My rental car here in Phoenix is a 2010 Toyota Corolla. It is a reasonably nice car, but once again I am struck by the lack of innovation in the car industry. It is as though the semiconductor revolution never occurred. The car is seemingly identical to a compact car from 1985. The climate control is the same (no thermostat). The radio is the same (AM, FM, CD; no HD radio, no satellite radio). The Internet connectivity is the same (none). The navigation capability is the same (none). The monitoring and recording capabilities are the same, i.e., none (you’d expect by now cars to have some cheap video cameras to record the lead-up to crashes, to warn of lane departures, etc.).
The only reason that the owner of a 25-year-old car would upgrade to this 2010 Corolla would be if the 25-year-old car had fallen apart. So… as car makers improve durability they are digging their own graves as far as sales are concerned.
Update: The book Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do
I have a Kia Forte rental at the moment. It, along with several other Kia’s I’ve rented, has a USB port. I plugged in a $5 thumb drive and it immediately began playing my downloaded MP3’s of radio shows. So handy, so useful, so rare….
The Corolla is a mediocre car for anyone who enjoys driving. That said, although the Corolla doesn’t have the toys you mention (and face it: HD radio and internet connectivity in a car are toys), it is still very reliable, and it’s much safer and gets better mileage than the 1985 model (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/1325.shtml, http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2010_Toyota_Corolla.shtml). Those are the primary concerns for most buyers in this segment.
DavidQ: Thanks for the links. It does look as though they’ve improved the fuel economy from 24 mpg (city) to 26 mpg. Over 100,000 miles, the new Corolla would use 320 gallons less fuel, hardly enough to pay the difference in insurance for a year. As for the “much safer”, I wonder if that is reflected in real-world injury data. Are there truly good statistics, adjusted for similarities in driver background, for old cars versus new cars?
I think a lot of this has to do with value based pricing. People who truly value electronic climate control will move up to a Lexus and pay more. If you don’t want to pay more, you get a Corolla with controls that look like they’re from 1980.
What’s interesting is that sometimes it’s more expensive to offer the “cheaper” product. The best example is FedEx– they sell a slower delivery service, but they fake the slowness by storing it, which means there are warehousing costs.
I got all this from Hal Varian: http://www.inforules.com/powerpt/version.pdf
jj: The problem with “value-based pricing” is that Toyota isn’t successful in getting people to pay for the Lexus (as evidenced by the fact that this Corolla was sold). So they are tarnishing their brand by putting out cars that have features scarcely better than a Tata Nano and inferior in many respects to a Hyundai. That cannot be good for long-term business.
Car companies are too stupid and suffer from Not Invented Here syndrome. They are good at making boxes that contain other boxes that explode dead dinasours to make the containing box move. They should stay the hell away from electronics; they suck at it and seem to start over for just about every car they make instead of having a platform to expand on.
I wonder if a startup could gain any traction by offering an electronics suite for cars, just like Garmin and others do for aircraft. It would all hinge on a bold new auto company taking the system on board and making it the industry standard way of doing things and people will start to expect it. The rest will follow.
But I am not holding my breath…
The other problem with “value-based pricing” is that when it’s obvious, the consumer can feel manipulated and get angry, which is not good for brand loyalty (see: airline fares and fees).
Also the real cost is much less. The nominal price of the 1985 Corolla and the 2010 Corolla are very similar, but CPI has about doubled since then.
Anon: The real cost of a 1985 Corolla in running condition is about $200. I don’t think that, even in the wake of the uncontrolled acceleration scandal, that a Toyota dealer will sell you a 2010 Corolla for $200. Most Americans already have a car of some sort. Trading it in and buying a new one will cost them significant dollars.
There’s a big difference between a 1985 and 2010 Toyota Corolla that you failed to mention: safety. The 2010 Corolla has safety features that the 1985 never had. Features like ABS Brakes, Electronic Vehicle Stability Control (VSC), Front and Side Curtain Airbags, Tire Pressure Monitoring, Daytime Running Lights, Anti-Theft Ignition System, and Side-Impact Door Beams.
According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), the 2010 Corolla is a lot safer vehicle than even a nine-year-old 2001 Corolla.
I’m just guessing, but the ’85 Corolla probably had a carburetor and rear drum brakes and a 3 speed auto. At least carbs are gone, but this peaked my interest about the other 2 aspects. It appears that some Corolla trims still use rear drums and only offer a 4 gears on the auto. I understand not loading up on electro whiz gadgets that are aftermarket potentially added, but an auto tranny with under 5 speeds is pathetic and drum brakes – why do these still exist?
I’m of the opinion almost all current Corolla should be relegated to being cabs in Bolivia (where the Japanese seem to discard their Corollas after a few years).
The 2010 car is full of semiconductors, but they’re hidden away where you can’t see them. Engine controls, airbag controls, traction and stability controls are all little embedded computers – and the airbag controller is recording what happens in an accident. No, there are no cameras to add to the information available, though.
Engine and emissions controls probably mean that the 2010 model is producing much less emissions even at a similar gas mileage.
The safety improvements are real. According to NHTSA, the fatality rate in the US has fallen from 1.73 per 100 million miles (1994) to 1.27 per 100 million miles (2008). http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx Also, “The risk of dying in a traffic accident has dropped nearly 18 percent since 2005” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/us/10traffic.html
Anecdotally, collisions we respond to with my rescue squad are down, and when we are called, people are walking away from what would have been serious or fatal collisions 15 years ago. Airbags, crumple zones, ABS, and the newer stability control systems work.
Clearly the features are about market positioning, but the base level car has numerous options that would not have been in the 1985 model – power locks and mirrors and air conditioning for example. The 1985 base model would not have had any kind of radio at all.
According to the Toyota site (http://www.toyota.com/corolla/features.html) the base radio does have satellite. The rental company may not have it activated. MP3 and navigation are available as upgrades from the base model.
I always figured that Toyota’s lack of innovation (in the Corolla, not the Prius which has PLENTY of innovation), was due to a conservative desire for reliability… And the chief selling points of the corolla are reliability and _price_.
While American and German cars were adding all sorts of shiny gadgets to their cars (and dealing with the subsequent maintenance issues), Toyota continued to make a good solid car that will ALWAYS get you from point A to point B.
It’s worth mentioning too, that not everybody even WANTS all those fancy accouterments, which tend to fail and be expensive to fix. There’s still a serious market for wind-down windows, after all.
In the end, Toyota can cover the cheap/reliable/conservative market with the Corolla, and makes the Prius for people who prefer a ingenious computerized car to one that can be relied upon to stop when you need it to.
(some) MY 2010 and all 2011-2012 cars are safer than anything you could previously buy, thanks to new roof crush standards. They’ve added UHSS/boron steel and changed roof shapes from flat to front curve. Every new platform shares these features for the moment.
Watch a few of the dynamic rollover tests on youtube and you’ll see that older cars handle the first roll, but anything more and you’re toast. 3% of accidents, 30% of occupant fatalities. Wouldn’t take an ’85 model for daily use if you paid me.
I have a 2010 Toyota Yaris. The lowest end Toyota model. It has bluetooth and usb. I can plug in my ipod/iphone, thumb drive, etc and listen to music. The bluetooth allows me to use the cell phone sitting in my pocket hands-free.
Sometimes less is more. Mechanical systems seem to last longer and are more maintainable than digital systems. For example, hand crank windows seem less likely to break than power windows. I was able to fix most things on the first vehicle I owned by myself (used 1984 Ford truck). Nowadays, you open the hood and it’s a compact tangle of metal, wires, and tubes that require specialized electronics to perform most repairs or maintenance.
I meant the nominal price in 1985 of a then-new Corolla is similar to the nominal price of a new 2010 Corolla, despite CPI roughly doubling, so I don’t think it’s really fair to say it hasn’t improved or that auto technology has stagnated. Making essentially the same thing for cheaper is also a technological improvement.
Folks: As far as safety statistics go, I don’t think it is reasonable to compare statistics from 2010 with statistics from earlier decades. The U.S. is far more crowded and there are many more traffic jams. It is difficult to be fatally injured when going 15 mph on an interstate highway, even in a 1985 car without the latest airbags. Roads themselves have been changed substantially, with more highways built, more traffic lights and signs added, etc.
The drivers have changed. The age, ethnic distribution, and tendency to drive when drunk have all changed.
The rescue possibilities have changed. Helicopter air ambulance services have expanded tremendously in the past few decades and emergency rooms have been funded far more lavishly. In fact, General Motors calculated that the cost of saving an additional life with an additional air ambulance helicopter was 1/100th the cost of adding airbags to cost.
I checked out the book Traffic (cited in an update above). It turns out that there have been studies in Norway and the U.S. comparing crash/injury rates for drivers of older versus newer cars on the same roads. Drivers of older cars were less likely to crash and less likely to be injured, after adjusting for miles driven.
You must have had the “base” version of the Corolla. I happen to have formerly owned a 1986 Corolla (same as the ’85, except for the addition of a middle brake light); and I now drive a 2009 Corolla (the only difference from the 2010 I’m aware of is that traction/stability control is standard throughout the range).
The 2009 is a much more comfortable car than the 1986, largely because it’s bigger, about the same size as the 1999 Camry I had between the Corollas. It also gets (slightly) better fuel economy despite the larger engine (1.8L vs. 1.6L). It’s almost certainly safer with all the equipment that Peter T. mentioned, which didn’t exist in 1986. While the climate control indeed lacks a thermostat, satellite radio (which I have) is available, as is navigation (which I don’t have). Like the 86, my car has a four-speed automatic transmission and rear-wheel drum brakes. But it has computer-controlled continuously variable valve timing and electric power steering, neither of which existed in 1986.
I have the “XLE” (fancy trim) version, which adds a bit of pizzaz to what I’ll certainly admit is by no means a luxury car. That version includes a JBL “premium” audio system that impresses my audio-snob friend. It also has a built-in hands-free system for Bluetooth cellphones, which I neither need nor use. It has a sunroof, which I don’t think was available in 1986. And it has the stability/traction control, which wasn’t standard last year.
I will be the first to agree with all those who consider the Corolla boring to drive. It certainly will never send the blood rushing to anyone’s genitals, but I have never believed that it’s appropriate for a car to do that. It’s a good car for someone (like me) who wants a practical, comfortable car that gets good fuel economy. It’s not for someone who’s looking for exciting “performance.”
My 86 Corolla was also a practical car, and very reliable. It had zero defects when it came from the (Japanese) factory, and served me well for 13 years. I would have kept it longer, but by 1999 the proliferation of SUVs convinced me that I’d be better off with a larger car that had air bags. And various parts were beginning to wear out at inconvenient times.
I’m quite happy with my ’09 Corolla, just as I’ll admit it’s not the right car for everyone. Or should I say I WAS happy with the Corolla, until Toyota showed that it had become infected with the American affliction that puts greed and growth ahead of the customer. I’m pretty sure the risk of “sudden unintended acceleration,” if it exists at all, is minuscule compared with threats like drunk or cellphone-using drivers. But I have enough doubt about both the car and the company to have destroyed my original satisfaction. If I were a semi-retired millionaire playboy, I’d probably dump the car and buy a new Honda Civic. But since I’m not a semi-retired millionaire playboy, I can’t afford to do that.
To folks who think that the Corolla has gotten cheaper relative to inflation… http://www.corolland.com/history.html says that the sticker price of a 1971 Corolla was $1830. Adjusted for inflation by http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ that’s $9586 in 2009 dollars (the 2010 Corolla went on the market in 2009). The sticker price of a 2010 Corolla starts at $16,200, according to kbb.com. So the price of the vehicle in real dollars has gone up nearly 70 percent.