Why there are no $3k-$4k cars? I am sure most people need cheaper cars, not electric cars, or AI cars, or cars with mobile app and telemetry. Those are toys for the rich.
"A Car" needs to be able to operate safely on highways at 60+ MPH. That means: horsepower, braking, crumple zones, airbags, crash testing, etc. By the time you add those up you've already exceeded that budget, and you only have a glorified rickshaw. People want doors, roll-down windows, etc, which all add cost... they're going to be better served with a used car in that price range.
The closest things that exist are Neighborhood Electric Vehicles. They're basically golf carts with seatbelts, allowed to operate on city streets up to 25 MPH.
It would be great if the US had something like Japan's Kei Cars. Those are $10k and up, fast and safe enough for local highway use (say 50MPH)... It works in Japan because urban traffic tends to be low speed. They are less practical in the US where freeways run through every city, but they'd still work for many people. They would require significant regulation changes.
A Yugo GV in 1984 was $3,990 which is $12,000 in today's dollars.
A Chevy Spark in 2013 was $12,995 which is over $17,000 in today's dollars.
Car companies can keep up with US regulations at about the $15,000 price point. Below that is losing money.
A Nissan Versa or Mitsubishi Mirage in 2024 cost about $16,000 which is right in line with the Ford, the Yugo, and the Chevy econo-rides of the past.
$3K-$4K wouldn't build you a crash regulation compliant unibody shell, much less a full car. If a major maker went balls out to build cheap and still be legal to sell in the US, they might be able to get the price down to $10K-$12K and still break even, but below that is a fantasy. Physics simply will not bend any further.
[1] https://insideevs.com/news/710364/byd-detroit-import-seagull...
Interesting but not something one would want to drive.
I’ve seen some indication on social media of an elevated amount of severe failures of materials and/or poor welding in new vehicles from China. This leads me to suspect the usual corner cutting or outright fraud on material quality that makes China so risky to do business with.
It is difficult enough to hold western automakers to account for failures, I would not want to attempt to need legal recourse from Chinese companies.
That $22,000 vehicle is comparable to a Hyundai Kona in the US for $25,000 (not eligible for US EV rebates so Hyundai cut the sticker price dramatically) or the Chevy Equinox for about the same after rebate.
As you can see, it's not really the difference the headlines make it out to be.
In the first world, I'd say:
- the usual Big Government stuff (industry-specific regulatory, bureaucratic, & legal moats)
- brutal economies of scale for highly complex large manufactured goods
- public-good-doesn't-count-for-shit capitalism
That last one is especially brutal. If you could make $20K by selling one $80k SUV, vs. $20K by selling 100 $3k cars (each with a $200 profit) - then it's damned obvious which way you'd want to go. From marketing, to staffing your showrooms, to sales paperwork, to customer complaints, to the long-term legal and forced-recall liabilities - trying to sell the 100 affordable little cars is a 100X worse choice for you.
The cost of raw materials alone for a typical US car are over $4000 before any labor has gone into it.
The only way you're gonna get a $3000 car is if everyone involved with the production from the mine to the dealership is working for pennies.
It's worth noting that the majority of these regulations are at least nominally about safety.
The cost of distinct models is mostly in crash survivability and related regulated safety systems.
This whole argument is bunk. Just settle on a design (perhaps borne out of your higher end model) let it trickle down your product line (unchanged) other than stripping useless gadgets, etc.
Why do people assume those in the market for a $3k car care that it have a brand new body style?
How does the bike do in a crash?
People can still faceplant badly, but getting rid of cars will avoid the vast majority of fatal crashes.
The top of the report clearly says, "50% of crashes are a single bicycle accident (HOPE)" and "21% of crashes are a bicycle-bicycle crash (HOPE)". Is it possible that only 29% involve cars?
Seriously, I cannot recall any news report, of any bicycle accident, that didn't end in permanent injury or death (which sort of makes sense, but still ... )
I've seen many few year old used tesla 3s ~ $20k
Deals are out there if you're not too picky