Auto Exects say Car of the Future wont be cheap

"Econo-cars" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tegger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Brent > wrote in news:idjhfm$gm3$1
>> @news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Deflation (of the prices of goods) is the natural state of free market
>>> enterprise, and this can be seen in products that beat the rate of
>>> inflation. Prices continually decline in constant dollars. Electronics
>>> is a prime example.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Electronics are still a relatively new technology, so there's a lot of
>> low-hanging fruit available.
>>
>
> 1958 is relatively new technology? That's when the first Desoto electric
> fuel injector was used.
>
> Econo-cars

Desoto electric should have been Desoto electronic.

Econo-cars

On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 07:15:52 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
wrote:

>
>
>Tegger wrote:
>
>>
>> An automotive magazine back in the '80s (R&T?) did a study to see how
>> prices compared over a period between (I think) 1970 and 1985. Many things
>> were cheaper in '85 than they were in '70, but cars had held steady: when
>> adjusted for inflation, cars cost the same in '85 as they did in '70. The
>> authors attributed this phenomenon to the cost of the many regulations that
>> had been enacted in between those years.
>
>That statement is so brain dead stupid it must be some feeble attempt at
>comedy.
>
>If cars cost the same in 1985 as they did in 1970 when adjusted for
>inflation that means the price of cars went up just the same amount as
>everything else did.

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 bull**** 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

On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 12:42:15 +0000 (UTC), Tegger >
wrote:

>
>I've read that North American regulations and legislation (plus the current
>fad for multiple airbags) add some $3-4,000 to the price of a new car, and
>that's the same whether the car is a Kia or a Lexus.

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
> On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 07:15:52 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Tegger wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> An automotive magazine back in the '80s (R&T?) did a study to see
>>> how prices compared over a period between (I think) 1970 and 1985.
>>> Many things were cheaper in '85 than they were in '70, but cars had
>>> held steady: when adjusted for inflation, cars cost the same in '85
>>> as they did in '70. The authors attributed this phenomenon to the
>>> cost of the many regulations that had been enacted in between those
>>> years.
>>
>>That statement is so brain dead stupid it must be some feeble attempt
>>at comedy.


You never read the article.


>>
>>If cars cost the same in 1985 as they did in 1970 when adjusted for
>>inflation that means the price of cars went up just the same amount as
>>everything else did.
>
> That's not how it works. They probably go by percentage of income.



They went by buying power.



--
Tegger

On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 00:29:49 +0000 (UTC), Tegger >
wrote:

>Vic Smith > wrote in
>news >
>> On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 07:15:52 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Tegger wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> An automotive magazine back in the '80s (R&T?) did a study to see
>>>> how prices compared over a period between (I think) 1970 and 1985.
>>>> Many things were cheaper in '85 than they were in '70, but cars had
>>>> held steady: when adjusted for inflation, cars cost the same in '85
>>>> as they did in '70. The authors attributed this phenomenon to the
>>>> cost of the many regulations that had been enacted in between those
>>>> years.
>>>
>>>That statement is so brain dead stupid it must be some feeble attempt
>>>at comedy.
>
>
>You never read the article.
>

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


>
>>>
>>>If cars cost the same in 1985 as they did in 1970 when adjusted for
>>>inflation that means the price of cars went up just the same amount as
>>>everything else did.
>>
>> That's not how it works. They probably go by percentage of income.
>
>
>
>They went by buying power.

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

--Vic.

Vic Smith > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 12:42:15 +0000 (UTC), Tegger >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>I've read that North American regulations and legislation (plus the
>>current fad for multiple airbags) add some $3-4,000 to the price of a
>>new car, and that's the same whether the car is a Kia or a Lexus.
>
> I don't buy those costs. Probably developed by anti-regulatory
> whiners.
> Airbags aren't a "fad." They ain't going away.



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



> Their cost is probably no more than a hundred bucks from the supplier.



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!



> There's regulatory overhead with anything.
> Once safety is engineered in the costs are quickly amortized



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.



> and you
> end up with a safer vehicle.



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



> 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.


I sure can.


--
Tegger

Vic Smith > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 00:29:49 +0000 (UTC), Tegger >
> wrote:
>

>>>
>>> That's not how it works. They probably go by percentage of income.
>>
>>
>>
>>They went by buying power.
>
> Which is the same as income as far as figuring inflation.
>


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


--
Tegger

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

On Dec 6, 7:51*am, wrote:
> http://www.dailyjobcuts.com
>
> Prices of gasoline is up too.
> cuhulin

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

On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 23:23:56 +0000 (UTC), Tegger >
wrote:


>
>And hey, have you heard that Ray LaHood now wants to put backup cameras in
>all new cars? It's estimated to cost about $2-billion, and to save about
>100 lives a year. That's only $20,000,000 per life saved. Such a deal!


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