Peter DeLorenzo’s (2025) year-end review of the auto industry emphasized the “ugly reality that new cars, trucks and SUVs are just too damn expensive.”
In response to critics arguing that he has offered no solutions, DeLorenzo suggested that “car companies should be working overtime on de-contented vehicle packages, cars and trucks with a drastic reduction in the ‘gadget-sphere’ while still safely fulfilling consumer needs. This isn’t hard, but it’s something that the Detroit-centric auto companies in particular are loath to do, which is flat-out wrong and borderline stupid” (2025, original italics).
This is hardly a new complaint. Even Automotive News (2025) put on its wish list for 2026 that the industry “make more affordable options for more people.” Average prices have topped $50,000 just as the Trump administration has cut regulations — accompanied by loud cheers from automakers.
For example, after a recently announced loosening of fuel-economy standards, Stellantis CEO Antonio Filosa stated that the potential for increasing production of V8-powered vehicles was “just huge.” He added that this is “a lever we intend to pull very hard next year and in the years to come” (Boigon, 2025).
Will automakers learn from hard lessons of the past?
Filosa’s doubling down on V8-powered vehicles makes me wonder whether his new plans will be as successful as Chrysler’s early-70s investments in muscle cars. The automaker rolled out a new lineup of pony cars in 1970 and redesigned mid-sized sporty coupes the following year. The Plymouth Barracuda and Dodge Challenger flopped while the Satellite and Charger didn’t sell very well — particularly in their high-performance iterations.
This is but one example of a frequent boom-and-bust cycle that has plagued the American auto industry since at least the postwar era. Detroit’s dominant tendency has been to push for bigger, glitzier and more powerful vehicles unless forced to downsize due to external factors such as recessions or government regulation.
Also see ‘Will the Slate Truck be the closest thing you can get to a modern simple car?‘
That raises a question: To what degree will automakers be able to exploit their new-found freedom from emissions standards when the market for more costly vehicles appears to be softening.
“People are looking for affordability right now,” Jessica Caldwell, executive director of insights at Edmunds, recently told Automotive News. “Folks that offer vehicles in that vein are doing quite well” (Martinez, 2025). Yet Ford recently halted production of the Escape. This was one of the automaker’s lowest-priced vehicles in the American market.
“I’m not sure we can ever really recover nearly the volume we have in Escape,” a Ford dealer told Automotive News reporter Michael Martinez (2025). “We can replace some, for sure, but we’re limited on how far it will go.”
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Automotive News; 2025. “In our opinion: 6 items on our wish list for ’26.” Posted Dec. 18.
- Boigon, Molly; 2025. “Trump moves to slash fuel economy rules with automaker support.” Automotive News. Posted Dec. 4.
- DeLorenzo, Peter; 2025. “Seismic shifts and crushed souls, as the industry careens on a runaway train to stupidview. . . .” Auto Extremist. Posted Dec. 7.
- Martinez, Michael; 2025a. “U.S. sales stumbles continue in November as affordability woes deepen.” Automotive News. Posted Dec. 4.
- ——; 2025b. “As Escape ends, Ford dealers fret over shrinking affordable options.” Automotive News. Posted Dec. 17.
The 2025 figures are not in yet, but 15.9 million cars (including pickups I imagine) were sold in the US in 2024, a 2 % increase over 2023. Someone is buying cars. How do you make cars cheaper? You decontent them or make them smaller. Small cars are out there. How are their sales? I’m not being snarky, I don’t know. I sure don’t see a whole lot on the road. I’m sniffing around for a new Jeep and the local dealer has 4 Compasses, and no Dodge Hornets. Out here gas is selling for less than it did 60 years ago factoring in inflation. Decontenting? What are you taking out? A/C? Go with crank windows? Fancy multi speaker sound system? Dump the 8 speed dual clutch tranny and install 3 on the tree? When all this stuff is deeply integrated into the design rather thann added on like it was 50 myear ago, the savings won’t be that great. In polls and surveys, people say what they think the appropriate answer is, rather than what they really believe or feel.
Much of the cost is in developing rather than manufacturing. If what you have isn’t broke, don’t fix it. Granted, this only works for a limited amount of time. It is the Model T approach. But you get inexpensive cars with high reliability. We have traded “longer, lower, wider” for “electronics of the future”.
If an effort was made to actually train drivers, we wouldn’t need lane monitors and lidar anti-tailgate systems. The abundance of air bags in modern cars leads people to feel they will be protected from their poor habits. One air bag deployment is enough for insurance companies to total a car. From that I conclude that a lot of a vehicle’s cost must lay in the fact that cars can have 8 or 10 of them.
Is it not possible that we are leading to a system where all cars are so expensive that everyone will subscribe to them like NetFlix? Given that they are self-driving, your six year old can call one up to take them to school. Given that we are aiming for an electric car utopia, we can run a vehicle 24 hours a day without contributing to global warming. Not to mention that your wife will be able to track your whereabouts at all times.
Regarding the plan for Stellantis to increase the availability of V8 engines, I’m not aware of any pressing demand for these. I think you may be right Steve in that it will be 1970-71 all over again for the company.
Fuel economy be damned. Start building ’em, bigger, heavier and more complex than ever and extend leases to 96 months. And stop denoting engines in litres (oops, liters); bring back cubic inches, figuratively and literally. Bring back the B-58 Buick, or at least its grille. F-150? Hell, make it the F-1050! Bigger is Better, our father who art in Detroit, hallowed be thy deregulation.
CJ, you said it better than I could. The United States is experiencing a remarkable failure of leadership on so many levels. I could suggest that history will look unkindly on this moment, but the American auto history field has not been known for its intellectual acuity, let alone its moral clarity.
And – Studebaker takes a “hit” again. First it was the Dictator model name.
Next it will be the President model! lol
Perhaps Studebaker should have had a popular and “unassailable” Mother Theresa model!
You spurred me to look up why Studebaker would call a car a Dictator. At least according to Wikipedia, the series was introduced in 1927 and the name supposedly connoted dictating the standard that other cars would follow. If that was the case, then why did other series in Studebaker’s lineup have explicitly political titles (Commander and President)?
The Dictator was built through 1936. I’m surprised that it lasted that long given the rising specter of fascism in Europe.
Actually, l explained that whole thing in an Indie Auto comment perhaps 2 or 3 years ago when someone – not you – commented that they couldn’t understand why Studebaker would use that model name.
You commented that my explanation was well researched and plausible.
Do you have a mechanism to be able to find my inspired 🙂 comment?
Steve, I found notes that I made about this. The Wikipedia explanation is incomplete in my opinion. Here is mine:
If you look at a century-old dictionary, to see the meaning of “dictator”, it will have no derogatory connotation. Dictator is an old term – someone appointed by the Roman Senate to resolve a specific problem/emergency/project and given unquestioned authority and full power to get the job done. After the crisis, the dictatorial powers were rescinded. No mention of cruel regimes or power for a thousand years.
The bad wrap the word NOW has was thanks to the events leading up to and surrounding WWII, like the Berlin Olympics(1936), the Spanish Civil War(1936), Mussolini’s invasion of Ethiopia(1935), and the increasing awareness of the oppressive nature of the dictatorial governments run mainly by single authoritarian heads of state who were generating headlines in the ’30s.
Studebaker renamed its models in the spring of 1927: President, Commander and Dictator – all defining positions of authority and responsibility and, at the time, no connotations of wrong-doing. But as we all know, the meaning of words can change over time.
In the case of “dictator”, it changed quickly. In 1927, Hitler was not Chancellor(that was 1933), Franco was not in power(that was 1936).Mussolini was in power, but he was popular with most Italians and brought the country out of the chaos plaguing it just after WWI (a source says his peak popularity was in 1936).
Studebaker used the name until the 1937 model year, when the meaning of the term was beginning to sour.
To me, Studebaker was innocent in the “Dictator-naming”, and certainly took proper action in dropping it for 1938. BUT how about Henry Ford (well-known anti-semite and vehemently anti-union) who, in 1938 smilingly accepted a high award, the “Grand Cross of the German Eagle” from Nazi officials for his “Humanitarian ideals”? Or how about General Motors who festooned their Super Sports Chevrolets with “SS” emblems not that long after the war? The notoriously fierce and feared Nazi SS regiments used similar emblems. Gm could have designed some other graphic instead. The Chevrolet SS emblems were condemned in the European press at the time of introduction and it was reported that the model was banned for a time in Israel.
Mr.Ford and GM were not innocent. Studebaker was.
It is disconcerting that American auto makers can’t (or won’t in the case of Ford) make an attractively priced, competent, saleable car (when did you last see a Hornet on the road?) – with, according to the auto mags, the exception of the current Chevy Trax.
The Trax sells for under $25,000, as do a goodly number of off-shore models. In the ’60s, one could purchase any number of American cars for $2,500, 1/10th the price of today’s cheaper cars.
Today’s average price has just increased to $50,000, but l’ll bet the average price of a ’60’s vehicle was significantly less than $5,000. The difference is in today’s content (a/c “necessity” and electrical assists, ABS, airbags, “safety nanny” features, etc.) NO expensive, gargantuan, 4WD trucks in the neighborhood back then (I can count 12 just on my cresent today) .
OUR familys’ new ’60s cars had no power ANYTHING. Are you willing to manually roll down the windows? Kids today have no idea of the concept!
Yes, bringing back decontented cars is possible (without going the route of a ’39 Crosley), but l agree with Kim above – and love CJ’s comment.
American auto makers have a problem. They are not competitive. Off-shore makers can produce a number of relevant cars despite regulations. Regulations are part of the problem, but gutting them is not a satisfactory solution either. Doing that, as always happens, would create other problems.
In a country that has a minimum wage of less than $7.50 an hour and a fast increasing have-and-have-not income gap, perhaps the problem is inevitable.
In the teens and to the mid-’20’s, 50% of car sales were low-content Ford Model Ts. But then, Chevrolet started making more attractive cars and soon eclipsed the Ford.
And the roller coaster keeps going.
Yes that’s an idea whose time has come. Problem is – everytime a so called luxury car brings out a kaleidoscopic dash panel then all the cheaper makes have to mimic it- so thier buyers can face the neighbors when they come home with it
And other gimcracks as well – which increases cost complexity and warrantee claims. Whats an outomaker to do? Yes – decontent them. Do the dealers fear a glut of hubcapped plain vehicls laying around unsold?
The irony is – just because you have gold threaded seat covers in your Corrola doesent mean that it will be mistaken for a Cadillac.
My prim little aunt had a jivedup or optioned up Corrola . It looked ridiculous.
Stewdi, I assume you are referring to the Dodge Hornet. I suspect there may be more AMC Hornets out there. I pretty much agree with your economic/political analysis. However-gas is the one American product where you can drive down the street and know the price of every retailer at a glance. Couple that with the better mileage cars get now and adjusted for inflation driving is dirt cheap. Since you’re focusing on the 60s, I agree that cars cost approximately twice as much now as then. We have 2 cars in our family, an 09 Mits. Raider (Dodge Dakota clone) and an 18 Grand Cherokee. Both have 120 k miles on them. A little rust on the bottom of the Pickup’s doors, the Jeep looks like new after a wash. No real problems with either, other than standard maintenance, which is mostly oil and fluid change. Get new tires around 50k, etc. compare what an equivalent 60s vehicle would look like and the money sunk into it after equivalent use. The cars cost twice as much yet last more than twice as long with less maintenance.
Also=To those people who buy the big class 2 4wd pickups. This low gas price bubble WILL burst, and karma will kick you in the plastic bull testicles you hang from the trailer hitch.
Bzcat on Blue Oval News posted the following that I think may be relevant to this issue:
https://blueovalforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/78522-farley-says-ford-couldn%E2%80%99t-compete-with-toyota-and-hyundai-so-it-stopped-trying/page/2/#comment-1247731
2 unit cost is high relative to the competitor because Ford’s volume is tiny compare to Toyota, Hyundai, or BYD. This is the legacy of 2 decades of continuous shrinking. As a result, Ford now doesn’t have the economy of scale to compete in the biggest vehicles segments on a worldwide basis even with a state of the art worldwide common architecture like C2. What’s the point of C2 if it is still “too expensive”?
Ford is like a petrol-state with failed economy… too much reliance on a singular source of revenue so the economy failed to develop a diversified industrial base. Ford’s crude oil is F-150 which is propped up by structural advantages in the US like Chicken Tax and Sec179 depreciation. Instead of being like Norway where petrol profit is invested for the future, Ford has turned into Nigeria where it is incapable of delivering content and cost competitive products. I really hope UEV or CE1 is everything Farley says it is because it maybe the end of the road for Ford as a major car company if it doesn’t deliver. What is being said about UEV is also what was being said about C2 and CD6 less than a decade ago… and what Mularlly said about OneFord before. We’ve seen this movie before… it ends in Ford cutting models, withdrawing from markets, and playing the we can’t compete card.
Thanks, Troy. That article was worthwhile as were the comments. Looks like Ford is betting the farm on a skateboard EV platform for their small/medium EV platforms. I think you’re a bit alarmist, this scenario reminds me of AMC in the 70s.
Ford has been abandoning markets for decades now – Mercury, much of Lincoln, specialty vehicles and sedans. Ford just letting its excellent Fusion just die was a corp-suicide.
They now have a handful of good selling vehicles – Bronco and even prehistoric Explorer and F150.
They will similarly run these vehicles into the ground. Bill Ford has categorically rejected any new vehicles – just run the heck out the the cars and trucks they have.
No restyling and ancient names have cost Ford catastrophically.
They are loosing the truck market to GM – due to more diversity.
Gm shouldve kept the old Malibu and the old Impala – they had enduring appeal – ready buyers – who trusted them for low prices and low upkeep costs.
And now Cadillac getting on the band wagon has ended production of its ” Girls just want to have fun ” XT4. Moving on up – is Cadillacs new by-line.
Jim Farley of Ford – hes just the house majordomo – the head servant – to Bill Ford.
Interesting comments about Ford and the F-150. However, was Ford not competitive and successful in Europe and Australia with a series of cars dating back several decades? And what about the Taurus/Sable, which sadly, turned out to be a means to an end. In all likelihood they were left to rot because they were someone else’s baby. Obviously, the F-150 is the holy child of Ford, therefore everyone’s baby. But the F-150 is all the eggs in one basket and it sounds like the upcoming new smaller/cheaper/better than EV’er/still-a-truck might just be the same thing, only a different basket.
I’m really starting to doubt that U.S. automakers are going to learn anything from what’s happening right now. We’ve all gotten used to paying whatever they ask and buying whatever they decide to build—which, these days, basically means SUVs, CUVs, and trucks. Want an actual car? Too bad. Domestic brands barely make them, and even the foreign companies are backing away.
When we went car shopping a couple years ago, it was the same story. We wanted something reasonably sized and reasonably efficient. The only domestic sedan we could find was the Chevy Malibu. Everything else was a sea of crossovers. It felt like we’d all been herded into this situation without much choice. And it makes you wonder: is anyone going to shake up the market the way the Japanese, Europeans, and Koreans did decades ago? Honestly, unless Chinese automakers get let in, I don’t see it happening.
And that’s where it gets complicated. Every country props up its automakers to some degree, but China has taken that to a whole different level. Still, just like the Japanese forced Detroit to evolve in the ’70s and ’80s, maybe that kind of pressure is exactly what’s missing today. With tariffs and protections in place, there’s not much incentive for U.S. or Western automakers to push themselves.
Loosening environmental and fuel‑economy rules won’t help either. That just encourages more $99,000 “Hemi rollerskates” and diesel-powered shopping carts—fun toys, sure, but not exactly the sensible cars a lot of people actually need. It’s what happens when an industry gets comfortable and only reacts when its survival is threatened.
Take small cars. I’ve got a Chevy Trax—my first new foreign-branded car. It’s clearly built to be inexpensive, but every trim level still comes with a decent set of features. That’s the magic formula: give people good value at a fair price. That’s how you win customers. Your idea of “value” might differ from mine, but the principle holds.
When FCA merged into Stellantis, I thought we’d see more European influence. Instead, we got awkward SUVs and those strange BEV muscle cars with the electronic “exhaust” noises. And then there’s the Dodge Hornet—there’s a two‑year supply sitting around because the base model starts over $30K. An Alfa Romeo in Dodge clothing should be cool, but once you equip it properly, it’s pushing $40K. At that price, there are tons of better options. Maybe if they dropped a HEMI in it…
This just in from the Chicago Tri bune. 2025 car and light truck sales are up to 16.3 million. Also sales of large SUVs with an average cost of 77k are up 15%, and sales of what the article defimes as medium sedans with an average price of 33k are down 15%.