Are Mazda's Really that inexpensive to purchase new?

In reply to Keith Tanner: Using your chart wages adjusted for income vary greatly depending on what income group you look at. If you look at the Middle,the majority of Americans, it appears from 1970 to now they have gained what...8-10 grand at the most.

Using those goofy online calculators that "convert" 1970's money into today's value a 40k a year salary in 1970 should be over 250k now. Instead we have 58k. So, depending on what income bracket you choose, you can prove my point, or yours. But, I've been referring to middle America the whole time.

in 2013 we bought the first 2014 Maz6 that came to town. Every option, even the spendy red paint. Even without discounts we were out the door for $30. Financing rate was fair.

I liked the car (still do), and the price seemed fair.

TGMF wrote: In reply to Keith Tanner: Using your chart wages adjusted for income vary greatly depending on what income group you look at. If you look at the Middle,the majority of Americans, it appears from 1970 to now they have gained what...8-10 grand at the most. Using those goofy online calculators that "convert" 1970's money into today's value a 40k a year salary in 1970 should be over 250k now. Instead we have 58k. So, I disagree with you...unless you're factoring the top, or top 5% group.

Those lines take inflation into account, I was careful to specify that. If there was no change in wages relative to inflation, then the line would be completely flat. If wages didn't keep up with inflation, you'd see the line drop down. A $8-10k gain on that chart is a true gain over what your daddy brought home. If you also look at vehicle prices corrected for inflation, then vehicle prices vs wages are directly comparable.

And yes, the top echelons have seen ridiculous growth. But they're not buying Mazda3s, so that's not germane to this discussion

Here's the same graph WITHOUT being adjusted for inflation. And $40k in 1970 was a pretty healthy salary, it put you in the top quintile of US households.

We keep hearing that the average new car transaction price is in the $33-35K range. I wonder what the Median transaction price is? A new $1/4 million ferrari can offset 20 base Sparks, Nissan Versa etc. That could be a very different figure.

That would be interesting. I've never seen that. There have been Ferraris for a long time, of course, and they've never been cheap. Might be fun to graph that out. (edit - taking the 308 GTS and the 488 as sample points, they're double the price they used to be)

It's also worth noting that the average service life of vehicles is climbing fairly quickly. The average age of vehicles on the road went from 8.4 years to 11.4 years over the 20-year period from 1995 to 2015. That's what, a 35% increase? So factored over the life of the car, they're getting considerably less expensive. In 1977, it was only 5.5 years. Less than half the lifespan we can expect today.

All this is ignoring the improvements in efficiency, safety (active and passive) and of course, the number of toys stuffed inside.

In reply to Keith Tanner:

While Exotic sports cars have been around a long time, they are sold in far higher numbers and for proportionally far more money than they used to. In 1970 the cheapest Ferrari wasn't a Ferrari, but the Dino. It cost $14,500 then which is $90K now. Today the cheapest Ferrari is the California at $200K so more than twice as much. Plus you'll never get out of there with less than $40K in options and you'd better have bought a few used cars from your local dealer before they will consider you worthy of being allowed to purchase a new one.

In 1970 the cheapest Porsche was the 914 at $3,500. Today that's $21K. When the 924 was launched here in 76 as a 77 it cost $9,395 which is $39K today. The cheapest Boxster is now the Cayman at $54K with anything less than $60K sticker being unheard of.

I think you'll find the same trend with other manufacturers of high end cars. Prices have gone through the roof. Add in the fact that 918's McLAren P1's The red Purses and all the other $1,000,000 plus cars had no equivilant back then. Also look at volumes. Porsche sell more cars per year in California alone than they did world wide 50 years ago.

I'm not sure on US prices, but from what I can see Rolls-Royce cars the equiv of $13K in 1970. That's $80K today where Rolls now start around $300K. Again selling in higher volumes than ever before.

I think it's safe to say that high end cars have a much bigger effect on the average transaction price than they ever did before.

Here's a fun one. In 1963 the first Ford GT cost £5,200 or $6,330 then. That's now $50K, where a new Ford GT, if you could get on the wait list is now over $400K

Adrian_Thompson wrote: We keep hearing that the average new car transaction price is in the $33-35K range. I wonder what the Median transaction price is? A new $1/4 million ferrari can offset 20 base Sparks, Nissan Versa etc. That could be a very different figure.

I doubt it's actually all that different. The difference in median vs mean is significant when you have a proportionally large number of outliers. It can be really significant in home sales, because the absolute number of sales in a month is often fairly low.

Running some numbers I pulled from Google, world-wide for 2015 Ferrari sold 7500 cars against a total of 75M, which is 0.01%, or 1 in 10,000. So if there were 9999 $20K Versas and one $300K 488, that bumps the mean price up by a total of $28.

I can't find Ferrari US-only figures with my quick googling, but IIRC it's somewhere between a third and a half of their market. So if you assume 3750 Ferraris in the US and 17M total US car sales, that doubles the impact to 0.02%.

Keith Tanner wrote: It's also worth noting that the average service life of vehicles is climbing fairly quickly. The average age of vehicles on the road went from 8.4 years to 11.4 years over the 20-year period from 1995 to 2015. That's what, a 35% increase? So factored over the life of the car, they're getting considerably less expensive. In 1977, it was only 5.5 years. Less than half the lifespan we can expect today.

I think the increased quality of used cars helps fuel the perception that new cars cost too much. Why waste money on a new car when a cheap used car looks and drives great?

Back in the mid 80's I remember our 6-yr-old car had giant rust holes in the floor, belched blue smoke, left us stranded, etc... my dad didn't complain about the price of the new Toyota he bought to replace it.

In reply to codrus:

Fair point, but what happens when you add in Ferrari, Lamboghini, Pagani, Audi R8's, Rolls, Bently, Maybach, Koenigseg (sp?), Bugatti, high end Astons (One-77), RR, McLaren etc.

I think (gut feeling pulled from where the sun will never shine) exotic cars have become so common, including those with prices over $1m, that they prbably help by a thousand or two. to the price. I think it's driven by the increase in the earnings of the top 5%. Look at the chart upthread. While the middle income has stayed reltivly flat inflation adjusted, look at the massive increase in the top 5%, let alone the top 1%. Other than pissing off the 'Occupy' movement, those people have a lot more spending power than they did in the past.

I could be completly wrong and I'd love to see the data to tell me one way or the other.

Wow, this has come a long way from cheap new Mazda's in a short space of time. All good fun and interesting though.

Adrian_Thompson wrote: In reply to codrus: Fair point, but what happens when you add in Ferrari, Lamboghini, Pagani, Audi R8's, Rolls, Bently, Maybach, Koenigseg (sp?), Bugatti, high end Astons (One-77), RR, McLaren etc.

Lambo's sales numbers are less than half of Ferrari's, and McLaren is around 1500 a year. Rolls is around the size of Lambo, Bugatti, Bentley, Maybach, and Koensigseggsegggiseg are tiny. Maybe you get to 10x the Ferrari number with all of them... maybe.

Porsche is far and away the largest luxury sports car brand with 200K, but the majority of those are $50K Boxsters, not $200K GT3s.

jv8 wrote:

Keith Tanner wrote: It's also worth noting that the average service life of vehicles is climbing fairly quickly. The average age of vehicles on the road went from 8.4 years to 11.4 years over the 20-year period from 1995 to 2015. That's what, a 35% increase? So factored over the life of the car, they're getting considerably less expensive. In 1977, it was only 5.5 years. Less than half the lifespan we can expect today.

I think the increased quality of used cars helps fuel the perception that new cars cost too much. Why waste money on a new car when a cheap used car looks and drives great? Back in the mid 80's I remember our 6-yr-old car had giant rust holes in the floor, belched blue smoke, left us stranded, etc... my dad didn't complain about the price of the new Toyota he bought to replace it.

That's an interesting point. It would be really cool to see the average depreciation of, say, a 5 year old car over the years. Maybe 5 and 8, to get a little more distance from the effects of leasing.

As for Mazda -- I agree, they offer tremendous value and great driving dynamics. We just bought a 2016 CX-9 to replace the Odyssey as my wife's car and primary kid-hauler. It's awesome, and even though it's the most expensive vehicle Mazda sells, it's still significantly less expensive than comparable cars.

Could not care less. Miata is the only thing they make that I really like and it is way way way to expensive for what you get. As evidence the 400-800 a month that they sell in the US on average monthly.

I want a New Miata and honestly I could even live the the MSRP if they actually lease decent.

The new Miata is no more expensive than the original Miata. The most affordable roadster on the market has always been way way way overpriced, I guess. Although back in 1990 you got steel wheels and no radio for that price.

"They will try very hard to screw you on financing."

Well they do make money on selling a financed contract to their finance arm, but if you do what we did - tell them you'll negotiate a price first and talk about financing after that, you'll get a form price. We did that, got a price and I just wrote them a cheque for it. They hum hummed a bit but couldn't really say much when I asked if we should involve the owner if they weren't good with honouring their price.

The products are good - reliable and with more responsive handling than the competitors, even if they are built on the same chassis as our 2013 is.

Now if they'd just figure out a way to get the Mazdaspeed turbo engine into the Miata as an option.....

BTW, one of the come-ons is the lifetime free (or rather prepaid) oil change contract. If you work it out, it pays for itself in about 2 years. They do it to get you back in to the dealership, figuring on being able to talk you into additional work. Hasn't paid off for them with us, though - we get only oil changes there and do everything else somewhere else.

Thanks to all you jerks I realized I'm only making $936 more per year than I was in 1998. Only now I'm not full of optimism about the future and my body and mind are all washed up. I'm going to go drown myself in alcohol now.

Jerks.

Go with the CX-5, we love ours and it is nice compliment to the MX-5.

Keith Tanner wrote: My wife wants a car to replace the annoying WJ Grand Cherokee. She's trying to decide between a new Grand Cherokee and a CX-5. I'm pushing hard for the latter for a lot of reasons, and the massive savings are a bonus. Hell, we could get a CX-5 and make a real dent on the cost of a new fastback Miata for the price of the Jeep. Mazda threw me a couple of E-plan codes to sweeten the deal, too, although she gets fleet pricing on the Jeep. This post has no real point other than to reiterate that Mazdas are well priced.

A friend of mine picked up a 6 speed 2014 3 brand new for 14k after he traded in his rusted out, beat to hell 2000 Outback. He went on his lunch break "just to look" and when the sales guy came up to him he said that he was just looking and really had to get back to work for a meeting. Sales dude that he was haggling so cut him that deal.

Based on what I'm reading here, apparently they will mostly just try to screw me on financing. Oh well.

dean1484 wrote: Forgetting about the MX5 for the moment I was looking at the Mazda web side and was building various versions of the Mazda three and The six and I kept coming in with prices in the mid 20's for a new car. What is the catch? This seems very cheap to me for what you are getting. Am I missing something? I would assume that if you could find the car you wanted on a dealer lot you could haggle that down a bit. I was surprised as I always thought that the 6 in particular was a more expensive car. I may have to stop in a dealer sometime and see.

You're missing the competition - which is offering as much if not more car for thousands less, with WAY BETTER financing.

Also, if you want a great family car, I'd wait until Spring. The new gen CX-5 will be launching in a few months, with diesel power and it would be worth checking them out. Also, I don't get why you guys are saying that they'll screw you on financing. E36 M3tty dealers will be E36 M3tty dealers, but if you find a good one, they're usually quite good about financing.

In reply to G_Body_Man:

It's only me.

Nick (Bo) Comstock wrote: Thanks to all you jerks I realized I'm only making $936 more per year than I was in 1998. Only now I'm not full of optimism about the future and my body and mind are all washed up. I'm going to go drown myself in alcohol now. Jerks.

Heck, I'm making $20k less than I was in 1999 BEFORE inflation is taken into account. And my eyes don't work right anymore

Keith Tanner wrote:

Nick (Bo) Comstock wrote: Thanks to all you jerks I realized I'm only making $936 more per year than I was in 1998. Only now I'm not full of optimism about the future and my body and mind are all washed up. I'm going to go drown myself in alcohol now. Jerks.

Heck, I'm making $20k less than I was in 1999 BEFORE inflation is taken into account. And my eyes don't work right anymore

I have a feeling the you and I are not playing on the same level Yeah, mines before inflation too. I'm not interested enough to do the math to see how much I'm down with inflation

In reply to Keith Tanner:

Damn, many of us sit here and think you have life made (potentially 2nd only to Mr. Deuce) That's a harsh reality. I hope the perks you get in your job make up for it. I have no idea if you make much money off your books, but I really hope you do.