By on October 3, 2011

 

As goes the pickup and SUV market, so go the Detroit automakers. In recent years, that’s bee a big factor in the decline of the domestic automakers, but now, even with gas flirting with the $4/gal mark, trucks are fueling strong sales performances. Chrysler’s sales are up 27% on 42% Ram brand growth and a 24% improvement in Jeep volume. GM’s enjoyed 34% growth in truck sales, eclipsing far more modest improvements in cars and crossovers. And now that Ford has reported its September sales, it’s official: with 15% truck growth at the Blue Oval, all three Detroit firms have put in a strong truck performance. All off which is great news for Detroit… for now. But even a brief spike in prices at the pump could see those healthy black numbers turn red in a heartbeat. We’ve certainly seen it happen before…

Hit the jump for our developing table of September sales.

Automaker Sept. 2011 Sept. 2010 Pct. chng. 9 month
2011
9 month
2010
Pct. chng.
BMW Group 25,779 23,155 11% 219,572 192,435 14%
    BMW division 21,750 18,228 19% 177,679 157,464 13%
    Mini 3,999 4,884 –18% 41,635 34,588 20%
    Rolls-Royce 30 43 –30% 258 383 –33%
BMW Group 25,779 23,155 11% 219,572 192,435 14%
Chrysler Group 127,334 100,077 27% 1,009,411 820,220 23%
    Chrysler Division 23,559 17,348 36% 157,551 158,103 0%
    Dodge 40,073 36,272 11% 345,441 303,019 14%
    Dodge/Ram 65,437 54,126 21% 534,206 454,571 18%
    Fiat 2,773 –% 13,862 –%
    Jeep 35,565 28,603 24% 303,793 207,546 46%
    Ram 25,364 17,854 42% 188,765 151,552 25%
Chrysler Group 127,334 100,077 27% 1,009,411 820,220 23%
Daimler AG 23,901 21,094 13% 186,307 170,189 10%
    Maybach 4 5 –20% 40 48 –17%
    Mercedes-Benz 23,428 20,667 13% 182,510 165,362 10%
    Smart USA 469 422 11% 3,757 4,779 –21%
Daimler AG 23,901 21,094 13% 186,307 170,189 10%
Ford Motor Co. 174,860 160,375 9% 1,599,711 1,469,262 9%
    Ford division 167,842 146,559 15% 1,534,622 1,302,272 18%
    Ford/Lincoln/Mercury 174,860 160,375 9% 1,599,711 1,436,737 11%
    Lincoln 7,018 7,510 –7% 64,841 63,286 3%
    Mercury 6,306 –100% 248 71,179 –100%
    Volvo –% 32,525 –100%
Ford Motor Co. 174,860 160,375 9% 1,599,711 1,469,262 9%
General Motors 207,145 173,031 20% 1,902,149 1,635,339 16%
    Buick 13,599 12,875 6% 140,092 114,000 23%
    Cadillac 12,741 12,620 1% 113,190 105,013 8%
    Chevrolet 147,611 121,406 22% 1,353,933 1,174,179 15%
    GMC 33,194 25,944 28% 294,934 230,502 28%
    Hummer 163 –100% 3,507 –100%
    Pontiac 8 –100% 962 –100%
    Saab –% 608 –100%
    Saturn 15 –100% 6,568 –100%
General Motors 207,145 173,031 20% 1,902,149 1,635,339 16%
Honda (American) 89,532 97,361 –8% 859,797 912,436 –6%
    Acura 10,010 10,720 –7% 89,146 96,388 –8%
    Honda Division 79,522 86,641 –8% 770,651 816,048 –6%
Honda (American) 89,532 97,361 –8% 859,797 912,436 –6%
Hyundai Group 87,660 76,627 14% 860,319 678,071 27%
    Hyundai division 52,051 46,556 12% 492,914 410,047 20%
    Kia 35,609 30,071 18% 367,405 268,024 37%
Hyundai Group 87,660 76,627 14% 860,319 678,071 27%
Jaguar Land Rover 3,851 3,456 11% 34,965 32,037 9%
    Jaguar 1,111 967 15% 9,315 9,748 –4%
    Land Rover 2,740 2,489 10% 25,650 22,289 15%
Jaguar Land Rover 3,851 3,456 11% 34,965 32,037 9%
Maserati 199 136 46% 1,704 1,355 26%
Maserati 199 136 46% 1,704 1,355 26%
Mazda 25,521 18,580 37% 191,315 174,770 10%
Mazda 25,521 18,580 37% 191,315 174,770 10%
Mitsubishi 5,803 4,961 17% 65,875 41,392 59%
Mitsubishi 5,803 4,961 17% 65,875 41,392 59%
Nissan 92,964 74,205 25% 774,079 673,701 15%
    Infiniti 8,479 8,305 2% 72,181 74,797 –4%
    Nissan Division 84,485 65,900 28% 701,898 598,904 17%
Nissan 92,964 74,205 25% 774,079 673,701 15%
Porsche 2,170 1,971 10% 22,664 17,690 28%
Porsche 2,170 1,971 10% 22,664 17,690 28%
Saab Cars North America 429 1,127 –62% 4,647 2,626 77%
Saab Cars North America 429 1,127 –62% 4,647 2,626 77%
Subaru 20,934 21,432 –2% 195,550 193,614 1%
Subaru 20,934 21,432 –2% 195,550 193,614 1%
Suzuki 2,026 1,641 24% 20,284 16,972 20%
Suzuki 2,026 1,641 24% 20,284 16,972 20%
Toyota 121,451 147,162 –18% 1,194,523 1,311,316 –9%
    Lexus 14,995 16,948 –12% 135,647 162,438 –17%
    Scion 3,838 3,562 8% 37,607 33,234 13%
    Toyota division 102,618 126,652 –19% 1,021,269 1,115,644 –9%
    Toyota/Scion 106,456 130,214 –18% 1,058,876 1,148,878 –8%
Toyota 121,451 147,162 –18% 1,194,523 1,311,316 –9%
Volkswagen 36,912 28,223 31% 321,700 267,234 20%
    Audi 9,725 8,151 19% 84,981 73,590 16%
    Bentley 151 129 17% 1,260 954 32%
    VW division 27,036 19,943 36% 235,459 192,690 22%
Volkswagen 36,912 28,223 31% 321,700 267,234 20%
Volvo Cars NA 5,042 4,152 21% 52,155 8,593 507%
Volvo Cars NA 5,042 4,152 21% 52,155 8,593 507%
Other (estimate) 248 242 3% 2,218 2,169 2%
TOTAL 1,053,761 959,008 10% 9,518,945 8,621,421 10%
Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

62 Comments on “September Sales: Big Is Big, Again...”


  • avatar
    Mark MacInnis

    Does this mean banks are starting to loosen up credit again? Of interest to me would be the leased percent, the fleet percent and the straight outright consumer purchased per cent.

    Maybe we are starting to dig our way out of this shyte…..maybe.

    • 0 avatar
      geozinger

      @Mark McInnis: Maybe we are starting to dig our way out of this shyte…..maybe.

      I sure hope so.

    • 0 avatar
      Prado

      I don’t think that banks are loosening up, but GM is back in the captive finance game with GM Financial (AmeriCredit). New cars for everyone!

    • 0 avatar
      Robert Schwartz

      I kind of doubt it. Remember we are now three years past carmagedon. Every one deferred buying a new ride then for financial and credit reasons. Some of those folks have been forced back into the market because their old car died, was totaled, etc. Even if they would have bought a used car, they have had to buy new cars because used cars are extraordinarily expensive. If you want to find green shoots that mean something, you will have wait for the labor report.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        Any improvement in sales is great but we’re still at Depression-level car sales.

        Imagine if the millions of people currently unemployed or under-employed could find suitable employment, and the millions of homeowners currently sweating the reset of their ARM and foreclosure could be more confident of their future…

        That would be the boost America needs. And without being political, that is simply not happening and will not be happening until we get people in DC who know how to handle this situation.

        We now know that Keynesian principles of the academicians didn’t work. All that brainpower… Nothing to show for it, except we’re deeper in debt.

        Reflect back to the weeks and months after 9/11. Regardless of the political views about Bush, the man did something to get America going.

        And Bush did something that was very, very unpopular when he bailed out the UAW, GM and Chrysler, Wall Street and the Mortgage Houses to give Obama time to develop a strategy of his own.

        We can each be the judge about how well Obama and his advisors have handled the economy after that. Are we better off now as a nation or we’re we better off under Bush and Clinton?

        Before we congratulate ourselves about how well car sales are doing maybe we should reflect on how well car sales could be doing.

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        Highdesertcat, Thinking back to just after 9/11 I think about how it was GM that jump started an economy that had ground to a screeching halt, with their 0% financing, not Bush or any of the govt. Of course that put the wheels in motion that put GM in the poor house and led to the bankruptcy. Sure it put a few people in new cars that otherwise would have bought used. The problem was that it also pulled a good chunk of demand forward. So when the stopped that promotion sales ground to a halt again. That of course led to another round of incentives at an even higher level, pulling more demand forward, leading to a bigger sales crash when they expired.

  • avatar
    philadlj

    Stray observation:

    2010 Jan-Sept Sales:
    Cobalt: 93,838
    Cruze: 516

    2011 Jan-Sept Sales:
    Cobalt: 843
    Cruze: 187,524

    Quite a turnaround. I wonder if the numbers would be significantly different if the Cruze were still called the Cobalt…or the Cavalier, or Monza, or Vega, for that matter…

  • avatar
    krhodes1

    I don’t think $4/gallon gas prices are enough to really affect consumer behavior. Gas is still quite cheap. People will still buy trucks to haul air and then complain that it costs $100 a week to fill it up.

    Nothing a $3-4 per gallon gas tax would not fix. Then maybe we could have decent roads and non-collapsing bridges.

    • 0 avatar
      michal1980

      because the solution to governments problems is to give it MORE money?

      they would just take that 3-4 bucks a gallon. Spend 10 cents of it on roads, and give the other 3.90 to their solyandra buddies because its ‘green’ energy, who cares if their going broke, they’re green.

      • 0 avatar
        psarhjinian

        It’s valid point, but “green” initiatives amount to basically a rounding error in the federal budget. Complain about Solyandra all you like, but it’s metaphorical peanuts compared to what, eg, Lockheed-Martin gets.

        90% went to “general fund” (means: giving illegals in-state tuition and art projects in Sacramento).

        Interesting point: Toronto recently elected a mayor on the grounds that there was some huge gravy train of graft that could be cut from city budgets. They ever hired external auditors (KPMG, my old employer) to look for ertswhile efficiencies. What they found is that they might be able to cut, maybe, one percent.

        Some gravy train. More like a gravy roller-skate.

        Did I mention he cut a vehicle registration tax that would have covered these cuts?

        Anyways, the point is that b_tching about all this money supposedly spent on all these horrible little special interest groups a) really amounts to nothing, because it’s usually one or two big programs that get all the money**, and b) government has a revenue problem more than they have a spending problem, especially at the state and municipal level.

        Never mind focusing on “art classes for illegals”*** really does nothing for California’s real problem, which is a political system designed for failure.

        ** the “all the little things add up” is pure fiction. All the little things usually don’t add up to a percent of one of the big ones
        *** Fair disclosure: I’m a proponent of open immigration.

      • 0 avatar
        windswords

        “…but it’s metaphorical peanuts compared to what, eg, Lockheed-Martin gets.”

        Lockheed-Martin actually produces something for the money it’s paid.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        “Lockheed-Martin actually produces something for the money it’s paid.”

        Yup. Bombs. Which are then summarily blown up. Leaving nothing (at best) for the money.

    • 0 avatar

      Michal is more right than he realizes, and his hunch is surprisingly accurate. At one point I saw an official (!) pie chart of where the money go from VLF in California. It was posted on the wall in DMV. There, 5% went to improve roads, 5% went to CHP, and 90% went to “general fund” (means: giving illegals in-state tuition and art projects in Sacramento).

      • 0 avatar
        tced2

        Precisely. I have never been satisfied with the accounting for the spending of the gas tax. In order to evaluate raising the tax, we need two numbers. Amount spent on highways only. Amount raised by gas tax. Then a rational judgement can be made about changing the gas tax.

        There are reports that “surpluses” in the gas tax fund are spent on bicycle trails and such. If there is a “surplus” in the gas tax fund then the gas tax needs to be reduced – not spent on unrelated projects. When Congress passes a tax for a designated purpose then it should stick to spending money on the stated purpose.

        The airline ticket taxes have the same problem. There are constant calls for higher ticket taxes. But a significant amount of the ticket “trust fund” is not spent on airports and other improvements for air travel. In order for a “trust fund” to work there has be trust between the parties involved. That trust is missing because the accounting isn’t provided.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        In order to evaluate raising the tax, we need two numbers. Amount spent on highways only. Amount raised by gas tax.

        These figures are widely available.

        There’s no mystery to the fact that the fuel tax isn’t high enough to pay for roads. For every three dollars spent on roads, only two are raised through fuel taxes.

        And in any case, this notion that fuel taxes are supposedly to be used exclusively for roads is bogus. When the federal government first imposed a gas tax during the Depression, its purpose was to reduce the federal budget deficit. There was no pretense that the funds were supposed to have a specific purpose.

      • 0 avatar
        tced2

        @pch101,
        Then quit calling them “road taxes”. Just call them taxes and then it can disappear into the morass that we call the federal budget – which can be understood by no one. on purpose.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        Then quit calling them “road taxes”.

        I didn’t refer to them as that — you did.

        A tax on fuel is a tax on fuel. I’ve been calling it a “gasoline tax”, as does the federal government.

    • 0 avatar
      KixStart

      I just happened to catch a ride with a friend that purchased a brand-new, very well equipped Suburban (and they traded a Suburban on it). I said something nice about the vehicle and, sure enough, he complained about the gas consumption and cost. We were the only two people in the vehicle. Most often, he’s the only one.

      I know he occasionally takes family trips involving bikes and other lightweight recreational equipment but there’s quite a few vehicles that turn 30+mpg on the highway, 20+ around town and are fully capable of mounting a hitch rack or pulling a trailer that can handle that sort of thing.

      He’s just not thinking outside his box, I guess.

    • 0 avatar
      56BelAire

      krhodes1 said, “Nothing a $3-4 per gallon gas tax would not fix”.

      Wow, just WOW.

      And everything you buy that moves by truck wouldn’t increase dramatically in price? And removing another $100-200/month from peoples disposable income would just do wonders for our booming(sic) economy?

      Continually increasing the amount we pay in taxes for public schools has certainly helped our schools become “decent” in world ranking too:-(

      Sorry, just couldn’t believe what I read, so felt I needed to respond.

      • 0 avatar
        jmo

        We could use the revenue from a $4 gas tax to cut FICA by 77%. That would be a huge boost to employment.

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        Businesses get to not pay taxes on all sorts of things that individuals do. No reason a higher gas tax has to be any different.

        Somehow Europeans and most of the rest of the world manage just fine under much higher pricing. And don’t trot out the “distances driven are shorter” crap, the only reason people commute so far in the US is because historically it has been ridiculously cheap to do so. Similarly, we somehow managed to get by 25 years ago with family sedans that did 0-60 in 12-14 seconds. If we went back to that level of performance, imagine what the fuel economy would be with modern technology! But gas is too cheap, there is no demand for it.

        If people made rational living and transportation choices they would not be paying another $100-200 in gas per month. No one needs a 15mpg Suburban to commute to work in, they merely WANT a Suburban to commute to work in. CAFE is stupid under our current conditions, it makes far more sense to reduce consumption on the demand side than the supply side.

        I would not implement the increase all at once. A program of an additional $.40 per year for a decade would allow ample time for planning. And would be much easier to deal with than the current wild swings. It would also give the Government the ability to mitigate the price swings to some extent.

        Ultimately, I do not buy into the “Goverment incompetence” meme. The Government does what PEOPLE elect them to do, for the most part. And they actually do a pretty good job of it.

        But I guess the fact that I am in favor of (and willing to pay for) a social safety net and decent infrastructure makes me some kind of communist.

      • 0 avatar
        bikegoesbaa

        Heavy trucks generally run on Diesel fuel, not gasoline.

        Why would a tax on gasoline increase the cost of Diesel transport?

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        Why would a tax on gasoline increase the cost of Diesel transport?

        Europe is living proof of what happens — if the cost of gasoline significantly exceeds the cost of diesel, passenger car drivers will start switching to diesel. That switch increases the demand for diesel, which leads to higher diesel prices.

        The situation in Europe is such that they have to import diesel, while they simultaneously export gasoline. The refinery mixes can’t match the tax policy.

        On the whole, we should be attempting to reduce the demand for oil. Reducing the demand for only one byproduct of oil while pushing consumers to a different byproduct wouldn’t really help.

      • 0 avatar
        bikegoesbaa

        Is Diesel significantly more expensive than gasoline in Europe? I’m not familiar enough with the issue to know either way.

        However, 15 seconds searching Google did come up with the following link which seems to say “generally, no”.

        http://www.drive-alive.co.uk/fuel_prices_europe.html

        It’s an unverified list pulled off a random corner of the Internet, so it’s probably not entirely accurate, but the overall message I see is that Diesel is not much more expensive than gasoline – and it may well be less expensive in some countries.

        So, no, I would not expect the price of everything that moves via truck to increase dramatically as a result of higher gasoline taxes.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        Is Diesel significantly more expensive than gasoline in Europe?

        It’s no secret that fuel taxes throughout western Europe are quite high compared to US taxes. The tax on diesel in Europe is generally lower than it is for gasoline, due to lobbying from the trucking industry.

        In the past, diesel in Europe was generally more affordable than gasoline, due to the lower taxes. The demand for diesel increased because of this disparity in taxes. But as demand for diesel has increased, the base price of the fuel increased and that savings is now largely gone.

        Taxing one product more heavily than the other would predictably create such effects. If diesel is perceived as being a cheaper substitute, more of it will be demanded.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        “But I guess the fact that I am in favor of (and willing to pay for) a social safety net and decent infrastructure makes me some kind of communist.”

        The fact that you are willing to pay, does not make you a communist. But the fact that you have seemingly no qualms about forcing others, whose opinions may differ, to pay for what you fancy, makes you at least someone rather totalitarian.

    • 0 avatar
      gslippy

      People said this when US gas prices were $1, climbing to $2.

      Face it, Americans will pay anything for a gallon of gas. Price spikes only have a temporary effect on demand.

    • 0 avatar
      forraymond

      Returning to tax rates that are sustainable (Eisenhower Era) in the long term would all for our roads to be in good repair, our bridges to be safe, our schools to effectively teach and all our citizens to get health care.

      A gas tax as you suggest would unfairly impact those with middle and lower income.

  • avatar
    BMWfan

    If I knew that the money would not be diverted to pay for something other that transportation related issues, I would be in favor of a small gas tax increase. Something on the order of a dollar a gallon would not be unreasonable in my opinion. We have to start weaning ourselves off of oil at some point. I believe that electric vehicles are our future, however keeping the oil lobbyists out of something that is good for the long term future of our country is going to be a problem. Short term thinking has been, and will continue to be our downfall, unless we can change our eternal quest for immediate gratification.

    • 0 avatar
      Brad2971

      If the last 3-4 years have taught us anything at all, it’s that medium-to-long term plans don’t mean much if the management team isn’t able to see the icebergs ahead and make changes on the fly. After all, Saturn was still considered a part of GM’s long-term future about this time 4 years ago.

      As for the truck sales jumping up, how much of those sales are of the kind with the most fuel-efficient engine that can go into a Silverado? Ford can, and likely will, state to us that up to 55% of their F-150 sales involved that Ecoboost or base V6s.

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        I would speculate a vast majority of these sales were for the 5.3L V8, which is the best of group for all around performance, power, economy, reliability, etc. etc.

        I doubt many 4.3L V6 trucks go out, and I have never seen a whole of the of 4.8L V8 models on a lot over the years except for on stripper models.

        Around here they are running ads for the All Star package and that includes the 5.3L V8.

        Another thing that people should be mindful of is in 2005 a Chevy truck got 13/17 MPG and that was using the old, overly optimistic MPG standard that was adjusted in 2008. Those trucks were really getting closer to 12/15 in the real world. The 2011 sticker on the tougher standard is 17/20 – real world is probably closer to 15/20. However from a percentage stand point, that is a significant improvement in just 6 years, and with more horsepower, and with more torque. Those two extra gears and computer mapping make a difference (among other changes)

    • 0 avatar
      steeringwithmyknees

      I believe short term thinking politicians is a natural effect of the way election cycles are set up.

      Most elected offices (especially the House of Reps on the federal level) should have longer terms but no possibility of re-election. So, maybe something like 5 year terms in the house and 10 in the Senate. I’m not sure presidential terms should change, but maybe. This way, the people elected will have some time to learn what their job entails and then, actually focus on it–and not their re-election. If they really suck (like more than other career politicians), then we can still remove them from office.

      Of all this “founding fathers” BS we hear about, one of the few claims I can agree with is that the founding fathers wanted to avoid having aristocracy or a permanent political class. They wanted to make it so everyday citizens could participate as elected representatives. It seems to me the one thing the founding fathers wanted was to set up a republic with a governance system that would be capable of changing with the times and the will of the voters–beyond that, it’s my understanding that there were vast differences of opinion among the founding fathers as to the nitty-gritty details that are absolutely decimating the efficacy of our current crop of career politicians who all pretend not to be career politicians.

  • avatar
    brettc

    I’m really surprised by the truck sales. It’s like it’s 2005 again or something. Gas has dropped some, but not a whole lot. I guess people are now used to the current price point and are buying what they really want, even if they don’t actually need it.

    As for the infrastructure repair – Infrastructure will be replaced/repaired when enough bridges collapse and become the focus of the talking heads on the teevee (maybe). It’s not like functioning infrastructure is a critical aspect of everyone’s lives or anything.

    • 0 avatar
      aspade

      It’s not the slightest bit like 2005.

      In 2005 GM sold a million full size trucks, 415K full sized SUVs, and another 365K Trailblazers and Envoys.

      With this strong increase GM is now on pace to sell just over 550K full size trucks this year, and just under 200K real SUVs. Or a 58% drop.

      Ford sold 910K full sized trucks and 440K real SUVs in 2005. This year they’re on pace for under 600K combined. A 56% drop.

      A little perspective, please.

    • 0 avatar
      56BelAire

      I would be willing to bet that most people complaining about roads live in states that have high(in the multi-billions) budget deficits, like California, NJ etc. These states also have the highest taxes in the country. Why? Because they need those taxes to pay salaries and pensions to $100-200K/year lifeguards, cops and firemen instead of fixing roads. Maybe they just need to get their priorities in order.

      In a perfect world a bridge will never collapse, but we don’t live in a perfect/utopian world.

      I am 68 and off hand I can recall only few bridge collapses; the one in Minnesota a few years back and one I believe in New England maybe 25 years ago where a section of an interstate hwy bridge collapsed. I believe in each case design was the main problem and not maintainance.

      I live in Utah and we have low taxes and some of the best roads and bridges in the country and they are always being improved and maintained. In fact, Utah has been lauded for some innovative state-of-the-art hwy and bridge construction techiques like building complete overpasses off site then rolling them into place with very short disruption of normal traffic patterns.

      I might also note mid-level public employees AREN’T making six figures here.

      • 0 avatar
        steeringwithmyknees

        While I agree that compared to where I live (Chicago), there are some fantastic roads in Utah and it does have enviable tax rates, there are a few mitigating factors you aren’t mentioning:

        Utah’s most densely populated area, SLC, has a population of 186,440 in the city and 2,238,697 in the whole metro area. The population density of the city proper is 1,666.1/sq mi.
        Chicago’s numbers are: about 2,700,000 in the city and around 9,800,000 in the metro area. Density of the city is 11,864.4/sq mi

        Utah the state has a density of 27.2 people per square mile.
        Illinois is 223.4 people per square mile.

        Further, most of Utah has some seriously mild, without much variation from season to season and it is very dry. Illinois has weather that varies quite a bit, even day-to-day. Water seeps into cracks and freezes, expanding the crack. Then salt (which is extremely corrosive) is poured on. Then, the water melts leaving the crack wider than it was before and bringing the salt deeper. And this can happen on a daily basis during the winter. Add to that, as both a destination and a pass-through for heavy freight trucks which also tear up the roads.

        Which state do you think has to spend more on the average mile of roadway?

        I am not going to go into the cost of living comparison (those mid-level employees 6 figure salaries go surprisingly short distances here), but i do agree that Chicago and IL are very over-taxed, not to mention unbelievably corrupt.

        Utah is an incredibly beautiful place – I am sure you enjoy it as much as I often resent where I live.

  • avatar
    DC Bruce

    Well, people have decided to put their money where their mouth is, despite the clacking from the know-it-alls who live in Manhattan and take limousines to get around.

    Really, folks, is it so terrible that people are allowed to spend their own money in the way that pleases them?

    I’m not a truck/SUV guy, and for me, living in the city of Washington, it would be more than silly to own one. But the folks who do probably consider me more than silly to have spent nearly $10K on a system that plays vinly records . . . and “obsolete” technology.

    And they could be right . . . !

    • 0 avatar
      56BelAire

      Bruce,

      My component system from the 60′s(Kenwood amp, Teac reel-to-reel Tapedeck, Dual 1219 Turntable and Electro-Voice Speakers) still works and sounds great. I think I paid about $400.00 for it back in the day. Younger people are awed and marvel at it when we have parties and I pull out the 45s and 33s. Most of them have never seen anything like it.

      And yes I’d rather have it than a SUV anyday.

    • 0 avatar
      tankinbeans

      I like your comment a lot because it makes sense to me. You can drive anything you want. No f_cks will be given by me to you, just don’t pick on me while driving down the road because I don’t have a large vehicle. I’ve seen plenty of people, mostly businessmen types on their cell phones, in large vehicles who make it a game to pick on the smaller vehicles.

  • avatar

    irrational exuberance. short the stock, they are gonna go bust again.

    • 0 avatar
      tparkit

      True. The average American is not debtworthy anymore. Some folks hope consumer credit is the next Washington-mandated bailout, after housing and student loans. In short, they’re borrowing because on some level they expect to never actually pay it back. Bailout Nation meets Walkaway Nation.

      Quote-of-the-century:

      “I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know, if I want help he’s gonna help me.”

      Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

    • 0 avatar
      KixStart

      They’re trading at a P/E of 4.2. Hard to see shorting GM at this point.

  • avatar
    KixStart

    They’re trading at a P/E of 4.2. Hard to see shorting GM at this point.

  • avatar
    alluster

    Sales change for YTD compared to same period last year (By Units)
    ——————————–
    Fiesta up 47,000 Units
    Fiat500 up 13,000
    Fit up 7,000
    Sonic up 1,700
    Accent up 1.000
    Versa down 5,000
    Aveo down 7,000
    Rio down 7,000
    Yaris down 16,000
    ———————————–
    Cruze up 95,000 Units (vs Cobalt)
    Jetta up 47,000
    Elantra up 46,000
    Sentra up 19,000
    Forte up 11,000
    Focus up 3,000
    Corolla down 23,000
    HHR down 26,000
    Civic down 31,000
    ———————————
    Regal + Malibu up 35,000 Units
    Optima up 34,000 Units
    Altima up 32,000
    Chry200 up 27,000 (vs Sebring)
    Fusion up 27,000
    Sonata up 25,000
    Passat down 5,000
    Camry down 21,000
    Accord down 34,000
    ——————————
    Nox + Terrain up 70,000 Units
    Escape up 45,000
    Sorento up 21,000
    Rogue up 20,000
    CRV up 17,000
    Rav-4 down 30,000
    ————————–
    Explorer up 54,000 Units
    Durango up 39,000
    Grand Cher up 37,000
    Compass up 30,000
    Acadia up 13,000
    Liberty up 12,000
    Highlander up 10,000
    Traverse up 5,000
    Pilot up 5,000
    Enclave up 4,000
    ————————-
    Silvy+Sierra up 46,000 Units
    Ram up 37,000
    F-Series up 31,000
    Avalanche down 1,000
    Titan down 2,000
    Ridgeline down 6,000
    Tundra down 8,000
    ————————

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    Released about 30 minutes ago for Toyota:

    September sales of 121,451 units…sales were down 17.5 percent over the year-ago month on both a daily selling rate (DSR) and unadjusted raw volume basis.

    Toyota Division recorded September sales of 106,456 vehicles, a decrease of 18.2 percent from the year-ago month. Lexus Division reported September sales of 14,995 units, a decrease of 11.5 percent from last year.

    Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/10/03/3956700/toyota-reports-september-and-third.html#ixzz1ZkIabt6D

    Camry sales for the launch of the 2012 are disappointing, Corolla sales continue at a new low level.

    Toyota had stated back in July that September would be the month to return to sales growth (maybe out to October).

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-28/toyota-says-its-u-s-sales-rebound-won-t-start-until-at-least-september.html

    Inventory isn’t a major issue

    • 0 avatar
      Quentin

      The ’12 Camry is just now hitting the lots. Your link, in fact, conveys quite a different message than what you posted.

      “It’s a tribute to the efficiency of our distribution system and our dealers that we were able to sell more than 121,000 vehicles in September despite 40 percent less availability than last year. That said, the worst is behind us and we expect to exceed year-ago sales levels beginning in October with continued growth throughout the fourth quarter.”

      Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/10/03/3956700/toyota-reports-september-and-third.html#ixzz1ZkiYt12z

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        Fun with numbers. In September 2010 days on inventory for the Camry was 238 days!

        http://wot.motortrend.com/honda-accord-ford-edge-flying-off-dealer-lots-camrys-parked-8993.html

        So a 40% reduction from availability from last year, which is what you quoted from my source, is 142 days of inventory. Hey Toyota’s numbers not mine.

        Here is another source, quoting Toyota

        http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-06-16/toyota-expects-return-to-full-north-america-output-in-september.html

        Full output of eight models, including Camry and Corolla cars, Sienna minivans and Highlander sport-utility vehicles, was restored June 6, and Tundra and Tacoma pickups and RAV4 and Lexus RX SUVs will reach that level by September, said Bob Carter, group vice president of U.S. sales.

        Corolla and Camry production have been at 100% for four months now – source for that is Bob Carter, group VP of US Sales. There is no playing the “weak inventory” card for poor Corolla and Camry sales, which I specifically called out.

    • 0 avatar
      84Cressida

      Inventory most certainly is an issue for the Camry. My local dealers got their first ’12 Camrys, 2 at one dealer and just 1 at another, this past Thursday. They only just started trickling in to dealers over the past week, and 2011 Camrys were down to 1 at one dealer and 3 at another. You have to be a complete fool if you believe that the lack of available Camrys didn’t play a factor in September sales. As for the Corolla, both dealers (and I live in the heart land of Toyota sales, NOR CAL) still have less on hand than they did before the tsunami. Dealers weren’t even trading cars and exchanging until recently as inventory was still tight.

      Oh, and as for your numbers, Carter wasn’t talking about Camry inventory being down 40%, he was talking about Toyota inventory as a whole down 40%, so you spinning the numbers to make it believe that there are still 142 days worth of Camry inventory out there is deceiving. But I never expect objectivity from the Toyota haters.

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        A lot of reading comprehension problems today…

        http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-06-16/toyota-expects-return-to-full-north-america-output-in-september.html

        Full output of eight models, including Camry and Corolla cars, Sienna minivans and Highlander sport-utility vehicles, was restored June 6, and Tundra and Tacoma pickups and RAV4 and Lexus RX SUVs will reach that level by September, said Bob Carter, group vice president of U.S. sales.

        It’s right there, from Toyota, in electrons, 16 weeks ago full return to full production. Just because YOUR dealer doesn’t have inventory doesn’t mean NO dealer does. You’re looking at a focus group of one. I’m looking at Toyota’s own information and quotes from their leadership team.

        With four months of full scale production the weak inventory card for Camry and Corolla can’t be played.

        still have less on hand than they did before the tsunami.

        I always love this excuse. Toyota’s inventory level pre-tsunami (e.g. early 2011 not cherry picking from the depth of despair recession) for all models was around 90 days-ish (I really don’t care to dig through the archives of TTAC to get the EXACT number – have at it to prove me wrong). That number however was about 30 days higher than historical Toyota levels, and any automotive analyst will tell you that 60 to 70 days inventory as a whole is a healthy amount of vehicles. So it’s not a pre-tsunami levels – I sure hope not – because the levels were bloated.

        Oh, and as for your numbers, Carter wasn’t talking about Camry inventory being down 40%, he was talking about Toyota inventory as a whole down 40%, so you spinning the numbers to make it believe that there are still 142 days worth of Camry inventory out there is deceiving. But I never expect objectivity from the Toyota haters.

        So I ran with the 40% number – given no other data. Out of the Toyota conference call they said Camry levels are at 33% of what they were this time last year. Now that is a fun with numbers stat – because 33% sounds bad. But 33% of a 238 day inventory turn is 78 days – that darn healthy. Even if we have fun with numbers and say the 238 figure is off by 40%, that would current Camry inventory at about 47 days – wobbly – but not horrible. Certainly not enough to account for it being off pace by 30% from its peak. Source for the 33% figure is LLN, I did not personally listen to the Toyota Conference call today.

        Who is showing cognitive bias?

      • 0 avatar
        alluster

        If Toyota had inventory shortages, why would they have raised incentives to all time highs? Incentives are up 16.5% compared to last year while their sales fell 18%. GM OTH raised incentives by just 0.9% while sales grew 20%. Toyota’s inventory in sep. was significantly better than aug. but sales are lower.
        Toyota had more than recovered in aug when they made 70,000 more units than aug 2010.You would think that with so much pent up demand due to deep losses in the months past, they would have a sales boost thanks to improved inventory and all time high incentives. Incentives are only part of the story. Toyota had started a nationwide massive ad blitz, spending tons of money on advertising than they did in the months or years past.

        They do have shortages on the Prius and Yaris, but not so much on the Camry, Corolla and Rav-4. Toyota has a bigger problem on its hands and they will deny it at their own peril.

      • 0 avatar
        Quentin

        Toyota is incentivizing left over ’11 Camrys. Since a ’12 Camry is hitting dealers, it makes sense to try to clear out the ’11 models. My understanding is that the ’12 just started production in early sept with deliveries just starting the 3rd week of sept. I wouldn’t read too much into extrapolating numbers from inventory of last year’s model being relevant to the ’12 inventory. You’re trying to call a race that has just started in regard to the Camry. I have no idea on Corolla other than the fact that the Mississippi plant is getting ready to start production and they *might* have throttled back Japan built deliveries in preparation. That is pure speculation on my part, though.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      Camry sales for the launch of the 2012 are disappointing

      Er, the Camry was the best selling passenger car in September. And August. And July. It’s also the best selling passenger car for YTD 2011.

      I know that you’re a diehard GM fan, but even you must know that what you’re saying is ridiculous.

  • avatar
    ajla

    The Ram guys finally figured out that putting the 5.7L V8 in nearly everything they make is a smart idea.

    The 3.7L V6 and 4.7L V8 are near useless offerings, they don’t cost any less to produce than the 5.7L, the EPA rates all three the same, they aren’t any easier to work on, and they don’t sell without giant discounts.
    _____________
    The incentives on the 2011 trucks are quite delightful right now too. A Silverado Crew Cab is an easy sell when you can buy it for under $26K.

  • avatar
    alluster

    September:
    Avg. Transaction Price – Avg incentives – Incentives/ATP %

    GM (Buick, Cadillac, Chevy, GMC) – $33,145 – $3,255 – 9.8%
    Toyota (Lexus, Scion, Toyota) – $25,475 – $2,472 – 9.7%
    Nissan (Nissan, Infiniti) – $27,264 – $2,925 – 10.7%
    Honda (Acura, Honda) – $25,611 – $2,370 – 9.3%
    Ford (Ford, Lincoln)- $31,983 – $2,814 – 8.8%

  • avatar
    GarbageMotorsCo.

    Nissan Leaf sales YTD: 7199
    Sept 2011: 1031
    *367 units currently for sale

    Volt sales YTD (minus 1 month shutdown): 3895
    Sept 2011: 723
    *2566 units currently for sale

  • avatar
    Carlson Fan

    Yo Garbage, I know your a GM troll boy, but those 2566 Volts supposedly for sale, don’t exist. If you believe they do I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you for cheap….LOL

    • 0 avatar
      GarbageMotorsCo.

      Ya your correct, that number is off.

      It’s over 2600 now.

      http://www.cars.com/for-sale/searchresults.action?stkTyp=N&tracktype=newcc&mkId=20053&AmbMkId=20053&AmbMkNm=Chevrolet&make=Chevrolet&AmbMdNm=Volt&model=Volt&mdId=35025&AmbMdId=35025&rd=100000&zc=00001&enableSeo=1&searchSource=TRAIL_HEAD

      Thanks for the correction.

  • avatar
    Secret Hi5

    After July’s numbers, either Bertel or Ed said that August would prove whether the domestic turnaround is real or not. Well, we have August and September numbers now . . .


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • J & J Sutherland, Canada
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India