New cars in the U.S. may be getting better gas mileage than they used to, but that doesn't necessarily mean the vehicles on the road are a whole lot more fuel efficient, overall. That's because more and more of us are driving older cars and light-duty trucks.

The average age of the approximately 240 million light-duty vehicles on U.S. roads has risen about 12 percent in the past five years, according to automotive data research firm Polk. The average car or light truck on the road last year was 10.8 years old, up from a 9.7-year average in 2006. Cars were, on average, 11.1 years old in 2011, while trucks were 10.4 years old, Polk said.

The age increase reflects how consumers cut back on new-vehicle purchases during the most recent economic downturn. Americans bought almost 13 million new vehicles last year, down from an annual rate of about 16 million a decade ago, but up from about 10 million during the depths of the recession. Such longer ownership spells good news for repair shops and sellers of aftermarket auto components, but not for overall fuel economy. The average new vehicle in 2000 got about 12 percent lower fuel economy than vehicles sold during the 2010 model year, the most recent tracked by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Show full PR text
Average Age of Vehicles Reaches Record High, According to Polk
Tuesday, January 17, 2012

SOUTHFIELD, Mich. (Jan. 17, 2012) -- The average age of cars and light trucks currently in operation in the U.S. has increased to 10.8 years, according to Polk, a leading global automotive market intelligence firm. Passenger cars showed a modest increase in age since 2010, from 11 years to just 11.1 years at the end of June 2011 (see table A). Light trucks (including pickups and SUVs) show a more sizeable gain in the same timeframe, from 10.1 years to 10.4 years. Overall, average vehicle age has been increasing quickly over the past five years. Polk reports average age based on an analysis of national vehicle registration data.
Sales Declines in 2008-09 Continue to Impact Age of Fleet

The slowdown of the aging of passenger cars directly correlates to the low sales volumes and the mix of car and truck sales in the U.S. market in 2008 and 2009, a time in which more trucks than cars were registered. While more trucks were sold over the same timeframe, they showed a faster aging rate. Polk expects this trend may change in the coming years as CUV and small SUV populations in the U.S. market have risen in 2010 and 2011 due to their continued success in the market. Additionally, the rebound in new vehicle sales in 2011 and for the next couple of years will most likely slow down the aging rate seen in the market over the past three years, according to Polk.

"The increasing age of the vehicle fleet, together with the increasing length of ownership, offers significant business growth opportunity for the automotive aftermarket," said Mark Seng, global aftermarket practice leader at Polk. "Dealer service departments and independent repair facilities, as well as aftermarket parts suppliers, will see increased business opportunity with customers in need of vehicle service."
Year-over-year Light Vehicle Population Declines Come to an End

2011 marked the end of the U.S. vehicle population decline that has occurred annually since 2008. According to Polk, the total vehicles in operation (VIO) in July 2011 was just over 240.5 million, an increase of 500,000 units over July in the previous year, and nearly equal to 2009 VIO (see table B). The highest VIO on record was achieved in July 2008, when more than 242 million passenger cars and light trucks were on America's roads.

About Polk

Polk is the premier provider of automotive information and marketing solutions. The organization collects and interprets global data, and provides extensive automotive business expertise to help customers understand their market position, identify trends, build brand loyalty, conquest new business and gain a competitive advantage. Polk helps automotive manufacturers and dealers, automotive aftermarket companies, finance and insurance companies, advertising agencies, media companies, consulting organizations, government agencies and market research firms make good business decisions. A privately held global firm, Polk is based in Southfield, Michigan with operations in Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States.


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
  • 47 Comments
      goodoldgorr
      • 3 Years Ago
      It's because i said to postpone car expenditures till they decide to offer near where i live a green car that is better and cheaper then the one it replace and that do not have fuel cost nor pollution that a lot of people postponed their car expenditure till they offer such a green car. Car engineers read in secret this website and they have spoken the words and many understood what i write here indirectly of directly. Continue to postpone any new car expenditures except the volt. keep up the good work and ask for a green car, it will help me find some near where i live soon because im shopping here mainly. There is numerous green car design possible and they know it because i explained many times. The task is simple just keep your actual car indifinatelly, todays cars keep rolling a long time. Also as germans, americans and japanese car compagnies are own b7y big oil then probably the chineses will be the best green car in a couple of years beating caddilac, porsche, mercedes and honda and toyotas for a cheaper price while offering a better ride.
      Yegor
      • 3 Years Ago
      The global recession is in its 4th year with no end in sight + modern Japanese cars can last 15 years easily so people hold on to old cars until better times.
        mapoftazifosho
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Yegor
        Yeah, why would someone update their 2000 Honda Accord when the new Accord is marginally safer and marginally more fuel efficient. Maybe if the fuel economy was considerably better...
        Alfonso T. Alvarez
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Yegor
        Oh please - Give it up!! It makes no difference if a vehicle is Japanese, Korean or American - they can all last just as long. All that matters is how they are driven and how well they are maintained! Outdated biases and ludicrous comments are not and have not been valid for many years.
      Roy_H
      • 3 Years Ago
      if the average vehicle is over 10 years old, then there must be a lot that are 20 years old. The article mentions that 10 year old cars do not have the latest fuel economy, but going older it gets much worse.
      Scambuster
      • 3 Years Ago
      Americans are broke. Their home equity upside down. 401s/IRA lost 50%. Jobs are scarce. Inflation eating away at their savings. Price of new cars still rising while wages remain stagnant. Soon, the average car ownership time will be 15 years.
        sirvixisvexed
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Scambuster
        Read all of my posts in this thread. Then read some Ayn Rand and grow a backbone.
          EZEE
          • 3 Years Ago
          @sirvixisvexed
          @sirvix and Marco It seems odd. If propaganda was true, we would be the angry ones, screaming that nothing will work, and the world is going down the toilet. Yet, our posts are usually, 'yay, ford put an ecoboost in the f-150 and it gets better mileage....yay the Prius C will be $19,000....yay the Leaf is now for sale in South Dakota....yay I scratched myself and it felt really good!'. And everyone else seems so angry. Maybe if we hand everyone a kitten....
          sirvixisvexed
          • 3 Years Ago
          @sirvixisvexed
          @Marco LOL! I did not expect ANY positive feedback from my obviously irritated sounding comment! Sorry for being rude, scambuster, but I truly believe your post contains no actual information. Everything you said is debatable, nor did you state a point. Perhaps you can tell me all of the different skills you've tried to learn to serve and make better the lives of the people of your community in exchange for money, and how the awful, horrible world we live in, has foiled your plans each and every time. Which golden age would you like to return to? When was the world so much better than it is now? Back in the 50's when "economic times were good"? (but there was no cure for any diseases and people cooked ALL of their own meals EVERY DAY and shared a 1000 sq foot homes and one car for a family of 4?) It seems the society you long to get back to has never existed. Not taking advantage of the advantages we have now is a shame and a waste.
          marcopolo
          • 3 Years Ago
          @sirvixisvexed
          @Ezee Here's a possible explanation .... Most of those that are 'angry' or 'bitter', see everything through a prism of a preconceived philosophy. Like all prisms, reality becomes distorted. Usually, the philosophies are created, not from reason, but from feelings of insecurity or personal inadequacy. So these folk need to 'believe' in 'causes'. Thus the 'green' or 'leftist' fanatic can never appreciate something for itself, it must be interpreted as good or evil, though the philosophic prism. Not just greens or leftists, possess this outlook. Extremists of every 'ism' are continually on the lookout for 'heretics'. To you or I, and the majority of ABG readers, EV's are just an interesting new technology. A better way of providing transport energy in a oil depleted future. Perhaps, even a new investment , or business opportunity or like EVsuperhero, a fascinating pastime! Certainly a way to make a personal contribution to less environmental harm, while providing enjoyment. But to others, it's a grim crusade! Sadly, like all crusades, the crusaders get pretty unpleasant with those who don't display their level of fanaticism. In their desire to stamp out 'heresy' , they alienate even those who believed in the original cause. In the end they become just a small sect of noisy, irrelevant, killjoys, congratulating each other on being the only virtuous adherents! Perhaps a kitten may help.... " You would create a desert, and call it peace..." Robert Fitzgerald Kennedy.
          marcopolo
          • 3 Years Ago
          @sirvixisvexed
          @SirVix Where have you been? I have missed your ' straight to the point' comments!
      brotherkenny4
      • 3 Years Ago
      I had a 95 neon that I drove until 2009. Not because I had to, but because I like cheap cars and not having a car payment. Cars are just transportation to me. I get nothing else out of them. I had about 240K miles on it when I traded it in for a Hyundai. So maybe people are broke and can't buy new cars all the time, but in my opinion they never should have. It looks like wasted money to me. It also looks like advertisements are capable of making people do things that are not in their best interest. Didn't I hear more than once, someone saying or implying, that it is your patriotic duty to spend money? Who said that? Honestly I can't phathom why people are so susceptible to being led around by the popular medias (newspapers, TV, radio etc.). Does anyone really think a car commercial is is a good way to decide on a vehicle? Of course, they wouldn't pay for the advertisement if they weren't getting a benefit. So, this has gone around in a circle a bit, but if people are suscepitble to car commercials, and the existence of the commercials themselves validates that there are indeed people who are making decisions based on commercials, then what about those people? If these people are a big percentage of our populace, is there any hope?
        • 3 Years Ago
        @brotherkenny4
        "Didn't I hear more than once, someone saying or implying, that it is your patriotic duty to spend money? Who said that? Honestly I can't phathom why people are so susceptible to being led around by the popular medias (newspapers, TV, radio etc.)" Many people have said this, but George W. Bush was one of the most notable. After 9/11 the administration told us to go shopping in order to keep the economy going. While the economic argument that this is the only way to keep the bubble going does hold water water, it was still poor long-term advice and in poor taste, considering the circumstances.
      Roy_H
      • 3 Years Ago
      It's actually really simple. The richest 1% have gotten richer by about 25% per year for over 10 years now. Where does that money come from? From all the hard working people, regardless of their income, but mostly middle/lower class. How would you like to have a 25% raise each year? They argue that they deserve the money because they are successful, and claim to drive the economy. And I believe in capitalism, but uncontrolled it leads to real suffering by the "losers". The government's roll is supposed to re-distribute this wealth in a fair way. Enlightened capitalism recognizes that if most of the populace is poor, they cannot buy the products the rich company owners wish to sell. It is in their own best interest not to make the general population too poor.
        sirvixisvexed
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Roy_H
        "The richest 1% have gotten richer by about 25% per year for over 10 years now. Where does that money come from? From all the hard working people, regardless of their income, but mostly middle/lower class" Wagon syndrome rears its ugly head! You couldn't be more wrong. It is possible for anyone with any amount of money to steal from others or be dishonest, but thinking that the literal accumulation of wealth by one means the DRAINING of wealth from another; means you'd also have to think that the Mayflower was carrying billions of dollars, because how else could all of American's wealth gotten here after all?! It had to have been TAKEN from someone else, of course! Stolen from the brits! Where did THEIR wealth come from? They had to make someone else poor by accumulating it, right?!?!? Well it looks like all the wealth of all the world has been stolen by one group after another, time after time, tracing it back to the golden ages, when there were only a few thousand cavemen, all of them multi billionaires. If an Amish person finds a fallen tree in the forest, it is worth $0. If he spends two weeks cutting it into pieces and making three chairs out of it, which are now worth $250 each, who has he stolen wealth from and made poorer by creating this wealth?
          marcopolo
          • 3 Years Ago
          @sirvixisvexed
          @Roy_H Roy, reading back through you comments, I should have taken more time to understand where you're coming from. You are quite correct, capitalism functions best when everyone can purchase the mass produced goods the society produces. As SirVix observes, the task is not how to make the rich poorer, but the poor richer! The rich are wealth creators! Ever since industrial mass manufacture eradicated real poverty in the Western world, it's the rich who can afford to indulge in labour intensive products. It's the huge amount of investment funds that keep producing profits and pay for the increasing number of retirees, who are living longer. The poorer members of Western society, have been the victims of well meaning, but failed government policies. From Free Trade, to Housing projects (tearing down horizontal slums and erecting, vertical slums) the 'Nanny State' has left the poor, weak, despised and dispossed in their own country. Without the employment provided by the US military, the US would be in a far more dangerous problem. In many States the only growth industry is prisons!
          sirvixisvexed
          • 3 Years Ago
          @sirvixisvexed
          Great responses Roy and Marco! I see where you're coming from Roy, limits and controls have to exist, just a matter of WHAT they are (which one could write hundreds of pages about). It would be a guess for me too as to how much new wealth is created. A big problem is the things that we teach our children, both in public school and at home. One of the first books I read after high school was one of Robert Kiyosaki's first books, "If you want to be rich and happy: don't go to school?" and it discusses the WAY we are taught in school and how we are taught to be wage earners at the mercy of employers (among many other great psychological and logical points about how the way we are educated is sub par). We aren't really taught the culture of entrepreneurship, even at it's most basic level. An entrepreneur or business owner can simply be someone who is a owner/operator of a trade service. How many kids would live totally different lives if you set a power washer down in front of one when they were ten years old, and said "If you learn how to use this correctly to wash decks, driveways, boats, etc, you will be able to feed, clothe, and house yourself for the rest of your life, and even become a millionaire if you live below your means for a time"; But we, overall, teach out kids, both in school and at home, to be answer-regurgitating academic robots and eventual wage earners. I know a Filipino woman who came to America a couple years ago and simply became a self employed maid; she now works pretty much full time and gets about $20/hr MINIMUM; never had a single day of American school or college, nor has she ever had to worry for one day what the minimum wage level was at. Another bad side effect of our societal belief in all being wage earners is that when an a$$hole employer comes along (they do exist, believe it or not!!) we're going to take more of their abuse because we don't feel that we can do anything else, which is hogwash; and only encourages their abusive behavior. If we all knew we could be better things, then the bad abusive employers would be powerless to the exodus of their workers. Also what i've found as I discuss issues of this nature, is that all people have a VASTLY different definition of "rich". I know complete college educated adults who think anyone who makes more than 80k a year is a "rich 1%er", (regardless if they spend it all and have a net worth of $0) where others believe it takes a net worth, and others believe everything in between. I've learned that saying "rich" is too vague!
          Roy_H
          • 3 Years Ago
          @sirvixisvexed
          I am a believer in capitalism, and agree that entrepreneurs and smarter/harder working people should get paid more than others. But I also believe there should be limits and controls. I am not suggesting that all rich people are thiefs. And I certainly do not mean to suggest that it is impossible to create new wealth. In fact the creation of new wealth is the only way I agree that people should get rich. So how much new wealth is actually created? I don't know the answer to that but I suspect it is about the GNP of a country. If the people who created this kept only this much for themselves, then we would have a sustainable monetary system. However the wealthiest group collect much more than this, and that is what I wrote about.
          Roy_H
          • 3 Years Ago
          @sirvixisvexed
          Small correction: I suspect that real new wealth creation is about the increase in GNP each year, not the total GNP.
        marcopolo
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Roy_H
        @Roy_H It's not the job of the government to redistribute wealth! It's the governments job to provide services for the public weal that cannot be provided by private industry. The government derives it authority to gather taxes to pay for these services from the citizens for the public weal. It manages the sums raised as a trustee of public money. When a government starts singling out any individual group to persecute, it loses it's authority. Rich or poor, black or white, male or female, corporate or individual, old or young, all citizens are the employers of the government. Lose that concept, and you lose the rule of representational law.
          EZEE
          • 3 Years Ago
          @marcopolo
          @michael You are right on the taxes, but why not a simple, flat tax? Especially end user? The rich buy more, they, pay more. If it was 20%, they pay $200,000 on a Veyron. The $10,000,000 house - they pay $2,000,000. Dump the various deductions, special rates - all of it. To Roy - first, if you are American, the constitution lays out what the governmnent does, and wealth redistribution is not there. Second, companies redistribute wealth every day. Paychecks. It is not in my capacity to form the type of company I work for - I am just not that good. However, I work for them and they pay me. And they give me a car for that matter (a red one). I like the company I work for - why would I want to take money from the, to give it to people who didn't earn it, or provide some value back to the company? The last company I worked for was pretty cool too. They gave me a better car, but, my current company out bid them for me. Ditto company prior to that. Of course, prior to THAT, the rocket blew up in flight 1.4 minutes into flight over the pacific as we watched, so I thought, 'I might want to put out some applications....'
          Michael
          • 3 Years Ago
          @marcopolo
          marco, While you my not believe that it is the Government's job, they are already doing it. And in the US they redistribute wealth to 2 classes via the tax code. The upper class which derives the majority of it's wealth via investments that are taxed at lower rates than salary or wage earnings, and the lower class pays no Federal income tax. I am in no way pushing for a flat tax, but the above is just the reality of the situation.
          Roy_H
          • 3 Years Ago
          @marcopolo
          Of course I don't agree with you. The government has many jobs, provide many public services, build roads, provide security via military and police forces etc. But I do maintain that re-distribution of wealth is a very important function that they are not being aggressive enough about.
          marcopolo
          • 3 Years Ago
          @marcopolo
          @Michael Thank you for your comment. Yes, I agree. Social Engineering by Taxation, is a terrible temptation for governments of every ilk! But the US is still not as bad as the old post war socialist governments in the UK. Between the Unions and the Tax System, the UK became unbearably oppressive and pessimistic for many of the best and brightest of British citizens, who elected to emigrate rather than stay in such a depressing society. The nation became obsessed with arguing how to cut up the cake, as the cake itself shrank smaller and became obselete and unproductive. I was fortunate to have an Australian Mother, and could escape to an optimistic new land of opportunity! My younger brother remained in the UK, and I was amazed at the news that upon my Father's death, the Death Duties (Inheritance tax) was about to financially cripple my younger brother, and deny him the right to live in the home where our family had lived since the time of Elizabeth 1. Inheritance tax is unknown in Australia, and I was forced to spend the next few years working to not only clear the estate of debt, but ensure that proper tax planning prevented this ever occurring again. Oppressive taxation, breeds evasion and revolt ( you'd think Americans would respect that) :)
        throwback
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Roy_H
        The US governments role is NOT to redistribute wealth. Please show me where it is written that any branch of the government has this role. The problem with wealth redistribution is how do you determine what is "fair"? If I decide that I will take x% of your income to give to someone else because i think it is "fair", at what point do you decide that it is not worth you earning a certain amount of money?
          • 3 Years Ago
          @throwback
          Sorry, but the primary role of government is to redistribute wealth (it's called "taxation") and I notice that those who howl about the government taking away "their" money howl even louder when anyone tries to take away "their" government benefits.
          sirvixisvexed
          • 3 Years Ago
          @throwback
          @Thehaymarketbomber The only people i've ever heard complain that they want to be taxed less AND still get government benefits are lazy looters who think that because nice materials exist in the world, that they deserve a "share" of it without any effort or work of their own, and that the people with those nice materials MUST be evil and MUST have stolen something from them. Don't forget, you can only tax wealthy people out of existence once! You can't eat your cake, and still have your cake to continue to eat, after you've eaten it. What will people with your frame of mind do if you were able to successfully disassemble all wealth in the world like you want to? Where will the scrap eating scavengers get their next meal? It's so funny and ironic to me that people like you claim that you are the loving and compassionate ones, yet you find no immorality whatsoever in abusing the productive. I don't care what wealthy people are honest or dishonest; that's what the judicial and legal system is for. All criminals are dealt with. Wealthy people being immoral all around me doesn't hinder my ability to achieve wealth through honesty by serving others in my community and having discipline with my money.
          • 3 Years Ago
          @throwback
          @Throwback: "The US governments role is NOT to redistribute wealth. Please show me where it is written that any branch of the government has this role." The American Experiment ended in the 1930s. A few years ago, I was a Libertarian who would have written that comment -- but, as I learn about how people game economic systems, and about how the balance of power works, I had to drop my Libertarian bent. I'm now of the opinions that Western Europe figured it out by trial and error over several thousand years -- communism doesn't work because it doesn't reward individuals, capitalism doesn't work because it doesn't safeguard the loosers, and the best thing we got is this messy European welfare state that kinda sort splits the difference. The USA, China, Russia, and all of Western Europe has come to the same conclusion long ago -- the only disagreement is on how to admit it in our national mythologies. Oh, and figuring out which world-spanning empire is "better".
      Spec
      • 3 Years Ago
      The current system is unsustainable . . . as evidenced by our inability to sustain it, literally.
        EZEE
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Spec
        Our opinions are probably different, however, as your post is written, 'hear hear!'
      lne937s
      • 3 Years Ago
      Time for Cash for Clunkers II? This time with stricter fuel economy minimums? Maybe Cash for Gassers (trade in a gas car for an electric one)?
        Kevin Gregerson
        • 3 Years Ago
        @lne937s
        I think we should go a different direction. Lets take the vehicles cashed in and rather than junking them lets send them to third world countries for sale with a 70 percent proceed split with wherever they sell them. Then ban these vins from returning to the US while we continue to sell fuel at high prices to these countries because they bought our guzzlers.
        DaveMart
        • 3 Years Ago
        @lne937s
        'Hong Kong - Environmentalists on Wednesday expressed disappointment at new clean-air targets for Hong Kong, as research showed pollution-related illnesses killed more than 3,000 residents a year. In the face of mounting public criticism and allegations that it is soft on polluting industry, the government on Tuesday announced its first revision to air quality objectives (AQOs) in 25 years. But the tighter standards will not be implemented until 2014 and fall well short of World Health Organisation guidelines. ' http://www.iol.co.za/scitech/science/environment/hong-kong-clean-air-targets-fail-to-impress-1.1216855 Its about time they mandated all electric on a rapid changeover program. They have huge surpluses to pay for it.
      PR
      • 3 Years Ago
      These cars aren't getting older because they somehow got better quality. This is pent-up demand for new cars. Hopefully companies with EV's will figure out how to capitalize on this pent-up demand.
        Spec
        • 3 Years Ago
        @PR
        Have you read the news in the past 3 years? This is because people are too poor & unemployed to buy cars.
        Roy_H
        • 3 Years Ago
        @PR
        I wish I could share your optimism, but the world's governments have given no hint at all that they are willing to re-distribute wealth to get us out of this depression. They think that somehow by borrowing more money (from the wealthy) and then paying them interest (thus making them wealthier) will solve something?
      sirvixisvexed
      • 3 Years Ago
      It takes a pretty sick and twisted group of people to take the fact that cars have slowly over the last 100 years been made to last much longer, and use it as a measuring stick to measure your supposed pain and suffering. Guess what? In the future, cars will continue to last longer, as they have done for the past century. How oppressed will you imagine yourselves to be when cars are so reliable that the average age of one is 20 years? If you went back to the year 1900 and told them that in 2010, New cars would all have a 100,000 mile warranty, be able to travel at 100 mph, and has ten airbags, and the average age of one on the road was ten years, they would be excited about the future. It would boggle their mind if they heard that a bunch of sick neurotics, who first complained that they were oppressed when cars didn't last long ENOUGH, now complain even harder when they do last long, citing it as "evidence" of the pain and suffering of all! *tear* I bought my car a decade ago as of january 17th, it has rust on it now but still functions beautifully, and I am very happy that I live in a time where if I take good care of my vehicle, I can utilize it for years and years.
        Spec
        • 3 Years Ago
        @sirvixisvexed
        Yeah, obviously. It is not like stagnant wages, rising oil prices, reduced home values, unemployment, or any other economic factor has anything to do with it. It is all because cars last longer. Sure. Keep telling yourself that.
          EZEE
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Spec
          Aww spec, you are usually more of a ray of sunshine than that! A poor economy does have an effect and buying cars, but the quality is vastly improved. Cars from the 60's and 70's didn't go this far. My beloved Ranger has well over 100,000 miles and only two sensors have been replaced. A friend has a Toyota with 250,000 miles and it still runs fine. I could pay cash for a leaf or volt, but happy with what I have. I had a girlfriend who thought I was crazy. Her philosophy was, 'I won't buy any less of a car than I can afford.'. And, she bought an Explorer. Honestly...there are electrics, hybrids, plug ins...Toyota and ford will both be close to having full lines of hybrids and plug ins...and since they are both jointly working on a truck drive train, they soon WILL have a full line. Be happy....it's happening....Prius C, Tesla Model S...Fusion Energi...Volt....Leaf...Coda...Blade...
        sirvixisvexed
        • 3 Years Ago
        @sirvixisvexed
        @Marco That it would! And as the advancement goes along, the older cars will still be functioning and can be passed down. People spending $30,000 on a car or $3,000 on a car are getting more car for their money as this process continues through time! If I decided that I was in the market for a $5,000 used car, that $5,000 gets me more and more car each year. I am only partially thankful that the general public likes to have new cars all the time. They're the same people who may need to learn financial discipline. Lots of Americans who complain about the economy also get new cars as soon as their car payments are done on the old one, and live in way too big of a house. People here tend to lust at the economic condition of American in the 1950's and 60's, saying how good it was that "many households only had one income!" not realizing that entire families shared one car, lived in 1000sq foot houses, and cooked their own meals instead of lazily and expensively eating out all the time.
          marcopolo
          • 3 Years Ago
          @sirvixisvexed
          @sirvix All refreshingly true! But debt also encourages some people. It's an old truism, people work much harder to keep what they have, than what they might get!
        Roy_H
        • 3 Years Ago
        @sirvixisvexed
        Despite my rant about wealth distribution, I agree that you have made a very good point. There certainly are other factors at work. When I was young, buying a car was by far the most important major purchase. But now people spend money on computers, flat screen tvs, or travel to other countries rather than spend their money on a car.
        marcopolo
        • 3 Years Ago
        @sirvixisvexed
        @sirvix As usual, your post makes a lot of sense. But thank goodness, the majority of people like to change (upgrade) motor vehicles on a regular basis.Without the incentive of new technology and style the auto-industry, (and all the accompanying industries) would make a much smaller contribution to the economy.
      hodad66
      • 3 Years Ago
      Must be because they love classic cars not because the Romney / Wall Street types screwed up the economy..... all over the world!
      EZEE
      • 3 Years Ago
      For everyone who seems angry and pissed off for their various reasons - I just say this - Dan smiles on about 50% of his posts. If Dan can smile, can't the rest of you? More electrics and plug ins than ever, a $19,000 Prius C... Life is Good.
        marcopolo
        • 3 Years Ago
        @EZEE
        @Ezee Bless you, you must have found a secret stash of DF posts than nobody else has!
    • Load More Comments