RE: Ford Fiesta ST vs. Toyota Yaris GRMN

[Deep Thought]

Toyoda said:

Deep Thought said:

Erm, because its the most significant reason for the difference in cost?

Your £18K back in 1992 is worth roughly half that today.

And on top of all that, generally speaking cars are :-

• Faster
• Safer with far more safety kit.
• Far higher specification

Sorry you cant grasp basic economics.

Spoken like a true simpleton.

From the man whos debating skills hinges around name calling?

So tell us, why price increases have not got anything to do with inflation?

For example, I recall a Milky Way being 3 1/2p when in the mid 1970s, yet they're maybe 50p now?

A McDonalds burger was 15p in 1974, but is £2.29 now?

Are you saying that this is all just extra profit for Mars and McDonalds too?

Edited by Deep Thought on Friday 10th August 18:54

Edited by Deep Thought on Friday 10th August 18:55

[Deep Thought]

Toyoda said:

How come a new basic car was 6k in 1992 and a new basic car is the same today.

Edited by Toyoda on Friday 10th August 15:49

In 1991 a Yugo 45 could have been bought for £2999 so £6k in today's money sounds about right.

https://classics.honestjohn.co.uk/news/comment/201...

Edited by Deep Thought on Friday 10th August 19:26

[poing]

Toyoda said:

Why does some utter codpiece always pull out the inflation thing, like it's as simple as that. How come a new basic car was 6k in 1992 and a new basic car is the same today.

Your boss will be very happy when you tell him that inflation doesn't apply to you so he can pay you a 1992 rate for your job.

[MrGTI6]

ecsrobin said:

Toyoda said:

Rawwr said:

Which two cars did you have in mind?

I can think of 2 from the same brand, well, as it was then and as it is now.

Which are?

I'm interested to know too...

[big_rob_sydney]

poing said:

Toyoda said:

Why does some utter codpiece always pull out the inflation thing, like it's as simple as that. How come a new basic car was 6k in 1992 and a new basic car is the same today.

Your boss will be very happy when you tell him that inflation doesn't apply to you so he can pay you a 1992 rate for your job.

If your argument is that the cost of cars has gone up, then surely wages have gone up as well...

[Deep Thought]

MrGTI6 said:

ecsrobin said:

Toyoda said:

Rawwr said:

Which two cars did you have in mind?

I can think of 2 from the same brand, well, as it was then and as it is now.

Which are?

I'm interested to know too...

I suspect hes talking about a Renault 5 Campus compared to a Dacia.

However they're not the same brand - Dacia being a Renault based budget brand, but not a Renault. As i said though, the cheapest new car in 91/92 would have been a Yugo 45 - a Fiat based budget brand but not a Fiat, and it was £2999 as per the link.

Edited by Deep Thought on Friday 10th August 22:47

Edited by Deep Thought on Friday 10th August 22:47

[Deep Thought]

big_rob_sydney said:

poing said:

Toyoda said:

Why does some utter codpiece always pull out the inflation thing, like it's as simple as that. How come a new basic car was 6k in 1992 and a new basic car is the same today.

Your boss will be very happy when you tell him that inflation doesn't apply to you so he can pay you a 1992 rate for your job.

If your argument is that the cost of cars has gone up, then surely wages have gone up as well...

And indeed they have. Average weekly wage in 1990 was £263.10

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/articl...

Average weekly wage now is £524.44

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/average-uk-s...

(£27,271/52)

Almost precisely double (again)

Spotting a trend yet?

This isnt going terribly well for the inflation deniers is it?

Edited by Deep Thought on Friday 10th August 22:43

Edited by Deep Thought on Friday 10th August 22:46

[big_rob_sydney]

Deep Thought said:

big_rob_sydney said:

poing said:

Toyoda said:

Why does some utter codpiece always pull out the inflation thing, like it's as simple as that. How come a new basic car was 6k in 1992 and a new basic car is the same today.

Your boss will be very happy when you tell him that inflation doesn't apply to you so he can pay you a 1992 rate for your job.

If your argument is that the cost of cars has gone up, then surely wages have gone up as well...

And indeed they have. Average weekly wage in 1990 was £263.10

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/articl...

Average weekly wage now is £524.44

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/average-uk-s...

(£27,271/52)

Almost precisely double (again)

Spotting a trend yet?

This isnt going terribly well for the inflation deniers is it?

Edited by Deep Thought on Friday 10th August 22:43

Edited by Deep Thought on Friday 10th August 22:46

You're spending your time arguing about inflation per se (knock yourself out if that's your thing).Others of us are pointing out that the cost of cars are not really much different. I noticed someone here saying that a car is 35k compared to before, like its some big deal. The reply (again, using inflation to COUNTER that point), is that because wages have gone up, the answer is a pretty simple, "so what"?

Who cares if a car has gone up, when wages have similarly gone up. Seriously, who cares (other than those engaged in economics-related pedantry)?

[Deep Thought]

big_rob_sydney said:

You're spending your time arguing about inflation per se (knock yourself out if that's your thing).Others of us are pointing out that the cost of cars are not really much different. I noticed someone here saying that a car is 35k compared to before, like its some big deal. The reply (again, using inflation to COUNTER that point), is that because wages have gone up, the answer is a pretty simple, "so what"?

Who cares if a car has gone up, when wages have similarly gone up. Seriously, who cares (other than those engaged in economics-related pedantry)?

Well clearly YOU do, because it was YOU who started this with -

big_rob_sydney said:

What a piece of st.

Subaru's from 25 years ago had this level of power, and accelerated harder. What with technology getting cheaper, these things should go much harder and cost much less money.

Welcome to 1992.

Its merely been pointed out that in the UK once you factor in inflation then car prices are broadly similar, and you're now getting a lot more bangs for your buck

Once inflaiton is factored in

• Car prices are broadly similar
• Wages are broadly similar
• Cars are significantly faster
• Cars are significantly safer
• Cars are significantly less polluting
• Cars are significantly higher spec'd

And specifically of a £18K Fiesta ST-1 in todays money

• it would have cost £9K in 1992
• it has the same power as the Scooby had
• its better finished than the Scooby was
• its half the price in real terms than the scooby was

So, no, not at all like 1992, and no, not a piece of st.

Edited by Deep Thought on Saturday 11th August 10:29

[ecsrobin]

Deep Thought said:

big_rob_sydney said:

You're spending your time arguing about inflation per se (knock yourself out if that's your thing).Others of us are pointing out that the cost of cars are not really much different. I noticed someone here saying that a car is 35k compared to before, like its some big deal. The reply (again, using inflation to COUNTER that point), is that because wages have gone up, the answer is a pretty simple, "so what"?

Who cares if a car has gone up, when wages have similarly gone up. Seriously, who cares (other than those engaged in economics-related pedantry)?

Well clearly YOU do, because it was YOU who started this with -

big_rob_sydney said:

What a piece of st.

Subaru's from 25 years ago had this level of power, and accelerated harder. What with technology getting cheaper, these things should go much harder and cost much less money.

Welcome to 1992.

Its merely been pointed out that in the UK once you factor in inflation then car prices are broadly similar, and you're now getting a lot more bangs for your buck

Once inflaiton is factored in

• Car prices are broadly similar
• Wages are broadly similar
• Cars are significantly faster
• Cars are significantly safer
• Cars are significantly less polluting
• Cars are significantly higher spec'd

BUT an £18K Fiesta ST-1 in todays money would have cost £9K in 1992's money, which makes it a relative bargain.

So, no, not at all like 1992.

Edited by Deep Thought on Saturday 11th August 10:26

Well said.

[Deep Thought]

big_rob_sydney said:

You're spending your time arguing about inflation per se (knock yourself out if that's your thing).Others of us are pointing out that the cost of cars are not really much different. I noticed someone here saying that a car is 35k compared to before, like its some big deal. The reply (again, using inflation to COUNTER that point), is that because wages have gone up, the answer is a pretty simple, "so what"?

No.

You're struggling to grasp this - noione is saying car prices have went up because wages have went up. Car prices have went up roughly in line with inflation, as have wages.

• Car prices are linked to inflation
• Wages are linked to inflation

That does NOT mean car prices are linked to wages.

This doesnt seem terribly complicated?

[big_rob_sydney]

Deep Thought said:

big_rob_sydney said:

You're spending your time arguing about inflation per se (knock yourself out if that's your thing).Others of us are pointing out that the cost of cars are not really much different. I noticed someone here saying that a car is 35k compared to before, like its some big deal. The reply (again, using inflation to COUNTER that point), is that because wages have gone up, the answer is a pretty simple, "so what"?

No.

You're struggling to grasp this - noione is saying car prices have went up because wages have went up. Car prices have went up roughly in line with inflation, as have wages.

• Car prices are linked to inflation
• Wages are linked to inflation

That does NOT mean car prices are linked to wages.

This doesnt seem terribly complicated?

I think you're into dangerous territory now. There is a link between wages and car prices, simply because wages are an input to manufacturing costs. There is an entirely additional discussion around the input costs being passed on to consumers, over and above your assertion that there are links you would arbitrarily dismiss.

And I note too that you have highlighted in the UK whereas my comments were explicitly around the price of the WRX in Australia. You seem to be intent on arguing apples versus oranges (and responding to posts twice in this page alone; weird).

It may not seem terribly complicated to you; perhaps you have not thought it through deeply enough. Weird, given your chosen moniker...

[Rawwr]

Rawwr said:

Which two cars did you have in mind?

[Fire99]

strangehighways said:

ash73 said:

So the GRMN drives better in every way but in summary the Fiesta is the better overall car, because advertising.

I got this impression. Heaps of praise for the Yaris but somehow I knew that by the end the Fiesta would ‘win’.

I sensed a whiff of that too, unfortunately..

[Deep Thought]

big_rob_sydney said:

I think you're into dangerous territory now. There is a link between wages and car prices, simply because wages are an input to manufacturing costs. There is an entirely additional discussion around the input costs being passed on to consumers, over and above your assertion that there are links you would arbitrarily dismiss.

Car prices have went up and wages have went up roughly in line. Cars are not "more expensive" which is what you said in your original post, and i corrected you. Nor does a £20,000 car in 1992 = a £20,000 car in 2018.

They DO cost much less money - the level of power in a £20,000 Fiesta ST today would have cost you 1/2 the price of a Subaru in 1992.

Why dont you get that?

big_rob_sydney said:

And I note too that you have highlighted in the UK whereas my comments were explicitly around the price of the WRX in Australia. You seem to be intent on arguing apples versus oranges (and responding to posts twice in this page alone; weird).

It may not seem terribly complicated to you; perhaps you have not thought it through deeply enough. Weird, given your chosen moniker...

And where in this post did you mention

(a) Australia
(b) prices of Subarus in Australia?

big_rob_sydney said:

What a piece of st.

Subaru's from 25 years ago had this level of power, and accelerated harder. What with technology getting cheaper, these things should go much harder and cost much less money.

Welcome to 1992.

YOU'RE the one comparing apples to oranges - historic prices here in the UK versus Australia.

Summarising for you - no, £20,000 for a Subaru in 1992 does not equal £20,000 for a Fiesta in 2018.

Edited by Deep Thought on Saturday 11th August 12:04

Edited by Deep Thought on Saturday 11th August 12:17

Edited by Deep Thought on Saturday 11th August 12:18

[Deep Thought]

Rawwr said:

Rawwr said:

Which two cars did you have in mind?

You'll have to excuse him not having time to respond to you - hes too busy digging himself in to a hole

[big_rob_sydney]

Deep Thought said:

YOU'RE the one comparing apples to oranges - historic prices here in the UK versus Australia.

Summarising for you - no, £20,000 for a Subaru in 1992 does not equal £20,000 for a Fiesta in 2018.

Edited by Deep Thought on Saturday 11th August 12:04

Edited by Deep Thought on Saturday 11th August 12:17

Edited by Deep Thought on Saturday 11th August 12:18

Let me try again...

You agree that car prices and wages have both gone up? Great. So far so good.

My disappointment is around the fact that, 25 years ago, you could buy a car with around 200bhp (WRX), which was quicker in all metrics, for around £20k.

I take your point about power, but (very) broadly speaking, cars today while having more power, have also loaded up in weight.

The final point I've been trying to come back to, is that, some cars, for example the WRX in Australia, where I come from (part of my screen moniker), have not, in fact, "gone up" in prices to the extent that has been alluded to in previous posts. I think someone here quoted £35k? The car has been $39,990 in Australia pretty much for 25 years.

Quick fact check... I just googled "subaru wrx australia price" and the price has actually gone down. You can buy them for $39,240.

Now, there is an entirely separate discussion around other cars. By all means have that discussion, but my point was, that I don't see these particular cars as being any great kind of value when you consider what was available 25 years ago, and whoch you can buy today for the same money (less actually, as it turns out).

In the context of that, how do these cars represent value when a 25 year old car was producing the same power and faster figures, and you can buy the same (brand new) car, with more power, more weight, more gadgets, more everything, for less outright money today in Australia without adjusting for inflation (your argument is heavily based on inflation)?

[df76]

big_rob_sydney said:

My disappointment is around the fact that, 25 years ago, you could buy a car with around 200bhp (WRX), which was quicker in all metrics, for around £20k.

I can't comment on whether Subaru Australia have been ripping off their customers in the past, or whether the exchange rate may have influenced prices over time. But I do know that £20,000 in 1993 was a lot of money (about £40k in today's money, and that buys a lot of car). Makes a ST3 with performance pack for £21k look pretty decent value for money. Will be even better if you could wait a year and pick a nearly new one up for £15k or so, a bargain.

[Deep Thought]

big_rob_sydney said:

You agree that car prices and wages have both gone up? Great. So far so good.

Broadly in line with inflation. Agreed.

big_rob_sydney said:

My disappointment is around the fact that, 25 years ago, you could buy a car with around 200bhp (WRX), which was quicker in all metrics, for around £20k.

And that £20K back then equates to £35K today. For your £35K today you're getting 50%+ more power, enhanced safety, technology, reduced emissions, etc, etc. Thinking Golf R, Honda Civic Type R, etc.

big_rob_sydney said:

I take your point about power, but (very) broadly speaking, cars today while having more power, have also loaded up in weight.

Because of enhanced safety features, increase in technology, enhanced specification, emissions reducing technology, etc.

big_rob_sydney said:

The final point I've been trying to come back to, is that, some cars, for example the WRX in Australia, where I come from (part of my screen moniker), have not, in fact, "gone up" in prices to the extent that has been alluded to in previous posts. I think someone here quoted £35k? The car has been $39,990 in Australia pretty much for 25 years.

Quick fact check... I just googled "subaru wrx australia price" and the price has actually gone down. You can buy them for $39,240.

Look, you're talking about one model in Australia - the other side of the world to us here in the UK. I've no idea why that anomaly is happening - at a guess i would suggest there has been changes in import duties, fluctuation in the YEN versus AUS$, whatever across those three decades. I dont know. I dont have the time nor inclination to do the kind of forensic research in to what has happen.

There is a clear correlation here in the UK between inflation, car prices and wages and broadly speaking these days for the same money you're getting an awful lot more bangs per buck

big_rob_sydney said:

Now, there is an entirely separate discussion around other cars.

Great - so we're in agreement that the Subaru pricing is an anomaly not the norm?

big_rob_sydney said:

By all means have that discussion, but my point was, that I don't see these particular cars as being any great kind of value when you consider what was available 25 years ago, and whoch you can buy today for the same money (less actually, as it turns out).

And again, a £20K Fiesta ST-1 would have cost £10K in 1992. A Subaru cost £20K in 1992, so surely the same amount of power, much higher spec, safer and better emissions (granted, all in a smaller car) being available for HALF the cost of the Subaru at the time would have been a fantastic purchase then?

big_rob_sydney said:

In the context of that, how do these cars represent value when a 25 year old car was producing the same power and faster figures, and you can buy the same (brand new) car, with more power, more weight, more gadgets, more everything, for less outright money today in Australiawithout adjusting for inflation (your argument is heavily based on inflation)?

Bingo! And we have a winner - in Australia. As i've said i've no idea. You've told us yourself its an anomaly - i would suggest down to YEN / AUS$ changes, changes in import duties, etc, etc. But i dont know.

What i would say is, whilst a Subaru looked terrific value at the time - as it offered a lot more power compared to its rivals - your $39,000 Subaru WRX (translating to around £24,000) with the same power today would look a bit Meh.

Actually, maybe thats it - back in 1992 a WRX looked outrageous value at $40,000 / £20,000 with 200BHP whereas in todays money it simply doesnt?

In 1992 it offered 200BHP when a Golf GTI offered maybe 110BHP, whereas now the Subaru WRX offers 268BHP but a Golf GTI offers 230BHP?

So ultimately to keep the prices relatively flat, we've seen a massive drop in bangs per buck with the WRX, hence why its now relatively cheap?

I've no idea why its an anomaly but the exception doesnt make the rule, which is what you're trying to do.

Edited by Deep Thought on Sunday 12th August 10:16

[SidewaysSi]

Yaris for me. Though in reality I would spend the extra for a Civic or get a last gen Meg.