Mark B. Morrow Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2014/03/07/have-cars-really-grown-more-expensive-since-1965/?refer=news In 1965, the sticker price of a new V-8 powered Ford Mustang coupe was $2,734.00 (the equivalent of $19,900 today), and the average production worker made $3.00 per hour; to purchase a new Mustang coupe with a V-8 engine, therefore, required 911 hours of work, or about 23 weeks. By 1985, the cost of an eight-cylinder Mustang had risen to $9,885.00 (today’s $21,100), while production wages had risen to $12.50 per hour, meaning that one needed to toil for just 791 hours (120 hours less than in 1965) to buy one. In 2005, the scales tipped in the opposite direction: the V-8 Mustang was priced at $25,815 (today’s $30,300), and a production worker made $23.92 per hour, requiring 1,079 hours of work to buy the car. The picture darkens a bit further in 2013, where the $31,545 Mustang requires a worker earning $27.15 per hour to put in 1,162 hours in order to pay the Ford off. - See more at: http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2014/03/07/have-cars-really-grown-more-expensive-since-1965/?refer=news#sthash.PVBkYdl5.dpuf Admittedly, the author doesn't take into consideration the technological, safety or convenience advances from '65 tp the present. Just try buying a '14 Mustang without power windows, locks, A/C or ABS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2014/03/07/have-cars-really-grown-more-expensive-since-1965/?refer=news In 1965, the sticker price of a new V-8 powered Ford Mustang coupe was $2,734.00 (the equivalent of $19,900 today), and the average production worker made $3.00 per hour; to purchase a new Mustang coupe with a V-8 engine, therefore, required 911 hours of work, or about 23 weeks. By 1985, the cost of an eight-cylinder Mustang had risen to $9,885.00 (today’s $21,100), while production wages had risen to $12.50 per hour, meaning that one needed to toil for just 791 hours (120 hours less than in 1965) to buy one. In 2005, the scales tipped in the opposite direction: the V-8 Mustang was priced at $25,815 (today’s $30,300), and a production worker made $23.92 per hour, requiring 1,079 hours of work to buy the car. The picture darkens a bit further in 2013, where the $31,545 Mustang requires a worker earning $27.15 per hour to put in 1,162 hours in order to pay the Ford off. - See more at: http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2014/03/07/have-cars-really-grown-more-expensive-since-1965/?refer=news#sthash.PVBkYdl5.dpuf Admittedly, the author doesn't take into consideration the technological, safety or convenience advances from '65 tp the present. Just try buying a '14 Mustang without power windows, locks, A/C or ABS. Your last line basically sums up the differences. If you took out all the tech, the price of a new car would drop significantly. Nobody wants a car without that content though, so they willingly pay more. Not to mention newer vehicles require less maintenance, get better fuel economy, and last significantly longer (when cared for by the average owner), so the overall ownership cost drops in that way also. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted March 7, 2014 Author Share Posted March 7, 2014 You're right Nick. In '65, people often traded cars every 2-3 years. Now it is not uncommon for the original owner to drive a car 6-7 years. The caoparison isn't apples to apples. Many of the standard features on the entry level car of today weren't even available on the Lincoln or Caddy of 50 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenCaylor Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 If you really wanted to compare similar models (65 V8 to 2013 V8), you'd have to order the 65 with every available option. When we ordered our 65 Mustang back in 64, I remember the MSRP was $3295. We ordered it because we wanted factory A/C, a rare option back then (A/C was 12% of the base price ($2395)). Other options we had were 289-2V, auto, p/s, rocker panel moldings, backup lights, knock-off wheel covers, white-wall nylon tires, deluxe belts, console, AM radio, heater and California emissions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 If you really wanted to compare similar models (65 V8 to 2013 V8), you'd have to order the 65 with every available option. When we ordered our 65 Mustang back in 64, I remember the MSRP was $3295. We ordered it because we wanted factory A/C, a rare option back then (A/C was 12% of the base price ($2395)). Other options we had were 289-2V, auto, p/s, rocker panel moldings, backup lights, knock-off wheel covers, white-wall nylon tires, deluxe belts, console, AM radio, heater and California emissions. All of which is semantics. The reality is that cars have become much more expensive and American salaries have not kept pace with that increase in price. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted March 8, 2014 Author Share Posted March 8, 2014 (edited) If you really wanted to compare similar models (65 V8 to 2013 V8), you'd have to order the 65 with every available option. When we ordered our 65 Mustang back in 64, I remember the MSRP was $3295. We ordered it because we wanted factory A/C, a rare option back then (A/C was 12% of the base price ($2395)). Other options we had were 289-2V, auto, p/s, rocker panel moldings, backup lights, knock-off wheel covers, white-wall nylon tires, deluxe belts, console, AM radio, heater and California emissions. My '64 1/2 convertible was delivered on May 15, 1964 in Albuquerque, New Mexico with 289 4 bbl, 4-speed, factory A/C, PS, PB,P-Top, Exterior Decor Group (Side stripe and rocker moulding with quarter panel trim delete), Tinted glass, WSW tires, Knock-off wheel covers, front & rear deluxe seatbelts, AM radio, console, dual outside mirrors & floor mats but... No Back up lights. I ran the sticker and options and it came out at around $3,600. Edited March 8, 2014 by Mark B. Morrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theVengineguy Posted March 8, 2014 Share Posted March 8, 2014 No, what this demonstrates is that the US currency inflation rate is exponentially out of control. Every year since 1965 represents more money leaving the country. Reference Operation Twist started by the Kennedy administration. Reference moving the dollar from being backed by the gold standard. Reference NAFTA. Reference Japanese currency manipulation. Reference China matching our currency inflation rate. Strong economies enable the buyer. The last 50 years seem to be nothing but the US forgoing fiscal conservativism, and bending for rising foreign economies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 All of which is semantics. The reality is that cars have become much more expensive and American salaries have not kept pace with that increase in price. So it doesn't matter that cars last far longer and have far more content and features than they used to? In my relatively short life owning cars, I can sure say my Edge was worth paying a lot more for than my Cobra was. Perhaps the prices wouldn't be as high if everyone didn't insist on all of the expensive standard equipment and 300+ horsepower engines, but they do, so the automakers give it to them. Automakers will stop it when people stop buying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 (edited) All of which is semantics. The reality is that cars have become much more expensive and American salaries have not kept pace with that increase in price. Depends on how you measure it. A 1960 Cadillac Sedan DeVille carried a sticker price of $5,080. That equals $40,145 in today's money. (In those days, Cadillacs generally went for full sticker, and the concept of a "rebate" hadn't yet been invented, so anyone buying that Cadillac paid at least $5,080. Also note that the Cadillac's base price didn't include air conditioning, which is virtually mandatory equipment for buyers on all cars today.) It is very difficult today to buy any 2014 Cadillac for $40,145. Most of them go for more than that amount. But then base your comparison on the features and quality you get for your money, as opposed to the nameplate. A 2014 Ford Fusion or Honda Accord selling for $26,000, or about 65 percent of the inflation-adjusted price of the 1960 Cadillac, is much safer, faster, better handling, cleaner, more rust resistant and much more reliable. If you want to buy the direct equivalent of the 1960 (or 1965) vehicle today, then, yes, cars have gotten more expensive. But you can buy a 2014 car that is better in every way than a 1960 Cadillac Sedan DeVille but still costs much less. Edited March 10, 2014 by grbeck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Don't forget the safety enhancements on top of the features and performance upgrades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 (edited) So it doesn't matter that cars last far longer and have far more content and features than they used to? In my relatively short life owning cars, I can sure say my Edge was worth paying a lot more for than my Cobra was. Perhaps the prices wouldn't be as high if everyone didn't insist on all of the expensive standard equipment and 300+ horsepower engines, but they do, so the automakers give it to them. Automakers will stop it when people stop buying. The feature content argument is not a valid point. Yes a 2014 car has more features and safety equipment than an 1965 car. A car in 1965 had more features and safety equipment than a car made in 1930. So what. And as for how long cars last, that again is not really a valid point considering how many sixties era muscle cars are still on the road today for instance. If you take care of a car it will last, we all know this to be true. Did anyone think that cars wouldn't advance in technology and feature content as time went by? It's the same in the car industry as it is in every other industry. Today's TV's are worlds more advanced than TV's from the 1980's. Today computers, the same. Today cell phones, the same. The list goes on and on. In the end it still all boils down to one inescapable fact. Cars have increased in price and American salaries have not increased accordingly so it takes longer and costs more to buy cars now. That's just the way it is, whether we like it or not is irrelevant. This is also the reason that the average age of a new car buyer now is 55 to 64. Edited March 10, 2014 by BlackHorse 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 Because, of course, if you say the same thing over and over, the other person will change their mind. Topic closed, and may the Google bot have mercy on its soul. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts