« Chevron and NREL Ally to Advance Cellulosic Biofuels | Main | New York Governor Announces Hydropower-to-Hydrogen Project »
Light Truck Sales Rebound in September; Toyota Leads the Way
4 October 2006
 |
| September sales for the top six automakers. Click to enlarge. |
US sales of light-duty trucks and SUVs rebounded in September, increasing to 720,092 units—5.4% more than sales in September 2005, according to figures gathered by Autodata. Total light-duty vehicle sales in the US increased 1.9% in September 2006 from September 2005, climbing to 1,354,365 units.
By contrast, sales of passenger cars dropped 1.9% from the prior September to 634,273 units. In September 2006, light trucks accounted for 53% of new light-duty vehicle sales, up from 51% in September 2005. For the nine months through September 2006, light-truck sales were down 8.2% from the prior year, while passenger-car sales were up 1.8%. For the first nine months of 2006, light trucks accounted for 52% of all new light-duty vehicle sales.
GM and Ford still posted month-on-month declines in their light truck sales, but not the sharp decreases of prior months of this year. Ford’s economically important F-Series trucks halted their decline in sales with an increase of 1.2% in September sales to 70,822. (By contrast, total sales of all Ford Brand cars for the month was 72,566. That figure, however, marked a very sharp 43.7% increase from September 2005.)
Likewise, Chevrolet’s full-size pickup sales climbed 11.4% to 58,170 units.
A big boost in truck and SUV sales came from Toyota, whose sales of those vehicles increased 35% to 95,583 units. The increase in Toyota sales accounted for 67% of the total increase in light duty truck sales from September 2005. Sales of the Tundra full-size pickup jumped 67% to 12,609 in September.
 |
| Price of regular grade gasoline in the US. Click to enlarge. Source: EIA |
Honda also saw a sharp climb in light truck sales, with an 11.6% increase to 49,114 units.
By the beginning of October, the average price of gasoline in the US (all grades, all formulations) had dropped to $2.36 per gallon—an 18% drop from the average $2.89 at the end of August 2006 and 21% below the price one year ago.
October 4, 2006 in Fuel Efficiency, Sales | Permalink | Comments (58) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/6271785
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Light Truck Sales Rebound in September; Toyota Leads the Way:
Comments
Buyers of these light trucks will no doubt complain when gas prices go up again. These sales just demonstrate that we will never do anything serious about fuel consumption until we institute a permanent increase in prices kept up by gas taxes.
Posted by: t | Oct 4, 2006 10:23:51 AM
No surprise with this news.
I'm sure someone will lash out at Toyota, too, any minute now.
Posted by: fred | Oct 4, 2006 10:37:39 AM
If a car is good enough for your purposes, you should still purchase that rather than an SUV or pick-up truck. Oil prices may be at their lowest since February but a vehicle is operated for a decade or more. It therefore pays to ignore short-term gyrations and look at the underlying long-term trend, which has been firmly upwards in recent years.
It is true that this has sparked fresh investment in oil production and refining capacity, which could yet turn the present boom to a bust. However, robust growth in OECD and BRIC countries, in Eastern Europe as well as in a large number of other emerging economies will ensure that any bust may well be milder and shorter-lived than those in the past. China in particular *could* increase the energy efficiency of virtually all aspects of its economy but won't make that a priority as long as the Communist party perceives rapid GDP growth as essential to its own political survival.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Oct 4, 2006 10:47:46 AM
One more thing: don't blame the auto industry for building excessive numbers of SUVs and pick-up trucks if that is what consumers demand. These vehicles also deliver high profit margins, increasing the incentive to produce and market them. After all, Toyota, GM, Ford, DCX and others (are trying to) run for-profit enterprises, not charities. Nevertheless, it is the customer who is king.
If sales of these vehicles increase again, consumers have only themselves to blame. Inevitably, this will contribute to yet greater dependence on OPEC oil, higher GHG emissions and higher prices at the pump. Coincidentally, it may help the US auto industry stay afloat in the short term. However, for the long term health of US energy security, the global climate as well as the US auto industry, high fuel economy should remain a top purchasing criterion for prospective carbuyers.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Oct 4, 2006 11:22:30 AM
Hooray for the free market showing that consumers will make a sensible choice...oh, nevermind.
I'm expecting Carlos Ghosn and Bob Lutz to put out a statement that says, "See I told you so. Purchasers of SUVs don't care about gas price volatility."
I'd love to see oil at $30 per barrel or less and gasoline at $3 per gallon in the US. Then we could stop funneling billions of dollars into the countries whom despise us most while convincing consumers to make more sensible vehicle choices addressing environmental and security concerns at the same time.
Posted by: Patrick | Oct 4, 2006 11:45:08 AM
The focus should be making the PU/SUV get 40mpg and run on a renewable fuel source. Not, forcing people to buy small cars that don't match their needs.
Posted by: Joseph | Oct 4, 2006 12:39:06 PM
I knew the general population was short-sighted, but this really blows my mind. Gas is down for a month or so and the truck sales "boom" again. Well, I'm not going to feel sorry for them when/if gas is $4.00 a gallon in two years. Now's a good time to snatch up the fuel efficient vehicles and sell them for a profit in two years (if gas is much higher then).
Posted by: John W. | Oct 4, 2006 1:10:20 PM
Perhaps now that GM and Ford have cut labor costs and excess capacity, they can reliably build Class B and C cars for a profit (Subcompact and compact cars).
_
Rafael Seidl,
While it is true that what the customer demands drives the market, GM should have leveraged their European and other overseas operations to hedge against the rising energy prices. Even if the fuel prices had not risen, there are advantages that would have resulted from such decisions, such as better ability to hold off Asian imports in the N.A. market. The same would be true, though to a smaller degree, for Ford.
_The Big 3 were tunnel visioned with high margin light trucks and SUV. This was in part due to the strategy to let the Japanese take the lower margin market for small and efficient cars. They would put up a fight in the large, performance, and luxury car segments, but the big profits would roll in from SUV and light trucks. A good strategy always has a good backup plan, or at least the beginnings for a rapid repositioning of their company (as rapid massive companies like GM can move). They did not hedge, and thus they took a punch in the solar plexus when gas prices rose above $2.50, then above $3.00. The upper management of the bureaucracy that is GM is also risk adverse, and WILL NOT DO ANYTHING THAT HAS ANY RISK OF DAMAGING THEIR RISE UP THE CORPRATE LADDER. The results were mediocre designs, and less emphasis on fuel efficiency. Some of hierarchy got the message after Katrina in 2005, but how carefully did they listen, and how fast can they turn it around is not likely to be clear until 2007. We have seen some of the renewed urgency amongst the Big 3 this year. However, these were in the pipeline for some time (3-6 years). Hence, real results may not appear until 2008, possibly even not fully unveiled until beyond 2010.
_Will they become smaller, but leaner and more profitable, of will the carmakers from Asia eat their lunch? It will be an interesting 5 years as we watch GM and Ford fight for their lives. DaimlerChrysler might join them as well, if Dr. Z does not help Chrysler around with technology they can draw from in their European operations/subsidiaries. How will they continue to weather their dropping market share, remains to be seen.
Posted by: allen Z | Oct 4, 2006 1:35:38 PM
1. Eliminate the Gas Guzzler Tax EXEMPTION light trucks and minivans below 22.5 mpg enjoy.
2. Eliminate the policy that allows businesses to purchase SUVs and write off most or all of the cost of the vehicle on their income taxes in the first year.
Posted by: fyi CO2 | Oct 4, 2006 2:19:48 PM
"The focus should be making the PU/SUV get 40mpg and run on a renewable fuel source. Not, forcing people to buy small cars that don't match their needs."
Probably 5% of light truck buyers have a true need for one - and that's being generous.
Posted by: barnaby | Oct 4, 2006 2:37:07 PM
Why not get a fuel efficient Pick-up like a Ford Ranger or Toyota Tacoma? And why not a more fuel efficient SUV (that's not an oxymoron) like a Jeep Patriot, Jeep Compass, or Ford Escape Hybrid?
Posted by: Mark R. W. Jr. | Oct 4, 2006 3:39:13 PM
"Probably 5% of light truck buyers have a true need for one - and that's being generous."
-------------
No, thats not being generous. Since far more then 20% of them are used for work/business that does not fly. Half the truck owners I know use them for work, and all of the pickup owners I know use them for hauling wood or towing.
I only know one SUV owner who does not use his SUV for anything specific. The only common thread.... almost all of them have BIGGER light trucks then they probobly need.
Posted by: hampden wireless | Oct 4, 2006 6:51:30 PM
SUV or a pick-up are real pig to drive. Only people who really need them should sacrifice agility and economy of a car to these cast iron mammoths. Unfortunately, very few among American drivers are good enough to recognize this difference. This is exactly the reason why they tolerate antiquated technology, awful reliability, inherent poor safety of these vehicles, and generally drive them on even more retarded manner then these vehicles allow.
But this situation is not forever. People learn. Move to way more sophisticated import SUV and trucks indicates just that.
Posted by: Andrey | Oct 4, 2006 7:30:33 PM
Since far more then 20% of them are used for work/business that does not fly. Half the truck owners I know use them for work, and all of the pickup owners I know use them for hauling wood or towing. I only know one SUV owner who does not use his SUV for anything specific. The only common thread.... almost all of them have BIGGER light trucks then they probobly need.
Anecdotal fallacy.
Posted by: barnaby | Oct 4, 2006 7:35:03 PM
Barnaby wrote: "Anecdotal fallacy."
-----------------------
Ok, so that "far more then 20%" was off the top of my head.
according to the DOE its...
"Of total light truck sales to fleets, 56.8 percent are used in business fleets"
source:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/transportation.html
Which makes your 5% guess the fallacy.
Posted by: hampden wireless | Oct 4, 2006 8:55:02 PM
Which makes your 5% guess the fallacy.
Are you kidding? What exactly do you think your statistic is supposed to indicate? Percentage of light truck sales to fleets are sold to businesses? And? That doesn't say what percentage of light truck sales are fleet sales, nor how those light trucks are used in business fleets.
In sum, your statistic means nothing.
The question is the NEED for a light truck, and what percentage of the ones sold are actually because they're needed.
Posted by: barnaby | Oct 4, 2006 9:25:18 PM
"Of total light truck sales to fleets, 56.8 percent are used in business fleets"
That is not a hard statement to understand. The trucks are used by businesses, and used by them. I have not seen a business buy a truck and not use it for work. That may be possible but its not the norm.
PS- its not my statistic, its the DOE's statistic.
Posted by: hampden wireless | Oct 4, 2006 9:46:32 PM
PS- its not my statistic, its the DOE's statistic.
Gee, I didn't realize that. Are we going to have a semantic showdown?
How about "THAT statistic is meaningless." Does that work for you?
PS - It's actually ORNL's statistic, which they originally source from the Automotive Fleet Factbook if you want to get hypertechnical about it.
Posted by: barnaby | Oct 4, 2006 10:14:53 PM
The people I know with big pickup trucks (full size dodge ram, etc) use them for towing or hauling maybe 6-7 times a year at the most and some never use them in that capacity unless someone asks to use their truck when they move.
The people I know with SUVs (car-based or truck-based) never tow or haul anything other than themselves with one person who is an exception because they tow a boat to the lake 5 or 6 times a year.
A guy I work with uses his little sub-compact hatchback when he goes hunting. He loads a Bear right into the hatch area with the dogs up front or in the backseat and he says he's never had a need for a pickup when he goes hunting.
Posted by: Patrick | Oct 5, 2006 8:43:09 AM
Go to the dept. of revenue listings for every state and they typically list car registrations by classification. Then you can find out how many trucks are registered by businesses or for commercial use and how many are registered for personal use. I'm not about to go to such great lengths though as I just finished doing that for something else.
Posted by: Patrick | Oct 5, 2006 8:45:00 AM
Barnaby,
I have to say, I think that you have been completely outclassed by hampden wireless’ logic. I mean you quoted a reliably statistic that then requires an additional inference to understand that more than 5% of light truck users actually use these vehicles for there intended purposes. However, Hampden has rallied around a figure that has no basis and was pulled directly out of fyi co2’s rear. Yep Hampden really got you on this one.
bret
Posted by: bret | Oct 5, 2006 11:46:00 AM
I have to say, I think that you have been completely outclassed by hampden wireless’ logic.
Oh, absolutely. What's more logical than to look up percentage of light truck fleet sales to business when the topic is how much light trucks are actually needed? And the great logic of quibbling over petty, non-topical semantics is also very logical and indicative of a strong argument. You're so right, Bret.
I mean you quoted a reliably [sic] statistic that then requires an additional inference to understand that more than 5% of light truck users actually use these vehicles for there [sic] intended purposes.
There's some more iron-clad logic.
However, Hampden has rallied around a figure that has no basis and was pulled directly out of fyi co2’s rear.
One accurate statement after another from you, Bret. I'm the one who threw that number out, not fyico2. Nice butt reference, too - another sign of an iron-clad, logical argument.
Yep Hampden really got you on this one.
Oh, did "he"?
I'll refer you now to the 2002 Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey.
http://www.census.gov/prod/ec02/ec02tv-us.pdf
This will require you to think a little bit, so don't be scared.
Go to page 57 of the report and you'll see a chart entitled "Truck Miles Distribution by Operational Characteristics". Since the data in Column B excludes pickups, minivans, other light vans, and sport utilities, simply subtract the amount from Column B from the total for all trucks in Column A to get the amount for light trucks.
Next you'll want to look at two rows - one entitled "No trailer pulled" in the section on "TRAILER CONFIGURATION" and the other "Off the road" in the section on "RANGE OF OPERATION".
This is what you'll find.
Total miles = 969,555,500,000
No trailer pulled = 935,846,100,000
Ergo, trailer pulled = 33,709,400,000, or 3.5% of total miles
Off the road = 12,401,400,000, or 1.3% of total miles
Assuming there's no overlap between those two uses (ie, towing and off-roading simultaneously), you get this:
Trailer pulling + off-roading = 3.5% + 1.3% = 4.8%
Wow. Looks like what I "pulled out of my rear" came really darn close to what the actual numbers are.
Yeah, that Hampden sure crushed me with his "logic".
Thanks for your comments, Bret.
Posted by: barnaby | Oct 5, 2006 12:21:22 PM
Another common argument for light trucks is people carrying capacity.
Fact is that the personal light truck load factor is 1.72 persons per vehicle, and that 7-or-more person households are only 1.8% of all households.
Posted by: barnaby | Oct 5, 2006 12:43:17 PM
barnaby,
I'd add 6 person and 7 or more person households. Other than vans (small market share) I don't know of any passenger vehicles which will hold more than 5 people. Granted that is still a small percentage (4.3%)
4.8% for trailer and off-road use (following your assumptions) doesn't quite clarify the entirety of actual need for a truck. Really you should go down the list of products transported and subtract B from A. It comes out to something like 189,345,800,000 miles and using the above 969,555,500,000 miles figure from above that gives roughly 19.5% of the light duty truck miles are from transporting goods (hazardous and non-hazardous). I could have fumbled through a few numbers as I did it quickly and there are a lot of numbers there but that should be fairly accurate.
Posted by: Patrick | Oct 5, 2006 1:55:24 PM
Well, the number is probably smaller than that since multiple products could be carried at the same time but they still add the miles individually by product type (according to footnote 4).
That puts it at somewhere definitely less than 19.5% of the miles and above 4.8% of the miles are used for commercial or business purposes.
Posted by: Patrick | Oct 5, 2006 1:58:01 PM
I'd add 6 person and 7 or more person households. Other than vans (small market share) I don't know of any passenger vehicles which will hold more than 5 people.
Can't say whether this list is complete or not, but from the last three model years (2005-2007), here are the 7-seater vehicles that sedans or wagons:
Ford Taurus SEL Wagon
Mercedes-Benz E-Class E320 Wagon
Mercedes-Benz E-Class E350 4MATIC Wagon
Mercedes-Benz E-Class E350 Wagon
Mercedes-Benz E-Class E500 4MATIC Wagon
Mercedes-Benz E-Class E55 AMG Wagon
Mercedes-Benz E-Class E63 AMG Wagon
Mercury Sable LS Wagon
Volvo V70 2.4
Volvo V70 2.5T
Volvo V70 T5
Volvo XC70 Cross Country
and here's the 6-seaters:
Buick Century Sedan
Buick LaCrosse CX
Buick LaCrosse CXL
Buick LeSabre Custom
Buick LeSabre Limited
Buick Lucerne CX
Buick Lucerne CXL V6
Buick Lucerne CXL V8
Buick Park Avenue Sedan
Buick Park Avenue Ultra
Cadillac DeVille DHS
Cadillac DeVille Sedan
Cadillac DTS Luxury 1
Cadillac DTS Luxury 2
Cadillac DTS Sedan
Chevrolet Impala LS
Chevrolet Impala LT1 3.5L
Chevrolet Impala LT2 3.5L
Chevrolet Impala LT3 3.9L
Chevrolet Impala Sedan
Chevrolet Impala SS
Ford Crown Victoria LX
Ford Crown Victoria Standard
Ford Taurus SE Sedan
Lincoln Town Car Designer Series
Lincoln Town Car Signature
Lincoln Town Car Signature L
Lincoln Town Car Signature Limited
Mazda MAZDA5 Grand Touring
Mazda MAZDA5 Sport
Mazda MAZDA5 Touring
Mercury Grand Marquis GS
Mercury Grand Marquis GS Convenience
Mercury Grand Marquis LS Premium
Mercury Grand Marquis LS Ultimate
Mercury Sable GS Sedan
Pontiac Bonneville SE Sedan
Really you should go down the list of products transported and subtract B from A. It comes out to something like 189,345,800,000 miles and using the above 969,555,500,000 miles figure from above that gives roughly 19.5% of the light duty truck miles are from transporting goods (hazardous and non-hazardous).
First you need to take note of the footnote to that chart which says "Detail lines may not add to total because multiple products/hazardous materials may be carried at the same time." Plus, the issue isn't whether they are "hauling" something but rather if only a light truck is capable of doing the "hauling". There's no reference to quantities in that list, only what's being "hauled" - and that list includes "passengers". There's no way to back out numbers which represent hauling that could only be done by a light truck - and not an automobile. For that matter, same could go for towing. Plenty of passenger vehicles are capable of hauling and/or towing a substantial amount of material.
To top it off, what's being discussed is need. Just because something is being "hauled", or towed, or someone is going off-road -- doesn't mean they have to.
My estimate was off-the-cuff based on what I know, and the two primary activities that one usually associates nearly exclusively with light trucks -- towing and off-roading -- indicate that less than 5% of miles driven are done doing one of those two things. And that's right on the mark with what I said.
Posted by: barnaby | Oct 5, 2006 2:47:06 PM
I found the footnote and added in a comment immediately following my initial comment.
Have you been in any of the cars you list? They may be called "6 seaters" but you won't fit anybody but small children and famished models in those vehicles in such high numbers. Just 3 across in the back of most of those vehicles is uncomfortable. To put 3 across in the front I would consider dangerous.
Mazda 5 is a van (micro-van).
Posted by: Patrick | Oct 5, 2006 4:32:55 PM
"....indicate that less than 5% of miles driven are done doing one of those two things. And that's right on the mark with what I said."
No, that is not what you said. You said "Probably 5% of light truck buyers have a true need for one - and that's being generous."
I know lots of people that use pickup trucks daily for construction work. In other words they need a pickup truck. However, rarely (pick a small number) do they tow or go off-roading and probably more than 90% of the miles they drive in the truck they could use a car instead.
Posted by: bret | Oct 5, 2006 4:42:04 PM
Have you been in any of the cars you list?
Many.
They may be called "6 seaters" but you won't fit anybody but small children and famished models in those vehicles in such high numbers.
In a Lincoln Town Car? A Crown Vic? The seat number of claims work the same way for light trucks - especially those ones with third rows.
To put 3 across in the front I would consider dangerous.
That's an opinion. I grew up in cars like that. Somehow I made it here.
Posted by: barnaby | Oct 5, 2006 4:53:41 PM
No, that is not what you said. You said "Probably 5% of light truck buyers have a true need for one - and that's being generous."
Did I say that is exactly what I said? No, I said that number is in line with what I said - and nowhere in the ballpark of what Hampden said. You're now taking the semantic route as well, since the empirical and logical ones aren't bearing fruit.
I know lots of people that use pickup trucks daily for construction work. In other words they need a pickup truck. However, rarely (pick a small number) do they tow or go off-roading and probably more than 90% of the miles they drive in the truck they could use a car instead.
Wonderful. Now we're right back at the anecdotal fallacy.
You questioned the facts, I gave them to you, you didn't like them, so you ignore them and go right back to subjective notions and semantics.
Again, thanks for your comments.
Posted by: barnaby | Oct 5, 2006 4:56:43 PM
Mazda 5 is a van (micro-van).
Market Class = Station Wagons
EPA Size Class = Midsize Station Wagons
see fueleconomy.gov
Posted by: barnaby | Oct 5, 2006 6:39:23 PM
If more than 90% of the miles you drive you can use a car, then where is the need for a truck?
Posted by: Petroleo | Oct 6, 2006 6:44:03 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_classification
Look at the table. "Compact minivan: Mazda5"
Posted by: Patrick | Oct 6, 2006 2:10:19 PM
Look at the table. "Compact minivan: Mazda5"
Look at a random Wikipedia table written by God-knows-who (who made a typo in the Mazda 5 entry even) and ignore the designation for it by the EPA size class, market class, and how it's designated on the Auto Channel?
You said there were ZERO passenger cars with 6 or more seats. I gave you dozens. So now you want to dicker over this inconsequential semantic notion?
Great - so let's give you this and now there's only several dozen passenger cars, minus 1, with 6 or more seats.
Posted by: barnaby | Oct 6, 2006 4:22:03 PM
Barnaby your wrote: “Wonderful. Now we're right back at the anecdotal fallacy.”
The “anecdotal fallacy” was merely an example of the fact that the number of hours a pickup truck is used to “tow or go off-roading” is not related to the number of “light truck buyers [which] have a true need for one.” I thought that this very obvious fact required little more than a simple example for illustration. I apologize that I overestimated your ability to recognize this.
you wrote "You questioned the facts, I gave them to you, you didn't like them, so you ignore them and go right back to subjective notions and semantics."
Yes indeed, you have convinced me that about 5% of the miles driven by light duty trucks are for towing or going off-road, congratulations, well done! But what does that have to do with the number of light truck buyers that have a true need for one. Very little I am afraid. But do not despair Barnaby, with a couple of simple assumptions we can use your fact to relate miles driven to owners that actually need a truck and help us understand the question at hand.
First, if we make the assumption that the fraction of all miles driven to “tow or go off-roading” is equal to the fraction of light truck buyers which have a true need for one then indeed about 5% of buys actually need a light truck.
But let’s face it, to have the equivalent of one person needing a truck we needed to sum the miles driven towing or going off-road from multiple owners to equal 100% of the mile drive by a single truck, is really a bit extreme. In fact based upon your fact, this would be the absolute minimum number of owners that need a truck. See we have found the lower bound of the question at hand!
Now stay with me here Barnaby, why don’t we assume that the equivalent of 50% of the miles driven by all trucks towing or off-roading is equal to one person that needs a truck. Then about 10% of the light truck buyers have a true need for one.
This too seems extreme to me, how about we assume that 36 days a year the truck it used 100% of the time for towing or to go off-road, or 10% of every day is spent using a truck to tow or go off-roading. At least to me, such a person would truly need a truck. Then a whopping 50% of the truck owners actually need one. Wow, that’s really close to the statistics and implied assumptions by Hampden.
So is Hampden number right? Probably not, but thanks to your fact we now know one thing absolutely for sure, your statement: "Probably 5% of light truck buyers have a true need for one - and that's being generous" is an underestimation, thus wrong.
Barnaby, I realize that all of this is a bit complicated and hard to understand, so feel free to ask any questions.
Bret
Posted by: bret | Oct 6, 2006 6:35:50 PM
Barnaby you wrote “If more than 90% of the miles you drive you can use a car, then where is the need for a truck?”
First, the 90% was my attempt at a little humor. You see 90% is a wild ass guess just like your initial 5% was. I thought you would get this when I wrote “rarely (pick a small number)”. Subtle, I know, sorry again.
By the way if you really need to ask this question, then I suggest you spend a little time looking at a construction site to see how many truck are used.
Bret
Posted by: bret | Oct 6, 2006 6:36:59 PM
Barnaby you wrote “If more than 90% of the miles you drive you can use a car, then where is the need for a truck?”
No, I didn't write that. The name of the person who wrote something comes after the comment, not before. This is the second time you've made this error on this thread.
First, the 90% was my attempt at a little humor. You see 90% is a wild ass guess just like your initial 5% was.
Ignoring for a moment that I didn't make the above comment you're referencing, my "wild ass" guess just happened to be completely accurate. You know why? Because it's not a "wild ass" guess. I actually know what I'm talking about, therefore I'm quite confident in my estimates. Or do you contend that the data I provided (you know, the data that's actually relevant to the question at hand) is in error? You claimed I pulled the number "from my rear" and that Hampden "outclassed me" and "really got me on this one", despite the fact that actual statistics are precisely the same as my "guess", whereas his guess is nowhere near the actual numbers.
So, that kind of tells us what we need to know about your evaluation skills as to who has been "outclassed" and who "really got someone".
By the way if you really need to ask this question, then I suggest you spend a little time looking at a construction site to see how many truck are used.
I'm sorry, I don't recall ever saying that there are trucks on construction sites. What I do recall is getting usage data by miles driven with respect to truck type and function being performed.
Well, as they say, if you can't debate the big point, dicker over some minor points that really mean nothing, and be sure to toss in a heap of personal insults - that is, if you can't really debate or admit that you were wrong when data indicate you are.
Thanks, as always, for your comments.
Posted by: barnaby | Oct 6, 2006 7:00:42 PM
Strangely, Mazda calls it a van as well:
http://www.mpv.mazda.co.jp/u_style/
Not to belabour the point but my first example was very poor as a source.
On to the other point I said "I don't KNOW of any vehicles." Yes, yes semantics but I did not say there were ZERO cars. You showed me there are cars classified as 6 passenger or more. I DID NOT KNOW 3 row seating was still available in station wagons and my "anecdotal" evidence of having ridden in many cars caused me to believe that you would not fit 6 people in any passenger cars.
I see now that you have to order those sedans specifically with front bench seats (atleast the few I looked at). I have never been in any of them with anything other than front bucket seats.
With a few of those cars you would get better gas mileage if you drove a minivan though.
Posted by: Patrick | Oct 6, 2006 11:07:46 PM
Strangely, Mazda calls it a van as well:
Good for them.
On to the other point I said "I don't KNOW of any vehicles." Yes, yes semantics but I did not say there were ZERO cars.
I see. You're just completely oblivious to the existence of dozens of well-known automobiles, many of which have been around for a very long time.
With a few of those cars you would get better gas mileage if you drove a minivan though.
Wonderful - has nothing to do with what's being discussed. All things constant (eg, not comparing some 4-banger minivan with a high-performance sedan), passenger cars are going to be more fuel efficient than light trucks. This is common sense, and reflected in our two-tier CAFE system.
Posted by: barnaby | Oct 6, 2006 11:26:53 PM
Example:
3 MY2006 Hondas, all with 2.4L 4cyl engine
All automatic transmissions
Light trucks w/AWD
Accord Coupe -- 166 hp, 28 mpg
CR-V -- 156 hp, 24 mpg (25 mpg w/2WD)
Element -- 156 hp, 22 mpg (24 mpg w/2WD)
Posted by: barnaby | Oct 6, 2006 11:40:42 PM
I guess you are oblivious to the fact that very few people will be buying high priced luxury vehicles to carry around a large group of people (almost half your list). Especially one listed as having the WORST fuel economy in its category and the replacement for it has even lower fuel economy.
I know you thought it would look like a bigger and more impressive list if you put the individual trims out but an Impala is an Impala whether it is an LS or an SS (that would be interesting to see someone driving an Impala SS with a front bench seat).
Why would I have to concern myself with what 6 passenger cars are in existence? Will I suddenly have a major change in my life now that I know of a 6 passenger sedan?
Posted by: Patrick | Oct 9, 2006 8:56:03 AM
Could you get any further off-topic?
Posted by: barnaby | Oct 9, 2006 9:04:32 AM
Why would I have to concern myself with what 6 passenger cars are in existence?
You're the one who brought up the objection about 6 seats. If you don't want to know about something, stay quiet.
Will I suddenly have a major change in my life now that I know of a 6 passenger sedan?
One change which would be helpful to yourself and everyone you deal with would be an awareness that your conception of reality is often very distant from reality itself, therefore you might be advised to spend more time observing reality and understanding it accurately, and less time preaching about things which you clearly don't understand.
A normal person would do that. They'd be happy to learn and understand things better, so that they don't say "there are none" when there are dozens. This is not a minor difference in perception.
Posted by: barnaby | Oct 9, 2006 9:10:32 AM
barnaby,
I did not say there were none. I said I do not know of any.
You said I'm oblivious to dozens of cars and I tell you that of course I'm oblivious to it because I have no need for a 6 passenger car and never looked for one. The only obvious vehicles to seat 6 or more are vans & SUVs for someone who has never had a need to find such a vehicle. I also explained how, from my point of view those large sedans did not come to mind as being 6 passenger as I have not ridden in any with a front bench seat (the last car I was in with that configuration was a 72 Cadillac Coupe d'ville). Without a front bench seat it appears dangerous to have 4 people in the rear or to try to put 3 people in the front.
The comments you just quoted me as saying I see don't quite come off in the manner I wanted. I should have added:
I have never had a need for a 6 passenger vehicle so why should I concern myself with what 6 passenger sedans exist? Therefore I have never looked into optional configurations of large sedans (that in some cases have to be ordered directly from the factory as such) for seating 6 people.
Preaching about what I don't understand? You must believe I thought 4.8% of miles driven = 4.8% of trucks in use.
Posted by: Patrick | Oct 9, 2006 10:45:19 AM
I did not say there were none. I said I do not know of any.
My point exactly. You were unaware that dozens of them existed, yet presume to engage in this discussion?
You said I'm oblivious to dozens of cars and I tell you that of course I'm oblivious to it because I have no need for a 6 passenger car and never looked for one.
So, unless you personally need something, you can't possibly know it exists? I don't need a dress, yet I know dresses exist. And even so, why would someone talk about something they know nothing about?
The only obvious vehicles to seat 6 or more are vans & SUVs for someone who has never had a need to find such a vehicle.
You must be very, very young, have limited experience riding in other people's vehicles, and simply don't see Town Cars, Crown Vics, Impalas, and Tauruses -- all of which populate American roads with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of vehicles.
Preaching about what I don't understand? You must believe I thought 4.8% of miles driven = 4.8% of trucks in use.
Your confusion escalates. The issue is what percentage of people actually need light trucks. To ascertain this, one then looks at how those vehicles are actually being used, then see what percentage of that use is non-substitutable. One can then go even further to examine the notion of "need" in this case, since simply towing and off-roading don't necessarily indicate an unchangeable need to do these things.
Why do you persist in this exchange? Is it bearing fruit for you in some manner?
Posted by: barnaby | Oct 9, 2006 11:02:20 AM
You can not learn if you do not ask questions and engage in discussion.
I did not say I don't know that cars exist.
You know of dresses? Therefore you are saying, you could name off every style & type of dress currently in production today in every country? I doubt, without a need for dresses, that you would want to squander your time searching for this information when it has no impact on your life (does the knowledge of dress styles in Spain vs. dress styles in Cambodia or dress styles in Chile have any effect on you?). I guess you must know of every type of dress in existence since you wouldn't talk about something you know nothing about.
I have ridden in a Crown Vic, DTS, and several others off the list. I have driven a Tuarus and a couple others off the list. NONE of these had BENCH seats (when I drove or rode in them). You WILL NOT safely fit more than 5 people in the vehicles with 2 rows of seats with front bucket seats. They MUST be configured with bench seats. Having only seen bucket seat configurations for the last 15 years of riding in and driving vehicles bench front seating was not an option that was apparent to me(as mentioned in a previous post). Even the Ford Crown Victoria taxis I have been in all had bucket seats.
The only way I would have known of bench seating being available in those vehicles is if either I had ridden in one with bench seats or I had been searching for a vehicle capable of seating 6 people.
Posted by: Patrick | Oct 9, 2006 11:50:19 AM
You can not learn if you do not ask questions and engage in discussion.
Sure you can. You can read and absorb facts and knowledge. You can listen to wisdom. You can observe reality. Just talking doesn't mean you are learning. Also, mature learning is when you are grateful for new knowledge, not using it to start running off on six hundred different tangents because you can't just say, "Wow - I can't believe how wrong I was. Thanks for clearing things up for me. I'm grateful to not be clueless about this now."
I have ridden in a Crown Vic, DTS, and several others off the list. I have driven a Tuarus and a couple others off the list. NONE of these had BENCH seats (when I drove or rode in them).
That's quite miraculous.
Having only seen bucket seat configurations for the last 15 years of riding in and driving vehicles bench front seating was not an option that was apparent to me(as mentioned in a previous post). Even the Ford Crown Victoria taxis I have been in all had bucket seats.
Also very miraculous. Do you want to expand the list to all the passenger vehicles with 6 or more seats going back 15 years?
Now this is all wonderful - you know that people can get cars that seat lots of people. Aren't you grateful to be aware of this?
Now please tell me how more than 5% of light truck owners actually have a true need for one, as I originally asserted. Saying that you don't know that 6-seat passenger cars exist isn't relevant. They exist. We also know that light trucks are rarely used to tow or go off-road. And since the counter claim was that more than 20% of light truck owners need them, do the numbers that we can measure, and what we know about needs and substitution possibilities, indicate that 5% is far more accurate than 20%+?
No need to answer. The data already has.
Posted by: barnaby | Oct 9, 2006 12:12:08 PM
I did not support the counterclaim of 20%.
I suggested that (with my original assertions) 4.3% of people would need one based on size of family/group/ etc. versus your original 1.8% (7+ persons) figure.
Someone else was saying 20% (and then said a number over 50% when referring to fleet usage).
The only claim that I made was that the number was somewhere between 19.5% and 4.8%
It is not miraculous that I have not been in a car with a configuration capable of seating 6 or more people when you consider that I already mention I have never had a need for such a vehicle. Therefore, the groups I have been in have always been less than 6 or large enough such that multiple vehicles would have to be used (unless someone were to own a large van or small bus which I do not know of anyone with such a vehicle as their personal vehicle). The people who I know whom need a vehicle of that sort buy either mini-vans or SUVs so I was never exposed to a 6 person passenger car from acquaintances either.
Posted by: Patrick | Oct 9, 2006 1:20:20 PM
The only claim that I made was that the number was somewhere between 19.5% and 4.8%
You have no data to support that guess. We have usage data - that's it. After that, it's speculation. Plus, as was pointed out to you before, towing, hauling, and havng multiple passengers are not exclusive uses. The potential for double-counting errors are enormous. The Vehicle Use Survey said as such.
And again, regardless, there is no way to tell if these infrequent uses for the vehicle are themselves necessary activities. So that reduces the percentage even further. So to say "at most 5%, and that's probably being generous" is supported by data and analysis.
It is not miraculous that I have not been in a car with a configuration capable of seating 6 or more people when you consider that I already mention I have never had a need for such a vehicle.
So you don't have any friends? Never ride in someone else's vehicle? Don't watch TV? Don't look around on the highway while you're driving? See inside vehicles as you walk in a parking lot or down a street? The existence of 6-seater passenger vehicles completely evaded your notice for 15 years? Yes, that is miraculous.
And again, it's pretty self-centered to say that one cannot notice anything that one does not need. I don't need the Hope Diamond, but I have noticed it exists.
Posted by: barnaby | Oct 9, 2006 3:39:51 PM
Just so you can inform yourself before commenting in the future about vehicles, here is a lovely resource from the Auto Channel called "Rank By Specs":
http://db.theautochannel.com/db/ncbg/rank_car_specs.php
Now you won't be limited to knowing things that you personally need in your own life.
Posted by: barnaby | Oct 9, 2006 3:42:02 PM
What need do I have for peering into other people's parked cars? I don't have any need to check the interior of other people's cars. Why do you spend so much time looking into other people's cars?
I guess you did not read the entirety of my post as your first two sentences, in the second to the last paragraph, is already answered. Tell me, how many of your friends have a 2005-2007 CAR with bench seating in the front? How many have had such vehicles in the past 15 years? When is the last time you watched TV and saw a bench seat used in a new car? I see "That 70's Show" has a bench seat displayed...but that is a car from that era. In all other cases, of what TV I do watch that contains car scenes, they have bucket front seats in cars. When I drive down the highway I pay attention to the distance from the exterior of other cars, their signals, and the mood/behavior of the driver if I can (to know if it is an angry driver, someone talking on the phone, or someone distracted). When driving a car it is not as easy to peer into another vehicle on the highway to look for the seats as modern benchs tend to have that nifty little 40/20/40 split fold down (learned that from checking a few manufacturers websites) that is shorter than the rest of the chair and could even be folded down to be used as an armrest.
Here is an experiment, try driving down the highway today and count how many cars you see with bench front seats that are not more than 10 years old. I walked to work today so I won't be able to engage in such a thing myself.
Your example of the Hope Diamond is not a very good example. Do you know of the cut and clarity value of the hope diamond? What is the difference between various cuts used on diamonds and the manner in which they are valued? You know of diamonds, may not have a need for one (unless you are about to get married) but regardless, if you are not a jeweler or salesman of jewelry what would be your need to know such details?
I never said I "CANNOT" notice anything I don't need. Fact is, if you are not looking for something and no one tells you about it then you will be ignorant of its existence. Have you not ever had a revelation upon seeing something and thinking to yourself (or perhaps even saying aloud), "Wow, I didn't know they made something like that." [the exact phrasing is inconsequential, just the sentiment/idea is important] or would you scold yourself and think, "I should have known about it, I should have known everything."?
Until I needed to keep something cold for a trip I did not know they made refrigerators which could plug into the 12V socket on a car. I had no need for such an item and never looked for nor happened to find such a thing "by accident" nor by introduction from a friend. I was considering buying a cooler much larger than I needed and several bags of ice when someone pointed out the mini-electric coolers to me in a store. This makes me self-centered?
Posted by: Patrick | Oct 9, 2006 4:32:33 PM
What need do I have for peering into other people's parked cars? I don't have any need to check the interior of other people's cars. Why do you spend so much time looking into other people's cars?
Why do you spend so much time bickering over non-topical minutiae? So, when you walk down the street, your eyes strictly avoid the interior of other vehicles? When a car comes on TV that has 6 seats, you avert your gaze? You funny.
Your example of the Hope Diamond is not a very good example. Do you know of the cut and clarity value of the hope diamond?
Faailing logic again, I see. You said that you don't know about things because you don't personally need them. It has nothing to do with expertise. Knowing of the existence of 6- and 7-seater passenger cars is not esoteric knowledge, and if you think it is, then I suggest you should consider what that says about you.
Fact is, if you are not looking for something and no one tells you about it then you will be ignorant of its existence.
Yet, despite this lack of knowledge, you felt comfortable in assuming that no such vehicles exist, to the point of lecturing on it. Usually when I don't know something, I don't pretend that I do. But that's me. I can clearly see that other people enjoy talking about things they know nothing about.
So, I know this isn't something that you want to do, but please prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, with actual objective facts, that substantially more than 5% of light truck owners absolutely need their vehicles.
Or, talk about 10-year old on the highway and God knows what else.
Posted by: barnaby | Oct 9, 2006 4:46:56 PM
First you would have to define "need". What constitutes a need?
Can you, at the same time prove that less than 5% have a need for their trucks? (No, you have not done that. At the most you have shown that perhaps less than 5% of miles driven require a vehicle capable of going off road or towing.) In fact, at this point the mileage stats are nearly meaningless if they were intended to show "need for a truck".
Lecturing? Sorry, this is a comment section of a website where random anonymous people post up anything they like within the constraints of the rules imposed by the owners of this website. Why would anyone believe that someone is lecturing here? Were you attempting to conduct a lecture?
Posted by: Patrick | Oct 9, 2006 5:04:17 PM
First you would have to define "need". What constitutes a need?
Luckily there's dictionaries. I try not to define words that already have a definition - Tower of Babel and all that. A need means something one cannot do without. It's usually used in contrast with the word "want", meaning something someone desires but can live without.
Can you, at the same time prove that less than 5% have a need for their trucks?
I already did, many many comments ago.
No, you have not done that.
I'm sorry you are incapable of noticing when something has been done. Add that to not noticing that six-seat passenger cars exist, among many things.
Lecturing?
Yes. Look it up.
Sorry, this is a comment section of a website where random anonymous people post up anything they like within the constraints of the rules imposed by the owners of this website.
Let's review those rules. "Please keep comments on topic. Disagreement is fine, insults, abuse or wild diversions are not." So, you are openly breakng those rules. That has nothing to do with the fact that you're lecturing about things that you have admitted you know absolutely nothing about. Again, I'm not sure why someone would do that.
Why would anyone believe that someone is lecturing here? Were you attempting to conduct a lecture?
No, but I'm now bored with this silly last-word troll. Bye.
Posted by: barnaby | Oct 9, 2006 5:23:57 PM
No you have not identified what constitutes a need for owning a truck.
You have proved nothing. You throw a number up that does not show the desired information.
Once you can tell me what your definition of a "need for owning a truck" is then I can begin to attempt to answer your question. At this point though, without identifying everything with a common definition upon which all participants can agree, the information cannot be determined to the satisfaction of all participants.
As for the rest of your commentary - how very "jw" of you.
Posted by: Patrick | Oct 9, 2006 5:35:04 PM
In 2003, 12.8% of all light truck sales were fleet sales.
Of the fleet sales:
31.0% are for Utility fleets. That gives 3.97% of all light truck sales are for a user with a definite need for trucks.
12.3% in government fleets. 1.57% of all light truck sales for a user which may have a "need" for trucks.
56.8% in business fleets. 7.27% of all light truck sales for a user for which the "need" for trucks can not be understood without analyzing the type of business for which the trucks are used. A fleet of trucks used by NAPA auto parts to carry large components to consumers shows a need...other fleets may not require trucks.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/transportation.html
19.7% of automobile sales were fleet sales as well in 2003.
Posted by: Patrick | Oct 9, 2006 5:52:40 PM
This does not include any users who have a "need" but don't buy fleets of vehicles.
Posted by: Patrick | Oct 9, 2006 5:54:17 PM
I want a truck someday to take camping.
Posted by: pialwtaafi | Oct 9, 2006 6:00:23 PM
