What you get for the money today, vs what you got for the money in the early 90s

This article (http://www.clublexus.com/forums/showthread.php?t=361738) was posted on another board I frequent.

It shows that in 1991, a 1992 model Celica GT-S was $23k and included high end 'options' and features that weren't taken for granted back then such as CD player, power windows and door locks, a driver's airbag, etc. Stuff that you pretty much get standard on almost any car made today except the very most basic cars. Also performance was pretty lacking too, as was fuel economy.

And then I looked at the price and started thinking about what $23k was in 1991 vs today in 2008. So I searched google for an inflation calculator and found one that actually let you input the years and applied the actual rate of inflation experienced during that date range. It told me that $23k in 1991 was equivalent to $38k in 2008!

Am I missing something here or do we really have things that good these days? You can buy a car that is at least as good as that Celica in every single way, and in many ways far superior for less than half of 38k, and for 38k you can buy a fully loaded entry level luxury class vehicle.

What happened? Did cars just become a huge bargain in the last 20 years or what?

I'm guessing old technology versus new technology. Back then CD-Players, Power Windows/Locks/Seats, Airbags, etc... were all new technology and "high end options". A standard fare Celica probably had manual windows/locks/seats, Cassette player...

Alot of the new technology back then is standard fare and on base models now adays. Now the big things are Nav Systems, Rear Cameras, Object Sensors, 6-Speed Trannies, Hybrid Drivetrains... you name it.

I dunno, just a guess.

Well it's very true that those features cost a lot less to include in cars now, but even ignoring all of that... 38k dollars will buy you an almost completely LOADED mid sized luxury car these days.

What the Celica GT-S really considered a premium/luxury class car back then? I seem to remember it being considered maybe an everyday man's sporty but economical choice. I mean it's in a comparison with the Ford Probe and Eagle Talon which were definitely not premium cars IIRC and are priced not too far behind the Celica.

What happened? Did cars just become a huge bargain in the last 20 years or what?

The cost of raw materials decreased throughout the 90s. A lot of work moved offshore. Designs have gotten far more economical with their use of materials and labor. Average industry profit margins have crashed.

The Celica was pretty expensive. I can remember review back then always saying how expensive they were for what you got. I mean, a 1991 Z28 was like $15,000. A Mustang LX 5.0 was under $14,000. That Celica GT-S would be in the price range of a loaded 1992 Trans Am or Z28 convertible. There probably weren't a whole lot of Celicas loaded up to be that expensive.

The Celica was pretty expensive. I can remember review back then always saying how expensive they were for what you got. I mean, a 1991 Z28 was like $15,000. A Mustang LX 5.0 was under $14,000. That Celica GT-S would be in the price range of a loaded 1992 Trans Am or Z28 convertible. There probably weren't a whole lot of Celicas loaded up to be that expensive.

I agree, the Celica lost its way back in the early-mid 90s and became a over priced sports coupe that still had the econo-coupe drivetrain from the 80s. From what I remember the convertible Celicas from the mid-90s were stickered close to 30K. That is why the Celica virtually disappeared

So the comparison using the Celica vs. todays money is a little skued.

I remember looking at a brand new Mustang LX 5.0 notchback 5-speed back then and the sticker price was $12,900

The Celica was pretty expensive. I can remember review back then always saying how expensive they were for what you got. I mean, a 1991 Z28 was like $15,000. A Mustang LX 5.0 was under $14,000. That Celica GT-S would be in the price range of a loaded 1992 Trans Am or Z28 convertible. There probably weren't a whole lot of Celicas loaded up to be that expensive.

That would probably be a better comparison. A 65% increase from then to now for a $15k camaro would be $24,750. I doubt we will have an entry level V8 come in at quite that price. You sure do get a lot more goodies today but technology gets cheaper as it gets older. We also have a lot more 'lean' manufacturing today.

The Celica was pretty expensive. I can remember review back then always saying how expensive they were for what you got. I mean, a 1991 Z28 was like $15,000. A Mustang LX 5.0 was under $14,000. That Celica GT-S would be in the price range of a loaded 1992 Trans Am or Z28 convertible. There probably weren't a whole lot of Celicas loaded up to be that expensive.

My 1991 Z28 was more like $20,000 not $15,000. Granted it was pretty well loaded (everything except t-tops).

I owned a 1990 Celica GT a few years ago (it was my first car). The GT-S was pretty much the exact same car, except it was available with more luxury options. The drivetrains were exactly the same.

Performance was non-existent. They had 130 HP and about 140 lb.-ft. of torque, IIRC.

I'm kind of shocked that the Celica was that expensive in 1992, especially compared to cars like the Camaro and Mustang. It was an econobox with a sporty exterior. The only Celica worth owning was the turbocharged All-Trac/GT-Four model. What was Toyota thinking?

This article (http://www.clublexus.com/forums/showthread.php?t=361738) was posted on another board I frequent.

It shows that in 1991, a 1992 model Celica GT-S was $23k and included high end 'options' and features that weren't taken for granted back then such as CD player, power windows and door locks, a driver's airbag, etc. Stuff that you pretty much get standard on almost any car made today except the very most basic cars. Also performance was pretty lacking too, as was fuel economy.

And then I looked at the price and started thinking about what $23k was in 1991 vs today in 2008. So I searched google for an inflation calculator and found one that actually let you input the years and applied the actual rate of inflation experienced during that date range. It told me that $23k in 1991 was equivalent to $38k in 2008!

Am I missing something here or do we really have things that good these days? You can buy a car that is at least as good as that Celica in every single way, and in many ways far superior for less than half of 38k, and for 38k you can buy a fully loaded entry level luxury class vehicle.

What happened? Did cars just become a huge bargain in the last 20 years or what?

I think cars in general are getting more expensive -- but the addition of technology makes them appear as a better value. In terms of safety and luxury, you DO get more car for your money, but sticker prices are also higher.

Take the 2008 Ford Ranger -- that literally hasn't changed since the early 1990's. Ok, it has an additional airbag, and the front end and tail lights have changed, maybe the gage cluster. You could pick up a 4wd ext cab for about $11k sticker in 1996. Now they're almost $25k, and I think power windows and carpet are still options.

I think cars in general are getting more expensive -- but the addition of technology makes them appear as a better value. In terms of safety and luxury, you DO get more car for your money, but sticker prices are also higher.
I dunno... remember 23k in 1991 = 38k in 2008... those two numbers are equal to each other... so look what kind of cars you could get in 1991 for 23k and look what you could get now for 38k. 38k will buy you a seriously nice car these days... like a luxury class car.

Take the 2008 Ford Ranger -- that literally hasn't changed since the early 1990's. Ok, it has an additional airbag, and the front end and tail lights have changed, maybe the gage cluster. You could pick up a 4wd ext cab for about $11k sticker in 1996. Now they're almost $25k, and I think power windows and carpet are still options.

Not 11k. You must have been thinking about the price after rebates and negotiations or else the price of the absolute base model 2wd standard cab 4-cyl manual trans ranger. The 1996 Ranger 4x4 Supercab XL model (base model) with no options stickered at $17.9k. The same model in 2008 is now 19.9k.
http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/pricing.aspx?year=1996&make=Ford&model=Ranger&trimid=-1

12 years of inflation go by and the 19.9k is a steal compared to the 17.9 back then.

Though yes the Ranger really doesn't offer much more for 2008 than it did in 1996... the Ranger is one of the few vehicles on the market that has received almost no attention in well over a decade... it really is long in the tooth and not indicative of the typical car.

I remember it being stated somewhere that the price of Cars in general hasn't kept up with inflation. My 89 RS convertible was 17K or so new. Increased competition has kept car prices low as well.

Threxx,
Just keep in mind that the rate of inflation (about 2.7% annual over that span) is largely influenced by the cost of food, energy, and real estate. Almost all other products that are part of the measure of inflation have actually gone down in price or increased at a much slower rate than that of inflation over that time span. Think about it... Consumer electronics, computers, cars and trucks, clothes, shoes, etc...
So, yes... You get more car for your inflation adjusted dollar... But what that really means, is that real estate, food, and energy are much less of a value than they were in 1991...
Value is always relative....

I ordered a 1990 Mustang GT with leather, sunroof and other options for $14,600 out the door. Sticker was 16.9k

In comparison a loaded Z-28 was stickered over 20k.I remember laughing when comparing the two vehicles.

My sister just replaced her daily-driver 1991 Mercury Cougar (purchased new in January 1991 for just under $18,000) with a 2008 Mercury Milan V6 for just over $19,000. These are both purchase prices, not MSRP, but still, she was pretty surprised. And, yeah, I think she got her moneys-worth outta that old Cougar!

My mom's 1995 Taurus GL was 21k. The sticker on my 04 Maxx LS was 22k.

I was looking at the window sticker for my 94 Z28 and it has the base price listed at $16,999. With $5,187 worth of options, it comes out to $22,186. I wish I could get a '09 Z28 for that price. Also has the estimated annual fuel cost at $1065 a year!

Compare a computer from 1995 compared to now.

Compare a computer from 1995 compared to now.

:)

In Canadian funds:

My first computer was bought in january 1995, and it was 486DX2 80 MHz, with 8 MB RAM, double-speed CD-ROM drive, and 540MB hard disk. It has a 15" monitor, and a Canon BJC-4000 printer. Grand total for the PC was $2400, and the printer was another $450 - $500.

Back then, the exchange rate was about 1.35 CDN to 1 USD.

edit: changed 2005 to 1995 :)

in 1987, my car with all of its options came out to something like 35k, or $66,744.01 in today's dollar.

Threxx,
Just keep in mind that the rate of inflation (about 2.7% annual over that span) is largely influenced by the cost of food, energy, and real estate. Almost all other products that are part of the measure of inflation have actually gone down in price or increased at a much slower rate than that of inflation over that time span. Think about it... Consumer electronics, computers, cars and trucks, clothes, shoes, etc...
So, yes... You get more car for your inflation adjusted dollar... But what that really means, is that real estate, food, and energy are much less of a value than they were in 1991...
Value is always relative....

That's a very good point. None of the inflation markers (except energy) have much at all to do with automotive manufacturing costs.

That's a very good point. None of the inflation markers (except energy) have much at all to do with automotive manufacturing costs.

On the surface, yes, but I'm thinking that employee wages need to go up regularly to keep up with the rate of inflation. So there is more expense at least in the manual labour (from assembly line workers to marketers to drawing board engineers).

With PCs, the rate of progress is very high and the costs for parts come down considerably, which I don't think is the case with the whole car industry.

With PCs, the rate of progress is very high and the costs for parts come down considerably, which I don't think is the case with the whole car industry.

True, but you also have to take into account the fact that a lot of the advanced "luxury" features we're talking about are essentially computers (the car stereo, for example).

Also, note that cars are now designed and engineered largely on computers -- in some cases, entirely on computers. Falling costs for the computers themselves has an affect on the overall engineering costs, which would also be relayed back to the customer.

:)

In Canadian funds:

My first computer was bought in january 2005, and it was 486DX2 80 MHz, with 8 MB RAM, double-speed CD-ROM drive, and 540MB hard disk. It has a 15" monitor, and a Canon BJC-4000 printer. Grand total for the PC was $2400, and the printer was another $450 - $500.

Back then, the exchange rate was about 1.35 CDN to 1 USD.

Please tell me that you meant January 1995 or else the Canadians are way behind in computer technology. :lol:

On the surface, yes, but I'm thinking that employee wages need to go up regularly to keep up with the rate of inflation. So there is more expense at least in the manual labour (from assembly line workers to marketers to drawing board engineers).

Although wages do tend to follow the inflationary rate, labor wages on average have not. The unions have been losing power to lower wages out of the USA. Also, everything from the design to manufacture to assembly has become far more efficient. Far fewer labor hours go into the production of each vehicle.

True, but you also have to take into account the fact that a lot of the advanced "luxury" features we're talking about are essentially computers (the car stereo, for example).


This is absolutely true. Remember when a CD player was a $700 option... GPS NAV will be standard in 10 years...

But my original point to Threxx was that he is relating the cost of a car to inflation adjusted dollars, and that's not a particularly good way to look at the value of a car. The inflationary rate for the past 20 years has largely been driven by real estate, energy, and food. More of the money in the economy now goes to those items than 20 years ago. Value is relative just like velocity is relative.

Please tell me that you meant January 1995 or else the Canadians are way behind in computer technology. :lol:

You mean you had 486 back in 1995?!? :) Thanks for catching that!

Although wages do tend to follow the inflationary rate, labor wages on average have not. The unions have been losing power to lower wages out of the USA. Also, everything from the design to manufacture to assembly has become far more efficient. Far fewer labor hours go into the production of each vehicle.

That's just not true. That's the point of the unions - to negotiage better working environments, of which pay is a big factor. Most unions here have kept up with the rate of inflation very well. They tend to negotiate pay rises every few years, not annually. Most unionized construction workers make $35 CDN per hour here, which they didn't make in 1990.

This is the info I found on UAW:
Between 1992 and 2002, inflation-adjusted real wages for UAW-represented autoworkers increased by 13.5 percent. This is a compounded annual pay increase, after inflation, of 1.28 percent.



This is absolutely true. Remember when a CD player was a $700 option... GPS NAV will be standard in 10 years...

Some prices in this thread were for base models, which excludes all options. If I'm not mistaken, the Cavalier of 1990s had a tape deck standard, or at least a radio. These days, it's the CD player. My point was, despite the fact that cars now include more options/features due to technology (cd player, ECM/PCM, crash standards), there is still a sizable manual labour involved, and I would not expect the prices of cars to pummel in the same way that prices of computers have. A very well configured and capable laptop can be had now for under $1000. A laptop in mid 90's was priced at over $2000. Why doesn't a Mustang GT right now cost less than $16,000 due to all the advancement in technology? That's because technology and inflation have different impacts on this sector than electronics/computers.

This article (http://www.clublexus.com/forums/showthread.php?t=361738) was posted on another board I frequent.

It shows that in 1991, a 1992 model Celica GT-S was $23k and included high end 'options' and features that weren't taken for granted back then such as CD player, power windows and door locks, a driver's airbag, etc. Stuff that you pretty much get standard on almost any car made today except the very most basic cars. Also performance was pretty lacking too, as was fuel economy.

And then I looked at the price and started thinking about what $23k was in 1991 vs today in 2008. So I searched google for an inflation calculator and found one that actually let you input the years and applied the actual rate of inflation experienced during that date range. It told me that $23k in 1991 was equivalent to $38k in 2008!

Am I missing something here or do we really have things that good these days? You can buy a car that is at least as good as that Celica in every single way, and in many ways far superior for less than half of 38k, and for 38k you can buy a fully loaded entry level luxury class vehicle.

What happened? Did cars just become a huge bargain in the last 20 years or what?

Depending on the model, vehicles are quite a bargain today when compared to the past, especially the 90s.

Actually, the price of new cars have been relatively flat for over 5 years, and has been below the inflation rate for at least a decade. Only high demand cars have jumped.

One thing I didn't see pointed out- the Celicas were horribly, horribly overpriced.:)

One thing I didn't see pointed out- the Celicas were horribly, horribly overpriced.:)

Civic SI right now costs $26K MSRP here, way overpriced figure in my opinion. Yet, people still buy them. When the S/C Cobalt SS was available for under $22K, it was a real bargain. Wondering what the new turbo SS will cost.

With Celicas, I always found them overpriced, especially the GT-S models. They were selling for around $30K (the last model). I know it's a matter of preference, but there are a lot of cars that can be had in that price range, Mustang GT included.

I think Celica GT-S was trying to compete with Acura RSX Type R.

Civic SI right now costs $26K MSRP here, way overpriced figure in my opinion. Yet, people still buy them. When the S/C Cobalt SS was available for under $22K, it was a real bargain. Wondering what the new turbo SS will cost.

With Celicas, I always found them overpriced, especially the GT-S models. They were selling for around $30K (the last model). I know it's a matter of preference, but there are a lot of cars that can be had in that price range, Mustang GT included.

I think Celica GT-S was trying to compete with Acura RSX Type R.Civic SI might be a bit overpriced, but $26k in 2008 is not the same as $23k in 1991, as Threxx pointed out.