Of course in the article, I see the Mirage is noted as discontinued. How frustrating.
Not a horrible vehicle for the price.
Mazda 3 used to be a $20k car (and even less before that) but now starts just over $24k (sedan) / $25k (hatchback).
There are 2 big factors at play:
1. Margins. Manufacturers make huge margins on expensive vehicles and very slim margins on cheap vehicles. The numbers differ, but I think even in the lead up to the 2008 crisis automakers had to sell 5-10 "econobox" cars to make the profit they made on one luxury car, SUV, or truck.
2. Normalization of debt. For many Americans, having a monthly car payment in perpetuity is considered acceptable. Car loans have their place and can be used responsibly, but due to marketing, sales tactics, and cultural sensibilities what often ends up happening is that people start from a monthly dollar amount and then work forwards to buy the most expensive vehicle they can, even if it means taking the loan term out to 72 or 84 months. It's also very normal for people to never pay off their car, instead trading in the vehicle after 3-5 years and rolling equity in the loan over to their next car. Obviously, this consumer habit is great for dealers, manufacturers, creditors and buyers of consumer debt, as well as the US Government and investors -- it's just not ideal for the consumers themselves if they're trying to preserve wealth and build savings.
These two factors create an environment increasingly hostile to the cheap entry level car. Consumer demand is low since most don't spend responsibly, and automakers don't really want to make or sell them because the margins are so slim.
I think that really depends on what part of America. At least where I grew up around a bunch of middle class conservatives listening to eg Dave Ramsey (who has other problems IMO) most people think of you as reckless/irresponsible for doing that sort of thing.
And you'd never know until the family divorced and their lifestyle drastically decreases.
Dave Ramsey has to be relatively new because debt was extremely extremely common among conservatives in the US (no idea about liberals didn't live among them)
Cars are a depreciating asset. It usually does not make sense to go into debt to get one
Most other debts people incur personally are to buy things they could save for, which go down in value. Like cars.
I’ve heard Philly and SF as well, but have never been.
If you are forced to commute into SF for your job, then make living close to BART a top priority. (Many years ago, I met many people who suffered through that daily commute, but refused to make living near BART a priority. It was dumb to watch.) BART is a miracle train system (hybrid commuter rail/metro/subway), even if the coverage isn't great.
Now I own a rowhome in the historic district of the city, we're opening the first floor as a museum within the next year, and I walk everywhere. All forms of transit (bus, trolley, trackless trolley, subway, light rapid transit, train, ferry) take contactless payment (finally) and these days, rideshare fills in the gaps.
Wages are higher in the suburbs, but I can get to a sizable international airport in 15 minutes by car, to the Amtrak station in 20 minutes via $3 subway, and I can walk to grocery/hardware/bakery as well as bars/restaurants/galleries/venues/museums/etc.
A car used to be a very, very important part of my life, and now it's more of a luxurious convenience.
Of course, in markets that don’t have plenty of inventory of both empty lots and lots with old houses, it can be hard to value the house by itself.
Has relocating an old house even been done? (Assuming the house wasn't built to be movable.)
See https://patch.com/massachusetts/lexington/historic-house-mov... as an example
It seems there's a whole spectrum from lifting houses to put a new first floor below them, to moving them a bit, to moving them several blocks in a city. (to big building projects too, historically)
I saw a house in progress being moved, 30 years ago. Great thing to take a kid to see!
And the age of the cohort... Millennials (1980 to '95-ish) have had student loans since as far back as they can remember. What's _another_ never-ending monthly payment?
10 grand it seems? That's pretty rough, especially with that mileage
Cash For Clunkers took a ton of used vehicles off the market
Stricter environmental standards have also taken otherwise working cars off the market, by preventing used dealerships from selling them in general, and making it more difficult/more expensive to insure them
The days of buying a used car for 2 grand are long gone
Cars decrease in value, very quickly. Getting a loan for a car is throwing more money away than buying a car in the first place.
Having said that, I'm immune to a lot of 'social norms' so I've been fine driving my tired-looking 20-year old Outlander soccer mum car or our 10+ year old grannymobile Nissan Leaf.
There are situations in which a loan for a car may be necessary, but I'd have to be a really tight spot to consider it, and I'd be absolutely minimising the size / length of it.
I could pay off my car tomorrow. But I'll have more money in the end keeping that cash in the bank. Why would I pay it off early?
That's the answer here. They can build cars better, cheaper, faster than we can.
Instead Ford wants to sell a 80k SUPER F-250 BIG MANN TRUCK. All for what, you to drive 10 minutes to Walmart, buy groceries and drive back.
The best car is the one you don't own. No payments, insurance, parking tickets.
Unfortunately most American cities are centered around driving. So much money , and space wasted on these multi ton metal boxes. In many places most(much) of the city is literally just parking spaces.
RAM is apparently going to use plastic control arms in it's new vehicles.
Though car driving and ownership are a big cultural phenomenon, especially among men 18-50.
I legit took a girl home after I asked her if she knew why the train was late.
In Amsterdam at least one of the train stations has a piano. It becomes a 3rd place were people can make friends and socialize.
We don’t have many 3rd places in the US where you can exist without spending money.
Politicians and the public don't seem willing to invest to overcome the chicken and egg problem. Doesn't help that the legacy transport we do have is neglected, further harming it's reputation.
It does seem to work.
It's a great setup, and/but the very specific infrastructure[0] that I use only services maybe a quarter of the city's mid-suburbia. There's other public transport that services plenty of the rest though.
Doxxing myself here, but anyway: [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-Bahn_Busway
It's also not that expensive to rent inner city or buy an apartment. The outer suburbs mostly exist because people have a mentality of invest in land at any cost, even if it means living in a wasteland and commuting 3 hours a day.
Environment as well. In terms of "safety" it is unfortunately very risky to bike (or even walk) in my area due to the sprawling roads everywhere. Drivers don't look out for anything other than large boxes, and I've quickly had way too many close calls to consider it useful.
> male ego/phalus comment
> car-centric cities
> "N-ton metal box"
I'm 1 square away from a Strong Towns reader bingo. Do you happen to know who invented the concept of jaywalking?
If that was true it wouldn't be illegal to sell them.
I would love to sell my truck and get something smaller. But I just got a repair estimate of almost $2500 to replace the from facing camera in my wife's Odyssey, and the Bluetooth stack in my truck has never really worked properly for phone calls. With cars becoming increasingly. "Software defined vehicles" I don't feel comfortable purchasing a $50k+ car that might have software bugs, or may not be supported for over 5-10yrs. I'm currently thinking very seriously that the best options are either to buy used or to lease.
Moreover, I'm thinking the overall percentage of private vehicles that are leased is going to continue to increase as time moves on, until the big mfrs are essentially acting as huge rental fleet operators.
In fact, the other two were so unreliable and underpowered that I’ll never buy a GM or Stellantis (chrysler/dodge/ram/fiat) product again.
Anyway, definitely hold onto the 2016/17 Fords vs switching brands. I’ve driven lower trim line Fords slightly older than that, and they were also way ahead of the newer GM and Ram trucks that we had.
We hardly put any miles on it (maybe 15k a year). To get around locally we ride our bikes mostly here in the city.
We do use it for our small business (essential) and also to to a large RV trailer which we use to live in 2-4 months a year visiting loved ones and just decompressing.
The things people don't usually talk about is the total cost of ownership.
One can buy a new F250 diesel for $80k, drive it for 6 years towing heavy loads and working hard. And sellnit for more than half what they paid for it. During that time the only costs are routine maintenance, no major repair bills.
One can also buy a luxury car or SUV, say a BMW, for the same price and 6 years later it is most certainly not worth half what they paid for it, and they typically paid tens of thousands in repair costs.
The next argument people make is that a big truck is inefficient. The simple fact is my F250 diesel gets the same as your BMW M3. But it can be used for work, and is.
Financially, I would argue that it makes no sense to buy a new vehicle above $50k that isn't a diesel pickup.
Why the personal insult? Mods is this ok per HN policy?
I use and need it for work, yes big heavy things also need to be done in cities too. I noted this in my original comment. It's very tacky to personally insult a working person for the tools of their trade. You don't like the fact that a plumber needs a plumbing truck? How would a window installer get the windows to the jobsite? How do you bring diesel engines to install in their final locations?
And you are absolutely wrong on the repair of BMWs and especially Audis. Just look at used cars for those brands from a few years ago. You are right on maintenance, but I'm talking about repairs. Things breaking and needing replacement or repair. Anyone who has owned those brands will tell you. Also part prices are a big difference.
If you want a small car buy a Carolla, Camry or a Lexus. I'm not saying buy a big truck.
I'm saying it makes no sense to buy a vehicle over $50k that isn't a diesel pickup, except for "comfort" or "status".
If you don't need one for work, then buy a Camry. They're really nice.
Prior to that comment, you hadn't said anything indicating you personally partook in that antisocial behavior.
Well if they're so fucking social, they should start with rich who waste and pollute way way more and buy governments outright.
Please cut out swipes like this in HN comments, it's against the guidelines.
If you feel like buying a 80k truck, that's cool.
The issue with America is the vast majority of truck buyers really can't afford an 80k truck.
This isn't the best source, but it says here the average truck buyer is only making 82k or so.
https://www.myautoconcepts.com/blogdetails?id=4049
From experience talking to friends and sales people plenty of folks with 60 to 80k incomes find themselves in 50k plus vehicles.
I suspect for the majority of truck buyers, if credit wasn't as easily available, they'd find alternatives.
The only reason the typical person can buy an 80k truck is they can get a loan.
Let's say their was a hypothetical car loan limit of 1/4th of your annual income. A lot of people would find out really fast they don't need a massive truck.
Manufacturers would in turn adjust accordingly. A 15k car, maybe without a bunch of touch screens, is possible.
This is probably why cars are cheaper in China, credit isn't as available.
I would say that's not what matters in this discussion (comparing trucks vs cars).
I would also say the same sentence is true for cars, most Americans can't afford 80k cars.
What I am saying is you are not accurate. Most trucks in the US are not 80k trucks bought by suburban folks to buy groceries in. Most trucks are bought by fleets, by small businesses, etc. They're the standard white fleet specs, not the high end trucks. They're bought by farmers, ranchers and drywallers. Most.
Just because you don't hang around in those circles and only see your suburban neighbors and their trucks doesn't mean that's the overall trend.
Everything you highlight here is also true for cars, and worse even.
I'm not justifying anything, I don't owe you $%&#, I am saying you are wrong and giving evidence as to why.
We subsidize our auto industry too.
Imagine if we let in the Chinese EVs stacked with the tax credit, you could get a car for 5000$ or less.
So much this. Similar "unbounded" pressure on student loans / tuition. It keeps going up because students are able to get loans.
Comparing the average income around here to MSRP of vehicles I see around here and it's clear that a lot of people are driving around in something that approximates a second mortgage!
That's a little more than the average American drives per year.
> 2-4 months a year visiting loved ones and just decompressing
Not a dig at the vehicle; that's a different thing. Rather, I notice that this truck doesn't seem to spend much time as a, ya know, truck.
With other trucks it's less obvious because they don't have a built in bed cover. I suspect many of them also spent very little time trucking, at least here in this suburb. Perhaps it's different in more agricultural areas.
I've seen the offroad performance videos, the cybertruck isn't anything to write home about wrt to either ground clearance or scrabble factor (broken road hill climbing, etc).
Other cheaper vehicles perform as well or better.
The tray area is a nightmare, three side access to tools is good, totally flat tray backs are good, side rails for tie downs are good, ability to custom fit racks for carrying stuff (long lumber, or glass and or panels, etc), etc. are all the kinds of practical choices that dictate a practical utility purchase .. none of these are things at which the cybertruck shines.
I go back and forth on how much weight to give the "not being used for truck stuff" criticism. (Maybe because I own a small 2006 Ranger that, while sometimes being used for truck stuff, is mostly used for stuff any vehicle can do. I also put on a cheap bed cover for the first time last week...) I think I'm more partial to the "not ever used for truck stuff" criticism -- that makes it more similar to buying powerful PC hardware. If you aren't ever making use of it, what's the point? But if you only use it from time to time, that seems totally fine. Optionality is generally good, especially when you actually use the options, but of course there's a cost-benefit analysis people don't seem to make with modern car financing.
I'd like to see a cybertruck towing a camper in the wild, as that seems to be a thing some of my older relatives do with their big trucks.
Large EVs are pretty silly for exactly that efficiency reason - they may have "400" miles of range, but they do so by packing the biggest possible battery which weighs a ton, wasting even more range per kilowatt-hour beyond the worse aerodynamics.
And then because the battery is so massive, it takes way longer to charge for the same range, so now you need a higher current charger at home and maybe even need to upgrade your home electric service instead of just using a standard 15A circuit to top up a small EV every night enough for a typical day's commute.
And sure you can't use a normal plug very well, whatever. Even without any amp increase, going up to 240 volts will let you charge up that commute and more.
With rebates a 20,000 truck. Who knows what it will cost when it actually comes out. But I love the concept.
An exclamation mark for lacking powered windows? Oh the humanity!
I'm starting to see the problem.
It's surprising. An exclamation mark makes sense.
No rebates
US automakers are so ridiculously far behind
I also love the concept, it's a bunch of things I've been looking for but unable to find in the US market. The final price/availability as well as repairability are going to be the dealmakers.
[1] https://electrek.co/2025/06/28/republicans-are-trying-kill-7...
As somebody with a '99 Ford Ranger, the Slate is incredibly appealing as nearly every other manufacturer has completely abandoned the compact pickup market; although it has the same issue that the Ford Maverick and Honda Ridgeline do, it's a unibody design. If they actually launch I may end up getting one if they release some BTO options to slot a double-din mount and door-mounted speakers in to handle runs to the hardware store and towing lighter loads on paved roads, but I really wish somebody would do a compact frame-on-body pickup again for those of us that drive poorly maintained dirt roads in forested/mountainous terrain where some body damage (and thus, the cheaper repair costs associated with body-on-frame designs are nice to have) is always lurking around the corner.
[Seriously, I understand the difficulties of batteries and such with EV's and that's likely part of why the Slate is designed this way. But, for people like me who actually need a pickup to do pickup things, not haul groceries, it's frustrating when you're accustomed to being able to replace a side-panel on the box for less than your insurance deductible if something falls on it. And that's without even bringing up the obvious disadvantages when it comes to towing and payload capacity.]
In 2000, Ford had an EV Ranger, and Chevy had an EV S-10. Neither with great range, of course. It should be easier to do with modern batteries. Attach the batteries to the frame under the bed, put the bed on top, all engineering problems solved.
Yeah, there's a frame underneath, but the panel itself shouldn't even really care about tanking a shopping card, it's main weakness is how soft the PP is to sharp objects...
Once chinese brands become commonplace everywhere, tradional carmakers will have a hard time taking back market share. In Europe they closed or are closing the last HCOL factories, killing any remaining brand loyalty.
A larger question is how much the cheap Chinese cars are dependent on a long chain of government subsidies from the mines to the local infrastructure and what happens when China's investment driven growth cycle comes to an end. If the solar panels are any comparison, the Chinese automakers are losing a lot of money despite grandiose subsidies.
That support did total some US $231 billion over 14 years from 2009 through until 2023.
You can see more at: https://www.csis.org/blogs/trustee-china-hand/chinese-ev-dil... (June 2024)
There are at least two different ways to interpret the data on industrial policy support for EV makers.
China’s trading partners could point to 15 years of sustained regulatory and financial support for domestic producers, which has fundamentally altered the playing field to make it much harder for others to compete in China or anywhere else where Chinese EVs are sold.
By contrast, defenders of China could point out that the data show that subsidies as a percentage of total sales have declined substantially, from over 40% in the early years to only 11.4% in 2023, which reflects a pattern in line with heavier support for infant industries, then a gradual reduction as they mature.
In addition, they could note that the average support per vehicle has fallen from $13,860 in 2018 to just under $4,800 in 2023, which is less than the $7,500 credit that goes to buyers of qualifying vehicles as part of the U.S.’s Inflation Reduction Act.
The first two (and maybe part of the fourth) I can understand, but the rest are too much of a strech to count as a government subsidy. Every government builds roads and other car-related infrastructure. Every government purchases vehicles for its own use. Every government subsidizes R&D in new fields.
It's a tough market that OEMs don't want to be in, so they cede it almost entirely to foreign OEMs that haven't moved upmarket yet. Foreign OEMs are structurally incapable of selling cars at those prices (by design), so the bottom end of the market gets hollowed out to nothing but a few "loss leader" vehicles.
So while car prices keep going up, people also keep going deeper into debt to buy one they can't afford.
You can blame manufacturers or banks, but ultimately the problem is unchecked consumerism and treating cars as a status symbol, which is sadly pervasive in this country.
The average car has tons of moving parts that have to be weatherproof, shakeproof, pothole-ready... stuff consumer tech doesn't dream of. It also has to be repairable, be engineered to meet all the regulations in various countries so the manufacturer doesn't make 15 versions for different countries...
A lot of things are overpriced in the world; I'm not sure cars in general are high on this list. If you want a car similar to a high end 2015 car, the 2025 Jetta has more than anything you could have gotten in 2015 and I'd say with inflation the price is lower today when you account for inflation.
I had a Jetta as a service loaner recently and it drove great. $25k cars are still out there, you just can't get a $25k 4Runner.
Problem is if the US consumer had the “moral awakening” you propose (and to be clear you are claiming that basically we are in this situation due to the weak moral character of the average American) then coincidentally our entire economy would begin to crumble. It’s not just car loans, our entire economy works because of debt, and has for at least the last 20 years. The idea that nearly every one benefits financially from this behavior and yet we see this behavior at scale solely and coincidentally because of a sudden mass moral failing is a bit hard to believe.
I'm not sure we didn't pass that point before the pandemic, and decision-making since has not helped.
An interesting trend that I've heard from multiple dealership (friends and family) - the number of people being rejected for financing has dramatically increased in the past 12 months. There are some dealership areas now where a third of applicants are being turned down.
It's remarkable in Australia how many people are borrowing and paying much more for them as well.
Driving a Corolla, Mazda 2, Kia Rio or something can save so much money.
These days these are remarkably good cars too.
I drive a Mazda 3 and sometimes it feels like a bicycle compared to some of the enormous SUV and overdone trucks.
In 2016 I picked up a 2013 320i Sport w/ 22k miles on the clock for $18.5k. The sticker on the car was just over $36k. I did have to fly to a relatively remote town (Ogden Utah) and drive it home to San Diego, so that was an extra $320 for the plane ticket/shuttle/gas and 14 hours out of a saturday.
It was almost out of warranty, so pre-purchase I paid a local shop $110 to do a similar inspection to what BMW does for CPO and it only needed brake pads. Aside from the brake pads and scheduled maintenance, eventually replaced the tires, so about $2000 in maintenance over that period. Sold it for $14.5k w/ 50k on the clock 6 years later.
Could have held onto it much longer but was eager to do the nomad thing as covid was clearing up.
Literal planned obsolescence!
If theres any Chinese entrepreneurs that have a line into their EV companies reading this, use some of that China speed and get on this now. You might as well squeeze out a little profit before they clamp it down! :D
The reason the US car industry does not want a $25k car is that the financing opportunities are crap for a car of this low cost.
In the same way that airlines exist to offer you a miles based credit card, the US car dealerships survive by offering you a loan for the car. Or perhaps, a car to go with your structured finance opportunity.
Whereby the profit shifts from the product itself to the differentiating value-add.
1. With less people able to afford new cars it increases demand for used cars, which pushes up the price
2. There will be less budget cars that eventually end up in the used car market, and the increased price of new cars will trickle through to used cars
That makes some sense to me, but if the goal is to always have a nice car, doesn't it makes much more sense to lease? The monthly payments will be a few hundred bucks less and you can upgrade every 2-3 years. And from what I understand, leasing agents like to give incentives after your first lease to keep you in the cycle.
Personally, if I were aiming for the most economical option, I'd lease a Nissan Leaf for ~$300/mo.
Leasing a car always includes an initial payment (in the several thousands) and typically have severe penalties for exceeding allotted mileage, any damage (even if only cosmetic), and/or if mandatory dealer maintenance is not adhered.
The monthly payments are not as disparate as one might think when the initial payment is amortized over the course of the lease along with dealer maintenance expenditures.
I was in the UK for the first time last month and was struck by how many hatchbacks and sedans they have that we don't in North America.
What I wouldn’t do to bring the Fit and Yaris hatch back to the US market.
The biggest downsides are (1) I’m reluctant to put anything gross back there (vs throwing a trash bag in the bed like I used to with my truck), and (2) people see a van, assume you’ll drive obnoxiously slowly, and preemptively cut you off in traffic lest they get stuck behind you.
Overall, the pros outweigh those 2 cons for me.
With last year's lowest (by state) average annual income being Mississippi at $45k, there is little reason for any car manufacturer to produce a $25k MSRP vehicle.
While not being a petrol head I was still living in a lala land where you could buy a brand new car for 10k EUR. Nothing fancy, just "a car". Obviously it turned out to be not true.
After some digging it turned out that in the last 10 years the price of cars went double. Literally double. Same car, like Fiat Panda, with the same engine and configuration, that ten years was worth one potato is now worth exactly two potato.
Long story short, the entry level car now costs close to 25k EUR. [1]
But here's the kicker.
While subvenstions seem to fail in most cases for regular people - like gvt giving people money to buy apartements equals to apartments being equally more expensive - it seems to work wonders for automotive thanks to Chinese.
EU offers up to 10k EUR subvention for electric cars and with that in mind you can get something like BYD Dolphin for slighly less than 20k EUR. Which is mind blowing. The car is comparable to Volvo XC40. Of course this is just an example and there is plentiful of other options.
[1] If you're not familiar or comfortable with EUR just think 1 EUR is 1 USD and you'll be fine.
Btw other examples include "actually" which is used to mean "currently", and "eventually" which is used to mean "maybe".
Personally I'm torn whether to consider this incorrect use of the language as it is quite widespread. Maybe it would be better to consider this as the emergence of a new dialect.
I actually double checked the word "subvention" on google to see if I'm not misspelling it and the results said I was correct. But yes, I used that word because it was direct translation from my language.
Other examples you gave are also correct.
Engrish is hard.
EDIT: as a kicker I will add that while working for BigCo I was resposible for taking care of colleages coming from abroad and the very first thing I was telling them after saying "hello" was "do not ever ask anyone how are you". ;)
European flavored English has existed for a while though since the existence of the EU as an institution has required a lot of English learning and writing as one of its official languages.
The important fact is that English is the lingua franca of both trade and administration in the EU. People sometimes still learn some French and German, but the vast majority of international EU discussions are in English, both in the EU bureaucracy and in business circles.
A Google search for subvention turns up government publications from UK, India and South Africa.
"The EU" does not offer subsidies for any car, some member states do (And I have never heard of a subsidy of 10k per car). On the contrary, Chinese cars are strongly tariffed by the EU.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, however, until someone provides a link, I label this post "hyperbullshit".
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/chines...
BYD Dolphin? MSRP for that car where I am is at 2.99m JPY(17k EUR, 20k USD). You guys are getting screwed.
I find a certain liberation in not caring too much about risks of car park dents and "curb rash" and other surface-only non-mechanical auto-maladies.
1. More people got priced out of new cars.
2. More people are driving their cars longer.
3. Caravana and other online predatory loan machines are outpaying dealerships for cars, and flipping them for nearly credit card level interest rates.
Also, us millennials don't want to deal with that shit anyway. List the price, keep it near KBB value and you have a deal.
Add electrics with thousand lbs of batteries, and you've got today's 4000-6000 lb SUVs, all costing an arm and a leg.
For years, CAFE regulations have meant that manufacturers must meet minimum fleet fuel economy averages or else pay fines. In order to sell more profitable but less fuel-efficient F-150s, Ford also needed to sell little Fiestas or Focuses. In order to sell Suburbans, Chevy also needed to sell Cavaliers or Sonics. But now that Ford can sell Mustang Mach-Es and Chevy can sell Blazer EVs for 50 or 60 grand AND get credit for something like 100 MPG equivalent, there's no longer any incentive for them to spend huge sums developing cheap cars that will net tiny profits (if any).
If you believe in climate change, this is evidence of how the vested interest behind profit in cars manipulates the intent of the regulations, to continue to get what they want.
It's a bit fish/bicycle, but the point is, we wanted more people to drive smaller, cheaper, less polluting cars. We didn't want the car manufacturers to find ways of maximising sell, including boosting F150 and F250 class truck sales to mummies on the kindy run.
Unfortunately, the whole thing wasn't built right for the goal. Setting the mpg bar lower for bigger footprint vehicles is on the one side realistic, but on the other side made it hard to build compliant small vehicles. Small trucks in particular disappeared; some say the market wasn't there, but annual sales of the Ford Ranger were pretty decent in 2005-2010 [1]. 2005 was more than the rest, but there were a couple facelifts, and the Chevy S-10 ended production in 2004, so there was probably some spillover from that. (The 2005-2012 Chevy Colorado isn't significantly bigger than the S-10 though). Post the mid 2010s, small trucks basically don't exist, even when small truck names are used. Supposedly Toyota and Subaru are going to bring one back, but we'll see if it happens.
Some sort of special small car class, with benefits, would be needed. Like the kei cars in Japan. Maybe not that small, and maybe not that small of an engine, but that idea of a smaller than normal footprint, but still highway capable, if only just. There is a federal 'low speed vehicle' thing, but the restriction to streets with speed limits 35 mph or less makes it hard to go anywhere in a lot of places. It's not a reasonable alternative to a regular car for most. There's also some recent push to formalize legal use of kei cars in many US states, but federal import restrictions mean they do have to be fairly old (or have expensive and destructive testing), which further restricts the market.
[1] https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/ford-ranger-sales-figures/
All new cars were crap and expensive. People wanted me to buy a Hyundai HB20 with a crappy engine that couldn't climb the hill where my house was located.
I ended buying a used Mitsubishi Lancer GT, the thing had same engine as Evo (minus the turbo), leather seats, roof window, rear camera and so on. For half of the price of the HB20.
Sadly Mitsubishi discontinued those and went on to join the SUVmania where your cheapest car is a big as a SUV externally, but that has cramped interior and none of SUV features.
bell-cot•13h ago
HarHarVeryFunny•12h ago
Of course the US manufacturers are hoping that you'll just take out a loan, preferably with them (this is how they make their profit - financing and servicing) and buy something far more expensive than you want/need.