Featured 2025 Camry SE HEV is lower rated than 2024 Camry LE HEV by Consumer Reports

The cost of the blank and the option might differ considerably, but the cost of manufacturing both a version with the blank and a version with the option might introduce a complexity not worthy tracking.

In my hazy memory, Hyundai was the first cheap car that put AC in base models. It may have reduced production complexity, but it also made their brand more attractive when it carried a considerable stigma.

 

The blank itself is cheaper when that is an option, but there are things like manual window cranks that would require a different door panel in addition to the crank itself to design and source. Then the company has to pay to have the low content option, even a plastic blank, available at the factory, and get it to the unit on the line when needed without causing a slow down.

The cost to have the option isn't just in the part difference itself. The a la cart menu for car options went away cause it was cheaper and faster to group features into trims.

Toyota still has "L" trims for some models. The lower price vs features lost means they are rarely sold at the retail level. Most individuals value the LE features more. The Ls get bought by businesses getting multiples, or by somebody that won't be driving it. Fleet trims might become available at retail in response to a competitor. The Prius 1/L was available in response to the Insight2 and Ioniq.

Look into what other markets get. My 2005 Prius had blanks for the EV switch and HID leveler, that weren't available here. First because Toyota knew people would abuse it here, and the latter because I think US code required an auto leveler.

 

Perhaps full of misinformation, but perhaps not. Anyhow, I enjoyed this video. It seems that there are a lot of things going on in the car industry that has it all mixed up and backwards.

If you don't want to see the video I think the gist is that investors (and also legislation to a degree) may be pushing around car companies for more things than what customers actually want and, more importantly, what they actually can afford.

From my perspective, I don't get why EV's have to be software defined vehicles. The two things have nothing to do with each other. All it's doing is making these cars more expensive.

 

because people are sheep, even ceo's and engineers for the most part. everyone followed tesla model because it worked.
and electronics are cheap to produce (buy from china) who cares about user satisfaction or repair costs. profits trump everything

 

Exactly! I personally feel it's kind of sad that we can't just all agree on what should be done about all this and all work towards that as a community.

 

To a large degree we did, and this market is the result of that agreement.

Your new car MUST have lots of air bags, TPMS, a rearview camera, good efficiency through computer control (good luck getting a manual for that), incredibly clean exhaust if there is an engine involved, and a structure stiff enough to let you walk away from an impact that renders your car scrap. A 1990s Honda Civic CX that weighs just one ton and gets Prius efficiency couldn't be sold new.

I wasn't part of that agreement and there's a lot about that I don't like, but manufacturers are governed this way because people who were noisy enough about these things got the necessary agreement.

 

I'm no expert, but I think it's more than just safety and emissions that are influencing prices. Do any of the following frills help one get safely from point A to point B? The answer is definitely NO.

• AWD.
• Heated seats.
• Power windows.
• Power locks.
• Power mirrors.
  
• Touchscreens.
• Nice interiors.
• Sleek exteriors.
  
• Infotainment consoles.
• Voice commands.
• Lots of power and acceleration.

Yet society has decided:

• That people need to live far away from their job.
• That the way to get from house to job is not on foot, but rather in expensive personal vehicles.
• That these personal vehicles all need to be giant bloated SUV's (or crossovers if you want to be technical).

Then we add the political factors into all of it. One says "EVs are the future, take a tax rebate" and the other says "Drill baby drill, get cheaper fuel." And car companies now not only have to jump onto the bandwagon of what their highest paying consumers want, and what their investors want, but also the whims of the government.

My personal opinion is that there is no good solution to our vehicular problems. I have a friend who was in a terrible car accident (at no fault of his own) three times in the past 4 years and suffers chronic pain and phobia. I know around a dozen pedestrians that have been hit, most of then killed. I work with natural disaster relief work and well know the increase in deaths and property damage due to climate change. I just disagree with the push for techno land yachts as the solution to everyone's happiness. Where's my safe, simple and environmental point A to point B form of transportation? The only one I can come up is on the ends of my two legs. Other than that, I see no real solution.

 

I agree! Safety should be a priority, and software will help greatly. I was referring to software and AI when used as unnecessary fluff to atract customers. Some reports suggest that interfaces, like Android Auto and Apple Car Play, can increase the likelyhood of an accident about that of a drunk driver.

My thoughts: focus on what make sense. Safety makes sense. Whether my car has games on the infotainment center or not does not make sense.

I was saying that there doesn't seem to be a good solution in the sense that not everyone can seem to agree that making cars safer and better for the environment should be more important that horsepower and looks.

 

Not sure I'd go that far, but I'll say that I appreciate the extra margin of safety we get from not-very-much electronics in our cars.

A little goes a long way.

 

I agree.

If it can be done with a simple solution, then that should be the best, in theory. If there is no simple solution, then bring in the more complicated one. Software and such can be very complicated and more prone to failure if not built with redundancy and extra quality. But there are things that can't be done with crumple zones and door frame reinforcement alone.

On the other other hand, if things get too complicated so that no one can afford them, then what good are they?

 

Our car has the older TSS. I can't honestly remember which.

But it's great. It's one sensor pod on the windshield and a radar thing in the nose. The actual brains is the ECU on the windshield. Two expensive thingies.

The rest of what it does (brake by wire and showing messages on the dashboard) was already built into the car, so there's good control on costs.

 

Yeah, it warns about lane departure but does not assist.

 

Toyota has made the choice of bundling most all of their advances safety features into the Premium Plus package that also includes the panoramic roof. Over $4K for a package with the safety features.

 

yeah, i don't like bundling. everyone is doing it. more profit

 

So a "cab"?

TSS 5.0

 

I should probably research what safety features Toyota offers. All I know is my 2013 Avalon has sensors that tell me if someone is in the lane next to me. I have no idea what TSS is.

 

Cruise control that will match the speed of the vehicle in front of you all the way down to a stop
a degree of self steering that keeps the car in your lane, but you have to move the wheel with your hand occasionally
rear view camera
blind spot alarm that beeps if you signal and there's a car where you want to go
beeps and automatic braking to the rear
beeps with a proximity visual to the front

So far as I know, those features come on everything. Toyota also offers as an option:

The computer slamming on the brakes if it thinks you are about to pull out into traffic, and
a camera that monitors your eyes and rings a bell if it thinks you aren't paying attention

I have neither of those - they sound like a nightmare.

One significant safety feature omitted on many new Toyotas? A spare tire.