Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The $25k car is going extinct?

media.hubspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

951–960 of 1001 posts

Re: The $25k car is going extinct?

#951

Post by amy214 »

idiotsecant wrote: post #686
BanterTrouble wrote: post #654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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?

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

Re: The $25k car is going extinct?

#952

Post by lmm »

tshaddox wrote: post #333
lmm wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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.

Re: The $25k car is going extinct?

#953

Post by dzhiurgis »

alerighi wrote: post #432
BanterTrouble wrote: post #382

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…

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…

FWIW repairing tyre is easier than putting on spare. So long it’s not a rare sidewall puncture.

Re: The $25k car is going extinct?

#954

Post by dzhiurgis »

umbra07 wrote: post #931
ceejayoz wrote: post #812

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: The $25k car is going extinct?

#955

Post by nradov »

parpfish wrote: post #189
nradov wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: The $25k car is going extinct?

#956

Post by dzhiurgis »

jollyllama wrote: post #899
Der_Einzige wrote: post #767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

Re: The $25k car is going extinct?

#957

Post by dzhiurgis »

tlogan wrote: post #577

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…

And inflation is calculated by how much car prices increased

Re: The $25k car is going extinct?

#958

Post by dyauspitr »

namdnay wrote: post #386
tshaddox wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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%.

Re: The $25k car is going extinct?

#959

Post by snuxoll »

toast0 wrote: post #230
snuxoll wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 in…

> 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.

Re: The $25k car is going extinct?

#960

Post by hakfoo »

potato3732842 wrote: post #680
__s wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Post reply on HN