Re: LRO: Land Rover Price in 1959?

From: Frank Elson (frankelson@felson.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Thu Jun 14 2001 - 13:04:01 EDT

  • Next message: Frank Elson: "Re: LRO: Land Rover Price in 1959?"

    I can't find the exact figures at the moment but some years back I wrote an
    article about 'relative' prices. (here in the UK of course)
     On cars it was something like in the 1930s a typical family car cost three
    years average wage.
     forget the forties, things got screwed up...
    In the 50s a family car cost twice the average annual wage
     60's car cost about the same as an average yearly wage
    in the 70's a car cost about 2/3 the average annual wage
    in the 80's about half...
     I wrote the article in the 90s when a car cost about 1/3 the average annual
    wage.
    Today I could go out and buy a four door family saloon (sedan) for a couple
    of month's earnings - that's if the damn' gov didn't take so much in tax and
    I hadn't to pay a mortgage and buy food etc...mind you, I suspect I earn a
    little more than the average...

    and, btw, when the postage stamp was first introduced (penny Black) it cost
    about half a blue-collar man's weekly wage!

    I also did some fascinating research on things like Mars Bars... must find
    it and bring it up to date...

    Best Cheers

    Frank
        +--+--+--+
         I !__| [_]|_\___
         I ____|"_|"__|_ | / B791 PKV
         "(o)======(o)" Bronze Green 110 CSW

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Peter Ogilvie <konacoffee2@hotmail.com>
    To: <lro@Works.Team.Net>
    Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 9:47 PM
    Subject: Re: LRO: Land Rover Price in 1959?

    > Auto pricing has managed to outpace the rate of inflation. The dollar is
    > worth approximately 1/4th the value it had in the early '60s. If we take
    a
    > VW Bug as an example, the MSRP AND selling price was approximately $1,800.
    > That would translate into a today's price of $7,200. Less than half what
    a
    > new Beatle costs.
    >
    > Of course you get a bit more in performance, handling, fuel economy,
    > comfort, standard features, and safety in todays auto. Its hard to
    compare
    > '60s era auto's with today's as the old ones were so basic and primitive.
    > The Series Rover is a prime example. In the old days, most cars came with
    > no electronics. Electrics were limited and not installed on most cars,
    > other than an AM radio. Air conditioning was available but most cars
    > weren't equipped. Most American cars were automatics but not in pickups
    > and, if available, were jerkomatic performance cancelors in foreign cars.
    > Lap seat belts were options, if available at all, and were just about the
    > only safety feature. It wasn't until the '60s that cars were designed so
    as
    > not to injure the occupants in a crash. Before that, it seemed like the
    > stylists purpose was to injure, not to protect, the occupants. Tires were
    > bias ply with a life expectancy of around 20,000 miles. You could get
    fancy
    > hubcaps but no alloy wheels. Brakes were universally drum type, even on a
    > 'Vette for American Cars. Handling was a euphemism for wallowing, foam
    > rubber like, over undualtions in the road. Forget trying to create high g
    > turns as body roll, frame twist and lack of suspension control made,
    > anything but straight line, driving a frustrating experience. Foreign
    cars
    > did handle better but suspensions were typically so stiff that a minor
    bump
    > could throw the car out of control. The 356 Porsche was about the only
    car
    > that would handle well on rough roads and it had it's own uniquley
    > interesting handling quirks. Service intervals were 1500 miles and major
    > services at 6,000 miles. Suffice it to say, comparing '60s autos to
    current
    > is comparing apples to oranges.
    >
    > Having said all the above, I lament the passing of truly utilitarian
    > functional vehicles. Love the metal dash on an old Bug. What a joy it
    used
    > to be to lift the hood and actually see an engine. Even better to work
    on,
    > which was good, since you'd have to. Miss having to plan an exit
    strategy,
    > in my MGA, before entering a high speed turn just in case the rear axle
    lost
    > contact with the ground because of a lump in the road. Roll up windows
    > marked the demise of truly interesting auto's. Cars have truly become
    > appliances and most with the soul of a toaster.
    >
    > Oh yes, what were we talking about?? No definitive answer, though think
    it
    > was right around $3,000 for a brand new 88. You could also buy a tricked
    > out chevy Impala coupe for that price.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >From: Rick Grant <rgrant@cadvision.com>
    > >Would anyone happen to know the approximate price in North America of a
    > >Series II in 1959 or thereabouts?
    > >
    > >The reason I ask is that I got chatting with a Disco driver today who
    > >remarked that my rather time worn but reeking of character Series II
    > >probably cost the equivalent in 1959 of a Discovery today. I'd like to
    > >check that.
    > Rick Grant
    > 1959 Series II "88"
    > VORIZO
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > _________________________________________________________________
    > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jun 14 2001 - 15:31:36 EDT