Sure but cars were very affordable then so people could afford the higher lines. 0% financing was also the norm or cheap leases. Up until covid you could lease a wide range of vehicles for a couple hundred a month.
0% financing is cheaper than buying it outright. You earn interest on your own money instead of spending it all at once and should end up with more than the total cost of the vehicle you would have otherwise spent in the end.
That’s only true if you had the cash to buy it outright in the first place and you turn around and invest the money instead of spending it on the car. That is a very small percentage of people.
That would be the most optimal way to do it, but as long as the interest compiles slower than inflation, the longer the loan term, the less money you’re actually paying.
True, but that's not really the same as you earning "interest on your own money", the savings there are in the creditor accepting depreciated dollars for payment tomorrow instead of demanding full value dollars today.
Even one extra dollar of interest gained over your financing payments makes it a better financial opportunity, and that's ignoring the opportunity cost of spending a lump sum, and the depreciated value of the loan - all that is to say, calling the idea of utilizing financing wild on the topic of affordability was incorrect (what I was responding to) as long as 0% financing exists, or even financing under interest realistically.
Adjusted for inflation, car prices haven’t really increased. But yeah, as I said, there were great dealer incentives (such as 0% APR) and the economy was a dumpster fire. And yet people were still not buying the 1980s-esque vehicles.
I just don’t really see how trying it again would go any differently.
If these kids could read they'd be very upset at your insinuation. But couldn't agree more, sales numbers on cheap no-frills cars led to those companies going out of business or dumping the models to survive. People just want to find a scape goat to blame. If expensive cars didn't sell they wouldn't sell them.
Yeah, if they were right, the Mitsubishi Mirage would be the best selling car in the US and wouldn’t have been discontinued.
It’s also funny that people bring up the Slate Truck as if its projected MSRP hasn’t basically doubled from the original pre-orders. Hell, look at the Ford Maverick. That was the “small pickup that everybody wanted” and it’s mostly been fleet sales.
You could get 50% discount on a vehicle and 0% APR. Some dealers were doing no payments for 12 months.
You could get a brand new Pontiac G5 for a few thousand dollars. This was also during “cash for clunkers” so you could get more than that by trading in your used car.
So, during a time where people needed cheap, reliable transportation, the US government and auto manufacturers did basically everything possible to sell these vehicles, and… people didn’t buy them.
Reliable is a key term there. US vehicles would have catastrophic failures after 120k miles and numerous repairs leading up to that. It’s what allowed Toyota to creep up on GM in the 2010’s before dethroning them in 2020’s.
I had an ‘04 RAV4 that never needed anything but oil changes, brakes, and tires, meanwhile my buddies with newer Fords and Chevys would regularly have something shit out or a check engine light. I wasn’t particularly easy on my car driving food deliveries either.
For full transparency I guess my muffler did disconnect from rust but a shop just ground and welded that thing. The thing that did it in was a company botching a windshield replacement and the perimeter rusting out. By then it was about 18 years old and had to be put down
They did not. The problem was people want the basics and CarPlay. But because manufacturers bundle options you usually had to get the most expensive model to get the one feature most people wanted.
I think most manufactures now include it as standard but it wasn’t in the 2010s. But even now options are locked behind packages. When I build a car online I might select a $300 option but in order to get it I have to include a $2000 package of things I don’t want.
>Most non-luxury manufacturers sold those until the early 2010s, and they all got axed because nobody bought them.
No, people bought them. CAFE Standards and the better profit margins from larger vehicles drove a lot of the marketing and offerings towards much more stocked, high value vehicles.
Increasingly, the top bands account for the vast majority of consumer spending. The market shifted based on the changes in taxation, the profit rates, and the lower-end consumers losing any purchasing power as a unit.
I guess I’m not understanding how CAFE standards made larger vehicles overvalued.
At the time, the smaller vehicle basically subsidized the larger vehicles. The larger ones were wouldn’t meet the efficiency standards by themselves, so despite the lower margins and demand, manufacturers continued to produce smaller vehicles to meet the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards.
2011 CAFE standards changed to include the "footprint" formula. The small cars became harder and harder for them to hit, so they instead just phased them out.
It didn’t make it harder for small cars to hit CAFE standards, they already met them. It made it easier for better-selling vehicles to meet the requirements.
A Honda Fit and a Honda HRV are the same in terms of their “footprint.” People would just rather buy an HRV than a Fit.
“Like all things CAFE-related, it’s more complex than it first appears. What the University of Michigan study describes is not a callous attempt by car companies to subvert the intent of fuel-efficiency legislation, but the undeniable power of consumer preference. If car buyers valued fuel economy more than anything else, the story would be different. Detroit could hybridize its entire fleet, with customers happy to pay more upfront for greater fuel savings down the line.”
The problem was, they weren't priced to make it worth it for most people. I did buy one with crank windows/no frills around then and it wasn't that much cheaper.
Most non-luxury manufacturers sold those until the early 2010s, and they all got axed because nobody bought them.
While true, the market in 2026 is extremely different than it was in 2010. People need to get from point A to point B in a certain time period. Making something the price of a then new 2010 civic today would sell way more volume than it did then.
The car buyers are different because they bling everything out in the vast majority of cases AND buy the more expensive CUV, even though it's normally very similar to the cheaper car that it's based on.
The manufactuerers still offer base cars almost across the board at the similar price points. People just don't buy them in large numbers. They still get the bling package more than the base.
And that's a Civic. Things like a base Jetta is actually cheaper than they used to be once corrected for inflation (About 1k cheaper in 2026, than 2010).
Also this is for the base in 2010. If you go back to the early nineties you can find some base stuff slightly cheaper. A base civic would be about $22,500k for example, but a base Civic in the 90s is FAR less car than a modern one. Not even close, even though people loved those cars.
~$8.35 per pound by weight for a modern Civic. ~$10.70 per pound for the 90s variety.
Uber doesn't change the car need, just who owns the vehicle. Theoretically you could have enough Uber drivers and cars going 24/7 to reduce the need as a sum total but even that's only really viable in large enough metro areas. It's also a bit less reliable overall when timing is critical.
They mean a car with air con, stereo, power windows (all things that existed in the 80s) just no bullshit infotainment, HUD, camera, auto safety steering, all that new shit
I mean sure some new things are good but that's obviously not what this post is about and based on your other comments it's pretty clear you're just being deliberately obtuse.
I thought you said “no more than 80s tech, not stripped down.”
I don’t see how I’m being obtuse. These cars wouldn’t sell. They’ve never sold. Car companies in the US didn’t kill all of their base model economy cars because they were selling like hotcakes.
Yeah, I don’t think you understand the ask. By stripped down features we don’t mean cutting the AC or stereo; we mean cutting the touch screen internet connected computer consoles.
It was a differnt time. Regardless of what the news says: People are broke, the economy is in shambles and unemployment is the highest it’s been since the Great Depression. Those cars would sell for sure now.
Yeah, perhaps. But in 2009, we were in the middle of the second-largest global economic collapse in world history. And it completely changed the landscape of the automotive industry.
I have a lot of trouble believing that things are that much worse now.
It’s not like that. It’s not an Apples to apples comparison. Things have changed and the metrics which used to be more accurate were skewed on purpose by the govnmt to make the economy seem better than it is. If people think everything is fine, they continue to spend and shop.
I’m presenting all this to open your mind and see a larger picture, if you want to continue believing your narrative by all means go ahead.
I’m trying to. What was the effective unemployment rate during the Great Recession?
If 1/4 people are effectively unemployed right now, how do they think everything is fine?
I lived through the Great Recession. The city I grew up in virtually shut down. We lost 24,000 manufacturing jobs in a city of ~50,000 people. I was just there last week, I can guarantee that city was doing much much better than a ~50% unemployment rate.
I bought my car at 0% APR (~$30k MSRP), and the only real differences between it and my old 2008 VW Rabbit is that it has Apple Car Play and Adaptive Cruise/Lane Keep Assist. Otherwise, the upgrades are mandated by law (e.g. backup camera).
This 2024 Tiguan is the only car I’ve had manufactured after 2007, and I wouldn’t describe it as “overrun by too much tech.”
They wouldn’t. Obviously, they wouldn’t. Dacia is the closest you can get to that, they are selling well, but it’s nowhere near 80s levels. Also, safety.
Not really. Notably she doesn't mention just driving, she mentions the luxuries that were likely implemented when she herself was young and now is the baseline for her. If they made a car that just drove without various pleasantries like AC and bluetooth people would never buy it.
This is the correct take. I own a lightly used Lexus that I bought for less than the price of a new civic. Why would I get a basic new car when my used car has heated and ventilated seats?
No they wouldn't. People in the real world actually do like new technology and having lots of features, and there are decades of sales data backing that up
No, they wouldn't. Cars from the '80s, with the technology available at the time, were generally less reliable, less efficient, less safe, and far worse-performing than the average car today. Anyone claiming otherwise doesn't know shit about cars.
Engines and technology wise. Yeah, but every damn thing has a sensor, extremely hard to reach or fix LEDs, software issues, and other expensive items that really cannot break unless you're a millionaire.
Everything breaks, and fixing it costs too damn much
Please. Cars from the ’80s had carburetors or bad fuel injection systems, drum brakes, no OBD-II, primitive emissions systems, crude engine management, poor rust protection, and mufflers that always rusted out. Getting one to 100,000 miles was a miracle and plenty of them needed major repairs well before then. Compared with the average car today, ’80s cars were pieces of shit.
Exactly, even if they were half the price of vehicles now you had to replace them twice as often except for a few outliers.
Hell, with inflation my 96 Z71 cost more than my 2024 pro4x. Granted that is a mid-size vs a full-size but it's more capable than my old truck with better gas mileage.
They absolutely don't. The argument is also bullshit once inflation corrected.
Base cars still exist. Some are cheaper, inflation corrected, than they used to be - are more car than they used to be - and far safer. Some are as simple except for some cases of regulated additional complications (safety - backup cameras, airbags, abs, emmisions, etc) that they MUST have to be sold. Most are more reliable now than then, certainly far more robust in the long term (less rust, takes longer to fall apart when it does rust).
In the case of pickup trucks, the work trucks rarely sell except for fleet situations.
Nope. Mitsubishi Mirage exists, which is about as close to an 80s crap can (I use this term lovingly) base car as you can possibly find. They don't sell many of them and haven't since they have been available.
Mostly because people complain about all this, then do the exact opposite and buy the most kitted out car trim they can find instead.
Until they got shut down for failing safety and emissions regulations, anyway. And once they caught up with technology enough to meet those requirements, they wouldn’t have enough of a cost advantage to sell. Customer behavior suggests that the standard set of optional features is valued over their cost, even when priced at higher margins than the base car.
There's an electric compact truck/SUV coming out that has handcrank windows and it's a major selling point for the people showing interest in it. Also, no infotainment center — or even radio or speakers — by default (backup camera, which is required by US law for roughly a decade now, displays on the dash)
Further, they are keeping prices down even further by using no-paint polymer body panels (wraps available first-party, if matte grey isn't acceptable) and providing all options as kits to be installed by the owner or a third-party garage after-sale. Even the SUV conversion is a kit that should take the average DIY'er only an hour or two to install.
I'm not going to shill for a company by mentioning the name if I have zero experience with them, though, despite hoping they succeed. If you're interested, it should be easy enough to find. The name of the vehicle and the company making it are one and the same.
That’s kind of what the new EV pickup from Slate auto is gonna be. $24,000 EV small pickup/SUV, with 205 miles of range. If the range was better, I’d immediately preorder one myself. But for people in a city, it would be a perfect vehicle.
imagine if they remade cars from the 70s just about exactly as is, plus some saftey features. Basically just a bluetooth+AUX radio instead of cassette.
Better airbags, better engine.
People would love it for the design alone, plus the simplicity if its affordable without fancy features.
Im so fucking sick of 60% of cars today looking like this:
Just make straight up a Peugeot 205 GTI, or those amazing Ford Escort Cosworth, or better, the Renault Clio V6! those are fuckn awesome! Fuck teslas, fuck hyper cars, fuck M5 with 5he weight of a boat!
Yeah except it wouldn't. All the mandatory safety and efficiency systems will still drive the price up where you could get a used car with nice comforts for the same money.
It can have and be as safe as you want. Everyone assumed that's what I meant. It's not. Put 8 airbags in it. Whatever. I just don't need fourteen screens.
MST performance make remanufactured chassis Ford Escort MK1 & 2 that are low-fi asF. They're basically art and very expensive. I believe they're booked for orders, albeit at quite low volume until like 2028-29.
I want one. £100k starting price though for a "base" model 😅
Toyota tries, USA and Canada block them from entering.
Honda makes the Acty, Subaru makes the Sambar, I’m sure Kawasaki and Suzuki both make a kei “work spec plus” truck, it’s just that we’re only allowed to buy the big, feature packed crapmobiles made in North America or if a politician makes a deal where they get their crumbs.
Those little trucks are sick. Super easy to park. Lots of cargo space. But nobody gets to scrape their cut off the top or worse, the GM/FoMoCo monopoly pays to keep them out.
I think most manufacturers still have base model cars for about $25k or less (plus destination) if you actually order a base model with no additional features.
Would be really cool if they could match the old prices (with inflation) which would put them closer to $15k according to a quick google. I think with safety and emissions requirements these days it would be tough, even if they made it as basic as possible otherwise with just the features you mentioned
Ok everyone. I'm sorry. Assssumed Reddit had some common sense but I guess not.
The whole gist here is we don't want forty million doodads loaded in there. I myself am IN the industry. Have been for over three decades. My post and point was I'd just like to have a simple car as they were round about that time in the 80s BEFORE screens became a thing.
Of course I'd want it to pass safety specs. It can have 27 airbags in it and no steel bumpers. Fine. Make it safe. Np. But just make the engine, drive train and controls cable/lever or other. No push button computer screens, no radar, no pedestrian detection, no automatic braking, no 360 cameras, nadaaaaa shit like that.
I can turn my head. I can see. I can brake. Let ME drive. Give me something simple enough to be able to be diagnosed and moderately addressed with simple means. No $50,000 machine to figgeritout.
Reddit does have their share of keyboard warriors with bad opinions. I have a Rivian and recall some nuts on Reddit decrying its failure. You know what they say about opinions and assholes… well on reddit the bots only have opinions….
45
u/Intelligent_Trichs 10d ago
If somebody made a brand new car with no more than 80s tech in it they'd sell em all.