Toyota Recall: Toyota Broadens Recall To 3.8...
Green
Trucks
Luxury
Family
Brand
Muscle
See more sites from  HighGear  M E D I A  >>

Trucks Keep Slipping – Is It For Good?

Trucks Keep Slipping – Is It For Good?

By Marty Padgett's avatar Marty PadgettMarty Padgett June 4th, 2007

Article ImageEnlarge Photo


It didn’t take a trained eye to notice. Heading up to northern Michigan, on warm summer weekends, back in the late 1980s, it was hard to ignore the growing number of minivans, pickups and sport-utility vehicles shooting up I-75. Sure, there were always those who needed a pickup for work, a minivan for a big family, or an SUV to haul a boat. But a close inspection showed that more and more of those light trucks were simply replacing the traditional sedan.

By 1997, the scales officially tipped, and with the brief exception of 2002, trucks have consistently outsold traditional passenger cars. That is, until May, when sedans, coupes and sports cars narrowly nosed into the lead, with 778,651 sold, according to the tracking firm, Ward’s AutoInfoBank, compared with 777,296 light trucks.

That’s probably no surprise, considering the economics of $3-plus gasoline. As light truck critics have long argued, there are plenty of folks who simply don’t need to be running from business luncheon to afternoon meetings behind the wheel of a 12-mpg HUMMER.

One could argue that the balance has tipped even more in favor of cars, depending on your definition of the new crossover vehicles flooding the market. Products like the Toyota RAV4 and Saturn Vue may look like utes, but they ride on unibody platforms often shared with more conventional passenger cars. Under the skin, Ford’s recently renamed Taurus X is virtually identical to the Five Hundred sedan, which is about to be rebranded with the Taurus badge.

For the first time, last year, crossovers outsold conventional, truck-based SUVs, notes George Pipas, Ford’s chief sales analyst, and the trend will continue – at an increasingly rapid pace, many analysts believe, in the face of record gasoline prices.

Don’t write off the truck just yet, industry analysts are quick to caution. Detroit manufacturers, in particular, are maintaining SUV and pickup-heavy production schedules, notes a story in the New York Times. These gas guzzlers are simply too profitable – especially when compared with the fuel stingy econoboxes that Big Three makers have traditionally lost money on.

A revival of the moribund U.S. housing market will likely generate a jump in pickup sales, since a large percentage of these trucks are still sold for commercial applications. And there remain plenty of buyers who need pickups and large SUVs to haul boats, RVs and other trailers.

Meanwhile, facing the reality of high gasoline prices, the industry is looking for ways to counter the naysayers – and regulators – who’d like to drive light trucks off the road. I just experienced one example in the form of the Mercedes-Benz GL320 CDI. This diesel-powered, three-row SUV gave me an average of nearly 30 mpg running around Los Angeles, over the course of a week, much of that in heavy traffic. Expect manufacturers to start adding a lot more oil burners to their powertrain line-ups, now that the technology exists to meet tough new diesel emissions standards.

But barring a collapse in fuel prices, there seems little likelihood conventional trucks will regain the momentum they had early this decade. Mounting social pressures only add to the impact of high gasoline prices. The truck boom is almost certainly at an end.

What do you think? Tell us below if trucks are on the downward spiral.

MAY SALES MOSTLY UP—TheCarConnection.com Enlarge Photo It didn’t take a trained eye to notice. Heading up to northern Michigan, on warm summer weekends, back in the late 1980s, it was hard to ignore the growing number of minivans, pickups and sport-utility vehicles shooting up I-75. Sure, there were always those who needed a pickup for work, a minivan for a big family, or an SUV to haul a boat. But a close inspection showed that more and more of those light trucks were simply replacing the traditional sedan. By 1997, the scales officially tipped, and with the brief exception of 2002, trucks have consistently outsold traditional passenger cars. That is, until May, when sedans, coupes and sports cars narrowly nosed into the lead, with 778,651 sold, according to the tracking firm, Ward’s AutoInfoBank, compared with 777,296 light trucks. That’s probably no surprise, considering the economics of $3-plus gasoline. As light truck critics have long argued, there are plenty of folks who simply don’t need to be running from business luncheon to afternoon meetings behind the wheel of a 12-mpg HUMMER. One could argue that the balance has tipped even more in favor of cars, depending on your definition of the new crossover vehicles flooding the market. Products like the Toyota RAV4 and Saturn Vue may look like utes, but they ride on unibody platforms often shared with more conventional passenger cars. Under the skin, Ford’s recently renamed Taurus X is virtually identical to the Five Hundred sedan, which is about to be rebranded with the Taurus badge. For the first time, last year, crossovers outsold conventional, truck-based SUVs, notes George Pipas, Ford’s chief sales analyst, and the trend will continue – at an increasingly rapid pace, many analysts believe, in the face of record gasoline prices. Don’t write off the truck just yet, industry analysts are quick to caution. Detroit manufacturers, in particular, are maintaining SUV and pickup-heavy production schedules, notes a story in the New York Times. These gas guzzlers are simply too profitable – especially when compared with the fuel stingy econoboxes that Big Three makers have traditionally lost money on. A revival of the moribund U.S. housing market will likely generate a jump in pickup sales, since a large percentage of these trucks are still sold for commercial applications. And there remain plenty of buyers who need pickups and large SUVs to haul boats, RVs and other trailers. Meanwhile, facing the reality of high gasoline prices, the industry is looking for ways to counter the naysayers – and regulators – who’d like to drive light trucks off the road. I just experienced one example in the form of the Mercedes-Benz GL320 CDI. This diesel-powered, three-row SUV gave me an average of nearly 30 mpg running around Los Angeles, over the course of a week, much of that in heavy traffic. Expect manufacturers to start adding a lot more oil burners to their powertrain line-ups, now that the technology exists to meet tough new diesel emissions standards. But barring a collapse in fuel prices, there seems little likelihood conventional trucks will regain the momentum they had early this decade. Mounting social pressures only add to the impact of high gasoline prices. The truck boom is almost certainly at an end. What do you think? Tell us below if trucks are on the downward spiral. MAY SALES MOSTLY UP—TheCarConnection.com

Tags: Shoppers

Posted in: 2007, 2008, Ford, Crossover, Sports Cars, Taurus X



More News


More From Around High Gear Media


Responses (21 total)

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3

  1. By Thor #1, Posted: 6/4/2007

    Trucks today are as dead as the muscle cars were after the two oil crises in the 70s.

    The difference is that muscle cars were REAL CARS, and NOT breadvans on stilts as StupidUglyVechicles are.

    Crossovers are barely better. They are as heavy as full size SUVs (esp. the GM x-overs) and burn only slightly less fuel. They are NOT the answer to $4 gas.

    The Honda Fit, Toyota Yaris and Nissan Versa are. The only equivalent offering from the onetime big 3 is the pitiful (and 0% american) so-called "Chevy" Aveo, a DAWEOO product from Korea.

  2. By Warren #2, Posted: 6/4/2007

    The price of energy in general (not necessarily just the price of gas or diesel) will eventually drive the market back down to smaller, lightweight vehicles. Regardless of what technology you place in a 6000lb SUV, you can only make it just so efficient, and cheap energy is going the way of the buffalo. Detroit seems to think they can still draw us to the high-margin SUVs if they are perceived as "green", but if I go from 14 mpg to 16 mpg have I really gained that much? Not with my wallet.

  3. By Civisi #3, Posted: 6/4/2007

    I think we've been through this problem before. It's a cycle.

    In the early life of the automobile, cars were an alternative to horse-driven carriages and were only for the wealthy. Production improvements brought the price down and the car became commonplace. Operating costs of the car were also lowered, and as that happened, the more larger (and more expensive) vehicles became affordable.

    In the 60's and early 70's, the car got bigger and bigger. The Mustang and Thunderbird come to mind as good examples. As gas prices shot up during the oil crisis, the operating costs of the large vehicles increased and people reevaluated their automobile purchasing habits.

    The 70s and 80s were about practicality and fuel economy as cars got smaller. Think about the Mustang II and the small Tbird of the early 80s. Think Dodge Omni, Plymouth Aries, Geo Storm, Ford Escort, etc. The foreign cars entered the US market as an alternative to oversized domestic vehicles with lower operating costs the their US sales took off. US automakers played catchup, and still haven't fully caught up yet.

    The oil tensions eased, but the wariness remained. As it wore off, consumers saw the larger-than-necessary SUVs (Hummer, Excursion, etc) as a fashion statement or status symbol, and with reduced operating costs, more and more consumers sought to get these vehicles in their garages. Larger and larger they got, and thirstier and thirstier for fuel they became. And once again, gas prices rise. Consumers now have to weigh the status symbol versus the cost of going to work.

    And once again, foreign manufacturers have the upper hand. Think Prius, Volkswagon with TDI, Honda Civic, etc. US makers are playing catchup again, trying to tout the fuel economy of their best vehicles ("X many cars with more than 30 MPG"). On the other hand, foreign manufacturers seem to have just realized the US consumers' desires for the larger vehicles, as they have introduced the Toyota Sequoia, Nissan Armada, Lexus large ugly thing, the new Toyota Tundra, the Nissan Titan, etc. Did they get to the market too late? And how will it affect the foreign manufacturers?

    This shift in consumer attitude will also trickle down to the used car market. If there's a drastic change in our buying habits, will the excess inventory of these type of vehicles hurt dealers and consumers alike? After all, a used $40,000 SUV that's only a couple years old may have a book price way less than the payoff because it's less desirable now. The consumer can't afford to keep it, but they'll lose too much if they sell it.

    Something to think about.

  4. By Marc Nicholson #4, Posted: 6/4/2007

    In a couple of years, when new diesel motors are put into the Honda Ridgeline and Chevy, Dodge, Ford, Nissan and Toyota half-ton and smaller pick up trucks, sales should pick up big time.

    Going from 15-16 highway mpg now in my current Dodge truck compared to the above mentioned diesel trucks getting most likely 25-30 mpg, that's huge fuel savings.

    If you are like me and maintain your vehicle and keep it for 10 years or so, after 250k-300k miles (based on 3.25/gallon) , you save $22,000 + in fuel costs, and that's if diesel is the same price as gas, which here in the Midwest right now, diesel is running .30+ cents less than gas. Can't wait for these diesels to get here.

  5. By Warren #5, Posted: 6/4/2007

    Remember this about diesel, though...the same approach was taken in the late 70s during the 2nd gas crunch: diesel cars started coming out of the woodwork and what happened? The price of diesel immediately shot through the roof because you can't make as much diesel from a barrel of crude oil as you can gasoline. Then you have the knock-on effect of rising food prices, because guess what the truckers are using to haul our groceries? History will definitely repeat itself, though thankfully without the disasterous Oldsmobile 350 diesel!

  6. By Jeff Cain #6, Posted: 6/5/2007

    Trucks aren't "dead", but they're dropping off and will go back to where they SHOULD be - as the vehicle of choice for those who use them for work or seriously heavy play. The whole SUV/Truck craze was driven by two things: personal fantasy about an "active lifestyle" and the appearance of such, and some token amount of improved safety when the ground gets wet (or frozen).

    All that was needed to begin with was an AWD vehicle and a juiced-up apearance and America would have had their love fest AND saved a bundle on gasoline bills.

    I'm damn happy to see this trend, and hope it accelerates. How will we ever break our dependence on the Middle East driving 4WD tanks that drink their processed oil at the rate of 12 MPG? We won't, and we desperately NEED to before we have yet another oil crisis that will make the two previous crises look quaint by comparison.

    Goodbye gas-swilling, lane-hogging, vision-impairing, parking-space gobbling BOF Beasts of Someone's Under-utilized Burden. I hardly knew ye, and am better for it.

  7. By Edward #7, Posted: 6/5/2007

    Can you say 2009 Dodge Ram 1500 MegaCab diesel with 26mpg on hwy and 4WD? That just might be the ticket!

  8. By Phil #8, Posted: 6/5/2007

    What is it about Hummers? I'm no fan, but geeze, hardly a day goes by without some scribe or other pounding the rising fuel prices drum and citing a Hummer as proof our evil appetite is out of control. Except, GM sells...what?.....4,000 of them a month? Phffft. There are a many times more 14 - 18 mpg trucks sold each month and at their numbers, yes a 10% improvement in efficiency adds up at the national market level. But here's the kicker: Why are Hummers, SUVs and pickup trucks the new sin symbols and luxury cars with equally robust fuel appetites -- or worse -- get nary a mention? Why is a family's SUV or a pickup truck, or for that matter any Hummer, notable for inefficiency when stupidly heavy (German) luxury muscle sedans and high performance sports cars do no better in real world driving? A 14 mpg vehicle is a 14 mpg vehicle regardless of form. Oh, I get it. Us car guys are supposed to hate trucks for their ham-handed handling, view-blocking bulk, long stopping distances, and weight-challenged acceleration. Well, they're trucks. We don't want to see our 14 mpg performance cars pinched in the market but the unthinking assault on trucks is OK. Got it.

    Mazda's roughly 3000 lb. diminutive 4 seat RX-8 sports car averages about 15 mpg real world efficiency under the feet of everyone I know who drives one. Let's get that evil little glutton off the road! A mercedes SL, S Class, and any AMG version will be lucky to match that if driven as its maker intended. A Corvette with a 6.0 liter engine can be driven for 28 mpg highway efficiency -- some drivers manage to soft-toe it even better. But you know that especially its Z06 variant can be driven for 10 mpg results, too. BMW M series, any Porsche driven spiritedly, especially the Turbo. Audis, Ferraris, Lambos, Shelbys, Range Rovers, Maseratis, Jeeps.....there are a lot of elites sneering at trucks yet if those same people believe burning less fuel matters....they aren't. More to the point, what do you suppose the correlation is between megabuck fuel-sucking cars and 10,000 - 30,000 square foot energy hog homes, compared to pickups, SUVs and Hummer H3s and 1,000 - 4,000 square foot dwellings? Both high, huh? You see where this goes.

    A warming climate change seems to have overlaid our span of temporal concern, but it's far from clear that man has anything at all to do with it. Debate over? Hah! CO2 concentrations tend to rise *after* a warming trend is established. Mankind's contribution is tiny, in the context of all natural emitters. "Consensus" about anthropogenic global warming has not included a majority of climate scientists. And the alarmists are ignoring the cycles of the Sun, not to mention the precedent of warm periods that were warmer still, followed by cooling. Did anyone notice reports that Mars' climate is warming too? That must be your carbon-liberating V8 too.

    Face it. Your choice of vehicle is not going to affect global temperatures, but if you're still worried why not get your power company to sequester all the carbon output from its coal-fired generating plants, and while you're at it, take your name off that no-nuclear power petition, too.

    So if you're going to attack truck owners for their fuel appetites, you can cite other good reasons to burn less fuel, including fewer exported dollars and lower true toxic pollutants (C02 is not a pollutant). But if you're serious about this, tar the Ferrari, Lambo, RS-4, AMG, Maserati, Range Rover and M5 owner with the same brush stroke you've stained the Hummer, Sierra, Escalade and F150 owner with.

    There is considerable elasticity in American disposable income budgets. Fuel rise hits poor and working poor folks, to be sure. But the bulk of the market can easily shift spending to accommodate paying for fuel. Some people will cut back, others won't. The F150 has been the best selling vehicle line in the US for three decades. It began its rise during the 1970s inflation, including the run-up to the highest real-dollar fuel costs to date, in 1981. And this continued during the long price plateau through the '80s. It was clearly in response to the withdrawal of upright rear drive accommodating cars from the market as car makers feverishly downsized nearly every model. GM used to sell over a million Impalas a year in a smaller market, but that beloved car and its competitors morphed into something less. It's no mistake pickup and van sales climbed.

    Right now, we are seeing a repeat of a common 1970s error. People are prematurely getting out of perfectly good vehicles, accepting massive accelerated depreciation, in order to buy or finance a brand new vehicle that will save less money on fuel than has been spent prematurely buying it. The Global Warming Swindle is part of the reason for irrational behavior this time. But if so, those people are not thinking about the end-to-end carbon cycle associated with prematurely replacing a vehicle. Muscle cars and mastodon sedans were available for dust in 1976, but 20 years later we had 300, then 400+ hp cars that are 2 - 2.5X more efficient and faster. In 1979, when a Corvette couldn't even muster a measly 200 hp, people thought performance cars would never appear again. Less than 10 years later, digitally-controlled EFI put quick, efficient V8 Mustangs, Camaros, Corvettes on the market again. Trucks will be back because the form factor suits how large numbers of people live. And an SUV filled with people is pretty efficient transportation on a people-miles-per-gallon basis.

    No I don't own a truck.....at the moment.

  9. By  Everett Rupert #9, Posted: 6/5/2007

    Don't be so quick o write off trucks because of the crrent mini-slump. Americans have aways wanted choice in their vehicular purchases, and soetimes economic climate plays a part in the decisions, sometimes not.

    I, for instance, against many of the whishes of friends and family, am in the mrket for a Mercury Grand Marquis LS, an American style v-8 lxury car, after years of drivig and riding in various econoboxes and mini-vans. Do I wish gas was cheaper? You bet. Will that drive me ito buying a hybrid Camry? Don't hold your breath. I want what I want; besides, American full sized cars hav made great strides in terms of fuel economy and emissions reduction since the 1970s. Given the space and performance available for the price, nothing can touch it.

  10. By Joe Machado #10, Posted: 6/5/2007

    With gas prices at $3 plus many people have to chose between their supermarket list on any given Saturday or a full tank on their trucks. Most buyers want to know if they can afford the monthly payments, completely ignoring the cost of maintenance and gasoline to power the big "rigs" or their luxury imports. Prestige and fashion go right along with pocket power. Credit makes it easy to acquire, however, once you get over the "honeymoon" with your new and wasteful vehicle reality sets it. I belive that environment issues along with cost of maintaining such vehicles will play a major role in their possible ressurgence. I have a Tacoma crew cab repalcing a large V8. It is still expensive to buy, however, much easier to afford on a monthly basis. To top it off, I can do the same the big rigs do with the exception of heavy towing. On the other hand I don't own a boat.

Post a comment

Post anonymously, or
(Required)
(Required - will not be published, sold or shared)
(Optional - your 'posted by' name will link to the URL)

Remember Me?

I have read TheCarConnection.com's privacy policy