What is the cheapest new V8?

In reply to KyAllroad:

So your saying airbags, abs, tire pressure sensors, power seats and onstar are worthy components to double the price? Interesting

chiodos wrote: In reply to KyAllroad: So your saying airbags, abs, tire pressure sensors, power seats and onstar are worthy components to double the price? Interesting

the company has to pay for these parts and they up the price of the vehicle to cover these costs, sure it probably doesnt double the cost of producing the vehicle but there also a lot more to a modern camaro then a 69 camaro, a lot of electronics and other technologies that bring the price up

you also have to think a modern camaro is 2x as much as what the current price of the 69 camaro would be, but you are also getting (what i would say) is more then 2x the car. modern engine, drivetrain, suspension, ect. makes it a better car in every way, except for looks.

A 1969 is a slow, fuel drinking, cantankerous beeotch of a daily driver compared to a modern car.

Here's an example, Wheel Bearings. When was the last time you did wheel bearings on a modern car as part of regular maint.

Rad hoses also don't blow with the same regularity they used to..

Brakes that actually stop?

Fuel injection instead of a controlled leak through a venturi...

All of those things cost money.

In reply to chiodos:

...And crumple zones, and chassis rigidity, and wide grippy radial tires, and wide aluminum wheels, and decent dampers, and massive disc brakes with multipiston calipers, and supportive/ergonomic seats, and rack and pinion steering, and fuel injection, and everything else that allows us to have gobs of power combined with low emissions, and 100k+ reliability between tune ups or major services, and corrosion prevention, and expectations for fit and finish, and beyond that...All of the development required to accomplish everything above and more. Cars today are leaps and bounds better in every measurable way. Note that the average age of cars in the US is older than ever before, due in no small part to how much longer cars inherently last now compared to back in the day. Maybe consider the inflation adjusted price difference amortized along with all other costs over the life of the car based on mileage driven.

As much as I'd like to see some general simplifying of new cars myself, while the cars may cost twice as much on an inflation adjusted basis...I can't say that sounds totally unreasonable to me either.

Driven5 wrote: As much as I'd like to see some de-featuring of new cars myself, while the cars may cost twice as much on an inflation adjusted basis...But I can't say that sounds totally unreasonable to me either.

Not that many cars cost that much more when adjusted for inflation. Some are even cheap when not adjusting for size creep, too- kinda shocking.

But some cars- the market was better checked out, and companies figured out what it would take to make money. It's a lot less stress making half as many Vette's and charging twice as much. It's also more profitable. Similar trends can be seen for the pony cars. And to some degree trucks.

Still, many nominal cars have not really gotten much more expensive even with the additional stuff in them.

In reply to alfadriver:

Very good point...Although pretty much everything with 8 cylinders under the hood falls into that more profitable car category.

KyAllroad wrote:

chiodos wrote: Wish we could get stipper model cheap v8 cars like "back in the day".. I know you could get a new z28, chevelle ss, or corvette for 3k in 69 which is 19k in todays dollar. What happened?

Air bags, ABS, AC, crumple zones, padding, bigger tires/wheels/brakes. The list goes on and on of things a modern car has that it's earlier counterparts just didn't have. And when you realize that there is no way to order the modern one without a TPMS you'll see that even "stripped down" modern rides aren't nearly as basic as once up a time.

As well as A/C and power steering. By making those mandatory, they only have to engineer ONE HVAC system, ONE steering system (manual steer often also has different uprights too), ONE accessory drive (which is usually integrated with the engine and not crappy stampings-on-a-stick), etc.

There is a great economy of scale and increase in quality and integration if you don't have to make 12 different iterations of everything.

The standards today are a lot higher, too. Look at what is expected of fender gaps and NVH compared to 1969. So the engineering costs are higher because sticking a fan in front of a heater core and running some hoses around just don't cut it anymore.

1969 had a reasonably sized market (as a percentage of the whole). The 2015 version is a niche player. That likely accounts for some of the relative price increase.

I don't think $/hp you can beat a 370Z at $29.9k cdn. That's like $22.8k USD.

The Nissan Micra up here also retails for $9998 base. That's $7612 US for a new car that doesn't suck. The 370Z just has the edge on horsepower, but not by much ($69 a horse vs $70 a horse for the Micra)

Holy crap. A 2015 ram up here goes for $23,890 for a fleet model with the V8. That's $18,182.51 US right now. Divide that by horsepower (395) and you pay only $46 USD per pony.

Note also that the further back in time you go, the less accurate "constant dollar" calculations become. Even ignoring the assertions about "cheating" in the official numbers by ignoring energy and housing, comparing prices of stuff 40 years apart is a genuinely hard problem. How much did an iPhone cost in 1965, for example? What's the equivalent product?

codrus wrote: ignoring energy and housing

Housing has gone up 100% here in a bit over a decade. Probably 5,000% since the 60's.

Having said that, my 1980 Toyota Corolla is just as much fun as any econobox nowadays. But you definitely give up SOME creature comforts (you definitely gain others which make the driving experience more enjoyable, such as feel, interior space, and visibility).

Cost of living is a bogus calculation. Also, trucks suck as performance machines, I don't care what anyone says. They can't launch worth E36 M3 in a straight line since all the weight is in the front, they don't handle well because all the weights in the front, and by their very nature start out much more ungainly due to being so far away from anything close to a design that is meant to do anything than haul stuff.

HiTempguy wrote: I don't think $/hp you can beat a 370Z at $29.9k cdn. That's like $22.8k USD.

Can I buy that, and drive it over the border without paying a ton of taxes?