What percentage of 20 year old cars are on the road?
in [Toyota]
|
From: Mike Hunter on 28 Oct 2009 10:46 One can easily prove to themselves which brand of trucks are preferred by the folks that need the best work trucks for their "work." Simply look at what brand the vast majority are using, that you see on the road every day. Start with the various utility companies, albeit pickups, box trucks, six wheelers, work vans including conversion vans, mini busses, , ambulances, plumbers, electricians, contractors etc. in your area. If you do it will become quite obvious as to which brand is used by them at a rate of ten to one at least. ;) "C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)removemindspring.com> wrote in message news:4ae82eec$1(a)kcnews01... > > "Joe$#itForBrains" <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$1(a)kcnews01... >> >>> >>> "JJoe$#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"). > > I can have an opinion or make assumptions about how trucks are used. I > don't think my assumptions or opinions are the same as "data." If you > disagree with my opinions, I get that. But you need to recognize the > difference between opinions and data. Maybe I need to include "I think," > or "I beleive," or "it seems like" in front of every statement, but > wouldn't that be tiresome. And of course, you need to do the same. When I > present something as a fact, I usually try to cite a source. Otherwise you > can assume my statemens represent an opinion, a persoanl observation, or > an assumption. The statements may indeed be wrong, or silliy, or even > stupid, but they are mine. > > As for how trucks are used, I can only go by what I see in my little > corner(s) of the world. Mostly, where I farm, the overwhelming choice for > pickups are Ford SuperDuties with a few F150s. Then Chevy Silverados > (mostly HD), and then Dodges (again, mostly HD). I know one farmer with a > Frontier (like I used to have), but he also has an F250. I also know one > farmer with a Tundra (the old better style). He has an F250 also. Most of > the "new" Tundras I see are parked in town. They are new, clean, and shiny > with mostly empty beds. I realize this might be too small a sample to be > meaningful beyond my area, but it is the best I have. Maybe where you > live, all the contractors love Tundras. Where I live it seems Tundras are > mostly owned by people who have day jobs in town and plenty of time to > polish the truck. It seems unlikely to me that Contractors overwhelmingly > prefer Tundras anywhere given the relatively poor Tundra sales. Even when > the new Tundra sales were "great" they had less than 10% of the big pickup > market. So unless all the Tundra are going to contractors, it seems > unlikely they can be that common as contractor trucks anywhere. The local > electric co-op did buy one this year. It will be interesting to see if > they buy more in the future. They buy based on sealed bids, so I guess the > Toyota dealer gave them the lowest price. > > Ed >
From: Scott Dorsey on 28 Oct 2009 10:48 SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: > > 1. Lexus > 2. Mercedes > 3. Saturn > 4. Infiniti > 5. Acura > 6. BMW > 7. Volvo > 8. Cadillac > 9. Jaguar >10. Lincoln >11. Toyota >12. Honda >13. Mazda >14. Saab >15. Buick >16. Volkswagen >17. Chrysler >18. Nissan >---Industry Average--- >19. Oldsmobile >20. Subaru >21. Chevrolet >22. Ford >23. Pontiac >24. Audi >25. Mercury >26. Eagle >27. Dodge >28. Suzuki >29. Plymouth >30. Isuzu >31. Hyundai >32. Lada > >They warn that this data needs to interpreted correctly. Owners of older >expensive luxury cars are more likely to repair their vehicle than junk >it. Vehicles sold in large numbers into rental fleets rack up a lot of >miles and have shorter life in years, but not necessarily in miles. Some >vehicles in the list didn't exist 20 years prior to the study so there >were no vehicles 16-20 years old, only vehicles 11-15 years old (this >explains the anomaly of Saturn). I would just like to point out that Fiat is not even ON this list, that it is farther down in the order than Lada. There is some justice in this world. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: Mike Hunter on 28 Oct 2009 11:04 Obviously you are not aware of fleet courier cars. They are compact cars bought mostly from the domestics and the Koreans. They are run almost twenty four hours and day and generally six and even seven days a week. 100,000,000 annually is not uncommon. "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message news:4AE85441.9060008(a)msu.edu... > The numbers are misleading, however. You can have a Lexus that has 200,000 > mi going strong after 20 years, and a Ford Focus that has been worn out > after 500,000 after 3 years. > > SMS wrote: >> C. E. White wrote: >>> 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? >>
From: IYM "S U N on 28 Oct 2009 11:21 > They warn that this data needs to interpreted correctly. Owners of older > expensive luxury cars are more likely to repair their vehicle than junk > it. Vehicles sold in large numbers into rental fleets rack up a lot of > miles and have shorter life in years, but not necessarily in miles. Some > vehicles in the list didn't exist 20 years prior to the study so there > were no vehicles 16-20 years old, only vehicles 11-15 years old (this > explains the anomaly of Saturn). Not sure I agree with that...Saturn's first year was 91 (18 years) and the first 2-5 years were the most popular, declining from there...Lexus first year was '90, Infinity was '89 and Acura's been around in North America since '86... So all roughly the same start time (except acura). The 1st generation Saturn's are go-karts, a very simple design and are easy to maintain. The composite door panels are easy to swap out when damaged. Parts are cheap, plentiful and the first generation cars have a large fan base (before the Vue's, Ion's and before the company was brought back in to the GM fold and released disasters like the Relay van and Opel products they are now.) The original Saturns are still higher on the theft list then you'd think for the same reason old Camreys are...interchangeability... So I don't doubt they are up there. That number will slip off the list in another 5 years though. Just MHO... IYM
From: SMS on 28 Oct 2009 11:45
dr_jeff wrote: > The numbers are misleading, however. You can have a Lexus that has > 200,000 mi going strong after 20 years, and a Ford Focus that has been > worn out after 500,000 after 3 years. And the reverse could also be true. There are always outliers, but of all the possible reasons for the results, the one you gave is probably the least likely to affect the results. Remove the luxury makes, the niche brands, and the makes that were not in existence for the full 20 years, and the brands that were the most likely to be on the road for 11-20 years are: 1. Toyota 2. Honda 3. Mazda 4. Buick 5. VW 6. Buick 7. Chrysler (or is this a luxury brand?) 8. Nissan The top two are very consistent with what you see on the road, at least in the state I live in. Tons of older Hondas and Toyotas, VWs, and Nissans. What the survey doesn't take into account is the demographics of the owners. Someone that purchases a Toyota or Honda is more likely to be more highly educated and higher income, and will maintain their vehicles better and will be less likely to drive in a way that will total the vehicle, than the purchaser of many of the makes that did poorly in longevity. |