Automotive bubble....has it burst?

Ron said:
No - its not people twisting your words.

This is a common theme and tactic of yours. You make baseless assumptions then sprinkle a few random details in them. The conclusions are so detached from reality that anyone with experience running a business (or an R&D department in this case) instantly rolls their eyes and moves on. A few of us, foolishly try to engage and point out the grand canyon sized gaps of logic in your statements and use the specific example of the details you sprinkle in. Those, the things you mention, should be the easiest and best arguments for your position....before even getting into minutia. When they are easily discredited (the headlight example) it just illustrates the entire premise is based on fantasy in your mind.

It gets to be a repeat exercise with you. Not to be too personal but I remember the similar cycle when you were going to start your auto online search site. You did a market survey to ask what people wanted. People here universally told you - nah that aint it. And you shouted them down for weeks that you knew what everyone really wanted and had a better mouse trap. Cool.

At some point you are either the only singular sane person in every circle you ever enter, or...
Click to expand...

-market survey was a much larger (and longer term) data gathering job than just here, and input was wide ranging, but thanks. and the site is live and we have happy users, so thanks again. its acutally going pretty good. There is an entire world outside this echo chamber! who knew?!
-the headlight (just an example of how a part that used to cost $20 just a decade ago now costs $1000) was not 'discredited' by anyone in the car building industry with facts to back it up. We can all assume and pontificate, but again, just an exercise.
-example of the twist...i stated 2004 headlight (WJ example) and you, for some reason, tried to make some smart sounding comment "yea, lets use those 1985 headlights....moron!"...like that will prove something. I was trying to be reasonable and not say 'why don't we just keep building Model Ts'....reasonable is the name of the game here. Of course we all understand that 1985 headlights would not be acceptalble today. But is there is no (cheaper, simpler, less complex) middle ground between a dim 6" halogen bulb from a 1980 F150 and the $1500 assembly on the new F150??

Bebop said:
Toyota is litterally discontinuing the 4.0 at this moment...
Click to expand...

thanks for the insight.....never said they weren't.....but they used it for 20ish years. and seemed to make it meet standards.

Many automakers design and build a new engine/transmission/an entire car every 5 years,.....and that is super expensive that drives up the cost of a new car......but is it necessary?
the entire point of the exercise.
how cheap could a new car be if as many parts were used as long as possibe (20 years for a V6, as an example), don't engineer/retool/redesign every 3 years, and use a proven/cheap/reliable -anything- where possible
 
Honestly, new cars could still be reasonable, even with all the safety stuff. It's all the tech stuff that goes with it. If all the automakers could stop producing new models every few years, like @benXJ mentioned, it would help. I think Toyota does this better than the domestics. Their prices don't reflect though.

Oh, I bet they could get great fuel economy too, if they all didn't have to have 300+hp.
 
DSM Turbos said:
Then also if you look at how much savings most folks have. 60% of adults say they live paycheck to paycheck, and 4 in 10 of them are considered high earners. I think there are plenty of people also who barely contribute to 401k and their future and just live for the current moment. If you don't care to save at all for the future, it is a lot easier to spend a shit ton of money.
Click to expand...
This is the real scary thing.
It used to be that most people (who worked) had a retirement plan or was married to somebody with one, and social security was just viewed as a supplement or emergency for those who had unexpected problems, disability etc (how it was originally intended). Now a much smaller % of people are planning for the future. Meanwhile SS is dwindling quickly with a likely "solution" of raising the withdrawal age and/or decreasing benefits... but with the impending population shrinkage (see Overpop thread) we are going to have many fewer people available to not only support that program but to be the workers to support and take care of us with services when we're old folks. There is going to be a major weight put on the younger generation and a lot of people in a bad spot in their aging years. Increasing divide between "the haves" who prepared well in advance and those who didn't.
 
A lot of hatin' goin on in this thread, but @benXJ isn't that far off. A Kia Sportage is the same width, length, and wheelbase as a WJ, and about 3" lower:

1705598173471.png


I guarantee you that Kia Sportage could easily be $5k cheaper if they focused on simplicity instead of giant triangles on the grill and hippy fenders. 🤷‍♂️
 
benXJ said:
Many automakers design and build a new engine/transmission/an entire car every 5 years,.....and that is super expensive that drives up the cost of a new car......but is it necessary?
the entire point of the exercise.
how cheap could a new car be if as many parts were used as long as possibe (20 years for a V6, as an example), don't engineer/retool/redesign every 3 years, and use a proven/cheap/reliable -anything- where possible
Click to expand...
You know what - maybe you're onto something. I strongly encourage you to do it yourself, then come back here with the analysis and share details so we can discuss. I'd love to see it. Maybe we're wrong, which I would happily admit.

My money is on the hundreds of engineers and bean counters working for automakers whose job is to maximize their profit, but maybe you've figured out something they haven't.
 
Last edited:
RatLabGuy said:
This is the real scary thing.
It used to be that most people (who worked) had a retirement plan or was married to somebody with one, and social security was just viewed as a supplement or emergency for those who had unexpected problems, disability etc (how it was originally intended). Now a much smaller % of people are planning for the future. Meanwhile SS is dwindling quickly with a likely "solution" of raising the withdrawal age and/or decreasing benefits... but with the impending population shrinkage (see Overpop thread) we are going to have many fewer people available to not only support that program but to be the workers to support and take care of us with services when we're old folks. There is going to be a major weight put on the younger generation and a lot of people in a bad spot in their aging years. Increasing divide between "the haves" who prepared well in advance and those who didn't.
Click to expand...
I agree with your analysis of the current state of the problem. But your final statement about the increasing divide between the 'haves' and the 'have nots' leaves out some context.

The issue I have with Social Security is that it was a defined contribution plan that took a significant amount of income from wage earners. If this fund had been managed properly, the bulk of the money should have accrued value over 45 years of an individuals career and some of the money would have been used to cover disability/long term care insurance.

Instead, the goverment has chosen to borrow against these funds on the promise to make them whole with future generational income. Now, their proposed solutions are some version of reducing the payout (usually from the top earners and progressing down). To me that basically means that they have embezzled retirement funds and are now trying to hold the fund recipients liable for their mismanagement.
 
Southern_Transplant said:
Instead, the goverment has chosen to borrow against these funds on the promise to make them whole with future generational income. Now, their proposed solutions are some version of reducing the payout (usually from the top earners and progressing down). To me that basically means that they have embezzled retirement funds and are now trying to hold the fund recipients liable for their mismanagement.
Click to expand...
When did the gov borrow against SS and not repaid?
I've often heard this stated but can't find a case of it actually happening.

The problem w/ SS is (1) its a pay-as-you-go system, not invested for future withdrawal and (2) the math used to balance it was based on income and population sizes that aren't correct anymore and it wasn't adjusted along the way..
 
RatLabGuy said:
When did the gov borrow against SS and not repaid?
I've often heard this stated but can't find a case of it actually happening.

The problem w/ SS is (1) its a pay-as-you-go system, not invested for future withdrawal and (2) the math used to balance it was based on income and population sizes that aren't correct anymore and it wasn't adjusted along the way..
Click to expand...
People use the term borrowing because it best explains the current situation. You can look to the tax code changes that occured around 1986. Social Security used to be a seperate fund seperate from the general fund. The government basically dumped it in the account and as I recall, just purchased T-bills with it. They changed it and allowed the money to go into the general fund with the government promising to account and pay out benefits. Over the years, the government has increased COLA adjustments, but in many cases hasn't kept up with ensuring the future obligation was covered. They speak about the Social Security fund. But it's not actually tied to the contributions that employer and employee deductions being made. If they come up short on the budget (like they've been doing) they don't fully fund the budget obligation and kick the can down the road.
 
RatLabGuy said:
When did the gov borrow against SS and not repaid?
I've often heard this stated but can't find a case of it actually happening.

The problem w/ SS is (1) its a pay-as-you-go system, not invested for future withdrawal and (2) the math used to balance it was based on income and population sizes that aren't correct anymore and it wasn't adjusted along the way..
Click to expand...
Slight deviation, but same point, they borrowed trillions for "stimulus", inflated prices, deflated the value of the dollar, and then made people happy with hush money AKA Economic Impact Payments or whatever it was called.
 
benXJ said:
Many automakers design and build a new engine/transmission/an entire car every 5 years,.....and that is super expensive that drives up the cost of a new car......but is it necessary?
the entire point of the exercise.
how cheap could a new car be if as many parts were used as long as possibe (20 years for a V6, as an example), don't engineer/retool/redesign every 3 years, and use a proven/cheap/reliable -anything- where possible
Click to expand...
The goal is not to make the cheapest car possible.
The goal is to make the most profitable car for the manufacturer.

And again, legal requirements force you to update your line-up regularly. Even Honda (champions of the untouched model-care) has to.
And again, the electronic chips that are used everywhere keep improving and changing. You cannot get continental to build you the same ECU they were building in 2004. It's just not possible, the parts aren't there.
 
jeepinmatt said:
A lot of hatin' goin on in this thread, but @benXJ isn't that far off. A Kia Sportage is the same width, length, and wheelbase as a WJ, and about 3" lower:

View attachment 410871

I guarantee you that Kia Sportage could easily be $5k cheaper if they focused on simplicity instead of giant triangles on the grill and hippy fenders. 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
maybe..but would people buy it if it wasn't visually appealing?

your making my point for me here. $28k is actually cheaper than $20k was then.
And Id guarantee that Sportage is more comfortable, faster and safer than a 99 XJ
 
I think this was posted on this site before. It is our government's fault that we can't get this or something like it here in the USA.

www.motor1.com

One Drive In Toyota's $10,000 Pickup Will Make You Want One

The Toyota IMV 0 is a cheap little $10,000 workhorse for those who don’t need leather, power tailgates, and massive sunroofs – you know, a real truck.
www.motor1.com www.motor1.com
 
Ron said:
maybe..but would people buy it if it wasn't visually appealing?
Click to expand...
Have you seen half the shit on the road these days?


Ron said:
your making my point for me here. $28k is actually cheaper than $20k was then.
And Id guarantee that Sportage is more comfortable, faster and safer than a 99 XJ
Click to expand...
Ron said:
You do realize you can’t buy a new side by side for $20k, right?

And it has no ntsa, no windshield heater, AC, radio etc…


You’ve lost touch with reality.

This is where @shawn used to rustle all the jimmies by saying those are 2018 dollars.

$20k in 99 = $38k in 2023z
You can buy a $38k suv today and it will be comparable to a $20k 99 suv
Click to expand...
I feel like you're actually making the point for me here. Brosef wants a $20k utilitarian SUV. There are currently ones on sale for $27k that have way more features and luxuries and creature comforts than he wants. Take those features away, and you have a $20k vehicle. Add in @benXJ's point about not making changes to the general design, leverage supply chains and economies of scale over time, etc, should be quite easy to make a "decent" $20k new 4x4 mid size SUV. Would people buy it? I dunno. But Pontiac sold a lot of Azteks.
 
duh....automakers are in the biz of making money.....so they'll keep selling $60k 4 runners.

but again, as a thought exercise (not if it would sell).....how cheap could a new, modern, SUV be built if as many designs, parts, switches, gears, bearings, badges, brakes, lights, hoses, speakers, radios, HVAC components (no blend doors!), no screens (want a backup cam? glue one to the dash later on), abs pumps, alternators, oil filters, brake pads, all of it.....were used from a well established, scaled down to pennies, parts bin. Dial shifters? Button shifters? Folding console shifters? Stuff aint free to design, build, supply and integrate.

12 zone HVAC, dancing head and tail lights, heated and cooled seats, screens, a tailgate with a lightbar or 6 folding modes, 10 terrain modes don't add to MPGs or increase safety. So how cheap could they theoretically build a new 4runner?

EVen the new 70 series LC went woke with their new fancy Halo style headlights!

I can drive my 1970 Chevy down the road perfectly legal, but I can't buy a 'new' 3rd gen 4runner due to mandates or import a 2019 70 series land cruiser? Lame.
 
Chevy Trailblazer and Ford Maverick can both be had for under $25,000....
 
zuke said:
Chevy Trailblazer and Ford Maverick can both be had for under $25,000....
Click to expand...
Just came here to say this.
A coworker bough ta fully loaded Maverick for $29k. Just this past year. That is very, very cheap for 2023 dollars.
 
RatLabGuy said:
Well shit, I need to find a different 2nd adult.
Click to expand...
Hell I need to find 2 different adults.....


zuke said:
Chevy Trailblazer and Ford Maverick can both be had for under $25,000....
Click to expand...
They keep advertising this, but all the no option (not even cruise) XL models I find wind up being damn near 30K out the door.
 
NCJeeplover said:
Hell I need to find 2 different adults.....



They keep advertising this, but all the no option (not even cruise) XL models I find wind up being damn near 30K out the door.
Click to expand...
you have to order one, in the very short window its open, to get them at list... The MSRP climbs on them every model year, so not sure there is an option under $25k anymore.

It must be true, since it is on the interwebs, but Ive read of multiple people across the US that are offered $5k+ to not take their order, when it arrives, because the dealer can mark them up and sell them.
 
I feel fortunate my "Other Adult" is self sufficient. Hell she's getting closer every year to what I make.
 
paradisePWoffrd said:
you have to order one, in the very short window its open, to get them at list... The MSRP climbs on them every model year, so not sure there is an option under $25k anymore.

It must be true, since it is on the interwebs, but Ive read of multiple people across the US that are offered $5k+ to not take their order, when it arrives, because the dealer can mark them up and sell them.
Click to expand...
Man I read this wrong. I thought you were ordering your bride 🤣
 
I’m going to agree with @benXJ here. The variability of hard parts is pretty excessive. There is no need for the 1000’s of different designs of brake pads, rotors, calipers, etc that there is. And this absolutely increases the prices of vehicles as the machinery to make these parts has to be retooled for all of the different designs. Auto manufacturers should limit the variability in those designs.
 
Back
Top