In 1996, the Toyota Camry was about to become America’s best-selling car. To protect the Taurus’ five year reign, Ford ramped up sales to Hertz Rental Car. The strategy worked– for a year. Despite the catastrophic effect on the Taurus’ resale value and image, despite selling off Hertz, Ford still relies on fleets to maintain economies of scale. As do the rest of The Big 2.5, who use fleet sales to mop up extra production, earn new money for old rope and blow out their sales stats. While Detroit knows fleet sales are slow motion suicide, their moves to curtail the practice are not as convincing as they could– or should– be.
That’s because the fleet market’s a double-edged sword. Again, fleet sales keep factories humming– plants whose restrictive union contracts make running them less expensive than not running them. Fleet sales also enhance cash flow and prop up quarterly numbers. On the other hand, selling hundreds of thousands of cars at or below cost throws retail residuals off a cliff, destroys the perceived value of a product and gives a false impression of how well both car and company are doing.
Over the last few years, The Big 2.5 have all admitted the truth of that equation. They’ve publicly declared their intention to wean themselves off the “easy money.” GM claims they’ve trimmed their fleets sales over the last two years, walking it down by 11.2 percent. Although Ford and DaimlerChrysler have also promised to follow the same path, they haven’t. In that same two-year window, Ford’s rental sales have increased 12.3 percent. DCX’ fleet sales have climbed by a staggering 35.3 percent. And it’s getting worse.
From September 2006 to February 2007, Chrysler (division) offloaded 48.5 percent of its total sales to the fleets, while 32.1 percent of The Dodge Boys’ sales went to the same market. And even though GM overall has cut back on fleet sales, 44.9 percent of Pontiac’s and 29.6 percent of Chevrolet’s total sales ended up in fleets. Ford (the division) off-loaded fully one-third of their total sales to the fleets, with half of that number going to rental companies.
If you deduct fleet sales, Chrysler (division) sold just 147K vehicles over the last six months– which ain’t great but sure beats Pontiac’s 96K retail units. Subtracting fleet action, Chevy’s sales drop to 742K. The math also reveals that Ford (division) placed just 676K vehicles into retail customers’ hands. With this many vehicles still flowing into the fleet market, destined to reemerge at auctions, Chrysler, Pontiac, Chevrolet and Ford will have a tough time convincing retail customers to pay full whack for vehicles facing epic depreciation.
Detroit “gets it” but can’t quite “kick it.” For example, the Pontiac G6 (GM’s fourth best selling car) is now flooding the fleet market. According to Jim Hall, AutoPacific’s VP for industry analysis, GM is trying to replace the Chevrolet Malibu’s fleet sales with the G6. The goal: resuscitate the Malibu’s residual values ahead of the refreshed model’s launch. “You don’t want a brand new model to lose money in resale."
At the same time, Chrysler’s used the fleet market to divest itself of an embarrassment of 2007 Town & Country minivans and Sebrings, and disappear that pesky sales bank that attracted so much media and stockholder attention. But the mid- to long-term effect of Chrysler’s used car tsunami cannot be avoided, either by current Chrysler owners or the corporation itself.
All that said, The Big 2.5 ARE, however haltingly, cutting back on fleet sales. And the imported and transplanted automakers are taking up the slack. Kia’s fleet sales are up 60 percent over last year (the Optima is proving especially popular with rental agencies). Nissan reports a 45 percent increase in its fleet sales, while Toyota’s contribution to airport rental lots and other fleet repositories is up by 30 percent.
In case you’re thinking the newbies are headed for a fleet enema to rival The Big 2.5’s, Kia promises to restrict fleets sales to 12 to 15 percent of total ‘07 sales. Nissan won’t allot more than eight percent of its overall sales to fleets, with a maximum of 10 percent of any given model’s sales destined for that end. Toyota says they’ve never sold more than nine percent of total U.S. sales to fleets, and never will.
Flexible factories are the best way to solve The Big 2.5’s production vs. demand dilemma without the cost of shutting down hugely expensive assembly lines. Yet Detroit’s maddening bureaucracy, older plants and less-than-flexible workforce make implementing that approach… problematic. This leaves The Big 2.5 in a bad place: they’re damned if they do, and damned if they don’t. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, when it comes to fleet sales, Detroit can resist anything except temptation.
One interesting figure I’d like to know is what percentage of Big 2.5 sales are due to employee purchases. In Michigan, it’s not uncommon for a dealership to get almost 90% of their sales from big 2.5 employees. For example, one Ford dealer boasted that 95% of their sales are to Ford (and Visteon) employees and their families.
My guess (emphasis on the guess part) is that if one combined Chrysler’s fleet sales with sales made to their employees and families – only 35% of Chrysler’s sales would go to customers with no loyalties to Chrysler.
Scary. Absolutely scary.
There’s one great side effect to this.
If Chrysler hadn’t been dumping Sebrings into rental company fleets I would never have got to drive one and discover that it is one of the most loathsome vehicles on the road.
Sooo – there is a silver lining after all :-)
Stating that Ford’s fleet has increased 12.3% in the last two years is a bit misleading. It makes one think that Ford has been constantly ramping up fleet sales over those last two years, while actually most of that was done under Billy’s watch. According to Motor Trend, Ford is in the process of cutting sales to Rental agencies by 70% this year.
Ford also has a slightly different business model than Chrysler and GM. Ford has the Crown Vic (which is supposedly leaving the retail market this year), Grand Marquis, and Town Car which they pretty much only sell to fleets. When was the last time you saw a commercial for one of these cars? These numbers greatly increase Ford’s fleet numbers, making them look worse than they actually are. While Dodge and GM try and sell the Impala and Charger to both retail customers and to the government as cop cars, Ford sells the Crown Vic only to the government and fleets, hence there are no customers to hurt with reduced resale value.
A better picture of Ford’s fleet and rental status would be in the numbers for the Focus/Fusion/New Taurus. I don’t know what these numbers are, but given the unique place of the Panther platform cars, an overall fleet number for Ford can be misleading.
If rental fleet sales depress resale values and introduce customers to stripped down versions of what the manufacturer would like to sell (and leaving a poor impression), why doesn’t anyone make a fleet-only brand?
Instead of dumping the G6 all over the fleet markets, couldn’t GM re-skin it, build it as some non-retail, fleet-only brand, and then the only way they’d show up on the streets is on the used market. That would avoid beating up the resale on the G6, wouldn’t it?
I need to write a rant on this for TTAC, but I argue that you have it backwards.
Fleet sales can be profitable. But it is epic depreciation which causes unprofitable fleet sales, NOT the other way around, as the tax laws basically force the rental car companies to sell their cars after
Mmm, great idea. Make Saturn (or Buick, or Pontiac) a fleet-only brand. What a great way to offload your extra brands – you get to keep the economies of scale, the brand itself is still there, and you don’t hurt equivalent badge-engineered vehicle sales nearly as much. Same goes for Mercury. Don’t know which brand Chrysler can sacrafice – maybe bring back AMC?
Likewise, even for the non-rental fleet, tax law means it is depreciation, not sticker price, that the fleet buyer looks at (because you lease most of your fleet, again for tax reasons)
The exception is, of course, “Trucks” of 3 ton GVWL or more. Those you buy and drive into the ground, thus it is the sticker which counts for the fleet buyer.
Alex: Bring back plymouth.
YES!!!
There we go, a fireproof short and long-term solution to the rental dilemma. Why steal from your residual values when you can steal from everyone’s.
I’ll bet my next week’s paycheck that it won’t get implemented anywhere soon. The solution is so simple and good that the corporate behemoths will consider it radical, and ignore it.
The truly alarming numbers from the editorial are the actual numbers of cars sold on the retail lots, and then divide those numbers by the number of dealerships per manufacturer. I believe the numbers would point out that the average Ford dealer is actually selling fewer than one retail priced car per day. When one says retail, that will also mean at seriously discounted, rebated and no interest type sales, or X plan or A plan discounts to employee pricing. Does the 2.5 sale anything at sticker? There is news coming out today that Ford will have losses in the first quarter of over .60 cents a share. Further news is that GM’s partner in China is making cars on their own and underpricing the GM product and catching up on sales numbers there. it seems when I go to rent a car, on business trips, I see boatloads of Malibus and Chrysler products, now I understand why.
Another interesting question (to me) is what are the consumer (non-fleet) sales rankings for the “Big 6”?
Frank W., you seem to be a data guru, do you have that info?
Cheerio
The good part about DCX dumping minivans into fleets?
My frequent, extra cheap minivan rentals at Enterprise. Doesn’t cost a penny more than an Aveo, and it holds tons of gear.
Keep up the good work, DCX.
As for the rental only branding idea – didn’t Chevy already do that with the OLD Malibu, which they renamed the Chevrolet Classic and then sold it only for fleet sales in 2005 and 2006? Was that good for them? Maybe they got to keep a plant open, make a few bucks, and not hurt what was to be their next mid-sized “import killer” – the current generation Malibu. I know, this sounds funny when you think about how it’s almost about to repeat itself…
But seriously, was that a good thing – I don’t know?
The “fleet only” brand sounds good, but where do these vehicles go when the rentals have used them up?
The last few times I’ve rented a car I’ve always considered the Nissan or Hyundai the ‘nice car’ option in the compact or midsize class and been generally happy with the car.
The times I’ve been stuck with a Malibu or Cobalt, they drive well enough, but I spend most of the time wondering why a car with 2000 miles on it has so many rattles.
I’m thinking resale value is less about where the products are sold and more about the products themselves.
The “fleet nightmare” is a double-edged sword in many ways; when my partner and I go for holidays this summer, we will in all likelihood be driving the Impala. In my view, renting a car is an excellent way to find out if you would consider it for ownership.
There is a slim chance we could be assigned a Camry, but I doubt it. There is zero chance that we will be assigned an Accord, per Honda policy. My partner is leaning towards an Impala for her next purchase. Has Toyota and Honda offered her an opportunity in this case to see if she might like a Camry or Accord better? They have not.
nocaster –
You can buy Chevrolet Classics now through various used car resellers (Google shows a number of hits), although I’ve never seen one at a Carmax, for instance – I think Carmax doesn’t resell rentals (at least I think they claim that).
Has Toyota and Honda offered her an opportunity in this case to see if she might like a Camry or Accord better? They have not.
The Honda dealership offered to let me drive the car I now own over a weekend to see if it would meet my purposes. I was set on buying it anyway so I did not take them up on their offer, but I have talked to others who were given the same offer, including some who took them up on it. Everyone I know who took them up on the offer ended up buying the car.
jolo:
I am aware of 48 hour test drive offers through various dealerships, but this rental of the Impala will prove its mettle in terms of visibility, luggage space, etc. all taking place in an unfamiliar locale.
86er: Remember when purchasing an Impala the depreciation of it will be substantial, and driving it as a rental for a week or two will not give an indication of its durability for the next few years. I drove an Impala rental across country a couple of years ago and thought it ran well, and the furl milage was good, for the car size. After I researched the car, I learned it had a huge drop off in resale value and problems of assorted nature through the the three-five year period after ownership.
hltguy:
Again, this works both ways. First-year depreciation is high, but it makes for a great value as a lease buy-back. This will be my partner’s likely route for purchase.
As for reliability concerns, I guess we in rural areas have a higher tolerance for this sort of thing than do urban residents. Robert, can we do an article on the reliability of farm equipment, such as tractors and combines? You would all be shocked.
The reliability numbers for the current Impala probably aren't bad. Wish I could say, but I'm not collecting data on it yet. The depreciation makes the affected cars much better buys as nearly new cars. They end up making it harder for dealers to sell new cars. In response, Chrysler recently began excluding dealers who did not buy their quota of new cars from its used car auctions. Not the best fix…
Frank, does this article make allowances for the profitable livery market when the “Fleet Sales Fiasco” is examined as a whole?
Couple things here:
First, Ford cut the (old) Taurus. That was a fleet-only vehicle that sold 30,000 units a month. Thier fleet sales better damned well be down now, or they are really in trouble.
Second, about a fleet-only brand: You can’t do it. Vehicles sold en masse to rental car fleets (as opposed to things like work trucks or cop cars) aren’t designed to be rental cars-they are designed to be sold at retail, but sold poorly there, so the car company sells thier overstock for cheap to the rental agencies. There’s always one dud or another for the rental agenices to buy cheap-they don’t care if it’s ugly or it handles poorly, provided it has an automatic, some sort of radio, and A/C, and fits into whatever category they need to rent (compact, midsized, whatever). Nobody sets out to build a dud-but it always happens to somebody.
Third, as for things like the Taurus or the Malibu Classic-these are fleet-only vehicles, but they didn’t used to be. Basically, what happens is the car company, to keep a plant open for an extra year, makes an old model fleet-only. Since this is an old model, tooling and engineering costs should already have been paid off, so, in theory, they can actually sell those for cheaper.
To say that all fleet sales are bad is not a correct assessment. Commercial vehicles such as vans and trucks are commonly sold to corporations and government and if you examine the stats for Mercedes you will find that it sells quite a large percentage of its total output to fleets (mainly because it makes a large number of commercial vehicles).
However, what is important is which vehicles are sold to fleets. Selling vans, trucks and police vehicles to fleets is good business but selling newly released consumer cars, such as the Sebring, to fleets is a sign of trouble and uncompetitive products.
Frank – if you have the time it would be interesting to get a breakout of fleet sales by vehicle type as that would be a much better guide as to who is abusing fleet sales by dumping their recently released consumer products at no-profit prices.
I think limited fleet sales to rental companies is a great idea if you have a great product. It is like an extended test-drive without having to deal with obnoxious car dealers….Yeah…10% max seems about right to hold resale value. The Kia Optima is a really good driving car and getting traveling road-warriors into them might just increase retail sales for Kia.
Frank: Do you know how much profit 2.625 make on their fleet sale vehicles? I doubt is is much if anything. The stock-pop-up when 2.625 release better-than-expected sales figures make up for low/no-profit fleet sales. The Exec’s pay is tied to monthly/quarterly stock performance afterall…Ugh.
“Instead of dumping the G6 all over the fleet markets, couldn’t GM re-skin it, build it as some non-retail, fleet-only brand, and then the only way they’d show up on the streets is on the used market. That would avoid beating up the resale on the G6, wouldn’t it?”
That would be a good idea in a flexible manufacturing environment. For example, right now each GM plan can only make one car (if I recall correctly, they can’t even make the badge engineered twin at the same plant). So one of the reasons they sell so may G6s to fleet is because the union contracts make it so they have to keep making G6s whether individuals buy them or not (or continue to pay workers not to build cars). So the extras go to fleets. Ideally you’d want to make just enough G6s for regular customers and then switch to making the Fleet model the rest of the time. Unfortunately they can’t do that. The old factories aren’t flexible and the union contracts don’t allow workers to do different jobs. They’re stuck right now with selling the same car to both individuals and fleets.
If Chrysler hadn’t been dumping Sebrings into rental company fleets I would never have got to drive one and discover that it is one of the most loathsome vehicles on the road
Interesting, in that my wife and I rented a Pontiac G6 with a similar experience…hmm….cheap crap radio, what my wife called “Rubbermaid” dashboard, starter went out at 10,000 miles. Yup, I’ll be buying one of these!
John
Here are the sales for the "Big 6" Sept 06-Feb 07, the percentage of the total sales that were fleet sales, the number of fleet sales, and total sales minus fleet sales. Total Sales %Fleet Sales Fleet sales Total Less Fleet General Motors 1,812,510 21.6% 391,502 1,421,008 Ford Motor 1,240,243 32.8% 406,800 833,443 Toyota Motor Sales 1,200,339 9.1% 109,231 1,091,108 Chrysler Group 1,048,670 34.3% 359,694 688,976 American Honda 675,890 2.1% 14,194 661,696 Nissan NA 499,087 14.9% 74,364 424,723
Instead of building cars that no one wants, why don't the automakers use their factories to produce: 1) armored combat vehicles for our troops (they did it during WW2); or (2) replacement parts and body panels for the repair industry. Drive those prices down to nothing so that auto thieves have less incentive to steal.
Sucks to be Chrysler. They’re kind of like a lovable loser, only without the lovability.
The Panther platform should get a statue in the center of Dearborn for the decades of loyal service it has offered. It should also be dragged out back and shot.
Having said rude things about the Sebring earlier the silver lining continues and reflects on Toyota too – having rented a Corolla I now know I wouldn’t buy one – tinny, underpowered (I guess that why all owners seem to have Corolla S’s) and very poor ride and feel IMO.
All in all – rentals do us all a service!
Look at the Biz Week article on Chrysler and then this news-article says chry fleet sales at 50% – it makes Kerkorians $4.5 billion bid seem like he wants to pay too much!!
pete: Yeah. I’ve rented both a corolla and a camry. Convinced me I’d NEVER get those cars.
The corrola felt tinny (especially compared to a friend’s Civic), and the camry is just automotive Xanax.
This editorial got me thinking of a client I briefly worked on. One of the world’s leading manufacturers of white goods, who came to an interesting realization a few years ago: they were managing literally dozens of brands, and were moving an enormous amount of sheet metal wrapped around insulation and electric motors/heaters (read refrigerators and ovens) around the world.
Their annual turnover was high, but their profit was minuscule, and they were actually competing against themselves.
Reading this editorial had me realize that GM (and the other majors) are in the business of moving enormous amounts of sheet metal around the world, wrapped around mostly sub standard innards, at minuscule (mostly non-existent) profit.
And they’re often competing against themselves.
The client realized they would make more money by scaling back – both the number of brands and the volume of product. This also had the advantage of the products becoming better, as they were aimed towards more discerning customers or specific segments.
Maybe time for the “majors” to do the same.
Frank, where did you get your numbers? I know there is a website out there somewhere but can’t find it.
A few things…
1) The rental fleets can be an excellent source of product exposure. However it’s usually better for manufacturers that are either new to the market (Mahindra) or those that typically don’t get considered by most retail customers due to lack of marketing dollars, spotty dealer networks, or troubled reputations (Suzuki, Mitsubishi, Kia).
2) GM has to streamline the number of vehicles they sell… badly. Chrysler doesn’t have many competitive products at the moment (and will be the first to enter Ch. 11) and Ford offers legacy models that are no longer popular in the public eye. However, GM has offered folks four different versions of the same minivan, five different versions of the same SUV, and 8 different brands that all too frequently share too many low grade parts.
If you take a deep look at the model line-up for Cadillac, Buick and Pontiac, you see precious few models that are competitive. Cadillac has the SRX and Escalade (their cars are well below the competitors), Pontiac has the Solstice and G5 (Pontiac’s self-inflicted wound came from abandoning models with perfectly good reputations), and Buick has nothing of note at the moment.
All of this could have been avoided had GM chose to release fewer models for each brand.
3) Finally, one facet of the rental car ‘life cycle’ has been written off at the moment. The post-auction life of that vehicle. You can actually improve the brand if you take certain steps during and after the liquidation of the vehicle. Providing manufacturer warranties, incentivizing the dealers with quality guarantees and related ‘green light’ programs, and building relationships with the rental car companies are all critically important. It can literally add about 4% to 6% towards your residuals if all of these things are done the right way.
Think about Kia providing the strongest warranty in the industry, offering downside guarantees to the rental car companies, and hiring people whose jobs are to keep the rental car companies happy and being pre-emptive with potential issues. All of these steps make a postivie tangible difference in the returns.
That is unless everyone else follows suit. At this point I would say that Chrysler will need a stronger warranty as badly as the Europeans need a stronger dollar.
Some cars are good to be fleet vehicles – I can get a one year old Town Car for the price of a new Five Hundred, and the Town Car will easily run to 200,000 miles.
I’ve done that game buying used Grand Marquis, but I’m movin’ on up to the Town Car next.
Heck, nobody wants those cars anyway. Unload em.
Does anyone else worry that people will rent the “foreign” cars and realize they are much better than the Ford/GM/DCX vehicle they have at home then remember this next time they go to buy a car?
tcwarnke,
They better be. I was actually impressed with the Hyundai we rented. Not that I would buy one, but compared to the chrysler rentals it was refreshing.
Thanks for the numbers Frank.
While I am mooching, who are the top brands (vs. corporations)?
Thanks again.
RE: Stein X Leikanger – Your point is exactly on target. GM cannibalizes its own sales, and they would be better off to reduce their offerings.
The problem that I see is that they have too many dealers who all feel that they need to offer a full range of models in order to protect themselves from the vagarities of the market.
The first time I became aware of this is during the 70’s when we saw the Chevette get a Pontiac nose and Buick offered Opel Kadetts and the Opel GT. I need not mention the Cimmaron, I pray.
While we like to blame the UAW for GM’s woes, I think that it’s the dealers who keep Pontiac from dumping the G-6 and focusing on performance cars, and so forth. I do think that GM is doing a better job of focusing the brands than they did in the past, but I don’t believe that they have enough time to do what you suggest – dump the dross and focus on a few good products.
The sales numbers in the editorial are WRONG. Chrysler reduced EXCESS INVENTORY by moving a lot of it to rental fleets. Inventory sales are not part of currently monthly retail sales figures, they are already counted in previous months.
Obviously fleet sales have been a problem. However, I think it is disingenous to criticize Chrysler or Ford or GM for having dangerously high inventory numbers and then criticize them again when they reduce their inventories with the help of fleet sales.
From Freep: Chrysler sold 25% to fleets last year, and sales to fleets are down 1% in the first three months. These numbers differ greatly from what is stated in the article.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070423/BUSINESS01/704230330/1014
Thanks Frank for those sales numbers. They are quite illuminating. What’s shocking is that Toyota’s car sales are in fact greater than GM’s car sales. So technically, Toyota is the best-selling *car* brand in America. GM’s overall number is higher mainly due to truck sales. And the argument that Toyota will pick up GM’s fleet sales is thrown out the window, seeing as Toyota has placed a hard limit on the amount of fleet sales it will allow.
SuperAROD, the latest facts from Autonews say otherwise:
“Chrysler becomes rent-a-car king”
http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070423/SUB/70420084/1078/BREAKING&refsect=BREAKING
SuperAROD The sales numbers in the editorial are WRONG. Chrysler reduced EXCESS INVENTORY by moving a lot of it to rental fleets. Inventory sales are not part of currently monthly retail sales figures, they are already counted in previous months. The sales totals and fleet numbers I cited were provided by Chrysler and reported in Automotive News. Obviously fleet sales have been a problem. However, I think it is disingenous to criticize Chrysler or Ford or GM for having dangerously high inventory numbers and then criticize them again when they reduce their inventories with the help of fleet sales. Except both are indicators of really poor management and product planning. From Freep: Chrysler sold 25% to fleets last year, and sales to fleets are down 1% in the first three months. These numbers differ greatly from what is stated in the article. And the Freep article said "IF the Chrysler Group sold 600,000 fleet vehicles last year, that would represent 25% of the automaker's almost 2.4 million U.S. sales." The 48.5% number cited in the article is for Chrysler DIVISION (as noted in the article). The article also focuses in on the PAST SIX MONTHS as reported by Chrysler, not the entire year. During the time they were building up their sales bank, fleet sales were much lower. Once they pushed those units into the fleet market (of which the rental market is a part but certainly not all) it shot their numbers sky-high.
It is apparent that Chrysler felt the need to move inventory as rapidly as possible as it was eating them alive. Fleet sales were a big part of that.
Now that inventory is down to industry norms, Chrysler has been making a serious push to contain future fleet sales 1Q 2007, yet monthly sales figures are holding up okay…
The Freep article is also interesting in that the imports, who supposedly are models of long-term vision and business disciple are rushing to pick up the fleet sales slack. hmmmmmmm.
The Freep article is also interesting in that the imports, who supposedly are models of long-term vision and business disciple are rushing to pick up the fleet sales slack.
I don’t know that I’d call capping total fleet – not just rental – sales at 12-15% (Kia), 10% (Nissan) or 9% (Toyota) constitutes “rushing in.”
Lokkii: Pontiac could still be the performance division yet still sell something like the G6. They just actually have to MAKE it worthy of being in the performance division.
Look at Mazda.
They are Ford’s Free Engineering Department for almost everything worthwhile (the Fusion, Edge, Volvo S40/V50, Euro Focus, etc have massive amounts of Mazda DNA), profit center ($80M+/year consistent), and “Zoom Zoom” car division, and they have a very competitive Camcordima competitor with the Mazda6.
Mazda has a compact (Mazda3), a micro minivan (Mazda5), a couple of SUVs (CX-7, CX-9) and a family car (Mazda6), yet all but bad badge-engineered Ford products (Tribute, B-series) have the Mazda ZoomZoom brand DNA.
Pontiac could easily be GM’s equivelent to Ford’s profitable Mazda. But this would require cohesive engineering.
SuperAROD,
It’s interesting that you haven’t checked all the facts. As Frank said, Toyota has set a hard limit on the percentage of sales that will be fleet. Toyota’s fleet sales in the US will never exceed 10%.
You should be more specific, as should media outlets, when mentioning exactly who is picking up the fleet sales slack. In particular, Kia and Hyundai are picking up a lot of the slack.