Trucks/SUVs still beating car sales

[DanL911sc]

http://detnews.com/...

Gas prices may be affecting truck/SUV sales, but its hard to tell from the data...

[onewhippedpuppy]

Everybody in the media is crying wolf to push their own environmental agenda, but there's nothing there. Gas has to get higher still for it to really impact people's decisions. Plus, you have to look at requirements. There's always going to be a demand for bigger vehicles from those that need the space. With two kids, our Cadillac SRX is borderline too small. When we have number 3, we'll have to move up. It won't be to a Suburban, but a bigger crossover, like a Mazda CX9, is likely. You won't ever find a family of 6 in a Prius.

Look for SUV and truck sales to be bolstered by full-sized hybrids and small displacement diesels. A full size SUV or truck that gets over 20 MPG or better is tough to beat.

[MRM]

Just wait 'til spring. The $100 a barrel oil that is being drilled now is still on tankers coming to the US. When the full price of crude hits in the spring, about the time that gas demand spikes for the season, and the stock market is in full spasm after the credit crunch reaches its peak, $5 gas will make SUV sales tumble.

I just bought a lake place. I'm in a market for a nice late model SUV that can tow a boat and carry the family (5) plus the dog and my mother in law and a bunch of stuff. I'm dying to pull the trigger but I know anything that looks good now will be 30% off in the spring.

I have been looking at 2002 and later 911s more or less seriously for three or four years. To that I have more recently added mid to large SUVs and the odd nice luxomobile to replace the family truckster. My sense is that the market has softened across the board. I think this is more than a seasonal shift. I think the market is selling off now in anticipation of a real bear market when the weather turns warm.

[BGCarrera32]

Originally Posted by MRM

I'm in a market for a nice late model SUV that can tow a boat and carry the family (5) plus the dog and my mother in law and a bunch of stuff.

Psst...if you keep your eyes open at the dealer (like Roseville Chev) they've had more than a couple '01 on up Suburbans for under $15k with 85-100k on the clock...after a nice detailing they would make a sweet ride for the weekend.

BG

[gprsh924]

Originally Posted by MRM

I just bought a lake place.

So did my parents, and we already spent an incredible amount of money on gas for the boat and waverunner last summer. And now gas is going to be more expensive, and we're getting another boat. Good times

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Days are not far off when people won't be able to give those sorts of vehicles away.

As recently as a couple of months ago I was contemplating selling my motorcycle seeing as I hardly ever use it, but I've decided to keep it, for no reason other than seeing which way gas prices are going.

I think the coming energy crisis is going to be bad - worse than the 1970s. And dumb/short-sighted consumer habits/bull-headed stupidity on the part of U.S. automakers will only exacerbate the situation - just like happened in the 1970s. Funny how ignoring problems leads us full-circle, right back where we were before. Like this wasn't predictable. . . This will be a prolonged problem. There's no "silver bullet" other than curtailing demand and making dramatic, painful lifestyle changes to compensate for the greedy and short-sighted stupidity we've indulged in for so long. The frustrating thing is, we were aware of this problem looming 30+ years ago and did nothing, opting to pretend the problem wasn't real, beat our chests about how great we were, revel in our own supposed magnificence and pretend the problem didn't exist. Funny how problems like this come home to roost. It won't go away either.

[RANT]Whether one liked Jimmy Carter and his politics or hated them, he did one thing right - which was to at least try to encourage the U.S. to get off of foreign energy dependence and explore alternatives. I remember in the late 1970s when Carter put solar panels on the White House (admittedly this was more of a P.R. gesture than any sort of actual sustainable design initiative, but I give him credit for at least starting to make an effort). When Reagan came to town in the early 1980s, one of his first actions was to rip down the solar panels. It wasn't due to his love for the W.H. as a historic building either - it embodied his "me first, f*ck everyone else (especially our kids)" attitude. It went hand-in-hand with his run-up in the national deficit very nicely. While I give Reagan credit for doing a lot of things right, one thing he did VERY wrong was to completely ignore the fact that as a nation, we're hopelessly dependent on foreign energy supply - and such supplies are finite. His "solution" to problems was to either beat them with a stick and use America's brawn rather than its brain, or to downplay/ignore them (sound familiar?). His "only today matters" cowboy/cavalier attitude (remind anyone else of any other WH occupants you know?) and lack of long-term vision was/is a real problem.

We had 30+ years to take the good/wise aspects of the Carter administration (and admittedly of the Reagan administration too, although this wouldn't include sound/sustainable/forward-thinking energy policy) and act on them as a nation - and we did nothing. I guess it was just easier to b*tch and whine and divide ourselves along lines of petty partisan bickering and watch television and hand our money to terrorist-sympathizing middle easterners and amuse ourselves with presidential blowjobs. This is another shining example of how we talk out both sides of our mouths as a nation, saying "we love our children", while we simultaneously do everything possible to hand them the most screwed-up, disadvantaged, problem-saddled society imaginable. The whole "do what feels good today and our kids will fix the mess tomorrow" is an attitude that was spawned in the Reagan years and we still haven't realized collectively that it is NOT a solution to anything and that problems don't either go away or magically fix themselves. . . [/RANT]

I predict that (just like the 1970s), U.S. automakers are going to get slaughtered by the Europeans & Japanese (especially the Japanese) and see their market share cut dramatically due to their short-sighted obstinance in thinking that big, dumb vehicles (demanded for the most part by big, dumb Americans, ironically) represent a permanent solution to American consumer choice.

History repeats. This is going to play out EXACTLY like the 1970s. Almost scripted. Except this one will go on indefinitely.

Hmm. Wonder how long it'll be before all those stupid H2 owners start whining to government about how they were "misled" and "victimized" by those big mean dealerships and how they should be entitled to a government bailout for the unjustified depreciation in their vehicles. It'd be funny if it weren't so true. I'll wager $100 that someone, somewhere actually demands this or files suit over it. Welcome to the new America - land of the fee, home of the victim.

[jmshepard]

So what has changed since I was a kid? My parents raised a family (3 kids) with nothing larger than a Pontiac sedan. The median size of an American family is getting smaller. Why is the minumum size for a family car now something on the order of a Suburban?
Jim S.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

I predict that (just like the 1970s), U.S. automakers are going to get slaughtered by the Europeans & Japanese (especially the Japanese) and see their market share cut dramatically due to their short-sighted obstinance in thinking that big, dumb vehicles (demanded for the most part by big, dumb Americans, ironically) represent a permanent solution to American consumer choice.

I'll ignore the rant, I know that was cathartic for you. You're both right and wrong. Time will tell us with $5/gal gas, but it does seem inevitable. However, the difference is that there are many economical cars available. In the '70s, economy cars are a rarity. Today, you can walk onto the lot of ANY maker (American makes included) and have a variety of cars that get 30 MPG or more. For that matter, most small or midsized sedans can do 30 MPG, or very near to it, on the highway.

I'd also argue that the Japanese have lost the advantage in the MPG department, though I still believe that they make better cars. Ironically, they're a victim of giving us what we want. Every generation of Camry, Accord, Civic and Corolla has grown larger and more powerful. The new Accord sedan is almost large enough be considered full-size, and has nearly 300 HP.

It's hard to deny that $5/gal gas will be the downfall of the 15 MPG SUV. But, this will be painful for every car company. Remember, the Americans aren't the only ones making trucks and SUVs. The Nissan Titan and Toyota Tundra have both been very successful for the Japanese, and don't get any better MPG than the American trucks. Other large Japanese SUVs include the Armada, Land Cruiser, Sequoia, with related Lexus and Infiniti versions. It might hurt the Americans more, but in the end, it will hurt most of them.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by jmshepard

So what has changed since I was a kid? My parents raised a family (3 kids) with nothing larger than a Pontiac sedan. The median size of an American family is getting smaller. Why is the minumum size for a family car now something on the order of a Suburban?
Jim S.

That's easy: car seats. Without having a very wide back seat, you can only fit two car seats in one row. With modern airbags, you're not allowed to put them in front. When we had our 4Runner, with our baby seat and child seat, you couldn't fit a human in-between. So with my wife and I and our two kids, we were full. With our SRX, we now have a 3rd row seat to haul my wife's siblings that like to visit us. Of course, that eliminates 90% of the cargo space, which causes new problems.

[MRM]

Because the Ford Fairlane I grew up in (1966 to 1980, 198,000 miles, RIP) had bench seats that fit three across the front and a back seat that had three seat belt and enough room for two extra kids to squeeze in if you were in a jam. The original 8 passenger vehicle. Now the average car seats two passengers comfortably in the front, and two kids can fit in the back. Family cars fit four comfortably, five if you squeeze someone in the middle. Bigger cars are bigger but they don't give you more passenger space.

There are almost no six passenger cars. That means a family of four can't take grandma and grandpa in the same car, or another couple, or pretty much anyone else. The next step up is something with third row seats, which almost requires some SUV.

I need something that can travel with six people, a dog and a bunch of gear for weekend trips. We'll need to put the boat in and take it out once, and we'll need a couple of trips per year for lawnmowers, beds and things. That pretty much means a Suburban-sized SUV. I'm leaning toward getting something like a used Expedition and drive it only when I need a big vehicle. For daily driving all I need is something that fits me and the kids and is easy to park downtown. Most people either can't aford to park their big vehicle or think they look cool driving a land yacht.

[The Gaijin]

Originally Posted by MRM

I need something that can travel with six people, a dog and a bunch of gear for weekend trips. We'll need to put the boat in and take it out once, and we'll need a couple of trips per year for lawnmowers, beds and things. That pretty much means a Suburban-sized SUV...

Why not a Dodge Caravan and a U-Haul rental truck twice a year to haul the boat?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Seriously.

I've heard the same rationalization B.S. here in SoCal about "I need a truck or SUV to get the mountains during ski season". Think about that statement for a minute to let the hilarity of it sink in.

Then realize that these people are rationalizing buying a rapidly-depreciating, expensive liability so they can use it a couple of days a year on an indulgence.

If I feel the desire to carve a few turns at Mammoth or Tahoe or Big Bear, I rent a car for the day. Why the hell should I carry a liability like that for something I use <1% of the time?

The same might be said of P-cars, but at least those are paid for and I deliberately targeted ones that were depreciated-out (in the case of the 911, it's appreciating now) and smog exempt/low-cost on the insurance, etc. I realize a Porsche is a frivolous indulgence. Someone might attempt to use the same logic to argue rationalizing a truck or SUV, but unless it's depreciated out, it's a pretty poor place to put one's $$$. New vehicles (or "nearly new" vehicles) almost always are.

If you're in the market for a truck or SUV, I'd seriously wait a few more months. I bet they're going to be flooding the market with the rise in energy prices and as consumers start getting pinched by rising prices/inflation/recession in the coming months. It's a recessionary cycle. Cash is king. Wait and you'll get much more for your $$$.

[David]

This has me seriously thinking about keeping my '01 Silverado indefinently and buying a more fuel efficent small car for daily driving... like an '05 997 .

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Doubt many here would object to that. Myself included.

[onewhippedpuppy]

People need to rationalize their Escalade purchase, because "I want to look like a baller" just sounds silly.

I totally agree with your reasoning above, it's why I'm selling my truck. No reason to own a big truck when it's empty 95% of the time.

[Moneyguy1]

Shep:

You make a good point. When I had a young family, my wife, two kids, grandma and the family dog plus provisions for a week in the mountains fit in a Pinto Wagon with a rooftop carrier. Our second car was a 1965 Corvair turbo convertable. Later I got a Ford midsize station wagon in 1986 and used that sucker for haulng just about everything including 4 x 8 sheets of plywood and plasterboard. The "need" for huge vehicles is difficult for me to understand, and even more difficult to justify. It is not a "need", it is a "want", fueled in many cases by a selfish attitude that says "I got mine, to Hell with you". Granted, if I had an actual need for something that weighed 5,700 pounds and got 15 MPG for work, could say that is justified. My sone-in-law is a master electrician and does require a cargo hauler. What does he get? Used vans that are PARKED when no on the job. His regular vehicle? midsized crossover. He has the required two kids, wife and dog. How can he possibly live with such restrictions?

Sooner or later, folks will start to understand (reluctantly) that their income will limit optional purchases and priorities will have to be made. Barring a miracle discovery of a huge reserve of oil in the western hemisphere, the next 5 to 10 years will be interesting. There will always be those who can afford to waste resources at a cost to others. For the rest of us, I wonder if the efforts some of us place on conservation isn't looked at by those at the top with derision and laughter. "More for us", they say.

Our elected officials ignore the wolf at the door and waste their time and our treasure on meaningless issues.

[tobster1911]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

That's easy: car seats. Without having a very wide back seat, you can only fit two car seats in one row. With modern airbags, you're not allowed to put them in front. When we had our 4Runner, with our baby seat and child seat, you couldn't fit a human in-between. So with my wife and I and our two kids, we were full. With our SRX, we now have a 3rd row seat to haul my wife's siblings that like to visit us. Of course, that eliminates 90% of the cargo space, which causes new problems.

+1000

Two perfect posts in a row. You are on a roll.

Also, we have a small SUV (S10 Blazer) and the gas mileage is not very much better than a full size. Even looking at the foreign small SUV's you are talking about a difference of 3-5mpg better than a full size especially with the displacement on demand now on the GM models. Why cram/pack my family into the smaller vehicle and fight to buckle the kids every time just because some enviropricks feel that full size vehicles are the problem?

[tobster1911]

Originally Posted by Moneyguy1

Shep:

You make a good point. When I had a young family, my wife, two kids, grandma and the family dog plus provisions for a week in the mountains fit in a Pinto Wagon with a rooftop carrier. Our second car was a 1965 Corvair turbo convertable. Later I got a Ford midsize station wagon in 1986 and used that sucker for haulng just about everything including 4 x 8 sheets of plywood and plasterboard. The "need" for huge vehicles is difficult for me to understand, and even more difficult to justify. It is not a "need", it is a "want", fueled in many cases by a selfish attitude that says "I got mine, to Hell with you". Granted, if I had an actual need for something that weighed 5,700 pounds and got 15 MPG for work, could say that is justified. My sone-in-law is a master electrician and does require a cargo hauler. What does he get? Used vans that are PARKED when no on the job. His regular vehicle? midsized crossover. He has the required two kids, wife and dog. How can he possibly live with such restrictions?

What does his crossover get in town? 18? What does a minivan get 18/24 if you are not loaded down too much. But somehow he is to be applauded that he is not driving a "gas guzzler" getting ONLY 15/20 like the v8 chevy is rated.

Later I got a Ford midsize station wagon in 1986

And what kind of mpg did this thing get? I would be willing to bet money that a modern V8 truck gets as good if not better mileage.

All of you large vehicle haters have bought into the brainwashing without even a shred of rational thought.

[rammstein]

Don't worry- in the end, the $ will correct the nonsense.

There are plenty of people who need full-sized trucks. And there are plenty of people who drive them and DON'T need them.

They will be sorted out someday, when gas gets too expensive. I don't know how high gas will have to get, and I don't know when it will get there. But someday, it will. And then, those that truly NEED the trucks will keep them, and those that don't will not.

Everyone needs to move on from this- we have the freedom to spend as we wish.

[lendaddy]

Trust in the free market, it has no allegiances.