
Why Aren’t Cars as Colorful as They Used to Be?
It’s a story about how companies find ways to cut costs, achieve efficiency, and respond to consumer behavior, especially during tough times.
Thank you for reading Monday Morning Economist! This free weekly newsletter explores the economics behind pop culture and current events. This newsletter lands in the inbox of more than 5,900 subscribers every week! You can support this newsletter by sharing this free post or becoming a paid supporter:

One of my favorite things about flipping through old photos is spotting the vibrant car colors that used to fill the streets. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, you could roll into a dealership and order a Ford Thunderbird in Aquamarine, Yosemite Yellow, or Monte Carlo Red. The roads were still black, but the cars created a rainbow on wheels.
Fast-forward to today and things look a lot different. Take a drive past any car dealership, and you’ll see a sea of neutral tones—gray, white, black, and silver. In fact, nearly 80% of cars today are shares of one of these four colors.

I must admit that my own car history reflects this shift. My first car—a hunter green Saturn—was a hand-me-down from my mom. I took it over like it was my own personal statement. It was bold, distinct, and a little different than the other cars in the high school parking lot. But since then? My driveway has hosted nothing but silver and gray vehicles. I’ve joined the great neutral migration.
And I’m not alone. If you’ve noticed the roads are looking less colorful these days, you’re not imagining it. So, what happened to all the colors? As it turns out, the story is as much about economics as it is about aesthetics.
Economies of Scale and Cost Minimization
Here’s the thing about manufacturing: every option you add makes the process more complicated and complications are costly. Take a car assembly line, for example. Each car has to pass through a paint station before it’s assembled. If a company offers a rainbow of colors, that paint station has to switch between colors more often. That means cleaning the equipment between batches, managing a larger inventory of paint, and dealing with increased waste. All of this slows production and adds to the overall cost of the car.
This is where economies of scale come in. By limiting the paint options to just a few neutral colors, automakers can produce larger batches of each and cut costs along the way. Economies of scale happen when producing something in larger quantities reduces the cost per unit. Fixed costs—like maintaining the paint stations or running the assembly line—get spread out over more cars.
Think about it this way: it’s a lot cheaper to paint 1,000 cars the same shade of gray than to paint 100 cars in ten different colors. Offering fewer colors isn’t just about simplifying choices, it’s about bringing down the average total cost of production. That’s an important consideration in an industry with tight margins and fierce competition.
Blame the 2008 Recession
If you grew up in the 1990s, you probably remember a world full of bright colors—Volkswagen Beetles in lime green, neon yellow, or sunflower orange. Even Apple joined the party with its tangerine and Bondi blue iMacs. But by the 2000s, that playful aesthetic gave way to something sleeker and more minimalist. In 2003, Apple ditched the fun colors and switched to monochromatic designs, a move that mirrored broader trends in design and consumer preferences.
The auto industry followed a similar trajectory, but the real turning point came during the global financial crisis of 2008. The recession hit carmakers especially hard. Companies like GM and Chrysler filed for bankruptcy, and the entire industry was scrambling to stay afloat. Simplifying production became essential, and reducing paint options was an easy way to cut costs.
At the same time, consumers were tightening their belts. A flashy paint job isn’t worth the extra cost when budgets are stretched thin. Limiting paint choices wasn’t just about streamlining operations; it was also about meeting the moment. And that moment called for survival. By slashing the cost of production, automakers could keep prices more affordable.
Did People Even Want All Those Options?
There’s another layer to this story, and it’s one that behavioral economists would expect me to mention: the overchoice problem. In theory, having lots of options should be a good thing. More choices should mean a better chance of finding exactly what you want. But in reality, too many choices can stress us out. When faced with an overwhelming number of decisions, people can freeze, make a hasty pick, or even feel less satisfied with their choice after the fact.
Automakers may have stumbled into the solution for this problem. Neutral tones—silver, gray, black, and white—are safe and easy to choose. You don’t have to wonder if “Caribbean Blue” will look dated in five years or hurt your car’s resale value. Fewer choices simplify the buying process and, it seems, keep most people happy.
Final Thoughts
So, what’s the trade-off? Yes, cars have become less colorful, but they’re also less expensive to produce and (potentially) to buy. While I’ll always have a soft spot for the vibrant classics you see lining the streets of Cuba, I’ve come to accept why neutral tones have taken over. They’re practical, cost-effective, and, for better or worse, what most consumers seem to want.
But here’s the thing to remember: trends are never static. For example, Apple has recently reintroduced color to its product lines, like they had in the 1990s. Perhaps that’s a sign of where we’re headed. After twenty years of blending in, perhaps people are ready to stand out again. But are they willing to pay a little extra for a splash of “Sunburst Orange” or “Cool Gray Khaki?”
The decline of colorful cars is, at its core, a story about economics. It’s about how companies adapt to keep costs low and how simplifying choices can sometimes make things easier. If you’re longing for more color on the road, you’re probably not alone. And who knows? Maybe the rainbow will return one day.
Ford was rumored to have said that a “customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black” [James Madison Museum of Orange County]
Color is an important factor when purchasing a vehicle for 79% of Americans and nearly half of all respondents (46%) state color is very or extremely important [Auto Dealer Today Magazine]
The cost of painting a car varies significantly based on several factors, but you can expect to pay around $3,000 to repaint the entire body of a 10-year-old sedan with no damage except faded paint [Kelley Blue Book]
The iconic VW Beetle was available in over 90 different paint colors throughout the years [Volkswagen USA]
I am 77 year old who had a commercial truck license for over 30 years. Car colors matter when they are driving on rain-slicked pavement. Too many shades of silver, gray and even gold seem to disappear when lighting is poor. There is very little contrast between the colors of wet concrete or asphalt highways and the majority of new cars. I suggest buying cars with visibility in mind.
Blue Spider
I'll buy that economies of scale play into it a little bit, but I suspect if the demand were there, companies would still offer bright colors (see: modern American muscle cars). Instead, American adults have gotten boring, the same reason "greige" and slate blue are the most popular house paint colors today.
Plus, cars are just a commodity these days for most people. They don't take personal ownership of them in an emotional sense. A "car guy" friend of mine maintains his cars, washes them, takes good care of them. And they're gorgeous, vibrant colors (all late model, btw, which he paid a premium for). But for the average American, a car is just a way to get from A to B. They put gas in em, and that's about it. Maybe get the oil changed or new tires or brakes when they fail inspection. Nobody's emotionally invested in a gray Prius.
Not to mention insurance companies putting downward pressure on demand for brightly-colored cars with higher premiums to insure them.