Economic Experts?

[IZRSSS]

I put some numbers together for what my car would have sold for back in '69. These numbers are based on CRG's RPO's. The total cost for the car is $4,258.68. I am trying to figure out relative values in today's market. The link below was the only source I could find on-line...I could not make heads or tails out of a spread of 24K to 61K. Can anyone help?

http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/result.php?use%5B%5D=DOLLAR&use%5B%5D=GDPDEFLATION&use%5B%5D=VCB&use%5B%5D=UNSKILLED&use%5B%5D=MANCOMP&use%5B%5D=NOMGDPCP&use%5B%5D=NOMINALGDP&year_source=1969&amount=4258.68&year_result=2010

[lakeholme]

How about $49,587.89?
69 cost (your figure) * relative 2010 $ + appreciation (69 SRP vs 10 SRP) + inflation average 69 to 10
How's that for an impressive SWAG calculation? It puts the value around 9K above the nominal  GDP.

[IZRSSS]

Very impressive my friend...Not only are you the Senior Master, you are the SWAG Master! 

I digress...thanks Phillip. I really needed this info for you know what...MERRY CHRISTMAS TO YOU AND YOURS!

[9T4Z]

Hey I like numbers...

Using the CPI spreadsheet (Consumer price index) for 2009.....

You would need $24,760.00 at the end of 2009 to equal the buying power of $4258.68 in 1969.

That would get you a nicely decked out Chevy Cruze...... which would incorporate tons of technological advancements unheard of forty years ago.  A 2010 Camaro is twice as expensive as a 69 Camaro for those same reasons.

Or if you look at it another way, selling the 69 for $49K, you've doubled your investment.  OOPS... now we gotta subtract the maintenance, restoration and preservation costs over forty years and I doubt if very many people really see profit in 'investing' in Classic cars.

[IZRSSS]

Nope...I like Phillip's version better.

Here's why...my '69 has a Am/Fm "Blue Light" stereo (one of 20 options that came with the car), and cost $239.10. If you use the conversion in the link above, a comparable price for '09 is $1,450.00. I think you are a little shy with your calculations. 

[lakeholme]

Interesting.... 

When I apply the appreciation factor which I "deduced" (another SWAG term) for First Gens, we are less than $100 apart!   

40 years of technological advancements?!? Maybe 30 years, but you've got to discount for 80's cars! 

[9T4Z]

Nope...I like Phillip's version better.

Here's why...my '69 has a Am/Fm "Blue Light" stereo (one of 20 options that came with the car), and cost $239.10. If you use the conversion in the link above, a comparable price for '09 is $1,450.00. I think you are a little shy with your calculations. 

I don't understand what you mean?  Sound system upgrades in cars today carry that price tag.  So are you saying that the calculation is too low?  Are you wanting the extrapolated value of your car to be higher?  If I read you right, then pick $100K... whatever. 

[IZRSSS]

Gary,

If you had an extra $4,258.00 in the 60's to splurge with, your options would have included not only Camaros, but the following automobiles as well; Corvettes, any of Ford Shelby GT's, Mercedes, BMW's, Alfa Romeo's, Austin Healey's, and the list goes on. If this was true back then, wouldn't the same hold true today? What you have indicated by your statement, is the amount, $4,258.00 in 1969 would be the equivlent of a entry level, off the wall car in today's market. Something just doesn't add up.

In addition, perhaps my initial question was a bit misleading. All I am looking for are equivlent purchasing comps between '69 & 2010 prices. The Consumer Price Index/Inflation Conversion might not be the best application here.  

[9T4Z]

I am not disagreeing with you Marty, I see your point.  CPI is just an average of a basket of items and measures purchasing power in relative terms to that basket. Includes fuel, housing , energy food etc.

What you are looking for is more specific.  Artwork has appreciated far more than CPI.  I would assume that you'd be looking for the equivalent metric for 'classic cars'?  I only meant to point out that $4,258 in 69, has the equivalent purchasing power of $24K by the end of 2009.  So more to your point, if your car is worth say $49K then you've doubled the average inflation rate. That's good. And if that Porsche is now worth $100K they have done even better.

My choices in 1969 were not just limited to automobiles. I may have elected to purchase a rare book,a painting, or a 100 ounces of gold. The gold would now be worth `$100K and it would be all profit, no cost.

 I was merely pointing out that some investments are less costly to maintain.   Hagerty used to show a chart for 'collectible car' appreciation but I can't find the link.

Cheers

[mopar346]

If you had bought Coca Cola stock it would be worth 4 million. We see this discussion all the time on the Mopar sites. The fact is, they are cars, a hobby or a toy. They were designed to get you from point a to point b, and soem very quickly and with style. Bu they are still cars and should be driven like they were designed. Don't get me wrong but you have to recognize and be responsible to the investment, but they are cars. When you were first attracted to cars was it due to the investment factor or the profit you could make or was it cause it looked or sounded bad, could you see the potential of what a great ride it could be. If it was for profit then get the hell out of my hobby (generic, not towards anyone). There are too may check book restorers in this hobby driving cost to an unrealistic level for the guy who just loves cars. I've done OK and can afford stuff, but I have had most of my stuff for years before the market got stupid. I have not been without at least 1 high HP car since before I was 16 and don't every see a time that I wont have one. My concern is for the kid who loves cars not the investor who might not make a required percentage.

Now with that over, the OP seems to be a car guy so it was not directed at him or anyone else that I have come across on this board. It is just a touchy subject with me, so I rant.

See ya

[IZRSSS]

Thanks Gary, this was exactly what I was searching for. Please keep me posted with regards to the Hagerty info.

M346...I understand your frustration. However, you have taken the original intent of this discussion far beyond its means. My concerns have absolutely nothing to do with the investment value of my car or any other car for that matter. I think we all know this is an impossible question to answer.

Plain and simple...What type of car can a person buy in today's market place that was comparable to the same types of cars, for the same amount of money in 1969? If this too is an impossible question to answer, I am okay with that...  

[mopar346]

As stated, my comments were not directed at anyone and yes, I recognized it as a rant on a personally touchy subject.

To answer the question as originally ask, what is the price of a like new 69 Camaro equivalent to yours? What would a 2010 Camaro closely optioned cost. That I would think is your answer.


And I never thought private threats were necessary.

[IZRSSS]

I like your answer. Unfortunately it isn't that simple. Many of the options back in 69 were both new, and relatively new advances in technology. In order to get a true comparison, the 2010 Camaro would need the same advances outside the norm. And...that's not going to happen because options offered in the new Camaro have been around for quite sometime.

Perhaps this was a dumb thread to begin with, but my hope was that someone would have the magic formula. At any rate, my apologies if I offended anyone.

[firstgenaddict]

$4258 bought 121 OZ of Gold in 1969...
121 OZ x $1300 + = $157,300+

[tom]

In 69 US Citizens were not allowed to own gold as an investment, and the value was designated by the government, not by supply and demand as it is now.