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.

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).

"....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.

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.

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.

Mazda 5 is a van (micro-van).

Market Class = Station Wagons
EPA Size Class = Midsize Station Wagons

see fueleconomy.gov

If more than 90% of the miles you drive you can use a car, then where is the need for a truck?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_classification

Look at the table. "Compact minivan: Mazda5"

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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)

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?

Could you get any further off-topic?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.