Remember when cars that cost 70K were beautiful cars, often with bodies designed by Bertone or Pininfarina.
Remember when cars that cost 70K were beautiful cars, often with bodies designed by Bertone or Pininfarina.
Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:Remember when cars that cost 70K were beautiful cars, often with bodies designed by Bertone or Pininfarina.
yeah, but to be fair, with inflation those are now the $150k cars...
In reply to ultraclyde (Forum Supporter) :
Still, with $60,000 pickup trucks, $100,000 SUVs and and a shrinking number of jellybean sedans in earth tones of gray and beige, going to the car dealer to see the new models is less exciting that going to the dentist, especially when it's discount root canal day.
Remember, when I was a kid the Lincoln Mercury Dealer had Panteras and Capris, the Buick Dealer had Opel GTs and the Chevy Dealer had Corvettes and a whole bunch of different cars with SS emblems on the side.
Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:I cannot think of one reason why I need a 100K+ SUV.
I can think of many reasons a dealer would want to sell me one.
I agree.
I mean.....that's more than a lot of houses. It's more than I paid for a house 4 years ago too. I understand inflation but car prices seem to be much more inflated
In reply to Antihero (Forum Supporter) :
For 100K I should get a vehicle that would win the Paris/Dakar Rally that I can also live in comfortably. Not something that makes my Siberian Huskies want to go back to the dog run and puke.
Face it: Range Rover is the Coach Leather of automotive manufacturers.
They were both companies that made classic, conservative designs of simple, durable, high-quality, capable products. Properly cared for, their products would serve for decades. Both companies were also fading into genteel obscurity.
Then both companies decided to make piles of money by catering to a different crowd, getting rid of the classic design language, and selling a new-money aesthetic while trading on the cachet of their old-money brand recognition.
Antihero (Forum Supporter) said:Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:I cannot think of one reason why I need a 100K+ SUV.
I can think of many reasons a dealer would want to sell me one.
I agree.
I mean.....that's more than a lot of houses. It's more than I paid for a house 4 years ago too. I understand inflation but car prices seem to be much more inflated
Median selling price for houses in the US is $340k.
I am of the opinion that our idea of value gets cemented at some point and fails to update. Like people complaining about the current price of Miatas, even though they're actually less expensive in real dollars than the 1990. And that 1990 didn't even have a radio. Car prices are actually following inflation reasonably closely, but truck prices have increased faster and the high-end, high performance SUV is a thing that didn't even exist until 20 years or so ago.
You may not need a $100k SUV. But some people have decided they do, and that's who it's for. The old Land Rover I've been poking fun at here is basically a road-going tractor that didn't even have synchros on all forward gears. It's a completely different beast than a Range Rover ever was, and the US never really got the utilitarian Land Rovers. My 1967 88' is one of something like 200 that were brought in to North America that year.
Range Rovers have always been aimed higher, they are arguably the first of the luxury SUVs - the argument is whether Jeep got there first, and I think it depends on which side of the Atlantic you're looking at. So saying that somehow Range Rover has changed is to not realize what they've been all along.
In reply to Duke :
There's a reason that brands evolve like that. If you make a timeless classic that lasts for decades, that's not a model for sustainability, because people buy it once and buy it for life. So you cheapen the brand and chase fads to drive sales volume and increase market share, even if it means producing an inferior product.
It's [term not uttered to not flounder] in it's most pure form.
I don't think the people who buy Range Rovers even think. They buy what their neighbors buy because they want to fit in and they probably don't even buy them. They lease them.
If is was cool to drive a Pink Dodge Charger Ute Pickup Truck with a bright green Kangaroo Spreader Bar on the front, then these guys would be lined up at the Dodge Dealer instead of the Range Rover Dealer and they would be faking Australian accents.
captdownshift (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to Duke :
There's a reason that brands evolve like that. If you make a timeless classic that lasts for decades, that's not a model for sustainability, because people buy it once and buy it for life. So you cheapen the brand and chase fads to drive sales volume and increase market share, even if it means producing an inferior product.
It's [term not uttered to not flounder] in it's most pure form.
My Cherokee XJ would probably be the timeless classic. I keep fixing it and I will keep it forever. If not for the Cherokee, I might hit the auction for an early 70s Bronco or K5 Blazer. Those would be expensive but something you might actually want to keep forever and not just get on a 3 year lease until the next fad car comes out. My cousin is doing a full restoration on the 71 Bronco he had in college 45 years ago. He has had it all of his life.
stuart in mn said:Sure is a lot of cranky old man talk around here...
I sure wouldn't tell it to get off my lawn...
Even range rovers are still very capable. They never lost sight of their off road roots.
Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:captdownshift (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to Duke :
There's a reason that brands evolve like that. If you make a timeless classic that lasts for decades, that's not a model for sustainability, because people buy it once and buy it for life. So you cheapen the brand and chase fads to drive sales volume and increase market share, even if it means producing an inferior product.
It's [term not uttered to not flounder] in it's most pure form.
My Cherokee XJ would probably be the timeless classic. I keep fixing it and I will keep it forever. If not for the Cherokee, I might hit the auction for an early 70s Bronco or K5 Blazer. Those would be expensive but something you might actually want to keep forever and not just get on a 3 year lease until the next fad car comes out. My cousin is doing a full restoration on the 71 Bronco he had in college 45 years ago. He has had it all of his life.
At the time your XJ was made, the timeless classic was the Land Rover Series. LR kept the same basic vehicle in production until just a few years ago, so it actually fits that definition better than the Jeep. My XJ is now almost as old as my Series truck was when I got it.
And I have to tell you, the XJ is worlds ahead in so many ways. Even fuel economy, which is surprising given the 4.0's appetite :) Jump forward another 30 years and you'll get a similar increase in capability. Progress happens. "Timeless" just means you're stuck.
Man, I love the new Defender though.
there's an evoke wrapped in chrome pink down the road.
In the UK they are transport for wealthy mums who are not wealthy enough for a Q7 or Porsche SUV,
They are a long way from farm trucks....apart from this one
https://youtu.be/jHu8VJkR9Ag
bearmtnmartin (Forum Supporter) said:Even range rovers are still very capable. They never lost sight of their off road roots.
Well, that's because their offroad roots are pretty awesome-
Keith Tanner said:Antihero (Forum Supporter) said:Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:I cannot think of one reason why I need a 100K+ SUV.
I can think of many reasons a dealer would want to sell me one.
I agree.
I mean.....that's more than a lot of houses. It's more than I paid for a house 4 years ago too. I understand inflation but car prices seem to be much more inflated
Median selling price for houses in the US is $340k.
I am of the opinion that our idea of value gets cemented at some point and fails to update. Like people complaining about the current price of Miatas, even though they're actually less expensive in real dollars than the 1990. And that 1990 didn't even have a radio. Car prices are actually following inflation reasonably closely, but truck prices have increased faster and the high-end, high performance SUV is a thing that didn't even exist until 20 years or so ago.
You may not need a $100k SUV. But some people have decided they do, and that's who it's for. The old Land Rover I've been poking fun at here is basically a road-going tractor that didn't even have synchros on all forward gears. It's a completely different beast than a Range Rover ever was, and the US never really got the utilitarian Land Rovers. My 1967 88' is one of something like 200 that were brought in to North America that year.
Range Rovers have always been aimed higher, they are arguably the first of the luxury SUVs - the argument is whether Jeep got there first, and I think it depends on which side of the Atlantic you're looking at. So saying that somehow Range Rover has changed is to not realize what they've been all along.
Thank you for saying this. Even in "wow I didn't realize things were so cheap in Oklahoma" I paid $100k for a house in 2009 in the "poor" suburb of Tulsa.
But we all have different standards of what is acceptable.
stuart in mn said:Sure is a lot of cranky old man talk around here...
There always is, neither of us is immune to participating in it sometimes.
I don't understand the desire to complain about things I have no intention of buying.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
You aren't wrong on getting set on price, it definitely happens. I remember a TV show I watched said something along the lines of " .....I'm not cheap, I'm just old and remember what stuff cost". I'm 38 so I'm not that old yet, no matter how I feel sometimes lol
In reply to z31maniac :
I paid 79k for a 1905 Victorian, 2 story 1400 sq ft 3 bed 1 bath in Spokane WA in 2016. It wasn't the cheapest on the market by far. I admit I did get a good deal because he was rushing to leave the area and didn't shampoo carpets etc but there were several houses in the 50k range.
I sold it for more and the area has boomed now too
z31maniac said:stuart in mn said:Sure is a lot of cranky old man talk around here...
There always is, neither of us is immune to participating in it sometimes.
I don't understand the desire to complain about things I have no intention of buying.
If I am going to spend more than 100K on an SUV, I want what I want. Not what the dealer wants to sell me.
https://classics.autotrader.com/classic-cars/1970/ford/bronco/101395344
Antihero (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to z31maniac :
I paid 79k for a 1905 Victorian, 2 story 1400 sq ft 3 bed 1 bath in Spokane WA in 2016. It wasn't the cheapest on the market by far. I admit I did get a good deal because he was rushing to leave the area and didn't shampoo carpets etc but there were several houses in the 50k range.
I sold it for more and the area has boomed now too
Spokane is a small town, even by Oklahoma standards.
How much would that house have cost in Portland? You have to understand most people don't want to live in some backwater, hilljack area, and that's why homes are cheaper in those areas.
Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:z31maniac said:stuart in mn said:Sure is a lot of cranky old man talk around here...
There always is, neither of us is immune to participating in it sometimes.
I don't understand the desire to complain about things I have no intention of buying.If I am going to spend more than 100K on an SUV, I want what I want. Not what the dealer wants to sell me.
https://classics.autotrader.com/classic-cars/1970/ford/bronco/101395344
So, don't buy one? I'm not sure why so many are upset about stuff the "don't want to buy."
Or is it more that people want one, but can't afford it. That's a legitimate gripe. I'd love to put my better half in one, but I'm not going to have a car payment larger than our mortgage for one.
Now here's one a really like. More than I would a Range Rover...
https://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/cars-for-sale/chevrolet/k5/2461218.html
You'll need to log in to post.
