3 ms·

The problem is entirely that the vast majority of new car buyers don't want "basic cars." Even car enthusiasts, who talk endlessly about how simple cars are be

The problem is entirely that the vast majority of new car buyers don't want "basic cars." Even car enthusiasts, who talk endlessly about how simple cars are better, will point out how poor of a deal a new "basic" car is compared to a used luxury car. Jalopnik and the like used to constantly run articles like, "Why buy a new Honda Civic when you can get this 2012 Infiniti G35 for the same price?!!?" Sometimes they were tongue-in-cheek, featuring something like an Maserati, but most of the time, it was genuine advice. It's totally possible to sell cheap, basic cars in the USA and make a profit, but the key is that those cars need to sell. Companies have tried for years to make the formula work. The Versa, Mirage, Fiesta, and Fit were all basic, no frills transportation, but the only one left is the Versa. I think it's hypocritical of people who don't own one of those (preferably that they bought new) to complain about lack of basic cars in the USA. If you weren't willing to make the sacrifices necessary to drive a basic car, why should you complain about other people not making the same sacrifice? > But my slightly-conspiratorial view is also that companies want to engage in a kind of "customer indoctrination", Or...Vehicles exist at a high enough price point that price/performance is a key driver of value. Spending more on a larger, more capable vehicle makes sense if you plan to use it for the next 15 years. Transaction costs on cars are insane. So if one buy small, then trade up as one needs, then it's going to be much more expensive in the long run than just going big the first time. Barring pickup trucks, the best selling vehicles in the USA are all pretty much mid-level, family-focused transportation: Rav4, CRV, Rogue, Camry. These are big enough to haul a family, but not loaded to the gills with luxury appointments.

toast0 4y ago
> The problem is entirely that the vast majority of new car buyers don't want "basic cars." Mostly, I'd like to buy a basic car, but in the US, you've mostly got to buy off the lot, and basic cars aren't well stocked; maybe they don't sell as fast so dealers don't stock them, maybe they don't make as much margin so dealers don't stock them, either way, they're not there so you can't buy them. You might be able to convince a dealer to order it, but then you're usually not going to get any of the promotions, and it's not worth waiting 2-3 months and paying more so you don't have to get the features you don't want.
- zucked 4y ago
  It's probably both - there isn't a lot of margin in something like a base model vehicle compared to its upmarket family and not a lot of people come in looking for a vehicle with manual crank windows and a stick shift (I WOULD) so they aren't flying off the lot.
  - nerdponx 4y ago
    I wonder if there is a feedback loop between this phenomenon and income inequality. People in the "lower middle" income tier can't afford anything but the cheapest basics (or are forced to switch to used cars), so demand becomes skewed towards higher quality stuff, so the product mix gets adjusted towards higher quality stuff, further increasing prices, etc.
cxr 4y ago
> I think it's hypocritical of people who don't own one of those (preferably that they bought new) to complain about lack of basic cars in the USA. I remember shaking my head in disagreement the last time I saw you bring this up in the thread about the hypothetical "Costco car" <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28569886 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28569886>. I don't own any of the cars you mention and don't care to. I also, however, don't care to own a luxury brand, or even some mid-level with fully loaded options, or even what you would probably consider to be a reasonably priced modest choice, e.g. Toyota Corolla, for that matter. Why? Because when I think of "great, small, cheap cars", I don't think any of those fit the bill. All the aforementioned cars (including your recommendations) all share one or more qualities with luxury buys that disqualify them from being considered by my rubric as "basic cars". Bezos famously drove a beater. At some point he upgraded to a newer (but still old) Honda Accord that I would probably classify similarly—not basic enough. I own (and for years drove) a mid-90s Mustang. (Still owned, but no longer driven.) It is/was a great economy car, which crucially by my rubric includes low-cost maintenance, given that it lends itself to easy repair. Still it came with some things outside the bare essentials, including AC, power locks, power windows, a nice stereo, and zero smart features (another pro in my book, not a con). Having never bought and owned one of the cars you recommend, where do I stand, in your book, on being able to complain about the state of access to basic and affordable cars in the US car market? > Or...Vehicles exist at a high enough price point that price/performance is a key driver of value. Spending more on a larger, more capable vehicle makes sense if you plan to use it for the next 15 years. Alternatively: we know that people are not rational actors, and car ownership is just one of the many things that people can be observed to be incredibly irrational about (to the point of acting counter to their best interests and/or their own stated interests).
- mywittyname 4y ago
  >All the aforementioned cars (including your recommendations) all share one or more qualities with luxury buys that disqualify them from being considered by my rubric as "basic cars". Bezos famously drove a beater. Ah, I'm curious what new car you consider to be "basic". I'm guessing none of them are. Whatever "beater" Bezos drove, probably has a modern analog, and that modern analog is probably the same price or cheaper, adjusted for inflation; safer; and more reliable. Simple does not mean reliable, and reliability does not require simplicity. First-gen Lexus LS400s are still rolling around after 30 years, despite being a flagship vehicle that was loaded with enough technology to compete with top end Mercedes. Meanwhile, a Trabant is as simple as cars get, but keeping one going is quite the challenge, even though pretty much every part on one can be built by a local specialist, or adapted from another vehicle. You'll get 250k miles and 20 years out of a new Corolla. And if the car has a fundamental defect that prevents that from happening, they'll make it right with an out of warranty repair. See: Taco drivers who received new chassis or cars with the 2AZ-FE who received complete engine rebuilds under warranty, even on vehicles with well over 100k miles. After that, because Toyota sold millions of them each generation (and shared parts with millions of other cars), you can easily find a lifetime supply of replacement parts. And that's what you like about your Mustang, right? > Alternatively: we know that people are not rational actors, and car ownership is just one of the many things that people can be observed to be incredibly irrational about (to the point of acting counter to their best interests and/or their own stated interests). Two of my siblings bought the basic transportation people are espousing here: one an older Civic, the other a Mazda2. Neither owned those cars for more than 18 months because, like many 20-somethings, "oopsies" happened and they find out things like, car seats don't fit if the person in the front seat is over 5'6, or strollers are gigantic. Both ended up trading their cars in for a minivan and a crossover. Both took a bath on the trades too. This was irrational behavior. They were buying the car they could live with now with the expectation of keeping it for 15 years. A rational person would consider what life looks like in 15 years if they were planning on keeping a car that long.
jorts 4y ago
My 2013 Fit was definitely low frills and "easy to maintain", but when I saw how much work it took to change the spark plugs I laughed out loud.

toast0 4y ago

> The problem is entirely that the vast majority of new car buyers don't want "basic cars." Mostly, I'd like to buy a basic car, but in the US, you've mostly got to buy off the lot, and basic cars aren't well stocked; maybe they don't sell as fast so dealers don't stock them, maybe they don't make as much margin so dealers don't stock them, either way, they're not there so you can't buy them. You might be able to convince a dealer to order it, but then you're usually not going to get any of the promotions, and it's not worth waiting 2-3 months and paying more so you don't have to get the features you don't want.

zucked 4y ago
It's probably both - there isn't a lot of margin in something like a base model vehicle compared to its upmarket family and not a lot of people come in looking for a vehicle with manual crank windows and a stick shift (I WOULD) so they aren't flying off the lot.
- nerdponx 4y ago
  I wonder if there is a feedback loop between this phenomenon and income inequality. People in the "lower middle" income tier can't afford anything but the cheapest basics (or are forced to switch to used cars), so demand becomes skewed towards higher quality stuff, so the product mix gets adjusted towards higher quality stuff, further increasing prices, etc.

cxr 4y ago

> I think it's hypocritical of people who don't own one of those (preferably that they bought new) to complain about lack of basic cars in the USA. I remember shaking my head in disagreement the last time I saw you bring this up in the thread about the hypothetical "Costco car" <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28569886 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28569886>. I don't own any of the cars you mention and don't care to. I also, however, don't care to own a luxury brand, or even some mid-level with fully loaded options, or even what you would probably consider to be a reasonably priced modest choice, e.g. Toyota Corolla, for that matter. Why? Because when I think of "great, small, cheap cars", I don't think any of those fit the bill. All the aforementioned cars (including your recommendations) all share one or more qualities with luxury buys that disqualify them from being considered by my rubric as "basic cars". Bezos famously drove a beater. At some point he upgraded to a newer (but still old) Honda Accord that I would probably classify similarly—not basic enough. I own (and for years drove) a mid-90s Mustang. (Still owned, but no longer driven.) It is/was a great economy car, which crucially by my rubric includes low-cost maintenance, given that it lends itself to easy repair. Still it came with some things outside the bare essentials, including AC, power locks, power windows, a nice stereo, and zero smart features (another pro in my book, not a con). Having never bought and owned one of the cars you recommend, where do I stand, in your book, on being able to complain about the state of access to basic and affordable cars in the US car market? > Or...Vehicles exist at a high enough price point that price/performance is a key driver of value. Spending more on a larger, more capable vehicle makes sense if you plan to use it for the next 15 years. Alternatively: we know that people are not rational actors, and car ownership is just one of the many things that people can be observed to be incredibly irrational about (to the point of acting counter to their best interests and/or their own stated interests).

mywittyname 4y ago
>All the aforementioned cars (including your recommendations) all share one or more qualities with luxury buys that disqualify them from being considered by my rubric as "basic cars". Bezos famously drove a beater. Ah, I'm curious what new car you consider to be "basic". I'm guessing none of them are. Whatever "beater" Bezos drove, probably has a modern analog, and that modern analog is probably the same price or cheaper, adjusted for inflation; safer; and more reliable. Simple does not mean reliable, and reliability does not require simplicity. First-gen Lexus LS400s are still rolling around after 30 years, despite being a flagship vehicle that was loaded with enough technology to compete with top end Mercedes. Meanwhile, a Trabant is as simple as cars get, but keeping one going is quite the challenge, even though pretty much every part on one can be built by a local specialist, or adapted from another vehicle. You'll get 250k miles and 20 years out of a new Corolla. And if the car has a fundamental defect that prevents that from happening, they'll make it right with an out of warranty repair. See: Taco drivers who received new chassis or cars with the 2AZ-FE who received complete engine rebuilds under warranty, even on vehicles with well over 100k miles. After that, because Toyota sold millions of them each generation (and shared parts with millions of other cars), you can easily find a lifetime supply of replacement parts. And that's what you like about your Mustang, right? > Alternatively: we know that people are not rational actors, and car ownership is just one of the many things that people can be observed to be incredibly irrational about (to the point of acting counter to their best interests and/or their own stated interests). Two of my siblings bought the basic transportation people are espousing here: one an older Civic, the other a Mazda2. Neither owned those cars for more than 18 months because, like many 20-somethings, "oopsies" happened and they find out things like, car seats don't fit if the person in the front seat is over 5'6, or strollers are gigantic. Both ended up trading their cars in for a minivan and a crossover. Both took a bath on the trades too. This was irrational behavior. They were buying the car they could live with now with the expectation of keeping it for 15 years. A rational person would consider what life looks like in 15 years if they were planning on keeping a car that long.

jorts 4y ago

My 2013 Fit was definitely low frills and "easy to maintain", but when I saw how much work it took to change the spark plugs I laughed out loud.