If your theory is true we might see an era where supply vastly exceeds demand and car manufacturers will need to offset brand new vehicles to keep cash flow going. Sounds great to me, sign me up for 20$k brand new Ford when the time’s ready.
The car manufacturers could have staved this off - they keep developing new models with little to no marginal improvement. Once we got seatbelts, airbags and similar in cars, there's literally no reason for a new model to drop, but here we are with new models dropping every 5 years, using parts that don't fit the old model!
Maybe if they were dropping only new types of cars (say, EVs), I could see a need, but there's no reason a 2010 Toyota has to be replaced by a 2024 - you have the jigs, the factory, the supply chain for parts already. Just keep making it and charge less.
The evidence that this is what the market demands is that Toyota is selling tons of new vehicles, despite the 2010 Toyotas still being available (used) for a lot less money.
That's not my point. My point is that the billions poured into designing the three new generations of Toyota since 2010 did not have to be spent by Toyota.
But they did spend it, to design new cars, with little to no actual improvements, and so they have had to price their new cars appropriately, to recoup the cost.
What would a brand new Toyota cost today if billions of dollars were not spent in designing a whole new car, with all new incompatible parts, and all-new jigs? Would we still be looking at $40k for a brand new car?
We cannot tell that for sure, because that 2010 model is not being sold new anymore.
I'm working off the assumption that the billions in dollars spent on developing the new generations are reflected in the price of the new generations.
Maybe I'm wrong, and the $40k on a new Toyota comprises only $1k to recoup the development cost, but I'm pretty certain that a market exists for a 2010 model Toyota sold new in 2026 for a lot less than the current-gen.
China has done this with their Haval brand. The new model is manufacturer and sold concurrently with the model it is replacing, and the price difference is significant.
A new 2010 Toyota likely wouldn't even be legal to sell today in many jurisdictions, and this is in fact one part of the problem.
Another part of the problem is that all the big automakers need to design a new car roughly every 5 years in order to keep from losing the ability to design one at all, as people age and retire. What's really been settled on is that "minor updates every year and a major update every 5-6 years" actually does work in terms of keeping know-how to design these things, as well as handle supply chain problems.
For example, if a chip you need goes EOL and you have to redesign around that, it's much better to have that happen in the last 1-2 years of your manufacturing, you do a last time buy to get through that last year, and move on. Much harder to do on a longer lifecycle: that 2010 design, sold new in 2026, and operated until 2040+. How many suppliers go out of business over 30 years, or stop making a critical component?
"The things cars had in them when I was first driving are all they should ever need; everything else is frivolous, planned obsolescence, or fashion" is a very tempting position to hold, but it doesn't actually hold up to reality.
First, those are almost all in the 2010 Toyota that I used as an example. Other than those things (which are in the 2010 model), what did the post-2010 models bring?
Second, none of those require an entire new model to be designed that shares no parts with the previous model.
> "The things cars had in them when I was first driving are all they should ever need; everything else is frivolous, planned obsolescence, or fashion" is a very tempting position to hold, but it doesn't actually hold up to reality.
Please go back and re-read my post - I was not comparing cars from 1990 (when I first started driving). You are doing that comparison, and it's a strawman.
Regardless, many features that existed in some form in 2010 that time have improved since then. Maybe just slow incremental improvement, but over time it adds up.
A few other new/much improved features since 2010 that come to mind: backup/turn signal cameras, carplay, hybrid engines.
> Once we got seatbelts, airbags and similar in cars, there's literally no reason for a new model to drop
now you claim it's all about the 2010 Toyota?
And this:
> an entire new model to be designed that shares no parts with the previous model.
is hopeless overexaggeration. Most new models share significant numbers of their parts with the ones around them.
I fix cars. The parts are changed in succeeding generations.
I recently replaced a fuel pump on an SUV. Not compatible with the preceding gen nor with the succeeding gen. Same with PCV valve, brake pads, even the sun visors are different.
Talk to a mechanic sometime.
The existing manufacturers have got to coming: they have artificially increased the cost of their cars and the Chinese are going to eat their lunch.
You're making an extremely bold hypothesis that your internet armchair knowledge about what investment auto manufacturers make in research, design, and marketing to remain competitive in the marketplace of car sales easily exceeds what auto manufacturers know about that same topic.
You would need some strong supporting evidence to convince people of that. One would be any 6+ year old model of vehicles that sells as well as or better than any 5 year old or newer model of vehicles, even if it only competes on price. Can you name such a model? What share of the U.S. car sales goes to that model? What is their profit margin, and how to does it compare to models that Toyota sells?
Yes. GWM did that with their Haval brand and the price difference was significant. They sold both the old gen and new gen concurrently.
I ran an inflation calculator and… where are the $10K cars for sale today?
(To be sure, I know there are safety standards, other things that will make the Datsun sedan un-sellable today, but come on, can't we get even close to $10K?)