Boris and Natasha spoiled all that for us @B.L.E.
For some of us financial necessity trumps fun to drive. The three times I have bought a car I had to look at not just immediate ability to buy but what money I was likely to have in the future when it became time to replace. Also, for some of us, daily comfort also trumps fun to drive. And that comfort includes loading and unloading groceries and other frequent cargo (in my case bags of cat litter). I totally prefer great suspension and handling with responsive acceleration but want that with a reasonably comfy and very practical daily commute, grocery hauler, elder people ride provider, doesn’t need replacing every couple of years. Otherwise I would blow the bank on a sweet performance sports thriller.
In regards to the price of a new car going up relative to annual income, one could argue that you’re buying a much better product. From safety features like air bags, crumple zones, collapsible steering columns and so on; to comfort features like air conditioning, premium sound systems, cruise control, GPS. . . Even stuff I don’t want like power steering, power brakes, power windows pretty much come standard on even the cheapest cars today. I bet the cars from 50 - 60 years ago didn’t have any of that equipment. And today’s cars aren’t likely to rust out in 5 years either.
But I do agree that the middle class is on a long decline in this country. One of the regulars here (I forget who) made a post quite a while ago to the effect that people’s financial situation has deteriorated so gradually, and they’ve been able to maintain their standard of living through the use of cheap & easy credit, that people don’t realize how perilous their situation has become until they’re facing the prospect of living on the street.
Oddly enough, most everyone I talk to, whether they be conservative republican or liberal democrat, seems to agree that the middle class is in decline. Where they disagree are on the reasons why, and what could or should be done about it.
P.S. I was also going to mention about modern cars going 200,000+ miles today whereas one was lucky to get to 100,000 miles on a car of yesteryear, but from the thread a while back about odometer rollbacks, I gather that many cars back then did go 200,000 miles, albeit it unbeknownst to their (2nd or 3rd) owners.
@EdFrugal Yes, cars are much better than they used to be. Consumer Reports mentions this often.
My 1965 Dodge Dart, the best compact at that time, was fully rusted out at age 13, and the engine had lost most of its compression. The mileage at that time was 154,000. A whole raft of parts had been replaced, from torsion bars, to WW wiper motor, gas tank, ignition switch, water pump, etc. At the time we scrapped it only the radiator, transmission, and a few other parts were still totally original.
Scrap value was 30 cents a pound, so we got $90 for it.
Today, a well cared for car would only have routine replacements such as brakes, shocks, and other wear items replaced. Our 1994 Sentra was largely original at that mileage with only the CV joints and shaft replaced as well as the radiator in addition to the normal brakes, alternator, starter and battery.
The only time that the financials of the “fun” weekend car worked for me was when I did not have to use a car daily for my commute. Otherwise the extra insurance, maintenance and time needed (wash, wax, change fluids, etc) starts to make my life feel shorter. I also tried a semi-fun daily driver (Ford Focus sport MT), but that got old pretty fast too. Esp since nobody else in my household drives stick (or would!), so taking it in for warranty work alone became prohibitive (I work 60-70 hours a week),
Gotta agree on the MG Midget,friend had a yellow ragtop,I drooled everytime I looked at that car(knew I would never have it)
jtsanders, ‘fun to drive’ has never been on my list of parameters for a car. ‘Check the fluids and tire pressure and go a couple thousand miles this week’ has been for a long time.
The only car I ever had which was actually fun to drive was the 1936 Chevrolet, and I didn’t go anywhere far away, nor very fast. But, it was actually fun to putter around with. I would not take one as a gift now, but 52 years ago it was fun.
No problem for me @irlandes. We all apply our own sensibilities to our cars. Since having children, we’ve driven sensible transportation and never paid more than $25,000 for a car. Now that raising children is done and we don’t owe any long term loans, it’s time to go back to thinking about cars more the way. I did in my 20s with the fun quotient a lot higher than it used to be. But that’s just me, and it doesn’t have to be anyone else.
In regards to the price of a new car going up relative to annual income, one could argue that you're buying a much better product. From safety features like air bags, crumple zones, collapsible steering columns and so on; to comfort features like air conditioning, premium sound systems, cruise control, GPS. . . Even stuff I don't want like power steering, power brakes, power windows pretty much come standard on even the cheapest cars today.But that's the rub: people who don't know me, whom I didn't vote for and cannot vote out, are telling me I *must*, by rule of law, have all of that safety stuff...even if I do a personal cost/benefit analysis and determine that I'd be much better off with 50 pictures of Benjamin Franklin in my pocket than a computer stability system that says (effectively) "NEIN! Das ist Verboten!" should I want to execute a bootleg turn.
I mentioned before: a Mexican can purchase a brand-new, 1994 Nissan Sentra (i.e. Tsuru) for $9,500 or so. Lots of working-class folks might find circa-'94 safety better than whatever hoopty they’re driving now…but would get fined if they attempted to import and register one. (Ironically, at the same time, motorcycle helmet laws are being repealed. Don’t know if that’s because of a better lobbying group, or simply because most folks don’t want to peeve off bikers…)
P.S. I was also going to mention about modern cars going 200,000+ miles today whereas one was lucky to get to 100,000 miles on a car of yesteryear, but from the thread a while back about odometer rollbacks, I gather that many cars back then did go 200,000 miles, albeit it unbeknownst to their (2nd or 3rd) owners.I read somewhere that most of that is due to better oils and no leaded gas, and I tend to believe it. My 1994 truck has a straight 6 featuring a 1964-era engine design (albeit with a primitive "batch fire" EFI.) On modern oil and gas, it's coming up on 200k with no issues (motorwise) to speak of.
There’s no question that better oils and fuel are factors, however having spent 23 years in manufacturing I would argue that the overwhelming majority of things that enable modern cars to go so long happen in the factory, before the car even gets built and shipped. They include dramatic improvements in technology that enable much cleaner engine operation, improvements in manufacturing technology such as better casting processes and better forming technologies, polymers, bonding technology, welding technology, conformal coatings, and countless other things. They also include much, much more powerful design software and computers that allow a dynamic finite-element-analysis of the inside of a cylinder to a level not even dreamed of 40 years ago. And we can’t forget the impact of applying statistics to the production processes rather than simply trying to inspect the parts, and designing to incorporate multifunctionality in the parts (something that used to require 25 parts now requires one), as well as asymmetry, preventing assembly errors.
It’s tempting to credit the longevity of modern cars to a few things, but the reality is far more complex than that. It’s ten thousand little things rather than one big thing. With one exception: management. No manufacturer will ever make a higher quality product than its senior management desires. A company can have all the newfangled technology in the world, but if its senior management in more focused on volume than quality, junk will get pushed out the door.
GM used to schedule its production levels based upon what made each factory “efficient”, and then park the excess vehicles in lots and provide incentives to the dealers to push them. When the economy collapsed, they were stuck with excellent “efficiency ratings” from their factories, but parking lots full of cars they couldn’t sell. They were focused on the wrong targets.
:grimace: