By on September 6, 2014

U.S. auto brand sales market share chart August 2014As U.S. auto sales grew 5.5% to more than 1.58 million in August 2014, GM’s market share fell from 18.4% in August 2013 to 17.2% last month. Ford Motor Company’s share fell by seven-tenths of a percentage point, year-over-year. American Honda’s share of the total sales pie fell from 11.1% to 10.5% even as the Accord became America’s best-selling car with more than 50,000 sales.

Toyota’s share improved slightly to 15.5%, while the Chrysler Group/FCA shot up from 11% in August 2013 to 12.5% in August 2014. Nissan USA’s market share grew by one half of a percentage point.

Compared with July 2014, GM, FoMoCo, and Hyundai-Kia, all lost significant portions. Toyota USA moved up from 15%, American Honda jumped a full percentage point, and the Chrysler Group climbed from 11.7%.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

76 Comments on “U.S. Auto Market Share – August 2014...”

  • avatar

    So, Mazda is now on an equal footing with BMW? Impressive.

    • 0 avatar

      Even better, Mazda got the brown color!

      • 0 avatar

        I’m going to go somehwat OT here (but not completely), but for good reason:

        I have a Cadillac ATS rental car as I write this. It’s an automatic 2.0T with 6,500 miles on the odometer.

        It’s such a POS overall with two sole exceptions (listed below) that we might as well start GM Deathwatch v2.0 right now.

        First, here is the very short list of the good attributes of the vehicle:

        1) The steering is well weighted and one of the better feeling electronically assisted systems I’ve experienced in any vehicle, period. I’d still prefer hydraulic, but what is one to do…

        2) The chassis is extremely well-sorted and tight as a drum. The chassis is so good, in fact, that it is better appreciated the higher the speeds at which it’s being hustled, and it begs for more power and a lot more brake.

        The ugly (and there is a LOT of ugly) so gird yourselves:

        1) The interior space for a sedan is so ridiculously tight that it’s a literal joke, and the interior space would be tight even for a GT coupe. I’m not just talking about the rear seat, either, which is cataclysmically bad, but the front seat, also. JOKE.

        2) The trunk is so small that if you’re travelling with even one other person, let alone two, you must check to see if you will be able to fit your luggage in the trunk, even assuming you’ll need to use the interior to store some luggage (you will). If your travels involve more than a weekend jaunt, at most, for more than yourself, you will be in a world of hurt. What was GM thinking (they weren’t)?

        3) The paint is incredibly delicate. I’ve managed to mar the paint near the trunk opening with the most gingerly treatment imaginable while loading luggage.

        4) The vehicle shakes upon every start-up as if the motor mounts are broken.This vehicle has 6,500 miles on the odometer.

        5) The cruise control is 100% dead broken…period. It is kaput. It ceases to be. The main cruise toggle will turn the cruise system on, but the virtual “buttons” to set and alter speed do not respond/work/whatever-at-all-no-matter-what. This vehicle has 6,500 miles on it (again).

        6) CUE is a freakin’ joke. ‘Nuff said.

        7) The interior plastics are of a very cheap grade; I’m talking Hyundai Elantra or Toyota Camry grade cheap, which would be JUST okay in a 15k to 18k vehicle, but that are RIDICULOUS in any vehicle remotely close to what GM is asking for the ATS.

        8) The transmission sucks. It’s inexcusable to have that much lag between throttle input and response in even a plain commuter car, let alone a “performance sedan.”

        9) Oh how the gauge cluster blows. One must drive this car EITHER at night, or especially during the day, to understand how much old school GM remains to this day to appreciate this.

        Bottom line: It is unbelievable that GM created a very good chassis and steering system, and then cost-cut & sucked every possible shred of quality, refinement and durability out what could have been a good car. It is beyond comprehension that this car stickers for anything near 35k, let alone 40k (I would never buy this car, but if I had to, I’d refuse to pay more than 25k for it, and I’d want the longest, most comprehensive warranty I could procure for it given my complete lack of faith in its long term reliability/durability).

        I’d truly rather own a Volkswagen GTI (especially with a stick), get a more premium experience (even with wrong wheel drive) and save $15,000 in the process.

        • 0 avatar

          From your first sentence, I was preparing to be jealous of you. With our A6 in the shop, I am rocking an Avenger with 40K miles on the clock from Enterprise.

          As terrible as the ATS is, it’s no Avenger. Still, it’s a pity to see Cadillac wasting such a great chassis with such poor engineering.

        • 0 avatar

          They don’t seem to learn. Where does the money they charge for Cadillac’s products actually go? It’s not like the days of old when writeups faulted Corvette’s seats and cheap interior, but it was more acceptable because they were thousands less than comparable cars. Pretty sad when junky parts cost the same.

        • 0 avatar

          I’m still shaking my head at what GM did to the ’08 Malibu. Pretty, well equipped and a nice drive, the car did some heavy lifting for the long-term task of regaining consumer and press faith. And what did they do with this opportunity? Took content OUT of the car throughout the entire run of the model as nearly every competitor progressed.

          I seriously question how much GM’s byzantine management mess was really reformed from the pre-bankruptcy turf wars and paralysis. They’ve always had a ton of engineering talent, but they’ll only let it loose about once a decade. When the BEST thing an investigation into the ignition scandal can say is that “they’re so effed up, they’re incapable of conspiring,” that’s an organization I don’t want to trust with my money as a consumer.

          All that said, I’m still shocked at the rapidity of GM’s market share loss. There’s something about a pie chart that really hammers it home — from 45-50%, GM has now decayed to the point where a half-dozen competitors now have nearly caught them in their own home market.

          As regular readers know, I was an outspoken advocate of the 2009 rescue of GM, not for its own pathetic sake, but to save the economy from depression. As the company continues to shrivel, I’d say that if it goes under again, let it die. Anything worth saving, like Corvette, will be picked up by others, and the rest doesn’t deserve to live. Unfortunately, due to GM’s rampant mismanagement (that’s “management,” as in “not scapegoating its unionized workers who are stuck assembling the sh!t management specs for them”), that would be “most of it.”

          • 0 avatar

            Bailing out General Motors, I think, had nothing to do with the cars. It was because What Would We Do With All These People Who Do Not Have A Job?! THEY WILL HAVE NOTHING TO DO!! THERE WILL BE RIOTING IN THE STREETS!. Something has happened in the last maybe 30 years where the most important part of a business is the jobs it creates and who cares about the product. Sears is another example of this, again, people have to work somewhere and who cares if there is nothing in there people want to buy but we can’t let them just close because Those People Need a Job! Again, cannot have Nothing To Do can we?

          • 0 avatar

            I had similar thoughts Bob, I think this is also why unemployment went on for years and most of the country was/is on some form of welfare. The thinking seems to be if we can keep them employed somehow we will, when we can’t we’ll keep them fed and give them some money until we can’t. Otherwise people would riot and they’d lose control.

          • 0 avatar

            I understand your sentiments Bob and 28, but there are more people unemployed today than the entire gross total employed by GM, Ford and Fiatsler in the US, combined.

            Clearly, this is what the majority wanted and voted for, not just once, but twice! Shrub set the precedence by bailing out GM and Chrysler for 90 days, but after that it all unraveled.

            But hey, the majority in America is happy with that arrangement.

            So, I can suck it up and deal with, as long as I don’t have to pay for it or support it by buying any of their products.

        • 0 avatar

          Looking at the Pie Chart, both Ford and GM are losing market share

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            I think Ford will be the biggest loser over the next year.

            The aluminium F-150 will push more over to the Fiat Ram pickups and possibly the Colorado.

            The Colorado will be a surprise in the market place if GM can actually improve on the existing global Colorado.

            CUVs and SUVs make up a huge chunk of the improved sales across many of the manufacturers.

            Ford’s supposed one car formula if you don’t live in China or the US is going to fail.

            The US needs the Ranger and soon. VW needs the Amarok and soon.

            People are people, globally people seem to be chasing very similar styles of vehicles, the size of these vehicles is governed by economics more than anything.

            But since the SUV and CUV market is improving the Colorado will be viewed as more an acceptable CUV/SUV replacement vehicle.

            Full size trucks will slowly reduce when the aluminium trucks arrive.

            Then again the Colorado will improve.

            HDs will see some sales move over to the new Titan and Tundra. Nissan will also have the D22 sized Frontier.

            The biggest loser will be Ford, then GM out of the Detroit guys.

            Fiat doesn’t have any midsizer at all, maybe Fiat could sell an Americanised version of the Strada.

            I see possibly the midsizers becoming popular due to their size and economy, like SUVs and CUVs, also the pickup crowd with normal size d!cks will buy them as well.

            The US truck (including what Pch101 considers trucks, ie, PT Cruiser will have a small shakeup very soon.

          • 0 avatar

            @BAFO – How would you sell a Colorado to a repeat Equinox buyer? And to go from 32 mpg to 26? From $25K to a $30K crew cab? Car-like ride, handling, parking to an industrial truckster? Inside storage to out in the weather and exposed to thieves? Secure tailgate to FREE for the taking?

            I don’t see Ford losing any sleep over the Colorado/Canyon, but the F-150 launch has to be a nail biter. Nor them stressing over small d!ck jokes.

            On paper, the Ram should already outsell Ford and Chevy. Great truck, but it looks like it’ll just take over GM’s spot at #2, as it does in Mexico and Canada.

            No, VW and Ford need a midsize pickup like a hole in the head. The midsize pickup market would have to grow exponentially before they feel the need to carve it up with their own. And cannibalize their own.

          • 0 avatar

            @Big al from Oz,
            Been saying for last 2-3yrs on PUTC, that Mullally was no Saviour. It is going to very difficult for Ford to change direction and fill out the product portfolio. Another issue that has been raising its head is a recurring quality issue, it appears to be across the board

          • 0 avatar

            @ Big Al, the reason that Ford sales are down is mainly due to the F150. The reason the sales are down is because people are waiting for the aluminum F150, not because they are afraid of it. When people are afraid of the new model the sales of the old model go up in its final year when people are anticipating the new model sales take a hit on the outgoing model. Based on that the F150 should return to its previous sales levels or increase.

            The Colorado will be a flop, very few people are going to be willing to pay more for a smaller truck that only gets 1mpg better than a full size. Once the Aluminum F150 hits the market it will be a case of who wants to pay more for a smaller truck that gets lower MPG than a full size.

            The PT cruiser is long gone but it was not PCH that called it a truck it was Chrysler that fought for that classification so that it could be counted in the truck CAFE standards since at the time they had the heaviest trucks with bottom of the barrel MPG. They also fought for that designation because at the time trucks as the other standards were more lenient for trucks too.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            Why must you take a comment out of context?

            Did I state people will be afraid?

            There will be some apprehension towards the aluminium pickups, they will still sell in big numbers. But in my view not as many due to the added cost of the vehicle.

            As for the newer midsizers, well you guys can only comment on the agricultural midsizers you currently have.

            Midsizers now are exceptionally competitive with full sizers in the quality of appoints and features. The interiors are first rate.

            That’s why I bought my BT50GT instead of a SUV (proper SUV with hi-lo and 4×4).

            Here is the interior of the new global Mazda BT50, not bad, this is the mid spec’d version, the XTR. This is why they will compete with CUVs and SUVs. Some potential full size customers will buy these as well. The ones without the small d!ck problems.


            The new Navara and hopefully next Frontier interior. Not bad either. This will also grab some of the SUV/CUV set with a few potential full size customers.


            Even the Cummins powered Chinese Tunland has a reasonable interior.


            So, you see Scoutdude, you must stop looking at the world through a clouded lens.

            Over the past 20 years pickups sales have reduced and CUV/SUV sales are and have replaced many of the pickup sales of yore.

            Midsizers will be more than an adequate substitute for the larger CUVs and SUVs.

            As I have just shown, you guys receive sh!t midsize pickups.

            You don’t have a clue what you are stating as you never had exposure to these.

            You live in the past.

          • 0 avatar

            @BAFO – Is the Navara “agricultural” in OZ? Because it’s the same thing as our Frontier. And the Navara is one of your biggest sellers in OZ. Must be some folks don’t mind their tractor-like aspects.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            The Navara is an antique along with the Hilux. The US Frontier is even worse with the gas only option and it’s piddly payload.

            The only positive attribute the current Navara has is the option for the Renault 3 litre V6 diesel. But that isn’t enough to sway many.

            So Nissan with Mitsubishi now have the cheapest Japanese (Thai) utes here, by a considerable margin.

            The discussion I’m having with Scoutdude is in relation to the US receiving the up and coming new midsizers (we already have been receiving for the past 3 years or so), not the antiques that you constantly attempt making reference to as the norm.

            The Taco and Frontier will not last as they are for long.

            Why do these new midsizer scare you DiM?

            I do understand your want for the Big 2 plus Fiat in NA to perform. But, you must become a realist.

            Have a look at the US market it’s ‘a changin’. Euro commercials and other vehicles from outside of Winnipeg.

            Great isn’t it, imagine your next vehicle can be a 3.2 diesel Transit van.

            Or even one of those Nissan NV200 work vans.

          • 0 avatar

            @Big Al from OZ,
            The Navara is built on a heavier chassis than the Frontier, explains the much heavier payload

          • 0 avatar

            @ Big Al, there you go making stuff up again. The full size truck market share has grown as have the total numbers sold since the economic melt down.

            People are not going to stay away from the aluminum F150 because of the price increase. Fact is they have announced the prices for the bulk of the 2015 F150 and the price increase is only about 1-2% of the price that the majority of trucks sell for. That is not a significant increase for an all new vehicle or the normal year to year price increase. Yet for some reason you believe that people will turn away from the 2015 F150 because of price and will head over to the GM dealer and pickup a Colorado which will cost even more than a comparable F150, so they get lower MPG, lower payload, lower tow rating, and less interior room.

            The fact that the sales are tailing off on the outgoing F150 shows that people are waiting for the new one.

            The Colorado will see a bit of a boom this first year but I seriously doubt that it will break 100K units in the first year. After that it will drop off significantly. Will some people trade in their SUV for a Colorado? Certainly there will be a few, but it will be minimal. People in the US buy a SUV for carrying people and cargo inside and the Colorado or any other pickup will not meet those needs.

            What the interior of any of those global trucks looks like is irrelevant as they won’t be coming to the US. As I’ve pointed out many times the market for less than full size pickups is just way to small to support very many players. Every mfg will be looking at the sales of the Colorado and the segment as a whole and when they see that this new player does not significantly increase the total market they will not bring their models to the US.

            The reality is that there are segments in the US that just aren’t large enough to support more than a couple of players. Less than full size trucks is one of those segments. What people buy in other markets just doesn’t matter.

          • 0 avatar

            Agree with you, it is like comparing Baseball and Cricket, both bat and ball games, similar places in society, very similar impacts, but VERY different rules and to a lesser extent strategies.
            I think the Commercial Truck and Pickup tastes very a lot in both countries, do similar things

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            G’day Scoutdude,
            I don’t necessarily disagree with all you’ve stated except on a few things.

            Again you appear to be taking out of context my comments. THERE WILL BE NO COLLAPSE OF FULL SIZE TRUCKS IN THE US!

            Can you read comprehend that? Now that this is resolved, lets move on.

            The aluminium trucks will face some decline in sales due to the increase in the cost of buying one.

            The price you stated is the manufacturers price. But, tell me what will the average transaction price be? Are the prices that you appear to have arrived at recommended retail? So, what discounts will the manufacturer’s provide?? Don’t know??

            Currently as it stands the average transaction price for a full size pickup is around $38k.

            Yes the US pickup truck market has increased since the GFC. But it’s increase hasn’t been as large as the other segments, unless you consider what Pch101 considers trucks, ie, CUVs and SUVs.

            Full size pickups as a percentage of the overall truck sector has remained relatively static since 1990. What has had changed significantly are vans and midsize pickups.

            It appears a massive shift has moved to midsize SUVs/CUVs.

            If the Colorado sells a 100k, Taco sales are 120k, the new Frontier even 80k where are those sales coming from?

            The US itself is at capacity with vehicles, so people will not just go out and buy a pickup. There are around 750 vehicles per 1 000 people in the US.

            So, for a segment to increase it must come at the cost of another segment.

            The US has roughly 240k vehicle per model. The highest by far outside of any controlled economy. I do think the UK has 60k vehicles per model average.

            We in Australia have 16k per model average.

            So, the US can manage many more model vehicles in the vehicle market without causing any grief. This is also why I think the US should open it’s door to FTAs.

            I do think the FTAs would allow for more model vehicles to compete and offer the consumer better and cheaper product.

            But, anyway, if read what I wrote the bulk of the sales of these NEW midsizers will come from CUV and SUV sales. Some will obviously come from full size trucks, but not a huge amount.

            Actually the biggest winner from the aluminium pickups will be Fiat Ram.

        • 0 avatar
          Compaq Deskpro

          The only deal breaker for me would be the interior space, which is indeed a deal breaker. I’ve only used cruise control a couple of times in my car, it seemed kind of cool then I forgot about it. More of a novelty.

        • 0 avatar

          Turned ATS in this morning and the experience only became worse.

          In addition to above mentioned issues, the vehicle had a lot of road noise on concrete surfaces, it rode like absolute crap on broken pavement, obtained about 20 mpg in mostly highway driving (really), and had tons of rattles in the interior.

          Absolute pile of crap and anything BUT a premium feeling car.

          I’d really rather have an Accord, Camry, Fusion, GTI, Mazda 6, etc.

          Yet another total rubbish GM product.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    I’d like to see a pie chart of profit share. I’ll bet BMW makes more profit from its 2% than GM makes from its 17%.

    • 0 avatar

      Cain is displaying US market share. You can’t do the same for profitability because automakers don’t report their financials by market.

      In many cases, the automakers themselves don’t truly understand where they make their money.

      • 0 avatar

        GM found that out the hard way by becoming bankrupt

      • 0 avatar

        The problem is, some people think that the Detroit automakers exist to build cars that people like to use and want to buy. No, no, NO! The Detroit automakers are a social program that makes cars to pay for all the health insurance, salaries of automakers and most importantly they give people SOMETHING TO DO in the form of work. Otherwise, what would these people do all day, get drunk and cause trouble? So to support this American activity people buy the cars (and them complain about them).

        Then there are the labor unions, who want jobs that can support a “Working Family” so that people have kids, have more kids, get into more expense and depend more and more on the automaker for their jobs (the activity that keeps them out of trouble). This is one reason Henry Ford did the wage increase in the 20s, he didn’t want workers going back to farming and having (horrors!) their own businesses.

        I don’t really feel all this way, it just seems like what it looks like to me. Who cares about the product, PEOPLE NEED A JOB!

    • 0 avatar

      Congratulations on failing to actually understand simple and well known economic theories of scale of economy. By no means is BMW making more than GM in America on sales, per car for sure, but that’s a fun statement to pass around in a business office. It isn’t exactly rocket science that a base car no matter how much you engineer into caps out at a certain point for the hard costs (labor, material) so that if you sell the majority of your vehicles at a much higher price point than your competitor you’re bound to make more money per car than a company that sells at a lower price point.

      But by and large GM makes huge profits on their pickups, so I would imagine that BMW makes a healthy profit but GM dwarfs them in the US.

      PS: Trolls are trolling!

      • 0 avatar

        I’m curious, if a student in one of your classes fundamentally did not understand a concept you taught, how would you respond?

        • 0 avatar

          I would appreciate their response and give them a short lecture on what those concepts are. In this case the scale of economics and margin sales. I’m actually very caring towards my students because they rarely project the presumptive arrogance floating around on the internet and even when they do because I’m in a direct face-to-face relationship I can provide the leadership and education. I’m that professor who gives out his cell number for them to use in case of emergency and I often meet students after class to give them extra help or discuss paper topics.

          PCH did the leg work and found that worldwide BMW is getting a return of roughly 5 to 1 worldwide on their sales vs. GM. In the US to return that they would need to be roughly 8 to 1 (thus not exceeding it). But that really wasn’t what he was suggesting, he was making a business argument that BMW was inherently ‘better’ than GM by selling fewer units at a far higher margin which has a limited market based on aggregate demand. Which means even if you think selling luxury goods is the best business strategy it rarely means you can enter that market without facing limitations in sales of that nature.

          • 0 avatar

            You blew it with your scale argument. Just accept it, learn from it and move on.

            I doubt that GM is much more profitable in the US than is BMW, even with the trucks. The trucks probably contribute a majority of the profits, so they’re important, but they don’t compare to BMW’s overall performance.

      • 0 avatar

        Last year, GM had global pre-tax profits of US$7.46 billion, with volume of about 9.7 million units.

        Last year, BMW had global pre-tax profits of 7.91 billion euro, with volume of under 2.0 million units. One could debate exactly what exchange rate to use, but suffice it to say that this figure is in the neighborhood of $10 billion, well above GM’s.

        BMW is more profitable than GM even though it has a fraction of the volume because it makes up for it with margin. GM’s average revenue per unit is low at less than $16k per unit, while BMW’s is high, being close to $45k per unit.

        I should note that BMW reports using IFRS while GM uses GAAP, which may put GM at a slight disadvantage. But the basic issue of margin still applies. Scale matters, but it doesn’t always cut it.

        • 0 avatar

          GM has always given the impression that their goal is being number one in sales in as many markets as possible. The problem is #1 in sales does not translate to #1 in profits.

          I looked at the Fortune 500 list of top companies for 2013 and the numbers were interesting. They did not list numbers of vehicles sold but they did list revenues, profits, and assets.

          They listed the rankings by revenue not profits.
          This is a breakdown of car companies in the Fortune 500 Top 100 Companies. (revenue in millions)
          #8 VW……. 261,539.10
          #9 Toyota… 156,628.40
          #20 Daimler. 156,628.40
          #21 GM…… 155,427.00
          #26 Ford…. 146,917.00
          #45 Honda .. 118,210.50
          #61 Nissan.. 104,635.80
          #68 BMW….. 100,971.70
          #100Hyundai. 79,766.10

          If one posts the rankings based on profits:
          #1 Toyota….18,198.20
          #2 VW……..12,071.50
          #3 Daimler… 9,083.20
          #4 Hyundai… 7,804.00
          #5 Ford…… 7,155.00
          #6 BMW……. 7,054.70
          #7 Honda….. 5,730.70
          #8 GM…….. 5,346.00
          #9 Nissan…. 3,883.30

          If One lists sales in order of units sold globally:(millions)
          #1 GM……. 9.72
          #2 VW……. 9.51
          #3 Toyota… 9.03
          #4 Ford….. 6.33
          #5 Nissan… 5.1
          #6 Hyundai.. 4.72
          #7 Honda…. 4.28
          #8 Kia…… 2.83
          #9 Peugeot.. 2.82
          #10 Suzuki.. 2.69

          Daimler….. 1.57
          BMW……… 1.96

          • 0 avatar

            Lou_BC, Thanks for the figures.

            If you do a little math:

            Mfr Rev/Car Profit/Car
            Toyota $17,345 $2,015.30
            VW $27,501 $1,269.35
            GM $15,990 $550.00

            This is astonishing. Toyota makes almost twice as much money per car as VW does, although their cars are 1/3 less expensive.

          • 0 avatar

            As I pointed out prior to the BK, GM’s problem in a nutshell is that it has tried to cut its way to prosperity, instead of convincing its customers that it had brands that were worth paying for.

            The new GM seems to have figured this out, but now errs by expecting too much, too soon. Even with a well-executed strategy, it would probably take a decade or more (at least a couple of product cycles) to consistently justify higher prices, but they can’t get away with it just yet. Competing head-on against TMC and BMW is not easy.

          • 0 avatar

            @KixStart – thanks.

          • 0 avatar

            Former GM Chairman Thomas Murphy said, “General Motors is not in the business of making cars. It is in the business of making money.” If they’re this exceptional at making money, just imagine how special their cars are!

        • 0 avatar
          Master Baiter

          Thanks for making my point.

          In 2007+2008, GM lost $70 billion.

          • 0 avatar

            @Master Baiter – GM is in the Top 10 for worst corporate losses.

            Ranked worst losses:

            #8 – 2007 = 38.7 billion

            #10 – 2008 = 23.5 billion

            #11 – 2009 = 30.9 billion


      • 0 avatar

        Don’t want to be the mean troll, but I have to doubt the authenticity of someone who doesn’t know that the phrase is “economies of scale”, not “scale of economy”‘ or ” scale of economics”. Sounds like a somewhat confused econ101 student.

        • 0 avatar

          I would put money on him neither having a degree in economics nor being an economics professor. I have all of a B.S. in economics and I cringe when he discusses the subject.

          • 0 avatar

            BA – History
            MA – History – 20th Century US – Focus on labor & Race
            PhD – Political Science – Focus on labor & Race

            I’m sure you cringe, I’m also indifferent to your attitude.

            Why would I want to teach economics anyways? Most of them are self-deluded on the ideas of capitalism because they’re taught a very narrow band of understanding in order to be ‘hire-able’ by the private sector. At least at the PhD level they tend to be more open to a greater understanding but even then their personal views rarely come into use because the core requirements of being valuable is a willingness to ignore long-term trends and relationships for the quick dollar today.

            By the way, what do you do with your B.S.? Financial analyst? Stock broker? I imagine its something based on at medium-term success rates that rarely account for national movements or international movements of wages & production value. I’m not trying to belittle you, just point out the relationship Econ as a subject in education vs. Political Science & Political Econ especially at higher levels of education.

    • 0 avatar

      BMW does have the #5 (5-series/X5) and #6 (3-series) most profitable cars in the world. And that’s about $41 billion combined and total, since ’95, pre tax.

      GM’s pickups are the #2 most profitable in the world, but have cleared about $40 billion in profits since ’95.

      GM does sell a crap load more cars than BMW, but there’s as many winners as losers.

  • avatar

    It is good to see Chrysler doing so well. I’m older and would always like to see Chrysler, GM and Ford slightly in the top spots, regardless of where they’re actually made or owned. I don’t have anything against the others, in fact I still drive a ’90 Toyota pickup and an old Accord was probably the best vehicle I’ve ever owned. It’s that discrimination against a company for bad products generations ago that makes me think “fool” every time someone immediately goes shopping and get a mediocre Camry because it is supposedly more reliable. It’s kind of like hating a good kid because his grandfather was a piece of crap. I noticed over the last two years a friend’s 2-Camry collection was replaced with a used TL and a 3 yr old 325. The Acura had to have the sunroof drain line cleared, and that’s it. The BMW so far has proved that buying new under warranty would have been cheaper. A $600 manifold, a transaxle and an engine replacement along with shredded leather didn’t really make the Camrys that reliable after all. According to this, if Hyundai/Kia offered a full-size pickup, they would rule the market. But I’m not sure if those car buyers are actually truck purchasers.

    • 0 avatar

      a transaxle in a BMW that needed to be replaced? Are you sure about that?

      • 0 avatar

        No, one of the Camrys. His particular BMW has been expensive, since he was expecting there to be no sorting out problems, and that he went for a 325 instead of what he thought would be a more expensive to maintain 335. But, because he is absolutely enjoying driving the car and he didn’t the Camry, he doesn’t mind the costs as much as he did in the Toyota. His wife had the other Camry and it appeared you could set up a yard sale at any moment from what all she kept in it. She got the Acura and I waited for her to destroy the interior. Two years later, it looks showroom shiny. The only thing she leaves in it is an umbrella and compliments. I was happy to see them both break the pattern and really love their cars for once.

    • 0 avatar

      It’s hard to tell what car/s you’re talking about.

  • avatar

    AS always, when looking a chart like this I wonder what it would look like if full size pickups where excluded.
    I understand that there are many people out there who choose to designate a full size pickup as personal, non-commercial vehicle that can acceptably be included in this sales chart. My intention is not to pick a fight or derail this topic.
    I am just curious as I, personally, do not think pickups should be included in this list.

    • 0 avatar

      Well if we did that we could also disqualify all fleet sales as the sonics that autozone uses shouldn’t count.

      Besides trucks make more sense as a family vehicle for most people than compacts.

  • avatar

    I’ll be helping either Subaru or Toyota hopefully later this month.

    • 0 avatar

      We’ll be helping Toyota whenever the 2015 Sequoia for my wife comes in.

      That’s the downside with Toyota products — you often have to wait to get what you want because no dealer stocks a wide selection to choose from. Ditto with my Tundra 5.7L – I had to wait several months to get the 2011 I wanted.

      The “just in time” philosophy also extends to the sales floor.

      • 0 avatar

        That might be more a reflection of the size of the dealers in your area, rather than Toyota’s manufacturing system, which has been copied by all major manufacturers. In large metropolitan areas, the larger dealers have hundreds of vehicles on the lot.

        • 0 avatar

          I have four brothers who sold Toyota, among other brands, with dealerships in California, Arizona, Texas and Alabama, until their retirement a few years back.

          I would consider Los Angeles, San Francisco, Phoenix, Houston and the Huntsville metropolitan areas to be of respectable size.

          It’s true that Toyota always had a push for greater acceptance of the brand EAST of the Mississippi, in areas where the Detroit 3 had been running rampant for decades.

          Over the decades there were many instances of what was ordered was not what was received because of factory production runs or schedules.

          When they were still importing product from Japan, things were actually better for dealers on the West Coast and the Southwest.

          But that is just my observance and anecdotal experience of what took place in my practical world.

          However, at Regional meetings the same complaint was heard from other non-affiliated dealerships.

      • 0 avatar

        On USAA, it said that the Venza LE came with the panoramic sunroof, but they were non-existent at any dealers. One of the dealers in my county had a RAV4 in the color my mom wanted, with a sunroof, but it had 411 miles and was originally shipped to a dealer in North Carolina.

        But why are y’all waiting until 2015 with the Sequoia? Wouldn’t a 2014 be a better deal once the 2015s come in? Just wondering.

        • 0 avatar

          If your paying 50k + for a vehicle 8k+/- isn’t a deal breaker to get what you want. Doesn’t matter if its a better deal if its not exactly what he wants.

          I used 50k as an example but honestly I wouldn’t pay 10k for something that didnt exactly meet my requirements, especially if new.

          • 0 avatar

            Hummer, I expect to get top trade-in dollar for the 2012 Grand Cherokee. And if not, I’ll sell it outright myself. I’ve sold many of my cars myself over the decades.

            I have lost count of all the times people have come up to my wife and I and asked us if we would be interested in selling her 2012 Grand Cherokee.

            I expect the demand to still be there until the all-new 2016 Grand Cherokee comes out in March of 2015, like the 2014 came out in March of 2013.

          • 0 avatar

            Not exactly sure what your responding to, but ok! :)

          • 0 avatar

            “Not exactly sure what your responding to”

            “why are y’all waiting until 2015 with the Sequoia? Wouldn’t a 2014 be a better deal once the 2015s come in?”

            “If your paying 50k + for a vehicle 8k+/- isn’t a deal breaker to get what you want. Doesn’t matter if its a better deal if its not exactly what he wants.”

            My response was that I expected to get a lot more from our GC than the $8K difference between a 2014 and 2015 Sequoia.

            I also believe that the Sequoia that will be offered to us will be closer to $60K, and that’s where the top-dollar trade comes in for the retained value of our GC.

            There is such an enormous demand for the 2011 and up Grand Cherokee that I don’t anticipate having any problems selling it on my own if I have to.

          • 0 avatar

            Oh, 8k wasn’t any reference point, nor was it in regards to anything. Never included your JGC into the equation at all.

        • 0 avatar

          “…why are y’all waiting until 2015 with the Sequoia? Wouldn’t a 2014 be a better deal once the 2015s come in?”

          I’m not into buying a year-old left-over model because I do not NEED to buy; I WANT to buy.

          We did buy at the end of the model year once, the 2008 Highlander, bought in July 2008. A couple of months later it was already last year’s model.

          So when we bought the Grand Cherokee we were fortunate to find a 2012 in Nov 2011.

          I think we’ll be trading our cars before the end of the factory warranty from now on, regardless of brand.

          I’m just too old and decrepit now to tool and wrench on them myself and I don’t have any of the electronic diagnostics tools required to identify the failures.

          All except that Highlander which has been remarkably trouble-free. I’m going to run it until the wheels fall off, and then part it out.

          • 0 avatar

            @HDC…Kudos to you man, and I mean it. You buy because you want to , not because you need to.

            I went through a stage like that…What a blast!

            Too many of us “Boomers” are hoarding their cash these days. For personal reasons, today I’m one of them .

            Refreshing to hear of someone not afraid to spend it.

          • 0 avatar

            Okay, I understand now. Thank you! Yeah, the situations are completely different; we buy vehicles because we need them, not because we want them.

          • 0 avatar

            Hey mikey, good to see you reading on ttac.

            You are so right about too many Boomers hoarding their cash these days. It takes a lot of cash money out of circulation.

            My father-in-law, at age 86+ is doing his best to redistribute his personal wealth (in cash!) to his four daughters before he kicks the bucket. And he has tons of it! Serious business.

            And he is not alone. Lots of us oldies are hoarding our cash and stuffing our mattresses these days, especially in America.

            One of my friends who moved here from New Jersey after turning over his house and Plumbing business to his son, receives a FedEx Care Package from his son every month with a stack of Benjamins in it. I’ve seen it for myself.

            Like many oldsters, I don’t want the government to get a hold of my stash so I put it to good use supporting my kids and grandkids, any way I can.

            Besides, I’ve never heard of a hearse with a U-Haul behind it. Have you?

            Me buying new cars before the factory warranty expires is kind of a new thing for me. In the past, I used to buy new, sparingly, and keep the vehicles a long, long time.

            To wit: my 1988 Silverado (kept until Jan 2011), our 1992 Towncar (kept until July 2008) and my 2006 F150 (kept until Jan 2011).

            I used to maintain and repair them on my own. But I’m too old for that tooling and wrenching now, so I resolved in 2008 to trade each vehicle for a new one before the factory warranty expired.

            The first such was supposed to be that 2008 Highlander I bought, but I still have it because it hasn’t needed anything yet and never failed us, so far.

            Oh, I put a new Interstate battery in it late last year, but it didn’t need it yet. I only did that because my grand daughter relied on it to get her around. Ditto with the new Michelin tires. Preventive maintenance gets you a long way. And it paid off for me.

            Quite frankly, since my conversion to Toyota in 2008, I look forward to getting that Sequoia. It’s not going to be all that fancy, but it is going to be new, and it is going to be ours, fully paid for, with only enough insurance coverage as required by the State of New Mexico. Huge savings there, especially through USAA.

            If we’re still alive when the factory warranty expires on that Sequoia, my plans are to trade it off for a new “something” at that time as well.

            But before then, I would like to upgrade my 2011 Tundra Double Cab 5.7 2WD for a 2016 4-door Limited 5.7 4X4. Man, I sure hope they still make those by then.

            I hope to live a long time yet and have many more years of driving myself ahead of me. But at my age…. hell, I’m blessed just to wake up breathing every morning.

  • avatar

    People were talking about Ford like it was the Second Coming not too long ago… now Ford is looking in the rear view mirror at Chrysler coming on fast. When was the last time Chrysler’s market share was so close to Ford’s? Ever?

  • avatar

    @RobertRyan – Ford was run by warring fiefdoms and Mulally was able to break those up.
    I’m not 100% convinced that “One Ford” will work in the long run because there does need to be consideration for local variations.

    “One Ford” looks like a “born again” version of Henry Ford’s model T ideology – you can get it in any colour you want as long as it is black.

  • avatar

    What makes up the “other” piece of the pie? Would that be leftover Suzukis or something? I can’t think of any leftovers of anything which wouldn’t be covered by the rest of the pie chart brands. Unless this includes niche market cars like Ferrari etc.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • EBFlex: “Another thing is that I sneak up on deer all the time on my mountain bike.” No….you...
  • EBFlex: ORV is just off road vehicle. A more broad term than ATV or UTV. And again, those are not analogous. Those...
  • Kenn: When I walked by the open door of the GM’s office at a SoCal Toyota dealer, the day I took delivery of my...
  • slavuta: Before traveling to space he could take care of public transport. You should like this...
  • ToolGuy: I spend that $169/year on washer fluid and oil filters instead.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber