According to the National Automotive Dealers Association, the average price of a new vehicle is $30,000. A different figure of $20,000 as of 2001 is posted by the Goverment which I disagreed with. The results of the poll here on this site?

The average list price of a new vehicle based on everyone who posted a reply: $29,300!

The average price paid (according to posts): $25,636!

Average discount from sticker price (according to posts): $3,664!

Breakdown (according to posts):
People who paid under $20,000: 16.13%
People who paid between $20-25,000: 25.81%
People who paid between $25-30,000: 29.03%
People who paid over $30,000: 29.03%

Most paid for a vehicle: $41,000
Least paid for a vehicle: $15,495

According to the actual poll (as opposed to the posts) just under 60% paid over $25,000, pushing the average purchase price somewhere between $25-30,000.

According to this poll results, almost twice as many people paid over $30,000 for their new 2002 and 2003 vehicle, than paid under $20,000!

Safe conclusions;
1. NADA's average new price estimate is probally dead on . This website probally has fewer SUV and Truck buyers than the general population, let alone fewer luxury car buyers, while at the same time probally has a greater percentage of lower priced car buyers than the general population (skewing the results towards a lower average price than the general buying public.

2. Looking at these results, if you were a decision maker at GM and you had to decide where to target your limited resources to maximize return (it is a business, 1st and foremost), your first target would NOT be the under $25,000 market, let alone the under $20,000 market.

3. After hearing how dealers are giving away cars below retail, and "just joking" prices, the average "discount" is still just over $3,500. Trust me, this is already factored into the MSRP, so you are not really getting a discount.

So, now we know.

 

But I think there is more than just hard numbers that need to be taken into consideration when designing cars. You want to gain customers when they are young, because frankly that is where brand loyalty is going to start.

If all GM has to offer it's young buyers is a Cavalier, Sunfire, or low end Saturn, they aren't going to draw as many of the younger crowd as the imports are, becuase the imports are offering cars that are attractive and have decent performance, with mod potential.

Look at the Civic for example. It's an inexpensive car that many young people are attracted to for the mod potential they believe it has. The aftermarket is huge, and the dealer usually offers spoilers and other small body modifications to attract the image concious young buyer.

Fact is the young buyers are just as concerned with the appearance and performance of their car as the older buyer, if not more so.

Having a car like the Camaro gave GM a chance to attract the younger crowd and get them in the fold early, and often those same buyers would move up to other models as their lives changed requiring them to worry more about utility over performance, and as the appearance need dictated a different style.

The average price above covers too large of a segment of buyers. Each segment has it's own criteria for what is required in a vehicle. I believe you have to at least break it down into age group, if not even further refining it for gender in this day and age.

 

Wow, this is a truly definitive survey--a few posts from a specialty-vehicle website. Not exactly what you'd call statistically significant.

Although I have a healthy skepticism of government, I'd tend to trust their numbers over NADA, who have a vested interest in inflating the price of a new vehicle. Something to bang the average Joe over the head with when he comes in looking at that new SUV.

But wait! Dealers aren't out to screw you, are they?

Guion, you've already revealed your motivation for presenting a case for expensive vehicles: you don't want teens owning them. That's fine, that's your perspective. However, you should clearly state this, rather than trying to build a case based on the average price of a new vehicle, or historical vehicle performance or costs.

What do I want? I want this not to be a zero-sum game. I want some executive to grow a set of ***** and say "Yeah, we can price that car at $30k, but we're going to sell it for $19k because it's time to take market share."

I want people to ask why a 1965 Corvette had a base price of $23,500 in today's dollars, even with vastly more labor-intensive production methods.

I want someone to think about the value of capturing a market early with great cars that offer great performance. Customers for life, anyone?

Yeah, it's a big wish list. But I think it's better than arguing for the status quo.

 

Actually my motivation was 2 conflicting estimates for average vehicle prices. I was curious as to the average here on this site. If I remember correctly, the Gov't figure was for cars alone, and the NADA figure is for all vehicles. People are buying SUVs & Trucks instead of cars. It should be included. It seems that discounting SUVs & Trucks drops the average about $2-3,000 here, which seems to put the average car price in the mid 20s.

Why would I be against teens buying new cars? However, to be honest, most all teens buy used cars. The only new cars they tend to buy are basically bottom feeders like the Cavalier, Neon, Civic, etc.. I had the figures from a debate on this years ago. If you want, I can dig them up again.

My objection is having inexperienced, indestructable, "I know how to drive, watch this" young drivers in 350+hp missles. by 22, most people have been driving at least 5 years, and by 25 insurence drops enough to buy a really quick car. It's not what you'd want to hear, but no, someone just starting out driving, or has been driving for just a few years has no business with a super quick car. There are exceptions (some young drivers are excellent), but that's why they are called exceptions, not the norm.

It's just that I find it ridiculous for someone to complain that they can't walk into a showroom and drive out in a high powered sports car for Hyundai or Kia prices like it's some type of birthright. Or even worse, whine that new Z28s were too expensive at $25,000 (they started at $23,000 for chrissake!), but then ignore that Z28s were in the lower half of average new car prices.

If you can't afford new, then either save your money to buy new, or else buy used. If you can't afford that, then buy something else. I wish I could buy a Z06 Corvette, an H2 or a Cadillac CTSv, but I can't, so I won't. Story ends. Life goes on.

I've already started saving for a GTO or Mustang Mach1 in 2004 or 2005 (or a Camaro if it looks good). I want one and I'm willing to work and save for one instead of crying about how expensive they are. If I can't afford a new one due to dealer rip offs or too high a price, I'll get a used 1 year old one (with the big depriciation hit). Big deal.

Why whine about it? It's my money! Who's doing who the favor in buying something???

Some of you guys, I really wonder about ya.

 

A loaded Mustang GT can still be purchased for under $25K.

 

Its nice to see some realistic numbers.

Everytime I hear someone say, "I want an LS1", someone in the Lounge always pipes up, "Well, I just saw 5 used 02s under 30K miles, loaded, for $4,000." or some insanely low price.

 

You can purchase a new 03 loaded (leather) GT for right at $20k.

MSRP on a premium Gt is $24,875
Invoice is $22,777

Invoice + $300 is the most you should pay for a Mustang. If you are persistant you can get it right at invoice. The dealer will still make over $700 on dealer holdback buying at invoice. (3% of MSRP for Ford)

22777 + 300 = 23077

23077- $3000 rebate offered on Mustang GTs now=$20,077

I've seend them advertised for $19,999 in the Dallas Morning News.

 

Don't take my belief that there needs to be a "sports car" for the younger buyers as me thinking the GTO needs to be cheaper. If the GTO has the improved fit and finish to warrant the price, as I've heard it has, then it deserves to be a 30-35k car.

The Camaro was never a fit and finish car. It was a pony car. It went fast, was minimalistic, and did not have have the comforts of a true sports car. They's why it was cheap. With the 4th gen, it started getting lots of features that warranted the price hike, but by doing so, it created the gap for the imports to move in and capture the younger car buyer.

I still think GM needs a car to fill that gap. I agree with GuinonM on the dangers of young drivers with 350+hp rockets. But most "teens" got the V6 Camaro, whereas it was folks in their mid to late 20's who got the Z28 and SS. It was a good balance.

Honestly though I don't think a highpowered RWD V8 car is the answer anymore for GM and the younger crowd. Talking with some friends of mines kids who are all 16-19, they're all more concerned with AWD and turbos now. The ricer crowd has taken over in this mindset and age group. If GM was smart, they'd come out with the rumored AWD, supercharged Grand Am, and a Chevy version as well, and keep the price in the low to mid 20's. Put out a respectable 240-280 HP (face it, HP numbers have gone up these past few years and GM is going to have to keep up), and I think they'd have a winner. I wouldn't like it personally, as I'd want a V8 personally, but I'm not going to go buy a few thousand cars a year to fill GM's pocketbooks.

As for saving money to buy a GTO or whatever in a few years. Yea, I wish. I'm shopping for a house right now, and I think my next purchase will be new Jeep in 3 or 4 years, and maybe later buy a used LS1 car.

 

20 OZ, the AWD supercharged Grand Am is more than just rumored.

But at the same time, it will likely at least be around $30,000 just like the new Evo and WRXi.

 

bleh, well maybe if they come out with something based on the Solstice platform that has 4 seats and is still sharp looking they'll attract the younger crowd. Haven't they been playing around with forced induction on the ecotech 4 bangers and getting decent HP numbers?

 

guionM - since you claimed you wanted to know just what this particular forum demographic looked like - I'll accept what we found. And there's no harm in comparing your findings here with national statistics - as long as you are not using one to verify or validate the other. I'm OK with "data for data's sake". For what it's worth, you want to try the same thing on a Toyota Camry website? Or a Ford Taurus one? Or an Impala one? We won't even mention any Kia or Daewoo sites. I'd certainly think they all buy SUVs and "toys" like we do, but they would obviously have lots of $12-$19k cars to throw in the fray as well. Your point is well-taken, but I'm sure you see mine too.

Now moving on to some general points...
I personally don't see many kids putting their own hard-earned cash into V8 high performance ponycars. They buy the cheaper rice and econoboxes, and do what they can with them a little at a time - that's why we see the rice-wave we do these days. This used to be what kids did to ponycars back when they were cheaper and more accessible - and that's what made our hobby great.

You see, it used to be different. The Mustang WAS one of the cheapest cars you could buy new @ $2400 in '65. There was really nothing "lesser" in price or size. Camaro and Firebird were in the same league. Today, there is a multitude of cars available for less. That's why poor broke kids go there.

I still see more than a fair share of 16 y/o's driving a brand new car that daddy bought. GT's, Z28's, SS's, even Cobras, Bimmers, and the like. No way my folks would drop $30-large for a car for me to learn how to drive in. These "spoiled" kids are gonna exist, and they are going to smash a lot of cars, making us "old dudes" pay the price in insurance and purchase prices. It's not right, but it's a fact.

As for the prices of cars...
I just want you all to know that you are deceived and treated as ignorant by the car makers. If you think it takes them $30 grand to make a GTO and get it to you, then they are only making $2 or $3k at the sale - you are extremely uninformed. If you choose to continue beleiving that after all the data and facts brought out recently in other threads - you are both blind AND ignorant to boot.

As for being able to afford the car - that's a whole different issue. I can afford to buy bubble gum by the tractor trailer load - do I buy it that way? NO. I could afford to pay $1 for a single stick of gum - would I pay it because I can? NO. I choose to put a value on the item based on it's cost, value to me, and other available alternatives. My point here is "being able to afford it" should not set the tone of market or the price itself for the buyer.

Trying to keep fast cars out of the hands of kids by elevating their cost is not going to be anywhere near 100% effective. Again, Daddy will buy something cool for the little sweetie if she turns on the tears or he runs that majic touchdown for dad. So kids will get them somehow. It just makes it harder for more mature drivers to afford, and that ain't fair either. This goes back to another issue we have discussed - how much HP can the companies afford to put out here? You know, I can start with a lightly wrecked '89 Mustang coupe for $200, build a 347, blow it or spray it, put in a 6-speed, and a worked suspension, and have a real rocketship with all new components for @$12k. Fast?!?! and for $12k. That's less than a new Accord. So where's the spending limit keeping a creative kid from going fast there?

Vehicles (and everything else) today are bringing RECORD profit margins. This period in time coincides with the most big corporate scandals, insider trading convictions, and exposed illegal practices EVER. It also coincides with the largest CEO salaries and bonus packages EVER. It also coincides with the worst unemployment statistics in the US (in lost salary $) EVER. Coincidences? Ummm... right. Where's our money going again?

We get fewer choices in bodystyles, colors, options, and personalization - but we pay MORE for it. Technology back in 1966 allowed Ford to offer 25 colors for the Mustang, available in coupe, fastback, or convertible, with 4 base-unit engine options, oodles of rear axle ratios and tranny packages for about $14k today-dollars - yet today I can choose from a coupe or convertible, 9 colors, 3 base-unit engines, and pay $20k for it. Do we even want to talk Camaro here?

To me, the bottom line is this...
As long as YOU KNOW that you are giving half (or more) of your money as purchase price, to parties in the pipeline as pure profit, and you are comfortable with it - knock yourself out.
My money is too hard to come by for me to just give it away to people who are already far wealthier than I am to start with.

But y'all do me a huge favor - don't tell me that's what the car is WORTH - because that's a relative term that has bearing only to the individual saying it. Same goes with VALUE. If I can build an equal unit for half the price that you paid for the car, what does that do to the "worth" or "value" of your vehicle?

The GTO is only "worth" the $35k-price according to the scale of other cars - which are also way skewed. Same goes for the Mustang GT. If the Mustang GT was offered to the public for $16k - giving Ford a modest 15-20% profit - they'd take the market (for a while anyways)! But they CAN'T DO THAT, because ALL the other vehicles and carmakers would have to follow suit to stay alive thereby getting the market back to parity, but at a lower price level - it's a domino effect. Let's don't even talk how much you loose if you finance with interest (like we used to do in the old pre-9/11 days. )

Think about the actual dollar-figure you pay and the car you got - not "your car as compared to others on the lot", or "your car's price as compared to other cars' prices".
If you guys are happy paying out that kind of cash for a new car, knowing it should only cost maybe 70% of what you actually paid, I'm happy for you. I also have yard sales from time to time and I'd love to have you come to one. Worn out toilet seats are $80 each, rusty lawn mowers that run are $1200 each, and I've got used CD's for $10 each! Tell me your coming, and I'll reserve everthing until after you have had first pickings! Heck, buy one of my old collectible cars for my asking price, and I'll arrange to have you flown in on first class! And I'll give you a real value on one relative to the other ones I own too!!!

Just some food for thought...
and I even picked up the tab!

 

Proudpony, glad you got my point on the survey.

On the other points, while I agree with you there are kids who get brand new cars from their parents, even out here in richy-rich California, I thinks that's still the exception rather than the rule. You always have your rich kids who get everything they want.

I suspect there are very few people on this site who have their little miss sweetie turn on the tears, and end up getting a new Cobra, SS, Bimmer, or anything else, especially if they are going to take out themselves and another driver on the road. Doubtful there's many here with that much money burning a hole in their pocket here to begin with.

 

On this site - agreed. But go to BMW, Caddy, Mercedes, or other high-end sites and see how the 40-somethings write about the car they got for junior or sweetie-pie. I knew several when I was in high school that got new cars. The Greek kids in my neighborhood all had new cars as I recall - their folks were all successful restauranteurs. They had new Isuzu Impulse, BMW 318i, Toyota Supra, and others.

Besides, if the kid is smart, motivated, and wants a fast car, they can do like I said and go used and build what they want for far less than buying new. Which lends itself even more to the side of wealthy kids getting the betterstuff because they are less likely to want to do hands-on, greasy, grimey work on the car.

Just as a side note, my yougest neice (a.k.a. the baby-girl) took my brother-in-laws 2y/o Lexus into a poplar tree at about 45mph - totalling the car - while coming home from a party at 3:30am. She was charged with alcoholic consumption while under age (she was 19 at the time and legal to possess is 21 here.) She had 1 beer according to her side of the story, and blew a .02 . My B-I-L still lost his sweet ride, and she was driving it with his half-hearted permission (it was the easiest car to get out of the driveway when she wanted to leave) as was commonly done. She had an Accord, they bought for her, but the Lexus had it blocked in. They also paid for her insurance and everything but gas money. They are certainly not rich, but they found money for their kids to have things. This kind of stuff happens more than we know.

 

Actually, it shouldn't be that high. There are a couple GM guys on www.grandamgt.com, and when I asked a rhetorical question about if I could get an '05 Grand Am GT with 250hp and a 6 speed for around $25k, the response I got was that I would be very pleased come 2005.

If AWD adds $2k like it does on average, that means $27k...WRXs and EVOs are running 30 and 31k...could the new Grand Am GT be a GM performance bargain?

 

BTW, I was thrilled to see I bought the lowest priced new car of this survey I had a feeling I might have this honor!