What percentage of 20 year old cars are on the road?
in [Toyota]
|
From: Tegger on 27 Oct 2009 12:33 "C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)removemindspring.com> wrote in news:4ae70c7c$1 @kcnews01: > A Toyota commercial they are running in my area claims that 80% of all > Toyota sold in the last 20 years are still on the road. This seemed to > be a very low number to me. What do other think? > I guess it depends where you live. In my area (the Rust Belt of north- eastern North America), Toyota's number seems impossibly high, unless that missing 20% is all concentrated up here. My personal guess, based on my visual observations while on the road each day, is that overall the percentage of cars (not just Toyotas) still in daily use after 20 years would be more like one to five percent. I infrequently see cars (of any make) older than about 1992. Cars older than about 1989 are almost non-existent around here. -- Tegger
From: Ray O on 27 Oct 2009 13:08 "C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)removemindspring.com> wrote in message news:4ae70c7c$1(a)kcnews01... >A Toyota commercial they are running in my area claims that 80% of all >Toyota sold in the last 20 years are still on the road. This seemed to be a >very low number to me. What do other think? > > I would have thought given Toyota's increase in sales over the last twenty > years they would have had more like 90% of the cars sold in the last 20 > years still on the road. Toyota sales have been increasing over the last > twenty years, so a higher percentage of Toyotas will be newer models. > Since a high percentage of Toyotas are newer vehicles that are more likely > to still be on the road, the overall percentage of Toyotas sold in the > last 20 years will be higher (becasue of the newer car bias). For GM, the > math works the other way. GM sales have been stagnent or actually > declining over the last 20 years, so a higher percentage of their cars > will be older and therefore less likely to still be on the road. I am sure > the 80% number is based on registrations, so it might be that it over > estimates the number actually in daily use - or under estimates it in > cases where cars are used off road (or illeagally) and not registered. > > Does anyone have any actual numbers? I am confident that 100% of the NEW > vehicles I purchased in the last 20 years are still on the road, but maybe > I am an exception. > > Here is sort of what I am thinking.....NOT REAL NUMBERS - > > For a manufacturer with increasing sales (5% increase per year) > > Year Original Percent Total > Sold Sales On road On Road > 1990 500000 33% 165000 > 1991 525000 38% 199500 > 1992 551250 43% 237038 > 1993 578813 48% 277830 > 1994 607753 53% 322109 > 1995 638141 58% 370122 > 1996 670048 63% 422130 > 1997 703550 68% 478414 > 1998 738728 72% 531884 > 1999 775664 76% 589505 > 2000 814447 80% 651558 > 2001 855170 84% 718343 > 2002 897928 88% 790177 > 2003 942825 91% 857970 > 2004 989966 93% 920668 > 2005 1039464 96% 997886 > 2006 1091437 97% 1058694 > 2007 1146009 98% 1123089 > 2008 1203310 99% 1191277 > 2009 1263475 99% 1250840 > Total 16532977 80% 13154033 > > For a manufacturer with slightly decreasing sales (1% decrease per year), > but same percent still on the road: > > 1990 1263475 33% 416947 > 1991 1250840 38% 475319 > 1992 1238332 43% 532483 > 1993 1225949 48% 588455 > 1994 1213689 53% 643255 > 1995 1201552 58% 696900 > 1996 1189537 63% 749408 > 1997 1177641 68% 800796 > 1998 1165865 72% 839423 > 1999 1154206 76% 877197 > 2000 1142664 80% 914131 > 2001 1131238 84% 950240 > 2002 1119925 88% 985534 > 2003 1108726 91% 1008941 > 2004 1097639 93% 1020804 > 2005 1086662 96% 1043196 > 2006 1075796 97% 1043522 > 2007 1065038 98% 1043737 > 2008 1054387 99% 1043843 > 2009 1043843 99% 1033405 > Total 23007003 73% 16707535 > > The net is, manufacturers that have similar reliability can have > significantly different percentages of vehicles built in the last 20 years > still on the road. Ergo, the Toyota's ad claim is at best meaningless, at > worst deliberately misleading....but then I've always assumed that the > Chevy (or sometimes Dodge) ads that clam their trucks are the most > reliable and longest lasting (based on registration data) are deliberately > misleading. So, I don't think Toyota is being espeically misleading, but I > wonder how many people understand the ad? I'll bet many people think > Toyota is saying 80% of 20 year old Toyotas are still on the road, instead > of 80% of the Toyotas sold in the last twenty years....isn't marketing > wonderful. There is a huge difference in the two statements. > > Ed > Automakers generally don't come up with the various statements and claims made in advertising. More often, it the automakers' ad agencies that come up with the statements. Of course, auto executives have to approve the ads. In Toyota's case, I suspect that the ad is a counter to the Detroit 3's ads citing various sources to show that their vehicles are the longest lasting. The trend to cite statistics in advertising is probably the result of what marketing professors have been teaching marketing majors in college. The "80% of Toyotas sold in the last 20 years are still on the road" implies that other volume automakers have a lower volume, which could be the result of the Cash for Clunkers program. Most of the vehicles traded in for the program were supposed to get less than 18 MPG and be less than 25 years old. Other than the Land Cruiser, Tundra, and Sequoia, a very high proportion of Toyotas sold in the last 20 years (probably greater than 80%) did not qualify for the clunkers program because they got better than 18 MPG. The Detroit 3's historical sales have been larger vehicles, so they may have had disproportionate representation in the clunkers traded in, regardless of the condition of the vehicles. I think something like 700,000 clunkers were traded in, and if they were mostly Detroit 3 products, then that may have been enough to sway the statistics in Toyota's favor. -- Ray O (correct punctuation to reply)
From: Mike Hunter on 27 Oct 2009 13:20 Most Toyota ads are somewhat deceptive and some are even bogus. Remember when the Tundra first was introduced? Toyota made a lot of claims that led some to believe it had things other full size trucks did not have. The fact was Toyota was finally offering a truck that was closer to the standers of domestic brands. Then of course there was always the bogus, made in America claim, when it has always only been assembled in the US, of mostly parts and materials that were not from the US but from Canada and Japan. "C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)removemindspring.com> wrote in message news:4ae70c7c$1(a)kcnews01... >A Toyota commercial they are running in my area claims that 80% of all >Toyota sold in the last 20 years are still on the road. This seemed to be a >very low number to me. What do other think? > > I would have thought given Toyota's increase in sales over the last twenty > years they would have had more like 90% of the cars sold in the last 20 > years still on the road. Toyota sales have been increasing over the last > twenty years, so a higher percentage of Toyotas will be newer models. > Since a high percentage of Toyotas are newer vehicles that are more likely > to still be on the road, the overall percentage of Toyotas sold in the > last 20 years will be higher (becasue of the newer car bias). For GM, the > math works the other way. GM sales have been stagnent or actually > declining over the last 20 years, so a higher percentage of their cars > will be older and therefore less likely to still be on the road. I am sure > the 80% number is based on registrations, so it might be that it over > estimates the number actually in daily use - or under estimates it in > cases where cars are used off road (or illeagally) and not registered. > > Does anyone have any actual numbers? I am confident that 100% of the NEW > vehicles I purchased in the last 20 years are still on the road, but maybe > I am an exception. > > Here is sort of what I am thinking.....NOT REAL NUMBERS - > > For a manufacturer with increasing sales (5% increase per year) > > Year Original Percent Total > Sold Sales On road On Road > 1990 500000 33% 165000 > 1991 525000 38% 199500 > 1992 551250 43% 237038 > 1993 578813 48% 277830 > 1994 607753 53% 322109 > 1995 638141 58% 370122 > 1996 670048 63% 422130 > 1997 703550 68% 478414 > 1998 738728 72% 531884 > 1999 775664 76% 589505 > 2000 814447 80% 651558 > 2001 855170 84% 718343 > 2002 897928 88% 790177 > 2003 942825 91% 857970 > 2004 989966 93% 920668 > 2005 1039464 96% 997886 > 2006 1091437 97% 1058694 > 2007 1146009 98% 1123089 > 2008 1203310 99% 1191277 > 2009 1263475 99% 1250840 > Total 16532977 80% 13154033 > > For a manufacturer with slightly decreasing sales (1% decrease per year), > but same percent still on the road: > > 1990 1263475 33% 416947 > 1991 1250840 38% 475319 > 1992 1238332 43% 532483 > 1993 1225949 48% 588455 > 1994 1213689 53% 643255 > 1995 1201552 58% 696900 > 1996 1189537 63% 749408 > 1997 1177641 68% 800796 > 1998 1165865 72% 839423 > 1999 1154206 76% 877197 > 2000 1142664 80% 914131 > 2001 1131238 84% 950240 > 2002 1119925 88% 985534 > 2003 1108726 91% 1008941 > 2004 1097639 93% 1020804 > 2005 1086662 96% 1043196 > 2006 1075796 97% 1043522 > 2007 1065038 98% 1043737 > 2008 1054387 99% 1043843 > 2009 1043843 99% 1033405 > Total 23007003 73% 16707535 > > The net is, manufacturers that have similar reliability can have > significantly different percentages of vehicles built in the last 20 years > still on the road. Ergo, the Toyota's ad claim is at best meaningless, at > worst deliberately misleading....but then I've always assumed that the > Chevy (or sometimes Dodge) ads that clam their trucks are the most > reliable and longest lasting (based on registration data) are deliberately > misleading. So, I don't think Toyota is being espeically misleading, but I > wonder how many people understand the ad? I'll bet many people think > Toyota is saying 80% of 20 year old Toyotas are still on the road, instead > of 80% of the Toyotas sold in the last twenty years....isn't marketing > wonderful. There is a huge difference in the two statements. > > Ed >
From: Mike Hunter on 27 Oct 2009 13:29 If one really wants to see who actually has the vehicles with the longer overall longevity, go to some of the old car shows. Seldom will one see any of the Japanese sedans at those shows. Plenty of domestics sedans and sporty cars, as well as English and European old cars, even Italian cars. Rarely will one see anything from Toyota or the other Japanese manufactures, except a rare RX7or "Z" car. "Joe$#itForBrains" <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in message news:08EFm.33212$eJ4.26377(a)newsfe07.iad... > "C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)removemindspring.com> wrote in message > news:4ae70c7c$1(a)kcnews01... >>A Toyota commercial they are running in my area claims that 80% of all >>Toyota sold in the last 20 years are still on the road. This seemed to be >>a >>very low number to me. What do other think? >> >> I would have thought given Toyota's increase in sales over the last >> twenty >> years they would have had more like 90% of the cars sold in the last 20 >> years still on the road. Toyota sales have been increasing over the last >> twenty years, so a higher percentage of Toyotas will be newer models. >> Since a high percentage of Toyotas are newer vehicles that are more >> likely >> to still be on the road, the overall percentage of Toyotas sold in the >> last 20 years will be higher (becasue of the newer car bias). For GM, the >> math works the other way. GM sales have been stagnent or actually >> declining over the last 20 years, so a higher percentage of their cars >> will be older and therefore less likely to still be on the road. I am >> sure >> the 80% number is based on registrations, so it might be that it over >> estimates the number actually in daily use - or under estimates it in >> cases where cars are used off road (or illeagally) and not registered. >> >> Does anyone have any actual numbers? > > > State motor vehicle deparments probably have the data, although it might > need to be massaged in order to make sense of it. If magazines & > newspapers > can get the information, you probably can too. That's a big "if", though. > It > might cost money. > > >
From: Mike Hunter on 27 Oct 2009 13:40
One has to wonder what difference our friend Joe$#itForBrains thinks it makes as to why people chose to buy what they buy with their own money? How does one ever actually determine, when they see a truck, what people carry in their trucks albeit the tools they need at work or it is their quad(s) or to tow their boat or whatever? It seems to me that the folks that do like what others buy, is envy because they can not afford to buy and operate the vehicles they see others driving LOL "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in message news:7MEFm.33364$eJ4.30955(a)newsfe07.iad... > "C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)removemindspring.com> wrote in message > news:4ae71565$1(a)kcnews01... > >> >> "Joe$#itForBrains" <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in message >> news:08EFm.33212$eJ4.26377(a)newsfe07.iad... >>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)removemindspring.com> wrote in message >>> news:4ae70c7c$1(a)kcnews01... >>>>A Toyota commercial they are running in my area claims that 80% of all >>>>Toyota sold in the last 20 years are still on the road. This seemed to >>>>be a >>>>very low number to me. What do other think? >>>> >>>> I would have thought given Toyota's increase in sales over the last >>>> twenty >>>> years they would have had more like 90% of the cars sold in the last 20 >>>> years still on the road. Toyota sales have been increasing over the >>>> last >>>> twenty years, so a higher percentage of Toyotas will be newer models. >>>> Since a high percentage of Toyotas are newer vehicles that are more >>>> likely >>>> to still be on the road, the overall percentage of Toyotas sold in the >>>> last 20 years will be higher (becasue of the newer car bias). For GM, >>>> the >>>> math works the other way. GM sales have been stagnent or actually >>>> declining over the last 20 years, so a higher percentage of their cars >>>> will be older and therefore less likely to still be on the road. I am >>>> sure >>>> the 80% number is based on registrations, so it might be that it over >>>> estimates the number actually in daily use - or under estimates it in >>>> cases where cars are used off road (or illeagally) and not registered. >>>> >>>> Does anyone have any actual numbers? >>> >>> >>> State motor vehicle deparments probably have the data, although it might >>> need to be massaged in order to make sense of it. If magazines & >>> newspapers >>> can get the information, you probably can too. That's a big "if", >>> though. It >>> might cost money. >> >> I should have been a little clearer. I am sure RL Polk & Co. has amassed >> the registration data for all the US into a huge database. RL Polk is in >> the buisness of selling this information. Ads claiming longevity often >> reference RL Poolk data as the source of the claim, but I can't access >> the raw data without paying for it. I was hoping there was an open source >> (i.e. free), possibly a simplified version, available to the public. >> Without being to actually see the data, it is hard to know how to treat >> the claims based on the data. I once wrote Chevy and asked about their >> claim that Chevy makes the longest lasting most reliable trucks. All they >> said was that it was based on RL Polk registration data for a particualr >> period. Of course without actually ahving access to the data, I can't see >> how the claim means anything. Even worse, even if I had the raw >> registration data, I doubt it is meaningful unless you also know how the >> trucks were actully used. I always assumed that a higher percentage of >> Chevy trucks were purchased by suburban users than was the case for Ford >> (i.e., more Fords were in commercial use / farm use / fleet use), and >> therefore the Chevy trucks were more liekly to be gently used, better >> cared for, and used less, so therefore registration data byear alone >> would tend to suggest they lasted longer... which might not really be >> true for vehicles used in the same manner by similar populations of >> users. >> >> I guess the old statement that "Figures don't lie, but liars figure" sums >> up the problem with claims made based on RL Polk registration data. I've >> always assumed that manufacturers actually have good data, but that they >> have no intention of publishing it. No manufactuer builds perfect >> vehciles, and if they start putting out the good data, sooner of later >> someone is going to demand to see the bad data as well, and use a lawsuit >> to pry it out into the open. Better to make unverifiable claims based on >> third party information that can be checked but don't actually prove >> anything. >> >> I am 100% sure that Toyota is telling the truth when they say 80% of the >> Toyotas sold in the last twenty years are still on the road. I am also >> certain that it is virtually a meaningless statement, but that it sounds >> like it means something important. It is the perfect sort of marketing >> claim - true, verifiable, and easily missunderstood to be more >> significant than it is. At least that is how I see it. >> >> Ed >> > > > Write to Polk and ask if anyone (maybe a magazine) has published articles > which answer your questions using that data. > > While you're at it, see if they have any data which backs up your bullshit > claims about what types of people buy certain brands of trucks for > particular purposes ("work" versus "just to haul groceries and the dog"). > |