16th Nov 2009, 15:40
If you were comparing a Mustang and Civic, which is an apples to oranges comparison to begin with, then why would you try to back up your argument by saying that the reason the Mustang was so much cheaper was because the Honda was loaded with all the bells and whistles? This clearly would make the Honda more expensive. Your whole argument is filled with holes. You can't say a Civic is more expensive when you compare a fully loaded Civic to another bare-bones vehicle. OBVIOUSLY the price will be higher for the Civic!
16th Nov 2009, 15:25
First, from '85 to '89 cars made huge jumps in pricing, so if you're not comparing the same year, you can't really say too much about it.
Second, you are comparing a "loaded" Civic to a "base" Mustang. My loaded Mustang was $13,800 in 1988 and the same car went up to around $14,500 in 1989. No way has a Civic EVER been twice the price of the same year comparably equipped Mustang. Also, what did you load a Civic with in '89 to get to $11,800? I looked at them in '89 and they were around $9,000 to $10,000.