Auto Exects say Car of the Future wont be cheap

That's not how it works. They probably go by percentage of income. So if you spent 20% of yearly income for a car in '70 and 20% in '85 they say the price didn't go up. But maybe your food bill and washing machine, and other costs went down (or up) as a percentage of income. A lot of it is bullshit anyway. I'm retired on SS and the gov has added no COLA to SS for 2 years, saying there is no inflation. But my property tax bill just increased enough to take more than a monthly check away. That's an +8.33% increase to my cost of living. And I don't see that being offset by lower prices anywhere else. Not complaining, because I'm not hurting anyway.

Back to cars. In 1968 I had just left the Navy and was working the steel mills making about $2.80 an hour, or $5-6000 a year. I had a '64 Holiday '88 I paid $1400 for. Clean. I went out with a buddy in his new car, a 1968 Buick Wildcat. It was pretty, but I was flabbergasted he had an $8000 note on it. Especially when I noticed the big plaque around the side view remote knob put on crooked by about 20 degrees. And this guy wasn't making any more money than me. So I say new car prices were pretty high in 1968. But I never looked at new cars, so maybe that Wildcat was an exception.

--Vic

I don't buy those costs. Probably developed by anti-regulatory whiners. Airbags aren't a "fad." They ain't going away. Their cost is probably no more than a hundred bucks from the supplier. There's regulatory overhead with anything. Once safety is engineered in the costs are quickly amortized and you end up with a safer vehicle. I can't think of one mandated safety feature on cars that could be removed and most people would still want the car. Maybe you can.

--Vic

Vic Smith wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

You never read the article.

They went by buying power.

Didn't read any article, and didn't say what you're responding to. Get your attributions right.

Which is the same as income as far as figuring inflation.

--Vic.

Vic Smith wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

One day they just might. Their impact on safety is tenuous, but their impact on cost is absolutely horrendous.

Ever noticed how many cars are written-off as total-loss these days? In the old days they'd get fixed for a few grand. Crumple-zones and airbags shoot the repair cost so high insurance companies have to write them off. Those are costs too, you know. BIG ones!

And then they change the regulations and you're back to square one, every few years.

Plus, each time you change a unibody's, engine's, or transmission's design, or put an engine or transmission into a different vehicle, you need to retest and recertify to comply with emissions and/or safety regulations. It's not at all a one-time cost, but recurring expenditures every few years.

Remember that manufacturers are typically on a 4- or 5-year model cycle. Each model change means brand-new certifications and brand-new compliance costs.

Then why does the downward slope of the death rate since 1911 not correlate with any safety regulation at all?

I sure can.

Vic Smith wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

No it's not. "Buying power" also accounts for tax increases.

Lowest price of a new 1950 Ford car was $1,100 or thereabout.Radio and heater were optional equipment, I think. I once owned a used 1950 Ford car, six cylinder, manual shift with overdrive.The headliner in that car kept drooping down.One time one of the brake linings in the right front wheel let go, the car did a sudden hard lurch to the right. Right turn, Clyde! ~ Clint Eastwood. cuhulin

Cars of the future won't be cheap??? Are they thinking that they're cheap now?

Don't even get me going on this. Why can't they just make cars that you can see out of?

Tom W. Butts wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Because side-intrusion crash regulations -- in addition to side-curtain airbags -- mandate that all the pillars be as thick as tree-trunks, and the cowl and windowsills should come up to your nose.

I remember back when Consumer Reports would routinely complain about thick pillars, especially the C-pillars, on account of the lousy visibility that resulted. But now that fat pillars are a "safety" feature, CR seems to be A-OK with them.