2015 Ford Mustang / Shelby GT350 Official - 5.2L FPC with 500+hp/400+ lb-ft

[thill]

The fact is the average age of a new car buyer is getting older and older as the cost of new cars continues to increase and college educations in our country and healthcare costs skyrocket. The average price of a new car is $32k now and very few average income families can afford it. So yes there is a finite pool of people in the market to buy a sportscar. The Mustang and Camaro are not immune to the market and remember Chevy killed off the Camaro once before.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by thill

The fact is the average age of a new car buyer is getting older and older as the cost of new cars continues to increase and college educations in our country and healthcare costs skyrocket. The average price of a new car is $32k now and very few average income families can afford it. .

Well, in my experience this has always been the case (the average income family could not afford the average new car) regardless of when you look at it in history. But, in the end you are correct the "average" price of a car has risen over time faster than the "average" salary. I would argue though that this is partially due to the willingness of people to finance cars over the years, resulting in the increase of higher end cars sold, amongst other contributing factors.

The ratio was pretty steady until the 1980's but then skyrocketed. Seems to me this correlates to when the larger vehicle market (SUVs, "fancy" nonwork trucks, etc) took off and folks were able to lease and finance cars for longer terms. You could argue that it is a chicken/egg thing, but the bottom line is if someone wasn't buying $50,000 pickup trucks and $40,000 cargo conversion vans, the manufacturers would not be building them.

Here's a little comparison of average income to average car price over the years. Source:

[thill]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Well, in my experience this has always been the case (the average income family could not afford the average new car) regardless of when you look at it in history. But, in the end you are correct the "average" price of a car has risen over time faster than the "average" salary. I would argue though that this is partially due to the willingness of people to finance cars over the years, resulting in the increase of higher end cars sold, amongst other contributing factors.

The ratio was pretty steady until the 1980's but then skyrocketed. Seems to me this correlates to when the larger vehicle market (SUVs, "fancy" nonwork trucks, etc) took off and folks were able to lease and finance cars for longer terms. You could argue that it is a chicken/egg thing, but the bottom line is if someone wasn't buying $50,000 pickup trucks and $40,000 cargo conversion vans, the manufacturers would not be building them.

Here's a little comparison of average income to average car price over the years. Source:

Good info, and there have been a number of articles out in recent years where we see the shift in demographics even more to baby boomers:



That is an old chart. In 2013 this was announced:

The 55-to-64-year-old age group, the oldest of the boomers, has become the cohort most likely to buy a new car, according to a new study by the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute. Graying boomers replaced the 35-to-44 year old age group, who were most likely to buy four years ago.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by fatoni

I think the bottom line is that there is a sales ceiling for the truly sporty cars. Those models tend to come and go. When they are released on the market, everyone who wants one and can afford one buys one. A few years later there is nobody to sell those cars to.

And it's a bit of a problem because if you try to restrict the supply and have a more expensive sporty car that less people can buy so you have more people to sell to in the future, then you have to add in luxury features that make the car less sporty.

I guess Porsche figured this out early and made their cars into rolling couches with sportier models as an option while Lotus is struggling to sell a few hundred cars a year.

[rice_classic]

All of our core expenditures (housing/education/health/childcare) over the last 60 years have increased exponentially while wages have remained flat even as productivity has increased several fold. If wages increased to match productivity over that time period the economic story of today would be vastly different for most folks.

[funwheeldrive]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

All of our core expenditures (housing/education/health/childcare) over the last 60 years have increased exponentially while wages have remained flat even as productivity has increased several fold. If wages increased to match productivity over that time period the economic story of today would be vastly different for most folks.

That is unlikely. Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.

[campy]

A Scion FRS weighs 2700 lbs and a '15 Mustang weighs 3700 lbs. Where is this extra 1000 lbs coming from? Is this thing built on a F450 chassis or something?

[53Driver]

Originally Posted by campy

A Scion FRS weighs 2700 lbs and a '15 Mustang weighs 3700 lbs. Where is this extra 1000 lbs coming from? Is this thing built on a F450 chassis or something?

Well, the Coyote engine alone is going to weigh a couple hundred pounds more than the FA20 (assuming a V-8 equipped Mustang). Then there's the size difference between the cars. The Mustang is larger so you're going to have more weight there. Since the Mustang is marketed to a larger crowd, figure more weight from sound deadening and extra features. The sheet metal might be thicker causing more weight, after all we've seen all the complaints about the FR-S/BRZ denting easily.

[f0rge]

Originally Posted by campy

A Scion FRS weighs 2700 lbs and a '15 Mustang weighs 3700 lbs. Where is this extra 1000 lbs coming from? Is this thing built on a F450 chassis or something?

The truth is that more cars made today are closer to 4000lbs than to 3000lbs. The FRS is the odd car here not the mustang, and many sacrifices were made to get the FRS down to that weight like a complete lack of sound insulation.

[Miniata]

Originally Posted by campy

A Scion FRS weighs 2700 lbs and a '15 Mustang weighs 3700 lbs. Where is this extra 1000 lbs coming from? Is this thing built on a F450 chassis or something?

Bigger body, larger wheels and tires, heavier engine, bigger brakes, just to name a few things. There is also more sound deadening and more sturdy body panels than the twins. The Mustangs I've owned have all had much more substantial paint and body structure thank my BRZ. Seems like I can't hit a cone at an autocross in my BRZ without getting a dent or scraping up the paint, the Mustangs can take a hit without any damage. The twins are lightweight by design, but compromises were made to keep the weight down.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

... If wages increased to match productivity over that time period the economic story of today would be vastly different for most folks.

I think there is an argument to be had that productivity increases have always outpaced wages, back to the invention of the wheel but we are way off topic now!

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by thill

Good info, and there have been a number of articles out in recent years where we see the shift in demographics even more to baby boomers:



That is an old chart. In 2013 this was announced:

More good info. Also, one thing I meant to mention above is there is probably a HUGE increase over time in the number of multi-car families even as prices have risen. I don't have anything other than anecdotal evidence, but I can tell you from experience that when I was growing up (went to high school in the mid-70's) it was very unusual for a family in the
"average" middle class home to have more than one car. Sometimes when a kid (usually a son) turned 16, he might go out and buy a $300 used car (that's what I did).

Now nearly every "average" income family has at least two cars (Moms car and Dads car) and many others consider it normal to have one per driving member of the family. That was unheard of 30 years ago.

[DAEMANO]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

All of our core expenditures (housing/education/health/childcare) over the last 60 years have increased exponentially while wages have remained flat even as productivity has increased several fold. If wages increased to match productivity over that time period the economic story of today would be vastly different for most folks.

This is totally the crux of the issue.

During this same period corporate profits and executive salaries have absolutely soared. All the while, the average worker, their per capita debt load skyrocketed. We're also offered increasingly lower quality goods. Easy to see where all the money has gone and the debt it has been replaced with. Just so long as we all had the ability to buy (consume) even cheaply made stuff with debt (credit, mortgages, auto loans) nobody cared that all the wealth was being concentrated amongst a handful of people.

We were lulled to sleep as the term "citizen" was being replaced by the term "consumer". We allowed ourselves to be divided on cultural, dogmatic, and ethnic lines while the issue that mattered most (economics) were usurped & entangled. Corporations that think they have an iron grip now that they wield the hammer of Citizens United, media consolidation, mass surveillance, and "the new Jim Crow" are their tools. We still have the weight of the masses. We only must act. So many speak like "the government" is it's own entity comprised of tiny dictators. Truth is, the government is whatever we allow it to be. It is us, and if it gets to the point where it represents only a small percentage of us (say 1%), we have to step up, with the power of will, conviction and law and force it back into representing us. We can fix this mess.

[tahdizzle]

I like turtles.