Indie Auto commentator Peter Wilding (2025) raised a good point when noting that he “never understood the idea of deliberately decontenting a car to be able to advertise a lower price, when hardly anyone actually buys the car like that.” He went on to ask how much this occurred. “Has its importance been overplayed?”
What follows is a quick initial response. We should start by noting that US automakers tended to adopt a very different attitude about pricing their highest-volume cars during the postwar period than they do today. Back then base models were stripped to the bone so a low price could be emphasized.
One result is that advertising would often state in fine print that the car pictured included optional features such as white-wall tires, full wheel covers and other trim that made it look a little less barren.
Decontenting went hand in hand with offering an unprecedented combination of car sizes, body styles, engine sizes, axle ratios and interior-trim choices. John DeLorean argued that when he became division manager of Chevrolet, there was so much product variation that they could build one million cars and no two of them would be exactly alike (Wright, 1979).
Even higher-priced cars could be decontented
Decontenting even played out with higher-priced models such as so-called “muscle cars.” For example, it wasn’t until 1970 that Pontiac gave the GTO a standard rear-stabilizer bar. A spokesperson told Motor Trend magazine, “We’d like to have a car that handles so well that it surprises people by its handling,” Kaiser said (Sanders, 1969; p. 99).
This move may have been a response to complaints from the likes of Car Life magazine, which concluded that a 1969 GTO “was not a sporting automobile on Orange County Raceway’s road course.” The Pontiac was best on the highway, where “the suspension needn’t do things it doesn’t like to do” (1969, p. 24). Go here for further discussion.
The tighter the profit margins, the more pressure automakers felt to decontent its cars. DeLorean argued that the Chevrolet Corvair’s tricky handling could have been improved by adding a $15 rear-stabilizer bar, but upper management initially balked because it was deemed too costly. Only when new division head Bunky Knudsen threatened to resign did management relent — and a stabilizer bar was added in 1964 (Wright, 1979).
AMC decontented more because it was so small
American Motors may have faced even greater pressures to decontent its cars because its volume was tiny compared to any Big Three automaker. That meant AMC had much weaker economies of scale than its chief competitors.
To make matters worse, the automaker focused on the low end of the market, which was more price sensitive. One way AMC could save money was to drag its feet on offering more modern standard equipment, such as electric rather than old-fashioned vacuum wipers.
AMC started to get around this problem in 1972, when it got rid of some strippo models and upgraded the equipment on remaining offerings. However, price sensitivity did not disappear. The two-seater Gremlin may have been ditched, but the automaker still felt the need to hold the four-seater’s price to $1,999.
By 1973 the Gremlin had improved to the point where Consumer Reports gave it a top rating among six subcompacts (Wikipedia, 2025). However, it mattered how you optioned the car.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Car Life; 1969. “The Judge.” March issue: pp. 21-25. Posted by Over-Drive Magazine.
- Sanders, Bill; 1969. “GTO: 1970 Super Car Extraordinary.” Motor Trend. Sept. issue: pp. 56-62, 99. Posted by Automotive History Preservation Society.
- Wikipedia; 2025. “AMC Gremlin.” Page last edited Feb. 5.
- Wilding, Peter; 2025. Commentator in “AMC’s Roy Abernethy was increasingly hemmed in but not without options.” Indie Auto. Posted on Feb. 9 at 6:19 p.m.
- Wright, J. Patrick; 1979. On A Clear Day You Can See General Motors. Wright Enterprises, Grosse Pointe, MI.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES
- oldcaradvertising.com: AMC Gremlin (1970)
Small point: AMC dragged its feet changing to standard electric wipers from VACUUM operated components, not hydraulic.
Question: Did any car maker use hydraulic wipers?
The Studebaker Drivers Club monthly Turning Wheels publication recently had an article on their decontented cars – often citing worthwhile results. 1934 Dictator Specials were responsible for 32% of all depression-era ’34 Stude sales.
1950 Champion Custom models, trying to break into what they now called the “low-priced four” (referring to lower priced Chevs, Fords, Plymouths – and now Studebaker Champions), only sold 15% of that year’s Champion sales – so not very successful, but that was almost 41,000 cars!
The 1957-58 Scotsmans (Scotsmen?) were more successful and in ’58 they accounted for over 75% of all Champion sales in that recession year!
1963 Lark Standards were what the article’s author termed a “qualified” success, since Studebaker would have rather have sold the next model up at a higher margin – but just over 9,200 were sold, or, about 12% of ’63 Lark production.
The perils of writing quickly when other deadlines press. I have fixed the text.