Here is the source of your misunderstanding. You are equating the 1964 VW Beetle to the 2005 Kia (Rio, I guess?) as if they are the same thing. They are not. Once you realize that, then you begin to see why what you're saying doesn't make sense.
The technological difference between the cars is completely and totally beside the point. It's not as if the consumer has the choice of buying a 2005 car in 1964. He buys what is in front of him. He buys a car from a category, in this case, economy coupe. And the purchase price of the economy coupe has remained the same (and that probably goes across the board for all categories of cars. The first Mustang was about 5k. Multiply it by six and you get close to what a Mustang costs now.). Whether it is the same physical car is immaterial to the purchase price over time.
And whether the purchase price is a higher percentage of my income now than then does nothing to enrich GM. They are getting the same money. Saying they have raised prices by lowering my disposable income makes no sense.
Now if I am less able to purchase something for the same price today than I was forty years ago, it obviously means I don't have as much money to spend as I did then.
The point which the free trade contingent is determined to avoid is their distortion of the word "expensive".
Something can be more expensive either because...
1. The price has gone up. Or...
2. I am poorer.
The free traders are deliberately confusing absolute (the price across time) and relative (what the average household can afford to spend in monthly payments given its income) expense.
The car price, adjusted for inflation, has NOT gone up. Condition #1 is false. So distractions about the physical difference between the 2005 and 1964 car are meaningless. Auto manufacturers have doubled the loan term because Condition #2 obviously applies. Adjusted for inflation it is the same purchase price. It is just that the consumer can no longer afford to pay it in 3 years because he is poorer.