←back to thread

The $25k car is going extinct?

(media.hubspot.com)
319 points pseudolus | 6 comments | 29 Jun 25 15:59 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
tlogan ◴[30 Jun 25 12:49 UTC] No.44422630[source]▶
This is a great example of how factually incorrect narratives - so long as they align with a preferred agenda (which is that things are not affordable any more) - it gets upvoted.

Reality check:

- In 2025, there are 12 new car models available under $25,000

- In 2005, there were around 10 new models under $15,000 (25k adjusted by inflation)

So the premise that “cars used to be much more affordable” is not true. This article is full of misleading or outdated information that distorts the real trend.

HN deserves better data-driven discussions.

replies(17): >>44422669 #>>44422707 #>>44422749 #>>44422885 #>>44422919 #>>44423014 #>>44423067 #>>44423538 #>>44423622 #>>44423626 #>>44423874 #>>44423904 #>>44423959 #>>44424442 #>>44425246 #>>44425626 #>>44430456 #
csomar ◴[30 Jun 25 13:13 UTC] No.44422885[source]▶
> - In 2005, there were around 10 new models under $15,000 (25k adjusted by inflation)

You'll need to provide hard evidence for this. I was pretty young in 2005 but $15.000 would get you a decent car (though not a pickup). That being said, it is possible we have more models now under 25.000 but what $15/25k used to buy you (segment wise) has downgraded.

replies(7): >>44422934 #>>44423220 #>>44423375 #>>44423921 #>>44424071 #>>44424645 #>>44425504 #
mberning ◴[30 Jun 25 13:17 UTC] No.44422934[source]▶
You are 100% correct. I was a senior in college and my beater died. I went to the Mazda dealer and talked them down to $13k on a brand new Mazda3. My payment was like $280.

Now inflation adjusted that is supposedly just shy of $22k. But it’s not the full story. That car was actually very nice for the time and to get an equivalently nice car today it’s not going to be a bare bones Nissan Versa or something like that.

replies(1): >>44423020 #
jjice ◴[30 Jun 25 13:25 UTC] No.44423020[source]▶
To share an anecdote on the more recent side of the spectrum, I bought a new 2025 Toyota Corolla LE two months ago. It's probably the cheapest vehicle Toyota makes. My cost before tax and title (not sure if that should be included or not) was $23k. It's a pretty great car. Highway averages like 45-50 MPH (25-35 city), it's comfortable, has Car Play, and everything else you'd expect in a car now.

I'll say that the two things I'm used to having in a car that this one doesn't (since it's such a base trim) is automatic seat adjustment (not a big deal, I kind of prefer it since the automatic seats on my last vehicle died) and no remote start.

All that to say that I think that inflation adjusted measure can still get you a fine car. As for the argument about income vs inflation in GP, I have no idea.

replies(1): >>44423138 #
csomar ◴[30 Jun 25 13:38 UTC] No.44423138[source]▶
I think the problem here is that we are comparing against price inflation (not salary inflation). If every company increased its prices, then that's the inflation. Customers will feel ripped off if their salaries didn't at least match inflation.

In other words, if your salary in 2005 was $50k when Mazda was $13k; then your salary should be $82k for a $22k Mazda3 to be the same price. Currently, a Mazda3 starts at $24k and will probably run at $26-27k: https://www.mazdausa.com/vehicles/mazda3-sedan

> All that to say that I think that inflation adjusted measure can still get you a fine car. As for the argument about income vs inflation in GP, I have no idea.

Kind of. But my understanding is that most salaries haven't caught up to inflation especially in the last few years when the US economy had the worst inflation.

replies(4): >>44423273 #>>44423294 #>>44423515 #>>44424038 #
1. ponector ◴[30 Jun 25 14:48 UTC] No.44424038[source]▶
But you should compare the same cars. I bet 13k was for a basic trim, with manual, less powerful engine etc.

Car of 2025 has lots of features even in basic trims.

My first car had no ac, no power steering, no power window, etc. And I'm not that old...

replies(1): >>44424473 #
2. Marsymars ◴[30 Jun 25 15:26 UTC] No.44424473[source]▶
TBF if you go by new-car pricing now, manual has more value than a base-trim automatic. (And the automatic transmissions now are better than the automatics available in 13k cars back then.)
replies(1): >>44425975 #
3. ponector ◴[30 Jun 25 17:41 UTC] No.44425975[source]▶
What do you mean by more value? In Europe manual is cheaper than automatic. In USA there are only high-performance vehicles offered with manual. However even then Elantra N is cheaper with manual.
replies(1): >>44426470 #
4. Marsymars ◴[30 Jun 25 18:38 UTC] No.44426470{3}[source]▶
I’m most familiar with Canadian pricing, and since a while, it’s been more common for manuals to be more significantly more expensive than automatic. e.g it’s like $10k extra for a manual Mazda 3 or a Cadillac CT4-V or $15k extra for a manual Mustang. This commonly is because manuals are limited to higher trim levels... but that’s kinda like EVs for some models - even if the trim is upgraded, it’s still $10k more expensive.
replies(1): >>44426576 #
5. ponector ◴[30 Jun 25 18:49 UTC] No.44426576{4}[source]▶
But you compare different cars. If you compare the same high performance vehicles (but not luxury) where there are both options - then manual often is the same or cheaper.
replies(1): >>44427623 #
6. Marsymars ◴[30 Jun 25 20:41 UTC] No.44427623{5}[source]▶
For many manual enthusiasts, a Mazda3 GX is effectively the “same car” as a Mazda3 Sport GT, with the significant difference being that the latter has manual transmission.

For me, most of the differences between a GX and a Sport GT, other than the transmission, are about as relevant as the paint colour, so telling me that they’re not comparable is like saying that I can’t compare two cars because the manual version is only available with an expensive quad-coat matte paint job. To me, that fancy paint job isn’t relevant - what’s relevant is that the manual transmission costs $10k more.