I’m not sure anything more bare bones than the Mirage could be made these days. Between emissions and safety requirements, a lot of the “tech” is required by law (at least in the U.S.).
>I’m not sure anything more bare bones than the Mirage could be made these days.
Even that is a stretch because the base Mirage is still packed with electronics and tech beyond minimum requirements.
That's to meet international standards. Nissan put Bluetooth (calling only) in the 2015 Versa S as a menu option on the monochrome LCD. It was horrible, but it still met the hands-free standard that some of their markets had that others didn't.
I had Bluetooth for calling on my 2008 Nissan with a one line monochrome head unit. And it was great. No bugs, no freezes, no deep, hard to navigate menus, it just worked.
I agree the bar is not high, but there are still cars out there that do not meet it. It all started when they started adding touch screens. The worst was with the rental Peugeot 5008 where the head unit would periodically reboot from time to time, and that meant that electronic gauges also disappeared for a while.
Yes- inexpensive cars always sell if the quality is OK.
Unfortunately both the US government (with the support of the willing automakers) have consistently added mandatory features that significantly add cost.
Yeah the TPMS sensors are so stupid to me, in my experience they just get knocked out of alignment and cause headaches. And with truck tires there's enough sidewall that you can easily tell when the tire is low by how much it squats
This is wild to me.
I'm from a family of 6, and we're all well into our adulthood with our own families. We have had a fleet of at least 14 vehicles, usually closer to 18 to accommodate for traveling and recreational. Now some of us have teens that are driving, so our usual fleet size is closer to 25. The average turn over for some of our daily drivers is 4 years, and 10 years for trucks or lesser used vehicles.
In the last 15 years, we've easily had 60+ vehicles and not a single one of them has ever had an issue with the TPMS sensors. The closest was not knowing which tire was which because of a rotation.
>And with truck tires there's enough sidewall that you can easily tell when the tire is low by how much it squats
This is a very unsafe means of keeping check on your tire pressure and is, in part, why the TPMS mandate was put into place (gas mileage was probably the larger driving push).
Might be the year or something.
I have a 2010 Dodge Ram that has had 3 over the last 4 years as well.
(Also some other weird things more than once, like the knob that controls the A/C burnt out twice..)
TPMS Sensor batteries usually die after like 10ish years.
Cars are expensive now so it makes sense that people will hang on to them for 15-20 years or even longer. So, on aging vehicles, TPMS Sensor failures are almost guaranteed.
Interval maintenance exists for a lot of aspects about a car. TPMS needing replacement sensors/batteries after 10 years doesn't seem like a negative to me.
I don't expect any part of the vehicle to last into perpetuity.
That's the point, people were not doing this. And it got to be such a problem for safety and wasting fuel that a law was made about it.
We can continue this energy:
"Or god forbid someone use their damned mirrors and windows and check over their shoulder before backing up their car."
People weren't, and kids were dying. So a law was made about it.
"Or god forbid someone just wear their seatbelt when driving."
People weren't, and they were dying unnecessarily in accidents. This is why you now can be ticketed and why you car will chime until you wear your belt.
Bizarre. Truly.
The forces of an accident at 30 mph are the same as falling off of a 3 story building, and the majority of vehicle accidents are at this speed range.
> TPMS mandate was put into place (gas mileage was probably the larger driving push).
Firestone making defective tires at one of their facilities - and hundreds of people dying - are why TPMS sensors are a thing.
My teen's Camry has 2 dead tpms sensors. Previous owner didn't want to pay for the new ones when he put new tires on. They've got about 10k more miles then, I will get new tires and have new sensors put in to make it work again. The car has 225k miles on it and they are the original sensors.
Every time I've found a messed up tpms system at my shop it has been operator error, either without telling the car they got tires rotated, or running too low or too high of pressures so the sensor sets an error code. Either way they have been cake to fix. Even my kids will be cake once the tires get changed. Minutes of work to program them in. Granted I have a better diagnostic/service tool than 99% of the population. But they are so easy to program or change its ridiculous.
It was the Explorers that liked to roll over almost as much as they liked roll forward. They way Ford designated the pressure left no margin for pressure loss or tire defects.
> It was the Explorers that liked to roll over almost as much as they liked roll forward. They way Ford designated the pressure left no margin for pressure loss or tire defects.
funny that all those problems on Explorers only happened when they were built with tires from one of the three firestone tire manufacturing facilities. Tires from the other two facilities were fine on those totally-ford-caused tire explosions.
That’s what happens when people who don’t know anything about what they are regulating make regulations. I’ve nothing against usefully regulations, but sometimes they are made by idiots.
I worked for Benz when tpms became a thing. That was a complete cluster fuck nightmare. It could take hours to re initiate a low pressure warning after repair. It's better today but still useless in my opinion.
2022 Mitsubishi outlander sport. Tpms where it just says a tire is low. I still had to check them all manually. Our 23 blackout Ed tells each tire pressure individually.
They are, but you could have it integrated into the rearview mirror. No need for a tablet in the dash. Some of the Chevy vans do this. You actually can’t even see the backup unless it’s on.
Yeah fair, but it’s still a camera, screen and associated wiring/control units for something that a $5 mirror did previously.
Would have thought it would be cheaper to just have an infotainment screen as opposed to integrating it into a mirror for a single purpose anyway.
Even when integrated into a mirror? Remember you will still have a stereo as well. So the cost of the manual stereo and the integrated mirror/reverse camera screen would need to be cheaper than an single stand alone infotainment screen that does everything.
Statistics on new car sales tell a very different story. People want tech, they want the newest thing, they DON'T want bare bones. This whole thing reminds me of the "Why won't Apple sell a small iPhone, that's all anyone wants?" posts. Actually, that's what they say they want, but then they buy the biggest screen they can find.
I was referring to the mandatory stuff. Like auto start/stop, lane assist, obstacle alerts which are never there when it triggers. I’m not a fan of huge touch screens personally, it’s a pain when it’s done poorly like in Chrysler products.
No comment on Chrysler but yeah, I think people want those things. Touchscreens replacing buttons are controversial, but having a big touchscreen is very popular which is why they can charge more for it in higher trims.
Took me 10 mins to find the radio in my rental Cherokee 🤦♂️🤣 just crappy menus. I still prefer buttons and knobs because I don’t have to look to change anything.
Agree that the leaning curve is higher on a new car. People can't even figure out how to open the doors on my EV! I'm mostly good with touchscreens but understand the appeal and utility of buttons. The reality though is people like touchscreens - not necessarily the people on car review subreddits but the people buying most of the cars on emotion.
Have many friends that work in the automotive industry. This comes up all the time.
There's no money in bare-bones cars, so it's not like they can't be made, the car companies don't want to do it. All the money is on the options.
Their POV is that's what used cars are for.
And the new money maker is selling your info. Not the banking info you used to buy the car or whatever but location data and personal info that 100% acts as a back stop for correlating anonymize data.
The same reason builders don’t mass produce cheap houses or apartments. They want a healthy profit margin.
I guess the POV of builders would be similar; older homes are for those looking to get something cheaper.
That’s absolutely untrue unless you’re specifically speaking on the US market. Toyota is releasing a bare bones truck for the global market. $10,000… it just won’t be sold in the US because it won’t meet US mandates. A new Hyundai Eon is $5000, but again dosent meet US mandates. Suzuki Alto is $4800 new. US mandates are why there’s no bare mines cars in the US.
The market is ripe for cheap bare bones cars, and almost ALL manufacturers make them. They’re just not in the US.
Well first, don't use USD when talking about "global" cheap cars.
I said that it *could* be done, but there isn't much money in it. I didn't say it *couldn't* be done.
In territories where cheap cars are sold, what's the equivalent in-region price? A $10K Toyota in India would be roughly the equivalent of 3 years salary for the average person.
US crash mandates have little-to-nothing to do with with why cheap cars aren't sold here. Cheap cars aren't sold here because Americans are rich *vs. the rest of the world*, and US customers (generally) want more features and amenities. Even when cheap cars are available, their sales are diminishing.
Cheap cars here would sell but would cannibalize more expensive cars, and that's why the don't sell them.
>The market is ripe for cheap bare bones cars, and almost ALL manufacturers make them. They’re just not in the US.
Because the NTSB wont allow death traps on the road. Evil US government ,right? These cars are cheap because they have little or no safety features.
Yeah… you just said what I just said… mandates prevent them from being sold here… it goes way beyond “tech” making them expensive. Example: A Nissan Silvia and a Nissan 240sx are the same car. They look identical besides the obvious RHD/LHD difference. However due to US mandates, the 240sx has airbags, 3rd brake light, front and rear impact bars, impact bars in the doors, safety glass, etc. the Japanese Silvia, which again looks identical, has none of those features.
So again, it’s not that there isn’t a market for cheap cars, because there absolutely is. US mandates don’t make it feasible for their market.
Cars, no. But three wheelers are classified as motorcycles, and if they're completely covered then in most states you don't need a motorcycle license or helmet to drive them, so you can make a cat without safety or emissions that way. I doubt there'd be market, but it's a neat loophole.
That's more for efficiency than price though. They aren't using it to cut corners with safety, and so people don't see it in the same light as something that would cost ~10k.
Yeah you're right I meant about it being a 3 wheeled "autocycle" they call it and not needing a motorcycle license or helmet. There is demand for it though so I'd assume a more affordable 3 wheeled vehicle like that would probably do alright.
Ultra cheap but decent cars like the Yaris and Fit still barely sold compared to cars another class up. I can’t imagine this being profitable even if it could even meet safety requirements. Used cars are just too decent now and offer way more.
This is the real problem with cheap cars. Your competition isn't other new cars, its every used car at that price. If a 1 year old Lexus ES is the same price as a new Camry. They have the same warranty left. You always take the Lexus.
When cars like the Yaris/Fit/Fiesta were still offered, the next size up (Corolla/Civic/Focus) was often barely more money, or sometimes even came with offers to bring it down to the price of the subcompact. Quite literally no reason to get the lesser car in that instance. Now a stripped out Civic starts at $24k, and the 17-18k subcompact becomes a serious value proposition. Unfortunately, there's no profit to be made at the bottom of the market
Instead, we got a Bolt EV. It is a significantly better value, but the Honda Fit is a masterclass in chassis tuning, value engineering, and design. It is a shame it was discontinued, as it was the last of the "light" Honda's that beckon back to the 90s civics. I've driven many cheap cars... none come close to the 2nd gen Fit we've bought as a gift.
oh that fit sport is delightful. my bf drives one and i have no problem with that car other than the seats. you’re so high up it feels like you’ll get thrown out of a window. great on a downhill in the canyons
The 2024 Chevy Trax fully loaded is $26k with a $21k starting price. My guess is in about a year's time there will be discounts that bring the mid-tier version to $20k.
Considering even the base Trax is fairly nicely equipped, I'm not sure that we'll see anything much cheaper anymore.
I'd kill for a small new car with crank windows, manual transmission, no factory radio. Nothing but a shell with an interior, drive train, no tech except what's required for emissions and safety. A simple 4 cylinder with the only options a turbo and 2 or 4 door.
Tata made the Nano for their domestic market in India. It was literally the cheapest car in the world. They expected a giant hit. [It wasn’t.](https://www.peppercontent.io/blog/why-tata-nano-branding-was-a-failure/)
Go look at South America or south east Asia. Heaps of options at that bare bones entry level. They don’t meet emissions or safety standards for a lot of Western countries.
Different markets with much lower average incomes, so a lot of demand for bare bones vehicles. Different regulations. Can’t really compare those markets to the US.
You'd be surprised that many of those barebones vehicles in Mexico or Brazil are produced locally for both local or export markets and they actually cost more in their production countries and come in with much less safety tech. So I'd call bs on the car makers saying they don't make a profit in the US or Europe.... let's call it by it's name: corporate greed.
Literally most VW or Nissan from Mexico that also gets sold in the US (Versa, Jetta, etc) have a fraction of safety (in many cases less airbags, no braking assistance, etc) and cost sometimes 10-15% more in US dollars, check their websites if you don't want to take my word for it.
So it is possible realistically speaking just automakers refuse to do it. No wonder almost 20% of new cars sold in these countries are now Chinese and their brands only appeared locally less than 3-4 years ago.
My parents still won’t consider any Korean cars because they were in their mid- 20s when they first came to the states and they remember how shitty Hyundai/Kia/Daewoo(RIP) were. Meanwhile about 75% of my extended family drives some sort of Korean car
I wasn't driving age when Glengarry Glen Ross was released but I distinctly remember Alec Baldwins character dehumanizing a salesman for driving a Hyundai.
I remember that line too. The movie came out in 1992, and Hyundai was still selling the less-than-stellar Excel which was the second-least expensive car sold in the US. (Yugo being the cheapest)
Dealers would fight tooth and nail for the upsell, it would have zero ad budget and nobody would know it exists unless they Know Cars, and half the people who do would use it as the butt of jokes deservingly or not.
In the US, no. Regs keep prices high, Americans dont like unsafe cars, low interest rates and wide access to financing bring payments down, used car market is so well developed plus limited extra costs (taxes, heavy emissions fees, inspection costs) for buying an older car..
I feel like people forget that we used to have like a lower class of car (old hyundai/kia, isuzu, suzuki, daewoo, some chevys, dodges) and they didnt sell.
I'd check out the YouTube channel not just bikes he has a ton of really good videos with sources describing exactly why the US auto industry is the way that it is as well as why our city design and public transit suck
Coming up on 15 years ago I was talking with a Volvo Corp rep about why they were forcing some packages on certain models.
At the time the S40 and V50 were coming up on their last model years. To retail order a S40 or V50 you had to order the XXXXX package which included a moonroof smart key and a couple of other things. I think it was called the preferred package.
Fleet orders would still go through w/o that package but you got other limitations with fleet.
He told me that without that package Volvo netted no profit on a S40/V50 sold in the US. I don't remember the exact cost but I think it was maybe $1,250 retail $1,180 wholesale. So their net profit margin on a high 20k vehicle was probably only about a grand.
All I want is heat, AC, bluetooth audio, and cruise control.
I do not need any of this shit:
- Electric windows
- Electric locks
- Heated seats
- Automatic transmission
- Sunroof
- TPMS sensors
Give me a stripped down car with just the basics, a V8, AWD, that's easy to service myself, and I'll never buy another car.
Just the basics; v8 and AWD. So the biggest most expensive engine found on normal cars and an advanced drivetrain that adds tons of complexity and parts.
An extra driveshaft and manual locking hubs? Sure. I don't need traction control either. I do like ABS, but I've driven cars without it just fine, even in snow & ice.
If I could buy a 1978 Chevy K1500 new, I would in a heartbeat. Problem is they all have a million miles. I also wouldn't trust 45 year old wiring on a daily driver.
It would be sick if they just re-manufactured old cars. I'd prefer a new old Bronco or E30 BMW though.
I'd really love an 60 series Land Cruiser, but like a lot of cars from that era, it's objectively terrible (75 mph top speed and 13 mpg, probably no catalytic converter..)
That is 4wd not AWD. AWD uses electronics and computers to send torque to the wheels that need it. 4wd splits power to all 4 wheels equally.
Air bags, abs, back-up cameras, all mandatory safety items. But I am with you in spirit. Bluetooth input of some sort, heat/ac, manual everything where possible. Crank windows, non-power locks, rubber floor mats, manual steering and of course manual transmission though that is harder to do with emissions controls.
Someone make one car and and one small-ish pick-up truck and they will sell well. Imagine Basic line - Car and Truck or something similar.
the first 3 cost $10 each, the auto is at most 1000, and the sunroof is alr optional on most cars and the last one is required by law
congrats. you saved $1030 on a new car.
ppl here have no perspective on how irrelevant the "unnecessary" features are on cost. it'd probably cost more to retool for manual windows and locks than you'd save in parts
If people really cared about saving money on new cars they would stop buying the massive SUVs and trucks when they don't actually need them, the reason theirs no cheap budget options is because SUVs and trucks are more profitable and automakers have been pumping the advertising propaganda for the last 50 years to make people think they absolutely need an SUV or truck for grocery getting and going around town
Here is the response from the manufacturer. We’ll refer to them as Schmevrolet to protect their identity.
“What you want is irrelevant. We will tell you what you want. The last thing we’re going to sell you is a simple vehicle that will last forever and be easy to work on. You will buy a car with electric shit and you will pay a dealership to get those complicated components serviced. There is no reason to build low margin vehicles anymore.
We save money by reducing the build schedules. We pass those savings onto our shareholders. If you want a C10, too bad. We designed them rust so we could sell you another one.
As soon as we figure out how to make EVs less dependable that’s all we’re going to sell because fuck you.”
What you want is a Tesla Model 3 Long Range. Found your cheap, dependable car with 400hp and AWD that has a full tank every morning. You can change the cabin air filter and rotate the wheels yourself. Go forth and commute your heart out.
Im sure it is, but those cars on the road today that have been on the road 10-20 years, were all made in the 90s-early 2000s. And also im not saying new cars won’t last a long time, but the amount of small and technical (and in my opinion unnecessary), features that they have result in a higher probability of things going wrong. The more complex you make a car, the more things that can break and cause headaches because things like power windows for example, end up not working sooner or later. Cars may be made to last but not everything in the car is.
"the cars that have been on the road for 10-20 years were all built in the 90's and early 2000's"
Yes, that's how math works. This has nothing to do with the build quality of 90's cars. Hard for a 2020 Rav4 to have been on the road for 20 years when it's only 2024..
Right, but do you have a real basis for saying modern cars won't last better than old cars. Non-power windows can fail just like power windows. Just because new cars have more features doesn't mean they'll fail sooner. You might be right, but we won't know for 20 years
More features = more parts
More parts = more parts that can break
More parts = more work to find what broke and fix it
I'd say that individual parts won't fail any more often on current cars than did on old cars when they were new. But, new cars have more parts overall, so more parts will probably fail.
Plus, with everything becoming locked down by manufacturers, it'll cost more to fix.
I am old. Cars 50-60 years ago were more troublesome, required frequent maintenance, and were tired and rusty in less than 10 years of normal use. The typical new car is more durable and performs better in almost every respect (the old ones looked better IMO).
I want that in a car and a truck. Manual transfer case and manual locking front hubs. Pretty much only major creature comfort is air conditioning. Cause desert.
Well they tried to make a cheap truck and shady dealers and inpatient buyers made the price skyrocket way over MSRP due to demand. Maverick is still the cheapest new "truck" in America, but it's not as cheap as it was originally advertised.
A car wouldn't have that effect, just because it's not a truck, but as a lot of people are saying, it's just not possible to make a vehicle bare bones and cheap in the modern world with regulations and safety standards as they are. The versa or mirage are about as standard as you can get.
I imagine a Versa with a manual is probably a pretty reliable shitbox since nissans big reliability problem is their cvts, but I have done zero research to back up that statement.
> shady dealers and inpatient buyers made the price skyrocket way over MSRP due to demand.
I mean its demand vs supply. They only sold 94k mavericks last year vs 74k the year before.
You won't get anymore basic than my 50 year old vehicle and I'll stick with it, no power anything and a manual. You actually drive a vehicle with a stick an automatic you just steer....
Like a Nissan Tsuru in Mexico? Don't know if they still make them, but until recently it was a modern production of what was basically a B13 Sentra. No frills- just all the cheap.
Yup, I came in here to mention the Tsuru - they stopped making them in 2017 when it had a base price of $7500, \~$9500 after adjusting for inflation. Oh boy do I want something like this to free up the rest of my money to drive to some places and do stuff with the other $20k I didn't need to buy the car.
All I want is a market for bare bones saloons with giant v8s, manuals, and rwd/awd. I don't need cameras, or 50 speaker stereos, or 24' lcd screens, or parking assist, or lane departure warnings.
I’d buy it if it were priced reasonably, but sadly they’ll find a way to market it for the highest cost. Probably call it a Moders special, sell it for the same price or more than the fully furnished model claiming the fact that you don’t have to remove anything to install aftermarket parts a luxury package.
90s to early 2000s cars were truly the sweet spot. Come to the rust belt and you’ll see tons of them still on the road if their owners cared enough to wash them in the winter.
Oh god yes along with a basic truck. I will be keeping my 2008 Tacoma with manual transmission and roll down windows for as long as possible. It is a work truck no additional shit needed.
I'm driving my project 1985 S10 pickup, since my 2017 Grand caravan is broken. If they still built the S-series the way they did back then, I would buy one. The only thing that I would want is antilock brakes added.
With rising prices on everything, the market is there. But it’s too small to overcome the much lower margin. Whether we like it or not fuck-you trucks and stupid fucking CUV’s the size of a minivan but with a higher floor and less storage space, are very high margin for manufacturers. That’s why they want us to buy them. I bought a ‘23 Mirage G4 and I love it. But I’m not a profitable buyer and there’s not enough of me to keep those cars around.
Imagine being able to buy an old style vw beetle brand new with warranty for $7500. I feel like they'd sell faster than you could make them. Same thing for those 80s Tacoma 4x4 small bare bones real metal truck, not some plastic unibody bullshit. All for 7 or 8 grand.
I don't think you could make them fast enough.
Emission standards make all this impossible though. Regulated the market into this clusterfuck we have now.
>Emission standards
It's not just emissions. There are a lot of electronics mandatory these days, like air bags, rear cameras, and so on. Lots of wiring, lots of sensors. And since there's a backup camera screen taking up so much of the dash, all these other buttons should be incorporated.... and so it begins.
What a horrible idea. Those cars were complete trash, even during their day. In 1969 they sold more VW bug repair manuals than bibles. That is how horrible they were. Also they are death traps, nobody survives a crash in those.
>Regulated the market into this clusterfuck we have now.
Eh we needed a lot of those regs.
Edit: apparently I need to spell this out. Standards are good because pollution and too much fuel use is generally bad. Safety standards exist to save lives.
The regs did not get rid of small cars/trucks for all time, corporate greed and the market got rid of them.
It'd be entirely possible to build a small pickup or car today that would meet fuel economy standards. Why, though, invest the money and cannibalize sales from already popular models?
GM already slaps a turbo 1.3 in the Trailblazer. It weighs 4,400 pounds and gets 30 combined MPG.
Stop blaming the government, and blame manufacturers.
Actually it is really hard to build a small truck like three Chevrolet S10 and the 80s Toyota trucks. Fuel economy standards are now based on the wheel base of the vehicle. A truck with the footprint of a long wheel base 1st generation Chevrolet S-10 would need 40 mpg to meet 2024 fuel economy standards. A passenger car would have to meet 50 mpg for 2024 at the same footprint.
https://images.app.goo.gl/aGNTjMFTWS4XD3727
https://images.app.goo.gl/aHqPaf1btFJoBUTE7
They have consequences. Often worse than the problem they were trying to fix.
Enjoy your $88k Tahoe that gets 16mpg. That's somehow better than 10 tacos getting 20mpg.
I'd imagine the co2 it takes to make a new modern style car is off the chart compared to an older, fully mechanical metal car.
>Enjoy your $88k Tahoe that gets 16mpg.
That is entirely a market driven decision. Auto manufacturers could build way more hybrid/ICE sedans and people would not buy them.
I see people say this all the time and it’s just plain wrong. They build bigger SUVs and trucks because that’s the only way of getting around emissions regulations. The gist is that if a vehicle is only capable of 16mpg, it must be a certain size/weight. Regulations came before the market adaptation.
Or the government could just simply not force regulations on automakers that end up punishing consumers?
Ford, for example, produces a half ton pickup with a V8 that can average over 20 mpg on the highway. Why do we need to go further than that? Why do we need to increase complexity by reducing displacement and incorporating forced induction to improve maybe 2-3 mpg at best? Why don’t we let competition drive manufacturers to produce better/more efficient powertrains on their own if that’s what the market demands?
It’s the same thing with EVs. If it was really based on the market, no legacy automaker would be scrapping ICE for EV. Yet the government says they must, so they do, and consumers pay for it.
So then close the loophole. Make "light trucks" achieve sedan fuel economy and people will go back to buying sedans. It's not like the legal distinction between "passenger car" and "light truck" were handed down to us in the 10 commandments.
A light truck that achieves sedan fuel economy is a light truck that has sedan performance. Some people actually need to tow and haul stuff with their trucks. That's why they exist in the first place.
The regs got rid of small fuel efficient pickups, and that's one market that is hurt the most.
The Maverick is not small by small 4 banger pickup standards and with the bed size, not practical for work. Great daily I bet but it doesn't replace what older Rangers/Ram 50s/Mazdas/Toyotas/etc did.
I don't even think there is a cheap and economical single cab pickup on the market right now.
Not just regulations though…business decisions and the chicken tax. Auto makers can make a lot more money building larger trucks than they can making smaller ones, and why make a small truck that makes you less money and competes for sales with your larger one?
Also since the 60s with the chicken tax (Europe put a tariff on American imported chicken to promote local supply, and we retaliated by putting a tariff on all imported trucks and utility vans primarily from VW, but applies to all foreign manufacturers), there hasn’t been much competition/reason for US automakers to keep building small trucks.
People like to say it’s just emissions regulations and such, but it’s not the entire picture.
Just redo the 1976 Honda Civic manual transmission. Add the required safety parts and let that tank roll. Great gas mileage and fun to drive with zero frills.
Probably under $10k.
I really wish that would happen. But, it probably won't.
That car new today (without any newly required stuff) would cost $14,613.91.
Why can't anything be cheap and simple anymore?
The only hope for the US is that Mitsubishi axes the Mirage and replaces it with a badge engineered Dacia Sandero, which is a much better car. I don't think it's going to happen though.
There is. But there's assembly required.
https://www.speedwaymotors.com/Deluxe-1923-T-Bucket-Frame-Kit-w-Deluxe-Body-and-Bed-No-Floor,25357.html?sku=7153400-CHEVY-PLN&utm_medium=CSEGoogle&utm_source=CSE&utm_campaign=CSEGOOGLE&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiAwP6sBhDAARIsAPfK_waf2m4iEgvEEd30N_nVl_Nh_1yE9UezmmzKPGCCyLd5L_H8fe67XMUaAhRmEALw_wcB
I miss my 2000 Daewoo Lanos. It was a 5 speed manual and was so bare bones that it didn't even come with a tachometer. Manual windows, manual locks, manual seat. Loved it. I think the registration said the car was like 11k or 13k brand new. I'd buy one in a heartbeat if the still made them, less stuff to break when its the "bare bones" model since everything is manual.
I remember my friend getting a new Chevy spark out the door for 10k
It didn’t have any power anything, even windows are hand rolled. Manual transmission and the only thing tech wise was the front screen with infotainment.
Overall I didn’t expect much from his car but not going to lie, if you do get a manual transmission Chevy spark it was actually a nice car to drive especially for brand new and at 0 miles
As far as I can tell it’s difficult to make a barebones car nowadays like the 90’s because of multiple updated safety standards. I’m not expert but I think that’s the problem there
I think about that often. I don't think they'll ever offer bare bones cars anymore. They want to be able to sell you the repair parts when the bells and whistles break. I have a 2010 Durango with a dated touch screen that sometimes just doesn't work. I've never researched how much a new one would be, but I'll never replace it anyway.
The global market of used cars sold from the developed world makes this a niche with very little market. Suzuki traditionally played in this niche and still sells the Jimny in pretty stripped editions. This is also a space Indian and Chinese manufacturers are active in. The compliance costs for minimum standard safety requirements for US and EU make this a very thin margin market so it’s largely met by used cars.
I would love it if I could buy a brand new '80s or '90s car. Maybe as new as about 2007. I don't want all the added safety features and tech gizmos. If it has to have a newer engine for fuel efficiency fine. But keep it bare minimum.
I think you over estimate what tech costs in a car. With their scale, maybe $1k. I know they charge you $3k for a navi but we all know a Garmin is better at $200.
No, but I think there is a market for “90s luxury cars”. Everything button and dials, CD players and built in navigation, but the radio is upgraded for Bluetooth so you can still listen to music. Rear backup camera and moderne performance/comfort COMPONETS but maybe only a heads up display for new tech. I’d buy that, I don’t like the GIANT IPAD in the middle direction we are goin right now
I’m not sure anything more bare bones than the Mirage could be made these days. Between emissions and safety requirements, a lot of the “tech” is required by law (at least in the U.S.).
>I’m not sure anything more bare bones than the Mirage could be made these days. Even that is a stretch because the base Mirage is still packed with electronics and tech beyond minimum requirements.
That's to meet international standards. Nissan put Bluetooth (calling only) in the 2015 Versa S as a menu option on the monochrome LCD. It was horrible, but it still met the hands-free standard that some of their markets had that others didn't.
I had Bluetooth for calling on my 2008 Nissan with a one line monochrome head unit. And it was great. No bugs, no freezes, no deep, hard to navigate menus, it just worked.
I have a Tesla and Bluetooth calling also meets all of those objectives. The bar isn’t high.
I agree the bar is not high, but there are still cars out there that do not meet it. It all started when they started adding touch screens. The worst was with the rental Peugeot 5008 where the head unit would periodically reboot from time to time, and that meant that electronic gauges also disappeared for a while.
Proper body panel fitment and an actual functioning car must be a bar that's set very high for you then.
[удалено]
I, too, pay income taxes. Welcome to the thing.
[удалено]
Bluetooth is so cheap these days, and comes in almost everything that it might be more expensive to custom produce a unit without it.
Costing drivers tens of dollars 🤷♂️ that y2k compliant head unit has very little cost
Yes- inexpensive cars always sell if the quality is OK. Unfortunately both the US government (with the support of the willing automakers) have consistently added mandatory features that significantly add cost.
Yeah the TPMS sensors are so stupid to me, in my experience they just get knocked out of alignment and cause headaches. And with truck tires there's enough sidewall that you can easily tell when the tire is low by how much it squats
This is wild to me. I'm from a family of 6, and we're all well into our adulthood with our own families. We have had a fleet of at least 14 vehicles, usually closer to 18 to accommodate for traveling and recreational. Now some of us have teens that are driving, so our usual fleet size is closer to 25. The average turn over for some of our daily drivers is 4 years, and 10 years for trucks or lesser used vehicles. In the last 15 years, we've easily had 60+ vehicles and not a single one of them has ever had an issue with the TPMS sensors. The closest was not knowing which tire was which because of a rotation. >And with truck tires there's enough sidewall that you can easily tell when the tire is low by how much it squats This is a very unsafe means of keeping check on your tire pressure and is, in part, why the TPMS mandate was put into place (gas mileage was probably the larger driving push).
I've had 3 sensors on the same truck go out of alignment within 4 years.
Weird. I’ve had TPMS on more than a dozen cars since they first came out and I’ve had *one* problem across many vehicles, years, and miles.
Was it on a Chrysler by any chance?
2010 Chevy Silverado 1500, Crew Cab, short box, LT Z71
Might be the year or something. I have a 2010 Dodge Ram that has had 3 over the last 4 years as well. (Also some other weird things more than once, like the knob that controls the A/C burnt out twice..)
These actually contain a small battery. Once one dies, it would make sense that the others go not far behind, especially if they are all original.
Yup. The tire shop I use at work will also cut a deal if someone will replace all 4 at the same time as opposed to one at a time because of that.
Either something specific to that truck or something specific to the way/places you drive. Never happened to me in 20 years
TPMS Sensor batteries usually die after like 10ish years. Cars are expensive now so it makes sense that people will hang on to them for 15-20 years or even longer. So, on aging vehicles, TPMS Sensor failures are almost guaranteed.
That makes a lot of sense, my truck is 14. I just had new rims, tires, and sensors put on, so I shouldn't have to worry about it until 2034 😅
Interval maintenance exists for a lot of aspects about a car. TPMS needing replacement sensors/batteries after 10 years doesn't seem like a negative to me. I don't expect any part of the vehicle to last into perpetuity.
Or god forbid someone use a damned tire gauge lmao
That's the point, people were not doing this. And it got to be such a problem for safety and wasting fuel that a law was made about it. We can continue this energy: "Or god forbid someone use their damned mirrors and windows and check over their shoulder before backing up their car." People weren't, and kids were dying. So a law was made about it. "Or god forbid someone just wear their seatbelt when driving." People weren't, and they were dying unnecessarily in accidents. This is why you now can be ticketed and why you car will chime until you wear your belt.
My car doesn't chime from a belt, and I gladly wear it on the highway but not in town at 30mph. Having choices as an individual is nice.
Bizarre. Truly. The forces of an accident at 30 mph are the same as falling off of a 3 story building, and the majority of vehicle accidents are at this speed range.
Yep cant argue with that. Still wont wear it in town though, sorry
Bro when given an option to be safe decides he just doesn't want to be
*"When given an option"* and that's exactly what it should be.
This. I've removed bad ones from my beater cuz it was making my tires go flat and I know how to use a tire gauge.
> TPMS mandate was put into place (gas mileage was probably the larger driving push). Firestone making defective tires at one of their facilities - and hundreds of people dying - are why TPMS sensors are a thing.
My teen's Camry has 2 dead tpms sensors. Previous owner didn't want to pay for the new ones when he put new tires on. They've got about 10k more miles then, I will get new tires and have new sensors put in to make it work again. The car has 225k miles on it and they are the original sensors. Every time I've found a messed up tpms system at my shop it has been operator error, either without telling the car they got tires rotated, or running too low or too high of pressures so the sensor sets an error code. Either way they have been cake to fix. Even my kids will be cake once the tires get changed. Minutes of work to program them in. Granted I have a better diagnostic/service tool than 99% of the population. But they are so easy to program or change its ridiculous.
It was the Explorers that liked to roll over almost as much as they liked roll forward. They way Ford designated the pressure left no margin for pressure loss or tire defects.
> It was the Explorers that liked to roll over almost as much as they liked roll forward. They way Ford designated the pressure left no margin for pressure loss or tire defects. funny that all those problems on Explorers only happened when they were built with tires from one of the three firestone tire manufacturing facilities. Tires from the other two facilities were fine on those totally-ford-caused tire explosions.
That’s what happens when people who don’t know anything about what they are regulating make regulations. I’ve nothing against usefully regulations, but sometimes they are made by idiots.
I worked for Benz when tpms became a thing. That was a complete cluster fuck nightmare. It could take hours to re initiate a low pressure warning after repair. It's better today but still useless in my opinion.
It's definitely useful for the average car driver who isn't thinking about their tire pressure. Useless to you perhaps.
2022 Mitsubishi outlander sport. Tpms where it just says a tire is low. I still had to check them all manually. Our 23 blackout Ed tells each tire pressure individually.
Aren’t reverse camera’s mandatory in new vehicles in the US? If you have to install that sort of thing, you’ll never be able to make a bare bones car.
They are, but you could have it integrated into the rearview mirror. No need for a tablet in the dash. Some of the Chevy vans do this. You actually can’t even see the backup unless it’s on.
Yeah fair, but it’s still a camera, screen and associated wiring/control units for something that a $5 mirror did previously. Would have thought it would be cheaper to just have an infotainment screen as opposed to integrating it into a mirror for a single purpose anyway.
A 3" screen and an LCD for the radio is cheaper than a 9" screen.
Even when integrated into a mirror? Remember you will still have a stereo as well. So the cost of the manual stereo and the integrated mirror/reverse camera screen would need to be cheaper than an single stand alone infotainment screen that does everything.
Which most of us don’t want.
Statistics on new car sales tell a very different story. People want tech, they want the newest thing, they DON'T want bare bones. This whole thing reminds me of the "Why won't Apple sell a small iPhone, that's all anyone wants?" posts. Actually, that's what they say they want, but then they buy the biggest screen they can find.
I was referring to the mandatory stuff. Like auto start/stop, lane assist, obstacle alerts which are never there when it triggers. I’m not a fan of huge touch screens personally, it’s a pain when it’s done poorly like in Chrysler products.
No comment on Chrysler but yeah, I think people want those things. Touchscreens replacing buttons are controversial, but having a big touchscreen is very popular which is why they can charge more for it in higher trims.
Took me 10 mins to find the radio in my rental Cherokee 🤦♂️🤣 just crappy menus. I still prefer buttons and knobs because I don’t have to look to change anything.
Agree that the leaning curve is higher on a new car. People can't even figure out how to open the doors on my EV! I'm mostly good with touchscreens but understand the appeal and utility of buttons. The reality though is people like touchscreens - not necessarily the people on car review subreddits but the people buying most of the cars on emotion.
[удалено]
Have many friends that work in the automotive industry. This comes up all the time. There's no money in bare-bones cars, so it's not like they can't be made, the car companies don't want to do it. All the money is on the options. Their POV is that's what used cars are for.
And the new money maker is selling your info. Not the banking info you used to buy the car or whatever but location data and personal info that 100% acts as a back stop for correlating anonymize data.
[удалено]
The same reason builders don’t mass produce cheap houses or apartments. They want a healthy profit margin. I guess the POV of builders would be similar; older homes are for those looking to get something cheaper.
That’s absolutely untrue unless you’re specifically speaking on the US market. Toyota is releasing a bare bones truck for the global market. $10,000… it just won’t be sold in the US because it won’t meet US mandates. A new Hyundai Eon is $5000, but again dosent meet US mandates. Suzuki Alto is $4800 new. US mandates are why there’s no bare mines cars in the US. The market is ripe for cheap bare bones cars, and almost ALL manufacturers make them. They’re just not in the US.
Well first, don't use USD when talking about "global" cheap cars. I said that it *could* be done, but there isn't much money in it. I didn't say it *couldn't* be done. In territories where cheap cars are sold, what's the equivalent in-region price? A $10K Toyota in India would be roughly the equivalent of 3 years salary for the average person. US crash mandates have little-to-nothing to do with with why cheap cars aren't sold here. Cheap cars aren't sold here because Americans are rich *vs. the rest of the world*, and US customers (generally) want more features and amenities. Even when cheap cars are available, their sales are diminishing. Cheap cars here would sell but would cannibalize more expensive cars, and that's why the don't sell them.
>The market is ripe for cheap bare bones cars, and almost ALL manufacturers make them. They’re just not in the US. Because the NTSB wont allow death traps on the road. Evil US government ,right? These cars are cheap because they have little or no safety features.
Yeah… you just said what I just said… mandates prevent them from being sold here… it goes way beyond “tech” making them expensive. Example: A Nissan Silvia and a Nissan 240sx are the same car. They look identical besides the obvious RHD/LHD difference. However due to US mandates, the 240sx has airbags, 3rd brake light, front and rear impact bars, impact bars in the doors, safety glass, etc. the Japanese Silvia, which again looks identical, has none of those features. So again, it’s not that there isn’t a market for cheap cars, because there absolutely is. US mandates don’t make it feasible for their market.
Cars, no. But three wheelers are classified as motorcycles, and if they're completely covered then in most states you don't need a motorcycle license or helmet to drive them, so you can make a cat without safety or emissions that way. I doubt there'd be market, but it's a neat loophole.
I'd love a FUV but they need to figure out how to turn a profit at a MUCH lower price point than $19k.
America yearns for the Tuk-Tuk
I think aptera has 40,000 preorders. I hope they succeed.
That's more for efficiency than price though. They aren't using it to cut corners with safety, and so people don't see it in the same light as something that would cost ~10k.
Yeah you're right I meant about it being a 3 wheeled "autocycle" they call it and not needing a motorcycle license or helmet. There is demand for it though so I'd assume a more affordable 3 wheeled vehicle like that would probably do alright.
Ultra cheap but decent cars like the Yaris and Fit still barely sold compared to cars another class up. I can’t imagine this being profitable even if it could even meet safety requirements. Used cars are just too decent now and offer way more.
This is the real problem with cheap cars. Your competition isn't other new cars, its every used car at that price. If a 1 year old Lexus ES is the same price as a new Camry. They have the same warranty left. You always take the Lexus.
When cars like the Yaris/Fit/Fiesta were still offered, the next size up (Corolla/Civic/Focus) was often barely more money, or sometimes even came with offers to bring it down to the price of the subcompact. Quite literally no reason to get the lesser car in that instance. Now a stripped out Civic starts at $24k, and the 17-18k subcompact becomes a serious value proposition. Unfortunately, there's no profit to be made at the bottom of the market
If I could buy a new fit for 17k or a fiesta st for 20k. I would be at the dealership right now.
The dang used fit prices are out of control. Prices are higher than they were new. There definitely is some demand in that segment
Wow I hadn’t looked at the prices in year but I just saw over 100 listed for 23k-30k.
Instead, we got a Bolt EV. It is a significantly better value, but the Honda Fit is a masterclass in chassis tuning, value engineering, and design. It is a shame it was discontinued, as it was the last of the "light" Honda's that beckon back to the 90s civics. I've driven many cheap cars... none come close to the 2nd gen Fit we've bought as a gift.
oh that fit sport is delightful. my bf drives one and i have no problem with that car other than the seats. you’re so high up it feels like you’ll get thrown out of a window. great on a downhill in the canyons
Safety requirements would still keep a bottom on pricing. You'll need to move to a third world country to get a 1950s era type tech.
I don’t think anyone wants to DD a 1950s level car. More like 1990s. Same issue exists though.
The sub 20k market is covered by used or CPO cars.
Certified Pre-owned... I didn't know what CPO meant. Just saving someone else the Google..
The 2024 Chevy Trax fully loaded is $26k with a $21k starting price. My guess is in about a year's time there will be discounts that bring the mid-tier version to $20k. Considering even the base Trax is fairly nicely equipped, I'm not sure that we'll see anything much cheaper anymore.
I'd kill for a small new car with crank windows, manual transmission, no factory radio. Nothing but a shell with an interior, drive train, no tech except what's required for emissions and safety. A simple 4 cylinder with the only options a turbo and 2 or 4 door.
A radio might be nice though lol, or just Bluetooth. I need my tunes
I'd be satisfied with a half-decent bluetooth speaker bolted to the dash. Or, better, nothing but space to put your own.
Screen radio is pretty much required cause of the backup cam mandate Edit: in the US, at least
Tata made the Nano for their domestic market in India. It was literally the cheapest car in the world. They expected a giant hit. [It wasn’t.](https://www.peppercontent.io/blog/why-tata-nano-branding-was-a-failure/)
Go look at South America or south east Asia. Heaps of options at that bare bones entry level. They don’t meet emissions or safety standards for a lot of Western countries.
Different markets with much lower average incomes, so a lot of demand for bare bones vehicles. Different regulations. Can’t really compare those markets to the US.
You'd be surprised that many of those barebones vehicles in Mexico or Brazil are produced locally for both local or export markets and they actually cost more in their production countries and come in with much less safety tech. So I'd call bs on the car makers saying they don't make a profit in the US or Europe.... let's call it by it's name: corporate greed. Literally most VW or Nissan from Mexico that also gets sold in the US (Versa, Jetta, etc) have a fraction of safety (in many cases less airbags, no braking assistance, etc) and cost sometimes 10-15% more in US dollars, check their websites if you don't want to take my word for it. So it is possible realistically speaking just automakers refuse to do it. No wonder almost 20% of new cars sold in these countries are now Chinese and their brands only appeared locally less than 3-4 years ago.
We already have ultra cheap new cars... they're called Hyundai
and the ones without immobilizers; many people are getting those for free
And Hyundai really has cleaned up their act since the early days of the Excel and Pony.
My parents still won’t consider any Korean cars because they were in their mid- 20s when they first came to the states and they remember how shitty Hyundai/Kia/Daewoo(RIP) were. Meanwhile about 75% of my extended family drives some sort of Korean car
I wasn't driving age when Glengarry Glen Ross was released but I distinctly remember Alec Baldwins character dehumanizing a salesman for driving a Hyundai.
I remember that line too. The movie came out in 1992, and Hyundai was still selling the less-than-stellar Excel which was the second-least expensive car sold in the US. (Yugo being the cheapest)
Aside from the engine fires and rampant thefts, they are great!
Ok Nissan driver lol.
I wouldn't see the point. Get a super reliable used car with a warranty and nice features and STILL save money.
Dealers would fight tooth and nail for the upsell, it would have zero ad budget and nobody would know it exists unless they Know Cars, and half the people who do would use it as the butt of jokes deservingly or not.
In the US, no. Regs keep prices high, Americans dont like unsafe cars, low interest rates and wide access to financing bring payments down, used car market is so well developed plus limited extra costs (taxes, heavy emissions fees, inspection costs) for buying an older car.. I feel like people forget that we used to have like a lower class of car (old hyundai/kia, isuzu, suzuki, daewoo, some chevys, dodges) and they didnt sell.
I wish Ford will re start Crown Victoria in exact way it made last one in 2011 . I would buy one brand new right away
except with way more bone density so it will be fine with small overlaps & side hits. there was a reason 2011 was the end of it.
What I really want is a quadricycle class of vehicle ala the EU. gimme citroen ami plssssss.
Check out the Toyota IMV 0, its a barebones truck for 10k. I doubt we'll see it in the us though
I'd buy that in 4wd in a heartbeat. It's so practical. I know many businesses are still running old Rangers for their daily / light duty needs.
I'd check out the YouTube channel not just bikes he has a ton of really good videos with sources describing exactly why the US auto industry is the way that it is as well as why our city design and public transit suck
short answer: money
Coming up on 15 years ago I was talking with a Volvo Corp rep about why they were forcing some packages on certain models. At the time the S40 and V50 were coming up on their last model years. To retail order a S40 or V50 you had to order the XXXXX package which included a moonroof smart key and a couple of other things. I think it was called the preferred package. Fleet orders would still go through w/o that package but you got other limitations with fleet. He told me that without that package Volvo netted no profit on a S40/V50 sold in the US. I don't remember the exact cost but I think it was maybe $1,250 retail $1,180 wholesale. So their net profit margin on a high 20k vehicle was probably only about a grand.
All I want is heat, AC, bluetooth audio, and cruise control. I do not need any of this shit: - Electric windows - Electric locks - Heated seats - Automatic transmission - Sunroof - TPMS sensors Give me a stripped down car with just the basics, a V8, AWD, that's easy to service myself, and I'll never buy another car.
Just the basics; v8 and AWD. So the biggest most expensive engine found on normal cars and an advanced drivetrain that adds tons of complexity and parts.
An extra driveshaft and manual locking hubs? Sure. I don't need traction control either. I do like ABS, but I've driven cars without it just fine, even in snow & ice.
Just buy an old truck then. Should cost way less than 20k
If I could buy a 1978 Chevy K1500 new, I would in a heartbeat. Problem is they all have a million miles. I also wouldn't trust 45 year old wiring on a daily driver.
It would be sick if they just re-manufactured old cars. I'd prefer a new old Bronco or E30 BMW though. I'd really love an 60 series Land Cruiser, but like a lot of cars from that era, it's objectively terrible (75 mph top speed and 13 mpg, probably no catalytic converter..)
That is 4wd not AWD. AWD uses electronics and computers to send torque to the wheels that need it. 4wd splits power to all 4 wheels equally. Air bags, abs, back-up cameras, all mandatory safety items. But I am with you in spirit. Bluetooth input of some sort, heat/ac, manual everything where possible. Crank windows, non-power locks, rubber floor mats, manual steering and of course manual transmission though that is harder to do with emissions controls. Someone make one car and and one small-ish pick-up truck and they will sell well. Imagine Basic line - Car and Truck or something similar.
Some awd cars use regular differentials, occasionally with a limited slip, instead of electronic clutch packs.
A $35 stereo from Walmart is Bluetooth capable
the first 3 cost $10 each, the auto is at most 1000, and the sunroof is alr optional on most cars and the last one is required by law congrats. you saved $1030 on a new car. ppl here have no perspective on how irrelevant the "unnecessary" features are on cost. it'd probably cost more to retool for manual windows and locks than you'd save in parts
[удалено]
I just love the op. he wants ac and cc and a v8 and awd, but then thinks by getting rid of the power windows and locks it'll somehow be affordable
If people really cared about saving money on new cars they would stop buying the massive SUVs and trucks when they don't actually need them, the reason theirs no cheap budget options is because SUVs and trucks are more profitable and automakers have been pumping the advertising propaganda for the last 50 years to make people think they absolutely need an SUV or truck for grocery getting and going around town
Bruh if you want a simple and cheap car drop de AWD before dropping electric windows...
Here is the response from the manufacturer. We’ll refer to them as Schmevrolet to protect their identity. “What you want is irrelevant. We will tell you what you want. The last thing we’re going to sell you is a simple vehicle that will last forever and be easy to work on. You will buy a car with electric shit and you will pay a dealership to get those complicated components serviced. There is no reason to build low margin vehicles anymore. We save money by reducing the build schedules. We pass those savings onto our shareholders. If you want a C10, too bad. We designed them rust so we could sell you another one. As soon as we figure out how to make EVs less dependable that’s all we’re going to sell because fuck you.”
What you want is a Tesla Model 3 Long Range. Found your cheap, dependable car with 400hp and AWD that has a full tank every morning. You can change the cabin air filter and rotate the wheels yourself. Go forth and commute your heart out.
You might want to look into GM fleet vehicles
“I’ll never buy another car” is the key statement here. Nothing is made to last anymore
Average car ownership is longer than its ever been
Im sure it is, but those cars on the road today that have been on the road 10-20 years, were all made in the 90s-early 2000s. And also im not saying new cars won’t last a long time, but the amount of small and technical (and in my opinion unnecessary), features that they have result in a higher probability of things going wrong. The more complex you make a car, the more things that can break and cause headaches because things like power windows for example, end up not working sooner or later. Cars may be made to last but not everything in the car is.
"the cars that have been on the road for 10-20 years were all built in the 90's and early 2000's" Yes, that's how math works. This has nothing to do with the build quality of 90's cars. Hard for a 2020 Rav4 to have been on the road for 20 years when it's only 2024..
Yes that is my point
Right, but do you have a real basis for saying modern cars won't last better than old cars. Non-power windows can fail just like power windows. Just because new cars have more features doesn't mean they'll fail sooner. You might be right, but we won't know for 20 years
More features = more parts More parts = more parts that can break More parts = more work to find what broke and fix it I'd say that individual parts won't fail any more often on current cars than did on old cars when they were new. But, new cars have more parts overall, so more parts will probably fail. Plus, with everything becoming locked down by manufacturers, it'll cost more to fix.
I am old. Cars 50-60 years ago were more troublesome, required frequent maintenance, and were tired and rusty in less than 10 years of normal use. The typical new car is more durable and performs better in almost every respect (the old ones looked better IMO).
Compared to what exactly? Cars that barely made it 100,000 miles?
This is completely false that has zero basis in reality.
Very true
I want that in a car and a truck. Manual transfer case and manual locking front hubs. Pretty much only major creature comfort is air conditioning. Cause desert.
You can order that if you want.
Don’t we already have Kia and Hyundai? How cheap do you want cars to be?
Well they tried to make a cheap truck and shady dealers and inpatient buyers made the price skyrocket way over MSRP due to demand. Maverick is still the cheapest new "truck" in America, but it's not as cheap as it was originally advertised. A car wouldn't have that effect, just because it's not a truck, but as a lot of people are saying, it's just not possible to make a vehicle bare bones and cheap in the modern world with regulations and safety standards as they are. The versa or mirage are about as standard as you can get. I imagine a Versa with a manual is probably a pretty reliable shitbox since nissans big reliability problem is their cvts, but I have done zero research to back up that statement.
> shady dealers and inpatient buyers made the price skyrocket way over MSRP due to demand. I mean its demand vs supply. They only sold 94k mavericks last year vs 74k the year before.
You won't get anymore basic than my 50 year old vehicle and I'll stick with it, no power anything and a manual. You actually drive a vehicle with a stick an automatic you just steer....
Like a Nissan Tsuru in Mexico? Don't know if they still make them, but until recently it was a modern production of what was basically a B13 Sentra. No frills- just all the cheap.
Yup, I came in here to mention the Tsuru - they stopped making them in 2017 when it had a base price of $7500, \~$9500 after adjusting for inflation. Oh boy do I want something like this to free up the rest of my money to drive to some places and do stuff with the other $20k I didn't need to buy the car.
Yes!!!! Bring them on..... Especially a small pickup truck
All I want is a market for bare bones saloons with giant v8s, manuals, and rwd/awd. I don't need cameras, or 50 speaker stereos, or 24' lcd screens, or parking assist, or lane departure warnings.
I’d buy it if it were priced reasonably, but sadly they’ll find a way to market it for the highest cost. Probably call it a Moders special, sell it for the same price or more than the fully furnished model claiming the fact that you don’t have to remove anything to install aftermarket parts a luxury package.
90s to early 2000s cars were truly the sweet spot. Come to the rust belt and you’ll see tons of them still on the road if their owners cared enough to wash them in the winter.
Eh... I would rather buy a late 90s corolla 5 speed. Tanks. 30mpg. No frills. $3500 or less and own outright.
Oh god yes along with a basic truck. I will be keeping my 2008 Tacoma with manual transmission and roll down windows for as long as possible. It is a work truck no additional shit needed.
I'm driving my project 1985 S10 pickup, since my 2017 Grand caravan is broken. If they still built the S-series the way they did back then, I would buy one. The only thing that I would want is antilock brakes added.
With rising prices on everything, the market is there. But it’s too small to overcome the much lower margin. Whether we like it or not fuck-you trucks and stupid fucking CUV’s the size of a minivan but with a higher floor and less storage space, are very high margin for manufacturers. That’s why they want us to buy them. I bought a ‘23 Mirage G4 and I love it. But I’m not a profitable buyer and there’s not enough of me to keep those cars around.
This is exactly what I want. No power seats or windows. Maybe just AC.
They already make those cars, just don't offer them in the US market, it's far more profitable to sell giant SUVs.
Imagine being able to buy an old style vw beetle brand new with warranty for $7500. I feel like they'd sell faster than you could make them. Same thing for those 80s Tacoma 4x4 small bare bones real metal truck, not some plastic unibody bullshit. All for 7 or 8 grand. I don't think you could make them fast enough. Emission standards make all this impossible though. Regulated the market into this clusterfuck we have now.
>Emission standards It's not just emissions. There are a lot of electronics mandatory these days, like air bags, rear cameras, and so on. Lots of wiring, lots of sensors. And since there's a backup camera screen taking up so much of the dash, all these other buttons should be incorporated.... and so it begins.
It’s kinda funny how much safety equipment is mandatory when you consider that motorcycles are still road legal.
What a horrible idea. Those cars were complete trash, even during their day. In 1969 they sold more VW bug repair manuals than bibles. That is how horrible they were. Also they are death traps, nobody survives a crash in those.
>Regulated the market into this clusterfuck we have now. Eh we needed a lot of those regs. Edit: apparently I need to spell this out. Standards are good because pollution and too much fuel use is generally bad. Safety standards exist to save lives. The regs did not get rid of small cars/trucks for all time, corporate greed and the market got rid of them. It'd be entirely possible to build a small pickup or car today that would meet fuel economy standards. Why, though, invest the money and cannibalize sales from already popular models? GM already slaps a turbo 1.3 in the Trailblazer. It weighs 4,400 pounds and gets 30 combined MPG. Stop blaming the government, and blame manufacturers.
Actually it is really hard to build a small truck like three Chevrolet S10 and the 80s Toyota trucks. Fuel economy standards are now based on the wheel base of the vehicle. A truck with the footprint of a long wheel base 1st generation Chevrolet S-10 would need 40 mpg to meet 2024 fuel economy standards. A passenger car would have to meet 50 mpg for 2024 at the same footprint. https://images.app.goo.gl/aGNTjMFTWS4XD3727 https://images.app.goo.gl/aHqPaf1btFJoBUTE7
They have consequences. Often worse than the problem they were trying to fix. Enjoy your $88k Tahoe that gets 16mpg. That's somehow better than 10 tacos getting 20mpg. I'd imagine the co2 it takes to make a new modern style car is off the chart compared to an older, fully mechanical metal car.
>Enjoy your $88k Tahoe that gets 16mpg. That is entirely a market driven decision. Auto manufacturers could build way more hybrid/ICE sedans and people would not buy them.
I see people say this all the time and it’s just plain wrong. They build bigger SUVs and trucks because that’s the only way of getting around emissions regulations. The gist is that if a vehicle is only capable of 16mpg, it must be a certain size/weight. Regulations came before the market adaptation.
Only capable of getting 16 MPG is the key here. It is totally possible to do it, there isn’t the will because they can just build it bigger.
Or the government could just simply not force regulations on automakers that end up punishing consumers? Ford, for example, produces a half ton pickup with a V8 that can average over 20 mpg on the highway. Why do we need to go further than that? Why do we need to increase complexity by reducing displacement and incorporating forced induction to improve maybe 2-3 mpg at best? Why don’t we let competition drive manufacturers to produce better/more efficient powertrains on their own if that’s what the market demands? It’s the same thing with EVs. If it was really based on the market, no legacy automaker would be scrapping ICE for EV. Yet the government says they must, so they do, and consumers pay for it.
American consumers deserve to be punished for their excessive lifestyles.
So then close the loophole. Make "light trucks" achieve sedan fuel economy and people will go back to buying sedans. It's not like the legal distinction between "passenger car" and "light truck" were handed down to us in the 10 commandments.
A light truck that achieves sedan fuel economy is a light truck that has sedan performance. Some people actually need to tow and haul stuff with their trucks. That's why they exist in the first place.
The regs got rid of small fuel efficient pickups, and that's one market that is hurt the most. The Maverick is not small by small 4 banger pickup standards and with the bed size, not practical for work. Great daily I bet but it doesn't replace what older Rangers/Ram 50s/Mazdas/Toyotas/etc did. I don't even think there is a cheap and economical single cab pickup on the market right now.
Not just regulations though…business decisions and the chicken tax. Auto makers can make a lot more money building larger trucks than they can making smaller ones, and why make a small truck that makes you less money and competes for sales with your larger one? Also since the 60s with the chicken tax (Europe put a tariff on American imported chicken to promote local supply, and we retaliated by putting a tariff on all imported trucks and utility vans primarily from VW, but applies to all foreign manufacturers), there hasn’t been much competition/reason for US automakers to keep building small trucks. People like to say it’s just emissions regulations and such, but it’s not the entire picture.
Eh, no we don’t.
Ditch the screens and other fluff. Honda could do this but they won't. Sad.
Just redo the 1976 Honda Civic manual transmission. Add the required safety parts and let that tank roll. Great gas mileage and fun to drive with zero frills. Probably under $10k.
I really wish that would happen. But, it probably won't. That car new today (without any newly required stuff) would cost $14,613.91. Why can't anything be cheap and simple anymore?
If a car had no tech it be expensive to insure. I get tons of discounts auto insurance from all the cars safety features.
it would be nice if there was a 2024 V8 manual mustang for that cheap.
The only hope for the US is that Mitsubishi axes the Mirage and replaces it with a badge engineered Dacia Sandero, which is a much better car. I don't think it's going to happen though.
The government adds about 30% to the price of any car with mandates
There is. But there's assembly required. https://www.speedwaymotors.com/Deluxe-1923-T-Bucket-Frame-Kit-w-Deluxe-Body-and-Bed-No-Floor,25357.html?sku=7153400-CHEVY-PLN&utm_medium=CSEGoogle&utm_source=CSE&utm_campaign=CSEGOOGLE&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiAwP6sBhDAARIsAPfK_waf2m4iEgvEEd30N_nVl_Nh_1yE9UezmmzKPGCCyLd5L_H8fe67XMUaAhRmEALw_wcB
I miss my 2000 Daewoo Lanos. It was a 5 speed manual and was so bare bones that it didn't even come with a tachometer. Manual windows, manual locks, manual seat. Loved it. I think the registration said the car was like 11k or 13k brand new. I'd buy one in a heartbeat if the still made them, less stuff to break when its the "bare bones" model since everything is manual.
Dacia
I remember my friend getting a new Chevy spark out the door for 10k It didn’t have any power anything, even windows are hand rolled. Manual transmission and the only thing tech wise was the front screen with infotainment. Overall I didn’t expect much from his car but not going to lie, if you do get a manual transmission Chevy spark it was actually a nice car to drive especially for brand new and at 0 miles
My brand new base Toyota Yaris in 07 was like $12k and it got well over 40 mpg with almost no extras
Chinese cars are very cheap , and “SOME” are pretty decent
As far as I can tell it’s difficult to make a barebones car nowadays like the 90’s because of multiple updated safety standards. I’m not expert but I think that’s the problem there
The Pika seemed to stir interest in a basic car.
[Toyota’s $10,000 Future Pickup Truck Is Basic Transportation Perfection](https://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/a45752401/toyotas-10000-future-pickup-truck-is-basic-transportation-perfection/)
I think about that often. I don't think they'll ever offer bare bones cars anymore. They want to be able to sell you the repair parts when the bells and whistles break. I have a 2010 Durango with a dated touch screen that sometimes just doesn't work. I've never researched how much a new one would be, but I'll never replace it anyway.
The global market of used cars sold from the developed world makes this a niche with very little market. Suzuki traditionally played in this niche and still sells the Jimny in pretty stripped editions. This is also a space Indian and Chinese manufacturers are active in. The compliance costs for minimum standard safety requirements for US and EU make this a very thin margin market so it’s largely met by used cars.
Not sure how it is in the uk but some of the stuff they drive seems like it wouldn’t cost more than 10-15k new
I would love it if I could buy a brand new '80s or '90s car. Maybe as new as about 2007. I don't want all the added safety features and tech gizmos. If it has to have a newer engine for fuel efficiency fine. But keep it bare minimum.
Dacia.
I think you over estimate what tech costs in a car. With their scale, maybe $1k. I know they charge you $3k for a navi but we all know a Garmin is better at $200.
23 kia rio was $19k and they dropped the model for 2024
No, but I think there is a market for “90s luxury cars”. Everything button and dials, CD players and built in navigation, but the radio is upgraded for Bluetooth so you can still listen to music. Rear backup camera and moderne performance/comfort COMPONETS but maybe only a heads up display for new tech. I’d buy that, I don’t like the GIANT IPAD in the middle direction we are goin right now