GM, Ford sales plunge, Chrysler falls to No. 4

GM, Ford sales plunge, Chrysler falls to No. 4
[url]http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/03/news/companies/autosales/index.htm?postversion=2007010315[/url]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- General Motors and Ford Motor ended a difficult
year with another plunge in U.S. sales, while Chrysler Group reported an
unexpected rise in sales in the month, although it wasn't enough to stop its
parent, DaimlerChrysler, from falling to fourth place in full-year U.S.
sales for the first time.

GM (Charts) sales fell 13 percent in the month, although the automaker
reported sales on per-selling-day basis that showed only a 9.7 percent
decline. The fall left GM with sales 8.7 percent lower in 2006 than the year
before.

The slide at GM in December was much worse than had been forecast. Auto
sales tracker Edmunds.com had forecast only a 5.2 percent drop for the
largest U.S. automaker in raw terms, and sales down only narrowly on a
per-sales day. Shares of Dow component GM plunged about 5 percent following
the report.

Still, Mark LaNeve, a GM vice president, said in the statement that GM's
December sales topped internal sales targets, especially in full-size pickup
trucks and SUVs, where GM debuted new models in 2006.

Alex Rosten, Manager of market analysis for Edmunds, said he thinks that
much of the problem in GM sales was that it was offering a 2007 model
pick-up with little or no incentives to induce buyers, while Dodge and Ford
were making big cash-back and other offers to move their glut of 2006 model
pickups still on dealers' lots.

"It shows people were shopping for the best deal, not the newest product,"
said Rosten. "Dodge's incentives hit $4,400, which was roughly double what
GM offered. But in a nutshell, it wasn't bad news for GM because they're
making more money on the vehicles they're selling. Once the '06's are gone,
the next six months should be solid for GM trucks."

Ford, Chrysler lose ground to Toyota
Ford Motor (Charts) reported that U.S. sales fell 12.8 percent from December
a year earlier. As bad as that was, it was better than the forecast of
nearly a 20 percent drop made by Edmunds.com, and George Pipas, Ford's
manager of sales analysis, said Ford topped its internal target and regained
lost market share in December after falling short of its own forecasts in
November. Ford shares were little changed on the report.

Still the nation's No. 2 automaker ended the year with sales of 2.9 million
vehicles, off 7.9 percent from 2005 total. And it could well be in the No. 3
position in U.S. sales in 2007.

Ford's December sales were once again less than reported by Toyota Motor
(Charts), and its current U.S. market share, which Pipas estimates at 14.8
percent, would likely put it behind Toyota's share in 2007. The Japanese
automaker, which is also expected to pass GM in global sales in 2007, had
better than 15 percent of the U.S. market in 2006.

Ford unveils Ford unveils Mustang-based concept
While sales of Ford's car models posted a 5.4 percent rise, its light truck
models saw sales tumble 14.3 percent. That was crucial for the company,
which depends on sales of the more expensive pickups and SUVs for its
profits. Even with the plunge, light truck models account for 62 percent of
sales.

Ford's F-series pickup truck - the best selling U.S. vehicle - saw sales off
21 percent in December from year earlier levels, and saw full-year sales
down nearly 12 percent, dropping more than 100,000. Pipas blamed the
combination of gas prices and a weak home-building market for the decline,
as the pickup is popular with builders.

Chrysler reported its U.S. sales gained 1 percent to 190,415 vehicles in the
month, up 1 percent from year-earlier sales. Edmunds.com had been looking
for a 6.7 percent decline in sales for the period.

But Mercedes-Benz, the luxury brand which, like Chrysler, is owned by
DaimlerChrysler (Charts), reported a 10 percent drop in sales, leaving the
overall company with a 1 percent drop in U.S. sales in December from a year
earlier.

Even with better-than-expected November results, Chrysler ended the year
with U.S. sales of 2.1 million, off 7 percent from 2005, while Mercedes
gained 11 percent for the year. That left DaimlerChrysler's sales here down
5 percent to 2.4 million vehicles.

The result dropped DaimlerChrysler into fourth place in U.S. sales for a
full year for the first time.

Toyota meanwhile posted a slightly-better-than 12 percent rise in both
December and full-year sales, topping Edmunds forecasts. Its full year sales
came in at 2.5 million, and the company is likely poised for more gains in
2007 as it introduces a full-size pickup for the first time and continues to
offer fuel efficient cars for those concerned about gasoline prices.

Like Toyota, Honda Motor (Charts) also reported record U.S. sales for the
full year, although its December sales were narrowly lower than a year
earlier, it topped Edmunds' forecast. The sales tracker is looking for the
other major Japanese automaker, Nissan (Charts), to report a drop in
December sales later in the day Wednesday.



--
The brave might not live forever but the timid do not live at all

In article <12po9n8ljlr1h4d@corp.supernews.com>,
"Jim Higgins" <gordian238@hotmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> GM, Ford sales plunge, Chrysler falls to No. 4
> [url]http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/03/news/companies/autosales/index.htm?postversion[/url]
> =2007010315
>
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- General Motors and Ford Motor ended a difficult
> year with another plunge in U.S. sales, while Chrysler Group reported an
> unexpected rise in sales in the month, although it wasn't enough to stop its
> parent, DaimlerChrysler, from falling to fourth place in full-year U.S.
> sales for the first time.
>
> GM (Charts) sales fell 13 percent in the month, although the automaker
> reported sales on per-selling-day basis that showed only a 9.7 percent
> decline. The fall left GM with sales 8.7 percent lower in 2006 than the year
> before.
>
> The slide at GM in December was much worse than had been forecast. Auto
> sales tracker Edmunds.com had forecast only a 5.2 percent drop for the
> largest U.S. automaker in raw terms, and sales down only narrowly on a
> per-sales day. Shares of Dow component GM plunged about 5 percent following
> the report.
>
> Still, Mark LaNeve, a GM vice president, said in the statement that GM's
> December sales topped internal sales targets, especially in full-size pickup
> trucks and SUVs, where GM debuted new models in 2006.
>
> Alex Rosten, Manager of market analysis for Edmunds, said he thinks that
> much of the problem in GM sales was that it was offering a 2007 model
> pick-up with little or no incentives to induce buyers, while Dodge and Ford
> were making big cash-back and other offers to move their glut of 2006 model
> pickups still on dealers' lots.
>
> "It shows people were shopping for the best deal, not the newest product,"
> said Rosten. "Dodge's incentives hit $4,400, which was roughly double what
> GM offered. But in a nutshell, it wasn't bad news for GM because they're
> making more money on the vehicles they're selling. Once the '06's are gone,
> the next six months should be solid for GM trucks."
>
> Ford, Chrysler lose ground to Toyota
> Ford Motor (Charts) reported that U.S. sales fell 12.8 percent from December
> a year earlier. As bad as that was, it was better than the forecast of
> nearly a 20 percent drop made by Edmunds.com, and George Pipas, Ford's
> manager of sales analysis, said Ford topped its internal target and regained
> lost market share in December after falling short of its own forecasts in
> November. Ford shares were little changed on the report.
>
> Still the nation's No. 2 automaker ended the year with sales of 2.9 million
> vehicles, off 7.9 percent from 2005 total. And it could well be in the No. 3
> position in U.S. sales in 2007.
>
> Ford's December sales were once again less than reported by Toyota Motor
> (Charts), and its current U.S. market share, which Pipas estimates at 14.8
> percent, would likely put it behind Toyota's share in 2007. The Japanese
> automaker, which is also expected to pass GM in global sales in 2007, had
> better than 15 percent of the U.S. market in 2006.
>
> Ford unveils Ford unveils Mustang-based concept
> While sales of Ford's car models posted a 5.4 percent rise, its light truck
> models saw sales tumble 14.3 percent. That was crucial for the company,
> which depends on sales of the more expensive pickups and SUVs for its
> profits. Even with the plunge, light truck models account for 62 percent of
> sales.
>
> Ford's F-series pickup truck - the best selling U.S. vehicle - saw sales off
> 21 percent in December from year earlier levels, and saw full-year sales
> down nearly 12 percent, dropping more than 100,000. Pipas blamed the
> combination of gas prices and a weak home-building market for the decline,
> as the pickup is popular with builders.
>
> Chrysler reported its U.S. sales gained 1 percent to 190,415 vehicles in the
> month, up 1 percent from year-earlier sales. Edmunds.com had been looking
> for a 6.7 percent decline in sales for the period.
>
> But Mercedes-Benz, the luxury brand which, like Chrysler, is owned by
> DaimlerChrysler (Charts), reported a 10 percent drop in sales, leaving the
> overall company with a 1 percent drop in U.S. sales in December from a year
> earlier.
>
> Even with better-than-expected November results, Chrysler ended the year
> with U.S. sales of 2.1 million, off 7 percent from 2005, while Mercedes
> gained 11 percent for the year. That left DaimlerChrysler's sales here down
> 5 percent to 2.4 million vehicles.
>
> The result dropped DaimlerChrysler into fourth place in U.S. sales for a
> full year for the first time.
>
> Toyota meanwhile posted a slightly-better-than 12 percent rise in both
> December and full-year sales, topping Edmunds forecasts. Its full year sales
> came in at 2.5 million, and the company is likely poised for more gains in
> 2007 as it introduces a full-size pickup for the first time and continues to
> offer fuel efficient cars for those concerned about gasoline prices.
>
> Like Toyota, Honda Motor (Charts) also reported record U.S. sales for the
> full year, although its December sales were narrowly lower than a year
> earlier, it topped Edmunds' forecast. The sales tracker is looking for the
> other major Japanese automaker, Nissan (Charts), to report a drop in
> December sales later in the day Wednesday.
>
>
>
> --
> The brave might not live forever but the timid do not live at all[/color]

They sell gas hogs. GM, Ford and the other one need to be innovative
again if they are to survive. Cut the workforce, get out from the union
contracts and make killer vehicles, (taken from killer apps in the
computer world). These guys need to wow a wide body of potential buyers
not just a few red-necks that only want pick-um-up's. They need to quit
being followers and instead be leaders in the field.

I doubt it will happen.
--

In article <12po9n8ljlr1h4d@corp.supernews.com>
[email]gordian238@hotmail.com[/email] "Jim Higgins" writes:
[color=blue]
> GM, Ford sales plunge, Chrysler falls to No. 4
> [report][/color]

Dear me, I may shed a tear or two.
--
Andrew Stephenson

" dbu," <repubs@waitfor08.com> wrote in message
news:repubs-358C64.16400603012007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=blue]
> In article <12po9n8ljlr1h4d@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Jim Higgins" <gordian238@hotmail.com> wrote:[color=green]
>> GM, Ford sales plunge, Chrysler falls to No. 4
>> [url]http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/03/news/companies/autosales/index.htm?postversion[/url]
>> =2007010315
>>
>> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- General Motors and Ford Motor ended a
>> difficult
>> year with another plunge in U.S. sales, while Chrysler Group reported an
>> unexpected rise in sales in the month, although it wasn't enough to stop
>> its
>> parent, DaimlerChrysler, from falling to fourth place in full-year U.S.
>> sales for the first time.
>>
>> GM (Charts) sales fell 13 percent in the month, although the automaker
>> reported sales on per-selling-day basis that showed only a 9.7 percent
>> decline. The fall left GM with sales 8.7 percent lower in 2006 than the
>> year
>> before.
>>
>> The slide at GM in December was much worse than had been forecast. Auto
>> sales tracker Edmunds.com had forecast only a 5.2 percent drop for the
>> largest U.S. automaker in raw terms, and sales down only narrowly on a
>> per-sales day. Shares of Dow component GM plunged about 5 percent
>> following
>> the report.
>>
>> Still, Mark LaNeve, a GM vice president, said in the statement that GM's
>> December sales topped internal sales targets, especially in full-size
>> pickup
>> trucks and SUVs, where GM debuted new models in 2006.
>>
>> Alex Rosten, Manager of market analysis for Edmunds, said he thinks that
>> much of the problem in GM sales was that it was offering a 2007 model
>> pick-up with little or no incentives to induce buyers, while Dodge and
>> Ford
>> were making big cash-back and other offers to move their glut of 2006
>> model
>> pickups still on dealers' lots.
>>
>> "It shows people were shopping for the best deal, not the newest
>> product,"
>> said Rosten. "Dodge's incentives hit $4,400, which was roughly double
>> what
>> GM offered. But in a nutshell, it wasn't bad news for GM because they're
>> making more money on the vehicles they're selling. Once the '06's are
>> gone,
>> the next six months should be solid for GM trucks."
>>
>> Ford, Chrysler lose ground to Toyota
>> Ford Motor (Charts) reported that U.S. sales fell 12.8 percent from
>> December
>> a year earlier. As bad as that was, it was better than the forecast of
>> nearly a 20 percent drop made by Edmunds.com, and George Pipas, Ford's
>> manager of sales analysis, said Ford topped its internal target and
>> regained
>> lost market share in December after falling short of its own forecasts in
>> November. Ford shares were little changed on the report.
>>
>> Still the nation's No. 2 automaker ended the year with sales of 2.9
>> million
>> vehicles, off 7.9 percent from 2005 total. And it could well be in the
>> No. 3
>> position in U.S. sales in 2007.
>>
>> Ford's December sales were once again less than reported by Toyota Motor
>> (Charts), and its current U.S. market share, which Pipas estimates at
>> 14.8
>> percent, would likely put it behind Toyota's share in 2007. The Japanese
>> automaker, which is also expected to pass GM in global sales in 2007, had
>> better than 15 percent of the U.S. market in 2006.
>>
>> Ford unveils Ford unveils Mustang-based concept
>> While sales of Ford's car models posted a 5.4 percent rise, its light
>> truck
>> models saw sales tumble 14.3 percent. That was crucial for the company,
>> which depends on sales of the more expensive pickups and SUVs for its
>> profits. Even with the plunge, light truck models account for 62 percent
>> of
>> sales.
>>
>> Ford's F-series pickup truck - the best selling U.S. vehicle - saw sales
>> off
>> 21 percent in December from year earlier levels, and saw full-year sales
>> down nearly 12 percent, dropping more than 100,000. Pipas blamed the
>> combination of gas prices and a weak home-building market for the
>> decline,
>> as the pickup is popular with builders.
>>
>> Chrysler reported its U.S. sales gained 1 percent to 190,415 vehicles in
>> the
>> month, up 1 percent from year-earlier sales. Edmunds.com had been looking
>> for a 6.7 percent decline in sales for the period.
>>
>> But Mercedes-Benz, the luxury brand which, like Chrysler, is owned by
>> DaimlerChrysler (Charts), reported a 10 percent drop in sales, leaving
>> the
>> overall company with a 1 percent drop in U.S. sales in December from a
>> year
>> earlier.
>>
>> Even with better-than-expected November results, Chrysler ended the year
>> with U.S. sales of 2.1 million, off 7 percent from 2005, while Mercedes
>> gained 11 percent for the year. That left DaimlerChrysler's sales here
>> down
>> 5 percent to 2.4 million vehicles.
>>
>> The result dropped DaimlerChrysler into fourth place in U.S. sales for a
>> full year for the first time.
>>
>> Toyota meanwhile posted a slightly-better-than 12 percent rise in both
>> December and full-year sales, topping Edmunds forecasts. Its full year
>> sales
>> came in at 2.5 million, and the company is likely poised for more gains
>> in
>> 2007 as it introduces a full-size pickup for the first time and continues
>> to
>> offer fuel efficient cars for those concerned about gasoline prices.
>>
>> Like Toyota, Honda Motor (Charts) also reported record U.S. sales for the
>> full year, although its December sales were narrowly lower than a year
>> earlier, it topped Edmunds' forecast. The sales tracker is looking for
>> the
>> other major Japanese automaker, Nissan (Charts), to report a drop in
>> December sales later in the day Wednesday.
>> --
>> The brave might not live forever but the timid do not live at all[/color]
>
> They sell gas hogs. GM, Ford and the other one need to be innovative
> again if they are to survive. Cut the workforce, get out from the union
> contracts and make killer vehicles, (taken from killer apps in the
> computer world). These guys need to wow a wide body of potential buyers
> not just a few red-necks that only want pick-um-up's. They need to quit
> being followers and instead be leaders in the field.
>
> I doubt it will happen.[/color]

You're right about the gas hogs... Does GM offer a real hybrid, yet? The
CrApVEO gets 37mpg and it's a real POS. There are at least three
different - and nice - Toyotas which eke out 40-41mpg. Toyota's aggressive
moves at the low-end of the market with Yaris and the Scion brand are going
to steal a whole generation of new buyers from GM and Ford (that is, if the
Don Fearns of this world will stop buying them so the kids can get a chance
at them).

I laughed out loud late last summer when I read GM was "rushing the new
GMT-900 pickups" to market to aid in the turnaround. Yes! Gas hogs will
save the company when a gas price shock is fresh in everyone's mind! Gee,
that plan worked sooo well. It also appears GM gets extra hurtin' from
public perception that last year's product is about as good as this years
product, so there's no rush to buy that GMT-900 that GM rushed out, they'll
shop price, thank you very much.

The spin from GM is unbelievable. "[M]et internal sales targets." Who are
they kidding?

In the full press release, however, there were two bright spots for GM (if
you believe their press release):
- They cut inventory significantly (at least, I thought I read this
yesterday, now I can't find the same press release I read yesterday. I
could be wrong about this).
- They cut incentives by $700 per vehicle; prices have firmed a bit (that's
in the release now at media.gm.com)

I disagree with part of your prescription, though. Union agreements are
certainly hurting GM. However, GM agreed to those settlements, nobody put a
gun to Roger Smith's head, and GM further chose not to fund the commitments
they were making, leading to the current cost situation. In spite of the
burden imposed by these agreements, rather than fund them, GM IS PAYING
DIVIDENDS.

I'm prepared to see the union get nothing only if the shareholders and
executives also get nothing. But the latter is not on the table. Chapter
11 would let the shareholders come out with equity and CEO Wagoner's even
got a bankruptcy-proof separation agreement (gee, why would a CEO even think
to negotiate such a thing? And what corporate board would agree to such a
thing?). Alternatively, I'd think a settlement that left the Union with
half ownership in the "new" GM was fair.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url]

"DH" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message
news:459d167e$0$4772$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
[color=blue]
> different - and nice - Toyotas which eke out 40-41mpg. Toyota's
> aggressive moves at the low-end of the market with Yaris and the Scion
> brand are going to steal a whole generation of new buyers from GM and Ford[/color]

So why did sales of Scion models drop 9% (for the tC) to 20% (for the xB)
from December of 2005 to December of 2006? Could it possibly be becasue the
three Scion models have some of the worst safety records of any vehicles
sold in the US?

Dec Dec Chag
Model 2006 2005
SCION xA 2,000 2,392 -13.2
SCION xB 3,330 4,341 -20.3
SCION tC 4,996 5,724 -9.4

IIHS Injury Loss Ratings (lower is better, 100 is average)

Model Rating
SCION xA 178 (worst in its class)
SCION xB 156 (worst in its class)
SCION tC 172 (worst i its class)

The press rarely says anything bad about Toyota. With all the heat on
safety, it seems like the press ougt to call Toyota out for building some of
the most dangerous vehicles sold in this country. Only one Toyota car has a
better than average safety rating - The Avalon. The Camry has a 110 injury
loss rating (worse than average). The Matrix has the next to worst worst
injury loss rating of any vehicle in its class. And here is one for irony -
I am sure everyone remebers the IIHS offset crash test where the 4 Door
Tundra did really well and the 4 door F150 sucked. Well in the real world
the 4 Door F150 has a 59 injury loss rating (much better than average) and
the 4 door Tundra has an 89 rating (better than average). So despite all the
claims that the Tundra is "safer" than the Ford, the real world experience
is the exact opposite.

Ed

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote in message
news:45a39829$1@kcnews01...[color=blue]
>
> "DH" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message
> news:459d167e$0$4772$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>[color=green]
>> different - and nice - Toyotas which eke out 40-41mpg. Toyota's
>> aggressive moves at the low-end of the market with Yaris and the Scion
>> brand are going to steal a whole generation of new buyers from GM and
>> Ford[/color]
>
> So why did sales of Scion models drop 9% (for the tC) to 20% (for the xB)
> from December of 2005 to December of 2006? Could it possibly be becasue
> the three Scion models have some of the worst safety records of any
> vehicles sold in the US?
>
> Dec Dec Chag
> Model 2006 2005
> SCION xA 2,000 2,392 -13.2
> SCION xB 3,330 4,341 -20.3
> SCION tC 4,996 5,724 -9.4
>
> IIHS Injury Loss Ratings (lower is better, 100 is average)
>
> Model Rating
> SCION xA 178 (worst in its class)
> SCION xB 156 (worst in its class)
> SCION tC 172 (worst i its class)
>[/color]

Uh-huh. Like you'd be any safer in a crApVEO.
[color=blue]
> The press rarely says anything bad about Toyota. With all the heat on
> safety, it seems like the press ougt to call Toyota out for building some
> of the most dangerous vehicles sold in this country.[/color]

Sure. "Media bias" is the last refuge of whiners, you know.
[color=blue]
> Only one Toyota car has a better than average safety rating - The Avalon.
> The Camry has a 110 injury loss rating (worse than average). The Matrix
> has the next to worst worst injury loss rating of any vehicle in its
> class. And here is one for irony - I am sure everyone remebers the IIHS
> offset crash test where the 4 Door Tundra did really well and the 4 door
> F150 sucked. Well in the real world the 4 Door F150 has a 59 injury loss
> rating (much better than average) and the 4 door Tundra has an 89 rating
> (better than average). So despite all the claims that the Tundra is
> "safer" than the Ford, the real world experience is the exact opposite.
>
> Ed[/color]

Are those Ford injury loss ratings adjusted for days the vehicle couldn't be
driven because it was waiting for repairs?

In 2002, the IIHS report put the '99-'00 Rav4 as 5th best on the list of ALL
vehicles, regardless of "class." That's pretty remarkable for a 2600 lb
vehicle that's sharing the road with Hummers.

Between the winnners and the runner-ups, I don't recall seeing ANY GM,
Chrysler or Ford cars on this list:

[url]http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr112106.html[/url]

And, as I noted, the fuel economy of the crApVEO sucks. According to the
IIHS, Yaris gets 34/39 and the crApVEO gets 26/34.

I banked more money again this month. No money spent on car repairs, again.
My 4 Toyotas are a reliable way to get to the bank. It's so nice to get to
the end of the year with more money in your pocket. And, should I decide to
get a different car - a Toyota, of course - even my 8 year-old Toyota could
be sold to make up a good down payment. My friends with Toyotas prefer that
I drive Toyotas, that way I don't have to beg a ride to the dealer to pick
up my car at the end of the day. My friends without Toyotas are often glad
I have a Toyota, because they can beg a ride to the dealer to pick up their
car at the end of the day.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url]

"dh" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message
news:45a43638$0$4738$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...[color=blue]
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:45a39829$1@kcnews01...[color=green]
>>
>> "DH" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message
>> news:459d167e$0$4772$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>>[color=darkred]
>>> different - and nice - Toyotas which eke out 40-41mpg. Toyota's
>>> aggressive moves at the low-end of the market with Yaris and the Scion
>>> brand are going to steal a whole generation of new buyers from GM and
>>> Ford[/color]
>>
>> So why did sales of Scion models drop 9% (for the tC) to 20% (for the xB)
>> from December of 2005 to December of 2006? Could it possibly be becasue
>> the three Scion models have some of the worst safety records of any
>> vehicles sold in the US?
>>
>> Dec Dec Chag
>> Model 2006 2005
>> SCION xA 2,000 2,392 -13.2
>> SCION xB 3,330 4,341 -20.3
>> SCION tC 4,996 5,724 -9.4
>>
>> IIHS Injury Loss Ratings (lower is better, 100 is average)
>>
>> Model Rating
>> SCION xA 178 (worst in its class)
>> SCION xB 156 (worst in its class)
>> SCION tC 172 (worst i its class)
>>[/color]
>
> Uh-huh. Like you'd be any safer in a crApVEO.
>[color=green]
>> The press rarely says anything bad about Toyota. With all the heat on
>> safety, it seems like the press ougt to call Toyota out for building some
>> of the most dangerous vehicles sold in this country.[/color]
>
> Sure. "Media bias" is the last refuge of whiners, you know.[/color]

Who's whinning. The press goes easy on Toyota. Who recalled more veicle last
year in the US - Ford or Toyota? I bet you think it was Ford. It wasn't.
You'd never know that if you read the press. Which brand has the worst rated
dealers - Ford or Toyota? Again, it isn't Ford. Which brand rated better in
the latest JD Powers dependability study, Mercury or Toyota? Again it wasn't
Toyota. Toyota did out scored Ford in the JP Powers initial quality survey,
but do you really think the difference between 1.06 problems per car and
1.27 problems per car is significant?
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Only one Toyota car has a better than average safety rating - The Avalon.
>> The Camry has a 110 injury loss rating (worse than average). The Matrix
>> has the next to worst worst injury loss rating of any vehicle in its
>> class. And here is one for irony - I am sure everyone remebers the IIHS
>> offset crash test where the 4 Door Tundra did really well and the 4 door
>> F150 sucked. Well in the real world the 4 Door F150 has a 59 injury loss
>> rating (much better than average) and the 4 door Tundra has an 89 rating
>> (better than average). So despite all the claims that the Tundra is
>> "safer" than the Ford, the real world experience is the exact opposite.
>>
>> Ed[/color]
>
> Are those Ford injury loss ratings adjusted for days the vehicle couldn't
> be driven because it was waiting for repairs?[/color]

Ha Ha. Various members of my family have owned Fords for as long as I can
remember. I am a black sheep in that respect, since I have owned all sorts
of vehicles (inlcuding a Toyota - a truly horrible car). My Father's old
Ranger has needed only one repair in 8 years (a $50 IAC). My Mother's
Freestyle has never been back to the dealer in the two years she owned it.
Her old Grand Marquis never need a single repair in 8 years. My younger
Sister's Escape has needed two repairs in the last 7 years - a windshield
washer reservoir level sensor (warranty) and a cruise control cable ($13 - I
installed it). My 1997 Expedition needed less than $350 worth of repairs in
6 years and 149,000 miles (one coil pack, one alternator, one multifunction
stalk).
[color=blue]
> In 2002, the IIHS report put the '99-'00 Rav4 as 5th best on the list of
> ALL vehicles, regardless of "class." That's pretty remarkable for a 2600
> lb vehicle that's sharing the road with Hummers.[/color]

You are talking about the results of the IIHS crash testing, not real world
statistics. Unfortunately, in the real world, the RAV4 has a terrible record
(this only applies to 03-05 Models, I assume the 06-> models will be much
better). The 03-05 models have an injury loss rating of 139 - not worst in
class, but second worst. Only the Mitsubishi Highlander was worse in this
classs (small 2WD SUVs). The best vehicle in the RAV4's class was the Ford
Escape which had an 89 rating (lower is better, 100 is average for all
vehicles combined). This points out the less than perfect value of the IIHS
"special" tests. They make good television, but vehicles that do good in
these IIHS tests don't necessarily do well in the real world. Toyota does a
great jo of designing their vehicles to groove these IIHS tests and
apparently a lousy job of building truly safe cars (at least in the past).
Many Toyota vehciles are near the bottom of their classes. This is changing.
As Toyota brings out completely new models they are doing much better. The
new 4 Runner is almost as safe as a 4 door Ford Explorer. The new Avalon is
doing well in the real world. Hopefully all of the Toyota models will at
least have "average" injury loss ratings in the near future. However, many
of the older designs are not particularly safe, no matter how well they do
in the IIHS crash tests. IIHS's own statistics make this obvious.
[color=blue]
> Between the winnners and the runner-ups, I don't recall seeing ANY GM,
> Chrysler or Ford cars on this list:
>
> [url]http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr112106.html[/url][/color]

The IIHS didn't put any cars on the list that don't offer electronic
stability control, so that means a lot of cars weren't considered, no matter
how well they did in other tests, or in real world statistics. The IIHS has
a history of trying to force manufacturer's to add less than useful safety
devices. They were on of the primary lobyist for ABS brakes, but finally
admitted that they can't prove they are making cars safer. They lobbied for
5 mph bumpers and then finally admitted that they cost more than they were
worth (unless you are an insurance company). They were all for third brake
lights, which no one has ever tried to prove were actually making cars safer
after every car had them (the studies that showed a positive safety
advantage were based on taxi cabs, when they were the only vehicles which
had them). They also pushed hard for air bags - which are probably a
negative safety device in most situations, at least if you are using your
seat belt. Popular mechanics recently ran a test were they compared accident
avoidence manuvers with and without the electronic stability control turned
on - most of the time, the ESC on resulted in worse performance even for an
"Average" drvier.
[color=blue]
> And, as I noted, the fuel economy of the crApVEO sucks. According to the
> IIHS, Yaris gets 34/39 and the crApVEO gets 26/34.[/color]

I wasn't really talking about the Aveo specifically. You appeared to claim
that Scions were going to steal a whole generation of drivers from GM and
Ford. I was pointing out that Scion sales were in free fall. Toyota fans
like to point out that Ford sales were down 8% year to year. Well Scion
sales were down much more. So it seems that Scion sales aren't really much
of a treat.
[color=blue]
> I banked more money again this month. No money spent on car repairs,
> again. My 4 Toyotas are a reliable way to get to the bank. It's so nice
> to get to the end of the year with more money in your pocket. And, should
> I decide to get a different car - a Toyota, of course - even my 8 year-old
> Toyota could be sold to make up a good down payment. My friends with
> Toyotas prefer that I drive Toyotas, that way I don't have to beg a ride
> to the dealer to pick up my car at the end of the day. My friends without
> Toyotas are often glad I have a Toyota, because they can beg a ride to the
> dealer to pick up their car at the end of the day.[/color]

Why is it that Toyota owners think everyone else is spending a fortune on
repairs? It has been at least 4 years since I had to actually pay for a
repair on anything I drive (unfortunately I can't say the same for my son -
but then driving cars throught the woods is not normal service). I had an
alternator go out on an Expedition with 110,000 miles about 6 years ago.
That is about the worst thing that has happened to me in this decade. In 10
years my sister's Honda has needed one set of plug wires and one muffler. I
can assure you that the local repair shops see plenty of Toyotas needing
work.

Ed

"C. E. White" <cewhite@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:iVgph.9553$w91.6385@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...[color=blue]
> "dh" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message
> news:45a43638$0$4738$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...[color=green]
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:45a39829$1@kcnews01...[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> "DH" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message
>>> news:459d167e$0$4772$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>>>
>>>> different - and nice - Toyotas which eke out 40-41mpg. Toyota's
>>>> aggressive moves at the low-end of the market with Yaris and the Scion
>>>> brand are going to steal a whole generation of new buyers from GM and
>>>> Ford
>>>
>>> So why did sales of Scion models drop 9% (for the tC) to 20% (for the
>>> xB) from December of 2005 to December of 2006? Could it possibly be
>>> becasue the three Scion models have some of the worst safety records of
>>> any vehicles sold in the US?
>>>
>>> Dec Dec Chag
>>> Model 2006 2005
>>> SCION xA 2,000 2,392 -13.2
>>> SCION xB 3,330 4,341 -20.3
>>> SCION tC 4,996 5,724 -9.4
>>>
>>> IIHS Injury Loss Ratings (lower is better, 100 is average)
>>>
>>> Model Rating
>>> SCION xA 178 (worst in its class)
>>> SCION xB 156 (worst in its class)
>>> SCION tC 172 (worst i its class)
>>>[/color]
>> Uh-huh. Like you'd be any safer in a crApVEO.
>>[color=darkred]
>>> The press rarely says anything bad about Toyota. With all the heat on
>>> safety, it seems like the press ougt to call Toyota out for building
>>> some of the most dangerous vehicles sold in this country.[/color]
>>
>> Sure. "Media bias" is the last refuge of whiners, you know.[/color]
>
> Who's whinning.[/color]

You.
[color=blue]
> The press goes easy on Toyota. Who recalled more veicle last year in the
> US - Ford or Toyota? I bet you think it was Ford. It wasn't. You'd never
> know that if you read the press.[/color]

Sure you do. It gets reported. I'd rather Toyota recalled cars and fixed
problems than ignored them, like GM.

Toyot buyers are probably more demanding and tend to downrate their dealers.
I'm perfectly satisfied with my dealer.

I know how this is. I was satisfied with substandard performance from GM
and Ford dealers until I switched to Volvos (much, much better) and Toyotas
(perhaps not quite on par with Volvo dealers but still quite good).
[color=blue]
> Which brand has the worst rated dealers - Ford or Toyota? Again, it isn't
> Ford. Which brand rated better in the latest JD Powers dependability
> study, Mercury or Toyota?[/color]

Mercury makes up what percent of Ford sales? 10?
[color=blue]
> Again it wasn't Toyota. Toyota did out scored Ford in the JP Powers
> initial quality survey, but do you really think the difference between
> 1.06 problems per car and 1.27 problems per car is significant?
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Only one Toyota car has a better than average safety rating - The
>>> Avalon. The Camry has a 110 injury loss rating (worse than average). The
>>> Matrix has the next to worst worst injury loss rating of any vehicle in
>>> its class. And here is one for irony - I am sure everyone remebers the
>>> IIHS offset crash test where the 4 Door Tundra did really well and the 4
>>> door F150 sucked. Well in the real world the 4 Door F150 has a 59 injury
>>> loss rating (much better than average) and the 4 door Tundra has an 89
>>> rating (better than average). So despite all the claims that the Tundra
>>> is "safer" than the Ford, the real world experience is the exact
>>> opposite.
>>>
>>> Ed[/color]
>>
>> Are those Ford injury loss ratings adjusted for days the vehicle couldn't
>> be driven because it was waiting for repairs?[/color]
>
> Ha Ha. Various members of my family have owned Fords for as long as I can
> remember. I am a black sheep in that respect, since I have owned all sorts
> of vehicles (inlcuding a Toyota - a truly horrible car). My Father's old
> Ranger has needed only one repair in 8 years (a $50 IAC). My Mother's
> Freestyle has never been back to the dealer in the two years she owned it.
> Her old Grand Marquis never need a single repair in 8 years. My younger
> Sister's Escape has needed two repairs in the last 7 years - a windshield
> washer reservoir level sensor (warranty) and a cruise control cable ($13 -
> I installed it). My 1997 Expedition needed less than $350 worth of repairs
> in 6 years and 149,000 miles (one coil pack, one alternator, one
> multifunction stalk).
>[color=green]
>> In 2002, the IIHS report put the '99-'00 Rav4 as 5th best on the list of
>> ALL vehicles, regardless of "class." That's pretty remarkable for a 2600
>> lb vehicle that's sharing the road with Hummers.[/color]
>
> You are talking about the results of the IIHS crash testing, not real
> world statistics.[/color]

No. I'm talking about the real-world injury report. It was published in
2002. That's one of the reasons I bought the car.
[color=blue]
> Unfortunately, in the real world, the RAV4 has a terrible record (this
> only applies to 03-05 Models, I assume the 06-> models will be much
> better). The 03-05 models have an injury loss rating of 139 - not worst in
> class, but second worst. Only the Mitsubishi Highlander was worse in this
> classs (small 2WD SUVs). The best vehicle in the RAV4's class was the Ford
> Escape which had an 89 rating (lower is better, 100 is average for all
> vehicles combined). This points out the less than perfect value of the
> IIHS "special" tests. They make good television, but vehicles that do good
> in these IIHS tests don't necessarily do well in the real world. Toyota
> does a great jo of designing their vehicles to groove these IIHS tests and
> apparently a lousy job of building truly safe cars (at least in the past).
> Many Toyota vehciles are near the bottom of their classes. This is
> changing. As Toyota brings out completely new models they are doing much
> better. The new 4 Runner is almost as safe as a 4 door Ford Explorer. The
> new Avalon is doing well in the real world. Hopefully all of the Toyota
> models will at least have "average" injury loss ratings in the near
> future. However, many of the older designs are not particularly safe, no
> matter how well they do in the IIHS crash tests. IIHS's own statistics
> make this obvious.
>[color=green]
>> Between the winnners and the runner-ups, I don't recall seeing ANY GM,
>> Chrysler or Ford cars on this list:
>>
>> [url]http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr112106.html[/url][/color]
>
> The IIHS didn't put any cars on the list that don't offer electronic
> stability control, so that means a lot of cars weren't considered, no
> matter how well they did in other tests, or in real world statistics. The
> IIHS has a history of trying to force manufacturer's to add less than
> useful safety devices. They were on of the primary lobyist for ABS brakes,
> but finally admitted that they can't prove they are making cars safer.
> They lobbied for 5 mph bumpers and then finally admitted that they cost
> more than they were worth (unless you are an insurance company). They were
> all for third brake lights, which no one has ever tried to prove were
> actually making cars safer after every car had them (the studies that
> showed a positive safety advantage were based on taxi cabs, when they were
> the only vehicles which had them). They also pushed hard for air bags -
> which are probably a negative safety device in most situations, at least
> if you are using your seat belt. Popular mechanics recently ran a test
> were they compared accident avoidence manuvers with and without the
> electronic stability control turned on - most of the time, the ESC on
> resulted in worse performance even for an "Average" drvier.
>[color=green]
>> And, as I noted, the fuel economy of the crApVEO sucks. According to the
>> IIHS, Yaris gets 34/39 and the crApVEO gets 26/34.[/color]
>
> I wasn't really talking about the Aveo specifically. You appeared to claim
> that Scions were going to steal a whole generation of drivers from GM and
> Ford. I was pointing out that Scion sales were in free fall. Toyota fans
> like to point out that Ford sales were down 8% year to year. Well Scion
> sales were down much more. So it seems that Scion sales aren't really much
> of a treat.
>[/color]

crApVEO sales are down, too. GM's not winning the next generation with that
car.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> I banked more money again this month. No money spent on car repairs,
>> again. My 4 Toyotas are a reliable way to get to the bank. It's so nice
>> to get to the end of the year with more money in your pocket. And,
>> should I decide to get a different car - a Toyota, of course - even my 8
>> year-old Toyota could be sold to make up a good down payment. My friends
>> with Toyotas prefer that I drive Toyotas, that way I don't have to beg a
>> ride to the dealer to pick up my car at the end of the day. My friends
>> without Toyotas are often glad I have a Toyota, because they can beg a
>> ride to the dealer to pick up their car at the end of the day.[/color]
>
> Why is it that Toyota owners think everyone else is spending a fortune on
> repairs? It has been at least 4 years since I had to actually pay for a
> repair on anything I drive (unfortunately I can't say the same for my
> son - but then driving cars throught the woods is not normal service). I
> had an alternator go out on an Expedition with 110,000 miles about 6 years
> ago. That is about the worst thing that has happened to me in this decade.
> In 10 years my sister's Honda has needed one set of plug wires and one
> muffler. I can assure you that the local repair shops see plenty of
> Toyotas needing work.
>
> Ed[/color]

My local repair shop, they never had Toyotas on the lot or in the bays.
It's all GM, Ford and Chrysler. Well, they get some Volvos (though not from
me, anymore) and they're always happy to hear about people who buy VWs.
They don't see me any more. I almost feel bad about this, they're nice
guys. Still, there's enough GM, Ford and Chrylser loyalists to keep them
from starving.

The service department at the local Toyota dealer IS usually busy. But the
waiting room (which is very nice, has papers, internet, drinks) is usually
full of people because they're waiting for their cars. They're all in for
an express oil change, so they don't wait long (everybody seems to bring a
coupon, too, so it's competitive with Looby-Lube).

Hear the jingling, Ed? That's money in my pocket(*).

(*) - Don't take that literally. The amount of money I saved makes more
sense to carry around as paper bills and lots of them. "Jingle" is literary
license.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [url]http://www.teranews.com[/url]

----- Original Message -----
From: "DH" <dh@stargate.com>
Newsgroups: alt.autos.toyota
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 10:26 PM
Subject: Re: GM, Ford sales plunge, Chrysler falls to No. 4

[color=blue][color=green]
>> Which brand has the worst rated dealers - Ford or Toyota? Again, it isn't
>> Ford. Which brand rated better in the latest JD Powers dependability
>> study, Mercury or Toyota?[/color]
>
> Mercury makes up what percent of Ford sales? 10?[/color]

So? The fact that Mercury rated better than Toyota ougt to tell you
something. It tells me there is not much different between Ford products and
Toyota products and that most of the exaggerated claims of Toyota reliabilty
are just that - exaggerated claims.

[color=blue][color=green]
>> You are talking about the results of the IIHS crash testing, not real
>> world statistics.[/color]
>
> No. I'm talking about the real-world injury report. It was published in
> 2002. That's one of the reasons I bought the car.[/color]

Can you give a reference? I look at the IIHS Injury loss rating regulalrly
and Toyota's are often near the bottom of the list in the various
categories. Only recently have they started to move up. Pre-2006 RAV4s
always had a much worse than average injury loss ratings. Since my SO just
bought a new RAV4, I hope the new one are much bettter.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Unfortunately, in the real world, the RAV4 has a terrible record (this
>> only applies to 03-05 Models, I assume the 06-> models will be much
>> better). The 03-05 models have an injury loss rating of 139 - not worst
>> in class, but second worst. Only the Mitsubishi Highlander was worse in
>> this classs (small 2WD SUVs).[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> crApVEO sales are down, too. GM's not winning the next generation with
> that car.[/color]

Maybe not in the US, but the things are all over Mexico. Personally you
couldn't give me one. But for that matter, I don't want a Yaris or Scion
either.
[color=blue]
> My local repair shop, they never had Toyotas on the lot or in the bays.
> It's all GM, Ford and Chrysler. Well, they get some Volvos (though not
> from me, anymore) and they're always happy to hear about people who buy
> VWs. They don't see me any more. I almost feel bad about this, they're
> nice guys. Still, there's enough GM, Ford and Chrylser loyalists to keep
> them from starving.[/color]

Maybe your local repair lot doesn't attract the Toytoa crowd. The nearest
three repair shops to me in Raleigh claim to specialize in Japanese cars.
Their lots are overflowing with Toyotas and there are no US products there
at all. Take a good look around, I am sure you can find plenty of Toyota
specialists that are making good money fixing Toyotas. Down at my farm,
there is only one local repair shop. He gets plenty of Toyotas, and Ford,
and Chevrolets - heck I've even seen a Lexus in there (and I didn't even
know anyone in the area owned one -the nearest Lexus dealer is 50 miles away
from there).
[color=blue]
>
> The service department at the local Toyota dealer IS usually busy. But
> the waiting room (which is very nice, has papers, internet, drinks) is
> usually full of people because they're waiting for their cars. They're
> all in for an express oil change, so they don't wait long (everybody seems
> to bring a coupon, too, so it's competitive with Looby-Lube).
>
> Hear the jingling, Ed? That's money in my pocket(*).[/color]

And you think this is different from people owning Fords? I do my own oil
changes, so I don't actually spend much time at car dealers. The last time I
was at the Ford store I dropped off my Thunderbird to have some magic stuff
added to the automatic transmission fluid (an "optional" recall). Seemed
like most of the people there were getting routine stuff done.


I just bought a Ford Fusion. A similar Camry would have cost me thousands
more (plus I HATE the local Toyota dealers - they are less than ethical when
it comes to pricing - $500 doc fees are ridiculous). My experinece with
Fords has been very good. Why would I spend thousand more for a less
comfortable car just becasue it is a Toyota? My SO didn't even consider
anything but a Toyota when she bought her last car - a RAV4. It is a very
nice car. I've driven it for about 1000 miles and my only complaints about
the car are the excessive wind noise (at 70+ mph), the crummy seats (base
model), and the wacky controls (I suppose you can get used to those). But,
an equivalent Ford Escape would have cost at least $3000 less. I am sure you
believe the RAV4 will be more reliable than the Escape, but this has
certainly not been my Sister's experience. She has owned an Escape for the
last 6 years and her total cost for reapirs has been less than $20 (one
crusie control cable that I installed for free). So even if the RAV4 is 100%
trouble free, is it really justifiable to spend several thousand dollars
extra to avoid a $20 repair - or even a $300 repair? The next thing you will
tell me is that you'll make it up on the resale value. Maybe this is true
for some people, but for both my SO and my Sister, the resale value will be
trivial by the time they actually replace the vehicles. Before the RAV4, my
SO owned a Camry and a Chrsler mini-van. The Camry was still moving when she
sold it, but it was leaking so much oil it was killing the grass where she
parked. She got $400 from a Mexican guy for the car. The Chrsyler mini-van
went straight to the junkyard (over 200,000 miles with a blown transmission)
but she still got $300 for it. Hopefully the RAV4 will be at least as good
as the Chrysler mini-van. At least for the RAV4 she doesn't plan to try and
tow her 21 foot sailboat behind it (that is probably one reason the mini-van
died + Jiffy Lube screwing up on a transmission oil change).

I don't think Toyotas are especially bad vehicles, I just don't think they
are especially good either. Most Toyotas are "conservative" designs, well
assembled, and somewhat over-priced. Last year when I needed a new pick-up
for my farm I strongly considered a Tacoma. In the end I ended up with a
Nissan Frontier becasue I could not justify paying another $300 for a Tacoma
with less equipment. I am not particualrly happy with the Frontier, but I am
not sure I would have been any happier with the Tacoma. The only way I could
be sure would be to go out and swap the Frontier for a Tacoma and drive the
Tacoma for a year - that is probably not going to happen.

Ed

"DH" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message
news:45a5b388$0$4875$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...[color=blue]
> Actually, after a bit of thought, the answer to that question is almost
> certainly... Yaris. It's inexpensive enough to be cannibalizing Scion
> sales. Especially around here where the Toyota dealer also carries the
> Scion, in the same showroom.[/color]

This is a good point. The Yaris sales increase (compared to "0" December
2005) was certainly greater than the total Scion sales decrease. It is hard
to make direct comparisons. When Toyota first introduced the Scion brand it
had seemed to have a negative impact on Echo, Corolla, and Celica sales. It
would be hard to say whether the Scion decrease is directly related to the
Yaris or not, but I suppose it could be. This begs the question, would
Toyota be better off if they had just labeled the Scion models as Toyota
models and ignored the whole "Scion" brand? I don't really see the point of
the Scion brand. When they first introduced the brand, it was claimed it was
intended to attract younger buyer, but most of the Scions I see are being
driven my folks within 10 years of my age (old...). When my Son was looking
for a car, he told me Scions were boring and that kids thought they were
"crummy."
[color=blue]
> Besides, it couldn't have anything to do with "worst safety records," as
> almost no one would know about that. You told us the press never reports
> anything bad about Toyota.[/color]

The press doesn't, but individuals do. My SO looked over the IIHS injury
loss ratings when her Son was looking for a new car. I suggested the Scion
tC (I actually think they are "cool"). She nixed that idea because of it's
dismal injury loss rating. He nixed it because he thinks they are "boring."
On the other hand, my SO still bought a RAV4 despite the RAV4s historically
horrible injury loss rating. I think we both believe the new model RAV4 will
be much better than the older, smaller models. She doesn't care that RAV4s
are terminally boring.

Ed

C. E. White wrote:[color=blue]
> "DH" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message
> news:459d167e$0$4772$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>[color=green]
>> different - and nice - Toyotas which eke out 40-41mpg. Toyota's
>> aggressive moves at the low-end of the market with Yaris and the Scion
>> brand are going to steal a whole generation of new buyers from GM and Ford[/color]
>
> So why did sales of Scion models drop 9% (for the tC) to 20% (for the xB)
> from December of 2005 to December of 2006? Could it possibly be becasue the
> three Scion models have some of the worst safety records of any vehicles
> sold in the US?
>
> Dec Dec Chag
> Model 2006 2005
> SCION xA 2,000 2,392 -13.2
> SCION xB 3,330 4,341 -20.3
> SCION tC 4,996 5,724 -9.4[/color]

The top-rated small cars for safety are:

Honda Civic
Subaru Impreza
Nissan Versa

"http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=40"

The Corolla did rather poorly.

For mini-cars, the Toyota Yaris was top-rated, and the Scion Xb did only
slightly worse than the Chevy Aveo, with better front and rear ratings,
but poorer side ratings due to the lack of side air bags. The Scion Xb
is definitely a vehicle to avoid, due to the lack of side airbags.

"http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=90"

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:45a6b364$0$68978$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...[color=blue]
> C. E. White wrote:[color=green]
>> "DH" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message
>> news:459d167e$0$4772$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>>[color=darkred]
>>> different - and nice - Toyotas which eke out 40-41mpg. Toyota's
>>> aggressive moves at the low-end of the market with Yaris and the Scion
>>> brand are going to steal a whole generation of new buyers from GM and
>>> Ford[/color]
>>
>> So why did sales of Scion models drop 9% (for the tC) to 20% (for the xB)
>> from December of 2005 to December of 2006? Could it possibly be becasue
>> the three Scion models have some of the worst safety records of any
>> vehicles sold in the US?
>>
>> Dec Dec Chag
>> Model 2006 2005
>> SCION xA 2,000 2,392 -13.2
>> SCION xB 3,330 4,341 -20.3
>> SCION tC 4,996 5,724 -9.4[/color]
>
> The top-rated small cars for safety are:
>
> Honda Civic
> Subaru Impreza
> Nissan Versa
>
> "http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=40"
>
> The Corolla did rather poorly.
>
> For mini-cars, the Toyota Yaris was top-rated, and the Scion Xb did only
> slightly worse than the Chevy Aveo, with better front and rear ratings,
> but poorer side ratings due to the lack of side air bags. The Scion Xb is
> definitely a vehicle to avoid, due to the lack of side airbags.
>
> "http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=90"[/color]

You are talking about the IIHS ratings based on their specific crash tests.
i was referring to the injury loss ratings which are compiled by insurance
companies and used to rate cars for insurance purposes. The xB had a much
worse than average injury loss rating, as did the Corolla. The Yaris is too
new to have an injury loss rating yet.

Ed

C. E. White wrote:
[color=blue]
> You are talking about the IIHS ratings based on their specific crash tests.
> i was referring to the injury loss ratings which are compiled by insurance
> companies and used to rate cars for insurance purposes. The xB had a much
> worse than average injury loss rating, as did the Corolla. The Yaris is too
> new to have an injury loss rating yet.[/color]

The injury loss ratings are almost meaningless in terms of actual safety.

Certain vehicles attract certain kinds of drivers, in terms of age,
driving experience, ethnicity, personality, etc., so it's helpful for
the insurance company to know the loss data.

Where the data may have some small relation to safety, is that the crash
ratings don't take into account characteristics of the vehicle such as
handling and braking, which may enable the avoidance of an accident in
the first place.

C. E. "Ed" White <cewhite@mindspring.com> wrote:[color=blue]
>
> You are talking about the IIHS ratings based on their specific crash tests.
> I was referring to the injury loss ratings which are compiled by insurance
> companies and used to rate cars for insurance purposes. The xB had a much
> worse than average injury loss rating, as did the Corolla. The Yaris is
> too new to have an injury loss rating yet.[/color]

Where does one find this information? I tried searching and perusing
the IIHS.org website, but didn't see a table of injury loss ratings. TIA.

"Bill Tuthill" <ccreekin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:45a7d3a9@news.meer.net...[color=blue]
> C. E. "Ed" White <cewhite@mindspring.com> wrote:[color=green]
>>
>> You are talking about the IIHS ratings based on their specific crash
>> tests.
>> I was referring to the injury loss ratings which are compiled by
>> insurance
>> companies and used to rate cars for insurance purposes. The xB had a
>> much
>> worse than average injury loss rating, as did the Corolla. The Yaris is
>> too new to have an injury loss rating yet.[/color]
>
> Where does one find this information? I tried searching and perusing
> the IIHS.org website, but didn't see a table of injury loss ratings. TIA.[/color]

[url]http://www.iihs.org/brochures/ictl/ictl.html[/url]