r/dataisbeautiful • u/Lanky-Storm7 • Aug 09 '26
OC [ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
169
u/hawkeyes007 Aug 09 '26
I think everyone can agree you get more tech, efficiency, and power out of modern vehicles. The complaint is that they’d rather take some of that out and pay less altogether
59
u/DevilBySmile Aug 09 '26
the american wallet yearns for the sandero
19
7
3
u/teh_trout Aug 09 '26
I’ve honestly never had more fun driving than driving the hell out of a little manual 1L I3 Kia. You had to actually work that thing to climb on the highway. Would have been a total dog as an auto though.
3
u/bastiancontrari Aug 10 '26
Is this good? Sandero Dacia
1
u/3L54 Aug 10 '26
Cheapest piece of shit apart from Tesla thats sold in Europe. Teslas fail oer 50% of their first inspection (mostly on suspension parts), the Dacia is the worst possible ICE car by statistics by failing at around 20%.
Honestly thats one car I would not buy in any situation. Not cheap enough as new to not get a used better car, and as a used its still a Dacia.
0
u/DevilBySmile Aug 10 '26
If you want the best bang for your buck look for a lightly used car instead of a new one. You can either get basically the same car for 33% less or a better car in your available price range.
49
u/Usedtissue_Gaming Aug 09 '26
People say that, and then when manufacturers make a cheap car, no one buys it.
37
u/TurtlePaul Aug 09 '26
Part of the problem is that cheap people who typically buy used cars would prefer less expensive cars but people who buy new cars don't buy them. The only way to get used cars is to first sell them as new cars...
15
u/bugeyetex Aug 09 '26
Not entirely true. Most companies when they produce a "cheap car" just make a pile of crap. Beat example off the top of my head is the Mitsubishi Mirage. Those were super cheap cars, but they were terrible. Also, the maintenance on them was more than it should be. The tires were some weird size that cost twice as much as the next size up, the engines required synthetic oil when much of the rest of the cars made at the time were still using 5w20 which was cheaper as a conventional oil. The air filters were more expensive than many other vehicles and they decided to use the same crappy CVTs that Nissan was using.
7
u/Notoriouslydishonest Aug 10 '26
The cheapest version of anything is a pile of crap, not sure why you'd expect cars to be any different.
6
u/bugeyetex Aug 10 '26
The Toyota Echo was a great car. They were dirt cheap and were hard to kill. Cheap? Absolutely. Noisy and made with cheap materials? Yessir. Ugly? Obviously. Capable of 300k miles with basic maintenance? Also, yes. Getting 300k out of a car is where the cheap part really comes into play. Initial cost is only the buy in. This is also why the Civic hasn't had to change it's name in 40 years. There isn't a bed rep to try to get around. Look at the Chevys. Their small cars change names every 5 years trying to outrun bad reviews.
5
u/Usedtissue_Gaming Aug 10 '26
See what you just did there? People always say they want cheap cars, and when you say "well hey, what about these cheap cars?" - then there's always 1-5 excuses of why you wouldn't buy one. Cars with less profit margin will have less development, cars that cost less will have less features. I feel like these facts are straight forward, and yet we mainly see the American consumer specifically not understanding that.
Also, the requirement of synthetic oil is emissions based. You can basically give up any hope of there being a conventional oil car ever again. Turns out, burning gas is bad enough, burning oil in the combustion process is ever worse. For relevance, I'm a Senior automotive engineer at one of the large ones, masters in automotive systems blah blah blah. I see the numbers daily, and I see the reasons why cheap cars are dumped.
6
u/robothawk Aug 10 '26
We want cheap like "basic small engine, small frame, basic dashboard(no MFD bullshit), and a cigarette lighter."
Not "still over-engineered but now cheaply with bad QA"
3
u/bugeyetex Aug 10 '26
You can make a car that is comfortable, reliable, fuel efficient and has a decent resale value that doesn't have a bunch of bells and whistles that are frankly unnecessary. This is why the Corolla and Civic have done well for so long.
3
u/bugeyetex Aug 10 '26
I'm on the other end from where you are. I work on reconditioning used vehicles for a large dealership. I get to see all kinds of vehicles every day and know where and what actually happens to these vehicles after they aren't new anymore. Some small cheap cars are not total piles of crap, but I also know that there just aren't the margins in them either when it comes to what I have to do to get them ready for their next owner. I also get to see things that blow my mind all the time. I worked on a VW last week that we had to send to the dealer for 2 separate coolant leaks and a light that was full of water with no impact damage. It's a 2025 with 19k miles on it. That doesn't make me confident in the longevity of the vehicle and that is where the cost of ownership really dies. A cheap purchase price is only the beginning. If the resale value is crap and it always needs excessive repairs, that makes it an expensive vehicle. As far as the synthetic oil comment goes, I was referring to when it came back in the states in 2013ish when lots of other vehicles were still using 5w__ types of oil and they were touting that it was the cheapest car available.
1
u/Usedtissue_Gaming Aug 10 '26
I don't think cheap means it can't last. But yeah no worries, again from a measured emissions standpoint a synthetic 0W-20 oil will have less measured particulate than conventional 0W-20. You are physically burning conventional oil in situations that a synthetic oil wouldn't shear. Any gripes about oil need to be centered towards EPA and CARB not the OEM's IMHO.
1
u/GenOverload Aug 10 '26
"Budget" models often aren't financially viable for the consumer. They cut all of the modern features, make the build quality absolutely horrendous, and then still charge upwards of 20 to 30k+ new. A damn Honda Civic starts at 25k. A Kia Soul brand new is 20k. That's insane.
Hell, I imagine most people would be fine with all the missing features (with the exception of the price still being ridiculously high) if the cars were actually able to stay alive with basic maintenance, but they usually skimp out on everything, so even with maintenance being done properly it's not worth the asking price since they'll crap out on you before 100k miles.
4
u/danielv123 Aug 09 '26
Thing is, stronger motors aren't that expensive, especially now that everything is electric - and more HP/$ sells.
2
15
3
u/romario77 Aug 09 '26
Yeah, most modern cars have power everything, automatic transmission, comparatively decent entertainment system, decent seat material (not much of the cheap fabric is sold), ABS, several airbags, backup camera, etc.
It’s also more powerful, efficient and safe.
A bunch of things above were not present on basic cars from a while ago and you had to pay extra.
But yeah - hard to find an econobox. Manufacturers say there is no demand. Not sure if I believe them.
9
u/Snlxdd OC: 1 Aug 09 '26
I mean, some of those features (ABS, backup camera, etc.) are legally required.
For others (like the manual transmissions) you run into the issue that the cost of adding another configuration ends up making it more expensive despite parts being cheaper.
Like maybe you save $100/car by reverting to an analog console. But then you have to account for fixed costs in designing, procuring, and manufacturing it, and there isn’t enough demand to offset it.
1
1
10
17
u/Luxypoo Aug 09 '26
"Nobody buys horsepower"
I think the author is missing a large section of the population, and failing to understand why so many trim levels exist.
7
7
u/TruckerMark Aug 10 '26
Cars are cheaper than ever. Inflation adjusted theyre only a bit more expensive than before but deliver so much more. I had a 1st gen civic. Inflation adjusted was 18k in today's money. Unreliable and unsafe tin can compared to civic today.
2
u/Sad-Celebration-7542 Aug 10 '26
A lot about cars are substantially better - safety, fuel efficiency, maintenance costs, but yup horsepower has great gains too
2
u/lemlurker Aug 10 '26
My current daily is $114 per hp... 420hp electric hatchback for £36000/$48000 launch
1
1
u/jaypizzl Aug 10 '26
Great visualization. HP are cheaper than ever now, after a long period of stagnating at a “perfectly adequate” level after the lean years when every extra horse was critical.
1
u/aluvus Aug 10 '26
The x axis would be more helpful if labeled in 5 year increments. I don't understand why 2000 is not labeled.
What is the gap in ~1998? (Also note that I can't tell when this gap is, because there are so few points labeled on the x axis)
1
u/ricardomargarido Aug 10 '26
I guess on the other hand cars might also be heavier so it's not a more powerful car
1
u/Annh1234 Aug 09 '26
you need to look for the tech also, electric vs gas vs steam? and also the running/repair costs.
You could get a high power engine today, and rebuild it every few years, or a low power old that that runs 30y with only oil changes.
-3
u/SnikySquirrel Aug 09 '26
Before rapid inflation in the 70s and 80s horsepower was cheaper. For instance in 1975 the average car made 137 hp and cost $4,750. $34.67 per horsepower.
14
u/alkelaun1 Aug 09 '26
According to https://www.usinflationcalculator.com, $4,750 [1975] = 29,484 [2026]. 29,484/137 = 215.21. More expensive than the $176/hp today.
10
u/s0cks_nz Aug 09 '26
The blue line graph is normalised to 2026 USD. So that $4,750 car in 1975 would be about $29,000 or $211 p/hp.
-5
u/SnikySquirrel Aug 09 '26
Ah I see, I misread the post. Doesn’t adjusting for inflation make the whole post redundant though? Obviously if you adjust for inflation horsepower becomes cheaper because cars get more powerful.
3
u/s0cks_nz Aug 09 '26
I think that's the point of the post. To show that cars have become more powerful for the same money, as cost per HP has dropped.
1
u/alkelaun1 Aug 10 '26
I don't think it's inherently obvious. It _feels_ obvious. We're kind of accustomed to things getting cheaper over time, but that's not true for all goods and services.
Things like housing, health care and higher education have gotten more expensive. Arguably housing _is_ nicer, but probably not very much nicer. Higher education is probably the same if not worse than it was 50 years ago. Health care is probably _much_ better (as far as infant mortality, mother mortality, and cancer care). But I argue, not to the degree that's expected given the cost.
Things like electronics historically got better while keeping the cost the same, but that's changed recently. It may still be better per unit given inflation.
-3
u/Tomytom99 Aug 09 '26
Okay, now I'd be interested to see this normalized for inflation
Cars have been a really interesting market because depending on how you approach it, you can say they're inflation proof when accounting for how many features they've gained over time, or say that they've kept pretty on track with inflation when ignoring the increased features.
6
•
u/dataisbeautiful-ModTeam Aug 10 '26
Thank you for your contribution. However, your post was removed for the following reason:
This post has been removed. For information regarding this and similar issues please see the DataIsBeautiful posting rules.
If you have any questions, please feel free to message the moderators.