https://www.hemmings.com/blog/2014/0...ve-since-1965/

IMHO the author has missed the mark on current hourly wages as an average unless he's referring to average household hourly income.

 

That is an interesting article. It would be nice to see something more contemporary and truck specific.
I have a gut feeling that truck prices have risen more steeply in the 5 years since that article was written.
All the manufacturers have added more bells and whistles...and nothing is for free.

I agree with what he said in regards to safety and price....part of what we pay can be traced directly to (antilock brakes, air bags, etc) safety systems and technology.
Don't forget the cost of pollution control systems and R&D/development to meet ever increasing MPG/CAFE requirements.

 

 

There were other things missing from the article, like average fuel economy. 10 gallons of gas in 1965 would get you maybe 120 miles in a Mustang of that era. Today, that same 10 gallons would get you somewhere between 200 and 300 miles depending on the model. But, it's an interesting thought experiment.

I think in another 15-20 years the ICE will be going, going, gone, and that most vehicles will be some sort of electric drive. I saw an article yesterday that Tesla is designing their drive units (the electric motors) to go 1,000,000 miles.

 

Yes, trucks sure to be out pacing cars in the skyrocketing price area. In Canada a loaded diesel pickup can be up to $100,000 if you get all the bells and whistles.
Partially this is caused by the nowadays truck buyers being a good percentage of people who do not need a truck, they are buying them to basically be a large luxury car, just like the SUV'S out now. I prefer to drive a car, unless I need a truck to tow or haul something very large or heavy. A truck is basically a tool in my world, but so many buy them with a luxury car cab. The makers have figured out their market well which is smart of them, build a truck to be a status symbol luxury vehicle, charge huge money for it, and they sell easily and in big amounts. I'm probably one of the few people left who buys an XLT long box.

 

I don't know if I'd use that.. look at the Honda Accord back then. The Honda Civic replaced it 10 years after introduction. Then the Honda Fit replaced the Civic. The Accord of the 1970's are the same size as today's Fit and Fit has a lot more power.

Jeep Cherokee used to be huge, now it's a wittle SUV.

Corvette started adding more luxury features after the introduction of its cheaper brother, Camaro.

We should be doing it this way: is it possible to get a similarly equipped car for the same amount of money or less? Absolutely, I feel cars are quite a bit cheaper nowadays. Cars had power steering, windows, luxury features while trucks did not so it was expected for trucks to increase faster in price.

 

Probably true. Plus they are lasting a lot longer too. 30-40 years ago you were doing good to get 100,000 miles from a vehicle. Not absolutely true, but a good rule of thumb. These days 100,000 miles is fairly pedestrian. I think 200,000-250,000 is the new rule of thumb (kind of like 60 is the new 40, but I digress).

 

Gentlemen, as expected, your thoughts are amazing and thought provoking. The improvement in MPG's and overall maintenance is crucial to these calculations and you are all correct, this is an area that the author has forgotten about.

Let's go a bit further. In 1965 and in 1985, 84 and 96 month financing weren't even a thing for passenger cars and light trucks. Additionally, all the dealer and manufacturer added items such as ESP's, protection plans, GAP insurance, etc all add to bottom line and so many people buy into these products adding more and more artificial value to the deal.

 

I also agree with vehicle longevity being a factor.

"kind of like 60 is the new 40" - funny.. I just complained the local ATM's "fast cash" feature should be $60, not $40.