I can't wrap my head around the price of new trucks....

codrus wrote:

Keith Tanner wrote: FCA: Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, aka Jeep Dodge Ram Chrysler Fiat Ferrari Alfa etc. I'm not an enormous fan of their recalls, poor security or funky wiring. I love my 2500, but the fact that the NHTSA forced a buyback on the truck because FCA couldn't be bothered to actually perform recall work says it all. I'm not going to wait for the diesel because I'm not planning on using it to tow and I prefer naturally aspirated engines.

I'm confused -- FCA bought your truck back and you're replacing it with a CX-5? Or are those unrelated?

Those are unrelated. After a considerable amount of effort, significant harassment of the service manager ("you won't let me buy a truck directly from the manufacturer, so you get to be the manufacturer's representative when I have a problem!"), lies ("oh, we've got a priority list and you're on it") and finally just plain lucky timing, I was able to get a specific recall performed long after it was announced. The buyback program was ordered by the NHTSA shortly afterwards, as not everyone was as lucky as I. The reason was failure to actually perform the recall work. They were fined the maximum amount possible.

We also have a Grand Cherokee, which would have been subject to a very long, protracted recall process if it hadn't been built with the tow package. Also, FCA was forced to buy back Grand Cherokees because of a failure to perform the safety recall. And another maximum fine. The Jeep has other weird wiring problems that do not amuse me but those are just the vehicular equivalent of early onset Alzheimer's.

So that's two near misses for two. The CX-5 is to replace the Grand Cherokee. I'm quite happy with the truck now that the steering is not going to suddenly disconnect from the front wheels. But it would have to be a hell of a product to convince me to go back to FCA.

Oh look, our 124 Spider is throwing a code...

My 2011 FX2 Ford F150 has gone up $20k at the dealers for 2016. So I opted to keep mine and add a back up camera, flush the rad, change the fluid in the trans.

I think it's all the leases that drive up the prices. When people shop nothing but the monthly payment the dealers and manufacturers can get away with murder.

On the plus side there are a LOT of decent priced lease turn ins at good prices.

We use our truck more than any of the other cars because it's just so versatile.

I agree that the current new trucks are costing a lot. But have you seen what people pay for a new Jeep Wrangler? Or how about one with some modifications? Holy Cow!!

I haven't been on this forum much lately, but it seems like there is always one of these threads complaining about the price of new cars. I get it and I generally agree. I rant about it (mostly in my head) all the time. I think the general theme of the responses boil down to "you are not the consumer they are selling to". I personally feel there is a disconnect between the supposed average income (and net worth) of Americans and the average transaction price of a new car. Either the average new car buyer is significantly above the average income/wealth level or that average buyer is buying more car than they can afford. Probably both.

I mostly just get bitter because I pay cash for my cars and am resentful about having to compete with people who are generally willing to pay much more for stuff than I am. I am only in my late 30's (getting dangerously close to 40) but feel like I have prematurely become curmudgeon constantly complaining about how much cheaper everything was "back in the day".

E36 M3... I crapped my pants signing away for my $38k '12 Suburban 2 summers ago and $30k for my 35k mile '13 Avalanche, base model-ish, last month....

I'll stick to old E36 M3 from now one only because what's being produced I have no desire in owning.

Sticker on my '16 ram was 56k. I went to a small dealer that does mostly trucks and advertises them at steep discounts(12k off msrp the second the truck tires hit the lot off the carrier). They had the truck listed as "arriving soon" and as soon as that status went from stock photo to "it's here" i went and bought it immediately. Hadn't been touched by any test drivers. Mine.

I spec'd out what i wanted(base model, backup camera, chrome package, blue, crew cab 3500 diesel automatic short bed with mid grade radio)on ram website to not go overboard, then i spec'd one out with the equivalent gadgetry of the avalanche i was looking so hard to ditch, and it would have had a new truck up around 70k. That was mind boggling. I gladly paid my 44k and ran away from the dealer happy that i got the exact truck i wanted. For me it's about having the right tool for the job, as it's for business and is a write off. I skated by for years taking a pen knife to a handgun fight in trailering terms, now i'm armed with a bazooka.

I blame the people who need their hillbilly cadillac status symbol that have never scratched paint in a pickup bed for part of the price increase, but really if you look at inflation we're not that far off. In 1997 we ordered a new chevy wt 1500 2wd v6 auto stripped down model and it was 18k. Comparable truck today isn't 18k, but it's the equivalent of 18k 1997 dollars in 2017 dollars. And we're getting so much more truck now. My 2005 1500 avalanche pulled my enclosed trailer as well as my 90 3500 454 dually before it, and my 2016 3500 makes the 90 feel like it has the capacity of a 4 cylinder ranger.

The other reason besides a zillion nannies and airbags, is people want all the E36 M3 they were getting in their cars in pickups now.

In reply to WilD:

I get that from coworkers from time to time: "you make good money - why do you have such cheap cars?"

Because I've worked hard to be 100% debt-free and until I can pay cash for the car I want, cheap cars are what I'll be driving.

That said, I do admit I'm having a harder time with the discussion about why I have so many cars (5) when so many of them need work (usually all of them) and I struggle with finding/making time to work on them.

I just got an email from the MINI dealer offering $5000 off the Countryman. I guess it's not just trucks with unrealistic MSRPs...

This discussion couldn't have come up at a better time.

Mrs. Maro's 2000 7.3 PSD F-250 Superduty was stolen two weeks ago.

She's been driving my 2003 Tacoma while we truck shop, I put my old 1990 460EFI F-250 back on the road until we find something.

We have figured out what we want but a truck to replace her old one costs about $50,000 - $60,000 in Canadian pesos.

No way in hell am I spending that kind of money on a truck we're going to work to death.

She loves the OBS Ford trucks as much as I do, so we decided to just build her the truck she wants.

I can buy a 1994 - 1997 F-350 crewcab and rebuild pretty much everything in it for less than a new truck.

Even if I find an older one with an IDI Diesel instead of a Powerstroke, the price difference between the two Diesels is enough to buy a Banks turbo kit for the IDI.

Let the shopping begin.

Trans_Maro wrote: This discussion couldn't have come up at a better time. Mrs. Maro's 2000 7.3 PSD F-250 Superduty was stolen two weeks ago.

Insured? If so, then the high resale cuts both ways -- replacement trucks are expensive, but it also means the insurance payout should be fairly high.

If not... :-(

Insured, just waiting for the payout.

manydubs wrote: I agree that the current new trucks are costing a lot. But have you seen what people pay for a new Jeep Wrangler? Or how about one with some modifications? Holy Cow!!

Yes, I have

In reply to Trans_Maro:

I like the use of rebuilding the OBS!

Have you looked at Diesel_Brad posts on the Ford Truck website and Power Stroke site?

The sad thing about trucks is that they certainly COULD be cheaper. I mean, they sell 100,000 F-150's per day or whatever, so they are buying everything in volume. If my wife's Buick Encore, which is loaded with every conceivable amenity only costs $25K, you can't tell me that GM can't put all that same stuff on a Silverado for about the same price. OK, maybe $30 - $35K. There is physically more sheetmetal, but a backup camera is a backup camera. I just takes an extra 6' of wire to put it on a truck.

In reply to pinchvalve:

You are right. They COULD sell them cheaper. Why should they?

I think a lot of consumers miss a concept call "What the Market will Bear". Basically, business does not have a fixed price. Their long term success (or failure) is dependent on selling product at a varying rate, dependent on the consumer's capability of buying. Prices are not fixed. They vary by consumer demographic, geographic location, time of year, even the weather.

If all companies sold their product at the lowest common denominator that they COULD, they'd go bankrupt. And if they sold everything at a fixed price, none of us could afford anything.

It was evident when I traveled in third world countries. At that time, a bottle of Coke may have been worth about $1 in the US. But they were selling there for $.25, while the non-name brand stuff sold for $.10. The company's profits are dependent on selling to a broad range of customers, and sometimes (in the big picture) market share may be more important than profit. They may actually sell their products in some places at a loss to develop a customer base and loyalty.

There's a pretty good book out now called "The Aisles have Eyes", showing how we are almost at a moment when the consumer profiling is so advanced that prices may be based on our appearance or buying patterns, and that they can even change as we walk through the store and are tracked and watched for behavior patterns.

Don't assume prices are fixed, universal, or even the same between you and me.

SVreX wrote: In reply to pinchvalve: You are right. They COULD sell them cheaper. Why should they? I think a lot of consumers miss a concept call "What the Market will Bear". Basically, business does not have a fixed price. Their long term success (or failure) is dependent on selling product at a varying rate, dependent on the consumer's capability of buying. Prices are not fixed. They vary by consumer demographic, geographic location, time of year, even the weather.

Preach on, brother. Folks, this is Econ 101. Car companies are not charities, they don't exist to provide the cheapest vehicles they possibly can, they exist to make money.

Aren't trucks at an all-time high in comfort, efficiency, capability, safety, utility, and availability? If no one buys these trucks new then you'll never get to when they have 150k miles on them. Guess what! They'll still be relatively expensive! Good luck.

In reply to Tom_Spangler:

You are absolutely correct, but there's nothing stopping a carmaker from undercutting the price of their competitor in order to draw more sales. Hyundai/Kia are known for doing this as they typically offer more content for less than other companies. They're willing to sacrifice some margin to generate sales.

Cadillac recently took the opposite approach, when they suddenly increased their prices on par with the Germans, and their sales have suffered as a result.

The full size truck market is notoriously competitive, so why isn't an automaker trying to undercut the competition when it comes to trucks? Is nobody willing to forego a bit of margin on a high profit vehicle? Do they just assume that people will buy trucks no matter what, so they might as well milk it as much as they can?

STM317 wrote: The full size truck market is notoriously competitive, so why isn't an automaker trying to undercut the competition when it comes to trucks? Is nobody willing to forego a bit of margin on a high profit vehicle? Do they just assume that people will buy trucks no matter what, so they might as well milk it as much as they can?

I think this is why you see outgoing model high trimline trucks offered at $15,000 off MSRP.

Tom_Spangler wrote:

SVreX wrote: In reply to pinchvalve: You are right. They COULD sell them cheaper. Why should they? I think a lot of consumers miss a concept call "What the Market will Bear". Basically, business does not have a fixed price. Their long term success (or failure) is dependent on selling product at a varying rate, dependent on the consumer's capability of buying. Prices are not fixed. They vary by consumer demographic, geographic location, time of year, even the weather.

they exist to make money.

Just about every company that has something to sell. People are seriously too cheap and angry to realize this.

DirtyBird222 wrote: Yea you can get a bare bones one for a reasonable price....that's just it. You get absolutely nothing but a truck. If you want one with some creature comforts for daily driving or a family car, wham you're into the $40-50k range and all that's added are things you can get on a fully load Honda Fit for $20k (minus the engine and bed of course). The same goes for things like a Tahoe, Expedition, etc. I've been out there shopping around and have just said screw it.

In 1977 I purchased a new Chevrolet Blazer 4x4/350 4bbl/4 spd/posi/dual exhaust/no emission controls for $6000. Average price for cars at the time was $9000. My, how things change.

In reply to Trans_Maro:

That's why I love trucks. They are the grown up version of legos. Bed rusty or beat? No prob. Don't like the rear gear? no problem. Want different springs? No problem. Unlike a unibody car, everything is replaceable and rebuildable.

In reply to SVreX:

True. I believe this is often the reasoning behind why there are so many "premium" hatchbacks in Europe and so few here in the US.

Otherwise, you're right - current new trucks cost as much as they do because people are willing (and can get financing) to pay for them.

STM317 wrote: The full size truck market is notoriously competitive, so why isn't an automaker trying to undercut the competition when it comes to trucks? Is nobody willing to forego a bit of margin on a high profit vehicle? Do they just assume that people will buy trucks no matter what, so they might as well milk it as much as they can?

I think that question answers itself. If one company was able to get a substantial sales increase by undercutting on price, they'd have done it by now. Yes, incentives exist, but they all use them, so there's no real advantage there, either. Imagine what these things would cost if you didn't have 4-5 companies fighting over this market.

In reply to STM317:

I don't think the new truck market is competitive at all. People WILL buy trucks eventually no matter what.

You are suggesting that the trucks never move off the lot, and that dealers would be more profitable if they cut their margin a little. Those are just not true.

I worked at a small dealership in a small southern town (population 19,300) for a year and a half. They sold about 100 vehicles a month. About 70 of those were trucks, most with sticker prices well North of $60K.

They never slowed down in the 18 months I was there.

Do the math.