US Light Duty Vehicle Sales Plunge 36.7% in November
02 December 2008
 |
| Market share of light trucks climbed back up to 51.9% in November. Click to enlarge. |
Total US sales of light-duty vehicles (LDV) plunged 36.7% in November from November 2007 to 746,789 units, according to figures from Autodata. There were 25 selling days in November 2008 and November 2007. Year-to-date, total LDV sales are down 16.3% from 2007.
Sales of passenger cars dropped 36.5% year-on-year, while sales of light trucks dropped 36.9% year-on-year. The market share of new light trucks in November pushed back up to 51.9%—the highest level since February. Year-to-date passenger car sales are down 8.3%, while year-to-date truck sales are down 23.4%.
There were about 34 percent, or 400,000, fewer vehicles sold this November in the industry than a year ago—this is the annual volume of two full production plants that have simply evaporated in a single month. The global economic crisis and credit freeze have had a very negative impact on the vehicle market which runs on consumer confidence and available financing.
—Mark LaNeve, vice president, GM North America Vehicle Sales, Service and Marketing
General Motors. GM reported sales of 154,877 vehicles in November, down 41% compared with a year ago. Car sales were off 44% and truck sales were down 39%. The Malibu, however, in one of the rare instances of success for any of the manufacturers, posted a 31% increase in sales in November to 9,469 units. Year-to-date Malibu sales are up 39%.
GM delivered a total of 1,335 hybrid vehicles in the month. Hybrid sales included: 404 hybrid Chevrolet Tahoe, 190 GMC Yukon and 173 Cadillac Escalade 2-mode SUVs delivered. There were 195 Chevrolet Malibu, 45 Saturn Aura and 328 Vue hybrids sold in November. Hybrids represented 10% of combined Yukon/Tahoe retail sales and 12% of Escalade retail sales in the month. So far in 2008, GM has sold a total of 11,884 hybrids.
Toyota. Toyota Motor Sales (TMS), USA reported November sales of 130,307 vehicles, a decrease of 33.9% from last November. Passenger car sales were down 32.3% to 76,954 units, while light truck sales were down 37.4% to 46,071 units. Toyota’s relative best performer was the Corolla, which saw a sales decline of only 12.8%.
Sales of the Camry were down 28.8% to 25,224 units, while the Camry Hybrid was down 57.5% to 2,174 units. Sales of the Prius dropped 8.3% to 8,660 units.
Ford. Ford turned in the best relative performance of the major automakers, with only a 30% total decline in vehicle sales—118,818 units from Ford, Lincoln and Mercury dealers.
Passenger car sales were down 31.5% to 37,272 units; crossover sales were down 33.8% to 22,016 units; SUVs were down 39.8% to 10,586 units; and trucks and vans were down 23.5% to 48,944 units.
November marked the official introduction of the all-new F-150. F-Series sales totaled 37,911 (an 18.6% drop) including nearly 5,000 all-new 2009 model F-150s.
Chrysler. Chrysler LLC reported total November 2008 US sales of 85,260 units, down 47% from the same month last year.
2008 will go down as unlike any other year in the industry, and thus, comparisons to 2007 sales have become irrelevant. In this environment, we need to evaluate sales based on month-to-month trends, with the last two months of the year being especially important to determine if we have established a base for sales in 2009. Our goal is to fight to maintain our share of the retail market month-to-month by keeping a strong advertising and incentive presence in the marketplace and finding financing solutions for our customers, roughly 75% of whom finance their vehicles with dealer assistance.
—Jim Press, Chrysler LLC Vice Chairman and President
Chrysler passenger car sales were down 59% to 20,475 units; truck sales were down 42% to 64,785 units. In another rare bright spot, sales of the full-size SUV Aspen were up 33% to 2,013 units. The company reported 35 sales of its Aspen and Durango two-mode hybrids.
Honda. American Honda Motor Co. posted November sales of 76,233, a decline of 31.6% compared to record November 2007 results. Passenger car sales were down 30.7% to 45,225 units; truck sales were down 32.9% to 31,008 units.
Sales of the Accord were down 38.1% to 17,430 units, while sales of the Civic dropped 29.6% to 17,690 units. Sales of the Civic Hybrid dropped 67.8% to 1,043 units.
Nissan. Nissan North America reported sales of 46,605 units—a decrease of 42.2% year-on-year. Sales of passenger cars were down 37.3% to 29,377 units; sales of trucks were down 49% to 17,228 units.
Sales of the Altima were down 45.3% to 10,828 units. Nissan did see a slight increase in Murano sales, posting a 4.7% gain to 4,162 units.
Americans deep love affair with 3+ tonnes vehicles is still very deep and strong.
My car is bigger than yours is still part of the USA'S standing and life exterior VISIBLE success story. The inherited brain washing will be difficult to erase.
As soon as gas goes below $2/gallon most Americans will want to drive a gas guzzler 3-tonne dinosaur.
Will we ever change!!!
Posted by: HarveyD | 02 December 2008 at 02:45 PM
Americans deep love affair with 3+ tonnes vehicles is still very deep and strong.
My car is bigger than yours is still part of the USA'S standing and life exterior VISIBLE success story. The inherited brain washing will be difficult to erase.
As soon as gas goes below $2/gallon most Americans will want to drive a gas guzzler 3-tonne dinosaur.
Will we ever change!!!
Posted by: HarveyD | 02 December 2008 at 02:47 PM
We need to change our lifestyle, as a certain foreign communist leader said.
Posted by: thomas | 02 December 2008 at 03:38 PM
thomas:
In a few more decades many of us will gain enough maturity to be able to see the difference between advertized follies and reality.
Many very democratic Europeans have learned and so will we.
We need more time to change or get rid of our acquired fatuities.
Posted by: HarveyD | 02 December 2008 at 05:30 PM
There is nothing intrinsically wrong or right with 2, 3, 5, or 10 ton vehicles. Its whaht you use them for and what their impact is that counts.
I have never owned a vehicle larger than a mid-size sedan, even though I am 6'2 and 240#s. If a three ton SUV fits my changed needs, and gets 150 mpg or equivalent, I don't think there is a damn thing wrong with it.
Only a real genuine mentally challenged would think we are close to running out of iron on a planet which is composed of 40% iron.
But I'm sure some gentle Greendiot who would not only think so; but would think he was morally superior and had the right to criticize me, but I had no right to criticize HIM.
Posted by: stas peterson | 02 December 2008 at 06:06 PM
It's clear now that the auto industry's collapsing sales are across the board, not only the Detroit Big Three. This collapse in sales has little to do with the relative availability, by the various manufacturers, of high fuel economy vehicles. As Bill Clinton's famous line goes, "it's the economy, stupid."
The Detroit Three started losing sales because of perceptions of quality, not fuel economy, which only became an issue in the last two years. Detroit improved its quality, but perceptions last longer than reality.
Right now, Toyota, Nissan, and Honda are not asking for government loans, because they have enough operating capital for the moment. But if this economy continues at the present rate, all manufacturers will have their hand out. Mercedes and BMW are also in deep trouble. Opel is on the ropes. The Swedes are looking at rescuing Saab and Volvo.
Posted by: fred schumacher | 02 December 2008 at 06:42 PM
HarveyD:
Well, it sounds terrible to assume that people have a "mine is bigger than yours" mentality in all instances.
Driving a large vehicle--a new one--is not a problem. It can be quite pleasurable from the higher seating position, safer--from the size and weight ratio, and overall invoke a more satisfied feeling that you got alot of machine for your buck.
I only drive a Honda Element, which averages 22mpg. I enjoy the driving position, seat, and reliability that it provides. But I would NEVER ask someone to fit into the mold that I fit into.
Its just not right to cram someone into some tiny car just bacause you have an agenda to flaunt. Let the Americans drive what their tastes desire, be it hybrid or guzzler.
Nate H.
Dover, Ohio
Posted by: Nate H. | 02 December 2008 at 07:34 PM
“There is nothing intrinsically wrong or right with 2, 3, 5, or 10 ton vehicles”
Wrong.
Simple physics: if you increase linear dimensions of car or some animal, it weight increases 8 times, but strength of any structural element (like bones, muscles, or car’s body or suspension) and heat rejection increases only 4 times.
In animal kingdom it means that birds are small, elephant can not jump, and whales crush under own weight if washed ashore.
For vehicles, bigger vehicles unavoidable have unproportionally high wear and stresses on brakes, tires, suspension, higher body twist, unproportionally higher aerodynamic drug due to oversized radiator, higher stresses in drivetrain, and so on. Bigger vehicles has longer braking distance, and perform poorly on skidpad. Basic physics, nothing could beat it.
Some car companies recognized it, for example BMW motto for a long time is “Lighter vehicle is better than powerful engine”.
Posted by: Andrey levin | 02 December 2008 at 09:04 PM
Prius and camry hybrid sales were down because of the lack of batteries that reduced production along with greedy dealers adding $5k onto the price due to the demand.
GM and Ford have been on a losing streak even before this. In 2007 GM produced 9.4 million cars and took in $181 billion but lost about $2 billion on the year. They took in $206 billion in 2006,and still didnt profit.they owe about $45 billion right now and have an $8 billion payment due the union benefits plan in 2010. they have been steadily renegotiating debts instead of paying them off and have no possible chance of repaying them or any other loans unless their management is changed and labor costs reduced by 40%. for all intents and purposes they have been bankrupt for at least a year.They havent been able to get any bank credit for about the last two years and are trying to get GMAC restructured as a bank in a sneaky attempt to get some bailout money. If they had gotten Chrysler they would have gutted it for the money and dumped the 60,000 workers out on their ear, why should they not face the same fate? ( realistically ,their worst case projections are facetious and should be rejected as dishonest posturing).
Ford mortgaged everything they own ( including their logo) for $28 billion in 2006 and still has alot of that money left and some decent cars coming out this year so they are viable.
unlike GM and Ford, most of the european and japanese companies were not in serious debt conditions before this so they can fare much better despite the downturn.
Posted by: fred | 02 December 2008 at 10:03 PM
The damage to road surfaces is highly dependent on the weight of the vehicle, in the hyper car concept Amory Lovins explains that saving weight on the body work of the car has a snowballing effect ie saving 100kg on body weight means you need a smaller engine, smaller brakes, lighter suspension etc. A small, lightweight and aerodynamic vehicle can cruise at 55mph using the same energy as an SUV's air conditioning system.
Of course there is the rather strong argument to make that this is exactly what the big three should have been doing these last 10 years, and raising CAFE standards would have pushed along hybridisation (as a stepping stone to fully electric) along with a transition to a larger share of diesel and / or natural gas as a transport fuel
Posted by: | 03 December 2008 at 04:25 AM
Andrey
I am going to the CoOp in Carefree to pick up 500 gallons of Bio to distribute to the local club members. The proceeds from sales are going to buy Christmas presents for kids at the cancer center. The
trailer - 1,200lbs
500 gl tank - 650lbs
500 gl Bio - 4,000lbs
I was planning on using my 3/4 ton PU to haul the trailer. But since you are so sure that my truck is evil. I was just wondering which 'lighter is better' vehicle you would suggest I use.
Oh, according to google I'm at 740 ft above sea level and Carefree is at the 2,230 ft mark.
Posted by: Joseph | 03 December 2008 at 07:14 AM
stas:
The Big-3 & Gasoline distributors propaganda have brain washed many of us to strongly beleive that we need 4-tonne 10 mpg gas guzzlers to go to work, go shopping, take the kids to school etc.
They (and many of us) know that is absolutely false.
Europeans drive around in much smaller more efficient vehicles and they are almost as big and as smart as we are!!
Even 300 lbs fat boys can fit in much smaller cars. Five passenger PHEV minivans could satisfy the needs of large families. People who want to move the boat around could rent a truck twice a year, etc.
We definately do not need 100 + million super heavy oversized gas guzzlers on our streets and roads every day. It is exagerated and overkill in most cases. Even construction workers could go to work in a much smaller pick-up, etc.
Posted by: HarveyD | 03 December 2008 at 07:37 AM
The majority of Europeans drive around in cars that don't meet T2bin5 emissions standards and therefore are illegal on US roads!
Posted by: Joseph | 03 December 2008 at 08:02 AM
Joseph:
It is well known that many national standards are specifically designed to block imports. Lights too bright or too dim, bumpers too low or too high etc etc you name it. It is a very old trick.
Even when European cars are down to 120 gr/CO2/Km (about half USA/Canada average) we will find other reasons to block as many imports as possible.
Europeans to almost the same with their taxes and registration fees based on weight + hp + fuel consumption + CO2 emissions + much high liquid fuel taxes etc.
It is called free trade????
Posted by: HarveyD | 03 December 2008 at 08:31 AM
Harvey
So your saying CARB is the problem and should rework thier standards to allow European style cars?
Posted by: Joseph | 03 December 2008 at 08:59 AM
No, I think Harvey just wants to BE European.
If its so good being "like them" then move out of this country and stop advertising for them. Im sure you will be much happier watching "fat boys" plunge themselves into their tiny cars over there than complaining about someone's personal transportation device over here.
Nate H.
Dover, Ohio
Posted by: Nate H. | 03 December 2008 at 09:55 AM
Joseph,
Your example clearly illustrates why you should rent a vehicle suited to the purpose (rent a big truck). To say that you should buy a very large & powerful vehicle to haul something once or twice a year seems odd - but purely your choice. Now if you were to conduct such business (hauling heavy loads as you describe) on a weekly or even bi-weekly basis then you probably will save more money owning a large vehicle such as a full size pickup.
Posted by: | 03 December 2008 at 02:52 PM
Joseph:
Personally, I do not like big vehicles on the road because they obstruct my view along the road, usually are driven in lethargic manner, and pose disproportional hazard to me in case of crush. Other vice, if one wants and can afford big vehicle, it is OK with me.
The only thing I was trying to point out is that it is no escape from basic physics: bigger and heavier vehicles tear&wear more and behave worse on the road compared to lighter ones. Weight of the vehicle is almost universally overlooked when people make a decision to buy the vehicle. For example, VW vehicles compared to same class Japanese are substantially overweighed, which translates into higher maintenance costs (brakes are primary example).
Posted by: Andrey Levin | 03 December 2008 at 08:20 PM
The world is in recession. Credit, although cheap, is difficult to obtain. The light vehicle companies can't sell to consumers who don't have the confidence in their job security to go out to make a capital purchase. We are all in deep doodoo.
Chrysler and GM were bleeding debt before this happened, and simply can't find the money to live through it. The only proper solution for them is nationalization. It would be far cheaper than subsidization, and would maintain control by people (us) whose main concern is employment, and not profit. If GM and Chrysler never made another significant profit, but never again suffered significant loss, then they would be successful industrial companies.
The way to make Chrysler and GM profitable is to lower the cost of production, and to sell more vehicles at better margins.
The only way to lower the cost of production is to nationalize the health care system, and to eliminate the private health insurance industry(leeches).
Nationalized, the companies will have access to capitol at greatly reduced rates, allowing highly significant cost reductions in borrowing.
A rationalization of products produced would be made according to national priorities, such as purchase price, long term reliability, air quality, greenhouse gas emmission, safety, recyclability, and of course utility. The art departments would still be as busy as ever to keep up with fashion. These would absolutely not be single formula, Soviet style operations.
To rationalize advertizing, GM needs only to keep the brands Chevrolet (mainstream cars and trucks) and Saturn (as a young person's entry level car brand like Scion). Chrysler needs only to keep Chrysler (cars only), Dodge (trucks only), and Jeep (SUV's only) - all sharing one dealer floor. There's wholely insufficient sales volume at Chrysler to support separate dealerships. GM could support a separate chain like Saturn.
To sell more vehicles at higher margin, the companies need to introduce better performing and higher quality vehicles which leverage leading edge cost/benefit strategies to achieve a high level of consumer satisfaction. The number of dealers must be significantly reduced to limit losses from exposure to loans made to marginally profitable dealerships.
The revamped, car-only Saturn brand should concentrate on new lightweight strategies to lead low cost efficiency and fun-to-drive categories at the same time.
If and when GM and Chrysler return to profitability, the companies can be sold on the public markets. I would prefer to always see representatives of the people on the board of directors.
Posted by: JC | 04 December 2008 at 07:37 AM
American love affair with SUV's is not a Romeo-Juliet love affair, rather an addiction to Oil whose worldwide production is declining.
High time for Big-3 to move from trucks to smaller CUV's, hatches and wagons with Hybrid or Flex-fuel drive.
Otherwise, they will have to be bailed out again in 2009 or 2010.
Posted by: Max Reid | 05 December 2008 at 05:49 AM
Nate wrote:
"Driving a large vehicle--a new one--is not a problem. It can be quite pleasurable from the higher seating position, safer--from the size and weight ratio, and overall invoke a more satisfied feeling that you got alot of machine for your buck."
This is exactly how America became addicted to oil.
Posted by: Will S. | 05 December 2008 at 01:15 PM
Nearly one and a half trillion dollars have gone out of country in the last 7 years because of higher oil bill, iraq war and homeland security and all these are related to Oil. This is one of the reaons for this recession. Hope the Americans will switch over to smaller vehicles to save their dollars and their economy.
Posted by: Max Reid | 06 December 2008 at 09:07 AM
I have actually not fit into a car before. Not because I weight too much, but because my legs are short and my torso long. I sat in it and had to bend my neck to get my head to not hit the roof. The seat would not adjust to accomodate me.
I just had to find a larger econobox to drive...
Posted by: NCyder | 08 December 2008 at 11:02 AM