Is the car culture dying?

[cpzilliacus]

Robert Samuelson op-ed in the Washington Post: Is the car culture dying?

Few technological breakthroughs have had the social and economic impact of the automobile. It changed America's geography, spawning suburbs, shopping malls and sprawl as far as the eye could see. It redefined how we work and play, from the daily commute to the weekend trek to the beach. It expanded the heavy industry – steel-making, car production – that made the Midwest the economy's epicenter for decades. And, finally but not least, the car became the quintessential symbol of American mobility, status and independence.

Now there are signs that the car and its many offshoots (SUVs, pickup trucks) are losing their grip on the American psyche and pocketbook. The car culture may be dying or, at any rate, slumping into a prolonged era of eclipse. The only question is whether the signs of change can be believed. It's not clear.

Young Americans, particularly millennials (ages 18 to 35), have lost their zest for buying and driving cars, it's said. Once upon a time, getting your driver's license – typically at 16 or 17 – was a rite of passage. You were liberated from dependence on the parental chauffeur. It was a big step toward adulthood. But this landmark no longer seems to matter so much.

[Max Rockatansky]

Seems like the Gen-X crowd is really the last generation that has a somewhat large interest in cars...probably because they were status symbols more than anything though.  The baby boomer generation really had their cake when the 60s came around the muscle car era exploded...basically performance was available cheaply for everything.  I think if anyone has read any of my other car related posts it's probably pretty apparent really friggin quickly that I'm a car guy and have a huge passion for the hobby.  For me though that's the culture I grew up around; had a bunch of GM/Ford workers/managers/engineers for relatives, had a father who always had the latest and greatest car in the garage in my youth, I worked for a race team in high school and I was going to school in an era when automotive knowledge was taught...whether you wanted it or not. 

But I think it's a culture shift with society more in general than just cars.  Look at how Milennials operate...they are all social butterflies (I had maybe 3 or 4 good friends in high school), they all want to live in urban environments (as opposed to my generation who viewed them as crowded hell holes) and they tend to grow up a lot slower...especially from career or economics.  I remember wanting to leave the house so badly when I was 18 that I joined the military to fund it, there is this whole trend with people staying with the parents until they are in their mid-20s now.  I think a lot of this is being driven buy the net based culture and social media frenzy that people grow up in nowadays.  Does that mean car culture will die out?...probably not but it will have to compete with more things grabbing away at facets of society that grab attention.  Even traditional sports seem to be declining in popularity these days....I mean it's down to options for everyone and those being accepted a lot more.  Back in my school years you didn't do ANYTHING that might be considered outside the established popular norm.  That meant if you liked cars, sports....or drinking you were usually one of the cool kids.  It was the kids with the computers, Nintendos or played D&D that were the social outcasts...that kind of stuff is basically mainstream nowadays.  The one I really remember which is silly in retrospect was kids being afraid to admit they had a Nintendo.  Almost EVERYONE had them by the late 80s but nobody wanted to admit it because they would be classified as a "nerd."  The Breakfast Club really hit on 80s stereotypes among young people the more I think about it in retrospect...

But who are we kidding?....basically we're living in the second muscle car era right now.  The main difference between the 60s and today is the variety of performance cars is overwhelming as opposed to almost everything being an American V8.  Hell those Fast and Furious movies as crappy as they are have a HUGE draw in the movie theater.  There is no way those movies could be a success if car culture was anywhere close to dead....what reason is there to watch those things other than the cars?...to watch the subtle performance of someone like Vin Diesel or the Rock?   

[Otto Yamamoto]

I read this, I'm not buying it. I think WaPoo got ahold of a few trendies, and has decided that's the future, whether it's real or not.

[Brandon]

I read this, I'm not buying it. I think WaPoo got ahold of a few trendies, and has decided that's the future, whether it's real or not.

Wouldn't be the first time a media outlet got the future wrong by doing so.

[jeffandnicole]

I read this, I'm not buying it. I think WaPoo got ahold of a few trendies, and has decided that's the future, whether it's real or not.

I think they still believe gas is $4 a gallon and people are still moving in droves to mass-transit options.  Or, the people that write this stuff just don't like cars.

[1995hoo]

I think the Post's editors believe that if they tell their writers to say something often enough, it means it must be true.

[SP Cook]

Car culture is not dying.  This is not the first, nor will it be the last "millennials hate cars" article. 

Is society changing?  Yes.  Society is always changing.  Are cars changing and, in a way, reflecting the times?  Yes, always have. 

And?  There really is not much more to say.  The only real take is that, because of the continued economic decline, young people HAVE to live with parents and forgo car ownership and other good things.  Not WANT to, HAVE to. 

[Max Rockatansky]

Car culture is not dying.  This is not the first, nor will it be the last "millennials hate cars" article. 

Is society changing?  Yes.  Society is always changing.  Are cars changing and, in a way, reflecting the times?  Yes, always have. 

And?  There really is not much more to say.  The only real take is that, because of the continued economic decline, young people HAVE to live with parents and forgo car ownership and other good things.  Not WANT to, HAVE to.

I don't know if that's a HAVE to.  There doesn't seem to be as many people motivated to leave and make it happen.  It was a struggle for any generation to leave the house and slog through entry level jobs.  About the biggest obstacle I see people going through today at that age is overvaluing a college degree or career experience because it's what their parents told their parents.  Student loan debt was bad in my time but it hit the stratosphere in recent years.  There is always ways out of the house; roommates and even military service come to mind. But that said there is definitely something there with the average younger person not being quiet as motivated to get that license...  It probably has a lot to do with there being so many outlets for things to do these days with the internet age.

[kalvado]

One thing for sure: things look different from very large urban area.
Washington Post, New York Times and many others are actually created by living in megapolis and looking from that perspective.
Maybe my example belongs to a different forum, but I was really impressed by a huge "10 travel advice" article in NYT with the first one being "word connection should not show up in your itinerary unless you are flying to a very exotic place".
Maybe that is the case for NYC, but our airport has flights to maybe 10 different destinations (if you count ORD and MDW as two). Actually total population in the airport service area is close to 1 million...
I assume that is pretty much similar for public transportation. You can definitely get along in NYC or DC without a car, moreover - car is often more pain than gain. Doing the same in many midsize cities is more difficult - assuming there is a usable public transportation system.
Of course, by now it is possible for someone to have a remote job, get everything delivered via amazon prime and date online. I am not sure if that would work for high percentage of people. Someone still has to grow crops, deliver all that stuff, build homes and so on - meaning getting outside at least once a day.

Alternatively, we may think about consolidating people to something like "blue banana" in Europe and abandoning most of the continent. Then carless life can become a norm for most people. I really don't like that scenario, but that is the way life looks from DC and NYC, I am afraid.

[Max Rockatansky]

One thing for sure: things look different from very large urban area.
Washington Post, New York Times and many others are actually created by living in megapolis and looking from that perspective.
Maybe my example belongs to a different forum, but I was really impressed by a huge "10 travel advice" article in NYT with the first one being "word connection should not show up in your itinerary unless you are flying to a very exotic place".
Maybe that is the case for NYC, but our airport has flights to maybe 10 different destinations (if you count ORD and MDW as two). Actually total population in the airport service area is close to 1 million...
I assume that is pretty much similar for public transportation. You can definitely get along in NYC or DC without a car, moreover - car is often more pain than gain. Doing the same in many midsize cities is more difficult - assuming there is a usable public transportation system.
Of course, by now it is possible for someone to have a remote job, get everything delivered via amazon prime and date online. I am not sure if that would work for high percentage of people. Someone still has to grow crops, deliver all that stuff, build homes and so on - meaning getting outside at least once a day.

Alternatively, we may think about consolidating people to something like "blue banana" in Europe and abandoning most of the continent. Then carless life can become a norm for most people. I really don't like that scenario, but that is the way life looks from DC and NYC, I am afraid.

Basically you hit the nail on the head about what perspective this article is being wrote from and that's from a Eastern one.  I would challenger the writer of this article to head to places like California, Arizona, Utah and Nevada...then tell me car culture is dead, because it isn't out here.  I would even go as far and say that's a large part about what makes the west coast the west coast...car culture.  I recall going to a car show that had 300-600 cars every Saturday when I was living in Phoenix....you even had a HUGE tuner crowd that would show up and take a row which consisted of a lot of 18-25 year olds.  But then again the way the cities (not including San Francisco) were built out here were largely designed with suburban sprawl, the highway and car in mind...whereas on the east coast they were not.  Let's also not for get that the warmer and dryer weather out here has a factor compared to the wet in addition to cold out east.  Well I lived in the tri-state area over 20 year ago there was still people that didn't have cars and use mass transit back then.  I have an uncle who lives in Alexandria who takes the train to work every day and my cousin's husband does the same after a brief trip down I-66.  The irony is out here that a lot of these east coast people move here and freak out about not having mass transit like they had at home...that's how stuff like this high speed rail here in California and the Phoenix light rail gain traction.  I'm skeptical about the high speed rail but in my opinion the light rail in Phoenix was a total waste given that traffic flow for a city that large is very good and you have plenty of bus options.

But that's not to say that car culture doesn't have a big as piece of the pie as it once did in cultural significance.  But that pretty much goes for anything really these days since there are a lot more outlets for younger people. 

[jeffandnicole]

One thing for sure: things look different from very large urban area.
Washington Post, New York Times and many others are actually created by living in megapolis and looking from that perspective.
Maybe my example belongs to a different forum, but I was really impressed by a huge "10 travel advice" article in NYT with the first one being "word connection should not show up in your itinerary unless you are flying to a very exotic place".
Maybe that is the case for NYC, but our airport has flights to maybe 10 different destinations (if you count ORD and MDW as two). Actually total population in the airport service area is close to 1 million...
I assume that is pretty much similar for public transportation. You can definitely get along in NYC or DC without a car, moreover - car is often more pain than gain. Doing the same in many midsize cities is more difficult - assuming there is a usable public transportation system.
Of course, by now it is possible for someone to have a remote job, get everything delivered via amazon prime and date online. I am not sure if that would work for high percentage of people. Someone still has to grow crops, deliver all that stuff, build homes and so on - meaning getting outside at least once a day.

Alternatively, we may think about consolidating people to something like "blue banana" in Europe and abandoning most of the continent. Then carless life can become a norm for most people. I really don't like that scenario, but that is the way life looks from DC and NYC, I am afraid.

Basically you hit the nail on the head about what perspective this article is being wrote from and that's from a Eastern one.  I would challenger the writer of this article to head to places like California, Arizona, Utah and Nevada...then tell me car culture is dead, because it isn't out here.  I would even go as far and say that's a large part about what makes the west coast the west coast...car culture.  I recall going to a car show that had 300-600 cars every Saturday when I was living in Phoenix....you even had a HUGE tuner crowd that would show up and take a row which consisted of a lot of 18-25 year olds.  But then again the way the cities (not including San Francisco) were built out here were largely designed with suburban sprawl, the highway and car in mind...whereas on the east coast they were not.  Let's also not for get that the warmer and dryer weather out here has a factor compared to the wet in addition to cold out east.  Well I lived in the tri-state area over 20 year ago there was still people that didn't have cars and use mass transit back then.  I have an uncle who lives in Alexandria who takes the train to work every day and my cousin's husband does the same after a brief trip down I-66.  The irony is out here that a lot of these east coast people move here and freak out about not having mass transit like they had at home...that's how stuff like this high speed rail here in California and the Phoenix light rail gain traction.  I'm skeptical about the high speed rail but in my opinion the light rail in Phoenix was a total waste given that traffic flow for a city that large is very good and you have plenty of bus options.

But that's not to say that car culture doesn't have a big as piece of the pie as it once did in cultural significance.  But that pretty much goes for anything really these days since there are a lot more outlets for younger people. 

If there's no car culture on the east coast, why is there so much traffic congestion? 

[Max Rockatansky]

One thing for sure: things look different from very large urban area.
Washington Post, New York Times and many others are actually created by living in megapolis and looking from that perspective.
Maybe my example belongs to a different forum, but I was really impressed by a huge "10 travel advice" article in NYT with the first one being "word connection should not show up in your itinerary unless you are flying to a very exotic place".
Maybe that is the case for NYC, but our airport has flights to maybe 10 different destinations (if you count ORD and MDW as two). Actually total population in the airport service area is close to 1 million...
I assume that is pretty much similar for public transportation. You can definitely get along in NYC or DC without a car, moreover - car is often more pain than gain. Doing the same in many midsize cities is more difficult - assuming there is a usable public transportation system.
Of course, by now it is possible for someone to have a remote job, get everything delivered via amazon prime and date online. I am not sure if that would work for high percentage of people. Someone still has to grow crops, deliver all that stuff, build homes and so on - meaning getting outside at least once a day.

Alternatively, we may think about consolidating people to something like "blue banana" in Europe and abandoning most of the continent. Then carless life can become a norm for most people. I really don't like that scenario, but that is the way life looks from DC and NYC, I am afraid.

Basically you hit the nail on the head about what perspective this article is being wrote from and that's from a Eastern one.  I would challenger the writer of this article to head to places like California, Arizona, Utah and Nevada...then tell me car culture is dead, because it isn't out here.  I would even go as far and say that's a large part about what makes the west coast the west coast...car culture.  I recall going to a car show that had 300-600 cars every Saturday when I was living in Phoenix....you even had a HUGE tuner crowd that would show up and take a row which consisted of a lot of 18-25 year olds.  But then again the way the cities (not including San Francisco) were built out here were largely designed with suburban sprawl, the highway and car in mind...whereas on the east coast they were not.  Let's also not for get that the warmer and dryer weather out here has a factor compared to the wet in addition to cold out east.  Well I lived in the tri-state area over 20 year ago there was still people that didn't have cars and use mass transit back then.  I have an uncle who lives in Alexandria who takes the train to work every day and my cousin's husband does the same after a brief trip down I-66.  The irony is out here that a lot of these east coast people move here and freak out about not having mass transit like they had at home...that's how stuff like this high speed rail here in California and the Phoenix light rail gain traction.  I'm skeptical about the high speed rail but in my opinion the light rail in Phoenix was a total waste given that traffic flow for a city that large is very good and you have plenty of bus options.

But that's not to say that car culture doesn't have a big as piece of the pie as it once did in cultural significance.  But that pretty much goes for anything really these days since there are a lot more outlets for younger people. 

If there's no car culture on the east coast, why is there so much traffic congestion?

Cause there is so many of you packed into one place.    Put it this way, there are a lot more performance oriented cars out this way.  I'm not saying that they don't exist out there on the east coast but they definitely are more of the comfort, daily commuter and FWD variety.  Basically everything from D.C. up to Boston is largely urbanized and much more densely populated than other parts of the country.  New Jersey is a good example of that since it actually is the population density leader out of all 50 states despite not having what one might consider one of the principle eastern seaboard cities.  It's basically all suburban New York or Phili at this point....some segments on the southern tip on the US 9 corridor not withstanding.

[Henry]

Just because there are less young drivers doesn't mean that the cars are going to go away anytime soon. There are plenty of older drivers who'd be willing to buy these cars.

[PHLBOS]

Just because there are less young drivers doesn't mean that the cars are going to go away anytime soon. There are plenty of older drivers who'd be willing to buy these cars.

While true, many of them are aging and will eventually be  forced to give their licenses when they no longer have the capacity to drive or other circumstance.  Such is what happened with my then-84 year old father after he took a nasty fall one on Labor Day 2012; and, more recently, when my 79 year old mother totaled her car a month ago and she has no recollection as towards why she veered off and hit a utility pole & a couple of trees.  Since there was no other vehicle involved in the accident; my mother's 60 years of driving are basically over.

Or, the people that write this stuff just don't like cars.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! 

In all seriousness; it's worth noting that there have been a handful articles that have recently debunked the whole car culture dying among millennials mantra.  Additionally, many millennials once they do marry and start a family more often than not move out of the city.

See 0:13-0:16 in this State Farm ad.  Very true to life IMHO.

Another reason (not mentioned) why some have forgone buying cars or even getting their license is insurance costs; especially if one lives in an urban or densely populated area where rates tend to be higher... especially for younger drivers.

In other words; move along, there's nothing new to see here.

[bing101]

Not necessarily though. In the Bay Area you need Bart or buses to get to work because the parking fees are big in these areas. Its simply built for public transit. But I think car culture still exists though.

[Max Rockatansky]

Just because there are less young drivers doesn't mean that the cars are going to go away anytime soon. There are plenty of older drivers who'd be willing to buy these cars.

One thing I'll say....automakers do a really crappy job at making "youth oriented" cars appealing.  Usually they are some crappy looking boxy type of car that looks cheap as dirt....and well, that's because it is.  It always seemed like no matter what generation if a young person wanted a car, they wanted something that was at LEAST minimally attractive.  Some cars like the Mustang and Camaro actually have a huge market of people in their mid-20s simply because they are good look on top of being somewhat approachable to someone finally starting to get a decent income.  So why couldn't a Scion in it's mission to be a youth oriented car be at least good looking?...what about cars like the Chevy Spark?  It seems like they end up attracting buyers who want a bargain rather than drawing in young buyers...but that's why Scion largely was a failure.

Not necessarily though. In the Bay Area you need Bart or buses to get to work because the parking fees are big in these areas. Its simply built for public transit. But I think car culture still exists though.

San Francisco ironically is the only western city that has gone through Manhattenization.  It has the second highest population density after NYC, I want to say it's about 20,000 people per square mile if I recall the demographics correct.  So basically you can't have the same level of roadways being built with all that pre-existing infrastructure in place....it's a very old city by west coast standards.  Basically you run into that all over the eastern sea board, a city is small in terms of actual area but the population is very high.  Look at something like Phoenix which is 518 square miles and despite almost having 1.5 million residents has a density of about 3,000 per mile.  Basically cities like Phoenix, L.A., Salt Lake City and Las Vegas largely grew up in an era where the car was the primary form of transportation which is why they were designed with it in mind.

[AlexandriaVA]

Maybe the better question is how youths (I still consider myself young at 27) view cars from an emotional/identity standpoint. I personally view it as merely a major appliance, frankly not much different than a laundry machine. I couldn't care less about its diagnostics or performance (RPMs, torque, horsepower, etc) beyond its ability to drive me to work, the store, and other locations. In the same vein, I really don't care about the performance of my laundry machines beyond their ability to wash and dry my clothes.

More to the point, I have no emotional affinity to my car.

When I hear people talk about "Car Culture" I imagine young guys hacking around on their cars in a garage and racing on rural roads. In that regard, they confer a higher status to the car than merely an appliance (as I do), but rather a reflection of their own image.

[PHLBOS]

Some cars like the Mustang and Camaro actually have a huge market of people in their mid-20s simply because they are good look on top of being somewhat approachable to someone finally starting to get a decent income.

It's probably a reasonable assumption that most younger Mustang and Camaro owners purchased such as used cars; especially ones of the current generations. 

Prior to Ford redoing the Mustang for 2015; they noticed that the average age of a new (S197-era) Mustang buyer was higher than it was for previous-generation models.  Higher purchase prices, no doubt had something to do with that.  Not every young person had nor could finance the $20k (for the base V6 model) to purchase (& insure) a then-brand-new 2005 Mustang.

[7/8]

Maybe the better question is how youths (I still consider myself young at 27) view cars from an emotional/identity standpoint. I personally view it as merely a major appliance, frankly not much different than a laundry machine. I couldn't care less about its diagnostics or performance (RPMs, torque, horsepower, etc) beyond its ability to drive me to work, the store, and other locations. In the same vein, I really don't care about the performance of my laundry machines beyond their ability to wash and dry my clothes.

More to the point, I have no emotional affinity to my car.

When I hear people talk about "Car Culture" I imagine young guys hacking around on their cars in a garage and racing on rural roads. In that regard, they confer a higher status to the car than merely an appliance (as I do), but rather a reflection of their own image.

I agree with this. I enjoy driving, but I don't care too much about the car itself (as long as it works!)

[formulanone]

Car culture isn't dying, it's morphing: It's going in various directions, depending on your opinions, local attitudes, financial temperature, or desires.

First of all - Washington, like LA, or New York City (to name a few) doesn't need another damn car in its city limits, because there's no more room. Sure enough, that hasn't stopped everyone from living or working there. It's confirmation bias. Folks in rural areas, suburbs, the furthest reaches of the MSA are going to need a car to get around; there's limited to no mass transit available. We're also a bunch that probably couldn't wait to drive or travel around, but there's also lots more interests out there in which a car isn't a primary ownership goal.

Are there teenage folks who aren't moved by the idea of getting a driver's license: Yes...But it's always been that way. Not everyone I knew was salivating over the prospect of getting a license; they were more interested in getting into college, could have others drive them around, or they could bike. Yup, even 25 years ago in the 'burbs. Not still everyone has shown much interest on what kind of car they drive, nor care what others' own, or care too much about performance; price, comfort, and not much else.

You can't convince me that everyone was hot for V8s even at the height of the muscle-car era. There were tons of V6 and slant-6 engines out there for those who weren't wealthy nor cared about such things. Not everyone drove the biggest nor fastest car back then, not everyone plumped for the top-flight model trim, and certainly not everyone ordered the high-performance package. It's nostalgia which drives that myth...few remember the unimpressive and average models.

Are there folks fed up with living further and further away from the urban core, tired of longer commutes? Sure, but they get married, have kids, and you need a car in most places. Many of them move, and the car is usually needed for that. I think as we age, the romantic aspects of the open road are viewed through many a jaundiced eye. Traffic, delays, construction, expenses, et al kind of dull those senses. The idea of going for a drive for no reason of all is seen as a peculiarity.

Are there less and less people working on their cars? Mostly, yes. Cars can be more complex to work on, and anything requiring computer or software updates/reflashing needs a trip to the dealership, in a lot of cases. Also, increased reliability has made the need for tune-ups and lots of repeated basic checks a less common occurrence. To that, there's less people who work with their hands over the years; thus, less know-how is passed on from generation to generation, because some of it is either outdated or even unnecessary.

It's easy to look at teens and millennials as not caring, but face it: Car insurance is much more expensive than it was with each preceding decade. Lawful drivers license acquisition ages have increased. Their school workload has increased. Parents don't always have as much disposable income to buy their kids a first car.
Teenagers can't get as many jobs because laws don't let them easily get jobs before 16-17, and workplace laws can prohibit minors for safety reasons. More entry-level positions are going to people with previous work experience, except for service industries...The deck is a bit stacked against them in that case; it's not impossible to get a job, but it's much harder to save up for a car before one is 18.  As to whether they'd like a phone or a car, it's not even close...the phone is far cheaper to maintain on their own budget (although they aren't replacements for each other - it's like comparing steak with breakfast cereal). There are less things that require repeated driving tasks thanks to computers and hand-held portable technology, but it's really not that much of a change.

Exotic cars of purely mechanical satisfaction is changing - more technology is appealing to some people. Some folks like the noise, feel, odor, and sounds of owning a car. Some really don't want anything more to do with that; a vehicle is a conveyance device which is pretty much an appliance with an exhaust pipe. Electric cars and hybrids are a different form of "car culture", and some people accept that, others proclaim it's heresy.

Again, this isn't about everyone...car folks are going to be car folks, gearheads will be gearheads. Will my son care about cars as much as my father and I do? Hard to say...even my interest wanes a little.

[US 41]

Millennials are simply not buying cars because they can't afford them. Let's face it, if you're eating Ramon Noodles for dinner then you probably can't afford a car, the insurance, the plates, the maintenance on the car, and buying gas for the car.

[AlexandriaVA]

Car culture isn't dying, it's morphing: It's going in various directions, depending on your opinions, local attitudes, financial temperature, or desires.

First of all - Washington, like LA, or New York City (to name a few) doesn't need another damn car in its city limits, because there's no more room. Sure enough, that hasn't stopped everyone from living or working there. It's confirmation bias. Folks in rural areas, suburbs, the furthest reaches of the MSA are going to need a car to get around; there's limited to no mass transit available.

Are there teenage folks who aren't moved by the idea of getting a driver's license: Yes...But it's always been that way. Not everyone I knew was salivating over the prospect of getting a license; they were more interested in getting into college, could have others drive them around, or they could bike. Yup, even 25 years ago in the 'burbs. Not still everyone has shown much interest on what kind of car they drive, nor care what others' own, or care too much about performance; price, comfort, and not much else.

You can't convince me that everyone was hot for V8s even at the height of the muscle-car era. There were tons of V6 and slant-6 engines out there for those who weren't wealthy nor cared about such things. Not everyone drove the biggest nor fastest car back then, not everyone plumped for the top-flight model trim, and certainly not everyone ordered the high-performance package. It's nostalgia which drives that myth...few remember the unimpressive and average models.

Are there folks fed up with living further and further away from the urban core, tired of longer commutes? Sure, but they get married, have kids, and you need a car in most places. Many of them move, and the car is usually needed for that. I think as we age, the romantic aspects of the open road are viewed through many a jaundiced eye. Traffic, delays, construction, expenses, et al kind of dull those senses. The idea of going for a drive for no reason of all is seen as a peculiarity.

Are there less and less people working on their cars? Mostly, yes. Cars can be more complex to work on, and anything requiring computer or software updates/reflashing needs a trip to the dealership, in a lot of cases. Also, increased reliability has made the need for tune-ups and lots of repeated basic checks a less common occurrence. To that, there's less people who work with their hands over the years; thus, less know-how is passed on from generation to generation, because some of it is either outdated or even unnecessary.

It's easy to look at teens and millennials as not caring, but face it: Car insurance is much more expensive than it was with each preceding decade. Lawful drivers license acquisition ages have increased. Their school workload has increased. Teenagers can't get jobs because laws don't let them easily get jobs before 16-17, and workplace laws can prohibit minors for safety reasons. The deck is a bit stacked against them in that case. As to whether they'd like a phone or a car, it's not even close...the phone is far cheaper to maintain on their own budget (although they aren't replacements for each other - it's like  comparing steak with breakfast cereal).

There are less things that require repeated driving thanks to computers and hand-held technology, but it's really not that much of a change.

Exotic cars of purely mechanical satisfaction is changing - more technology is appealing to some people. Some folks like the noise, feel, odor, and sounds of owning a car. Some really don't want anything more to do with that; a vehicle is a conveyance device which is pretty much an appliance with an exhaust pipe. Electric cars and hybrids are a different form of "car culture", and some people accept that, others proclaim it's heresy.

Again, this isn't about everyone...car folks are going to be car folks, gearheads will be gearheads. Will my son care about cars as much as my father and I do? Hard to say...even my interest wanes a little.

A very good perspective. Much appreciated.

[PHLBOS]

You can't convince me that everyone was hot for V8s even at the height of the muscle-car era. There were tons of V6 and slant-6 engines out there for those who weren't wealthy nor cared about such things. Not everyone drove the biggest nor fastest car back then, not everyone plumped for the top-flight model trim, and certainly not everyone ordered the high-performance package. It's nostalgia which drives that myth...few remember the unimpressive and average models.

Prior to the fall of 1973, when gas prices skyrocketed and long gas lines (& even rationing) formed; the best-selling cars from just about every domestic make in the so-called Big-Three were indeed the full-size (then called standard-size) car.  Such ranged from bare-bones, 6-banger-powered (later succeeded w/small V8s) Ford Customs, Chevy Biscaynes/BelAirs & Plymouth Furys to the near-luxury, V8-powered Mercury Marquis', Buick LeSabres & Electra 225s and Chrysler New Yorkers.

Even during the 60s; while Ford Mustang was getting all the fanfare & pomp (it would reach its peak sales year circa 1966), its standard-size models (Custom/Galaxie 500/LTD/XL) was still Ford's overall best seller (over 600k '66 Mustangs vs. just over a million '66 full-size Fords).

Long story short, while the domestic (US) auto market indeed diversified during the 60s (going from offering one or two vehicle types/sizes to 6 or 7 within a decade); the overall market (sales figures) still favored/preferred large, V8 powered cars... until October of '73.  Such a change hit Chrysler the hardest since it had just launched its newly-revamped full-sizes (for '74) a few weeks earlier.

While I agree with you that even then, not everybody wanted a big and/or powerful car w/a V8; a sizable chunk of the car-buying masses indeed did and the sales figures are the proof of such.

[formulanone]

You can't convince me that everyone was hot for V8s even at the height of the muscle-car era. There were tons of V6 and slant-6 engines out there for those who weren't wealthy nor cared about such things. Not everyone drove the biggest nor fastest car back then, not everyone plumped for the top-flight model trim, and certainly not everyone ordered the high-performance package. It's nostalgia which drives that myth...few remember the unimpressive and average models.

Prior to the fall of 1973, when gas prices skyrocketed and long gas lines (& even rationing) formed; the best-selling cars from just about every domestic make in the so-called Big-Three were indeed the full-size (then called standard-size) car.  Such ranged from bare-bones, 6-banger-powered (later succeeded w/small V8s) Ford Customs, Chevy Biscaynes/BelAirs & Plymouth Furys to the near-luxury, V8-powered Mercury Marquis', Buick LeSabres & Electra 225s and Chrysler New Yorkers.

Even during the 60s; while Ford Mustang was getting all the fanfare & pomp (it would reach its peak sales year circa 1966), its standard-size models (Custom/Galaxie 500/LTD/XL) was still Ford's overall best seller (over 600k '66 Mustangs vs. just over a million '66 full-size Fords).

Long story short, while the domestic (US) auto market indeed diversified during the 60s (going from offering one or two vehicle types/sizes to 6 or 7 within a decade); the overall market (sales figures) still favored/preferred large, V8 powered cars... until October of '73.  Such a change hit Chrysler the hardest since it had just launched its newly-revamped full-sizes (for '74) a few weeks earlier.

While I agree with you that even then, not everybody wanted a big and/or powerful car w/a V8; a sizable chunk of the car-buying masses indeed did and the sales figures are the proof of such.

Back when various outputs and displacements were available...many of them were also low-output V8s, right?

Straying from the output part a bit, it's ironic that there's all sorts of pretty good cars and light trucks out there today; and yet kind of ironic that it's supposedly "dying". I think the writer is caught bemoaning the far-off good old days which are vastly different than today. Yeah, there's going to be a time when driverless cars and other forms of transportation take over the automobile. It's a bit too simplistic to raise a theoretical END banner halfway through the automobile's journey with so much more distance to be covered in the future.

[SP Cook]

Just because there are less young drivers doesn't mean that the cars are going to go away anytime soon. There are plenty of older drivers who'd be willing to buy these cars.

As in SO MANY things that deal with "millenials don't do this or that" issues, YES, YES, YES.

Marketers are obsessed with 25 to 50 or similar.  Yes, you can fish that pond with everybody else.  It has the most fish.  Or you can find a niche and compete with a lot less fishermen.

Remember Del Webb was born dirt poor and died a billionaire.  Selling home to retirees.