• Aug 12th 2010 at 7:50PM
  • 88
In the market for a new car this summer? Has it been long enough since the last gas price spike that you're not really worried about possible pain at the pump? If so, then you're like a lot of U.S. car buyers right now, according to new figures from AutoTrader.com.

Autotrader analyzed recent sales data and found that large vehicles lead the way for the recent turnaround for the industry because "many new-car buyers continued shifting back to trucks and SUVs in the face of stabilizing gas prices." Based on recent car searches on its site, Autotrader believes that this trend will continue, since:
Twelve of the top 20 most-searched new vehicles on AutoTrader.com in July were trucks or SUVs, with muscle/sports cars and sedans making up the balance of the top 20 new-vehicle list.
AutoTrader.com president and CEO Chip Perry said in a statement that new car shoppers in the U.S. are just resigned to today's gas prices (currently at $2.78 U.S. per gallon), saying:
New-car buyers also want to make sure they make the right choice, but it appears many new-car shoppers and buyers have accepted gas prices in the high twos and low threes per gallon and are considering things like utility and style ahead of gas mileage.
Are shoppers right to do this, or will we hear a bunch of wailing and complaining again when prices top $3 and then $4 in the coming years? The full release is after the jump.

[Source: AutoTrader.com]


Recovery Likely to Continue In Larger Cars, SUVs and Trucks According to July Site Data From AutoTrader.com

ATLANTA, Aug. 12 /PRNewswire/ -- Larger vehicles helped lead the recovery at many auto makers in the last quarter as many new-car buyers continued shifting back to trucks and SUVs in the face of stabilizing gas prices. That trend looks to continue as the in-market car shoppers on AutoTrader.com increasingly looked at trucks, SUVs and larger vehicles while shopping on the site. Twelve of the top 20 most-searched new vehicles on AutoTrader.com in July were trucks or SUVs, with muscle/sports cars and sedans making up the balance of the top 20 new-vehicle list.

The trend was less pronounced on AutoTrader.com's used and certified pre-owned (CPO) lists, with SUVs or trucks nabbing 11 out of 20 spots on AutoTrader.com's list of most-searched used vehicles and SUVs or trucks grabbing nine out of 20 spots on the site's list of most-searched CPO vehicles.

"With smaller and more fuel efficient cars still making our Top 20 used and CPO lists, you're seeing the impact value has on used-car shoppers," said AutoTrader.com President and CEO Chip Perry. "Even with gas prices moderating, the used-car shopper is still researching vehicles with a little more intensity, reviewing every angle to make the best purchase decision – price, cost of ownership, gas mileage and reliability. New-car buyers also want to make sure they make the right choice, but it appears many new-car shoppers and buyers have accepted gas prices in the high twos and low threes per gallon and are considering things like utility and style ahead of gas mileage."

Among new SUVs on the top 20 list in July, the redesigned Jeep Grand Cherokee caught many shoppers' interest, jumping from the No. 63rd most-searched new vehicle in June of 2010 to the No. 9 most-searched new vehicle in July of this year. The Grand Cherokee held the No. 50 most-searched new-vehicle spot in July of 2009.

The redesigned BMW 5-Series also continued to gain interest among new-car shoppers on AutoTrader.com. The luxury sedan held the No. 18 most-searched spot on AutoTrader.com's Top 20 new-car list in July of this year, compared to the No. 24 spot in June of this year and the No. 59 spot in July of 2009. The new Nissan 370Z also made a jump, landing at No. 20 among new cars searched on AutoTrader.com in July, compared to No. 38 in June of 2010 and No. 49 in July of 2009.

Prices Continue to Rise

Month-over-month increases in average asking prices continued to be big news across AutoTrader.com's Top 20 new, used and CPO lists. All but three of the Top 20 most-searched new vehicles on AutoTrader.com saw average asking price increases and all but two vehicles on both the most-searched used and CPO Top 20 lists saw increased average asking prices.

On the new car list, the biggest gainer was the BMW 5-series, which saw average asking price increase by 10.2%, from $55,510 in June to $61,190 in July. In second place in price gains was the new Chevrolet Corvette, which saw an average asking price increase of 9.5%, from $64,166 in June to $70,287 last month.

On the used-car list, the Ford F-250 was a big price winner, with average asking price up just over 10%, from $22,435 in June to $24,694 in July. The used Jeep Wrangler saw a nearly double-digit increase in average asking price, up 9.7% from $18,525 in June to $20,318 in July of this year.

Six of the Top 20 most-searched CPO vehicles on AutoTrader.com saw average asking price increases of between 10% and 16% in July compared to June of this year. They were the Chevrolet Tahoe, the Ford F-150, the Ford Mustang, the Honda Pilot, the Acura MDX and the Chevrolet Suburban.

"Increased average asking prices are a good indication of the confidence manufacturers and dealers are having in the recovery of the auto market," said Perry. "Even though economic recovery has been slow, more people are starting to shop and buy. Couple that trend with scarcity of some popular models in both new and used vehicles and the result is car sellers who are feeling more confident they can get the prices they're asking."

Ford Tops Brand Lists

Ford nabbed the No. 1 spots on AutoTrader.com's list of most-searched new and used brands in July of this year. Ford and Chevy frequently battle for the top spot on AutoTrader.com's top-searched brand lists, with Chevy holding the No. 1 most-searched new-car brand spot in July of 2009 and currently holding the No. 2 spots on both the new and used-car brand lists. Toyota held firm in July at No. 3 on both the most-searched new- and used-vehicle brand lists, positions it also held in July of last year.

"Ford has benefitted on AutoTrader.com from development and delivery of some great new models and execution of some very effective marketing," said Perry. "With a lot of new, quality product coming from other manufacturers, it will be interesting to see how auto makers, their associations and their dealers use traditional and online marketing in the coming months to influence shoppers to consider their vehicles and what those efforts do to our top vehicle and brand lists."

During July, AutoTrader.com's traffic continued its upward trajectory, hitting 15.7 million unique monthly visitors, up 2% from July 2009.

About AutoTrader.com

AutoTrader.com, created in 1997 and headquartered in Atlanta, Ga., is the Internet's leading automotive marketplace and consumer information website. AutoTrader.com aggregates in a single location millions of new cars, used cars and certified pre-owned cars from thousands of auto dealers and private sellers. AutoTrader.com attracts more than 15 million unique monthly visitors who utilize the site to view vehicles for sale, research and compare vehicles, review pricing and specials, and read auto-related content like buying and selling tips, auto maintenance tips and coverage of major auto shows and automotive trends. Through innovative merchandising functionality such as multiple photos, videos, detailed descriptions and comprehensive research and compare tools, AutoTrader.com unites new and used car buyers and sellers online to improve the way people research, locate and advertise vehicles. AutoTrader.com is a majority-owned subsidiary of Cox Enterprises. The venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and the private equity firm Providence Equity Partners are also investors. For more information, please visit www.autotrader.com

I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.

    • 1 Second Ago
      • 5 Years Ago
      Well . . . go ahead people. Buy those SUVs. Buy lots and lots of them. You are keeping automakers busy.

      And when the gas prices launch up past $4/gallon again (which they certainly will within 3 years), I'll look forward to buying a nice REALLY CHEAP used SUV.

      And you can keep those automakers employed by running out and buying a car that gets good mileage while you whine about "big oil", Chavez, speculators, or whoever you come up with as a scapegoat. In reality, you will have no one to blame but yourself.

      I'll say it again . . . we are witnessing the creation of a gas guzzler bubble. Our economy just goes from bubble to bubble because people are stupid.
        • 5 Years Ago
        If these cretins would listen to me I could build small, light SUVs taking up no road space and weighing less than a paper aeroplane! :-)
        Seriously, I like basalt fibre as a readily available, lightweight alternative to steel, costing a lot less than carbon fibre:
        As can be seen from the table on the link, at around $1.50kg compared to carbon fibre's $30, it has a lot of potential to economically replace steel.
      • 5 Years Ago
      You want to plug cars into a grid that is maxed out and overcapacity now. Not to mention 50% of the electricity in this country comes from burning coal. No new plants are being built - they won't let them.

      The same coal every election the left claims can never be cleaned up.

      So which is it lefties? Burn more coal to make electricity or not. The power has to come from somewhere.

      Is there a reason why we couldn't have gone hydrogen. The cars were on the streets 3 years ago. They worked. Shell promised in CA to put a refueling station in every one of their gas stations if GM built the cars. It was half the cost of gas to operate, zero emissions. This has never been about clean air, or moving forward as a human race. It's about power, control and money. The sooner you see that the better.

      GM said no. Who owns GM now?

      Enough said.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Coal is cleaner and more efficient than gasoline.

        Look at it this way: A car is much cleaner and more efficient than a lawn mower. Why? Because it's bigger and more expensive, enabling the car to use different technology (4-stroke instead of 2-stroke) and pollution controls that wouldn't be practical on a smaller scale. Likewise a coal power plant is cleaner and more efficient than a gasoline car because it's bigger and more expensive, enabling it to use technology and pollution controls that wouldn't fit in a car.
        • 5 Years Ago
        "It's about power, control and money."

        Yeah, good thing the oil industry wasn't built and maintained around that.

        I am the Left Lane, so just stay the hell out way and stick with the Blue Hairs.
        • 5 Years Ago
        autoblogleftlane, actually, we could power a complete transition to electric cars simply by eliminating the oil refining process and using the fuels that went into that inefficient process to instead make electricity. We would need no new coal fired electricity plants. I go through the numbers on my electric car page on my blog, at the bottom of the page.

        • 5 Years Ago
        Dude . . . you really have no clue what you are talking about. Listening to AM radio doesn't make you smart.

        1) We could convert 73% of our cars to PHEVs instantly and the grid would be fine as long as they are powered at night:
        2) I don't have a problem with coal plants as long as they have decent scrubbers. Purely coal-powered EVs produce less CO2 than gasoline cars.
        3) fuel cell vehicles do work. But they are extremely expensive (that is why you have never seen one for sale), there is no natural hydrogen supply, hydrogen is made from natural gas so why not burn the natural gas directly?, there is no hydrogen delivery infrastructure.

        Conspiracy theories are crazy conspiracy theories.
        • 5 Years Ago
        okkkk[k[k[ (a.k.a autoblogisreallyleftlane and 20 other profile names)

        And yes, that was yelling.

        You exist here for the sole purpose of drumming up votes for the Republican party in the November election. SHILL!
      • 5 Years Ago
      To Spec: Toyota's Highlander fuel cell SUV was tested by the U.S. DOE and proved to have a range of 690 kilometres (not miles). The U.S. DOE's 2010 data shows costs are now down to $50/kW for a fuel cell system compared to $30/kW for an internal combustion engine. Saying fuel cell cars cost a million dollars is similar to believing the earth is flat.
        • 5 Years Ago
        the link you gave is to fuel cells for stationary generating applications, where costs appear to be greater:
        'Today, the most widely deployed fuel cells cost about $4,500 per kilowatt; by contrast, a diesel generator costs $800 to $1,500 per kilowatt, and a natural gas turbine can be $400 per kilowatt or even less.'

        By the calculations you are using, a diesel car should cost $500k if a fuel cell one costs $250k, but in reality I have no idea where you get your figure of $250k from, as 80kw at $400kw comes to $32k.
        Presumably you are making some unspecified but huge 'allowance' for balance of plant.
        Having said that, the figure may be in the right ball-park for right now, when fuel cell vehicles are being more or less hand built.

        However, Kia is to start a small production run of 1,000 vehicles a year in 2012, which should take costs down.

        The whole issue is one of using prototype costs as indicative of the price for a production run, which they are not.
        The manufacturers indicate that they are going for a price of £35k for a SUV like vehicle in 2015, and that they need to around halve costs to do so, which sounds reasonable.

        I don't know why what manufacturers from Toyota to Kia to Nissan say is being so heavily discounted.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Something JTAK did not provide... proof:


        • 5 Years Ago
        I didn't
        • 5 Years Ago
        Hi Mark_BC,
        Since Jtak corrected Specs figure of $1 million, and you replied not by challenging that correction, but talked about the difficulties of installing a hydrogen infrastructure etc, then it seemed to obscure the grossly erroneous cost figure to me! :-)
        BTW, I agree that introducing a hydrogen infrastructure would be challenging, and would prefer on-board reformation, but unfortunately it doesn't look much more challenging than getting enough performance out of batteries to run an SUV at any affordable price - not that running an SUV for most is a very sensible enterprise! :-)
        • 5 Years Ago
        To Mark_BC

        I support the deployment of battery electric cars as they work and service a real need. I'm very happy to see real progress being made with their commercialization. What I really want to see is as many electric vehicles on the road as possible. And the way to do that is with battery electric and fuel cell electric vehicles. Each has advantages and disadvantages, but they can be overcome with vision and leadership. I'm taking my lead from the major automakers who are investing in both.
        • 5 Years Ago
        jtak, I'd really like to believe fuel cell cars are reasonably priced. But how about us start with seeing one priced at all. There has not been a single fuel cell car available for say. People can complain about EV prices since, yeah, they are expensive. But at least there is a $100K Tesla, $32.5K Leaf, and a $41K Volt on the market now. There is not a single fuel cell car for sale. Just some massively subsidized leases to celebrities.
        • 5 Years Ago
        It is simply and flatly wrong to state that fuel cell vehicles cost $1 million, and raising other difficulties to their introduction should not be allowed to obscure that point.
        • 5 Years Ago
        How much does hydrogen cost? How can I refuel it wherever I go? Who is going to build the refuelling stations? With an EV, virtually every house has a dryer circuit, hell even a little plug on the side of your house used for your weed eater will charge one.
        • 5 Years Ago
        It was rather late when I replied to your post, so I was in error.
        You were of course basing your $250k figure on the $4k fuel cell figure, which may well be about right for the very early prototypes.
        As I have often said, this bears no real relationship to the price even in modest series production.
        It is in any case much less than the $1 million for a fuel cell figure, which is from several years ago.
        It seems to me that it lessens confusion if we do not use obsolete figures even for illustrative purposes.
        Those who argue that $50/kw is aspirational, not present production cost, are also clearly correct.

        It was not my intention to run over the whole well beaten track of the comparison of fuel cells with batteries, but simply to note that the cost is nowhere near $1 million on any reckoning.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Okay, then let's go through all of the advantages / disadvantages and likely cost scenarios of FCV's:

        - purchase price: when mass produced, it is highly unlikely that an FCV will be able to compete with the purchase price of an EV, because FCV's are EV's, with the addition of the whole FC getup. I find it highly unlikely that the extra batteries needed for an EV with decent range are going to be more expensive than the FC assembly.
        - fuel price: there is no way hydrogen will ever be as cheap as electricity.
        - range: people tout the increased range of FCV's as an advantage and I'll give that to them. With future advancements in batteries, I see this advantage diminishing. Also, series hybrids will have similar or better range than FCV's.
        - charge time: let's say FCV's 10 minutes, EV's 20 minutes.
        - lifetime of car: FC's seem to have lifetime issues, whereas with an EV the only thing that's gonna break down is the batteries wearing out and then it's simply an issue of putting in a new pack, and the new batteries coming to market soon apparently last for decades.
        - maintenance: I'd go out on a limb and presume that the maintenance issues for a highly complex FC system are going to be a tad higher than for a fully solid state EV with only a couple moving parts.
        - recharge location: EV's can recharge anywhere there is a wall plug, an FCV needs a network of refueling stations which as of yet do not exist anywhere outside of trials. Alternatively, a series hybrid can be refueled in any current gas station.

        So really, the only advantage of an FCV is that it gets better range than an EV, and is quieter than an ICE. Nothing else is in its favour, and likely ever will be, because any advancements in FC technology will probably be equaled or bettered by similar advancements in EV's . Regarding the range issue, rent a genset trailer and throw it on your EV, or go to a high capacity recharge station, or get a series hybrid.

        Sure, if you can get hydrogen produced from excess electricity at night, which seems to only be a reasonable proposition in France right now, then maybe an H2 FCV would work, once you have figured out a way of distributing it. And if you live in an apartment and don't have access to a wall plug then sure maybe hydrogen would work for you, although a gasoline powered series hybrid car would still be better in every respect.

        I don't know, me personally I prefer keeping science fiction where it belongs -- in books and on TV.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Fuel Cell costs right now are way too high to even consider "selling" a car. Automakers can spend any amount of money as promotional leases or prototype "proof of concepts". But Fuel Cell cars are not "in the market" at this time.

        Battery Electric Vehicles are at least in the market. However small that market is. It is possible to make some estimates and analyze the prices.


        Yeah David, as always, my analysis of costs is at current production levels... which is "one by one" prototype level.

        Price is always the LAST number to be given after all other market factors are known. People tend to estimate price first. That is wrong, price is set on supply, demand, and a multitude of other factors. Which is why, automakers seem to skirt around it and won't announce a price until production is known and demand is reasonably known.

        As we have already "beaten this horse" many times.... I know that Fuel Cells can be made cost effective with a high enough volume. But I do not foresee a market available to justify the investment needed for such a volume of production.

        The H2 fueling infrastructure MUST be in place with "sufficient density" BEFORE the investment can be justified. And fueling infrastructure investment will not be justifiable until there are enough FCVs on the road.
        ***Chicken and Egg***

        BEVs do not have this limitation (not completely).. BEVs can flourish in select market segments without any charging infrastructure and allow infrastructure to grow along side BEV volume production.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Is nobody going to correct JTAK on his erroneous statement too?

        1 Million Dollars for a FCV was obviously pulled out of thin air.
        But so was $50 per Kilowatt.

        The DOE is still saying (yes, 2010) "The cost target is $400 per kilowatt or less, which is significantly lower (by about a factor of ten) than current fuel cell products. "

        That is about $4,000 per KW current prices.

        I have found a few FC's as low as $3,200 per KW.... and that is in the ball park.


        An 80 KW FCV stack would cost $250,000 (not 1 million)... but it is still suicidal for an automaker to begin mass production at this point.

        They are hoping for $400/kw with full scale production... which would make the FCV stack cost $32,000 (not including the rest of the vehicle).
      • 5 Years Ago
      All said and done, the suv reviews posted by you are very interesting and insightful. I appreciate the time and patience you take in writing all this.

      Best Regards,
      • 5 Years Ago
      one question: how many gallons (or litres) are consumed in US per year?

      The reason why I ask: in EU the price is 100 % higher, the difference is special tax.

      So if US would make the same tax as in EU, you will have extra 2,78$ income to US state treasury per each gallon.

      I guess this would give you
      a) money for solving your problems
      b) push americans to buy new green cars (extra money to economy)
      c) america actually imports >50 % of oil from countries like afganistan etc., so this move will decrease the dependence on such problematic countries

      do someone know the US total consumption of fuels?
        • 5 Years Ago
        hmm, my other comment was not published, i have found the total consumption - 175 billion gallons, so you could have about 480 bilion USD extra (probably less as people will drive less)

        Throwback: of course it will be from the pocket of the citizens but that will be every tax or any other sollution which would help you to pay that few billions US debt. This sollution just has some other advantage - helping US citizens to be more green and do not have 2-5× more oil consumption per capita than in the other modern western-style countries. This moda of buing huge non-ecologic wagons is a typical example.
        • 5 Years Ago
        One little problem with your argument. that additional money for the treasury comes from us consumers, which means we have less disposable income.
        • 5 Years Ago
        We would have less money if we continued to use oil and gas at our current rates. And the value of our dollar goes down every year because we are importing a lot of oil (although the average person doesn't see this).

        If people made the switch to electric vehicles, then they would have disposible income. By saving the money they would have spent on gas, and by not having to pay this tax. And not importing oil will help keep the value of our currency a little higher.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Google or Bing is the place to look for info like that.
        Here is a link to get you started:
      • 5 Years Ago

      I'm amazed at 2 things in this country. 1. How quickly people are to judge others and tell them how to live, what to drive, etc. as if their opinion matters. and, 2. how high gas prices still are. Gas usage is down to it's lowest point in 6 years yet prices are still high. Refineries are purposely limited production to keep prices high and so the government can get more tax revenue.

      Like it or not the technology exists for everyone to drive a huge SUV, get reasonable gas mileage and for gas to be less than a buck a gallon.

      But instead liberal wackos have hijacked this country - yet again, with their fear and globl warming crap.

      What high prices fine, want me to drive less fine. THAT SOULD MEAN I AM SAVING MONEY TOO! Instead I buy the dumb prius, drive less, and end up paying more for my car and my gas than I ever did.

      Funny how going green ALWAYS ends up costing more. We save a big corporation something and end up paying more too.

      Win - Win for them! This country was founded on being able to buy any car you wanted, buy cheap gas, and travel around.

      The liberals have taken away yey another civil liberty.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Going green costs more because Chevron got control of the patents for the NiMH batteries which hybrids use and sued automakers so that now Chevron stipulates that no automaker can use NiMH batteries in a car with a wall plug. Because of this, the maximum fuel economy you are going to get with a conventional hybrid is about twice that of a regular car, and therefore the fuel cost savings do not justify the price premium of a hybrid. But once you put a wall plug on the hybrid .... then fuel costs will come WAY down and it will actually be cheaper to go green, because in case you haven't heard, gasoline is expensive..... and Chevron is making a TON of money off it (off you, actually), the top five profit companies in history are oil companies.
        • 5 Years Ago
        "to keep prices high and so the government can get more tax revenue. "

        I'm all for dropping any fuel taxes as long as we drop the oil subsidies too. Any of your Republican buddies up for dropping the oil subsidies?

        Yeah, thought so...
        • 5 Years Ago
        Wow . . . you really are a paranoid tea-party nut. There is no conspiracy to make gas prices high . . . just supply & demand. Did you forget there is a world outside of the USA? Yes, our oil usage is down but China's oil demand is way up.

        Your conspiracy theory about oil prices is insane. Guess what . . . the tax on gasoline is a fixed amount per gallon. So if gasoline were to cost $10/gallon, they would collect no more tax money than they do now. In fact they would collect LESS since collapsing demand would mean less gasoline sold thus less tax collected.

        Seriously now . . . you must be a troll. You do realized that oil went up to $147/barrel during the Bush administration . . . but you blame 'liberals'?
      • 5 Years Ago
      Silly people. Buying large SUV's for a 5 mile commute when gas will inevitably go up. The reason gas is only $2.80 a gallon now is that 10% of the population is out of work, and another 25-30% are either not looking for jobs or are under-worked at their current job. 4-5 years from now gas will be right back at $4 a gallon. Time to future-proof by getting a fuel-sipper. Oh wait, I'm using my brain, and that's verboten today.
        • 5 Years Ago
        If gasoline is only $4/gallon five years from now then we really got lucky.

        Actually no . . . if it is only $4/gallon five years from now then we will still be stuck in economic malaise. So things are going to be tough not matter what. Plan accordingly.
      • 5 Years Ago
      What are these people going to do when the gas prices go up again? Whine and complain that they can't afford the uneconomical vehicle they're driving. They knew full well that when they bought that SUV it was a gas hog! That big vehicle, though comfortable to ride in, does not change the number of miles you drive.

      My bet is the price of petroleum based fuels will never ever go down. The suppliers of the fuels have gotten a taste of the ridiculous amounts of money that can be made by limiting production. The best thing is it did not cost them 1 penny in new equipment costs. Last year Exxon posted the highest profit made by any company in history. None of the oil companies have posted a loss in the last 10 years.

      If we keep demanding these over-sized vehicles things will not get better. We will still be slaves to the energy providers.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Isn't it obvious by now, the general American public has no sense of futurity, they live in the now. Buy it now with credit cards, watch it now with on-demand. See it now with the internet. Make money now on the stock market, sell when stock price goes down $.02.

        It takes long term thinking to get people to think about things like "What if the gas price goes up?" (rather than when). Most of that has been conditioned out of the American consumer.
      • 5 Years Ago
      "Most searched" on a used vehicle trading site? If someone is going to sell their clunker, wouldn't they search to see what the other poor sap who got stuck with one too is asking for theirs? I sure would.

      And why the uptick now?

      I actually think it is because a lot of people rethought their gas guzzler lifestyle during the gushing oil crisis in the Gulf. There were lots of polls showing sharp changes in attitude.
        • 5 Years Ago
        I found there methods of figuring out market trends kind of interesting too. Would it be too hard to talk to the car makers, insurance companies, or the DMV to see what the trend really is? Or maybe do some surveys to see how many miles people are putting on their SUVs from year to year...

        Although in my travels, I have not seen any decrease in traffic of any sized vehicles. If we were really in a recession/depression people wouldn't drive and there wouldn't be as many cars on the road...
      • 5 Years Ago
      I think it is human nature to whine and complain. The price of gas was $0.25 per litre when I started driving and is $1.00 per litre now. They complained when it jumped from $0.25 to $0.26 per litre and whined that they couldn't afford to drive their large car or truck. Not much has changed in 30 years for most people.
        • 5 Years Ago
        what it comes down to is it's relativity to income and cost of other things, not the actual number.

        for example, if you considered the price of gas vs. 46" flatscreen tv.. then gas seems horribly expensive compared to just a few years back.

        compared to university fees in usa though, the gas seems to have gone insanely cheap in past 30 years.

        however i'd think suv sales would be connected to family growth rates.

        but in reality, usa has insanely cheap gas. in finland, we pay 6.8 dollars per gallon(at 1.3 dollars per euro conversion rate, at a somewhat around there per liter price of 1.3-1.4 euros). v8's arent too popular.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Glut Sluts. Anyone who drives an Suv with Big heavy rims should be shot.(or locked in a garage with the car on 10 mins)
        • 5 Years Ago
        I'm not trying to play coy of sugarcoat crap. If you're seeking that I'd advise skippinfg anything attached to my name. I'm real. The fact is the future will grow exponential from the current and the current gluts are dooming more lives then they're enhancing. Also any liberal that wants to play moderate and PC needs to grow a backbone. Today there too much talk without action, we talk about how to put out the fire more then putting it out. All the sideline chatter just leads to the world burning to the ground.
        In the words of Einstien- "He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."
        Anyone who prides themselves apon impodence can get in the garage with the others. There is no compassion in standing still and saying you care.
        • 5 Years Ago
        So much for that compassion and tolerance liberals pride themselves on...
        • 5 Years Ago
        And right wing people are angels who adhere to their standards too?

        Yeah right.
        You'll find extremists and moderates across the spectrum.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Just when Ford was contemplating marketing some cool small high MPG cars. Guess they'll nip that plan in the bud and fire up the high-profit Excursion assembly line a.s.a.p.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Yes David Martin, I have to agree with you. Our government does nothing to let the public know that gas will continue to rise in the future. If American consumers were given consistent signs that prices will increase and not come back down then consumers might think about the future more. We all believe that god controls the prices and god is good so gas prices will come back down. 3 is the new 2 and 4 will be the new 3, we are good about bending over and sticking our head right up oils gaas. I will be disappointed if Obama is elected for a second term and he does not raise the price of gas in some manner. Seems silly to offer all this incentive or carrots for EV's but have no stick for using gas. I am for a nother gas tax that goes towards national deficit reductions.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Ford knows the American consumer, and the tax structure that makes their behaviour possible.
        In view of that, their caution in introducing EVs is understandable.
        If people will not even downsize their cars, how much chance is there of there accepting the marginal inconveniences of an electric car in any appreciable numbers?
        It seems clear that, eyes firmly bound shut, they are likely to buy the biggest they can stretch their credit to, and then when oil prices go through the roof demand that right then and there the automakers provide electric cars and so on.
        I have long felt that the idea that the US will lead the move to electric vehicles is wrong, and that low petrol prices and weak taxation on fuel together with the longer commutes mean that adoption will be way behind Europe and the East,
        That is not to claim moral superiority for consumers elsewhere, but there are a lot more levers that can be pulled to alter their buying preferences.
        Ford and GM both know very well that oil is going to get a lot more expensive, but Nissan as a comparative newcomer to the US is likely to be disappointed unless there is a swift rise in oil prices.
        I can see them falling well short of sales targets in the US, whilst doing well elsewhere.
        It would seem likely to me that they will switch their emphasis to China from the US.
    • Load More Comments
    Share This Photo X