Francesca Knowles wrote:
monkey44 wrote:
For, example, when you look at a 2500 GMC in 2003 at well under $30k, and then look at the COLA since that time frame, about 12.8% combined, we see a price increase in fact of over 28%% combined, makes you wonder about value for the bucks.
Ya know what? I just looked, and either your math is off or I'm missing some important detail.
$30,000.00 in 2003 is $38,000.00 in 2013 dollars, according to the adjust-for-inflation calculator at this link.
MSRP's for the 2014 (one year newer than 2013) GMC 2500 PU begins at $32,000. Link
Even assuming that folks'll want a bunch of upcharge bells and whistles, I don't see the huge out of bounds increases you seem to.
What am I missing?
Francesca: Well, you're missing the price I paid for my 2500 4x4 GMC in 2003 and the price I was quoted for a "similarly equipped" 2014 at the dealer last month. Those are the actual numbers I used, not the 'fantasy numbers' we all can see in the ads ... Ever seen one in a dealer lot for the price you see on the ads? And, lease, same way. That 'quote' is for a bare-bones work truck that no one wants or buys.
My 2500 GMC truck cost me just under $28,000 in 2003, but when I went to the dealer, the price for 2500HD was $46,000. But, the dealer will give off price to $39,800, and the equipment is less than in my original truck in 2003. This 2014 truck had bench seat (Buckets = $1200 option in mine) and minimal radio/mp3player, where mine has upgrade = $1000 for 6CD and Bose, top of the line at that time.
So, the prices are a bit out of line with other components of our economy - that's the only point I'm trying to make here. When we look at truck prices, I just drop my jaw ...
