to say they are not driving a minivan. Otherwise, the minivan provides more utility in every way.
>summer roadtrips, ski vacations, visiting family, moving stuff.
All of this stuff (in the manner 99% of people use their vehicle, i.e. not climbing rocky terrain like in the commercials) is easier to do in a minivan than an SUV. And I'm sure an electric minivan would be better than an electric SUV, except at signaling you can afford to forego the extra utility.
Also no, an ID Buzz in an electric minivan, and I wouldn't inherently say it's better than an electric SUV. It gets pretty poor range and efficiency, and so a smaller SUV like a Model Y can make more sense if you don't need that extra storage capacity.
The Model Y is commonly understood to be a SUV. You can't just make it not so because it doesn't fit your narrative.
They should drive a goods vehicle then. The one time I have driven a Transit van (a Ford model popular in the UK) I was looking down on cars and SUVs - even a Rolls at one point. It was amusing (and a lot easier to drive than I imagined).
Modern SUVs are closer to cars or minivans than the body on frame 4x4s that SUVs started as...
Nothing my family couldn't do with plain Honda Civics. If you want more space in the back, there are also long versions of VW Passat and various Skoda models. Heck, SUVs usually have way less trunk space than those - they're just taller than your average sedan, but not any longer. You can see outside just fine, and get around with 5-6L/100km efficiency.
A VW Passat is a pretty long vehicle, a Škoda Kodiaq is actually shorter. Less length = easier to park, especially in Europe.
And I'm old enough that I used to do everything with a beater compact car (Saab 900 Turbo, was lots of fun) when I was young, it was fine, ish. Now I have a family, and if I want to bring along the in-laws as well it's more efficient and generally easier to bring 1 large vehicle versus 2 small ones.
> I've also found road maintenance is getting worse where I live
Well, bigger cars are a factor that makes the roads degrade faster.
I think that's more relevant with really large vehicles. An SUV is generally somewhere in the range of 1.5-3 tons whereas a loaded semi truck can weigh up to 40 tons. If a road is designed to handle 40 ton vehicles then i have a hard time believing that 2-3 ton vehicles make much of a difference compared to a 1.5 ton vehicle.
A semi truck with a trailer will distribute those 40 tons over a larger area due to more and larger tires, but I am assuming that it still impacts a larger ground pressure on the road than a personal car - at least when loaded.
It's not so much ground pressure as axle group loading.
You can think of roads as basically retaining walls as they're a hard compacted mass of stuff "floating" in otherwise fairly fluid ground. Sure, high point loads can damage the top surface (not really a problem since anything on tires is fairly low point load) but it's the overall weight you're asking it to bear that causes the pressure to just kinda mush the wall over.
I'm currently in the Czech Republic where the roads are about 100x better than my city of 1 million+ in Canada... No, it's an issue with our government.
That's a big part of it for you perhaps, but not for everyone?
IME it's a big part of it for a lot of people. People don't buy a car for what they do with it every day, they buy it for what they do with it a few times a year. If you have a boat on a trailer, you buy a vehicle that can pull the trailer. If you drive to the mountains in winter a few times a year, you buy a higher clearance AWD vehicle so that you can skip chain control.
You might say that this irrational and that people might be better off renting something on the occasion that they need to tow something, or go on a long road trip, or fit more than five people in their car. But people are irrational and they really do make these choices!
In addition, renting a large car for a few days is really expensive. If you have to do this 5-10 times a year, over 10 years of ownership, I'm not so sure that buying small and renting large make sense financially. Not to mention the inconvenience and loss of flexibility from having to collect and drop off a rental car, which typically isn't exactly right around the corner, especially in rural areas.
This is a great example of how factually incorrect narratives - so long as they align with a preferred agenda (which is that things are not affordable any more) - it gets upvoted.
Reality check:
- In 2025, there are 12 new car models available under $25,000
- In 2005, there were around 10 new models under $15,000 (25k adjusted by inflation)
So the premise that “cars used to be much more affordable” is not true. This article is full of misleading or outdated information that distorts the real trend.
HN deserves better data-driven discussions.
While we're being data driven - the narrative isn't far off from reality. Looking at inflation in isolation is also misleading.
Plainly, prices have risen faster than pay.
Avg. new-car price: $23,017 in 2005 -> $47,465 in 2024 (+32% after inflation).
Median household income: $46,242 in 2005 -> $80,610 in 2023 (+12% after inflation).
Average new car price is very misleading. When you buy a car, they don't charge you the average, they charge you what the specific car you're buying costs. If there are a dozen cheap car options for sale, it is irrelevant to me that there are also some more expensive options for sale.
MSRP of Honda Accord went from $15k-$30k in 2005 to $30k-$40k in 2025.
MSRP of one model is also not perfect, but it's another data point.
> MSRP of Honda Accord went from $15k-$30k in 2005 to $30k-$40k in 2025.
> MSRP of one model is also not perfect, but it's another data point.
I do not know if this is true.
- Cheapest Honda Accord in 2005 was $17,510 (that is $28,895 in today's money) - https://www.kbb.com/honda/accord/2005/
- Cheapest Honda Accord in 2025 is $28,295 (https://automobiles.honda.com/accord-sedan).
So the price is really the same.
2005 accord is a 2025 civic class wise
2005 accord is 5 inchers longer, a couple inches wider and has a longer wheelbase. This results in larger interior space and trunk space. While cars are in fact getting bigger and heavier, in this case it's not as egregious.
you also could compare internal dimensions between 3: 2005 accord vs 2025 civic vs 2025 accord, I kinda believe 2025 civic will be closer to 2005 accord.
But I mostly referred on class in general: 2005 accord was basic appliance economy car, while 2025 accord has many more accura like luxury features besides drivetrain.
Yep, model inflation. I have an early 2000s Accord and it's smaller than most Civics I see on the road, and with fewer features than a base model Civic.
We can also say that the average cost of education has risen 141.0% over the last 20 year.
So I’m not saying that things are not expensive now: but not having cheap cars is not the reason for that. And that is what the article is saying.
Is the average new-car price the average price that people are buying cars at, or the price that cars are being released at?
I believe it's the price they're bought at, and the rate of average car debt is also similarly higher so it checks out
I believe the stat is uually reported as median purchase price, so if a billionaire orders a bunch of Bugattis it doesn't mess up the stats
For under 47k, (off the top of my head) you can buy a Subaru BRZ, Toyota gr86, Toyota gr Corolla, Honda Civic type r, Subaru WRX, VW gti... None of those are budget conscious family cars so something is off with that average car price you quoted. You can buy a Nissan versa for under 18k today. https://www.nissanusa.com/vehicles/cars/versa-sedan/specs-tr... .
> Honda Civic type r
You will NEVER get a type R from the dealer at this price
This still doesn't tell the whole story
You need car interest rates to understand actual "car affordability" at any particular time. ZIRP era was far cheaper than right now where most new cars are 6% for highly qualified buyers (800+ credit rating)
Also, cars today last longer, have more features for your dollar, and are significantly safer and in many cases (i.e. toyota small cars like the corolla) can get 50+ mpg without the anemic and underpowered engines of the past.
A simple adjustment of (average new car cost)/(average lifespan of car in miles) would be a good start.
We’ve also got 0% down 7-10 year car loans now when they used to be much shorter terms.
The car market is highly manipulated between financing, the literal laws protecting dealership monopolies, insurance, etc.
No simple analysis on a handful of metrics will show the full picture
You shouldn't compare an average to a median in this way.
> - In 2005, there were around 10 new models under $15,000 (25k adjusted by inflation)
You'll need to provide hard evidence for this. I was pretty young in 2005 but $15.000 would get you a decent car (though not a pickup). That being said, it is possible we have more models now under 25.000 but what $15/25k used to buy you (segment wise) has downgraded.
You are 100% correct. I was a senior in college and my beater died. I went to the Mazda dealer and talked them down to $13k on a brand new Mazda3. My payment was like $280.
Now inflation adjusted that is supposedly just shy of $22k. But it’s not the full story. That car was actually very nice for the time and to get an equivalently nice car today it’s not going to be a bare bones Nissan Versa or something like that.
To share an anecdote on the more recent side of the spectrum, I bought a new 2025 Toyota Corolla LE two months ago. It's probably the cheapest vehicle Toyota makes. My cost before tax and title (not sure if that should be included or not) was $23k. It's a pretty great car. Highway averages like 45-50 MPH (25-35 city), it's comfortable, has Car Play, and everything else you'd expect in a car now.
I'll say that the two things I'm used to having in a car that this one doesn't (since it's such a base trim) is automatic seat adjustment (not a big deal, I kind of prefer it since the automatic seats on my last vehicle died) and no remote start.
All that to say that I think that inflation adjusted measure can still get you a fine car. As for the argument about income vs inflation in GP, I have no idea.
I think the problem here is that we are comparing against price inflation (not salary inflation). If every company increased its prices, then that's the inflation. Customers will feel ripped off if their salaries didn't at least match inflation.
In other words, if your salary in 2005 was $50k when Mazda was $13k; then your salary should be $82k for a $22k Mazda3 to be the same price. Currently, a Mazda3 starts at $24k and will probably run at $26-27k: https://www.mazdausa.com/vehicles/mazda3-sedan
> All that to say that I think that inflation adjusted measure can still get you a fine car. As for the argument about income vs inflation in GP, I have no idea.
Kind of. But my understanding is that most salaries haven't caught up to inflation especially in the last few years when the US economy had the worst inflation.
Salary inflation is much trickier to measure because it is confounded by years of experience increasing, getting promotions, etc. The distribution of the working population by seniority also changes over time so it's not self-correcting across the distribution. Assuming you have a good way of measuring it, (salary inflation/price inflation) would be an interesting Financial Quality of Life measure.
You can use real median household income [0] and real median personal income [1] to gauge potential salary inflation (real meaning CPI adjusted).
The median American household and American has gotten significantly richer than in 2005, but in the 2020-23 period, income growth slowed due to the pandemic and the subsequent slow restart of the economy.
The last time we saw similar retractions were during recessions like the 1990-93 recession, the Dot Com Bust, and the Great Recession. Turns out the "vibe check" in the early 2020s were right.
Tl;dr - the median American feels poorer in the early 2020s than they did in 2019, but they have much more earning power than they ever did before 2018. I would not be surprised if this played an outsized role in voter dynamics in the 2024 election
[0] - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
[1] - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N
(Just an aside that median household income will of course be affected by the changing composition of households towards multi income families.)
Hence why I also provided personal income, but both data points show a significant correlation between dual-income households since the 1980s, so that is a moot point.
Also, as at this point 1980 is 45 years ago - almost 2 generations, almost like using the 1960s as a frame of reference in 2005.
At this point we've been a country of dual earners in a household for 2 generations now. It's best to assume that is the default given the overlap.
The Mazda 3 has gotten nicer too. I test drove one that had a HUD, adaptive cruise control with lane keeping, heated seats and paddle shifters among other features that are standard on all models.
Those are all things that were only available on luxury cars, if at all, in 2005.
In 2025 the base option package would have been a five figure option package in 2005.
>I think the problem here is that we are comparing against price inflation (not salary inflation)
This current period of inflation is caused by the dollar losing its value due to massive over printing by the Federal Reserve. People should feel ripped off, but I think you're directing your anger at the wrong target.
But you should compare the same cars. I bet 13k was for a basic trim, with manual, less powerful engine etc.
Car of 2025 has lots of features even in basic trims.
My first car had no ac, no power steering, no power window, etc. And I'm not that old...
TBF if you go by new-car pricing now, manual has more value than a base-trim automatic. (And the automatic transmissions now are better than the automatics available in 13k cars back then.)
What do you mean by more value? In Europe manual is cheaper than automatic. In USA there are only high-performance vehicles offered with manual. However even then Elantra N is cheaper with manual.
I’m most familiar with Canadian pricing, and since a while, it’s been more common for manuals to be more significantly more expensive than automatic. e.g it’s like $10k extra for a manual Mazda 3 or a Cadillac CT4-V or $15k extra for a manual Mustang. This commonly is because manuals are limited to higher trim levels... but that’s kinda like EVs for some models - even if the trim is upgraded, it’s still $10k more expensive.
But you compare different cars. If you compare the same high performance vehicles (but not luxury) where there are both options - then manual often is the same or cheaper.
For many manual enthusiasts, a Mazda3 GX is effectively the “same car” as a Mazda3 Sport GT, with the significant difference being that the latter has manual transmission.
For me, most of the differences between a GX and a Sport GT, other than the transmission, are about as relevant as the paint colour, so telling me that they’re not comparable is like saying that I can’t compare two cars because the manual version is only available with an expensive quad-coat matte paint job. To me, that fancy paint job isn’t relevant - what’s relevant is that the manual transmission costs $10k more.
Your memory is different to mine, and different to Motor Trend's, as well: https://www.motortrend.com/cars/toyota/corolla/2005
$15k would buy you a base-trim 2005 Corolla with an automatic or one level up with a manual.
In 2025, you can buy the LE or SE trim Corolla for under $25k, either of which are vastly better cars than the 2005 in any dimension you wish to measure. Safety, technology, comfort, performance. All improved.
Not OP, but this seems like a decent source for the claim. It lists 12 cars under $25K MSRP: https://www.motortrend.com/features/cheapest-new-cars
That said, we picked up one of the cars on this list for well under $15,000 in 2010. (And it's still going strong! Never needed a major repair.) Which doesn't really mean anything, just throwing out yet another anecdote to highlight that nobody's presented any information that actually supports or contradicts the major premise that cars are getting less affordable. Segmenting your data by picking arbitrary cutoffs (like $25,000) has its own chapter in the classic book How to Lie With Statistics.
> Not OP, but this seems like a decent source for the claim. It lists 12 cars under $25K MSRP: https://www.motortrend.com/features/cheapest-new-cars
I need a source for the year 2005 not 2025. Of course, it is easier to have a source for 2025.
Here is 2005 list:
- Chevrolet Aveo – Starting at $9,455
- Kia Rio – Starting at $10,570
- Hyundai Accent – Starting at $10,999
- Toyota Echo – Starting at $11,110
- Ford Focus ZX3 – Starting at $13,365
- Chevrolet Cavalier – Starting at $13,405
- Chrysler PT Cruiser – Starting at $13,995
- Dodge Neon SXT – Starting at $14,195
- Pontiac Sunfire – Starting at $14,200 see: https://www.kbb.com/pontiac/sunfire/2005
-Saturn Ion – Starting at $14,430 - see https://www.kbb.com/saturn/ion/2005
It is based on this links: https://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/top-10/top-10-cars-under... This is article from 2005 (at least metadata says that). The prices are verified via kbb.com which has original MSRP for all used cars.
That's a list of "top 10 cars under $15k".
It's not all cars under $15k, just the best 10 among the multitude.
Yeah I know you could get a basic model Corolla for around $12k in 2006 or so.
This does not match the KBB.com: https://www.kbb.com/toyota/corolla/2005/
I’m just saying that I 100% understand that you think it was “cheaper before” but there is no data to show that. I honestly feel the same. Toyota Corolla was 13k in 2000: https://www.kbb.com/toyota/corolla/2000 - 25 years ago.
The core of my argument is this: today’s news manipulates perception by playing on emotions, which ultimately distorts the truth.
This article isn’t overly political, which makes it easier for us to debate without resorting to calling each other Nazis or communists. But when it comes to politics, distortion of truth happens all the time.
Bold of you to talk about distortion of truth when you are the main perpetrator of it in this thread.
Your claim of "only 10 models under $15k in 2005" is patently false, based on logic where the "Forbes 30 under 30" list is evidence that only 30 people exist younger than 30.
So yeah I guess your core argument is true, but you demonstrated by perpetuating it...
Please find a car which is missing. I was unable to find a single one.
And I also made the mistake with the list for 2025: there are 20 cars less than 25k in 2025.
See? You found problem with 2005 but you happily ignored that fact that I missed cars from 2025.
Why? Because it fits your world view. And that is how marketing works: you are convinced that cars are getting more expensive and no amount of data will change your view.
And posts on hubspot like this are paid by companies not making sub-$25k cars.
> I was unable to find a single one.
Sure you were. You already found a single one and discussed it just above.
Let me quote your own link back to you: https://www.kbb.com/toyota/corolla/2005/
A Toyota Corolla MSRP'd for $14,220 in 2005.
We haven't even started discussing your 2025 list, I'm just criticizing that you used a "top 10" list as a source saying "there were only 10 vehicles that existed meeting this criteria".
Meanwhile, if you look at your other sources, the Pontiac Sunfire link you posted shows that one did MSRP just over $15k, despite it being on your "top 10" list.
You really are in no position to criticize other people for "no amount of data will change your position", when all the data that you have presented so far is some combination of misleading, incorrect, or hallucinated.
With discounts and negotiation, you can get below MSRP. A 12k Corolla was certainly feasible in 2006.
Everything that has increased by more than income growth has gotten less affordable. Thankfully it seems to be happening to all the most expensive things housing, vehicles, education, healthcare, etc (/s incase not obvious)
> I was pretty young in 2005 but $15.000 would get you a decent car (though not a pickup).
A base model Ford Ranger would have done it!
The ford ranger is so much bigger and expensive now.
In 2024 Toyota in Thailand introduced a cheap pick-up that is a bit under 15.000 USD when THB is converted to USD. I think it's rather neat - the basic model is /very/ basic, but lots of options to customize.
https://www.toyota.co.th/en/model/hilux_champ?tab=commercial...
This doesn't really have anything to do with the US though. Importing that vehicle is not possible for another 24 years and USD$15k goes a lot farther in southeast Asia than it does in the US. For the past half century there has been a plethora of cheap pick-up trucks available in Asia and that has not carried over to the US.
Lol it is the Hilux.
This requires posting related info-graphic. Cheers.
https://files.catbox.moe/2d1rwq.webp
The first 4 or 5 pickups in that infographic is the Toyota Land Cruiser, not the Hilux. Although this infographic is pretty funny, it's not accurate I'm afraid.
They still make the Land Cruiser more or less in that shape and configuration: https://media.cdntoyota.co.za/toyotacms23/attachments/clz2ej...
I know this has issues. There is a more accurate one out there somewhere with actual year/models, armament specs and the conflict in which the pic was taken but I don't have quick access to it.
Still funny.
It's not dumb if it works :
https://acoup.blog/2025/05/23/collections-the-logistics-of-r...
That's pretty hilarious I need to find that in a poster for a Marine buddy who's a Toyota mechanic.
Part of the cost of cars in America is regulatory compliance.
Other parts include import taxes, local wages vs outsourced wages, and margins.
Why can't we get these in the US? This kind of simple utilitarian vehicle is exactly what I'm looking for.
Toyota uses a separate platform called IMV [0] in developing countries that doesn't meet safety standards in EU, Canada, Japan, the US, or the UK.
A lot of safety features such as around crumple zones or even airbags (in the case of the Toyota Champ) don't exist in the IMV platform.
Australia allows them (excluding the Champ), but they watered down their car safety standards in order to seal FTAs with ASEAN (2009), China (2015), and India (2022), leading to the last Australian automotive factory shutting down in 2017.
Once you start adding those safety features (and build the associated testing infra), costs end up comparable to those in Central Europe - as can be seen with the domestic and international prices of Western-oriented export models from China (Zeekr X/Volvo XC30) or India (Toyota Hyryder/Toyota Urban Cruiser).
[0] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_IMV_platform
In addition to what the sibling points out, in this case of a light pickup truck the chicken tax also applies which adds 25% tariff: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax
Mostly regulatory nonsense. US has very specific requirements that mean cars driven in the US have to be basically specifically designed for the US. Other than that main problem is tariffs.
The person you replied to found a "top 10 cars under $15k" list and thought that that was all the under-15k cars of 2005.
You are correct.
>adjusted by inflation
So the affordability crisis completely disappears once you adjust for the #1 thing that's been making things unaffordable.
Of course, you should be adjusting for the wage rise instead.
FRED figures show wages slightly outpaced inflation: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q (unless I'm reading the chart incorrectly)
Yes, my father bought a house for $10k. He still says it was very expensive!
While I do agree with you, I think you have to account for income as well, and not only the car price (even if adjusted for inflation) to determine affordability.
Pretty sure inflation adjusted median income has increased from 2005 to 2025. But it sure doesn't feel like it. I wonder if other costs such as housing and healthcare have gotten less affordable affecting the real affordability. Inflation adjustments should capture this, but it feels like it doesn't.
Housing, healthcare, childcare, and education have become more expensive. These are the biggest expenses for most people and are necessities. So the percentage of income available for other expenses has definitely decreased. Not sure about real wages though.
In theory, inflation is supposed to capture those increases. The median real wage has gone up about 10-15% from 2005-2025. In theory, it should be more affordable. It doesn't feel that way to me, but maybe there are numbers I'm missing, or the way we measure inflation and apply it to affordability is broken.
Yes, this measure is called "Real Wages" and has been increasing basically since 2013 (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q). But as you point out, that measure uses CPI, which doesn't weigh mortgage/rent and healthcare affordability as heavily it would need to match what the average family experiences.
Yes.
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/why-do-education-health-care-a...
Just curious: Where's the source of this "reality check" and what's your agenda?
Not OP, but you can use the BLS's CPI calculator. Their numbers are right [0]
Implying that OP is "Assuming an agenda" appears to break the HN guidelines [1]
[0] - https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=25000&year1=20...
[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
They do not have a source. This happens on HN constantly: someone shits on the article with no basis in reality and no source, and their comment gets voted to the top and dominates the discussion.
I think people are saying that you can't find a used car for cheap anymore more than anything.
After the supply chain crisis which saw used car prices look like new car prices, the used market really never came back to a sane level. I also wonder how many people are in the market for cars old enough to not have all of the telemetry tracking, "everything is computer" touchscreen nonsense which could be having an effect on the supply/demand of that part of the used car market. I recently bought a car specifically with those features in mind.
Nah, it's price.
Issue was every manufacturer slashed production during the pandemic either intentionally or due to parts shortages, so cars built during the pandemic years are abnormally scarce.
Add in that used car loans always have higher interest rates than new car loans, if you're buying with anything other than cash there still isn't that much of a discount on gently used/certified vs new.
You have to really go back a few years or get a relatively high mileage before you start finding cheap options again.
Cash for Clunkers is what really kickstarted the distortion of the used car market.
The used car pricing in the USA used to be bizarrely cheap, it's now corrected or overcorrected.
Yes, only inflation is not the only thing you need to factor in. If you really want to answer the question of "are people correct in complaing about car prices?", you need to factor in how much money they have to spend on what.
A first ballpark figure would be calculating how much that pricebracket of car would be as a fraction of a median persons income or better even: how many hours they needed to work to get it – if you want to know if something is harder to get, this is the crucial info.
Just adjusting inflation like that is doing exactly what you critique others for only from the other direction..
I can't speak to the specific years, but there's no doubt that a fair number of small, less expensive, cars have been knocked off - the Rio, the Prius C, the Fiesta... I think there are more than just those (though maybe some of it is lineup consolidation, considering the eventual Kia K3). At the same time, some of the remaining options have had (IMO) huge MSRP hikes.
But you are right that a lot of the price increases relatively track inflation. It may just be that cars going up at the rate of inflation and used cars depreciating less, combined with uneven wage growth and high maintenance and repair costs is leaving a lot of consumers feeling pressured.
Though it's hard to track this down in a way that seems accurate, cars that are under 10 years old and 100k miles always seem remarkably close to MSRP to me, while those that are over those thresholds often seem massively depreciated, but that's anecdote and I haven't done a study. Interest rates me be another piece of the story. When I last bought a car they were basically zero or 1% I think. It gave the latitude to use debt w/o much thought. Very different now.
Which is to say, I do think it's plausible that it's true that some segment of the car market is tracking inflation, and that cars aren't affordable any more.
If that's the case, there's probably more going on, and it may not all be on the cars. Once again, venturing into anecdote, I know multiple people who've had significant wage increases since prepandemic, don't have much if any lifestyle inflation, and somehow seem to be in the position of finding cars and homes less affordable despite making quite significantly more. I'm not really sure exactly what's going on, but the way people are feeling doesn't match the numbers for a fair number of folks with above average incomes, and I can only imagine it must be a lot worse for those w/ less.
> less expensive, cars have been
> knocked off - the Rio,
> the Prius C, the Fiesta..
You are incorrect. Prius C in 2005 was $21,510 (not really "less expensive") and that is about $34,827.67 in 2025. (See: https://www.kbb.com/toyota/prius/2005/)
And in 2025 Prius starts from $28,350 (see: https://www.toyota.com/prius/)
So this narrative that there are no more cheap cars is incorrect.
Comparing one model (which actually isn’t even the same model) over time doesn’t make sense. Also you’re moving the goalposts here, $28,350 base is not “cheap”
Yes - it is not cheap now. But it was NEVER cheap (as implied in the comment).
I never referenced 2005. Prius C was ~$19k in 2012. It didn't have a 2005 model.
You are confusing vehicles.
There are a bunch of nice Toyotas in the USA with MSRP just under 25K right now, including the Corolla Hybrid, which is pretty sweet considering how fuel efficient it is. https://www.toyota.com/
Not to mention how much more functionality present day cars have. (mentioned in a couple comments elsewhere, but things like airbags/backup cameras/other sensors etc).
Well of course, but tech gets cheaper over time too. Just look at the price and power of today's MacBook air vs 10 years ago. You get way more value for money as you should
Do you buy 10-year-old tech like MacBook Airs so you can take advantage of the cost savings?
Not the OP, but I do buy used computers for cost savings.
All cars have become a lot more bigger. I was just watching the movie Jewel of the Nile on Disney+. There was a scene, where a dictator and the protagonists cram into to Rolls Royce of 80s and I just thought the average suv these days has more interior space...
While flight travel has got cheaper by making seats more compact and planes more efficient, the cars go the opposite direction - drive luxuriously like kings and burn the planet with bigger and bigger gas guzzlers...
That 80s car probably has comparable interior space. It's the exterior that's gotten bigger. 7" thick doors and all that.
Cars have much more functionality these days, and it is good. But too much of that functionality is mandatory, and this is bad.
For functionality meant to protect people outside the car (eg. automatic braking, or pedestrian airbags) there is a very good case for it being mandatory.
Unfortunately those are often not on the list of mandatory features.
What's new on the mandatory list?
Electronic stability control doesn't sound like it adds any meaningful costs over ABS. Backup cameras are a cost but not a huge one. What else is there?
ESC in effect mandates the same hardware as the highest end ABS systems and adds throttle by wire on top of that.
Pretty much every AWD car can do "dumb" ABS that uses pedal pressure to run with just the sensors the AWD system uses (front axle speed and rear axle speed) but you need an expensive ABS system with a pump and a throttle by wire system if you want to be able to have the system do stuff when no foot is on the brake.
A new pump or the power braking pump I already have?
Is throttle control a mandatory part?
You can make ABS systems without the pump. They take use the driver's input instead. That's how lots of early systems worked. You give up a little stopping distance in the case where one axle or one side of the car has a ton more traction than the other (think like driving in the gutter of a really strongly crowned road in a downpour) but they work pretty good and are CHEAP, like real cheap.
Throttle control is necessary because you need to lock the driver out of the throttle for ESC. Think of ESC as basically preventing soccer moms from mashing the pedal and getting sideways unnecessarily. Depending on how sideways they get initially the ESC programming is going to want to drag certain brakes to help get everything good again and that requires a pump since the driver's foot isn't there to give pressure (it might still be on the gas).
There's a lot of features that aren't mandatory, but exist in just about any model so they might as well be. It used to be cheaper to get a manual transmission, now there are very few available, and usually on enthusiast models. Very few cars don't have power locks and windows. New cars generally have a touchscreen entertainment system. etc.
- boomers like classic sports and muscle cars. They feel nostalgia towards them because those are the cars high school and college kids used to actually drive
- people who are looking for affordable cars buy used. That market has evaporated. I remember in the late 90s-2000s the newspaper had a junker section where you could get cars (that started) for $100. Imagine what you could get for $2000
- when inflation goes up you lose savings and don’t necessarily get a corresponding wage increase. So just saying it’s equal according to inflation does not mean it’s equal in terms of work hours or job training requirements
Cash for Clunkers was a hell of a program.
I have been thinking more about that recently. It’s very strange we convinced ourselves we were being economically efficient while destroying productive resources.
Not everyone was convinced -- it was pretty transparently 1) a subsidy to the car industry 2) an effort to hasten the proliferation of in-car surveillance tech
And inflation is calculated by how much car prices increased
Reminds me of the argument of "cars used to be more sturdy than today, where any hit is a total"
Um... Looking at videos of crashing old cars into new cars, the old cars DO NOT hold up to new cars in terms of breaking. The only difference is in old cars the engine would stay intact and the occupants not, while in the new cars its the opposite.
> HN deserves better data-driven discussions.
Where's the data?
hard to compare 2005 ford focus or toyota corolla with 2025 model year. A lot of more feature, cars are safer etc.
There is no 2025 Ford Focus in the US.
Did you even read the article before making your comment? It is actually data driven like you are demanding, while your own comment is not beyond the most basic sense. A superficial count of models below $25,000k MSRP is not adding to the discussion.
Two examples:
Example 1: The article claims that the affordable Nissan Versa Note cost $16,545 in 2019 and was discontinued. But not saying that this would be $21,168 in today’s dollars and they leave out an important detail: Nissan still sells the Versa in the US, just not the Note hatchback version. The current Nissan Versa starts at $17,190 according to Nissan’s own website: https://www.nissanusa.com/vehicles/cars/versa-sedan.html
That’s actually about 20% less expensive than the inflation-adjusted number from 2019.
Example 2: And then they claim that price increase is: 29.2% - just 3% more than inflation (but they did not want to mention total PCI). But even that number of 29.2% cannot be verified on BLS.gov nor fred.stlouisfed.org . I uploaded FRED and BLS data to chatgpt o3 and it says that new vehicle prices increased 22% from 2019 to 2025 - actually less then inflation:
2019: 146.220
2020: 149.091
2021: 166.653
2022: 176.463
2023: 178.269
2024: 177.552 fred.stlouisfed.org (slight dip from 2023)
2025: ~178.7 (May 2025)
Overall, from 2019 to mid-2025 the index increased from ~146 to ~179, amounting to about a 22% cumulative rise in new vehicle prices.
(https://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm - code CUUR0000SETA01).
Are you talking about real cars or toy cars?
As an example, any vehicle with less than 4 places is a toy car. And anything as uncomfortable as a Toyota Prius is a stupid toy car.
Nobody else has said it so I guess I will.
The reason the US car industry does not want a $25k car is that the financing opportunities are crap for a car of this low cost.
In the same way that airlines exist to offer you a miles based credit card, the US car dealerships survive by offering you a loan for the car. Or perhaps, a car to go with your structured finance opportunity.
It was a funny experience going to buy a used car with my partner a few years ago. Being a little naive I'd assumed being a cash buyer was a plus as they'd guarantee a quick sale, but as soon as the salesman realised he wasn't going to be signing a finance deal you could see him lose interest entirely. kinda funny to think they're in the business of selling loans rather than cars.
Or if you come with your own financing. I usually talk to the "finance guy" at the dealership because (so I've been told) they sometimes run promotions and can give you a rate better than your bank but lord heavens I've never seen it.
They once offered me more than double the rate of my bank and for 2.5 times the term length. I'm sure that $150/mo or whatever payment for the rest of our life is attractive to someone but I just laughed. They really don't like people who are looking to minimize total interest paid.
When I bought my latest car ~2 years ago, the dealer's rate was something like half a percent higher than my banks. On a 3 year loan and with the $1000 kickback for taking the dealer financing, it ended up being marginally cheaper to take their loan.
unless there's illegal collusion, someone will see a market opporunity and step in to fill it.
That said, a quick search for new cars under $25k: Chevrolet Trax $20.5k, Nissan Versa $17.2k, Hyundai Venue $20.5k, Kia Soul $20.5k, and Nissan Kicks $22k. Other options include the Toyota Corolla $22.3k, Hyundai Elantra $22.1k, and Volkswagen Jetta $22.5k
I think maybe the article is BS?
There is market opportunity, China has found it, but the US won't allow them to be imported because it undercuts everyone else so thoroughly. The US automotive market is extremely far from being a free and open market. You can't just build a car to a set of standards and automatically be allowed to sell them, there are substantial legal and political barriers that cost tons of money to overcome, which doesn't make financial sense to anyone with that amount of money to just sell low margin vehicles.
I strongly agree with a generalization of the article - that cars have increased in price relative to their quality and value to the point that it's nationally problematic. There's a whole pile of cars that have gone from sub $20k to the high $20ks and above. Most of the cars you list will also have essentially non-optional packages, delivery charges, and more costs rolled into their price. At the same time it's not easy to find used cars that don't cost nearly as much as new cars unless they're pretty old and high mileage.
And it seems clear there's no rational reason that cars should subject to a higher rate of inflation than any other good.
It seems very clear that somehow the market is broken. Whether it's because new competition is impossible because only the established can achieve the necessary economies of scale, protectionist regulation,the dealership model, or something else, it's pretty clear something is broken. Just like with much of the rest of things in the US and maybe the world.
> somehow the market is broken
The market has changed and we are judging it with the old values.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/pf/12/auto-industry.as...
> unless there's illegal collusion
Illegal collusion is not the only thing that can prevent a competitive market. Large barriers to entry and imperfect information are two other textbook examples.
It's not "illegal collusion" when you pay off your lobbyists to get them to legislate the status quo into place.
>> I think maybe the article is BS?
Totally. Cars are there available. The thing is consumers don't want small cheap basic cars.
Buy the best used car you can afford for cash and forget all that dealership nonsense
Unfortunately, the decrease in supply of budget cars hurts people buying used cars as well for two reasons:
1. With less people able to afford new cars it increases demand for used cars, which pushes up the price
2. There will be less budget cars that eventually end up in the used car market, and the increased price of new cars will trickle through to used cars
The small and quasi-loophole to getting a good used car deal is buying a hail damage car. I genuinely don't understand why cars were made to have shiny paint. Cars drive on dirty roads with insects and pebbles abound. Paint doesn't matter. Car washes are crazy, except to abait rust
It’s a lot easier to clean a shiny surface than a matt one.
Try clean a house ceiling versus a house wall - though anyone sane wouldn’t paint a ceiling matt, or for that matter, even contemplate painting a ceiling.
Get a painter to paint it semi-gloss.
Confirmation bias but a very good friend did this: bought back the hail damaged car from the insurer in preference to keeping the undamaged VW Beetle, sold the beetle, has been driving the hail damaged car with the minimum legal insurance to third parties for 15 years since. She's streets ahead in costs of car ownership and drives long and short distance, urban and country.
The issue you'll face is when you go to sell it – any noticeable hail damage means you are getting 1/2 the resale value if you can even find an interested buyer.
Ideally you should be driving the car until the wheels fall off anyways. Faffing about selling cars and buying newer ones is a waste of money.
Driving a car until the wheels fall off generally doesn't make financial sense. Keeping an old car on the road gets really expensive unless you have the space, time and skills to do all the work yourself. Then there is the opportunity cost of not having access to your car for days/weeks at a time while it is being repaired. Finally you have the stress of not being quite sure if your car will start when you turn the key or get you where you want to go.
From both an economic and quality of life point of view, you are better driving your car until it starts to get slightly unreliable and then quickly trade it in for a slightly newer used car. Buy a 5-10 year old car, drive it for 5-10 years, then trade it in for a 5-10 years old car is probably pretty close to an optimal strategy.
Same with technology. If you aren't rich, selling around the time the next model comes out is actually a great way to avoid paying full price for your modern tech.
With Apple stuff, waiting more than 1-2 cycles means you've missed the ability to recoup most of your costs AND you got to use an old device for an extra year... yay?
More like extra 2 or 3 years, so yes, yay. Consumption is consumption, you don't get things for free.
If the phone only lasted 1 more year, then the resale price of the phone would reflect that. Either the collective market of buyers lacks the information to evaluate this (doubt), or you got lucky finding the one buyer willing to overpay.
You also always pay full price, because when you buy a new phone (or anything), you always have the option to buy the used or keep using the old one. Cost is opportunity cost, which is defined as your choice minus your second best choice.
> Consumption is consumption, you don't get things for free.
While this is true, desirability in the used market doesn't work linearly. Apple devices fall off quickly in value after 2 years. If you buy early in the product cycle, selling as soon as you can buy the next year's model has proven to be the most economic way, because resale on last year's model is still great but 2 years ago is in the tank.
I've been upgrading yearly since 2007 and my spouse waits 3-5 years between phones. Doing the math, over the years I've spent less overall because of the value of sales when I trade up vs. their phone was worth sub-$200 when I sold it recently, because it was older than a few years.
Does a Toyota Corolla ever get unreliable or uneconomic to repair?
Yes.
Prices are all jacked up vs what you get because a historical surplus of very well kept cars on the used market has lead to every idiot on the internet being told they're somehow magical.
A badge on the grill doesn't make 100k the of uber miles that the 3rd owner put on or being habitually driven low on some key fluid by the 4th owner any less destructive.
I ran a Corolla with a holed sump, and no measurable oil. I was going to scrap it.
After 3 months it was going ok so took it to a mechanic. They repaired it, said ‘don’t do that’ and it carried on for another 5 years before I sold it.
At some point, even a Corolla will need a repair or maintenance significantly more expensive than the remaining value offered by the old car. It sounds like if you drove it for 3 months without oil, you didn't have a lot of options at the time or you might have put oil in your car in the meantime?
> Faffing about selling cars and buying newer ones is a waste of money.
Depends. No reason to pour money into a depreciating asset that you trust your life with.
I saw an early 2000s small car get into a ~30mph collision recently and ... I wouldn't drive an early 2000s car after that. A lot of people do, and they probably should try to get something with more modern safety equipment.
That's accounted for at the time they bought it since it was already hail damaged.
Is it savings if you buy an item worth less and you pay less? You're just buying a damaged item at that point ... which is worth less to everyone
That isn't getting "deal" unless you plan to never liquidate... cars generally don't get used up like a can of soda, so the dent actually matters when you go to sell it.
> That isn't getting "deal" unless you plan to never liquidate... cars generally don't get used up like a can of soda, so the dent actually matters when you go to sell it.
Yes, but it mattered already when you bought it!
In other words, the dents were already priced in when you paid for it, so you paid less. They'll like be priced even lower when you sell it after 5 years of usage.
Almost all buyers finance.
You cannot generally get a loan on a car with much hail damage. Buyer pool now significantly smaller = less value, must sell for less to attract one of the few potential buyers.
This means for most people trying to unload their hail damaged car, they get to sell to dealer at auction pricing (aka rock bottom prices, penny on the dollar value), sell it to an auction yourself, or hope someone on CraigsList is desperate for a car enough they don't care it's a golf ball.
It's interesting how something like this might be hard to understand if you haven't been through it. Previously working in the car industry, not understanding this is actually common among car buyers and a source of frustration for people who get stuck in their low-value, hail damaged cars.
Think about something other than a car: If I buy something that is normally worth X, but it is damaged and is now worth 0.3X and there I pay 0.3X I did not save 0.7X off what I got... I got something worth what I paid.
You cannot extract value from a deal where you were paying less because you received less (aka damaged and less valuable property with less market value).
TLDR: When you buy a hail-damaged car, you get a discount. When you sell a hail damaged car you give a discount. The discount you give is always lower than the discount you get, hence you come out ahead in dollar values.
------------------------------------------------
I get all that (and will address specific comments below), but first, look at it this way:
1. The selling price of the car without hail damage at 3 years old is `$X`.
2. The selling price of the car with hail damage at 3 years old is `$X - $Y`, where `-$Y` is the value of the hail damage (hence it is negative).
3. The selling price of the car with hail damage at 9 years old is `$X - $Y - $Z`, where `-$Z` is the value of the depreciation (also why it is negative).
Since the car selling price never gets to zero or below AND $Z flattens out over time, $Y must also flatten out over time! IOW it is also asymptotic.
This means that the discount of buying a hail-damaged car (the `-$Y`) is large for a new car and small for an old car.
In practical terms, in the context of buying, using and then selling a hail-damaged car:
1. You buy a $30k car and get a discount of (say) $10k due to hail damage.
2. Six years and many miles later that car, which might have sold for $10k without hail damage, will now sell for only $7k.
You got a discount of $10k and only gave a discount of $3k. You're $7k up.
> If I buy something that is normally worth X, but it is damaged and is now worth 0.3X and there I pay 0.3X I did not save 0.7X off what I got... I got something worth what I paid.
You are conflating `value in market` and `value of utility`. Whatever you are paying for a product, you pay that only because the value you get from the that product is greater than the amount of money you are paying.
Hail damage does not reduce the utility value of a car by even a single cent. It will transport your cargo and passengers exactly the same and with exactly the same levels of safety, comfort and reliability that its non-hail-damaged counterpart would.
The utility of a hail-damaged car is exactly the same as the utility of its undamaged counterpart. The difference in price between a hail damaged car and its undamaged counterpart is the exact monetary value placed by the market on "how pretty is it?"
Yes, but you also paid half the cost to acquire the car. You're just paying less in depreciation for the time you use it.
My last car got minor hail damage across many panels, it was a difficult PDR for some reason - when I traded it in it was worth 1/4 what KBB would have been for a similar year and mileage without dents
Even trying to sell it myself for around 1/3 KBB "good" value took 2 months because the next buyer can't get financing on a car worth very little, so you have to find a cash buyer who doesn't care how their new ride looks. It's rare for anything other than $2,500 cars
> next buyer can't get financing on a car worth very little, so you have to find a cash buyer who doesn't care how their new ride looks.
The idea is to be the next buyer who is paying very little because of the hail damage.
People are rarely this pragmatic but I agree! Slightly beat up cars for the win!
It depends. It doesn’t make sense to not get a car you can afford for 0% interest. I could have outright paid for my current vehicle but over the 3 years at 0% interest I earn 6% to make a few thousand over the lifetime of the loan.
> It doesn’t make sense to not get a car you can afford for 0% interest.
The loan might be 0% interest, but you're still using that loan to pay way too much money for a depreciating asset.
I assume the comment you quoted means “a car you could afford to pay cash for, but will instead invent the total cost while making payments on the 0% interest loan.”
I think the problem here is "you can afford" vs "you can pay for"
if you're willing to spend the time and effort doing interest rate arbitrage for a few hundred dollars, maybe you can pay for a certain car, but i'm really not sure you should be
It’s more than a few hundred. On my current vehicle- $60k, 0% interest for 72 months I make $10,000 over the lifetime of the loan at 6%.
This is exactly true. Dealership profit centers are loan origination and extended warranty origination. Parts/Service is designed to pay the bills. (Source: My dad has been selling new cars for 40+ years)
(This is kinda like the Costco model where they aim to break even on all sales with profit only being the membership fees).
Could this be stated as perverse incentives as a result of attempts to differentiate from cookie-cutter-identical competitors?
Whereby the profit shifts from the product itself to the differentiating value-add.
proud owner of a financed 2024 manual nissan versa here :) but yeah the dealership made almost no money and I put down a deposit when it was a couple months from coming in at a location far from where I live. it's a $20k car though.
There was a finance charge on your loan that was probably around $1k so that's 5% the dealer made right there instantly for no work
One fact not mentioned in the article - Americans now owe $1.64 trillion in auto loans, and cars make up 9% of all consumer debt in the country. In fact we now owe more on cars than student loans. The average loan term is rising - almost 6 years now. 60-day delinquency on auto loans is at 6.6%, the highest ever recorded, and is as high as 9% in some states.
So while car prices keep going up, people also keep going deeper into debt to buy one they can't afford.
You can blame manufacturers or banks, but ultimately the problem is unchecked consumerism and treating cars as a status symbol, which is sadly pervasive in this country.
> problem is unchecked consumerism
Problem is if the US consumer had the “moral awakening” you propose (and to be clear you are claiming that basically we are in this situation due to the weak moral character of the average American) then coincidentally our entire economy would begin to crumble. It’s not just car loans, our entire economy works because of debt, and has for at least the last 20 years. The idea that nearly every one benefits financially from this behavior and yet we see this behavior at scale solely and coincidentally because of a sudden mass moral failing is a bit hard to believe.
Well said, but I would add that it seems reasonable if we take debt too far, it will indeed crumble.
I'm not sure we didn't pass that point before the pandemic, and decision-making since has not helped.
When, as the article says, the $25k car is going extinct, I do blame manufacturers and banks (and the dealerships).
Almost all cars have turbos, all have abs/airbags/cameras... even counting the seat foam & covers, wheels, door cars... how cheap do you think a vehicle safe and comfortable for humans can be?
The average car has tons of moving parts that have to be weatherproof, shakeproof, pothole-ready... stuff consumer tech doesn't dream of. It also has to be repairable, be engineered to meet all the regulations in various countries so the manufacturer doesn't make 15 versions for different countries...
A lot of things are overpriced in the world; I'm not sure cars in general are high on this list. If you want a car similar to a high end 2015 car, the 2025 Jetta has more than anything you could have gotten in 2015 and I'd say with inflation the price is lower today when you account for inflation.
I had a Jetta as a service loaner recently and it drove great. $25k cars are still out there, you just can't get a $25k 4Runner.
Almost all cars have turbos since that's about the only way to get similar performance out a sub-1L three-cylinder engine that you could get from a cheap, naturally aspirated 1.6L iron block back in the 90's. Emission and safety standards are nice, but the customer pays for it.
> cheap, naturally aspirated 1.6L iron block back in the 90's
VW sold the 2.0L naturally aspirated engine that made about 115 horsies and got a whopping low-30s mpg on the highway until 2015 in the base model US Jetta.
The same engine I had in my 1993 Jetta. Legitimately available since the 70s.
Thank goodness regulations forced that engine off the market. The only upside was it had decent torque... it wasn't even reliable after all those years!
Exactly. Same reason Europe hung onto manuals so long. Only way to make that kind of car drive good in a pre-turbo and direct injection era was to give the user the option to wind it out and shift when they pleased.
The thing you're missing here is that the automakers have spent billions upon untold billions of dollars lobbying politicians and on PR campaigns targeted at the public to convince people that literally the ONLY way American cities could possibly exist is in a form that is utterly dependent upon the automobile.
Transit ridership in the US was higher in the 1950s than it is today and it was the automakers that killed public transit. They literally bought up popular and profitable public transit companies just to shut them down so people would be forced to drive.
The problem isn't "Consumerism" it's a culture of car dependency that's largely the result of intentional action on the part of the automakers to grow and protect their profits.
The reason there's so much auto loan debt in the US is people literally HAVE TO OWN a car just to get to work to support their families in the vast majority of US towns and cities. People don't want to go into debt just so they can buy some shitty fucking KIA so they can sit in traffic for two+ hours a day so they can get to one of their three minimum wage jobs, but when the alternative is being unemployed and homeless, a lot of folks will do what they have to do to provide for themselves and their families.
Occasionally see pizza delivery signs atop super duty trucks where I live.
In the rural midwest, it's extremely common to see dumpy trailers with one or two 75k new super duties parked outside.
I don't get it at all, and thought "well, maybe they didn't have a choice and needed it for work?" before realizing any old used truck would probably work as well(if not better).
I have to say it's a status symbol, a weird one at that. I'm more in awe of rat rods and fixed up old trucks than brand new ones, YMMV I guess.
There's a rural mindset some have that looks outside at the world not inside at the house.
A dumpy trailer where you sleep is fine as long as you have .. a good horse, freedom to roam, a powerful truck to tow horses, .. etc.
eg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHJFfSmnCnY prefer the sky and land to a good house in the city.
Sure, status is a factor. But for people who do a lot of driving, having a nice car really benefits their quality of life. No one wants to spend hours every day in a miserable little penalty box.
This is very subjective. The cars people today call a "little penalty box" are easily equivalent or better to many of the luxury cars of the 1990s. Bluetooth, AC, ABS, backup camera. There's almost nothing that isn't required / standard. Plus they tend to be the efficient 35+ mpg cars.
Plenty of tech, but are the seats as comfortable?
Again subjective, and varies by model.
I can't speak for every car. I test drove a Civic and did not find it comfortable (way back in ~2007) and that was mostly due to my own dimensions, but I found the 2007/2008 Honda Fit seats great, as well as the 2014 Mazda 3 I had owned.
As comfortable as an $80K car? In some cases, no, but often more comfortable than the luxury cars of a few decades ago. Hardly a penalty box!
I disagree relatively wholeheartedly. Beyond some absolute basic comforts (that I would argue have been well catered to in the last 25-odd years), it's mindset. Unfortunately mindset has a fair percentage of 'status' wrapped up in it.
Price of vehicle seems to have little bearing on the comfort of driving anymore, other than if you're tall and being shoved into something small like a Yaris (although at 6'4" my Saturn S-series wasn't bad at all). Cars seem to keep getting more aggravating to sit in, not less, and doubly so for "premium" stuff people like to buy. Manufacturers keep jamming what feel like racing seats into everything (everything has to have "racing" parts) and other things that make no sense at all for the task at hand, like enormous wheels with rubber band tires. It was way easier and more comfortable to log huge miles on older stuff like 90s and early 00's Chevy trucks (even the S10s) or a regular old Impala or Saturn as they were way, way more comfortable and not a persistent bloated irritation to drive.
Cars must be the textbook case of Stockholm syndrome. People keep buying Audi/BMW/Mercedes and European cars in general for god knows what reason (even though when they inevitably need service, it is always an expensive nightmare, among other big problems), they buy stuff that is functionally useless and stupid looking like CUVs (many of which which have less interior room than a Camry, burn more fuel and still ride and drive like ass), and have caused the market for full size body on frame trucks to turn completely on its head (hard to find anything other than pavement queen king ranch doodoo trucks that will cost you at least your first born son). This whole "it's shit if I don't pay a huge premium, and it's shit if it's not huge and loaded to the gills with useless shit you're never actually going to miss or use but will cost a small country's GDP to even flash to pair up when you need to R&R" is something that's probably one of life's great mysteries to me.
As if the car was ever only a utilitarian commodity at any point in its history. The car has always been a status symbol.
I don't know why inflation is dismissed so quickly. The article lists the industry average price increase as 29.2% and the inflation value I got out of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics calculator[1] was 26.2%. So sure, "this isn’t just a case of inflation affecting the entire vehicle market" [emphasis mine], but it is mostly that.
[1] - https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
Retail inflation is based on the prices of goods, including new cars.
So it's pointless to compare car prices to inflation because they are part of the basis of the measure. Hence why they track closely.
Saying you can't compare car prices to inflation because cars are in the CPI... We're really doing this?
New cars make up about 4% of the CPI, and used cars around 3%, so together they’re only a small part of the inflation basket. If new car prices doubled tomorrow and nothing else changed, headline inflation would rise by about 4%, but car prices would have increased 92% relative to inflation.
Inflation measures the decline in the value of money over time. If car prices rise significantly more or less than that decline can explain, that’s meaningful. If they don't... that's not.
Then it’s pointless to compare nearly anything to inflation, which means inflation isn’t very useful. You can still find many product categories increasing in price more slowly than inflation. Some much higher than inflation. So it is useful to compare inflation
But the question we're asking is why the price of cars went up. "Inflation" isn't an answer. Inflation is what we call the price of cars going up. It still happens for a reason...
If the cars prices simply follow inflation, then there is no point in writing an article about why car prices in particular have gone up. Just write about inflation in general.
Energy costs going up, raw materials costs going up, employees asking for raises because of the higher cost of living... And you have an explanation not just for cars but all industries.
No. Inflation is what we call the value of money going down. As evidenced by needing to part with more of it in exchange for a standard basket goods.
It is fundamentally different to ask whether cars cost more because money is worth less, or whether cars cost more because we are making them less efficiently.
The ancestor comment points out that most of the change can be attributed to the former and as cars are only a small percentage of the inflation basket then it is reasonable to conclude that this is indeed the prime reason for the price rise.
The fundamentals of civilization would be a lot clearer if we measured the value of things in energy instead of a floating currency.
Or, to put it another way, going by the thread ancestor we expect the price of cars to have risen around 26.2% due to currency devaluation. If the price of cars has risen 29.2% it is more or less pointless to look at the car industry for an explanation. The price has risen by roughly what we'd expect if they were doing what they've been doing with no real changes.
Inflation is a result of too much money being created than what is needed by the growth of the economy. Average price increase that we use to estimate it is just a useful proxy.
Inflation is always the main contribution to price increase. It only makes sense to compare price raise above or below inflation if you want to unearth factors specific to any given product or industry.
I've never found that econ 101 logic credible. Even if money supply is ultimate the reason for prices going up, there's an intermediate step where somebody actually set a higher price. And there was a cause for their thinking. Not just "well there's more money going around so we can charge more " or "our parts and labor cost more so we've got to bump prices", but a synthesis of all that that decides the price to set, the types of cars to make, whether to sell and market a 'discount' model, etc.
So even though inflation may feed into that stuff, there's plenty of causality to inspect. Why aren't there cheaper cars? Not because there's more money, but because nobody decided to make and sell a cheaper car. That's the stuff that we should be asking about. Not waving our hands and saying 'sucks, inflation'. The inflation happens at the speed it does because of things like this.
The reason may well be: who would sell a car, or a car part, or their labor, for less when there's so much money going around? But we can still ask plenty of questions about that. Cause I'm pretty damn sure the labor isn't raking in the difference at a rate matching inflation. And it sure seems like there's plenty of room to compete on price, so if no one's doing that effectively, why not?
> there's an intermediate step where somebody actually set a higher price
Yes. But the most common reason for setting up higher price is because you can, because there's more money flowing in the economy than it should be. Going into details is in the grand scheme of things about as useful as rearranging chairs on the Titanic.
> Why aren't there cheaper cars? Not because there's more money, but because nobody decided to make and sell a cheaper car. That's the stuff that we should be asking about.
Yes. But we should be asking why cars are 3% more expensive, because their prices rose by 29% while the inflation is "only" 26% (don't remember exact numbers), not why car prices rose 29%. If you don't deduct inflation you are interested in wrong things because large numbers make you think there's a drastic reason.
Does 3% even deserve and explanation? Isn't it fully explained by toxic advertising making consumer want heavier car year after year, that naturally cost more?
Inflation is completely possible with no change in money supply. This is handled in economics with the idea of the "velocity of money" which conceptually captures the large range of factors by which prices can increase due to factors beyond money supply, for example an energy price shock or changing consumer and business expectations that result in changes in spending and investment patterns.
> Inflation is completely possible with no change in money supply.
Money supply always changes. But yes, inflation is possible without changing money supply, if for example economy shrinks or there's some process that reactivated dormant capital that people had just sitting around and not being used by the economy.
In the end it's always the same thing. More money than it should be. It's just that "should be" is very complex and "more money" only a little bit simpler.
In theory, sure. But in practice the money supply has nearly quadrupled since 2005.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/m2.asp
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL
$1 in Jan 2005 is only 1.69 today, not $4 because the velocity of money has decreased dramatically as it has pooled towards the top of the income/wealth spectrum where it doesn't get spent or productively invested.
Bulk of it is that, but some of it is that larger economy needs more money to run. So while there was 4 food money supply increase the legitimate demand also increased somewhat. Exact numbers might be hard to pinpoint because we tend to measure economy in dollars but still it wouldn't be $4 even if the rich didn't get disproportionately wealthy from this supply.
Except that inflation isn't just the price of cars. The fact that car prices have gone up faster than "overall" inflation is significant.
cars inflating faster than overall/average inflation of the economy is significant.
I suspect the reason is that a car's parts are numerous, and because specific inflation affects different components, there's a good chance that a car's component has more inflation than other products in the economy.
And because inflation has an expectation driven aspect, suppliers that know inflation is happening is going to raise their prices more to combat it pre-emtively. This happens throughout the entire supply chain.
Thus, the end result is that a car's inflationary pressure is higher.
But that's just a theory - an inflation theory...
This can quickly turn into a philosophical debate rather than an economic one. Which value went up first, the chicken or the egg?
Personally, I think the way it makes the most sense is thinking of inflation as the change in the value of money rather than the change in the cost of goods, in large part because costs rise for non-goods too. For example, my employer pays me more today than they did in 2019 despite my employer not selling any goods or buying many goods outside of laptops for their employees and they obviously don't care about my personal expenses when determining annual raises.
For affordability the real question is median or mode wage inflation or deflation.
> So it's pointless to compare car prices to inflation because they are part of the basis of the measure. Hence why they track closely.
What? So how do you use the CPI? To measure things no one ever buys?
Last year we bought a car.
While not being a petrol head I was still living in a lala land where you could buy a brand new car for 10k EUR. Nothing fancy, just "a car". Obviously it turned out to be not true.
After some digging it turned out that in the last 10 years the price of cars went double. Literally double. Same car, like Fiat Panda, with the same engine and configuration, that ten years was worth one potato is now worth exactly two potato.
Long story short, the entry level car now costs close to 25k EUR. [1]
But here's the kicker.
While subvenstions seem to fail in most cases for regular people - like gvt giving people money to buy apartements equals to apartments being equally more expensive - it seems to work wonders for automotive thanks to Chinese.
EU offers up to 10k EUR subvention for electric cars and with that in mind you can get something like BYD Dolphin for slighly less than 20k EUR. Which is mind blowing. The car is comparable to Volvo XC40. Of course this is just an example and there is plentiful of other options.
[1] If you're not familiar or comfortable with EUR just think 1 EUR is 1 USD and you'll be fine.
> Long story short, the entry level car now costs close to 25k EUR. [1]
Just this February I bought brand new 2024 Clio for ~17k EUR, gas+LPG. At least until July it was super easy to get even better deals on small/compact cars with ICE engine. Hybrid engines are closer to 25k EUR.
> EU offers up to 10k EUR subvention for electric cars and with that in mind you can get something like BYD Dolphin for slighly less than 20k EUR. Which is mind blowing.
BYD Dolphin? MSRP for that car where I am is at 2.99m JPY(17k EUR, 20k USD). You guys are getting screwed.
Higher transport costs, plus very large tariffs on Chinese electric cars. The EU believes (quite accurately), that there wouldn't be much of a EV industry if they let the real prices stand on their own. So there's the big tariff, and a rebate that blanks it, but also subsidizes the EU competitor.
The UK discontinued EV direct subsidy, and the Dolphin is still only £17k. Chinese economics is just built different. I am extremely tempted to try one.
>After some digging it turned out that in the last 10 years the price of cars went double. Literally double. Same car, like Fiat Panda, with the same engine and configuration, that ten years was worth one potato is now worth exactly two potato.
You communicated the concept perfectly. Anyone holding onto a pile of say 10k cash in 2015 have exactly 5k cash value in 2025. But here's a hidden kicker. Storing any functional vehicle in cheap storage is turning out to be a sold form of investing.
>EU offers up to 10k EUR subvention for electric cars and with that in mind you can get something like BYD Dolphin for slighly less than 20k EUR.
"The EU" does not offer subsidies for any car, some member states do (And I have never heard of a subsidy of 10k per car). On the contrary, Chinese cars are strongly tariffed by the EU.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, however, until someone provides a link, I label this post "hyperbullshit".
Chinese EVs are certainly strongly tariffed. The below Reuters article highlights how BYD are apparently shifting to plug-in hybrid sales to avoid the 27% tariff the EU imposes on its pure battery electric vehicles (plug-in hybrids attract a reduced 10% tariff).
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/chines...
It's just a comment generated by some trash AI
Yeah. It was only just pre covid, 2019 you could get a new panda for ~10k eur. I think a lot is the push to go electric.
Governments want manufacturers to sell like 25%+ electric cars and customer won't buy so many if they can get a 10k petrol instead.
I'd never seen the word "subvention" before. Today I learned it's another way to say "subsidy".
It's a europeanism. In both French and German (and probably other EU languages) the word for "subsidy" is something like "subvention" so native speakers of these language often reach for an unnatural word in English.
Btw other examples include "actually" which is used to mean "currently", and "eventually" which is used to mean "maybe".
Personally I'm torn whether to consider this incorrect use of the language as it is quite widespread. Maybe it would be better to consider this as the emergence of a new dialect.
You are correct.
I actually double checked the word "subvention" on google to see if I'm not misspelling it and the results said I was correct. But yes, I used that word because it was direct translation from my language.
Other examples you gave are also correct.
Engrish is hard.
EDIT: as a kicker I will add that while working for BigCo I was resposible for taking care of colleages coming from abroad and the very first thing I was telling them after saying "hello" was "do not ever ask anyone how are you". ;)
One thing that throws me off even after a decade in Finland is people saying “we are ready” or “you are ready” when they mean “done”.
Dinner is ready when it is done. I'm sure there are others in English as well.
Yeah, a thing can be ready to be used/eaten/etc. What confuses me sometimes is, for example, a doctor writing some notes on their computer and then saying to me "now you are ready", meaning that we're done and I can go.
In that context, my response would be "ready for what?"
Dinner being ready, my car being ready (at a mechanic), things like that have proper context that being ready means being done.
I'm an English as single language pleb though
"Eventually" is the worst false friend I think. Because in english it implies certainty while in latin languages it only implies possibility. But since the meanings are so close, it looks legit in context 90% of the time.
"Actually" does look out of place when used in english with the latin meaning so it's safer.
It's probably a new dialect if speakers of it understand each other, and also understand when usages of their dialect are wrong.
European flavored English has existed for a while though since the existence of the EU as an institution has required a lot of English learning and writing as one of its official languages.
English being just one of the official EU languages would not have mattered much. No one is picking up Portuguese or Polish, even though they are also official languages and have been for a long time.
The important fact is that English is the lingua franca of both trade and administration in the EU. People sometimes still learn some French and German, but the vast majority of international EU discussions are in English, both in the EU bureaucracy and in business circles.
> the word for "subsidy" is something like "subvention" so native speakers of these language often reach for an unnatural word in English.
A Google search for subvention turns up government publications from UK, India and South Africa.
Yeah it's a real word but it's not commonly used by native speakers.
Some already consider this a new dialect. It's called Euro English[1]. There are some more examples in that wikipedia article. Not just synonyms, but grammar as well.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_English
Interestingly, it has kind of spread into standard Irish English now, as well. Used very frequently when talking about government subsidies.
Yep it’s “subvención” in Spanish.
oh, and to add to your vocabulary - the word pathetic, especially around Elbonia, can be used with the intention of saying something is full of "pathos".
Are we just lying for fun now?
No it's only HNers and their lack of humour. It's a joke and the hint is "Elbonia".
I'm really sorry, engrish is really hard
here's a list of words that will help you communicate better with Elbonians:
A used Renault Twingo II with AC cost around 5k€ if you want "just a car"
I was talking about a brand new car at the dealership.
A used car is completely different can of worms.
On the other hand you could have bought a mint condition E30 late model for $10k euro.
Yes, but repair costs haven't gone down and the E30 will need maintenance and repair at $10k euro. Time without a car or an unreliable car also doesn't work for most working people these days.
Have a car that's effectively uninsurable and then spend months sourcing parts that are not chinesium whenever something breaks? For the same 10k you can get F30 which is not even in the same league as a daily people mover and is actually repairable.
I pay $130 a month to insure my E30. All OEM parts are 98% available and you can do tons of repairs yourself if you're so inclined, it's the Thinkpad of cars. I've run my E30 with raised suspension and some hardcore winter tires and I got through some insanely tough northern winters no problem. I get all my parts via FCPEuro. Here [0] you can see all parts in the car in a 3D way along with prices. Also has a Bentley service manual making maintenance a breeze. Brilliant car/community. Also gets 7.0L/100KM 40 years later.
[0] https://www.realoem.com/bmw/enUS/partgrp?id=1113-USA-04-1991...
A car without isofix, adaptive cruise and worse crash safety.
Completely unmentioned: Chinese EVs are $10k worldwide except USA.
https://gmauthority.com/blog/2024/08/2025-byd-seagull-ev-sta...
First of all, that statement is entirely untrue. These cars aren‘t 10k in most (all?) of the EU for example. As far as I know, these 10k cars are really only a thing in china and some SEA markets (I am not sure if these cars are really that cheap adjusted to purchasing power in these markets).
Beyond that, the chinese EV brands are in market capture mode right now. The competition is cut throat and the margins are extremely thin.
It‘s a market skimming strategy that will presumably be a last man standing scenario. If the winner(s) are decided, prices will definitely not remain as low as they are right now in some places.
> Beyond that, the chinese EV brands are in market capture mode right now. The competition is cut throat and the margins are extremely thin.
BYD is profitable. Admittedly that's more of an exception than a rule for Chinese EV brands, but BYD is also the most important.
> It‘s a market skimming strategy that will presumably be a last man standing scenario. If the winner(s) are decided, prices will definitely not remain as low as they are right now in some places.
Even if most of the brands disappear we're very unlikely to get to an n=1 monopoly scenario. Even a couple dozen or so companies competing in the EV space should prevent margins from getting too high.
In the olden days the ICE industry was at times run by fewer than 10 companies per country, that was enough competition to prevent consumers getting too screwed by pricing.
> BYD is profitable.
Yes but also heavily indebted:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-01-19/byd-s-sup...
American expat living in Thailand reporting in. I think the cheapest car in Thailand is the 2025 Suzuki Celerio which is a 5 seater hatchback. At the current exchange rate it's $9,800 brand new. Of course this figure is not adjusted for purchasing power (so what?). We have BYDs here and I haven't really looked at them but pretty sure a few are under $25K.
If Americans can't get a new car for under $25,000 but Southeast Asia can get them for under $10K, something is wrong. If the entry level car is 2.5x more expensive in America it means Americans are getting fleeced. I haven't lived in America for a long time and I feel like this makes it very obvious to me when the BS machine over there is in full spew. Free markets drive consumer prices down to the cost of production.
I don't know the auto industry in detail but it is an extensively documented fact that America has few free markets left, and they've been replaced by cartels - each industry has a couple of crooks at the top who rotate between private and public jobs. On the public side they come up with excuses to not enforce the anti-trust laws that are on the books, and they add regulations that raise the cost of business. On the private side they come up with ways to improve margins which usually involve fucking consumers.
Let's not make excuses for the criminals. America needs free markets and cheaper cars. Elite lawlessness is the cause of increased costs in America.
> If Americans can't get a new car for under $25,000 but Southeast Asia can get them for under $10K, something is wrong.
If they were perfectly interchangeable, sure. But if nothing else, lets look at safety and emissions regulations -- different regulatory regimes will absolutely put different requirements onto the build and components. Not an expert in automotive regulation in SEA vs. US, but I'd buy this argument more if the comparison was between, say, Europe and the US.
There's also likely a bunch of soft cost differences -- dealership dynamics, etc. that add a fair amount to the sticker price, and those probably do have some merit to your case.
Not just SE Asia: In Europe I can go buy a Dacia Sandero for 14k€ right now (about $16500) and that includes 23% VAT.
There are market dynamics here as well, Americans don’t want to buy a car like the Celerio, most brands have equivalent cars selling in developing countries and Europe but they don’t bring them here because Americans mostly want to buy SUVs.
Except Americans are not offered a $10k new car, so it's impossible to know they won't buy them.
You could get a Mirage on discount at many dealer's lots for 10k just a few years ago, they weren't hot sellers. They were selling at 4% of the volume of the Camry. Drive one and it's immediately obvious why Americans weren't buying them.
Few years ago? Okay, few is 2 or 3 years. I see MSRP for a base model of Mirage in 2023 was $16,245... 2022 was $14,625? When I was buying a car in that time period, there were no discounts below MSRP anywhere I looked for almost anything. Especially anything cheap. I've read a lot of reports of big mark ups for even Mirage's during that time period.
COVID wasn't a good time to buy anything. Companies go where the profits are, if americans were buying tons of smaller cars instead of large trucks and suvs, the companies would be building that.
All Asian/European carmakers have tons of options available everywhere else they could bring here but they don't cos people just don't buy them. Even sedans are harder to sell today, the US is its own cosmos and trying to coerce it into "small family car" when all the ads are about being a rugged f150 driver is very hard.
Look at how people talk about minivans here, all about "the emasculation of men". It would require a lot of leadership to change the market perspective on these cars or americans getting very poor for it to work. It is also incredibly convenient, I myself drive a large SUV that's larger than the average WW2 tank and its insanely convenient to have that much space for a family of 6.
If American car manufacturers think no one will buy them anyway, I think we should let in all the cheap EVs that are available and see how it plays out then. Can't be worse off.
What do you mean, "let them in"?
Up until 2024 there were no restrictions on cheap Chinese EVs that didn't apply to any other car. The cheap ~$10k Chinese EVs simply don't meet US safety standards.
There have been Chinese-built EVs sold in the US: https://www.polestar-forum.com/attachments/1000009812-jpg.27...
There has been constant political discourse in the U.S. about keeping cheap Chinese EVs out of the United States (yes, I know Polestar and Volvo are owned by Chinese corporations, they are older and at higher price point). You may have missed this in the last couple years if you're not from the US, but it would be hard to miss if you're from here.
I didn't miss it, which is exactly why I specified "up until 2024" which was when policies regarding Chinese EVs changed.
Further up this thread the discussion was about Asian market cars that are still sub $10k. There are both gasoline and EV vehicles that exist in this price range, but they are very different than the types of cars sold in the US market. They're more similar to off-road low-speed utility vehicles (and some are literally sold for this purpose in the US).
If you look at the western markets where there are Chinese EVs, higher safety standards, and higher buyer expectations, you'll see that they're very closely priced.
e.g.:
https://www.byd.com/uk/order-sealion-7
https://www.tesla.com/en_gb/modely/design#overview
The idea that other countries have equivalent cars that are cheaper just doesn't hold water. Asia has cars that are cheaper because you get less car.
As another example here, the cheapest BYD sold in the UK is the Dolphin Surf starting at $25,614 (18,650 GBP). Even if it doesn't require any changes to meet US regulations (which many cars do), I don't think many Americans are going to run out to buy what is considered a microcar here, just to save $2500 over a Leaf, that Americans already don't buy. It certainly isn't going to compete with the Corolla or Corolla Hybrid which starts at $22,325/$23,825 respectively.
https://www.byd.com/uk/configurator/dolphin-surf
the cost to produce SUV is not significantly higher than sedan, but prices and margins are higher.
so the American customer is getting fleeced on SUVs much worse than on sedan, because SUV margins are higher (and thats why OEMs are switching to SUVs)
Can you name one example of a consumer product that China initially sold affordably to gain market share and then later raised prices?
It would be easier to mention the inverse, I'd imagine.
One recent category I just had to buy a new one: Robot Vacuums
The Seagull (aka "Dolphin Surf" in other countries) seems to cost 18560 GBP in the UK, or 11.780€ in Spain. Haven't checked out other countries, but clearly "Chinese EVs (BYD Seagull/Dolphin Surf/Dolphin Mini) are $10k worldwide except USA" isn't 100% correct.
Seems fine to leave something like that unmentioned, as a quick check reveals it not to be true at all.
Is there a typo in your message? I see €18,780 in Spain.
Ah, no, I just went to the homepage of BYD, clicked on Dolphin Surf and seems it sent me to a promotion page (https://www.byd.com/es-es/promociones/dolphin-surf-promocion) where the price is listed as 11.780€.
The footer mentions the PVP (recommended pricing) is 11.780€, which is after the government MOVES III rebate which removes 7K, which would explain the difference.
but I'm guessing those are post tax prices .. While in the US prices are pre-tax
So if you saw the pretax figures it'd probably be true
> So if you saw the pretax figures it'd probably be true
But why would I look at the pretax figures? Who would look at that, unless you're doing a business purchase? It basically has no meaning for the average person since they'll never buy anything without the taxes anyways.
Because the title of the article is stated in pretax figures....
Apples to Oranges
You might as well add in the lifetime maintenance costs while you're at it (would be very useful to know technically ... Maybe BYD makes it up on repairs or something)
> Because the title of the article is stated in pretax figures....
How do you know that? Neither the submission article (hubspot) or the article referenced by the parent comment (gmauthority) mentions anything about the figures being pretax or posttax, why would they default to talking a price no one else would use?
> You might as well add in the lifetime maintenance costs while you're at it
If that's something you have to pay up front to get the car, then yeah, add it to whatever figures you reference. But I don't think that's how it works normally, so how is that the same thing at all?
Because US post tax figures vary by state so you can’t list a single number.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/car-sales-t...
The submission says MSRP, which doesn't include tax, financing, title, or registration in the US.
Americans paid $25k for $18k sticker price vehicles a decade ago. Now they're paying $32k for $25k vehicles. People I talk to who have new cars say their payments are from $500-800/mo, often for longer than 60 months.
If my 20 year old Toyota ever quits, I'll probably build what amounts to a street legal go-kart and invest in another, larger cooler and freezer.
Americans have complex post tax rules. I think their normal is a pre-tax figure. Also, it helps if you are comparing across territories I guess.
Because sales tax in the US varies wildly by locality: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Sales_ta...
Some places that is the price of the car.
I remember as a kid my parents making the decision on where to buy big ticket purchases based on tax rates. The local big city had a higher sales tax rate that the smaller big city further from us. I don't know when that no longer was true as the tax rate seems to be flat across the state now.
Others are sharing the sales tax rates by state, which is not the same as the auto sales tax rate by state, which is typically lower. Notably, there are a few states with no auto sales tax.
People have been known to cross state lines to purchase cars, to save a few hundred dollars on the purchase. In any case, a $10k vehicle is not going to cost over $11k post-tax in any state.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/car-sales-t...
I've bought cars across state lines at least a half-dozen times, but the tax is always assessed at registration in the locality where I live.
That's how people in the USA typically talk about prices, and it is what all displayed prices in the USA (from food on the menu to car prices) represent. Since the article is talking about US car prices, it's the only relevant thing to compare.
Otherwise, feel free to adjust $10k -> $12.5k or whatever the VAT is in your region.
Completely untrue. Maybe in China or SEA but not for the rest of the world.
Chinese manufacturers have come a long way and I wish I could buy one in the US but they are also pricing at razor thin margins to starve out competition.
Even in Vietnam the Dolphin is $25k
That's just competition doing its job. The rate of profit, just like every other price, is supposed to fall to the minimum sustsinable level in capitalism.
Nobody was debating whether that was right or wrong simply that any cheap prices are a short term anomaly and not sustainable for those businesses.
The fact still stands, very rarely are Chinese EVs priced like that and it’s really only for the bare bones budget ones that barely meet local safety standards. I think about VF in Vietnam they have a 2 door 4 seater that’s $12k. Only a single airbag and I doubt any real modern crash standards built in. Works great for that market but not for the US.
But it’s well below the minimum sustainable level due to Chinese government subsidies.
And that's a bad thing?
A country's government sees an opportunity to invest into a promising new technology that could reap tremendous economic benefits. Such benefits include new jobs, new income, the ability to increase social/political capital worldwide, and help usher in a world that is that much less reliant on oil.
That's what countries in the first world are supposed to do.
When we say Chinese government subsides, we are not talking about tax reductions or interest free business loans, we are talking about the Chinese government itself operating the business and selling the products at a steep loss in order to undercut and wipe out incumbent global competition in the world market so that China becomes the primary worldwide supplier of those particular goods.
This has already happened to consumer electronics, power tools, manufacturing equipment, solar panels, and batteries.
The strategy is especially effective on products with a high startup cost in markets that have to deal with high amounts of regulation and labor unions because being government-owned means you get to skip all that. There's no reason to expect that cars won't be next.
> When we say Chinese government subsides, we are not talking about tax reductions or interest free business loans, we are talking about the Chinese government itself operating the business and selling the products at a steep loss in order to undercut and wipe out incumbent global competition in the world market so that China becomes the primary worldwide supplier of those particular goods.
Where did you get that information? There were previous investigations by the EU Commission about Chinese government subsides, and "tax reductions or interest-free business loans" were the main allegations.
We've done similar things when it comes to military and military-adjacent technology.
If a government believes in the potential and promise of a given technology and wants to dominate in that sector, it should be allowed to. That's the premise of worldwide capitalism and markets. Capital is allocated to where the owners of said capital wish to allocate it to, and that's the free market at work.
Is it an unfair advantage? Define "fair".
Well, it’s a bad thing for countries whose economies include manufacturing and aren’t China, sure. The obvious threat is that they will do what they did with manufacturing capacity and just kill the industry in other places.
Do we want to get to a point where every industry is completely run by whichever country is willing to throw the most money at it?
How is that different from funding US companies with VC money fueled by a propped-up market, driven by printing $2 trillion in debt a year and benefiting from being the world's reserve currency (USD recycling on the stock market etc)? The end game seems to be the same.
>Do we want to get to a point where every industry is completely run by whichever country is willing to throw the most money at it?
The whole point of specialization of industry is that yes, we absolutely should be OK with that. If that's where China wants to specialize and deploy resources, let them.
Yeah, that’s the sort of thinking that gutted in the middle class in the western world over the last 40 years. And it also presupposes that once they succeed, they won’t then stop it, let prices increase, and move onto the next one until they own it all.
And we've been completely okay with that, as long as it's not the Chinese government doing it. Jeffrey can do it, Elon can do it, Warren can do it, George/Barack/Donald/Joseph/Donald can do it, but woe betide us if Xi does it!
I'm not saying it's a good or a bad thing, and I completely understand the long-term ramifications. I've quite literally done biz with the CCP.
However, we've chased cost-cutting measure after cost-cutting measure in order to please the shareholder class at the expense of the working class, and this is the result. We shouldn't be surprised.
No, you asked if it was a bad thing and I explained why yes, it is very much a bad thing for some people. Allowing it to continue will cost a lot of people good jobs here.
China historically does it in a way where they orchestrate cartel like behavior and will dump inventory on the market at low prices to kill off international competition. Some of it is altruistic but not all of it.
That's the geopolitical advantage of being the world's manufacturing hub.
Foresight is required when dealing with such entities, not hindsight.
If my electric car comes in at 1/4th the price of an American built one, so be it. The tradeoff here is that in countries that aren't engulfed by rent-seeking capitalists who only answer to themselves, countries like China have a policy goal and will make sure the state utilizes the private sector to meet the goal.
For example, Mr. Musk could easily take some of that $450 billion net worth of his and make his cars considerably cheaper. He has taken enormous subsidies and kept his cars expensive. In China, the state would not let someone with that amount of capital take subsidies, and most certainly wouldn't allow them to bribe the government with the government's money.
Kind of a strange take. I think your thoughts derailed after the first sentence. Advantage? I guess but it’s also cartel like behavior that the rest of the world mostly avoids hence when selective tariffs are often put on China in those areas.
Hardly a strange take IMO.
We've (the west) effectively encouraged this sort of behavior. OUTSOURCE IT ALL TO CHINA! Our corporations and shareholders have most certainly reaped the benefits from this. Our politicians have made a lot of money this way, too. Lots of people have deliberately turned a blind eye to this sort of behavior and didn't think about the long term ramifications of pushing everything to be built in China.
Call it cartel like behavior, fine.
China is merely playing the hand it has been dealt and looking out for itself and the survival of its economy and political apparatus. Trade is one way to do so, another is technological progress.
We've subsidized capitalists taking the risk to develop this tech. China has bypassed the ownership class and gone straight to the manufacturers. Some of those capitalists have enriched themselves when they should have passed those costs off to make their products cheaper to stay competitive - that's the whole point of subsidies. Instead, one of those capitalists chose to instead take the subsidies, keep his cars expensive, and make himself the wealthiest person on earth.
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
You’re not wrong about Western complicity, but let’s not pretend that “playing the hand you’re dealt” means “forming state-guided monopolies and dumping at a loss to wipe out global competitors.” That’s not just survival, that’s industrial warfare with Chinese characteristics.
And yeah, we subsidized Musk, dumb move but the answer isn’t to copy a system where the state decides who wins, loses, and what the price tag is. That’s not market efficiency, it’s command capitalism with a smile.
Don’t hate the game? Buddy, the game is rigged. China just rigged it better.
America has been doing the same thing, but in the Internet tech sector rather than physical manufacturing. Is that bad too?
Wait until you hear about US federal and state automaker subsidies!
Can you provide some information on this, please?
An example is the section 179 tax break for cars over 6000 pounds - the one your roofing contractor used for her F250 or your real estate agent used for his Suburban.
State level tax subsidies.
Federal, things like a the chicken tax which imposes import taxes in categories like small trucks.
Easy top of mind ones.
The former doesn’t exist in any meaningful sense and the latter is not a subsidy, it’s a tariff. It doesn’t make American cars cheaper elsewhere, it makes foreign cars more expensive here.
Other nations aren’t at risk of losing their auto industries domestically because of either.
The former does exist in a meaningful sense unless you want to provide evidence to the contrary? Lots of opinion zero facts.
No evidence was provided for the assertion to begin with, why must the contrary provide evidence but not the base assertion? You provided an opinion with no facts and then criticized me for doing the same.
But the evidence is other countries aren’t complaining that Ohio offering tax credits to get a a Ford plant to go there instead of Pennsylvania is gutting their automotive industry. Which is exactly the issue we’re discussing.
Any such tax credits are simply American states competing against other American states, and have little to no ramification on the overall cost of an automobile, even domestically, let alone globally.
Meanwhile, China is doing loads of very well documented things that would make the automotive industry impossible for anyone outside of China if not for protectionist policies. Many other countries (basically any that make automobiles) are instituting tariffs as a result.
I am the original person already claiming that China plays games. Amazing how threads twist.
Fair enough—China’s not losing sleep over whether Ford picks Ohio or Pennsylvania. But that doesn’t change the fact that state-level tax breaks are still subsidies. Public money influencing private decisions is the definition, whether it’s across borders or state lines.
And just to be clear, I never said they were globally material—you did. I asked for evidence on your claim that they don’t exist in any meaningful sense and leave an equally unbacked claim as you did. Funny how that upsets you so much.
Tariff is lot a subsidy! lol
Tariffs on trucks ensured that there is a substantial number of manufacturers here in the US.
So, can you provide any info on the subsidies?
You’re right, tariffs aren’t subsidies. They just function like one by kneecapping foreign competition so domestic automakers can overcharge with a straight face.
Actual subsidies? -Federal: ATVM loans (e.g., Tesla, Ford), $7.5K EV tax credits.
-State: Georgia gave Rivian $1.5B. Tennessee handed VW ~$500M. Michigan’s tossed cash at GM like it’s confetti.
So yeah, no subsidies at all, just billions in “non-subsidy” market distortion to keep the hometown heroes afloat.
So, can you provide any substance to the conversation?
Untrue. Those same "under $10k" BYD models are ~$20,000USD in Mexico.
They get extra tariffs as well in Europe.
Some western countries allow Chinese evs without extra tariffs (Australia and the UK) but in general larger Chinese cars seem to sell better.
Chinese EVs start at like $300k in my country, which is roughly $44k USD. Local dealers are unbelievably greedy.
They are subsidized by Chinese government like the Toyota in the 70s by the Japanese.
as are US automakers.
Can you provide any info on that? I’m curious.
They actually receive some of the highest subsidies of any companies in the US.
Some examples include:
* Politicians often give automakers often receive state and local tax breaks in exchange for constructing plants in their jurisdictions
* Federal grants and incentives for clean energy initiatives
* The infamous 2008 bailouts, where for example, the US Treasury bought enough GM shares that they became the controlling shareholder, effectively nationalizing the automaker.
BYD Seagull is $14k in Czech Republic.
Electric vehicles eliminated the need for manufacturers to sell (usually small and cheap) efficient ICE cars in the US.
For years, CAFE regulations have meant that manufacturers must meet minimum fleet fuel economy averages or else pay fines. In order to sell more profitable but less fuel-efficient F-150s, Ford also needed to sell little Fiestas or Focuses. In order to sell Suburbans, Chevy also needed to sell Cavaliers or Sonics. But now that Ford can sell Mustang Mach-Es and Chevy can sell Blazer EVs for 50 or 60 grand AND get credit for something like 100 MPG equivalent, there's no longer any incentive for them to spend huge sums developing cheap cars that will net tiny profits (if any).
if you don't believe in market regulations, this is confirming evidence of the distortions of trying to regulate an open market.
If you believe in climate change, this is evidence of how the vested interest behind profit in cars manipulates the intent of the regulations, to continue to get what they want.
It's a bit fish/bicycle, but the point is, we wanted more people to drive smaller, cheaper, less polluting cars. We didn't want the car manufacturers to find ways of maximising sell, including boosting F150 and F250 class truck sales to mummies on the kindy run.
Sounds like something a functional Congress could address after the flaws in the legislation became evident. Then, they keep revising it as manufactures try to do anything but comply. If it costs the manufacturers engineering money to try to circumvent the intent of the regulation, they learn to follow the intent instead. It's not so much an argument against regulation as it is against a dysfunctional Congress. I don't think anyone was rooting for that anyway.
> It's a bit fish/bicycle, but the point is, we wanted more people to drive smaller, cheaper, less polluting cars. We didn't want the car manufacturers to find ways of maximising sell, including boosting F150 and F250 class truck sales to mummies on the kindy run.
Unfortunately, the whole thing wasn't built right for the goal. Setting the mpg bar lower for bigger footprint vehicles is on the one side realistic, but on the other side made it hard to build compliant small vehicles. Small trucks in particular disappeared; some say the market wasn't there, but annual sales of the Ford Ranger were pretty decent in 2005-2010 [1]. 2005 was more than the rest, but there were a couple facelifts, and the Chevy S-10 ended production in 2004, so there was probably some spillover from that. (The 2005-2012 Chevy Colorado isn't significantly bigger than the S-10 though). Post the mid 2010s, small trucks basically don't exist, even when small truck names are used. Supposedly Toyota and Subaru are going to bring one back, but we'll see if it happens.
Some sort of special small car class, with benefits, would be needed. Like the kei cars in Japan. Maybe not that small, and maybe not that small of an engine, but that idea of a smaller than normal footprint, but still highway capable, if only just. There is a federal 'low speed vehicle' thing, but the restriction to streets with speed limits 35 mph or less makes it hard to go anywhere in a lot of places. It's not a reasonable alternative to a regular car for most. There's also some recent push to formalize legal use of kei cars in many US states, but federal import restrictions mean they do have to be fairly old (or have expensive and destructive testing), which further restricts the market.
[1] https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/ford-ranger-sales-figures/
Strange article based on incorrect information. My son and I are buying car and there are so many under 25k. In total there are 12 new models. Adjusted to inflation things did not change a lot in last 20 years (in 2005 there were 10 models less than 15k).
- 2025 Nissan Versa – Starting at $18,330
- 2025 Hyundai Venue – Starting at $21,395
- 2025 Kia Soul – Starting at $20,490
- 2025 Nissan Sentra – Starting at $21,590
- 2025 Nissan Kicks – Starting at $21,830
- 2025 Hyundai Elantra – Starting at $22,125 Ok - 2025 Kia K4 – Starting at $21,990
- 2025 Toyota Corolla – Starting at $22,325
- 2025 Chevrolet Trailblazer – Starting at $23,100
- 2025 Subaru Impreza – Starting at $23,495
- 2025 Buick Envista – Starting at $23,800
- 2025 Toyota Corolla Hybrid – Starting at $23,825
-2025 Mazda 3 (sedan) - Starting at $24,150
-2025 Chevrolet Trax - Starting at $20,500
And a few more:
- Volkswagen Jetta - starting at $22,495
- Volkswagen Taos - starting at $24,995
- Hyundai Kona - staring at $24,550
- Honda Civic - starting at $24,250
The answer is to buy a car off lease, that has 20,000 miles on it and is 20-40% cheaper than the new price. It is nearly identical to a new car and has 90% of its useful life remaining.
I mean that's just not the reality anymore. You could perhaps get 10-15% of the price knocked off here in the US, but 20-40% isn't accurate for anything besides high-volume luxury compact sedans, and even then you're skewing much closer to 20-25% in most regions.
https://www.cars.com/shopping/results/?dealer_id=&include_sh...
Corollas in a High Cost-of-Living Area (HCOLA) that are ~3 years old, and under 30K miles, and all under $20,000. So... 20% or more off MSRP?
(The SE starts above $24k, the LE is a bit cheaper.)
I picked a hard example, but I bet for any car less popular and in demand than a Corolla (and in more normal areas), you can readily find them for 20% off MSRP at the 2-3 year old, 20-30k mark.
Agreed, there are some cars under 25k, however for some of these its difficult to find a dealer with a base model, they all have a bunch of "useless" upgrades that you won't want that inflate the price. I'd be curious if you an actually get an Impreza for under $25k.
I'd guess these starting prices have likely gone up 5%-7%. And that the price to build, has gone down the same amount.
Which raises the bigger issue at hand.
They don't mention the amount of mandatory additions to the car from government regulations. Obviously not the only factor but it's certainly a factor. Cars now have 6 to 8 airbags, backup cameras, more high strength steel, automatic breaking systems etc etc. I love the safety that those all bring, but it's not free.
> automatic breaking systems
Literal planned obsolescence!
Or just being BMW. They also break automatically. No need for government mandated feature.
my dyslexia strikes again
Also a lot more complexity under the hood to meet mileage standards - CVT or 8 speed automatic transmissions, turbo chargers, stop-start tech, etc...
Aka how to shoot yourself in the foot and hand over the market to Chinese manufacturer. In Europe, only Renault created a low cost brand (Dacia).
Once chinese brands become commonplace everywhere, tradional carmakers will have a hard time taking back market share. In Europe they closed or are closing the last HCOL factories, killing any remaining brand loyalty.
Yeah, a better title for the article is how western automakers are going to go extinct. Sure the US might decide to block Chinese cars (apparently the EU isn't), but they can't force the rest of the world to buy $65,000 American built cars when the alternatives are less than 1/3rd of that price.
A larger question is how much the cheap Chinese cars are dependent on a long chain of government subsidies from the mines to the local infrastructure and what happens when China's investment driven growth cycle comes to an end. If the solar panels are any comparison, the Chinese automakers are losing a lot of money despite grandiose subsidies.
The answer to your question is less and less every year with only sales tax exemption remaining as the greatest support provided.
That support did total some US $231 billion over 14 years from 2009 through until 2023.
You can see more at: https://www.csis.org/blogs/trustee-china-hand/chinese-ev-dil... (June 2024)
It would be interesting to compare that to Western and US support for fossil fuel cars with substantial government support of the oil and gas industry.> These estimates reflect the combination of five kinds of support: nationally approved buyer rebates, exemption from the 10% sales tax, government funding for infrastructure (primarily charging poles), R&D programs for EV makers, and government procurement of EVs.
The first two (and maybe part of the fourth) I can understand, but the rest are too much of a strech to count as a government subsidy. Every government builds roads and other car-related infrastructure. Every government purchases vehicles for its own use. Every government subsidizes R&D in new fields.
There are a growing number of electrical cars priced below 25K euro in the EU and a few below 20K even. I mention electrical cars because that's where all the growth is. Electrical cars are now becoming cheaper than the cheapest ICE cars. You mentioned Dacia. VW is bringing out the ID2 next year. There's a few Stellantis models from e.g. Citroen. And of course BYD is now selling cheap cars in the EU as well. And those are just the vaguely European cars (lots of Chinese components involved). Japanese, Korean, and Chinese manufacturers are also growing their EV market here. Notably absent (except for a handful of Ford compliance cars and Tesla) are US manufacturers.
The article is specifically about the US market, which because of the tariff situation is becoming highly distorted. The local producers are making what are increasingly US only models that can't really compete internationally. This excludes mass produced small cars because they can't do them competitively any more as that would require high volumes and export markets. But mostly US car makers are struggling with export markets. There are a few exceptions to this of course.
In China, the competition is pretty brutal right now and it's starting to spill over to other markets. That's all about budget cars and redefining what a budget car actually is. Any export markets where US manufacturers still have any ambitions are being affected by this. BYD and other Chinese manufacturers are gaining market share (at the cost of other manufacturers) all over Asia, Central and South America, Australia, Africa, Europe, etc. Even Mexico and Canada are not off limits and these are the primary export markets for GM and Ford.
Small cars are booming everywhere. Except the US.
> In Europe, only Renault created a low cost brand (Dacia).
Dacia did force other european auto makers to maintain at least one low cost ish model. Not an entire brand but still. Sometimes just for the eastern european market. Skoda Rapid comes to mind.
But even Dacia is succumbing to the auto manufacturer mindset. Every year the models get larger, more default features are added and the cars get more expensive.
You can't buy a BYD in Canada, and all the current EVs are too expensive. It's better to keep buying old clunkers.
The sad thing is it'll be a slow death. As American / German / Japanese still hold cultural cachet over Chinese/ Vietnamese cars, the companies will delude themselves into going off a cliff till a new gen comes and doesn't care about that cachet and just cares about price
In the US, if they were allowed and priced as low as I hear they can be (without excessive tariff, etc) then I'd expect it would only take 5-10 years. Assuming they are in fact similar on quality/reliability to what we're used to. The people willing to take a risk to save money or get more for their money would start the wave, word would spread, then people who can afford any brand will jump on board as they've heard it is not really risky as they expected.
Problem is, we'll probably never let Chinese vehicles in as it is an existential threat to the US auto industry. It's odd because we allow Japanese, Korean, etc. but we have political beef with China as a global power rivaling ours.
I don't know. Lately the basic expectation even for Temu Chinesium it to work and work well. So I have been taking chances on bigger and bigger ticket items that are made in china and are of good quality for a fraction of the price of the western things. Made in China doesn't carry such big stigma lately. So I don't think that the headwinds toward them (unlike everything изделано в СССР) are that strong. I mean can't be worse than a Renault.
welp, guess my corolla needs to last until I die. I spent about $9k usd (in australia though) on it second hand pre covid and I'm just gobsmacked at the prices of vehciles now even years post covid. I make good coin and I just can't see how non-"enthusiasts" can justify spending so much money on their vehicle. there are houses in my suburb with 3-4 of these expensive, new model cars out front.
Cars are the worst spending many, perhaps most people make.
It's remarkable in Australia how many people are borrowing and paying much more for them as well.
Driving a Corolla, Mazda 2, Kia Rio or something can save so much money.
These days these are remarkably good cars too.
One downside in the US of driving a small car now is considerably more lethal in a crash with larger vehicles.
I drive a Mazda 3 and sometimes it feels like a bicycle compared to some of the enormous SUV and overdone trucks.
If Australia is like the US, all those cars are leases or debt-financed
It is. From Australia's largest Toyota dealer I know that ~70% of new car sales are financed. A proportion of the rest would be funded by home equity but that is harder to measure.
An interesting trend that I've heard from multiple dealership (friends and family) - the number of people being rejected for financing has dramatically increased in the past 12 months. There are some dealership areas now where a third of applicants are being turned down.
Gotta spend all that FIFO money on something, and a new car makes them feel good about their shitty FIFO situation.
in 2021 my beloved Honda Fit got totaled. I bought it new in 09 and only had 80K miles on it. They don't sell new ones in North America any more. So I bought a Kia Rio. They don't make those any more. I don't really like it but with the current chaos in the economy I'm not trading it in any time soon.
I was in the UK for the first time last month and was struck by how many hatchbacks and sedans they have that we don't in North America.
The UK is heading down the same path, the best selling car used to be the Ford Fiesta but it has been discontinued now. VW have dropped the Up. Skoda aren't replacing the current Fabia. The general trend is towards bigger SUV's.
The second hand market isn't great because we stopped making cars during Covid so there is a dearth of four/five year old models.
The only light at the end of the tunnel is EV's are now comparable to their ICE equivalents price wise.
And it's even more ridiculous because we don't even have the space for these things. People driving round in these monstrosities, struggling down narrow lanes or into parking spaces. Is nobody able to see further than their nose? What are you going to do when everyone has one? I suppose demand bigger roads, more parking etc. And who's going to pay for that? A classic tragedy of the commons.
There's a load of really good deals on EVs at the moment from what I've seen, I'm guessing cars coming off corporate lease.
From https://www.cinch.co.uk/used-cars/electric-fuel-type?fromYea... there seems to be quite a lot of 2022+ EVs available for ~£10k with relatively low mileages.
So if you've got space for a home charger, those could be pretty good deals.
The dwindling of small hatchbacks in the US is so disappointing it’s difficult to put into words. They were the perfect little suburb grocery grabbers, and now you can’t buy them without overpaying for a used one. The next best thing is a sedan that’s longer and harder to maneuver and park despite having markedly worse cargo space and utility, and to get a hatch (not just a liftback) you’re forced into crossovers/SUVs which carry a chunky price premium.
What I wouldn’t do to bring the Fit and Yaris hatch back to the US market.
If you want AWD a crosstrek or impreza are good little hatchbacks, ignore the "cross" in the name, its much more hatchback than it is a mini-SUV. It is sad that so many of the other little hatchbacks are gone (ex. fit, vibe, etc).
You can buy a Subaru Impreza hatchback.
the impreza's feels long enough that it is more of a "wagon" than a "hatchback"
The Subaru Levorg is the actual wagon version of the same platform. Unfortunately it's not available in the US market.
The closest Honda is probably what I replaced my 2007 Fit with: the hatchback Civic. It's a little longer, and has less usable cargo height, but otherwise is similar enough. (It tolerates my height better too.) Also available in fun, fast versions.
The biggest flaw of Civics (even the latest model) is the lack of height adjustment for the front passenger seat.
The closest thing to affordable and comfortable I could find this past year after maintenance costs pilling up on my ‘15 Ford Fiesta (that I got for a staggering $14k post college) was a Honda HRV Sport. Has all the basics, incredible sensing system, lots of space decent gas mileage and drives well at around 28k in Ohio. My partner has an Accord and honestly its a better car. Incredibly good gas mileage, reliable, perfect for an A to B person that doesnt want to worry about their car.
The dealer inventory model is the real killer here. The article mentions that only ~20% of US buyers pre-order cars, compared to Europe where build-to-order is common. This fundamentally changes the economics. When I worked at a dealership software company, we saw the data firsthand - dealers would rather sit on one $80k truck for 60 days than move five $25k sedans in the same timeframe. The financing alone makes it worthwhile. A buyer financing an $80k vehicle at 7% over 72 months generates ~$20k in finance reserve profits that get split between the dealer and lender. The $25k car? Maybe $3-4k if you're lucky. The Maverick situation is particularly telling. Ford designed an actually affordable truck, and dealers immediately marked it up 25% because they could. That's not a supply chain issue - that's dealers extracting maximum value from artificial scarcity. What's interesting is that direct-to-consumer models (Tesla, Rivian, etc.) haven't really attacked this market segment either. You'd think cutting out the dealer would make sub-$25k vehicles viable again, but even they're chasing higher margins upmarket. The only real solution I see is Chinese EVs eventually forcing the issue. BYD is selling the Seagull for ~$11k in China. Even with tariffs, that could land here under $25k and completely reset consumer expectations. Until then, we're stuck with dealers optimizing for finance profits over volume.
https://www.slate.auto/
With rebates a 20,000 truck. Who knows what it will cost when it actually comes out. But I love the concept.
A car like this in China would cost $12k
No rebates
US automakers are so ridiculously far behind
Also, not a gigantic truck, and no infotainment (or even powered windows!) It'd be a manual transmission if it wasn't an EV.
> or even powered windows!
An exclamation mark for lacking powered windows? Oh the humanity!
I'm starting to see the problem.
An exclamation mark because the feature is cheap and omnipresent, not because of... impact, or whatever you're reading into it.
It's surprising. An exclamation mark makes sense.
Fair cop. I'll take that.
It’s one more thing I’d have to spend an afternoon fixing eventually.
Is it that much less reliable than a crank going into similar mechanisms?
And a fixed window is just dire.
it’s a shame that they’re spending so much of their capital on manufacturer side customizability. An electric vehicle is a firmware update away from being a stick welder already; make the truck one way and ship it with a pair of jumper cables, a box of 6011, and a pallet of tube steel.
Outside of having what amounts to a couple of shells and removable seats that can be mounted to the box (and a removable rear panel from the cab to join them to create a single 'interior' when using them), the majority of their BTO options are really basic module swaps where most of the complexity comes from managing inventory of the various SKUs than anything else.
As somebody with a '99 Ford Ranger, the Slate is incredibly appealing as nearly every other manufacturer has completely abandoned the compact pickup market; although it has the same issue that the Ford Maverick and Honda Ridgeline do, it's a unibody design. If they actually launch I may end up getting one if they release some BTO options to slot a double-din mount and door-mounted speakers in to handle runs to the hardware store and towing lighter loads on paved roads, but I really wish somebody would do a compact frame-on-body pickup again for those of us that drive poorly maintained dirt roads in forested/mountainous terrain where some body damage (and thus, the cheaper repair costs associated with body-on-frame designs are nice to have) is always lurking around the corner.
[Seriously, I understand the difficulties of batteries and such with EV's and that's likely part of why the Slate is designed this way. But, for people like me who actually need a pickup to do pickup things, not haul groceries, it's frustrating when you're accustomed to being able to replace a side-panel on the box for less than your insurance deductible if something falls on it. And that's without even bringing up the obvious disadvantages when it comes to towing and payload capacity.]
> Seriously, I understand the difficulties of batteries and such with EV's and that's likely part of why the Slate is designed this way.
In 2000, Ford had an EV Ranger, and Chevy had an EV S-10. Neither with great range, of course. It should be easier to do with modern batteries. Attach the batteries to the frame under the bed, put the bed on top, all engineering problems solved.
I guess I should clarify, the unibody design makes it cheaper to do this in a compact design, given the extra material you would need to protect modern LiFePO4 cells from physical damage compared to the SLA batteries the EV Ranger and EV S-10 both used (which could pretty much take a bullet and not end up with a volatile reaction), as well as space efficiency with packing the cells.
The F-150 Lightning is body-on-frame, so I know it's entirely feasible, but the same reasons Ford went with a unibody for the Maverick are probably doubly relevant for something like the Slate (cost and weight). I'm going to quietly hope they succeed with this and somebody (Slate or otherwise) makes a proper compact EV pickup designed to get dirty. If not, maybe the market for EV conversion kits will further develop and I'll just yank the V6 out of my Ranger and slap an electric drivetrain in it.
Huh? I thought the Slate body panels are fiber reinforced Polypropylene, basically a cheaper somewhat less intense performance sibling of that ultra tough fiber reinforced nylon that power tools are made of since about that battery tool manufacturer war really took off?
Yeah, there's a frame underneath, but the panel itself shouldn't even really care about tanking a shopping card, it's main weakness is how soft the PP is to sharp objects...
Yeah, but I'm not talking about a shopping cart denting the side of the box. My family owns some forested land on butte near where I live, 8' wide dirt roads carved through the hills with very abrupt drops, pine trees and loose rock damaged by weather threatening to fall a few feet and ruin your day, and wild growth that likes to suddenly scratch your paint at best when you're heading down an oft-used path for the first time in a year. Let's not even talk about wildlife being wildlife.
Like I said, my Ranger is not a grocery carrier, the 2015 Impala I drive day-to-day handles those tasks. The pickup gets used, towing my ATV and jon boat, hauling stuff around for camping trips, carrying firewood around, and generally getting rough and dirty away from civilized society. That's why, at best, the Slate is appealing to at least handle hardware store runs or hauling my boat (trailer and the boat are easily within the 1,000 lb towing limit on it) to the lake; but it's still not a replacement for what I have. Also really need e-AWD from an EV pickup to get over (or out of) some things, the Maverick is also a flop here because it only has AWD (which an EV can get away with because of the insane torque electric motors can provide, but an ICE or hybrid pickup without 4L is going to get stuck somewhere).
Yeah, a "mid-sized" pickup would check all of those, but even relatively compact ones like my step-mothers GMC Canyon have a notably larger turning diameter, which is why I want a proper compact pickup (another area the Maverick fails miserably, 40 foot turning circle for something that small is...words fail me.)
As an aside, the other downside to unibody pickups is their towing capacity, but with a new option package added to the current model year even the Ford Maverick can match the 2 ton capacity of my Ranger (although Ford saw fit to derate mine to 1 ton because it's a 5-speed; it's fully capable of towing 4,000 lbs, albeit not very fast, if you know how not to burn up a clutch.)
Note that those rebates would be entirely killed under the current Trump budget bill [1], so we'll see what happens.
I also love the concept, it's a bunch of things I've been looking for but unable to find in the US market. The final price/availability as well as repairability are going to be the dealmakers.
[1] https://electrek.co/2025/06/28/republicans-are-trying-kill-7...
I may be cynical but I think this is all marketing. From what I've seen there is so much upselling built into the concept that if this ever comes out that I don't think many people will be driving around the 20K model.
I was in the market looking for a used SUV for my wife to haul around our kids last year. Dealing with dealers who wouldn't budge even a few hundred off the inflated listing prices, the interest rates on financing and then the insane insurance costs was not pleasant. I have an old Subaru beater that I was also thinking about upgrading but after this whole fiasco I decided to spend some money to fix body and small mechanical issues myself and drive this thing another 10 years hopefully. It's just not worth it.
Yeah, haggling over used cars is dead and buried. The market doesn't accommodate it in a world where there's more demand for used than ever.
1. More people got priced out of new cars.
2. More people are driving their cars longer.
3. Caravana and other online predatory loan machines are outpaying dealerships for cars, and flipping them for nearly credit card level interest rates.
Also, us millennials don't want to deal with that shit anyway. List the price, keep it near KBB value and you have a deal.
Subaru's have an increasingly good reputation for long-term reliability. Stick with and love the beater.
I find a certain liberation in not caring too much about risks of car park dents and "curb rash" and other surface-only non-mechanical auto-maladies.
You obviously have not been following Subaru, while what you are saying was once true, it has not been true for several years now.
Google "Subaru battery", read about all of the additional electrical problems that are the result of Subaru being unwilling to fix a problem that is the end result of them selling your data.
Subaru stopped making reliable cars somewhere around 2014.
That's very useful to know, thank you!
Free yourself from the worry of shopping cart dings today! My solution was buying a hail damage car.
Daydream: For types of cars/trucks which are generally unavailable on the American market, tariffs and import restrictions are keep rather modest.
Would make sense - why protect a market that no US manufacturer seems to want to support!
Of course the US manufacturers are hoping that you'll just take out a loan, preferably with them (this is how they make their profit - financing and servicing) and buy something far more expensive than you want/need.
As someone working for the German automotive industry I see part of the reason being a nearly constant crisis situation. Software is another part that seems to consume a huge amount of resources for little outcome. See Cariad from Volkswagen for an example.
Suppliers suffer from a constant flood and drought of contracts. Crisis -> We need so save money -> Supplier contracts are frozen or cancelled -> "Oh, we can't do stuff ourselves/We need help" -> Supplier had to let go experienced staff, hire cheap/unexperienced replacements/outsource -> Quality suffers and costs explode -> Repeat. Also not paying/delaying payments drives more suppliers out of business.
You also better promise the impossible because the cheapest offer wins. One time I got a PowerPoint as the technical drawings for electric charger test station. Just some black boxes, lines and names. That was the documentation. I should help the project management with documentation of the current state, but had to provide quite a bit of engineering in addition. Also had to talk to the Chinese supplier directly (nobody in the team spoke Mandarin). What a joy.
Another financial point with impact on birth rates and demographics.
It is now very difficult (I can count with my fingers) to find a <100k car that can have 3 child seats in a row. Or that can sit 7 people that is not a SUV pedestrian child killer.
We don't want affordable Chinese EVs.
That's the answer here. They can build cars better, cheaper, faster than we can.
Instead Ford wants to sell a 80k SUPER F-250 BIG MANN TRUCK. All for what, you to drive 10 minutes to Walmart, buy groceries and drive back.
The best car is the one you don't own. No payments, insurance, parking tickets.
Unfortunately most American cities are centered around driving. So much money , and space wasted on these multi ton metal boxes. In many places most(much) of the city is literally just parking spaces.
We do want affordable Chinese EVs, the same way we want Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Kia, Hyundai, Subaru (all among the best selling auto manufacturers in the USA every year). You can't buy them because the government and domestic car companies don't want you to.
We drive an F250, and live in San Francisco.
We hardly put any miles on it (maybe 15k a year). To get around locally we ride our bikes mostly here in the city.
We do use it for our small business (essential) and also to to a large RV trailer which we use to live in 2-4 months a year visiting loved ones and just decompressing.
The things people don't usually talk about is the total cost of ownership.
One can buy a new F250 diesel for $80k, drive it for 6 years towing heavy loads and working hard. And sellnit for more than half what they paid for it. During that time the only costs are routine maintenance, no major repair bills.
One can also buy a luxury car or SUV, say a BMW, for the same price and 6 years later it is most certainly not worth half what they paid for it, and they typically paid tens of thousands in repair costs.
The next argument people make is that a big truck is inefficient. The simple fact is my F250 diesel gets the same as your BMW M3. But it can be used for work, and is.
Financially, I would argue that it makes no sense to buy a new vehicle above $50k that isn't a diesel pickup.
You don't have to justify your personal situation to me.
If you feel like buying a 80k truck, that's cool.
The issue with America is the vast majority of truck buyers really can't afford an 80k truck.
This isn't the best source, but it says here the average truck buyer is only making 82k or so.
https://www.myautoconcepts.com/blogdetails?id=4049
From experience talking to friends and sales people plenty of folks with 60 to 80k incomes find themselves in 50k plus vehicles.
I suspect for the majority of truck buyers, if credit wasn't as easily available, they'd find alternatives.
The only reason the typical person can buy an 80k truck is they can get a loan.
Let's say their was a hypothetical car loan limit of 1/4th of your annual income. A lot of people would find out really fast they don't need a massive truck.
Manufacturers would in turn adjust accordingly. A 15k car, maybe without a bunch of touch screens, is possible.
This is probably why cars are cheaper in China, credit isn't as available.
> Let's say their was a hypothetical car loan limit of 1/4th of your annual income. A lot of people would find out really fast they don't need a massive truck.
So much this. Similar "unbounded" pressure on student loans / tuition. It keeps going up because students are able to get loans.
Comparing the average income around here to MSRP of vehicles I see around here and it's clear that a lot of people are driving around in something that approximates a second mortgage!
Another (possibly bigger) reason cars are cheaper in China is because their government subsidizes the heck out of BYD and the likes. It would be like if Tesla didn’t have to pay anything to build their factories.
Not sure if this is a tongue in cheek joke, but Tesla has benefited massively from federal subsidies as well as local dog and pony shows of small municipal factory sites.
It wasn’t a joke, but I do see your point. US subsidies for EVs are massive as well. I guess I just hadn’t dug into the numbers. Now I’m not sure who gives more subsidies, the US or China.
The federal tax credit in the US is much higher than the Chinese equivalent it appears. But the factory and R&D subsidies are much harder to compute.
https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/podcast/knowledge-at-wha...
We subsidize our auto industry too.
Imagine if we let in the Chinese EVs stacked with the tax credit, you could get a car for 5000$ or less.
>>"The issue with America is the vast majority of truck buyers really can't afford an 80k truck."
I would say that's not what matters in this discussion (comparing trucks vs cars).
I would also say the same sentence is true for cars, most Americans can't afford 80k cars.
What I am saying is you are not accurate. Most trucks in the US are not 80k trucks bought by suburban folks to buy groceries in. Most trucks are bought by fleets, by small businesses, etc. They're the standard white fleet specs, not the high end trucks. They're bought by farmers, ranchers and drywallers. Most.
Just because you don't hang around in those circles and only see your suburban neighbors and their trucks doesn't mean that's the overall trend.
Everything you highlight here is also true for cars, and worse even.
I'm not justifying anything, I don't owe you $%&#, I am saying you are wrong and giving evidence as to why.
[flagged]
> "absolutely prat"
Please cut out swipes like this in HN comments, it's against the guidelines.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
>>"absolutely prat"
Why the personal insult? Mods is this ok per HN policy?
I use and need it for work, yes big heavy things also need to be done in cities too. I noted this in my original comment. It's very tacky to personally insult a working person for the tools of their trade. You don't like the fact that a plumber needs a plumbing truck? How would a window installer get the windows to the jobsite? How do you bring diesel engines to install in their final locations?
And you are absolutely wrong on the repair of BMWs and especially Audis. Just look at used cars for those brands from a few years ago. You are right on maintenance, but I'm talking about repairs. Things breaking and needing replacement or repair. Anyone who has owned those brands will tell you. Also part prices are a big difference.
If you want a small car buy a Carolla, Camry or a Lexus. I'm not saying buy a big truck.
I'm saying it makes no sense to buy a vehicle over $50k that isn't a diesel pickup, except for "comfort" or "status".
If you don't need one for work, then buy a Camry. They're really nice.
They weren't personally insulting you, they were describing antisocial behavior generally, and reasons why people might be prejudiced against drivers of large trucks.
Prior to that comment, you hadn't said anything indicating you personally partook in that antisocial behavior.
>"they were describing antisocial behavior generally"
Well if they're so fucking social, they should start with rich who waste and pollute way way more and buy governments outright.
You know what, I was out of line with that language. My apologies.
Others are right, I intended to imply "the vibe of the person" you expect when you see an F-250 in a city where even Civic park up on the curb to avoid being clipped. And that being a social cost that any Joe/Jane/Jordan pays in that situation.
Regardless, I'm not really trying to defend myself, just apologize. It was wrong of me and that choice of language was dumb, careless, inflammatory, and just plain rude.
> We hardly put any miles on it (maybe 15k a year)
That's a little more than the average American drives per year.
Although I agree that Trucks are not needed by majority of the people that buy them in the US. The reason for high truck prices is 25% tariff on imported trucks for the last 50 years ie lack of competition.
I make pretty good tech money and I can’t imagine spending that much on a car. It would be cheaper to uber everywhere I went.
Likewise - it's funny to me that $25,000 is cited as an "affordable" price for a car, when that's almost double what I spent on the most expensive car I've ever owned (a Land Rover Discovery II, which was a lovely machine). I cannot imagine what it would feel like to look at a $60,000 price tag and think, "yes, this would be a sensible use of money".
Weren't they almost 60k in 2025 dollars when they were new?
I suppose they were, but mine was a 2001 model and I bought it in 2007.
Man I felt bad spending $5k to swap out my used corolla for a used highlander.
i am still fine in my used 2012 12k prius.
$60,000 is a sensible use of money because the car company investors want their ever-increasing profits.
I've done the math a few times and it just makes no sense to own a car for me. Public transport is the fastest way to get to work, and for everything else I can uber every time PT isn't the best option and still come out cheaper than buying the most budget new car.
Cars are a reflection of ones personality here in the Midwest. Some grow out of it or never subscribe to the mentality. It's certainly cheaper to bicycle, weather and health permitting.
Though car driving and ownership are a big cultural phenomenon, especially among men 18-50.
>Weather and health permitting
Environment as well. In terms of "safety" it is unfortunately very risky to bike (or even walk) in my area due to the sprawling roads everywhere. Drivers don't look out for anything other than large boxes, and I've quickly had way too many close calls to consider it useful.
Depends on the man, I’ll admit in my early twenties I meet a few partners by being car free.
I legit took a girl home after I asked her if she knew why the train was late.
In Amsterdam at least one of the train stations has a piano. It becomes a 3rd place were people can make friends and socialize.
We don’t have many 3rd places in the US where you can exist without spending money.
Public transportation is seen as only a thing for children and/or the poor, at least in too many of my circles.
Politicians and the public don't seem willing to invest to overcome the chicken and egg problem. Doesn't help that the legacy transport we do have is neglected, further harming it's reputation.
Do you have example of places with density similar to US where public transport works well? Australia has some in urban centres, but otherwise car centric. Same in NZ. Elecric bus to my place costs 8x more than driving EV (before it was taxed)
California has only a slightly lower population density than France. France has 27,000km of operating passenger rail tracks, California 2,600km (similar to Ireland, a country of 5 million people not noted for its public transport, with a lower population density than California).
This is a weird form of American exceptionalism where people insist that the US can't have the nice things that all other rich countries have, because Density. And this might even be true if you're talking about, say, Wyoming. But it absolutely isn't an excuse for places like California or Florida.
The density issue isn't country wide, but about metro areas. See Spain: If you look at the entire country and divide by population, it looks like the one of the least dense countries in Europe. But what if instead we look at where people live? Get the population density of the square kilometer where each person lives, and divide by number of people, so completely empty space doesn't count for anything. Then you see Spaniards live in areas denser than Liechtenstein. And guess what? Spain has top notch public transport, including high speed rail, because every endpoint is dense. I am right now sitting in a town, population around 100k, with higher population density than New York's Upper East side. We don't even have that much public transport, because only the elderly and the disabled need it, given that I can be on any given edge of town by walking 2 kms. In your typical US suburb, that gets you nowhere.
So it's not country density, but population center density. Single family homes with yards and individual garages make public transport pretty bad, as the catchment rates of each stop just don't have enough people. Just put the people closer together, and have more farmland/forest around the town.
Whilst I can spiel off complaints, public transport in Australia gets my kid to and from school everyday, and myself to and from work in two different cities, everyday, without being late. (When the union isn't striking).
It does seem to work.
How do you get to train station?
Not to whom you're directing your question, but I drive the short distance to the car park at the interchange/station, then catch the bus the long distance to the city.
It's a great setup, and/but the very specific infrastructure[0] that I use only services maybe a quarter of the city's mid-suburbia. There's other public transport that services plenty of the rest though.
Doxxing myself here, but anyway: [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-Bahn_Busway
We have these around Auckland. Parking fills up 100% before 7AM.
Auckland is an incredibly busy city, on the same kind of world scale as Sydney, as far as my understanding goes.
The interchange has a four level car park that fills up to about three quarters full by 8am-ish. A secondary car park was just finished maybe a couple of years ago, with an additional ~50% capacity.
All buses flow in and out of the train station. Buses move in and out of all the suburbs.
It’s not public transport but I live in a single family home in a town of 60,000 people and 70% of trips are made by bikes.
https://youtu.be/r-TuGAHR78w
900 or so people per square km.
To give a random comparison (because I know it well) Sacramento has a density of 2000 per square km and far, far worse transportation.
Addendum - not really a great comparison because houten has a lot of farmland which will affect the value (Sacramento has similar issues though)
Anyway the density doesn’t feel high here and maybe that’s the more relevant bit
Australia kind of gives you the choice. The inner city areas have great PT, great public spaces and some awesome outdoor walkable retail/food streets. But then you've also got the outer suburbs which is a hellscape similar to the US.
It's also not that expensive to rent inner city or buy an apartment. The outer suburbs mostly exist because people have a mentality of invest in land at any cost, even if it means living in a wasteland and commuting 3 hours a day.
ChatGPT says it's either only 5.6% or 27% (which is pretty good) for Sydney.
Which tells you that ChatGPT is essentially useless.
Like, why post this? The difference between the two figures is so vast as to be pointless, and it likely just made them up anyway. This is something that you can actually look up.
A couple months ago I was sad to see the piano in Hilversum station had been badly vandalized. I assumed that was the end of that.
Yesterday I was delighted to see a nice new piano in its place.
It is very interesting to read these threads as someone who doesn't live in the states.
Ohh it's much worse.
A lot of people barely make enough to pay rent before factoring in a car.
Your options end up being iffy used cars or financing. The used car market is a nightmare, you can easily end up with a lemon, but legally you have no real recourse.
If Bob sells Bill a used car, and the engine explodes 2 days later Bob owes Bill nothing.
This doesn't always happen, but it's a concern.
Finance a car and you'll probably spend a significant portion of your income just commuting.
Vs living in a transit centric city where bus/metro fair is a nominal cost
I can hear street racing noises from a highway three miles away! I used to think it was just a few blocks away because I could hear it but I looked at a map. A few people install aftermarket exhausts/noise makers critics call "fart cans." After a recent police crackdown the amount of racing noise at night decreased greatly.
I have never seen the bed of a Cybertruck.
Not a dig at the vehicle; that's a different thing. Rather, I notice that this truck doesn't seem to spend much time as a, ya know, truck.
With other trucks it's less obvious because they don't have a built in bed cover. I suspect many of them also spent very little time trucking, at least here in this suburb. Perhaps it's different in more agricultural areas.
I'm in an agricultural area, have been in and around agriculture and mining for many decades, I can't see anyone buying a cybertruck for any practical reason.
I've seen the offroad performance videos, the cybertruck isn't anything to write home about wrt to either ground clearance or scrabble factor (broken road hill climbing, etc).
Other cheaper vehicles perform as well or better.
The tray area is a nightmare, three side access to tools is good, totally flat tray backs are good, side rails for tie downs are good, ability to custom fit racks for carrying stuff (long lumber, or glass and or panels, etc), etc. are all the kinds of practical choices that dictate a practical utility purchase .. none of these are things at which the cybertruck shines.
An intelligent flatbed setup (what I think the Australians call "trays") is usually way better than a regular bed (barring maybe aerodynamics). A good Bradford or Circle D flatbed (as examples) can take way, way more punishment than a regular bed, and it's real easy to bring a forklift up and load pallets on the side, add boxes or tie downs, etc. One major reason you don't see a lot of them in the states is that many insurers (if you tell them you've put an flatbed on -- even a pretty aluminum one on a mini truck) will automatically assume the truck is being used in some sort of revenue service, and charge you significantly more expensive commercial rates no matter what you tell them.
One of our favourite bits of kit is a twin axle trailer my father built back in the 1970s.
It's got slaved brakes (electrical now, once hydraulic), Hayman-Reese family anti sway bars, uprights and rings on the tow arms to hold gas bottles and spare tyres, and a flat bed.
The smart setup there is removable side and back walls to convert between flat tray and shallow box with sides, and a removable hood with three gull wing doors (so that the tray is a lockable and weather proof space (useful for camping). It's easy to change configuration between the three states.
Our prefered vehicle of choice is a four door family sedan with boot, the trailer can be added for those odd two tonne loads of manure, gravel, straw, sand, etc that get carted about.
Everything else starts getting into dedicated task vehicles - tractors, harveters, chase trucks, etc. The last thing we acquired was an ex military twelve tonne truck with shoulder high tyres on it and enough clearance for pre schoolers to walk under .. it can climb hills, waddle across gullies, and carry 5 tonne of water for fire control (the reason for purchase and fitting).
I live in suburbs between San Jose and. San Francisco and see a few Cybertrucks in single family home driveways and apartment parking lots - it feels more like a status symbol of some kind, see a lot more of other pickup trucks, though more common in less affluent areas.
I've only ever seen one in that mocking picture of trying to fit a motorcycle in it vs. a Kei truck. I still reserve my full judgment though for if I ever get to have extended personal time with one, though I have been soured on the whole thing. The concept was cooler than the final product for sure.
I go back and forth on how much weight to give the "not being used for truck stuff" criticism. (Maybe because I own a small 2006 Ranger that, while sometimes being used for truck stuff, is mostly used for stuff any vehicle can do. I also put on a cheap bed cover for the first time last week...) I think I'm more partial to the "not ever used for truck stuff" criticism -- that makes it more similar to buying powerful PC hardware. If you aren't ever making use of it, what's the point? But if you only use it from time to time, that seems totally fine. Optionality is generally good, especially when you actually use the options, but of course there's a cost-benefit analysis people don't seem to make with modern car financing.
I'd like to see a cybertruck towing a camper in the wild, as that seems to be a thing some of my older relatives do with their big trucks.
I saw both a Rivian and a Cybertruck at an RV park just a month ago. No idea what kind of range they get towing but I was impressed someone was actually using them as real trucks. The vast majority of vehicles were three-quarter-ton or better trucks.
Usually I would consider such a large truck to be wasteful, but because it's electric you aren't really burning up a ton of extra fuel.
This is such an odd statement. Just because it's electric doesn't mean there's no concept of efficiency.
Large EVs are pretty silly for exactly that efficiency reason - they may have "400" miles of range, but they do so by packing the biggest possible battery which weighs a ton, wasting even more range per kilowatt-hour beyond the worse aerodynamics.
And then because the battery is so massive, it takes way longer to charge for the same range, so now you need a higher current charger at home and maybe even need to upgrade your home electric service instead of just using a standard 15A circuit to top up a small EV every night enough for a typical day's commute.
It's not that there is no concept of efficiency, it's that an electric car gets a free 2x reduction in emissions.
And sure you can't use a normal plug very well, whatever. Even without any amp increase, going up to 240 volts will let you charge up that commute and more.
F-450 King Ranch Super Deluxe.. all made from plastic and guaranteed not to last longer than 8 years. Most engines of new vehicles are sleeved and cannot be rebuilt in the spirit of designed for manufacturing and profits > designed for durability.
Yep. Then add in all the regulatory systems. DEF, EGR, Catalytic Converter, Turbo, 10 speed transmissions. They're all fragile and fall out of warranty coverage easily.
RAM is apparently going to use plastic control arms in it's new vehicles.
I've been watching WheelsBoy youtube channel a lot, he covers Chinese cars in China: https://www.youtube.com/@Wheelsboy - I don't know if this is the best source, but it's been eye opening to watch.
I do want cheap Chinese EVs. I can't buy them because of government regulation.
I'd prefer to have cheap U.S. cars ... but I suspect we won't seem them until the threat of cheap Chinese cars becomes a reality.
there are companies like slate auto trying this model in the USA, but who knows how that will play out.
You're not wrong, but I think there's another factor, too. (And I drive a 2017 F150)
I would love to sell my truck and get something smaller. But I just got a repair estimate of almost $2500 to replace the from facing camera in my wife's Odyssey, and the Bluetooth stack in my truck has never really worked properly for phone calls. With cars becoming increasingly. "Software defined vehicles" I don't feel comfortable purchasing a $50k+ car that might have software bugs, or may not be supported for over 5-10yrs. I'm currently thinking very seriously that the best options are either to buy used or to lease.
Moreover, I'm thinking the overall percentage of private vehicles that are leased is going to continue to increase as time moves on, until the big mfrs are essentially acting as huge rental fleet operators.
2016 F-150 here…just keep it. At this point I’m going to run mine into the ground. No way I would spend whatever Ford is asking for nowadays for a new one.
I’ve got a used lightning, with a 1500 ram and a 1500 gmc before that. The Ford is by far the best truck we’ve owned.
In fact, the other two were so unreliable and underpowered that I’ll never buy a GM or Stellantis (chrysler/dodge/ram/fiat) product again.
Anyway, definitely hold onto the 2016/17 Fords vs switching brands. I’ve driven lower trim line Fords slightly older than that, and they were also way ahead of the newer GM and Ram trucks that we had.
> We don't want affordable Chinese EVs.
If that was true it wouldn't be illegal to sell them.
> We don't want affordable Chinese EVs.
The US wants them so much that it requires 100% tariffs to keep them off the market.
I'm always a little surprised anyone buys American cars at all. For a while they used to make larger trucks than anyone else did but even that's not really the case anymore, it's all just overpriced garbage with a popular brand.
> comment about how a non-american country has a better approach
> male ego/phalus comment
> car-centric cities
> "N-ton metal box"
I'm 1 square away from a Strong Towns reader bingo. Do you happen to know who invented the concept of jaywalking?
[dead]
Regulations prevent the sale of small, cheap trucks in the US. I'm so sick of "BIG MANN TRUCK" being blamed on ego. The kind small basic of truck you used to be able to buy just doesn't exist any more and it's been regulated out of existence. The Maverick doesn't even stand-in very well for this and Ford can barely keep up with the demand.
The sweet spot has always been a 1 year old used car with low miles. There’s lots of those for less than or about $25k. Honda, Toyota, and Mazda have models in those ranges that will easily last a decade.
If you don’t drive much yourself, “low miles” after a couple years doesn’t matter quite as much. e.g. I bought my car at a couple years old with 40k miles already, but in the following twelve years I’ve only run it up to about 115k miles, so I’ve turned it from a “high-mileage two-year-old car” into a “low-mileage 14-year-old car”.
I've bought a couple of those and never again. They're usually former rental cars and people best the shit out of them. I've had so many stupid things break
I bought a 1 year old used model and it's worked for me for 10 years now. Ymmv. Maybe worth getting a mechanic to look before buying
Mine were all "Certified Pre-owned" so had dealerships go through them and even had a (small and toothless) warranty attached.
Even better, a 3 year old used car with low miles.
In 2016 I picked up a 2013 320i Sport w/ 22k miles on the clock for $18.5k. The sticker on the car was just over $36k. I did have to fly to a relatively remote town (Ogden Utah) and drive it home to San Diego, so that was an extra $320 for the plane ticket/shuttle/gas and 14 hours out of a saturday.
It was almost out of warranty, so pre-purchase I paid a local shop $110 to do a similar inspection to what BMW does for CPO and it only needed brake pads. Aside from the brake pads and scheduled maintenance, eventually replaced the tires, so about $2000 in maintenance over that period. Sold it for $14.5k w/ 50k on the clock 6 years later.
Could have held onto it much longer but was eager to do the nomad thing as covid was clearing up.
I looked into that when I was buying a car in 2020 and I found the price discount wasnt nearly as big as I thought it was going to be plus the car was out of warranty plus all the parts now had 10k miles of wear on them. A new set of tires is like $1200. I was able to spend a few grand more for a brand new car of the same model.
Used car prices went through the roof in 2020-2022 for pandemic-related reasons, so trying to take any lesson from that era is unhelpful.
It might be a German car thing, as the value drops precipitously once it's close to out of warranty. There were barely any savings on cars that were within a year old, whereas I was able to get something for half sticker that was nearly the same vehicle.
It can also depend on the popularity of a given car in a particular area. In 2012 we wanted to buy a lightly used Honda Fit, which were quite popular in our city. But, possibly because of that popularity, the prices of used Fits weren't that much less than a new one, so we ended up getting a new one instead.
Following on my original comment - I saved about $4k over the next cheapest option (which would have still been a very good discount vs. new) simply by expanding my range from 150 miles to 500 miles and finding one in the middle of nowhere. Having the salesperson/owner drive the car over to a mechanic to do a CPO-like audit of its condition greatly reduces the risk of a more remote purchase.
A one way ticket from San Diego to Vegas was $180, and a 2 hour shuttle from there to St. George (mistakenly said Odgen above) was only $20. The salesperson from the dealership picked me up from the bus station and after a brief test drive and some paperwork I got on the road for the 450 mile drive back. I left home on the train to the airport at 9am, and was back at home with my new to me car at 11pm that night.
Considering we're on "Hacker" News, it's very much a worthwhile process to hack considering the cost savings vs. actual effort.
1 year old used cars are inevitably going to get more expensive as new cars get more expensive (or cheaper new cars cease being made)
Why would anyone sell a good car with one year old and low mileage? It's a lottery ticket: it could go well, or the car might be already damaged. I personally know a bunch of people that bought second hand and are "my car is only a couple of years old, and I found the engine / gearbox / frame is damaged. Lets repair it barely and sell it ASAP to recover some money". But weirdly, they go to the second hand market again, thinking they are the only smart ones doing that. They all know a mechanic that ensures the car is OK, just like they did with the first one.
I was very disappointed when searching the used car market for cars with low mileage, only to found they are almost as pricey as new but I don't know how they have been taken care of. A lot of them come from the rental business. I paid a bit premium (2K or so) for my new-zero-kilometer car, and after 6 years is as good as new, as it is cared like a baby.
Spending $25k on a car (if they exist) is just an insane thing to do in my opinion. In the UK we are quite lucky in that the used car market is very good. I always just buy a ~£1,000 diesel and run it into the ground, then rinse and repeat.
I think in 17 years of motoring I've spent around £5,500 in total on cars.
It is a shame people run them into the ground. If looked after and a bit of money (not a lot of money) spent they would work well for another decade or two.
Its more expensive with the cost of labour in the UK to keep a car going, especially once it starts needing welding. We apply a lot of salt to the roads in the winter so after 20 years most cars will need welding work.
Second hand cars are also cheaper in the UK compared to other countries because we're right hand drive so there aren't as many markets that they can be exported to second hand.
I live in the UK. Cars aren't that cheap (at least for something half decent), labour costs are dependant on what is being done. While the roads do get salted, rust is more dependant on the vehicle model. Also there are preventative measures you can take that aren't that expensive again rust.
I found this video informative about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjMyx24pxTo
He's a second hand car dealer in Stockport and has experience of selling cars in Spain and in California.
I will watch tonight. I used to live in Spain. Buying a vehicle there is weird.
I MOT it (obviously) and service every year but if I know something needs doing that's going to be expensive I just live with it. Especially if it's electrical because that can be a mine field and cost lots of labour time. Sometimes I try and make repairs myself and learn something in the process
A friend and I bought a car with a busted door for £100 some years ago, we got a cheap replacement door, incompetently resprayed it to be roughly the colour of the rest of the car and sold it, for £100 :-|
It’s mass affluence. People are just willing to pay $30k+ new now - something that was a lot rarer even 10 years ago.
I wonder if there's a business model in leasing cars from Mexico to Americans and swapping around once a year to get around the problem of having Mexican plates. Then you can get Chinese cars into America.
This made me laugh out loud thank you. They will clamp down on this so fast though. If its something that will help the average joe it will never get done but something like this threatens leadership so it will get shut down in record time.
If theres any Chinese entrepreneurs that have a line into their EV companies reading this, use some of that China speed and get on this now. You might as well squeeze out a little profit before they clamp it down! :D
Everything in here matches with my experience in the auto industry, but I don't think it gets the whole truth. Car companies, particularly the American and German brands, make the vast majority of their money from new car buyers and leasers, not the used car market. Over the past few decades, OEMs have focused almost exclusively on serving those customers, to the detriment of virtually everyone else. Those are very different customers than the people who want to buy $25k cars. Worse, even if you do sell that kind of vehicle, it depreciates and goes right back into circulation on the used market competing against the new cars because the customers are ultimately very utilitarian and lack brand loyalty, unlike the higher end customers. You can't even count on those higher end customers to reliably purchase the higher trim models because of the "status" aspects of a cheap car.
It's a tough market that OEMs don't want to be in, so they cede it almost entirely to foreign OEMs that haven't moved upmarket yet. Foreign OEMs are structurally incapable of selling cars at those prices (by design), so the bottom end of the market gets hollowed out to nothing but a few "loss leader" vehicles.
Is anyone following Slate auto? They claim to be making a suburban pickup in the Ford Ranger size for ~20k. I've been cautiously optimistic about my reservation.
They apparently optimized for cost and molecularity, most notably by removing the infotainment system, which apparently is the biggest warranty / "feature" cost center.
It's a pretty car but I feel like they are mostly just selling a story about cost savings. Third party carplay screens can be bought for $150 so that just can't be very meaningful. The real cost savings is that it's a cheaply built EV with a small battery. Plus it's hard to get excited talking about the price a startup is claiming to sell cars at, before any have made it to consumers.
That being said the car looks sweet. I hope we have more startups making retro-vibe electric cars since the barrier to entry is much lower than with combustion engines.
Apparently (and I'm paraphrasing), the cost of the screen is not much. There's the cost of controls integration, at least, but also feature segmentation and warranty servicing. Apparently that's a lot of work to provide / cover and infotainment is one of the top warranty items. So it makes it a lot cheaper to just add a rack for your off the shelf bluetooth speaker.
27.5k, they're doing the dishonest thing of including tax incentives that not everyone qualifies for, and probably won't exist soon.
Fair. But, 27.5 is very much in line with discussion around affordable cars (esp vs entry level trucks nowadays).
Just tossing in my two cents - half the $25K cars people are asking for do exist, or did, but we’re basically banning them from the country with tariffs. It’s like we’re saying, “nah, we don’t really want cheap cars.”
Look at something like the Dolphin from China - it’s going for $8K–$9K USD over there. Ship a whole fleet of them and you’re still well under $25K. And we’re not talking junkers either - these are electric, decent build quality, ~300km range. Like... what exactly are we protecting here?
Feels like we’re pricing affordability out of the market on purpose.
In 2014 I got a very nice and very basic brand new sedan for about $14k. That's not so long ago, but the car market in the US seems to get worse every year. (cost, newer models are bloated and overly-expensive, etc.) My only advice would be to buy now (ideally something used) since I can only imagine things will be even worse in a few years.
Yup, we bought a new base model Corolla in 2016 and there’s no sensible way to upgrade or get something nicer. We put 70k miles on it in 9 years. We’ve looked into upgrading more than once, we could easily afford it, but anything that would be a true upgrade (bigger and nicer) is just such a ridiculous waste of money given how inflated car prices have been since Covid. Add to that that the nicer car will then also be much more expensive to keep on the road…and it just makes no sense.
I am pretty sure these cars still exist in Japan at roughly the same price point. I'm not talking about kei cars, either.
Emissions, mileage, crash safety standards in the USA punish smaller more fuel efficient cars. The larger the wheel base or "shadow" of the vehicle the easier for it is to meet Federal standards.
This is why nobody sells small pickup trucks here. It is a lot easier for Ford to produce F150s that get 25-30ish mpg then it is to produce small trucks that get 40-50.
The Maverick is the only exception and it isn't really that small and it is also a hybrid.
Essentially the Federal government made selling small cheap cars infeasible in this country.
Also because vehicles last a lot longer thrifty Americans avoid buying new vehicles. They would rather buy a used one and let somebody else absorb the depreciation hit.
And when buying a used car most people are going to want a used mid-ranger or higher end car then buying a used economy car.
Car manufacturers that cannot build affordable cars are going extinct. 12000$ for a new electric car in China. That is the real competition.
I don't care about the prestige of owning a car, it is a utility for me that will never be worth 60000$. You can pay me 500000$ yearly and I would reconsider.
> 12000$ for a new electric car in China. That is the real competition.
And then people cry when their entire industry is moved overseas...
I get that they dump loans and the government allows for subsidies. But on the other hand car manufacturers already outsourced everything they could to other countries for larger profit margins anyway.
They act no different than companies like Apple or Google. So at least as a customer I need to profit from that too, I have no interest of paying large margins for nothing.
Why should only companies profit from cheap labor?
The problem is that on the long run you lose the knowledge to produce physical goods locally, all it takes is a few years and once it's gone it's extremely hard to build it back.
The other problem is that if there is a war, a pandemic or anything impacting production and/or deliveries your country is now alone. If 80% of your economy is based on tourism and other services but what you now need are cars, masks or weapon parts you're in for a bad time
> I get that they dump loans and the government allows for subsidies.
It's the same in the US/EU, all these companies would have died long ago if they were not propped up now and then
I wouldn't advocate outsourcing labor to cheaper countries. That this is how it ends was predictable for the automotive industry, so I don't really feel sympathy if they cry now.
As a consumer I just want to have the cheap prices now too because outsourcing is a fait acompli.
The article compares 2025 prices to 2019 prices. We've had high inflation building upon high inflation for the past several years, so I'm not shocked that prices are higher. We might as well ask where the $1 menu went at fast food restaurants. Yesterday's prices are long gone.
I might be alone, but I miss the ridiculously simple all manual cars/trucks with crank windows, 5 speed and a clutch, and just the simplest damn interior.
I don't want all the damn gadgets, those things inevitably break and then cost thousands to fix.
I’d be interested to see what this does to overhead costs of businesses that actually need a large vehicle.
I have a small horse farm and drive a 2010 F-150. I haul horses, 900lb. hay bales, feed, lumber for repairing fences and building shelters, etc.
If my truck breaks down I am going to have to scrape through used inventory to find something that fits my needs. I don’t need leather, 16 cameras, seat warmers, and a high end sound system. I need a truck that can get done everything I need around the farm, and I need it to be cheap enough that I’m not worried about it getting scratched.
All cars seem to be luxury vehicles now, I don’t know what folks are doing the just need something more utilitarian.
ICE cars have peaked. ICE car from 2012 is almost no different from ICE car in 2025 other than entertainment value and this is why every manufacturer is targeting premium market even with solved ICE technology.
I recently needed to buy a car and my criteria was essentially I wanted least expensive new car on the market (I know I could have gone used but for this particular need I wanted a new car). The number of new vehicles that start under $20k is slim pickings. There are, what, maybe 3 in the US (if you don't count a couple that are discontinued)? And once you get into tax and title, you're going over $20k anyhow. Plus, with interest rates as they are, I don't know how the average person in Amercia affords a new vehicle these days.
The US seems insulated from the downward pricing pressure of Chinese cars. In most of the rest of the world, you can get a Chinese car ~30% (by my estimate) cheaper than a European or American one. It'll probably have more options and additions, too. I'm not sure how they'd do on reliability or safety, but it's generally hard to compete with them. Some of them offer 1M kilometer 10-year warranties.
Regulation is regularly increasing the cost of a car by demanding more. For example, if you demand all new cars have a rear-backup-camera, then you added a cost.
Govt is intentionally trying to cause at least 2% inflation. If you assume only 2% average over 50 years. A $25,000 car then is only about $9000 today; an untenable proposition. Lets be realistic, do you genuinely think no government in 50 years will exceed 2%?
The $25k car is extinct.
Dont know if this is available in US and Europe markets but I would consider Mahindra XEV 9e, BE 6E and BE 9E to be in the $25k segment and afaik, they are the best in the class for that price point ( in terms of looks and maybe even features ). I dont know if these are being exported out of India right now, but they definitely should be hitting the US and UK markets sometime soon.
The Honda Fit was discontinued because they're so reliable there are now enough of them to last until the end of humanity. ;-)
I'm not about this whole discussion - go to your favorite car sales website and filter for new cars and, say, 20,000 Euros. I see roughly 7000 cars for sale in Germany on mobile.de - of course, a lot of them will be instances of the same type of car, but there is variety and offers from multiple brands, both international and European.
Is anyone else thinking of buying a used panel van instead of a pickup now that they’re so tall you need a ladder to climb into the bed?
I have one and it’s awesome. You also don’t have to worry about someone snatching items out of the bed.
The biggest downsides are (1) I’m reluctant to put anything gross back there (vs throwing a trash bag in the bed like I used to with my truck), and (2) people see a van, assume you’ll drive obnoxiously slowly, and preemptively cut you off in traffic lest they get stuck behind you.
Overall, the pros outweigh those 2 cons for me.
Against 2, speed flames could help? Though they may have net-negative effect on safety for obvious reasons.
Infiniti is on the list of highest price increases. The reality is that nobody is actually buying any of their newer models. They dropped the ball in 2010s and playing catch up in 2020s. Nobody is going to pay $100k for QX80 when you can get an GX550/Escalade/Yukon for similar money.
This is all part of the continuing trend toward luxury - brands are abandoning the middle class and below, focusing on higher margins and lower volume - brands make more money, engage with easier buyers and have to work less. I don’t know how all this works in the end but it does seem to be a real trend.
Problem is a 40k car interior feels worse than a 15k Chinese car. The Koreans are trying, but like Samsung, not too hard.
The car-dependent culture create a problem that you can't even go to work if you cannot afford a car.
And this chicken-and-egg problem is also with public transit:
- to have people use public transit, it has to provide enough routes and drive often enough to be at least remotely comparable to driving yourself
- to do that, a lot of funding is required
- to get that funding, people have to use and pay for the transit (fares)
You can get some of that in with taxes, like many places already do, but there's only so much you can afford on taxes alone.
I'm personally super upset with basically all non-Chinese brands. They used the post-covid inflation to drive prices up and like many people are saying here, now the 12k entry-level car is a 25k car. I bought a brand new VW T-Cross in 2021 for 19k and now the entry price is 27k, for the same exact car. It's insane. I understand people want bigger cars and even price conscious costumers are now going for compact suv (VW T-Cross instead of a Polo) so makers are definitely cashin in on this.
But there is also a Greed side to this story. Automakers have hiked prices, customers have kept buying and we finally (i hope) reached a breaking point. Jeep prices were apparently too high and sales plunged.
All of this makes me actually quite happy for the arrival of Chinese manufacturers. The price/quality ratio is extremely good and when i see the price i finally feel that it's a good deal. It makes me want to buy that car, while with most European manufacturers i'm just thinking of being scammed!
In 2004 my parents bought a brand new Skoda Fabia with 40kW engine (around 50hp). The car was pretty basic (no AC, no display etc.) and small, but it served our family of 4 for long time (still does!). The cost was 12.000 Euros. Nowadays the same car starts at 20.000 Euros.
To be fair that's with 20 years of inflation (roughly 1.55x since 2004, €18,600 today), and that car today would have 90+bhp. I'm ignoring things like head unit/ac because they're things you'd probably rather not have and not pay for by the sounds of it.
You guys get cars for under six figures? Haha nice, cries in Singapore
But why do you need a car in Singapore? I can't take my kid to school or buy groceries without a car here, it is a basic necessity and I hate it. But you have amazing transit and high density.
Tourists get this impression by staying in the city centre. However, if you live in an outer neighborhood, what would be a 15 min car ride can easily become a 40 minute journey on public transport if you have to walk to the train station, take the train, and perhaps take a bus for the last mile. Now imagine you have a kid in tow or an elderly parent.
Yes, public transit is not a necessity here like in the States, but it's a nice convenience to have, and plenty of people are wealthy enough to pay for it.
40 minutes still sounds very very good. Your daily commute time to work would be less than 1.5 hours for example.
$25k ?!
The last car I bought cost just less than $12k USD new ( on the road including all taxes and fees) around 5 years ago.
I know inflation's been high, but not it's not been that high.
> around 5 years ago
The article is specifically about the price increase in the last 6 years.
> The article is specifically about the price increase in the last 6 years
My point is that six years ago the cheapest new cars cost less, in many cases a lot less, than $25k. The article itself lists several examples.
Americans like to upgrade their cars, not unlike their cell phones, and they often have a monthly car payment (or two) that never permanently goes away.
That makes some sense to me, but if the goal is to always have a nice car, doesn't it makes much more sense to lease? The monthly payments will be a few hundred bucks less and you can upgrade every 2-3 years. And from what I understand, leasing agents like to give incentives after your first lease to keep you in the cycle.
Personally, if I were aiming for the most economical option, I'd lease a Nissan Leaf for ~$300/mo.
> ... but if the goal is to always have a nice car, doesn't it makes much more sense to lease? The monthly payments will be a few hundred bucks less and you can upgrade every 2-3 years.
Leasing a car always includes an initial payment (in the several thousands) and typically have severe penalties for exceeding allotted mileage, any damage (even if only cosmetic), and/or if mandatory dealer maintenance is not adhered.
The monthly payments are not as disparate as one might think when the initial payment is amortized over the course of the lease along with dealer maintenance expenditures.
Read that lease contract carefully. It's meant for a very narrow segment of drivers.
Yeah, it's for people without crazy commutes. It's not as cryptic as you want to make it seem.
Regulations have made simple cars unlawful, as simple as that. Tons of electronics are needed to respect arbitrary constraints.
$25k car is a used car. It’s not even endangered.
The Subaru Impreza starts just under $25k, and comes standard with their EyeSight system for adaptive cruise control, automatic braking, etc.
Because of it, poor people, like me, use motorcycles. Because it is the only affordable option.
It's hard to compete with the used car market. Aptera's Solar EV start at $26,800 (allegedly).
I suppose in the same way that the five dollar footlong has gone extinct. Inflation.
Not in the US but there are some great electric cars available for less than that.
IIRC, at one point Ford priced the Model T (which ultimately became the Ford Taurus decades later) to be at or near the US individual average annual income and maintained this price structure throughout.
With last year's lowest (by state) average annual income being Mississippi at $45k, there is little reason for any car manufacturer to produce a $25k MSRP vehicle.
In 2080, Apple introduced the Macbook Air. The first version was a mixed bag. The 2010 revision was a game-changer. Competitors just couldn't compete with the hardware you got for $1200 (13"). It was an excellentcompromise between power, weight, efficiency and price. This lasted years. After awhile, 4GB of RAM was light and a non-Retina display was somewhat lacking but it was still good. A $1000 laptop is almost disposable compared to a $3000+ laptop.
But this created a problem for Apple: it was too cheap. About a decade ago, the cult of thinness took over. The Air was replaced by the 12" Macbook that was too underpowered. It only had 1 port, which doubled as a power connector. We got the (awful) butterfly keyboard. And of course we got the Touch Bar. Rumor has it that this all happened because Johnny Ive no longer had Steve Jobs pushing back against him.
All of these things only existed to increase the ASP (average selling price) of Macbooks. There's no other reason.
My point here is that companies don't want to produce cheap, quality, commoditized goods. They want high prices (because that means high profits). Apple didn't want cheap Macbooks. Car manufacturers don't want cheap cars. This is how capitalism works.
Worse though is that these high prices are used as a weapon to drive down wages. These auto makers will say "our labor costs are too high" and try and reduce wages and/or remove benefits, often under the threat of moving jobs overseas. Then you dig a little deeper and find out that about 5% of a car's sticker price is labor costs.
The chase for ever-increasing profits ultimately means cutting costs and increasing prices. Always.
> But this created a problem for Apple: it was too cheap. About a decade ago, the cult of thinness took over. The Air was replaced by the 12" Macbook that was too underpowered. It only had 1 port, which doubled as a power connector.
The 12" MacBook did _not_ replace the Air; it was a niche within a niche. The Air continues to be Apple's best-selling laptop, and starts at $999 (the $1200 price you give in 2010 is equivalent to about $1800 adjusted for inflation).
(In retrospect the 12" MacBook seems like a clear mistake, but at the time there was a bit of a bubble in subnotebooks, and Intel was making lavish promises for its ultra-low-power chip lines which turned out to be nonsense.)
> We got the (awful) butterfly keyboard. And of course we got the Touch Bar.
Only in the expensive laptops; the Air continued to be the cheap option.
I cannot reply to each comment which mention "EU" or "Europe", so I write this one.
Why do you speak about EU/Europe as a whole? There is no such thing. I thought it is, but, now, when I moved to "Europe", I see that ti was illusion.
Prices are different across countries. Do you think Poland, Portugal and the Netherlands have same prices? HA! Compare prices in the Netherlands and its neighbor Belgium. I didn't compare prices for (new) cars, but I did for new motorcycles. Difference can be up to 20%. And it is two of three countries which are known as "Benelux", not two countries on different edges of EU.
Choice is difference between countries too, there are models which are present in one country and not in the orthers. Heck, even selection of a food is drastically different in two Lidls (two supermarkets of same chain) on different sides of Netherlands/Germany border in 10km vicinity!
Many people say that they see that almost all new cars they see are BYD & others — there is no BYD in Netherlands, for example. There is Lynk & Co (which is Volvo / Geely / Zeekr), and it's all of Chinese brands.
There is no such single entity as "Europe" or "EU". Different countries are very different in available goods, prices, taxes and regulations. Yes, there are global things, like GDPR or emission regulations (Euro 5/Euro 6), but still there are a plenty room for difference.
And even "single economic area" is illusion: you cannot simply register car or motorcycle bought in Portugal or Belgium in the Netherlands, you need to pay local VAT, local ecological taxes, etc. So no, there is no "lifehack to buy car or motorcycle in Belgium and save 20%.
The "lifehack to buy car or motorcycle in Belgium and save 20%" is a Dutch only problem, as the Dutch Government makes car (and house) ownership extreme expensive. There is a reason why so many better off Dutch people buy properties and cars across the border, live in Belgium or Germany, and travel each day to work in the Netherlands.
For the rest of the EU, you can buy a Polish car, and register it in Germany for a few hundred euro's.
And FYI: The united states is the same. You can not just move cars across states if you live in a different state. It requires local registration per state (with different requirements), and local number plates.
Second: Yes, prices can differ for the same car, in different countries. And manufactures deliberately make it harder to price compare cars by changing the trim on each car / region. So the same car in Germany may have more features that are not present on the same car in Poland. And yet, again, in the States prices often differ per state. For the same reason why a Polish car can be trimmed down to be cheaper, vs a German version of the car: Not every state has the same medium income. So car manufacture / dealers, price match the cars and options, according to the local demographic.
The rest is a useless discussion as this is regional food, vs regional companies. You may discover that in the US, despite the same global brandnames, there are often large differences between stores, based upon the regional eating habits, and local food producers. Yes, there is more standardization because of the global monopoly level of food production but regional is still a major thing.
> There is no such single entity as "Europe" or "EU". Different countries are very different in available goods, prices, taxes and regulations.
First off, its EU, not Europe. People simply associate the EU with Europe. That is a common issue and not something to nitpick about.
You may be surprised how much we already standardized across the EU. Have you ever left the Netherlands? I mean, not just cross border travel but actual work / live? If you did that now, 10 years ago, or 20 years ago, each time the difference are huge (as in easier and easier). A lot of laws and rules are now standardized across the EU. Hell, i remember the days that getting a piece of paper involved notarization and legalization, now its just a quick call to the ambt and you get a EU version of the paperwork. Valid in all EU states.
I understand, that USA is not homogeneous too!
> Have you ever left the Netherlands?
Rather no, as I'd moved to the Netherlands 2.5 years ago from outside of EU and don't have any rights to work outside the Netherlands :-)
It is not strict "No" because I've spent a lot of time (like, more than a yer on the span of 10 years, so more than month per year) in Germany on my previous work (in "business trips") and can compare everyday/household activities, but not bureaucratic or legal side of life, of course.
What I could compare is my experience as immigrant in the Netherlands with experience of my friends with same background as immigrants in Germany (lot of my friends had moved to Munich and Berlin same time I'd moved to Amsterdam). And difference is striking (in favor of the Netherlands). My experience with banks, IND (immigration department), Gemeente (municipality) and now even with mortgage (Which is cheaper than rent!) is much, much smoother that same experience of all my friends who choose Germany. Mortgage especially: no friends of mine could get approve for mortgage in Germany, even some of them who have salary significantly large than mine (like, x1.5 larger).
Dealership near me has got some 2024-25 model Mitsubishis for like 19k new. They look pretty sweet.
I'm assuming this is the Mirage, which is one of the cars we own for the family (the other is an old Odyssey to fit all the kids). The Mirage is an absolute joy to own: its simple 3cyl engine gets 50mpg if I'm careful. We live in a very rural area (i.e. walking and biking for a big family is impossible and dangerous), so having something economical to drive is a huge help. We drive it any time we aren't taking the whole family somewhere!
Of course in the article, I see the Mirage is noted as discontinued. How frustrating.
Chevrolet Trax can be found between $20-21k USD but... when I look at inventory, nothing within ~75 miles is under $25k.
Not a horrible vehicle for the price.
Mazda 3 used to be a $20k car (and even less before that) but now starts just over $24k (sedan) / $25k (hatchback).
TBF even at $25k the Mazda 3 is probably “nicer” than anything else you can get for that price.
Absolutely. While I personally don't advocate buying anything new, if you gotta, it's a great way to go.
My previous car was a 2015 Mazda 3 Grand Touring bought with 8,000 miles on it for $20k (about $26-27k MSRP new). All the luxuries and bells and whistles!
10 years ago wasn't this "the $20k car is going extinct?"
$25k? What about when Honda Civics were $15k???
Spending $25,000 for a car sounds insane to me.
I don't know if it's due to social media distraction, very effective advertising business models, or lack of financial literacy but I have noticed that over the last 10 years, most people have been willing to pay literally any price for the things they want.
It wasn't always like this. It used to be that price hikes were met with consumer backlash, media attention, and people simply not buying that thing which forced companies to correct their pricing.
The fact that most people will happily pay any price they can afford (on credit, when) seems to be the main thing contributing to high food, car, and housing prices, which negatively impacts the poor and those who bust their ass to be frugal.
But hey, I guess it's a great time to be a VC.
Last time I bought a car, my family kept pushing me to buy new, avoid used.
All new cars were crap and expensive. People wanted me to buy a Hyundai HB20 with a crappy engine that couldn't climb the hill where my house was located.
I ended buying a used Mitsubishi Lancer GT, the thing had same engine as Evo (minus the turbo), leather seats, roof window, rear camera and so on. For half of the price of the HB20.
Sadly Mitsubishi discontinued those and went on to join the SUVmania where your cheapest car is a big as a SUV externally, but that has cramped interior and none of SUV features.
You put to words what I intuitively feel about the auto industry.
Most brands have cost cut the crap out of their vehicles to the point where many used models seem to be better vehicles especially when talking interior quality.
One example that was striking to me was the interior quality of the MK4 Volkswagen Jetta compared to later models of Jetta and Golf.
My current vehicle has CarPlay/Android Auto, a “dumb” infotainment system with no ability to phone home or snitch on me to insurance companies, and it has physical controls for everything.
When it comes time to replace my vehicle, what am I going to find on the market that’s actually better than that? I’m going to be stuck with a gigantic touch screen and a bunch of glitchy safety suites that are beeping at me constantly.
In this modern age, the new vehicle markup at dealerships is completely unnecessary in the USA. Besides inflation, I would say this is a top contributor to the loss of <$25K vehicle.
The crappy experience I had with my last vehicle (~8 years ago):
1. Shop for rates on auto loans
2. Shop for particular brand/model of vehicle (online)
3. Once decided on brand/model, go to local "{{ random entity }} of {{ manufacture }}" dealership
4. Test drive the model you are interested in
5. Once decided you will continue with purchase, then you "start talking numbers"
6. Initial sales guy will always say something like "oh, this is the lowest we can go" (it was something like $5000 over MSRP for the model + options)
7. Then counter with some offer ("$500 + MSRP")
8. Sales guy does some pitch and tries to get you to budge. If you stand your ground here, he/she will "begrudgingly" go back to their manager to get approval
9. You may get approved, or not. But occasionally they will counter. Repeat 6-8 until settled on sales price (including tax, title fees). Known as the "out the door" price. One time I did have to "walk out" when sales person wouldn’t agree on price. Also they will employ as many high pressure sales tactics here as possible. Also best to keep your cards close to your chest, they will try to get you to use their in-house finance (big kickbacks for them). Have had success getting near MSRP by leading them on to thinking I would use their in-house financing.
10. They will now refer you to their finance guy to finish and finalize the paperwork. But it doesn’t stop there. That finance guy will try to load you up on as many unneeded services to pump the sales price. I’m talking extended warranty, gap insurance, paint protectors at significant dealership markup. Usually the GAP insurance isn’t too bad but have to go through process of hearing the pitch and declining each service. Then there is the junk fees such as "document fees" that range from $100-300.
11. Finally, after declining and accepting additional services. You come to the actual payment decision : in house or external financing? Usually, the sales guy would have already run your information through their financing backend to determine creditworthiness prior to financing guy so they have an idea where they can lose out on initial purchase price and recoup on kickback. Occasionally, the rates are better than what you can secure from your bank or credit union. But it’s very rare. It’s in their interest to get you to agree to an higher APR than what you really deserve. At this point, pop out the preapproval letter and compare the offers.
12. On rare occasion, they will try to pull back the deal but at this point it’s better to close and increase sales for month rather than dwell about one barely profitable transaction. Finally, the paperwork is signed.
All of this unnecessary back and forth when it can just be boiled down to a few steps at most.
1. Go to showroom (or online)
2. Browse basic models
3. Decide on options and put downpayment on car
4. (In 3-4 weeks) Deliver vehicle to home or preferred destination. Have it quickly inspected for any defects in transportation. Then deliver final payment and get your new car
277+ comment on this thread when we all know the answer - cars are deliberately over priced, at full price level, so the monthly finance payments relative to depreciation forecasts look good to the buyers (renters) and there is a room for negotiations and offers.
Its HubSpot Marketing that is the winner here.
HubSpot stock isn't doing so well this year, gotta get their name out there to hopefully get some conversions for their overpriced product.
But cars now have way more features in them than several years before.
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
There are few cars I would want to buy in today's market. Cost cutting and price engineering is pervasive, even in extremely high-end cars.
People like cars that can go 80-90 mph for hundreds and hundreds of miles while carrying 4 people. With crash protection.
Add electrics with thousand lbs of batteries, and you've got today's 4000-6000 lb SUVs, all costing an arm and a leg.
People like cars that can go 80-90 mph for hundreds and hundreds of miles while carrying 4 people. With crash protection.
My 12 year old entry level sedan does all of that no problem.
Focusing just on gas cars: People wanted that ten years ago too (and twenty and thirty), so what changed?