From: m6onz5a on
On Oct 27, 11:04 am, "C. E. White" <cewhi...(a)removemindspring.com>
wrote:
> A Toyota commercial they are running in my area claims that 80% of all
> Toyota sold in the last 20 years are still on the road. This seemed to
> be a very low number to me. What do other think?
>
> I would have thought given Toyota's increase in sales over the last
> twenty years they would have had more like 90% of the cars sold in the
> last 20 years still on the road. Toyota sales have been increasing
> over the last twenty years, so a higher percentage of Toyotas will be
> newer models. Since a high percentage of Toyotas are newer vehicles
> that are more likely to still be on the road, the overall percentage
> of Toyotas sold in the last 20 years will be higher (becasue of the
> newer car bias). For GM, the math works the other way. GM sales have
> been stagnent or actually declining over the last 20 years, so a
> higher percentage of their cars will be older and therefore less
> likely to still be on the road. I am sure the 80% number is based on
> registrations, so it might be that it over estimates the number
> actually in daily use - or under estimates it in cases where cars are
> used off road (or illeagally) and not registered.
>
> Does anyone have any actual numbers? I am confident that 100% of the
> NEW vehicles I purchased in the last 20 years are still on the road,
> but maybe I am an exception.
>
> Here is sort of what I am thinking.....NOT REAL NUMBERS -
>
> For a manufacturer with increasing sales (5% increase per year)
>
> Year     Original   Percent    Total
> Sold     Sales      On road    On Road
> 1990     500000     33%      165000
> 1991     525000     38%      199500
> 1992     551250     43%      237038
> 1993     578813     48%      277830
> 1994     607753      53%     322109
> 1995     638141      58%     370122
> 1996     670048      63%     422130
> 1997     703550      68%     478414
> 1998     738728      72%     531884
> 1999     775664      76%     589505
> 2000     814447      80%     651558
> 2001     855170      84%     718343
> 2002     897928      88%     790177
> 2003     942825      91%     857970
> 2004     989966      93%     920668
> 2005   1039464      96%     997886
> 2006   1091437      97%    1058694
> 2007   1146009      98%    1123089
> 2008   1203310      99%    1191277
> 2009   1263475      99%    1250840
> Total  16532977     80%  13154033
>
> For a manufacturer with slightly decreasing sales (1% decrease per
> year), but same percent still on the road:
>
> 1990     1263475     33%     416947
> 1991     1250840     38%     475319
> 1992     1238332     43%     532483
> 1993     1225949     48%     588455
> 1994     1213689     53%     643255
> 1995     1201552     58%     696900
> 1996     1189537     63%     749408
> 1997     1177641     68%     800796
> 1998     1165865     72%     839423
> 1999     1154206     76%     877197
> 2000     1142664     80%     914131
> 2001     1131238     84%     950240
> 2002     1119925     88%     985534
> 2003     1108726     91%     1008941
> 2004     1097639     93%     1020804
> 2005     1086662     96%     1043196
> 2006     1075796     97%     1043522
> 2007     1065038     98%     1043737
> 2008     1054387     99%     1043843
> 2009     1043843     99%     1033405
> Total   23007003     73%   16707535
>
> The net is, manufacturers that have similar reliability can have
> significantly different percentages of vehicles built in the last 20
> years still on the road. Ergo, the Toyota's ad claim is at best
> meaningless, at worst deliberately misleading....but then I've always
> assumed that the Chevy (or sometimes Dodge) ads that clam their trucks
> are the most reliable and longest lasting (based on registration data)
> are deliberately misleading. So, I don't think Toyota is being
> espeically misleading, but I wonder how many people understand the ad?
> I'll bet many people think Toyota is saying 80% of 20 year old Toyotas
> are still on the road, instead of 80% of the Toyotas sold in the last
> twenty years....isn't marketing wonderful. There is a huge difference
> in the two statements.
>
> Ed

All of those old cars must be hiding somewhere because I hardly ever
see any old ones on the road.
From: N8N on
On Oct 27, 11:04 am, "C. E. White" <cewhi...(a)removemindspring.com>
wrote:
> A Toyota commercial they are running in my area claims that 80% of all
> Toyota sold in the last 20 years are still on the road. This seemed to
> be a very low number to me. What do other think?

Somewhere I remember seeing stats of vehicle survival broken down by
mfgr - although I haven't a clue where I saw it now, and can't be
arsed to look at the moment. IIRC the longest-lived vehicles aren't
necessarily the ones you'd think - e.g. Porsche was near the top of
the list. (of course, I'm contributing to that stat myself, although
I also have a fairly aged F-150 as well.)

nate
From: Michael on
On Oct 27, 8:04 am, "C. E. White" <cewhi...(a)removemindspring.com>
wrote:
> A Toyota commercial they are running in my area claims that 80% of all
> Toyota sold in the last 20 years are still on the road. This seemed to
> be a very low number to me. What do other think?
>
> I would have thought given Toyota's increase in sales over the last
> twenty years they would have had more like 90% of the cars sold in the
> last 20 years still on the road. Toyota sales have been increasing
> over the last twenty years, so a higher percentage of Toyotas will be
> newer models. Since a high percentage of Toyotas are newer vehicles
> that are more likely to still be on the road, the overall percentage
> of Toyotas sold in the last 20 years will be higher (becasue of the
> newer car bias). For GM, the math works the other way. GM sales have
> been stagnent or actually declining over the last 20 years, so a
> higher percentage of their cars will be older and therefore less
> likely to still be on the road. I am sure the 80% number is based on
> registrations, so it might be that it over estimates the number
> actually in daily use - or under estimates it in cases where cars are
> used off road (or illeagally) and not registered.
>
> Does anyone have any actual numbers? I am confident that 100% of the
> NEW vehicles I purchased in the last 20 years are still on the road,
> but maybe I am an exception.
>
> Here is sort of what I am thinking.....NOT REAL NUMBERS -
>
> For a manufacturer with increasing sales (5% increase per year)
>
> Year     Original   Percent    Total
> Sold     Sales      On road    On Road
> 1990     500000     33%      165000
> 1991     525000     38%      199500
> 1992     551250     43%      237038
> 1993     578813     48%      277830
> 1994     607753      53%     322109
> 1995     638141      58%     370122
> 1996     670048      63%     422130
> 1997     703550      68%     478414
> 1998     738728      72%     531884
> 1999     775664      76%     589505
> 2000     814447      80%     651558
> 2001     855170      84%     718343
> 2002     897928      88%     790177
> 2003     942825      91%     857970
> 2004     989966      93%     920668
> 2005   1039464      96%     997886
> 2006   1091437      97%    1058694
> 2007   1146009      98%    1123089
> 2008   1203310      99%    1191277
> 2009   1263475      99%    1250840
> Total  16532977     80%  13154033
>
> For a manufacturer with slightly decreasing sales (1% decrease per
> year), but same percent still on the road:
>
> 1990     1263475     33%     416947
> 1991     1250840     38%     475319
> 1992     1238332     43%     532483
> 1993     1225949     48%     588455
> 1994     1213689     53%     643255
> 1995     1201552     58%     696900
> 1996     1189537     63%     749408
> 1997     1177641     68%     800796
> 1998     1165865     72%     839423
> 1999     1154206     76%     877197
> 2000     1142664     80%     914131
> 2001     1131238     84%     950240
> 2002     1119925     88%     985534
> 2003     1108726     91%     1008941
> 2004     1097639     93%     1020804
> 2005     1086662     96%     1043196
> 2006     1075796     97%     1043522
> 2007     1065038     98%     1043737
> 2008     1054387     99%     1043843
> 2009     1043843     99%     1033405
> Total   23007003     73%   16707535
>
> The net is, manufacturers that have similar reliability can have
> significantly different percentages of vehicles built in the last 20
> years still on the road. Ergo, the Toyota's ad claim is at best
> meaningless, at worst deliberately misleading....but then I've always
> assumed that the Chevy (or sometimes Dodge) ads that clam their trucks
> are the most reliable and longest lasting (based on registration data)
> are deliberately misleading. So, I don't think Toyota is being
> espeically misleading, but I wonder how many people understand the ad?
> I'll bet many people think Toyota is saying 80% of 20 year old Toyotas
> are still on the road, instead of 80% of the Toyotas sold in the last
> twenty years....isn't marketing wonderful. There is a huge difference
> in the two statements.
>
> Ed


You might try digging in the www.census.gov website.

Not sure how much this will help you: http://www.census.gov/svsd/www/vius/2002.html

Good luck,

Michael
From: clare on
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:33:54 +0000 (UTC), Tegger <invalid(a)invalid.inv>
wrote:

>"C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)removemindspring.com> wrote in news:4ae70c7c$1
>@kcnews01:
>
>> A Toyota commercial they are running in my area claims that 80% of all
>> Toyota sold in the last 20 years are still on the road. This seemed to
>> be a very low number to me. What do other think?
>>
>
>
>I guess it depends where you live. In my area (the Rust Belt of north-
>eastern North America), Toyota's number seems impossibly high, unless that
>missing 20% is all concentrated up here.
>
>My personal guess, based on my visual observations while on the road each
>day, is that overall the percentage of cars (not just Toyotas) still in
>daily use after 20 years would be more like one to five percent.
>
>I infrequently see cars (of any make) older than about 1992. Cars older
>than about 1989 are almost non-existent around here.


You need to read the claim.
80% of vehicles sold over the last 20 years are still on the road.
This could be true even if NO 20 year old Toyotas were still on the
road. There are still a significant number of 1989 Toyotas on the
road, particularly in the south, and California (where the majority
were sold in the beginning)
From: Vic Smith on
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:04:36 -0400, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3(a)removemindspring.com> wrote:

>A Toyota commercial they are running in my area claims that 80% of all
>Toyota sold in the last 20 years are still on the road. This seemed to
>be a very low number to me. What do other think?
>
>I would have thought given Toyota's increase in sales over the last
>twenty years they would have had more like 90% of the cars sold in the
>last 20 years still on the road. Toyota sales have been increasing
>over the last twenty years, so a higher percentage of Toyotas will be
>newer models. Since a high percentage of Toyotas are newer vehicles
>that are more likely to still be on the road, the overall percentage
>of Toyotas sold in the last 20 years will be higher (becasue of the
>newer car bias). For GM, the math works the other way. GM sales have
>been stagnent or actually declining over the last 20 years, so a
>higher percentage of their cars will be older and therefore less
>likely to still be on the road. I am sure the 80% number is based on
>registrations, so it might be that it over estimates the number
>actually in daily use - or under estimates it in cases where cars are
>used off road (or illeagally) and not registered.
>
>Does anyone have any actual numbers? I am confident that 100% of the
>NEW vehicles I purchased in the last 20 years are still on the road,
>but maybe I am an exception.
>
As you say (snipped the rest for brevity) the ad is deceptive.
What else is new?
Steve Scharf posted this link some time back in a discussion about
longevity.
http://www.desrosiers.ca/2007%20Update/Documents%20and%20Reports/2007%20OBS/Trends%20in%20Vehicle%20Longevity.pdf

It's a bit dated, and GM/Ford/Chrysler is lumped in one bucket,
"imports" in another. And it's Canadian.
No raw numbers or fine breakdowns, which always disappoints the
analyst in me. Because of that I don't really trust it. I don't know
the "intent" of the report or who put the numbers together, and how
they did it. Call me the eternal skeptic.

R.L. Polk is a company that has access to state registration
databases.
http://usa.polk.com/Industries/Research/
"Polk Used Vehicle Registration Reports
Used vehicle registration statistics assist you with stocking
inventory, purchasing vehicles at auction as well as identifying
market trends and unveiling opportunities. The reports are completely
customizable you define the specifications, geography and
time-period."

I actually called them once to inquire about getting an extract of
registration data. Just to satisfy my curiosity about longevity and
as a tool in arguments.
It was too expensive for that purpose.
But with registration data and sales data, longevity is easy enough to
figure out. And it's not a high volume of data.
Make/Model/Year - maybe cylinders and color, depending on the state.
Perhaps 20 bytes max per car, depending.
Have to talk to the data guy who knows the format.
Breakdowns by state (rust belt vs non-rustbelt) could be done.
Of course there are built-in "unknowns" due to vehicles relocating
from state to state, but most stay home in one state.
Here's an example of why color could be useful, if only to satisfy
curiosity.
I've got a white '97 Lumina. Good runner, basically repair-free.
Just did a 3K mile trip to Florida with it. About 150k miles on it.
Thing is, a lot of these white Luminas suffer from peeling paint.
Comes off in big honking sheets, leaving the undercoat.
I stopped mine pretty early by pulling off the loose stuff and sealing
the edges and covering the primer with a few cans of spay paint.
Doesn't look very good when close, but I don't care.
I've seen a lot of these white Luminas with the poor paint.
Wonder how many get junked early because of that paint.
Most people just won't put up with that.
Just curious. But that's the type of thing that will show up in the
numbers. But you have to have the numbers.
Otherwise you're dealing with anecdotes.

--Vic






>