Large cars continue to rack up sales
Despite rising gas prices (or perhaps "because of" - we'll get to that in a moment), large passenger cars continue to grab an increasing chunk of the automotive market in the United States. So far in 2006, big four-doors are on a tear, making up some 9.6 percent of car sales - up substantially from 8.4 percent in 2005 and 6.3 percent in 2004. The Buick Lucerne and Dodge Charger are making the largest contribution to the growth of this market segment, and Chrysler's 300 continues its record of strong sales.
While it may seem a bit counter-intuitive that large sedans sales would rise in an era of ever-increasing fuel prices, we suspect that many of the new buyers are coming from mid-size SUVs, particularly body-on-frame models - a market segment that most certainly is not doing well. For those coming from the world of Explorers and TrailBlazers, the improvement in fuel economy and performance is likely quite significant, and yet few sacrifices have to be made by drivers making the move. Indeed, many drivers would view the move from a SUV to a large sedan as a significant upgrade, and let's not forget price - a comparably-equipped sedan is often far less expensive than the same trim level in an SUV.
[Source: SEMA]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
goat 8:32AM (6/02/2006)
The Charger and Lucerne are big midsize cars, not "large cars."
Reply
Peter 9:46AM (6/02/2006)
The SUV --> large car theory is interesting, but I'd rather see some actual statistics before coming to any conclusions. It could well be that owners of body-on-frame SUV's tend to switch to crossovers rather than to larger cars.
Reply
Richard Warren 3:11PM (6/02/2006)
What was that comment a while back about the Lucerene would never sell?
Reply
John Smith 3:39PM (6/02/2006)
That "theory" has always made sense. Why do you think it is, that before Toyota sold the Avalon, the only car manufacturers to make large FWD cars like the DeVille and most buicks, were American.
The laaaarge sedan is a uniquely American phenomenon.
They may indeed switch to crossovers, however, large cars will soak up at least some of them too.
This makes MUCH more sense than Autoblog's usual rubbish about how SUV owners are "scrambling for hybrids". That is second only to the hilarious report that the $100,000 Hummer H1 sales' declining and gas prices rising were related in some way.
Lastly, the Lucerne IS a large car. Only a certain type of American would not think so.
Reply
L3 3:54PM (6/02/2006)
I was falling for the premise in the article that these are 'large' cars.
Suddenly, it is revealed that they are 'big' cars. I would hesitantly guess that they are also 'full-size' cars.
Reply
Stphane Dumas 4:49PM (6/02/2006)
"Suddenly, it is revealed that they are 'big' cars. I would hesitantly guess that they are also 'full-size' cars."
for the 300C/Charger, they are some specifications at http://www.allpar.com/cars/lx/dodge-charger.html the wheelbase is 120 inches the same about the 1965-68 Plymouth C-body Fury but the lengh is 197" for the 300C, 200.1" for the Charger 2006 but the lengh is shorter then the 1968-70 Charger who had a lengh of 208 inches http://www.allpar.com/reviews/2006/charger-review.html looks like they play well with the "illusion d'optique" as I could said in French, designing a car who appear long but in a closer view, it's much shorter then we taught!
Reply
Fabulo 7:08PM (6/02/2006)
Or maybe sales of larger cars (or bigger or whatever you call that segment) is picking up because the offers are more appealing.
If given the choice between 3 years ago I could get neither Lucerne or Charger/300c/magnum. You'd have to stick with whatever pontiac (grandsomething am prix sport I really don't like those anyway) or maybe an impala (definite underperformer)
The Charger is on my list. I'm not really concerned with gas price. I'll start to cringe when prices pass $5/gal. Under that, I'm happy.
Reply
Phydeaux 7:15PM (6/02/2006)
Large car is an EPA definition of interior passenger space and cargo space of more that 120 cubic feet. Lucerene is 108 passenger + 17 cargo = 125.
Charger is 103 passenger + 24 cargo = 127.
Both meet the EPA criteria of a large car which is located on the window sticker.
Reply
Tom Design 8:51PM (6/02/2006)
goat => Sorry man, but I'm with Phydeaux on this one. What are you thinking, the LaCross, which is in the Accord, Altima, Mazda6, Camry and Legacy mid-size car spec. You might be swayed by Consumer Reports who is misreporting Buick LaCross, claiming the "rear seat of the LaCross is tight" while it is inches bigger than the Accord which C-R calls "spacious." So I don't blame you for being out in left field while there is so little fact based discussion on Buick cars. I really like Asian, Euro and U.S. cars, and it irritates me no end when someone doesn't know that the Lucerne has a cavernous interior, bigger than the Ford 500 which is very roomy. What makes people so off the mark, and worse, Consumer Reports making these false subjective written statements like yours, which can be so easily figured out by doing a few minutes of research on Google, Wickepedia, MSN Autos, etc. ? I'm not blaming you, but you made such a strong statement that to me, a research kind of guy, is just so wrong. What motivated your thinking, I'm curious?
Actually, Phydeaux, the numbers you read aren't right either, the Lucerne is much bigger than the Charger since you have the Charger's trunk exaggerated...it's 104 interior and 16 trunk = 120 cu ft. eligible for Large size. The Buick is well into the Large with a 17 cu ft trunk. The Ford twins, 500 and Montego beat that with a cavernous 21 ft trunk! 5 cubic feet is about one golf bag. Avalon is large and in the middle of the 300 and Lucerne. But, the Buick has the most interior passenger room of them all. Take a look:
http://autos.msn.com/research/compare/default.aspx?c=0&n=3&i=0&tb=0&ph1=t0&ph2=t0&dt=1&v=t101875&v=t100799&v=t100746&v=t100872&v=t101249&v=t101761
Reply
Tom Design 9:09PM (6/02/2006)
Just read the link closely, and they mistate that the Ford 500 has a V8, in a poor sentence wording. The Ford 500 is pretty economical for a large car, all the V6's are about the same, Chrysler, Buick, Fords. The Avalon is very good mpg for a Large car. What's funny is how the CVT tranny in the 500 gets worse mileage than the Montego's 6spd auto, both with the same engine and weight, etc. Doesn't say much for CVT. The V8 option, misrepresented in this article, is only available in the Lucerne, Chrysler twins, while standard in the Ford CrownVic/Marquis twins. They all get the about the same mpg, still much better than the big and mid-sized SUV's. For example the Explorer V6 only gets 15-21mpg, vs. the Large sedans' V8's with 17-25. It's not too big a difference, but put a V8 and 4WD in the Explorer and things get really bad: 14-20mpg. These cars should all be included in the fleet averages, but, unfortunately they're not. The consumer must decide to protect our oil saturated country because our government is quite happy to have oil selling at outrageous prices, thank you Texas Bush's!
Reply
goat 11:57PM (6/02/2006)
I wasn't criticizing these cars, I'm just pointing out that they aren't really what is traditionally thought of as "large cars" in the US.
The Crown Victoria is really the last of its breed. Rear wheel drive, 212" long, and 77" wide.
The last of the large GM cars was nearly 80" wide.
The thing is, CARB rules led to the demise of the large automobile. It was replaced by the SUV. Typically unintended consequences.
Reply
Dan 4:48AM (6/03/2006)
I'm 6'3, most of it in the legs, and have foot room problems in most cars so I have to pay a lot of attention to interior room. Stated interior dimensions have so little correlation with my subjective comfort that I don't even read then anymore.
By the numbers, a Toyota Corolla has as much legroom as a F-150. The numbers are garbage.
Reply
BOB KELLERMAN 4:48PM (6/03/2006)
LARGE? They are large like a 56 , Pontiac, Mercury, Olds, etc-- "regular size" then. They are also about the EXTERIOR size of late 60's-early 70's midsizers, such as the LeMans, Torino, Cutlass, but much bigger inside.
I am glad the Lucerne is selling. When they give it a bold front end and a better name, they will sell more outside of the rental and retirement markets.
Reply
Bryan Carlson 5:08AM (6/04/2006)
The Buick Lucerne is only 203 inches long, which makes it a very small compact car. In fact it is the same size as the tiny little Buick Special manufactured in the 1960's. The little Buick Special however was light years ahead of the ugly, small, boring and hideous Lucerne! Buick should rename the Lucerne, "Titanic"!
Reply
Tom Design 6:29AM (6/04/2006)
Poor Bryan => You have been drinking japanese kool-aid or something. I design and the Lucerne is a fantastic looking large car, elegant, trim, nicely chromed, great fit and finish. No one makes better looking large cars than Mercedes, Bentley, and Buick, period. Your taste needs some educating, and your reference to the '63 Buick Special is just absurd. The Special is 41 years old, why would you pick this car? It was the family entry level Buick. It was body on frame construction, and not a particularily high water mark in Buick style. It rode on a 112" wheelbase and was 122" long, yet it had a very small amount of interior space, typical of all cars in the world at that time, even when they were "barge sized" in length. So what does this have to do with the Lucerne, the luxury entrant, on a 115" wheelbase at 120" long? I'm just not getting your rant. Here's a pic of the Buick, trying to not look fugly 60's:
http://www.tocmp.com/pix/Buick/images/63BuickSpecial2.jpg
Maybe beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but your need to sink the Lucerne is a case of myopia.
Reply
Bryan Carlson 3:05AM (6/05/2006)
Well, if the new "Buicks" are so beautiful, why are sales sinking to 230,000 units per year? Buick should be selling 1,000,000 cars per year! Not everyone will lower their standards to accept such a small, ugly, and disgusting "car" as the tiny little Lucerne! Oh, the 1963 Buick Special is a far superior car to the little Lucerne in terms of style, quality, and superior engineering! Oh, I avoid "kool aid" and only do organic!!
Reply
Ed 4:51PM (6/06/2006)
If I see this same trend in Nov/Dev then I'll buy it. A lot of these proud new owners of a Lucerne will wish they had their big old bad 4x4 SUV when the first snowfall hits.
Personally I'll stick with my gas guzzling monster of an SUV, I can't ever imagine giving up the room, towing capacity and the ability to go pretty much anywhere with it.
Reply
Hemidakota 9:42AM (6/13/2006)
Let me be the first to tell you that the gas prices will have a fallout within the next twelve months.
Reply
Ian 2:19AM (6/23/2006)
The "Large" I believe goat was talking about was the exterior size and stature of the older, more massive vehicles. The sharp angles and large eng. compartments/trunks were abnormally huge by today's standards. The interior space was less clutter on these wide, long vehicles and would allow for a bigger person, say, upwards of 6 feet tall, to fit comfortably in every seat, not just the front two.
To answer Ed's comment about the gas guzzling 4x4 SUV being the vehicle of choice, since the vehicles mentioned are front wheel drive, they would not have any trouble in the snow. If you are wanting extra security in the snow, 4x4 is usually open differential, so if one wheel slips, you are screwed, so I suggest you shut your yap and buy a Subaru (not the B9 Tribeca P.O.S.), because I guarantee that it gets better gas mileage, will perform better under those conditions, and you can still go just about anywhere with it.
Reply