Z Fury

iTrader: (1)

I'm actually looking for an older GMT400 vehicle to avoid all of the **** you guys mentioned. I've learned (the hard way) that the more advanced a vehicle is, the more it costs to fix it...

ULTIMATEORANGESS

iTrader: (4)

thats why theres a warranty.

i understand buying used to save money but new car warranties are pretty good now.

Tall Guy

iTrader: (1)

Having worked on cars in the last 20 years, GM mainly, I can agree on the more usless crap installed in cars causes the price to go up. That and the fact automakers and the government are trying to protect people from themselves with above mention regulations. IMO 2005 is the year most new cars turned from 'somewhat easy to work on' to 'I need too many specialized tools or training to fix it'.
My old 05 GTO was the newest car that I would own only because it was older technology dating from the early 2000's. Anything newer is/was too expensive and to complicated for the average person to work on. I'll stick with my 2 4th gen f-bodies or even buy a Fox mustang if I want to go fast for less...

NW-99SS

iTrader: (6)

Not sure what has become more difficult LSx wise in the new Camaros and Vette's than your GTO??

I would agree with you, but change the year to 2013 as 2014 goes to LTx tech and supposed un-crackable ECUs, DI, and VVT.

Lethal Z

Im not so sure I buy into all that. You know this idea that at the end of the day were gonna just blame the goverment because they required some sort of mandate. Lets say the goverment stopped mandating. Lets say they repealed them all and left it to the car companys to do what they wanted to do. Lets say the car companys no longer had to provide those evil mandated features. Of course they would still be available, but now its a matter of which of these features do you wanna pay for. If you wanted ABS you pay for it. If you wanted air bags or traction control you pay for that etc, etc. Maybe they would even let you choose how many air bags you wanted. Who's to say the car companies won't strip all those goverment mandated features out of the car and still turn around and charge you the same price. Why wouldn't they? Now not only are you choosing between leather and cloth seats now your deciding between ABS and or air bags. And the argument of "well I'll just go somewhere else". Where would that be? If one car company can get away with making an extra buck doing this whats to stop the rest of them. May not happen over night but I would argue it would be a sad day if you had to choose whether or not you could afford airbags or ABS or not.

Jon5212

iTrader: (2)

^^^ There was a time where cars didn't have ABS or airbags and looks like we made it alright then as well.

I think these additional things provide "false" security with drivers nowadays. I can't tell you how many people I've talked to in parking lot accidents that say," I didn't see him in my backup camera" , I ask were you looking over your shoulder and behind you and I get the answer of "No". Pathetic.

Z Fury

iTrader: (1)

While everything you said is accurate, it doesn't mean that government mandates on vehicle safety haven't resulted in higher prices. It is a weak argument to say "stripping out all of the mandates would barely lower the car's price" - we've seen that play out with gas prices (they go up because oil costs more, oil prices come down, gas prices stay up). When prices become inflated due to an external factor, removing that factor does not guarantee lower prices. Sellers know that buyers are now conditioned to accept the higher prices, so they keep prices high and pad profit instead of lowering prices.

It is a fact that government mandating air bags, TPMS, stability control, seat belts, crash ratings, etc. have increased the material cost as well as R&D that goes into the design/construction of a newer vehicle.

1995blacktattop

iTrader: (2)

it's a wonder people can even afford used cars when most jobs that are out there anymore are minimum wage. who can live on that?

Wnts2Go10O

iTrader: (12)

govt requirements and regs cause the price of cars to rise? you dont say..

ThisBlood147

Amen. I don't mind things like ABS or selectable TCS or SMS, but it's silly that all these things are now mandated by law rather than just desirable to the consumer. Like everything else in these days, the government is trying to "idiot-proof" modern motor vehicles under the guise of making them "safer"....when all they're really doing is making it easier for jackasses with zero driving skill to get into a car and drive amongst the rest of us unsuspecting souls. These people are not becoming better drivers because the car is now doing TOO much of the work for them....and when one of these nanny systems catches a hiccup (or a situation it wasn't designed for) you end up with injured people or even fatalities.

Lethal Z

We made it alright huh?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1...-vs-59-Bel-Air

http://www.documentingreality.com/fo...-1950-a-42404/

You cannot fix stupid. I could care less about back up cameras, I always look and proceed with caution thats not what Im talking about. Im talking about features like ABS, airbags, seat belts and cars that are designed to absorb impact. My life and my family are worth the extra cost. Your mileage my vary.

TORK?

iTrader: (27)

I have to agree that it's tough to buy a new car. I live in Chicago. I'm a lawyer at a medium size firm. Get paid a decent salary. But there's no way I could afford a new car. Just because I can get approved for a car loan for $40k doesn't mean I can afford it.

Between rent+utils, student loan, food/gas, cell phone, savings for a house, savings for emergencies/vacation - it's not worth cutting back on other life needs to pay a $500+ monthly car payment for something that will lose 1/3 of its value before I pay 1/3 of it off.

That's why I never understood the BMW 5 series buyer. $70k off the lot, 2 years later, good luck selling it for even $50k.

The great thing about LS1 fbodies is that they've hit a maintainable basement. You buy it for $5/6/7k, you can sell it for $5/6/7k in 2 years. Now if only these STi/Evo guys would figure it out and stop asking $19,000 for a clapped out 85k mile 8 year old car....

Lethal Z

No it doesn't, but there lies the problem. There ain't no guarantee that the savings from not having those features is gonna get passed along to you either. Your precieved savings could be some CEO's bonus check. In your eyes the goverment is making the car more expensive. In my eyes the goverment is making the CEO put that bonus check into the car. Maybe I'll pay more for the car but seeing as how my wife is driving my son around in that car. I'll pay the extra cost.



Oil prices are the way they are because of speculation not because oil costs more. Some oil producing country has some type of conflict and you see it at the pump immediately regardless of whether we get our oil from them or not.


Its also a fact that there are far fewer vehicle fatalites today then there were back in the 1950s as a reult of those goverment mandates.

ULTIMATEORANGESS

iTrader: (4)

im all for making cars safer. ill gladly pay more to keep some shitty driver from killing me.


then were all not perfect either. traction control or ABS im sure has saved a few of us from wrecking. me included.

Z Fury

iTrader: (1)

You honestly think a CEO takes a pay cut to put these features in? A CEO would make the same money if cars cost 50% of what they do now. CEOs make sure they get paid. The government isn't making the CEO do **** with the profits.

Doesn't matter what drives the price up, the fact is that gas prices have remained up. Look into what gas should cost right now, adjusted for inflation, based on the same ratio (oil price : gas price) from the early 90's. Gas prices are inflated because we have been conditioned to pay them.


I never argued that these safety features were pointless. My point was that all of these features have resulted in higher vehicle prices, and that these items were mandated by the government (DOT).

Jon5212

iTrader: (2)

No you can't fix stupid, thats my point. Putting all these "features" on new vehicles provides a false sense of security and people think they are invicible. When you actually handle accidents for a living and see and hear what people do, there is no system in the world that can prevent the STUPID that people just don't know how to drive and don't pay attention.
If people would just pay attention and actually figure out how to drive I guarantee accidents would drop by 50% easily.

I drove several vehicles for several years that had no airbags, no ABS or anything and never had one problem.

Edit: And researching on wiki, number of just "Fatal" accidents in 1959 was 36223, in 2011 32,367. Even though a great increase in population, not a very big reduction in fatality accidents. This also doesn't take into account how many actual licensed drivers there are compared to the population and lots of other variables.

2002_Z28_Six_Speed

iTrader: (19)

Think about how many more people there are today and how much more people drive. Your thinking is a little flawed there. These figures show a huge increase in safety.


1950 US Population --> 150,697,361
Current estimate from US GOV --> 313,914,040 (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html)





http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=443

Yet, how are there less deaths if usage and congestion is higher??

Jon5212

iTrader: (2)

^^ It's not flawed since I clearly explained that there are lots of other variables in there. Good try though.

Still the number of "Deaths" is still significant, and there doesn't seem to be a significant reduction. And going even further, with these fatal accidents, would the airbags and seatbelts and all of the other gadgets even mattered?

SSCamaro99_3

iTrader: (1)

Statistically speaking you are not correct.

36,223/150,697,361 = 0.02% chance of death
32,367/313,914,040 = 0.01% chance of death

Your expected deaths from population change would be around

(313,914,040/150,697,361)*36,223 = 75,455

You are looking at a survival rate increase beyond 50%. Mostly attibutable, in my opinion, to vehicle construction.

justin455

I'll definitely agree that ABS, airbags, seatbelts, and impact absorbing innovations are great and should be standard, but the rest of the electronics that take control away from the driver should be optional. Hell, I turn off my traction control in the winter. Otherwise it just cuts power when a wheel slips and I can't go anywhere. With it off I can keep the tires fighting for traction and get places.

As far as the statistics go, I think it would be interesting for someone to compare the numbers of accidents to the number of drivers and miles driven per capita. That's really the only way you're gonna see if people were better drivers back in the old day. Of course accidents are lower because the cars are safer in an accident, but we might not be as good at avoiding accidents today.

It should definitely be more difficult to obtain a driver's license. There should be all kinds of driving scenarios taught. You should learn how to control a car in accident avoidance scenarios, spin out scenarios, etc. If you learned in a FWD car and then go to register a RWD vehicle you should have to take a short course learning the handling characteristics of RWD as well.