Americans keeping their cars on the road longer than ever
According to a study recently published by R. L. Polk & Co., Americans are keeping their cars on the road longer than ever before. One look at our recent posts on monthly sales figures should be enough to explain the phenomenon, as drivers are delaying the purchase of a new vehicle as long as possible. Much of this trend can be attributed to the current economic climate since consumers have less money each month to spend on transportation needs. Last summer's record high fuel prices were also a contributing factor.
After analyzing data from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008, Polk has found that the average passenger car in use in 2008 was 9.4 years old, a figure that surpasses the previous record of 9.2 years from the last two years. Light trucks don't survive quite as long, though the 7.5 year average is still higher than the 7.1 figure from '07. A total of 5.6 percent of all vehicles were scrapped in 2008.
An interesting side note to all of this data is that older cars are almost universally dirtier and less fuel efficient that their newer siblings, meaning that this could turn into quite the dirty trend if it continues in the coming years.
[Source: R. L. Polk & Co.]
PRESS RELEASE:
U.S. Vehicle Median Age Increased in 2008, According to Polk
* Median age for passenger cars was a record high of 9.4 years
* The total vehicle scrappage rate increased to 5.6 percent in 2008; led by light truck scrappage increase
SOUTHFIELD, Mich. (Mar. 3, 2009) – The median age of passenger cars in operation increased to 9.4 years in 2008, breaking the previous two-year record high of 9.2 years, according to figures released today by R. L. Polk & Co. in its annual vehicle population report.
The median age for all trucks in 2008 increased to 7.6 years from 7.3 years in 2007. Light trucks increased from 7.1 years in 2007 to 7.5 years in 2008 (TABLE A). Polk's annual vehicle population report represents data from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008, following an in-depth analysis of more than 249 million vehicles.
"As the fleet of pick-up trucks, SUVs and minivans purchased in the late 1980s and through the 1990s ages, their scrappage rates accelerate," said Dave Goebel, solutions consultant for Polk's aftermarket team.
The percentage of total passenger cars and trucks scrapped in 2008 increased to 5.6 percent compared to 5.2 percent in 2007. The passenger car scrappage rate was 5.1 percent. For all trucks the scrappage rate was 6.3 percent and light truck scrappage was 6.4 percent, both up notably from 2007 (TABLE B).
"The current economic environment, coupled with high gas prices last spring and summer, have resulted in consumers delaying purchases of vehicles because their discretionary income has fallen," said Goebel. "Based on the uncertainty of what the future holds, consumers are trying to keep their current vehicles running longer, until their confidence improves."
Polk analysts also anticipate that in bad economic times, the threshold of repair costs may increase. Consumers could feel as though paying a repair expense to keep the vehicle going for a year is more sensible or affordable than a monthly vehicle payment over an extended period of time.
About R. L. Polk & Co.
R. L. Polk & Co. is the premier provider of automotive information and marketing solutions. Polk 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, Mich. with operations in Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
paulwesterberg 12:45PM (3/04/2009)
People aren't buying new cars because the new cars are not any better. They have more efficient, more powerful engines, but they also weigh more so overall performance is the same. Newer cars have lots of features and doodads, but the propulsion system is the same. They produce less smog, but they burn the same amount of gas.
In 1985 the fleet fuel economy for passenger cars was 27.5 in 2007 it was still 27.5.
People want to buy more fuel efficient vehicles, but car makers(especially american car makers) are not producing them. Car makers don't care about mpg because they don't pay for the fuel. Cars are a horrible investment why would someone spend a bunch of cash on something that is only marginally better than what they have?
What we need is a tax or feebate on new cars based on the mpg of the vehicle. This would make buying fuel efficient vehicles more attractive to buyers and make car manufactures pay more attention to mileage.
Reply
chuck 3:55PM (3/04/2009)
I agree completely. I'm waiting for an attractive, sporty, and efficient plug in hybrid or range-extended battery electric. Nothing currently on the market represents an worthy upgrade, and is simply not worth it from a resource-conscious perspective
Tim 1:07PM (3/04/2009)
People aren't buying new cars because they can't afford them, PERIOD. America's standard of living is dropping faster than Obama's campaign promises or Clinton’s pants.
I know, let's tax the productive until they ALL leave the county. That way, we can be 2nd world nation! The rich are EVIL so let's make sure everyone is poor. That way, we can ALL work for gov’t! When all the rich are gone, where are the taxes going to come from?
Redistribution and big gov’t is working, we're all getting poorer. First Clinton, then Bush and now Obama putting the final nails in the Constitution’s coffin.
Land of the Free? B.S.!! Home of the well regulated!
Home of the Brave? B.S.!! Land of the too scared to pay for your own damn mistakes!
Welcome to the U.S.S.A.!
Reply
John 3:57PM (3/04/2009)
Actually I'm still doing fine. Enjoy your wallow in self pity, useless and greedy conservative
SteveCT 4:14PM (3/04/2009)
Uh, Tim, ever heard of a little thing called "cognitive dissonance"?
You say Obama's campaign promises aren't being kept...but I thought those were the "socialist" campaign promises you so vehemently opposed. If Obama isn't keeping his campaign promises, doesn't that mean he's not socialist?
Of course, Obama IS keeping his campaign promises, to a degree that I'd call unprecedented if it weren't what every politician ought to do in the first place. I know that when you talk about "redistribution," you're just referring to the wealthy paying their fair share of the tax burden necessary to provide essential government services (for example, interstate highways) which people like yourself oppose but hypocritically use on a regular basis.
Feel free to go live somewhere that isn't socialist, like, say, Saudi Arabia, or Iraq. Most of the countries in the world either call themselves socialist (whether they actually are or not) or would be considered socialist in your worldview.
Randy C. 1:10PM (3/04/2009)
"An interesting side note to all of this data is that older cars are almost universally dirtier". And a gas or diesel powered car will keep getting dirtier as it ages due to wear on the components like pistons and rings. The catalytic converter, the main emissions control part, also clogs wit impurities over time and requires regular replacement to keep the emissions down to day one levels.
An electric car will be as clean at 10 years old as the day it was made. If you go the the "Aren't you just replacing a tail pipe with a smoke stack?" argument the electric car is actually getting cleaner as the years go by. As more and more renewable energy in the form of solar and wind power the percentage of combustion provided electricity is reduced. The net result is reduced total emissions form the first day the electric car hit the road.
Also I would like to point out that hydrogen will consume 4 to 5 times the amount of electricity per mile as a simple Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV). This also results in 4 to 5 times the pollution of a BEV from the same power source.
Reply
Sasparilla 1:10PM (3/04/2009)
While the author states the older cars are dirtier and less fuel efficient, that is not the case depending on how far you go back. Dirtier they probably are, but fuel efficiency has been going down most of this decade.
I have a 2000 Honda CR-V, it averages around 30mpg with an automatic. Don't even try that with the next model CR-V or the current one. Or any vehicle in the small SUV class that you could go out and buy for the last 4 years. Older is more efficient here.
I have a Saturn SL2, small 4 door Saturn that averages (not highway, average) 33mpg or so with an automatic. There's very few 4 door GM vehicles that could do this from the last 4 years.
So, older may be dirtier (don't really know how much), but if you go back 10 years or so, older may often be more efficient.
Reply
theboomboomcars 1:57PM (3/04/2009)
I agree. I have a '95 del Sol and get an average of 38 mpg per tank, I get about 41 if I drive straight freeway with spirited driving. If I wanted to replace it with a new car I couldn't get the same fuel efficiency without spending quite a bit of money, and I would end up with a car that isn't as fun to drive or have a removable top.
DasBoese 5:35PM (3/04/2009)
It's because cars keep getting heavier and people demand faster and more powerful cars all the time. Some economy cars today are more powerful than a sports car 20 or 30 years ago.
The former can be combated with careful engineering, the latter is, I fear, a fundamental problem.
Kevin 1:45PM (3/04/2009)
I had an 88 regal coupe that got 30mpg on the interstate at 75-80mph.
and it fit 5 people very comfortably.
But, I think it's not so much the standard of living changes. I mean the rich are getting taxed more. But not like you think.
What has happened in the last 30 years is that the rich have gotten obscenely rich and the middle class have gotten terribly poor or obscenely rich.
Yet, we can look at the tax system from 30 years ago and see that the rich today have more deductions and about half the taxes they once had.
If the rich would consistently reinvest the money, it works out alright. The trick is that they tend to at some point finish making money and go retire. At that point, they stop being productive with the cash and tend to hoard it, only buying things that they need rather than want.
The middle class or the poor don't have the ability to hoard anything and are stuck buying exactly what they need cause they can't buy what they want.
Notice, the rich stop buying things at some point and the rest of the trickle down economic system stops working until those rich folk die off which is usually 30-50 years from the point they retire.
Reply
DasBoese 5:04PM (3/04/2009)
Older cars being "dirtier" is relative, and especially for the future I wouldn't worry about it too much.
Remember that a first-gen catalytic converter already cuts 95% of harmful emissions, thus cars on the road today are, on average, far cleaner than ten years ago, while cars on the road in ten years time will be only marginally "cleaner" than today. The more harmful emissions you remove, the harder it gets to remove the rest, and we're already damn far. A new car's exhaust consists almost entirely of CO2 which, aside from possible climate impact, is harmless.
Reply
Bill 2:46PM (3/05/2009)
I'm looking for something like the vehicle pictured (Mercedes diesel)
Don't care about emissons, as I'm much more worried about another pipeline breakdown/massive gasoline shortage like we had here in the SE USA last fall.
Diesel stores far longer (and safer) than gasoline...
Reply