They’re all much cheaper than they were and more advanced by leaps and bounds.

GA airplane production collapsed from a peak production of 17k a year in the 1970s to a few thousand a year starting in the 90s continuing to today. Cars and tractors and tanks and even jets have all seen their markets grow, not disappear.

That’s sometimes true but the standards have improved so much it’s hard to do these comparisons.

A new Model T in 1925 cost had fallen to 260$, that’s roughly $4,348 in todays money. Sure it’s missing a great deal of modern features, but it’s hard to get a new golf cart at that price.

Very basic cars, similar to (probably better than) the Model T can still be made. For example the Tata Nano.

People can afford much nicer cars now. Regulations also require decent crash safety. There's not much of a market for these kinds of super-cheap cars.

Though it'd be interesting to work out how much an exact clone of the Model T would cost today (mass produced using modern technology).

Mass produced with modern tech? Probably sub $1k and sold at harbor freight.

The model T was pretty simple, and you can buy engines with waaaay more power - and longer life, quieter, more efficient, etc. too for sub $500 at harbor freight and strap it to a frame, and off you go.

I actually doubt that. The raw materials in the T would be pretty expensive now. The vanadium steel for the chassis alone would probably cost a grand.

They’d just pinch weld together some sheet steel.

Assuming we’re talking ‘functional equivalent’, compared to ‘exact copy’.

The Tata Nano isn’t in production, was never sold in the US/EU and it’s initial ultra low price was mostly promotional as it increased by 80% after selling 100k cars.

Still it’s an interesting comparison as they both lacked a heater, AC etc and they were both horrifically unsafe though the Nano was faster. Using nominal currency conversion and inflation calculations the nano was slightly cheaper though I don’t know how accurate of a comparison that really is.

It’s funny you use the term “afford”. People generally can’t afford modern cars, but thanks to buying on credit becoming such a big part of our culture (curiously enough, also thanks to Ford) we can pretend that we can!

I suspect most people buying new cars could actually afford to buy a new car without using credit. The difference is companies want you to make poor financial decisions.

The numbers suggest this is false, for the US at least. The oft-repeated study comes into mind that 47% of Americans can't cover a surprise 500 dollar expense without it being a major worry. See also the fact that the average new car purchased in the US today is 50 grand. I know I'm comparing apples and oranges here but if both those stats are true then it's clear there's likely a large overlap between people who are broke and people who are driving expensive cars.

Aside from that, there's the fact that if you can actually afford it, then it's likely better to finance than to pay cash because you can invest the full purchase price of the car for a higher return than the interest you would pay.

On average a new car buyers keeps their car 8.4 years, while cars are lasting 25 years. Thus new car buyers are literally quite different than the average American.

Anyway, that’s an unexpected 500$ expense. My point was people financing a 50+k new car could fairly easily buy a 17,600 car out of pocket by waiting a little longer before purchase. Large scale changes in purchasing habits would have significant knock on effects for the used car market, but that’s another story.

Did you mean buying a new used car vs a new car? That would financially be a better choice for most americans, yes. But of course you then run into the uncertainty of how long the used car you buy might go before it needs major service. A riskier option that loosely reflects the Pratchett/Vimes “new boots” theory.

No, I meant the cheapest new car vs the new car they can reasonably finance.

I guess I misunderstood your point. I was thinking you were saying that you thought most people walking into a dealership and getting loans a on 30k+ new car could afford to pay cash instead. For the same car.

"Fun" fact - it was the lawyers that did it.

There was a real nasty lawsuit against one of the GA manufacturers. I believe it was Cirrus but it could be Cessna. Basically, this person sued everyone because their relative died in a flight. I mean everyone, if your part could be installed in this aircraft, sued.

The result was that Cessna stopped making the 172 in 1986 because the legal liability was too high. The most popular aircraft ever made was not for sale because of the liability. Production has resumed but something like 50% of the cost is just liability insurance for the inevitable lawsuit.

could it have been Beechcraft? They made the Bonanza, not so affectionately called the "fork-tailed Dr killer" and maybe not so fairly either. I think they weren't particularly unsafe, but being more expensive they had a different population flying them.

Those swinging yokes on the Beechcraft Bonanza were way weirder than the V tail.

No, the rate of accidents with Bonanza was found to be caused not by any defect of the airplane, but the high performance airplane-low pilot skill combination. It was a had too big for many people.

In the mid 90s, Congress passed a law capping the liability tail for manufacturers. That helped some, in that most of the planes from the 50s and 60s were off the manufacturer’s books.

But it’s still crazy because GA is a high income pursuit. So any lawsuit for lifetime earnings is going to be huge.

Especially in a heavily regulated industry --where changes takes years before approval is granted.

You can get a street-legal car from China for about a thousand dollars.

https://www.hotcars.com/these-are-the-cheapest-new-cars-you-...

Their cheapest one failed a crash test against a child's pinata.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkgPqkJ5iJI

Well, yes, they're not particularly good or safe cars.

I didn't expect one to fare well in a crash test against another car.

I also didn't expect one to receive significant damage from a lightweight cardboard box.

There's "unsafe", and then there's this.

It messed up the bumper? Wouldn't that happen with tons of cars?

And roof rack damage is definitely not a safety issue.

None of that damage should have occurred from a pinata.

At $1,000, it's probably safe to assume these aren't the only cheaply made parts of the vehicle.

I'd like to see some tests with other vehicles. A pinata at that speed is still a good chunk of force and many bumpers are plastic.

> At $1,000, it's probably safe to assume these aren't the only cheaply made parts of the vehicle.

Sure but if you're doing that then you don't need the pinata test at all.

As unsafe as cars in the 60s.

No, 60s cars were rigid boxes that did not crumple --which because of a lack of other safety features meant you got ejected or got banged around inside this metal box. These things allow you to get squished inside the foil box.

So the whole rigid box thing is kinda a "they dont make em like this anymore" myth. Here's a 1959 Chevy crashed into a 2009 Chevy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_r5UJrxcck. They both crumple, but the 2009 only crumples in the crumple zones. The crumpling on the 1959 impala is more spread out and you can see includes more of the interior

It's less about that sort of crash and more about small fender benders. You're likely to get much more bumper damage hitting a car at 5 mph in stop and go traffic in a modern car. (The upside being, of course, you're a lot less likely to snap a pedestrian's leg in a similar hit.)

More bumper damage sure, but even at a couple miles per hour, a car where the bumper bolts straight to the frame moving at a couple miles an hour has to dissipate that energy. I'd expect to see some bent metal. My 82 bronco actually has a foot of steel bars that act as sacrificial bumper mounts so the frame doesn't take that impact.

A 60s Buick would not lose against a pinata.

The cars in the 60s were rigid. This meant that, by and large, the car did damage to everything else until that threshold was passed.

The problem was two fold:

1) You tended to get thrown around inside the rigid box since internal restraints weren't very good (poor seatbelts, poor headrests, no airbags, etc.).

2) Once you finally had enough energy to get past the failure point, the car collapse was uncontrolled. This generally meant that the steering column got pushed into the driver.

Failed? Some minor damage on the roof rack.

That’s the first thing they notice. Watch further.

How much is a 30 y/o beater car? Even one in good condition?

30yo is probably more expensive than a 15yo. A good Miata is 7/8k and a 2013 Jetta is 7k too.

> Are cars cheaper today?

Cars are AVAILABLE for pretty much the same price.

People WANT more expensive cars.

The Volkswagen Beetle was pretty much the least expensive car on the market for its entire sales run in the United States.

The inflation-adjusted price of a Beetle in 1973 was around $12,000.

The price of a Chevrolet Spark in 2022? $13,000.

Nobody wants a Spark, though. They want an SUV. So Chevy killed the Spark.

Before Chevy discontinued the Spark you could walk onto a lot and drive away in one of the dozen or so Sparks they had rotting away in the corner for less than the price of a VW Beetle in 1973-- and the Spark was superior in measurable every way.

2023's cheapest car is the Nissan Versa. You can 100% find dealers who will part with one for less than the cost of a Beetle. It is also better than the Beetle.

Carmakers want to sell expensive cars.

Back in the 1970s my dad had plenty of stories about how American car dealers had all kinds of excuses why they couldn't, wouldn't or shouldn't sell you a small car.

Now the Japanese car dealers do the same thing.

A few years I went to a Honda dealer looking for a new Fit, found they didn't have any because "the factory washed out in a flood" but they had 50 CR-Vs which are made in the same factory which were somehow not affected by the flood.

They really ought to put up or shut up: when they have a $7000 sales incentive on that monster vehicle that is not a sign that people want to buy a monster vehicle but it is a sign they want to sell you a monster vehicle.

The only reason for a manufacturer to want to produce a cheap car is to sell a ton of them at a low margin. If not enough people are buying them, then there's no reason to continue selling them. At sub-$20,000, you're going to be better off buying a used car than a new, bare bones car. This wasn't the case decades ago when cars were a lot less reliable and generational improvements were much larger.

>when they have a $7000 sales incentive on that monster vehicle that is not a sign that people want to buy a monster vehicle

What cars are you talking about? It's generally the "monster vehicles" that have the greatest markup (e.g. Bronco Raptor)

> People WANT more expensive cars.

Because it's very easy to get financing for a car, that's why. If they had to pay it out of pocket you bet they'd choose the cheaper car.

The car today that costs the same as the price of a car yesterday. But your car of today provides airbags, ABS brakes, much better crash protection, backup cameras, power windows, automatic transmissions, the list goes on and on. You are getting way more for the same dollar you paid in the past for cars

The core features of most capital products are basically commodities. Every car now has an automatic transmission, A/C, fancy radio, electric windows, etc...

Manufacturer's can only increase prices (and thus keep ahead of inflation) by innovating the edge with new features, wanted or not.

Is Ford or Caterpillar really best positioned to design and deliver a mobile flat-panel touch screen device? Not likely, but putting one in their vehicles creates opportunities for higher prices and new innovations.

VERY LITTLE of this is available in the aircraft market where every new part number requires justification, testing, and approval.

The health-care market is very similar yet demand is so high and inelastic that it still justifies huge investments.

Aviation... not so much

If you buy a new car today, it'll be better than a 40 year old car in pretty much every metric. Performance, fuel efficiency, comfort, safety, etc.

I think the OP is complaining that they're paying "modern vehicle" prices to rent a plane that has had minimal changes since the 1960s. The vast majority of old cars (other than collectable ones with low mileage) are gonna be cheaper than they were new.

I think one of the gotchas with that is that there are no “equivalent” no frills new vehicles to purchase. Until recently I drove a 91 Ranger (original MSRP apparently around $9600). Inflation-adjusted that comes to $20,627 in 2022. My only two complaints about it was that it was only 2WD and it had small wheels that were more difficult every year to find winter tires for. In the harsh Canadian prairie winter it would readily get stuck on flat ground. Otherwise it perfectly met all my needs.

In the end I replaced it with a 5 year old low mileage Tacoma, but paid close to twice what the Ranger’s inflation-adjusted MSRP was, and that was before the used car market went crazy. If I’d wanted to I could have probably resold it and made a $10k profit on it 6 months later. Do I love this truck? Definitely. Would I have been perfectly happy with a 4WD no-frills manual transmission truck and a $300 aftermarket deck with Bluetooth? Definitely, but it wasn’t an option.

Cars are a lot cheaper, taking inflation into account and before taxes (I am writing from Denmark) And they are much better. You can get a small car with ABS brakes, airbags, radio, air-conditioning, a fuel-efficient engine, etc that drives really well, for two months salary.

Tanks and jets are probably much more expensive. But some of that is because there is literately an arms race.

You need to pay for something that is much better than you had before or you service men will die because the enemy did get something that is better and more expensive.

I would love to own a classic sports car. I would happily pay for the extra fuels and take the risk of not having airbags, ABS brakes etc.

I am grateful that I do not have to go to war. But if I were, I would not want to do it a "classic" tank or fighter jet.

Now Ukraine is getting our old Leopard 1 tanks which have a lot of firepower and moves fast but have less armour than modern tanks, which might work because the Russians most have old tanks left.

But there is a good reason that European countries have bought Leopard 2 tanks that are much more expensive and 24 tonnes heavier.

> I’m pretty sure everyone understands you can’t compare the price drops of electronics with durable goods.

The government doesn't. They artificially suppress inflation numbers by counting technological progress as deflation.

Cars are definitely cheaper today especially if you discount for the massive amount of features that have been added