2002 Toyota Camry Le Sedan 4d on 2040-cars

Auto blog

U.S. auto sales fall in July, as Detroit dials back on inventory, rental sales

DETROIT — U.S. carmakers said on Tuesday they continued to slash low-margin sales to daily rental fleets in July as General Motors, Ford and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles struggled to curb a slide in retail sales. July is on track to be the fifth straight month in which the annual pace of car and light truck sales declined from the same month a year ago, in part because of fewer fleet sales, analysts and industry executives said. July 2016 sales hit a strong 17.9-million-vehicle pace. GM said the seasonally adjusted annual sales rate fell to an estimated 16.9 million vehicles in July. At midmorning on Tuesday, GM shares were down 3.4 percent at $34.77, Ford was down 2.8 percent at $10.91, and Fiat Chrysler shares were down 0.3 percent at $12.05 in New York. GM sales dropped 15 percent from a year ago to 226,107 vehicles, as the company cut rental fleet sales more than 80 percent. The automaker said inventories of unsold vehicles at month's end were 104 days, down from 105 days at the end of June. GM has promised investors to reduce inventories to 70 days by year-end. Ford said its July sales dipped 7.5 percent to 200,212 vehicles, as it cut fleet sales more than 26 percent. Inventories fell to 77 days from 79 the previous month. Fiat Chrysler said sales dropped 10 percent to 161,477, as it also cut back sales to daily rental fleets. Among the top Japanese companies, only Toyota reported a year-to-year gain, with sales up 4 percent to 222,057 — just 4,000 units behind GM. Honda sales were down 1 percent to 150,980 — its first-quarter sales continuing to decline in North America but seeing a big increase in China. And Nissan sales fell 3 percent to 128,295. GM, Ford and Fiat Chrysler have cautioned that second-half financial results likely will be lower than first-half results, in part reflecting production cuts in North America and pricing pressures. The automakers this year have been deliberately dialing back sales to rental-car companies, which often generate little to no profit, while struggling to keep retail sales from sagging further, according to industry analysts. Industry consultant LMC cut its full-year forecast for new vehicle sales to 17 million vehicles. Automakers sold a record 17.55 million vehicles in the United States in 2016.

The ugly economics of green vehicles

It's fair to say that most consumers would prefer a green vehicle, one that has a lower impact on the environment and goes easy on costly fuel (in all senses of the term). The problem is that most people can't – or won't – pay the price premium or put up with the compromises today's green cars demand. We're not all "cashed-up greenies." In 2013, the average selling price of a new vehicle was $32,086. The truth is that most Americans can't afford a new car, green or not. In 2013, the average selling price of a new vehicle was $32,086. According to a recent Federal Reserve study, the median income for American families was $46,700 in 2013, a five-percent decline from $49,000 in 2010. While $32,000 for a car may not sound like a lot to some, it's about $630 a month financing for 48 months, assuming the buyer can come up with a $6,400 down payment. And that doesn't include gas, insurance, taxes, maintenance and all the rest. It's no wonder that a recent study showed that the average family could afford a new car in only one of 25 major US cities. AutoTrader conducted a recent survey of 1,900 millennials (those born between 1980 and 2000) about their new and used car buying habits. Isabelle Helms, AutoTrader's vice president of research, said millennials are "big on small" vehicles, which tend to be more affordable. Millennials also yearn for alternative-powered vehicles, but "they generally can't afford them." When it comes to the actual behavior of consumers, the operative word is "affordable," not "green." In 2012, US new car sales rose to 14.5 million. But according to Manheim Research, at 40.5 million units, used car sales were almost three times as great. While the days of the smoke-belching beater are mostly gone, it's a safe bet that the used cars are far less green in terms of gas mileage, emissions, new technology, etc., than new ones. Who Pays the Freight? Green cars, particularly alternative-fuel green cars, cost more than their conventional gas-powered siblings. A previous article discussed how escalating costs and limited utility drove me away from leasing a hydrogen fuel cell-powered Hyundai Tucson, which at $50,000, was nearly twice the cost of the equivalent gas-powered version. In Hyundai's defense, it's fair to ask who should pay the costs of developing and implementing new technology vehicles and the infrastructure to support them.

Poor headlights cause 40 cars to miss IIHS Top Safety Pick rating

Over the past few months, we've noticed a number of cars and SUVs that have come incredibly close to earning one of the IIHS's highest accolades, the Top Safety Pick rating. They have great crash test scores and solid automatic emergency braking and forward collision warning systems. What trips them up is headlights. That got us wondering, how many vehicles are there that are coming up short because they don't have headlights that meet the organization's criteria for an "Acceptable" or "Good" rating. This is a revision made after 2017, a year in which headlights weren't factored in for this specific award. This is also why why some vehicles, such as the Ford F-150, might have had the award last year, but have lost it for this year. We reached out to someone at IIHS to find out. He responded with the following car models. Depending on how you count, a whopping 40 models crash well enough to receive the rating, but don't get it because their headlights are either "Poor" or "Marginal." We say depending on how you count because the IIHS actual counts truck body styles differently, and the Infiniti Q70 is a special case. Apparently the version of the Q70 that has good headlights doesn't have adequate forward collision prevention technology. And the one that has good forward collision tech doesn't have good enough headlights. We've provided the entire list of vehicles below in alphabetical order. Interestingly, it seems the Volkswagen Group is having the most difficulty providing good headlights with its otherwise safe cars. It had the most models on the list at 9 split between Audi and Volkswagen. GM is next in line with 7 models. It is worth noting again that though these vehicles have subpar headlights and don't quite earn Top Safety Pick awards, that doesn't mean they're unsafe. They all score well enough in crash testing and forward collision prevention that they would get the coveted award if the lights were better.