Find Reviews by Make:
[Thanks to Stingray for the charts]
38 Comments on “September Sales Snapshot: Total Volume And Market Share...”
Read all comments
Latest Car Reviews view all
Latest Product Reviews view all
Recent Comments
- Lou_BC: @Carlson Fan – My ’68 has 2.75:1 rear end. It buries the speedo needle. It came stock with the...
- theflyersfan: Inside the Chicago Loop and up Lakeshore Drive rivals any great city in the world. The beauty of the...
- A Scientist: When I was a teenager in the mid 90’s you could have one of these rolling s-boxes for a case of...
- Mike Beranek: You should expand your knowledge base, clearly it’s insufficient. The race isn’t in...
- Mike Beranek: ^^THIS^^ Chicago is FOX’s whipping boy because it makes Illinois a progressive bastion in the...
Car Reviews By Make view all
New Car Research
Who We Are
- Tim Healey
Managing Editor - Matt Posky
News and Social Media Contributor - Timothy Cain
Sales Analyst - Murilee Martin
Junkyard Finds Author - Matthew Guy
Contributor - Chris Tonn
Contributor
- Adam Tonge
- Bozi Tatarevic
- Corey Lewis
- Jo Borras
- Mark Baruth
- Ronnie Schreiber
In descending volume order.
GM 20.9
Toyota 16.9
Ford 15.3
Honda 10.3
Chrysler 8.3
Nissan 7.4
Hyundai-Kia 7.1
VW 3.3
BMW 2.6
Daimler 2.4
Subaru 2
Mazda 1.9
Mitsubishi 0.6
Tata/Jaguar/LR 0.4
Porsche 0.2
Suzuki 0.2
OTHER 0.07
This is an awful performance by Ford. Even though they have now increased share nearly every month over the past year, they are yesterdays news and will no doubt go the way of the other D3 bailout babies.
Why do I say this ? Because Ford has zero good product and I think the upcoming Fiesta will not sell either. Why oh Why can’t they go back to basics and build a proper rear wheel drive car like the good old Crown Vic
I’ve just been doing some maths:
if we assume that 20% of those cars sold are imports (quite a conservative figure when to factor in that most of the German marques, Jaguar/Land Rover and Mazda cars are made outside the United States) and that each car is worth $15K per car (quite conservative again because that’s the price of a small car and these cars are much bigger), then that works out to be $2.238bn worth of cars imported per month. So every year, on average, the United States imports $26.863bn worth of cars!
That cannot help the trade deficit of the United States. Such a shame….
On the plus side, 3106 people in the United States have extremely good taste. ;O)
P.S. I realise that the UK is probably just as bad, but I don’t think that it’s that bad.
umterp85: While I won’t digress into you saying Ford has zero good product…and I have a fondness for the Crown Vics, building a select lineup of cars such as the Crown Vic would be a very poor decision for Ford. They would go from having zero good product to just having zero product. A select few people that want a certain car cannot keep a large company afloat while the rest of the markets, that Ford is doing better with, is left unattended too. Please use common-sense.
Anybody have these same numbers for LY? 5 years ago?
Now is a good time to buy a car, if you actually need one. With some makes offering 0% interest loans, what’s not to like? On the other hand, if no one bought a car it would not surprise me. The economy is shot, unemployment is high, and the future? Well, as the erstwhile Mr Morrison advised: Keep you eyes on the road and your hands upon the wheel…the future’s uncertain and the end is always near…
Tier 1: GM, Toyota, Ford
Tier 2: Honda, Chrysler, Nissan, Hyundai-Kia
Tier 3: VW, BMW, Daimler, Subaru, Mazda
Tier 4: Mitsubishi, Tata/Jaguar/LR, Porsche, Suzuki
@umterp85:
Could you explain re. your comment on Ford? Personally, Ford is the only North American automaker who makes anything that I would consider buying right now. Seriously, I wouldn’t even walk into a GM or Chrysler showroom…
VW has one hell of a problem if they are barely out-selling BMW.
(On a related note, shouldn’t Porsche’s sales be lumped with VW’s now?)
# kobo1d :
October 2nd, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Tier 1: GM, Toyota, Ford
Tier 2: Honda, Chrysler, Nissan, Hyundai-Kia
Tier 3: VW, BMW, Daimler, Subaru, Mazda
Tier 4: Mitsubishi, Tata/Jaguar/LR, Porsche, Suzuki
—
I disagree. The gap between Ford and Honda isn’t that big. Given Honda’s trend, I won’t be surprised if Honda can hit 12% in 5 years. At the same time, GM is trending down, Hyundai is trending up. So, in effect that will be a very large tier 1:
GM, Toyota, Ford, Honda, Chrysler, Nissan, Hyundai-Kia
This list may get shorter when Chrysler drops out. Nissan could also be out if they mismanage it.
# RetardedSparks :
October 2nd, 2009 at 12:35 pm
On a related note, shouldn’t Porsche’s sales be lumped with VW’s now?
The VW figure clearly includes Audi already. So I agree, why not include Porsche too?
—
VW has one hell of a problem if they are barely out-selling BMW.
The VW brand itself sold fewer than even Subaru.
September 2008 Sales Results
GM 281041 29.1%
Toyota 144260 15.0%
Ford 116301 12.1%
Chrysl 107349 11.1%
Honda 96626 10.0%
Nissan 59565 6.2%
Hyn/Kia 42148 4.4%
VW/Audi 24693 2.6%
Mitsub 18785 1.9%
BMW 14744 1.5%
So every year, on average, the United States imports $26.863bn worth of cars!
That cannot help the trade deficit of the United States. Such a shame….
Why? Who cars? If they can make cars better and more efficiently in other countries, fine. Or if managers from foreign companies can make cars better in the US than domestic companies, fine.
If the US didn’t import cars, not only would we be poorer, but people and capital would have to have been shifted from other industries.
Suppose the United States were fifty different countries. Would it suddenly be much worse for someone in WA or NC to buy a car made in the former US? If so, why?
My family’s personal “trade deficit” with car companies is very negative. I pay them a lot more than they’ve ever paid me. (the latter is zero). But I don’t care, because I have a very positive “trade surplus” with the company I work for.
So people in other countries get dollars. So what? They aren’t debt. If they hold on to the dollars forever, we don’t have to pay it back. Whether foreigners buy dollar-denominated equity or real estate, or make greenfield investments in America or simply hold dollars or whatever, it doesn’t create debt that has to be paid back.
The only part that one can be concerned about is the US Government and private US citizens taking on too much debt now to finance consumption, enjoying wealth now while making the future poorer, while other countries and other countries’ citizens are doing without consumption now in order to invest in capital that will make them wealthier in the future.
But in that case, it doesn’t matter whether the debt is owed to US persons or not. If you disagree, explain exactly how the US would owe more debt if someone who owned a lot of Treasuries moved abroad, or if someone who owned a lot of Treasuries moved here from abroad. (Aside from being able to tax the person or not.)
(Note that if you seriously believe that that’s a problem, then you want to do whatever you can to keep wealthy people from moving abroad, including reducing their tax rates. But it’s not.)
If you’re worried that the US is consuming too much and is going to not be wealthy enough in the future, the thing to do is convince people to spend less on consumption, and save and invest more, and for the US Government to run less of a deficit. (Or, perhaps, to spend its money at least on valuable investments instead of temporary consumption, if you believe that the government can spot investment opportunities better than private citizens.) However, right now we’re doing the opposite, though granted people will defend it as being short-term.
Buying US cars instead isn’t the answer; people would pay more (including service) to get the same level of car satisfaction for a depreciating asset (i.e., consumption.) They would either take on more debt, or cut consumption elsewhere. That would make US citizens unambiguously worse off, even if the trade deficit were smaller.
The solution is not “try to buy things that you like less or would pay more for.” The solution is “don’t go into debt you can’t afford.”
Are we to presume that the GM figures include Pontiac, Saturn, Saab & Hummer? If so, then GM’s share figures to continue to plummet over the next year. So unlike for Chrysler, it will get a lot worse for GM, which is heading for Tier 2.
I also am surprised that Honda has barely gained any share at all in the last year. The ungodly ugly new products probably figure into this.
The good news I see here for Ford is that it has picked up 3 points of share over last year and is NOT doing it on price or fleet. Price shoppers are deserting GM and Chrysler in droves for Hyundai/Kia. From all I am reading, those buyers will be getting good cars, so GM and Chrysler will not see those buyers come back any time soon.
My read of this data and the trends that make it up is that the new Tier 1 of companies will be Toyota, Ford and Honda. Hyundai will be Tier 1 in volume, but will be the victom of a perception gap for awhile yet.
Chrysler Group CEO Sergio Marchionne gave the following answer to a question about the Chrysler Group’s September sales at an impromptu press conference this morning:
“On the issue of Chrysler, I think that one of the things you need to be absolutely careful about is that when you start looking at market share data, for any of the automotive producers in the U.S., there are a number of things that have impacted on market share (and) volumes in the month of September.
“We have just come off a substantial inducement to consumption that was associated with the “Cash for Clunkers” program. And that in and by itself is a disturbance that, at least from Chrysler’s standpoint, one, was unexpected and was announced at a time in which our industrial machine was just about ready to get started up and running. Effectively, most of our plants had been out for a substantial part of the spring and part of the summer; and the machines had not come back on until the end of July.
“Secondly, this process that we’re going through, and we have been through this on the Fiat side. When I arrived in 2004 we had to go through the same type of painful process of watching market share decline as we cleaned up our commercial practices in the field. And so a lot of the inducements that were being offered in the marketplace by American car manufacturers are beginning to disappear. So the heavy incentive checks that one could find in most dealers are no longer available, the discipline required to maintain pricing in order to stay profitable in the car making business, the benefits of that philosophy are beginning to work their way through.
“We are not the only ones that are adopting this structure ourselves, General Motors has become a lot more disciplined on this than we have been. That is bound initially to cause a contraction of the position because your starting point was exaggerated, and so you need to work through this process of cleansing. It’s painful; it looks ugly. People sit back and say ‘what are you going to do to try and incentivize the demand.’ The real issue is that we need to go back to making products that people want at a price that is accessible and defensible in a competitive framework.
“All the work that has gone on here since we came in on June 10 has been geared at providing the framework to effectively drive volume over the medium to long term. September is not an indication of future performance. I’m not apologizing for it. It is the consequence of a number of actions that were taken in the past, all of which have culminated in the month of September. You may see similar numbers in October, I don’t know. Our intention is to improve share from this point on, but I don’t get alarmed. The machine is timed. We’re not bleeding as people think we are. The level of cost consciousness at this house is probably at a historical high, the real important issue is to try and build a future. And I would just ask you to wait until November and you can see it. The future is a lot better than the market share in September would indicate.”
What scares me most, is that the largest five has a 70% market share, or that the largest ten owns 95% of the market. Free market my ass, that’s borderline oligarchy.
Of course, people will lose their jobs. But most of the people who would their jobs make considerably over the median income, and they make products that on average are used by people middle-class and below. So it’s reverse Robin Hood, taking from many poor to give to the relatively wealthy.
I’d be a more sympathetic if we were talking about saving the jobs of people who made luxury goods, since then at least the people who would have to pay higher prices would be the wealthy. But for some reason tariffs get put on things poor people buy, like grains and sugar, or like low end tires.
As the NCPA says:
* America’s highest remaining trade barriers are aimed at products mostly grown and made by poor people abroad and disproportionately consumed by poor people at home.
* While industrial goods and luxury products typically enter under low or zero tariffs, the U.S. government imposes duties of 30 percent or more on food and lower-end clothing and shoes — staple goods that loom large in the budgets of poor families.
So US tariffs, including the tire tariffs President Obama just implemented, are aimed at hurting most poor people here and abroad, while sparing the wealthy.
Ed,
wqhat is the deal with the ridiculously tiny fonts on the pie chart? They are 100% USELESS! COuld you REVISE please?
Autosavant: Take a deep breath and click on the image for an expanded view.
The following are the 20 top-selling vehicles in the U.S. through September of 2009 as reported by
the automakers. Total sales of the top 20 vehicles fell 24.5 percent or -991,172 units to 3,060,122.
Following is a list of the top-20 selling vehicles, ranked by total units.
RANK VEHICLE 2009 2008 ’08 RANK % Chng
1 Ford F-Series 295,426 392,698 1 -24.8
2 Toyota Camry 264,357 355,562 3 -25.7
3 Chevy Silverado 229,388 370,502 2 -38.1
4 Honda Accord 221,369 313,228 6 -29.3
5 Toyota Corolla 215,038 279,685 4 -23.1
6 Honda Civic 207,883 285,715 8 -27.2
7 Nissan Altima 154,662 223,776 9 -30.9
8 Dodge Ram P/U 143,205 196,058 5 -27.0
9 Honda CR-V 142,906 158,024 11 -9.6
10 Ford Fusion 134,600 117,545 20 +14.5
11 Chev Impala 126,856 209,734 7 -39.5
12 Ford Escape 126,268 125,672 17 +0.5
13 Ford Focus 125,913 165,382 15 -23.9
14 Chev Malibu 118,995 140,555 26 -15.3
15 Toyota RAV4 106,863 106,738 18 +0.1
16 Toyota Prius 104,794 130,561 16 -19.7
17 Hyundai Sonata 93,575 97,442 -4.0
18 Chev Cobalt 85,885 162,462 14 -47.1
19 Hyundai Elantra 82,706 86,144 27 -4.0
20 GMC Sierra 79,433 133,811 12 -40.6
RANK VEHICLE 2009 2008 ’08 RANK % Chng
1 Ford F-Series 295,426 392,698 1 -24.8
2 Toyota Camry 264,357 355,562 3 -25.7
3 Chevy Silverado 229,388 370,502 2 -38.1
4 Honda Accord 221,369 313,228 6 -29.3
5 Toyota Corolla 215,038 279,685 4 -23.1
6 Honda Civic 207,883 285,715 8 -27.2
7 Nissan Altima 154,662 223,776 9 -30.9
8 Dodge Ram P/U 143,205 196,058 5 -27.0
9 Honda CR-V 142,906 158,024 11 -9.6
10 Ford Fusion 134,600 117,545 20 +14.5
11 Chev Impala 126,856 209,734 7 -39.5
12 Ford Escape 126,268 125,672 17 +0.5
13 Ford Focus 125,913 165,382 15 -23.9
14 Chev Malibu 118,995 140,555 26 -15.3
15 Toyota RAV4 106,863 106,738 18 +0.1
16 Toyota Prius 104,794 130,561 16 -19.7
17 Hyundai Sonata 93,575 97,442 -4.0
18 Chev Cobalt 85,885 162,462 14 -47.1
19 Hyundai Elantra 82,706 86,144 27 -4.0
20 GMC Sierra P/U 79,433 133,811 12 -40.6
Why oh Why can’t they go back to basics and build a proper rear wheel drive car like the good old Crown Vic
The Crown Vic is still in production…and woefully outdated.
I’ve just been doing some maths:
Hey Katie…
Why do British people say maths (or mass?) when referring to what Americans call math?
I have heard the term on Top Gear and have always wondered the origin. Is it just one of the many small differences between English English and American English?
Ed, that was petty evil. You should have kept him in oblivion, that would have been so much fun…
“Edward Niedermeyer :
October 2nd, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Autosavant: Take a deep breath and click on the image for an expanded view.”
What is there to expand? the pic is a simple pie chart with enormous slices but tiny fonts.
I had already “zoomed in” several times until the legends became legible. And I knew these numbers anyway, I should not have bothered with it at all.
Ingvar,
I see what you’re saying, but at least it’s not 1960 when GM, Ford and Chrysler by themselves controlled over 90% of the market.
I would expect more and smaller slices in that pie as we go forward as Chinese and Indian manufacturers enter the US. There’s always a chance of a green player like Tesla eventually going mass market too.
If I remember correctly about 18 months ago (give or take a few months) GM had something like a 29% or 30% share, didn’t they?
Wow, if the September numbers area anything to go by, Toyota, Ford, but especially Hyundai are in the throes of making GM irrelevent.
In 1970 GM owned (as in OWNED) 50% of the North American market.
Each of the persons listed below share most of the blame. At any point since 1958, any one of these fine gentlemen could have manned-up and turned away from the iceberg. I believe that the Board of Directors and many top-two tier executives of General Motors are guilty of criminal behaviour, period. Those that aren’t dead should be held liable for the destruction of GM.
C.E.O.s of General Motors since 1967
James M. Roche — November 1, 1967 – December 31, 1971
Richard C. Gerstenberg — January 1, 1972 – November 30, 1974
Thomas A. Murphy — December 1, 1974 – December 31, 1980
Roger B. Smith — January 1, 1981 – July 31, 1990
Robert C. Stempel — August 1, 1990 – November 1, 1992
John F. “Jack” Smith, Jr. — November 2, 1992 – May 31, 2000
G. Richard Wagoner, Jr. — June 1, 2000 – March 30, 2009
Chairmen of the Board of General Motors since 1958
Frederic G. Donner — September 1, 1958 – October 31, 1967
James M. Roche — November 1, 1967 – December 31, 1971
Richard C. Gerstenberg — Jan. 1, 1972 – November 30, 1974
Thomas A. Murphy — December 1, 1974 – December 31, 1980
Roger B. Smith — January 1, 1981 – July 31, 1990
Robert C. Stempel — August 1, 1990 – November 1, 1992
John G. Smale — November 2, 1992 – December 31, 1995
John F. “Jack” Smith, Jr. — January 1, 1996 – April 30, 2003
G. Richard Wagoner, Jr. — May 1, 2003 – March 30, 2009
P71_crownvic
I think it’s just one of those idisyncracies between our two countries.
It’s like why do Americans insist on calling it American FOOTBALL. You spend more time with the ball in your HAND!!!!!!
And then calling UK football “Soccer”!
ARGGGHHHH!!!!
(mumbles something about sales figures to keep this post relevant)
FYI for the Canadian market
Mkt Share Sales
General Motors 18.20% 23,568
Ford 12.46% 16,140
Toyota 12.41% 16,065
Chrysler 12.20% 15,804
Honda 8.70% 11,272
Hyundai 7.17% 9,282
Nissan 5.09% 6,594
Mazda 5.03% 6,520
Kia 3.49% 4,515
Volkswagen 2.71% 3,508
Subaru 1.96% 2,544
BMW 1.85% 2,402
Mercedes-Benz 1.74% 2,248
Mitsubishi 1.34% 1,735
Lexus 1.16% 1,504
Suzuki 1.04% 1,351
Acura 0.87% 1,127
Audi 0.86% 1,111
Infiniti 0.49% 639
Volvo 0.39% 508
MINI 0.26% 340
smart 0.24% 312
Land Rover 0.14% 179
Porsche 0.09% 114
Jaguar 0.05% 62
Saab 0.05% 59
P71_crownvic
Maths is an abbreviation of mathematics. Do Americans say mathematic?
And ‘soccer’ is an abbreviation of ‘Association Football’ actually first used in Britain to distinguish the new form from the old ‘football’.
Monty :
October 2nd, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Wow, if the September numbers area anything to go by, Toyota, Ford, but especially Hyundai are in the throes of making GM irrelevent.
In 1970 GM owned (as in OWNED) 50% of the North American market.
Last month, GM outsold Toyota in the US by 23%. They outsold Ford by 36%. Hyundai? 192%.
None of these companies is any danger of making GM irrelevent anytime soon.
What is irrelevent is what GM’s market share was 40 years ago…
Katie: It’s like why do Americans insist on calling it American FOOTBALL. You spend more time with the ball in your HAND!!!!!!
My personal favo(u)rite: Calling it a TOUCHDOWN, when the ball is NEVER actually touched down in the goal area, unlike rugby, where for some reason the touchdown is called a TRY…
None of these companies is any danger of making GM irrelevent anytime soon.
What? You don’t call 12 months soon?
car_czar +100
“every year, on average, the United States imports $26.863bn worth of cars!”
And illegal aliens within the USA remit to their home countries an estimated, by some, 30 billion yearly.
That also upsets the “balance of trade” since those dollars are not inside the USA to be transferred…. in an economy where 70 percent of of that economy is consumer spending.
I wonder what percentage of your descendants will be forced down into our ever-growing working-poor class and how many of them will eventually live within a 2nd-world life-style?
“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. (Warren) Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
Yes, obbop, but we Americans had the chance to actually elect Tom Tancredo to the Presidency, the man who tried to put the illegal alien catastrophy before the public – and we elected someone else instead
That is assuming you believe any more that the people actually have any real say in running the country anyway. (see your thing about Warren Buffet)
GM, by the way, had 51% of the US auto market as late as 1962, with AMC actually running 6% or so (not much different than Hyundai and Kia combined right now), Chrysler was something like 12%, Ford was something like 24% and Studebaker, about 2%.
Imports made up precisely 4.89% of the US auto sales in 1962. Of these, #1 was Volkswagen with 192,570 cars; #2 was Renault with 29.763; #3 was Triumph with 15,567 (Katie?! did you see this?)
#4 was Volvo with 13,157, #5 was Mercedes-Benz with 11,075 (distribution rights owned by Studebaker but almost no overlap in dealers), #6 was Austin-Healey with 10,019 (yes, most British cars sold stateside were sports cars back then), #7 was Fiat 9762, #8 was MG 9319, #9 was Peugeot 4926 (the new 404 had come out and was very nice, but no diesel Peugeots were sold stateside until 1974), and #10 was Jaguar with 4442 (Katie will be cheering at that news). 1962 was the year that the Volkswagen 1500 Squareback and Fastback were introduced, allowing buyers upscale and more modern choices other than the old Beetle (and bus and Karmann-Ghia).
Notice that NONE of the Japanese makes were in the top 10 in 1962 of import makes.
Interestingly, a sea-change started to happen by 1967 for those with eyes to see.
For one thing, Studebaker was gone and GM was below 50%. AMC was down to about 3% of the market, from a high of 6% or more a few years before.
But IMPORTS were up to 9.32% of the US market.
#1 was still Volkswagen, significantly still “out front” (“for now” would be the mantra in Tokyo, no doubt) at 443,510
#2 was Opel, GM cars from Germany being sold via Buick dealers (most of which didn’t know what to do with them) at 51,693
#3 was TOYOTA 36,002
#4 was Volvo 34,392
#5 was Datsun 33,275 (which screwed up and had been ahead of arch-rival Toyota)*
#6 was Mercedes-Benz (now with US distribution being self-owned since 1965) 20,691
#7 was Renault – a bad fall from #2 5 years prior at 20,218
#8 was English Ford – 16,636 (Katie? you won’t believe that Ford dropped Brit cars here for the awful Pinto but they did)
#9 was Fiat 15,932
#10 was Saab 10,755 (the first of the V4 four stroke cars made the company more acceptable to a bigger portion of the buying public, most of whom would not consider a 2-stroke automobile)
These figures are from Cars of the Sizzling 60’s.
*Datsun had a chance to potentially stay ahead of Toyota in the states, since in 1965 – when Japanese cars suddenly appeared in the top-10 import list, Datsun was at #6, Toyota was a no-show.
Some time in 1965, Studebaker-Canada’s President Gordon Grundy had been instructed to go to Tokyo to pen a deal with Nissan, manufacturers of Datsun, to obtain cars to be sold via Studebaker dealers. Since new years day 1964, Canada had been the sole supplier of Studebaker cars. I believe that Nissan was chosen because they had just introduced a new US sized “President” line, with an impressive all-new alloy-head V8 or inline six, and also had completely just modernized their “Cedric” car, which was slightly smaller than the Rambler American/Chevy Nova/Ford Falcon. I strongly suspect that since Mercedes was buying their distribution rights back from Studebaker, that Studebaker wanted to distribute cars in the states made by another company – under both Studebaker and the other marque name too.
Datsun had good distribution in the west coast (mostly California) and east coast – not much in between. Toyota was pushing for a national distribution network.
Clearly, had Studebaker put their 1500 dealers (spread throughout the ENTIRE USA) and 400 Canadian dealers, onto selling Datsuns AND “badged” Nissans (sold as Studebakers), in addition to the then current Datsun dealer network centered on the coasts, history may have ended up differently!
What stopped the plan? One Richard Milhause Nixon, then a lawyer working for Studebaker USA, telephoned Grundy and informed him that he must also go see Toyota to try to forge a deal. Toyota said “no deal”. (What was in it for them?)
Nissan executives heard of this and then refused to meet with Grundy.
The Crown Vic is still in production…and woefully outdated.
It’s not outdated at all to me. The Crown Victoria is safe, big, comfortable, and reliable. That’s all I need or want. Not everyone wants some convoluted piece of machinery that relies heavily on electronics to operate. There are many people out there just like me who want a simple, reliable, long lasting machine and the Crown Victoria fits that desire perfectly. Unless the electric car comes out, I don’t want any part of automotive electronics. If you ask me, the Crown Vic already has too much.
Last month, GM outsold Toyota in the US by 23%. They outsold Ford by 36%. Hyundai? 192%.
None of these companies is any danger of making GM irrelevent anytime soon.
Sept 09 ’08 YTD
GM 155679 -45% -36%
Toyota 126015 -19% -27%
Ford 114241 -5% -22%
Hyundai/Kia 53134 +25% +1.4%
Just for fun, let’s extrapolate out the year-on-year changes for the month to 2010:
Ford 108529
Toyota 102072
GM 85623
Hyundai/Kia 66417
For perhaps a more accurate number, let’s use year to date:
GM 99634
Toyota 91991
Ford 89108
Hyundai/Kia 53878
The attitude of the head in the sand GM and Chrysler defenders are absurd. Irrelevant? No. In danger of losing its #1 position in US auto sales? Absolutely.
@ Texn3 & Pourspeller—sorry for the over the top post—just trying to lighten things up and go on a ridiculous rant about Ford like a certain other commentator.
In fact Pourspeller…I currently own 3 Ford vehicles (’05 Mustang, ’07 Lincoln MKX, ’10 Lincoln MKZ) that have been terrific in every aspect including quality /reliability.
Speaking of the devil…P71_Crown Vic…..please give me a Ford dealer where you can get a Crown Vic ? They may still be in production for the Police…not us common folks.