Sorry, you are plain wrong on a few of your points and show your ignorance and still evade my basic question as to why you feel a few of these improvements like passenger side airbags make the new cars stay beneath normal inflation. In 1990 The Standard engine was not a 4 cylinder, you are thinking Escort, you had a choice of two six cylinders, a 3.0 liter and a 3.8 Liter. The standard radio was not an AM, it would have been so in maybe 1980, by 1990 it would have been an AM FM Stereo, AC would have been a standard feature. Standard power locks / windows, I believe you would be getting these in 1990. Manufacturing processes are more robust creating higher quality? True, but Ford received numerous quality awards in the late 80s and Early 90s for its Taurus Line and it was on par with the imports of the time. And so what? As a consumer why do I care about the machines that build my car so long as the final product is what I want? Why would Joe consumer want to pay more for a car simply because it was built with more state of the art automated tooling than the next car? You do point out a few things like the two channel ABS but most of your paragraph is laden with conjecture. I still want to know where is my significant direct savings Ford has realized by putting hundreds of thousands out of work [[which includes indirect people dependant on Auto industry) and awarding that work to lower wage countries. Why doesn't that 2010 Taurus cost $11K? That's what I would expect as a company like a Ford is so much leaner now and cut out all that unnecessary fat.
Bookmarks