Most Americans just don't want small cars
If only the F150 were a hybridProvide a lot of incentives for consumers to buy small and efficient cars and some will take advantage. Interest also rises with gas prices. No duh, right?
Nonetheless, Americans don't really want these vehicles according to BusinessWeek.
Instead, they want vehicles like the Ford F150, a vehicle that saw its first year on year increase in sales since 2006 according to recent data. In fact, Ford is lifting production on these vehicles, despite the horrific 15 - 17 mpg fuel economy of these pickup trucks.
Sure the Toyota Prius has been a hit and the plethora of plug-in vehicles on the horizon sound compelling, but what about solutions for the majority of Americans that want vehicles like the F150?
Labels: fuel economy, toyota prius
posted by Dahcredyns at
8:35 AM
34 Comments:
welcome to the real world.
the reason why the F-150 is the best selling vehicle.. followed closely by other trucks and other larger vehicles like SUVs and Minivans is because people want the space....
for every guy you see in a Prius or Honda Civic.. there are probably 5-10 more than would never buy that small a car unless their economic situation necessitated it.
and there is an irony here too.
If you own a big V-8 vehicle and you replace it with a smaller engine/hybrid/part time cylinders you may be having a bigger impact on reducing our dependence on foreign oil that the guy who trades in his civic for a prius.
With all due respect, the statement that a majority of Americans want cars like F-150 is ridiculous. People do want big cars, but most are ok with midsize sedans. Some do want minivans and SUVs, but early or later high gas prices will make them surrender. Actually, I do not understand these families of 4 that buy minivans. Whenever you really need one, you can rent it. It is much cheaper.
Larry, it is not "followed closely" by trucks. It is followed closely by family sedans and small SUVs. We have also seen months when it was not a bestseller. See data for this July:
* Ford F-Series: 36,327
* Toyota Camry: 33,974
* Honda Civic: 30,037
* Honda Accord: 29,774
* Toyota Corolla: 29,593
* Chevy Silverado: 27,617
* Ford Focus: 21,830
* Ford Escape: 20,241
* Nissan Altima: 19,252
* Toyota Prius: 19,173
looks like from the list - that things are changing... so perhaps I should reassess my view.
but is this a "normal" list?
In other words.. when the economy works back to normal.. will the list revert back to the one's that I was familiar with in prior years?
like this one:
Ford F-150
Chevrolet Silverado
Toyota Camry
Toyota Corolla
in May ...
http://blogs.thecarconnection.com/marty-blog/1021212_mays-20-best-selling-cars-you-might-be-surprised
or this one:
The Top 10 Best-Selling Cars of 2008
Ford F-Series: 515,513
Chevy Silverado: 465,065
Toyota Camry: 436,617
Honda Accord: 372,789
Toyota Corolla: 351,007
Honda Civic: 339,289
Nissan Altima: 269,668
Chevy Impala: 265,840
Dodge Ram: 245,840
Honda CR-V: 197,279
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2009/01/the-top-10-best.html
what's that Chevy Impala all about?
so.. I stand corrected...
looks like the minivans and the SUVs have dropped off the top 10 list for sure.
To understand the F-150/Silveradoo deal though.. you'll need to travel through the less-urbanized parts of America where folks buy mulch and carry lawn tractors and ATVs... and such...
or go look at a Home Depot or Lowes parking lot... in the suburbs...
but I have to say.. there's no arguing with the data on Camry's, Corollas, Civics, etc.
looks like many folks ARE willing to give up their SUVs and Minivans...
well that "ridiculous" statement is a bit of an exaggeration, but it is far from ridiculous and it was based on survey data.
yes, a significant percent of americans don't mind mid-size vehicles, but i'll bet many of those vehicle owners own multiple vehicles and one is such a vehicle.
moreover, just look at that data from 2008 - the year of one of the worst gas spikes in america history - and trucks still dominate. and, a year later, sales on the F150 series are picking up.
likewise, top 10 data can be very misleading, you need total vehicle sales.
Larry,
yes you are right things are changing.
Dahc, though many still want big houses and big cars, they don't mind mid-size ones. Which is a good sign.
There is no doubt that fuel economy has become a more important criteria for buying an automobile, but we still have a long way to go.
You hit the nail on the head with this one.
WHAT DO AMERICANS REALLY WANT?
1. Big Vehicles
2. Low Gas Prices
Americans don't really want smaller cars except as an answer to higher gas prices.
Foreign oil independence? They only care because it affects gas prices.
Help Global warming? Not if it means driving a small car.
WANT/NEED
Smurf
You're absolutely right, and as the last poster reiterated, it comes down to "WANT/NEED".
Is there anyway to compel Americans to feel like they NEED more fuel efficient options?
Yes.
Raise gasoline taxes....
What about solutions for the majority of Americans that want vehicles like the F150? NGV is the answer.
Haha , since WHEN did Americans ever 'want' whats healthy or best for their species, planet, families, country long term ??? For 50 years Americans have gotten almost everything they 'wanted'. Now look at us, just like an out of control teenager, we have almost single handedly created an America of morbidly obese teenagers, who havent done one push up in their lives, who live on dirty planet thanks to the pollution created by they greed of the Cheney Oil type cartels, who live in a world of ultra-violence in games and who are now numg to its solutions, who can barely read a sentence and is lucky if they can graduate from high school. American kids no longer can compete with the rest of the world sorry to say. So forget about F150's, ha, they wont be able to afford even used ones without a skill or will to have a job.
1) Americans deny how fearful they really are. They buy based on worst case scenarios. How many people buy 4-wheel drive for a snow storm that comes maybe once per year? Same for pickup trucks for once-per-year chores. Marketing folks know this and advertise wisely to take the change from these chumps.
2) Its ALL want, not need. Unfortunately they don't seem to think their children need a future. For those less cynical than I: they just don't think.
Yes. Americans buy based upon what they want. So if we are going to solve the problems of foreign oil dependence, global warming, pollution etc. we will have to feed upon that want.
We proved in 2008 that Americans don't "want" gas guzzlers if gas prices reach $4.00 per gallon. This fact make the solution an easy one....A gas tax increase.
In addition to making Americans want more effient vehicles, a gas tax increase would:
1. Help balance the federal budget
2. Provide funding for alternative vehicles
3. Provide badly needed funding for bridges and roads
geeze.. you mean do what the Europeans do?
we couldn't stand that.. we'd have to admit that they are right about something.
Larry G,
Americans certainly cannot afford a huge increase in gas prices, because many live in places where you have to commute a lot. America is distributed and you cannot change this overnight. However, some reasonable gas tax would be good. No technology makes sense, if a price is under $4 per gallon.
Americans "CAN" afford a gas price tax increase.
Almost every other country has had high gas taxes for more than 20 years without haven't their economies destroyed.
If gas taxes go up, Americans will adjust, just like they did in 2008, by driving less and using public transportation more.
For those that have the long commute, they'll have to trade in their Cadillac Escalade for a more Fuel efficient car (perhaps a hybrid?).
America has to learn that the age of low gas prices is over. Sooner or later (proably sooner), America will have to adjust. 2008 was a warning of what is to come.
I agree with Smurf. Europeans would "distribute" also if gas prices were low.
We essentially subsidize sprawl with foreign-dependent oil and pollution.
Most of our urban areas are EPA-designated non-attainment areas because we "distribute".
In fact, Hybrid cars came along originally because of this pollution and that's the justification used to let them drive solo in HOV lanes.
so.. the "distribution" vs gas prices is a chicken-egg argument.
Europe "distributes" also - but they do it with wide/deep transit (paid for by gas taxes).
People can and do still live some distance from work but the difference is that for the twice-daily home-to-work-to-home commute - Europeans use transit and we drive solo.
it's a God-awful waste of resources and far, far from the concept of "necessity" to "distribute".
We not only CHOOSE to distribute but we also CHOOSE to drive SOLO twice a day when common-sense alternatives not only exist but are used by most folks in the world - except for us.
We are the "outliers".
Larry,
Population density is quite different that in USA. No mass transit system will likely to make sense in many rural and suburban areas.
i just think we've waited too long to implement a gas tax and any serious talk about a gas tax would lead to a political revolution that wouldn't be good for america in the long run as we would probably regress.
We definitely need a gas tax to influence energy independence. These people just don't get it.
However, in these times of public healthcare debate, another tax increase would only smolder with the chances of a universal medicare. It would help the conservative right wingers apply their kiss of death via f$#%^ng Rush Limbaugh. The unfortunate truth in our highly polar political climate.
I largely agree with you KP, but we need to get out of our box and think differently.
Any solution has to resonate with a wider range of opinions and beliefs, and I believe there is a consensus of change that can be achieved.
It might not be the best step forward, but I think a series of quality steps could drive a lot of momentum.
Dahc,
This is a very good point. Cheap gas affected construction decisions, living patterns, and life style. It is not easy to change things quickly. It will take probably several decades to accomplish.
LB,
I don't think the change will take as long as you think.
2008 proved that.
Americans made some very quick adjustments when gas hit $4.00 per gallon. Many of those were simple lifestyle changes.
I lived in Europe in the mid 80's, in a very rural part of the country.
It was obvious even then, how Europeans adjusted their lifestyle in relation to the higher gas prices. Even in rural parts of the country they did everything different from Americans, including the types of vehicles they drove, how many trips they made to the market, and how they commuted to work.
two questions:
1. - what will HOT Lanes do to exurban commuting (distribution)?
2. - why are commuter rail, commuter bus, commuter vans, and slugging not a viable way to deal with the vast majority of commuting - solo car driving twice a day at rush hour?
Gasoline doesn't need to get more expensive.
On the contrary.. the more efficient that cars get - the less and less money is generated for gas taxes - which is the major source of funding for commuting infrastructure - i.e multi-lane limit-access highways clogged by SOV cars.
Take Va.. the HOT lanes have been derailed for the time being but look at the basic issue.
It will cost almost 2 billion dollars to add lanes to I-95.
VDOT just cut 2 billion from the entire state budget.
there is not 2 cents left to build one inch of new I-95 lanes.
what will happen?
well.. as long as more and more folks drive solo at rush hour, the congestion will get worse and worse... and as people buy more and more fuel efficient cars.. less and less gas tax.
Right now - Va has barely enough money from the gas tax to pay for maintenance and operations.
it has no new money for additional lanes.
so you have two choices:
1. - start carpooling, van/bus/rail
2. - pay tolls for new lanes
given the current housing meltdown.. how many think that it's a safe bet to take a job in the DC area and then buy a home 50 miles out to commute to?
If you bought that house and had to move.. could you sell it?
I would submit to folks here that we are seeing changes.. to our current "distribution" right now...
solo driving to commute (drive til you qualify) is no longer the American Dream it used to be.
Larry, the gasoline will only rise in price eventually. I wish that increase in fuel efficiency would compensate at least partially. Recall $1 per gallon 10 years ago. Not, it is almost $2.5. And was almost 4 a year ago. It is 1.78-2.8 increase if inflation is accounted for. Do we see at least one hybrid that is at least twice as fuel efficient as analogous gasoline car? Nope... And don't forget about India & China.
LB - I agree. and that will only further accelerate the move to more fuel-efficient cars - and even less gas tax for commuting infrastructure.
my point is that our past practices of "distributing" ourselves some distance from where we live and work and driving solo - everyday... even though it's obviously our preferred lifestyle - is changing.
For the first time in a long time, the average sizes of new homes is getting smaller.. and people are driving less - which may or may not mean they are living closer to work.
But the housing meltdown is going to cause a dramatic change because if you are afraid to buy a house .. you are much more likely to move if your job changes than if you were tied down to a house -and would lose money if you sold it and moved.
and if .. highways are only going to get more and more congested as we run out of money to widen them.. many folks are likely to rethink their idea of driving solo everyday on roads that take longer and longer to get to work.
The Europeans have invested in rail but commuter buses and vans are a way to still "distribute" but avoid the horror of a 4 hr daily commute.
I just think our current way of life - is changing... and solo driving may become less and less worthwhile to a lot of folks.
my 2cents as usual
Larry G,
Northern Virgina/DC is probably the best example of how a good commuter rail system can make a difference.
A Fairfax resident can get to DC faster by driving to the Park & Ride and taking the Metro than he can driving.
The further they extend the Metro the more it improves the commute for those that live beyond Fairfax.
The modern Western suburbs that were built after the Automobile became commonplace, do not have half the rail infrastructure that they have in DC. Here in Phoenix, light rail just became active in Dec. 2008 and only in very limited areas. Even so, the average daily ridership is 3 times what they estimated when they first proposed it....
the gas tax as an adequate funding mechanism for roads only "worked" when gasoline was cheap and cars got crappy mileage.
Those days are gone and the result is that there is no more money to spend on widening commuting roads to relieve congestion.
I think this combined with the housing meltdown is going to cause fundamental changes in our desire to "distribute".
The congestion will get worse and worse if we continue to drive solo and the strategy of driving til you qualify fails in you need to move and instead of gaining value - your house lost value.
That would mean that taking a job for more money would have to be traded off against the dollar loss in your house if you sold it or the even longer commute in every more congested circumstances..
My view is that these things are going to result in a lot of folks rethinking this equation.
re: Metro and Commuter rail
this is how Europe beats us.
They tack about a 2-3 buck tax on gasoline and use it to build transit, light rail, heavy rail.
Here...most of our transit systems are barely surviving an where we as a country view transit as "subsidized", in Europe. it is seen as an "investment".
their rails do not operate self-sufficiently from fares alone no more than our transit does.
but their folks are more OK with taxing the bejesus out of gasoline than our folks are.
Larry G,
The European taxes, in addition to helping pay for rail infrastructure, also help to build roads and bridges that are far superior to those in the U.S.
In many countries, gas taxes also help to fund public health care.
IMHO, we could solve two major problems in the U.S. by raising gas taxes and using some of that money for public health care.....
geeze Smurf .. let's tackle one insurmountable obstacle at a time!
:-)
but you're right about the roads. The Europeans build their roads with much more depth to the pavement and so they last much longer especially when subjected to heavy truck traffic.
we do roads on the cheap over here and if we have limited funds.. instead of fixing and maintaining the existing infrastruction, we go spend it on more cheap roads.
but this is no go if you can't resolve the question about how much of an increased gas tax would go for transit.
Right now 3 cents of the Federal gas tax goes to transit and there are folks "out there" who would grab that 3 cents back if they could and the'll vociferously oppose any increase in transit money from gas taxes - no doubt "town hall" style.
in other words - "keep your grubby hands off of my healthcare AND off of my roads".
heh heh
can the government afford a gas tax?
we've invested at least a $100 billion into the US auto industry already, and we'll probably invest much more.
wouldn't a gas tax hurt this investment?
while recent surveys suggest that americans consider US automakers at a high percent, when it comes to buying fuel efficient vehicles, it seems consumers strongly favor non-big 3 automakers.
perhaps that can change with Fiat and some of the Big 3's new small cars, etc.
certainly, the US auto industry isn't as important to the US economy as it once was, but it's still pretty critical. moreover, i think the auto is as important to the american culture as it ever was.
perhaps its time to decouple America and the automobile in some way? or, is the automobile the key to america's future?
Post a Comment
<< Home