Hacker News Reader

>This car would be unthinkable in today's market - barebones radio, stick shift, no camera, no screen and noisy engine.

All I really want are bare-bones vehicles. I had to practically fight with the Nissan dealership to get their base-model trim. I wish manufacturers would still offer basic vehicles.

Such a vehicle is impossible to offer even if they wanted to (they don't) because things like backup cameras and other safety-related equipment are legally required. Once you require a camera, you require a screen. Once you have a screen say goodbye to your barebones radio. Et cetera.

But automakers would rather you sell you a high-margin truck or SUV than a barebones economy car, anyway. And hardly anyone would buy them even if they did offer them, as we've observed in the decline of sales of regular sedans and hatchbacks in the US over the past couple decades.

I bought brand new Honda Fit with a backup camera 9 years for 17K. There isn't some magic safety dust that is forcing the entry level prices to rise by nearly $10K.

> Once you have a screen say goodbye to your barebones radio.

This is not necessarily the case. When backup cameras were first mandated some manufacturers put the screens in the rear view mirror. The reason everyone has a screen on the dash these days is because new car buyers are often demanding smartphone integrations.

If they have to add $100 in mandated components they're going to delete $100 in componentry that can be shifted to the screen. Knobs cost money.

If it was purely penny pinching, they could have stuck with the cheaper smaller screens in the rear view mirror and put a blank panel in the dash instead of a stereo, like base model vehicles of the past sometimes had.

But most automakers are spending a couple of extra bucks on a nicer and more expensive screen in the dash because new car buyers don't want to spend new car money on a car with a dashboard that looks like it's from 2001, and it doesn't make sense to save $50 on a car if you can't sell it.

Not long ago, you used to be able to buy new cars without AC, power steering, power windows, power locks, automatic transmissions, painted bumpers, stereos, passenger side mirrors, cupholders, center consoles, etc. And it is still legal to do so. But consumer preferences have changed.

Wire harnesses are expensive. Running a video signal over the roof uses more wire than keeping it all in the dash.

They are, but not really that much. Automakers frequently run harnesses with unused wires for lower trims because the expense to inventory multiple parts is more than the wire costs. So it isn't so expensive that they don't waste some wire. On many models there's already a harness run to the front of the roof for other reasons, (garage door opener, compass, safety systems, dome lights, map lights, visor lights, mirror dimmer, microphone) so the labor and assembly costs are mostly already happening anyway. We're talking tens of pennies or single digit dollars of additional cost in material at most.

If we pick a popular vehicle with this feature, a 2010 F150, there's a 16 pin connector there, with 12 wires populated. 2 are for the camera.

Does it cost more than running 10 wires there? Yes. Was it so much that Ford didn't actually ship the car that way? No.

https://www.f150forum.com/attachments/f38/470443d1489862009-...

We rented a Ford Taurus that had the camera in the rear view mirror.

It works really well. With my camera, I have to sweep from the camera to the rear view mirror, to the door mirrors, as none of them cover completely, so they all have blind spots. With the screen in the mirror, it's actually a better experience IMHO.

If you want a bare bones car, you would probably have good luck getting a 2 year old vehicle from a rental fleet. Those tend to be pretty bare bones vehicles.

It was funny, I rented a truck from Home Depot. It was brand new, less than 100 miles on the clock. And, yea, it was lucky to have paint. Automatic transmission, radio, and air conditioner were the top drawer items. Imagine taking 2 knobs, perhaps 1" in diameter, and AM/FM button, and a LED matrix display big enough to display 105.5 and a "stereo" and AM/FM light. That's how big the radio was on this otherwise large dashboard. Vinyl floors, vinyl bench seat, crank windows.

And there's something to it. There's a simplicity having a hot <-> cold slider and a fan speed knob versus arguing with a "climate control" system.

It's quite difficult to find stripped models on the dealer lot. They'd much rather upsell you the sunroof you don't want because "well, that's all we have".

I've never had a real problem ordering a car, just have to be willing to wait for it, but they've all been domestic. 3 of my last 4 cars were ordered to my spec.

Best new car dash/interior I've seen was inside a U-Haul. I'm holding onto my old cars for now. If/when EVs become default, that'll be a compelling reason to buy a new car.

I agree that buyers should have the option to purchase simpler cars. But I think backup cameras are too valuable of a safety improvement to leave out. About a year ago I saw a toddler very likely saved by the backup camera and proximity sensor. This is of course just anecdotal, but it sold me.

Wouldn't the proximity sensor be enough? Sounds cheaper and much less prone to unwanted surveillance.

Yeah, I guess then you don't need a screen for display. And to be honest the proximity sensor may have had the greater effect in the situation I referenced. I could hear it beeping from where I was about 30 feet from the car.

I really wish the Hilux Champ was available in North America. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Hilux_Champ

I think the base models are there mostly to be able to advertise a more attractive starting price. I got the base trim of my car but anecdotally the dealership was getting very few of them and on the road I also see very few.

I did manage to get a base model Nissan Frontier. The features it has and lacks are pretty interesting. It's not manual adjusting mirror -- and I don't mean it's got a little knob on the inside. You roll the window down, and then push the mirror itself with your hands to adjust it. I don't mind it being so basic, but it's interesting that this exists, but not the option for manual locks or manual windows.

Manual locks require new jigs on the assembly line for the different parts. Since most people want automatic locks they can save the cost of building those jigs and the inventory management to go with them by not offering it. You only get something as an option if the profit of having the with and without version is more than just offering the "better" option to everyone.

> Some of the numbers, while true, create the false impression that you are required to play the F-150 truck game.

This is exactly it.

The average may have gone up, but there are STILL plenty of relatively low-cost sedans out there. And they're GOOD cars!

A brand new Toyota Corolla is only a hair over $22K. Even the hybrid is just over $24.5K. And it'll get 50 mpg! Honda Civic starts at $24K.

I think this is basically right.

But the other part of it is that manufacturers actually have gotten better at pricing, if better is defined as getting people to pay a little bit more than they expected. Locking pretty important stuff behind higher trim packages, or even just making it an overpriced add-on, for example.

It's upselling, sure, which they've always done (cf. all the 80s jokes about rustproofing and undercarriage protection). But they've really turned it into an art form in the last 4-5 years. I forget which make and model it was, but I was pricing out some car on a website, and you could get a blue car for, let's say $40k, but if you wanted a red car you had to also get heated leather seats, the deluxe navigation package, the deluxe safety package, different tires and hubcaps, and pay something like $46.5k. I'm fairly certain you just mix red dye into the paint rather than blue dye...

Given that the article starts off with a story about someone at the lower end of the economic spectrum being unable to afford a car, it seems borderline misleading to then discuss car affordability in terms of the average new or used car price. As you suggested, the fact that the average new car sale is $49k in no way prevents you personally from buying something like a Civic, Corolla, or Impreza and getting a perfectly good new car for half the price. It's not even like housing, where there are supply issues making things unaffordable. Car makers offer cheaper models and would presumably make more of them if more people demanded them.

Also while there is nothing wrong with spending $49k or more on a car, it's wild to me that this is the average new car sale price in the US considering the median household income is something like $75k. Spending an equivalent to 2/3 of your yearly income on a depreciating asset when there are perfectly reasonable cheaper alternatives does not seem reasonable as the rule rather than the exception. If you make a lot of money or like nice cars, sure, but as the case for the average buyer...wow.

The increase in larger vehicles on the road is making it increasingly unpleasant and unsafe to drive/ride smaller vehicles or use no vehicle at all. It's technically not required to join in, but it essentially is. The only way to avoid the unpleasantness is to join in and get one yourself.

You're right. But one thing to keep in mind, is that with full comprehensive insurance, you're also paying to cover other people's vehicles, so if the average price of a vehicle increases your premiums can too.

My premiums have increases, while my vehicle has remained the same (and no tickets/claims/incidents).

i bought a 2005 Ram 2500 for $25,000, today it would cost minimally $75,000. I actually need a truck to haul hay every week. i dread when the thing rots apart. I will have no answer.

Even if we assume your truck is now worthless, that's only $1,300 per year. More realistically, assuming you have kept it in reasonable condition, it is probably worth around $8k now, or $900 per year. That's nothing in the grand scheme of things. In your case, that's only $17 per load of hay. Approximately one small bale per load pays for it. That still leaves a lot of meat for the truck to haul – especially a 2500. It is not surprising that the price of new trucks has skyrocketed.

I too bought a truck for my farm in the same era for around the same price and I'm glad I did, because in hindsight it was an absolute steal. The ROI it has provided has been off the charts. Again, it is not surprising that new trucks have gone up in price to close the gap. Fantastic investment opportunities never last.

I bought my F350 15 years ago for $10k, if is worth 7k now. (1999, 7.8 diesel engine). However I have also paid $1000/year to ensure it, which for as little as I use it works out to nearly $.50/mile. It hasn't been a great investment (as a diesel it doesn't like to start in winter), but I can never find anyone to rent me a truck when I need one so it stays (I can rent a truck shaped vehicle with fine print that doesn't let me use it for what I want a truck for)

I think that's a special case, because large pickup trucks have moved from being work focused to being luxury vehicles. Trucks people bought in 2005 don't really exist any more new, even if the same model is still technically around.

That said though, I'm pretty sure they do still make basic work focused trucks, although they might be hard to buy outside of fleet type sales.

i really don't believe people buy 3/4 and Full ton trucks as luxury vehicles, at least not to a large degree. I certainly agree with you that a huge majority of 1/2 ton pickups are luxury vehicles. Just look at all the short beds that are sold.

Not sure how much hay we are talking, but why not buy a smaller used car with a tow hitch and a trailer? Trailers cost a fraction of what you pay in markup on a pickup over a small car and most cars are more than capable of towing a small to mid-sized trailer. Bonus: you can unhitch the trailer and have a way easier time fitting into parking spaces ;-)

Because trailers are no fun to park, or run through drive thru for lunch.

Trailers are for "occasional" loads, rather than daily loads (unless you're a semi-truck).

The parent was talking about a weekly task, not daily. For me that would fit the description of "occasional". And a trailer the size of a pick-up truck bed would be quite easy to fit through a drive thru made for giant pickups and SUVs. Parking (especially reverse) is something you have to pick up, for sure, but once you do it is actually not that challenging and on many parking lots you can actually just pull through a double parking space without reversing at all.

I agree, I wouldn't do it for everyday jobs (for that I'd probably use a large Van or something like it) but in my experience, having a decent trailer gives you tons of flexibility for very little money.

pulling a US ton of hay with a smaller used car isn't going to be fun. That car's transmission is going to get wiped out.

Get a Maverick and a lightweight trailer.

The great thing is that today you can still buy a 2005 Ram 2500 for $25,000!

(I exaggerate, but my brother recently bought a ~2011 Ram 1500 for $21k!)

the problem is, unless you buy a southern truck, the frames are pretty much done for... rotted thru.

I paid $24k out the door for a Subaru CrossTrek in 2014. Crazy to see the price hasn't moved much despite a decade passing.