Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
Most Americans don't like tiny cars. Your average-sized MINI or GTI hatch is about as small as they'll go. I think even the Fiat 500 crossed the line there.
The problem with tiny cars, aside from safety concerns, is that they aren't that cheap. If the mini-car were getting double the mileage AND cost 1/2 as much, that's one thing. But they don't.
Another problem with small cars is that, in the US at least, they simply don't get very good fuel economy. Which again, may relate back to them mostly being cheap. These days it takes more than just light weight and a small engine to get good gas mileage, it also takes technology. But, technology costs money.
The auto makers have gotten pretty good at making larger cars economical, and at a decent price. For instance, my uncle's '13 Camry LE is rated something like 25/35, and I think it only cost about $21-22K, out the door (tax, tags, everything). Is a Corolla, or even a Yaris, really all that much cheaper these days? IIRC, the Corolla only has a 4-speed automatic, and is rated at 26/34. And the little Yaris is 30/36 with an automatic.
If they wanted to boost the economy of those smaller cars, they have to improve the engines, transmissions, and other things. But then that's going to raise the price, and make them even less competitive with the larger cars, price wise. So, the only real advantage to those smaller cars would be easier maneuvering, such as tight parking spots in a big city. Or, some people might simply not want a larger car. However, given a similar price, I'm sure most buyers would opt for the larger car.
One other advantage, of the Yaris at least, would be the utility of a hatchback. A lot of smaller (and even larger) sedans these days have a tiny trunk opening, so even if they have a lot of cargo volume, their utility is still hampered by that small opening.
Andre....the manufacturers are trying....putting dome attractive, higher quality smaller cars out there. Minis have become really nice. I had the chance to drive a Volt recently. I was shockechow nice that was and how much I enjoyed driving it.
Those are just two examples.
The ATS would make a nice choice in a world of $9.89 gas.
I think one thing I'd do if gas prices hit $10 a gallon is invest in online shopping portals. Seems to me people would drive less to shop for things.
Yep.....good strategy!
I got an email the other day from the Carlisle, PA fairgrounds, which is where most of the car shows are that I attend. Apparently this year was a record for the Mopar show, with over 2500 cars and trucks on the show field. So, $4+ gasoline doesn't seem to be scaring people away. I'm still curious though, to see what $9-10/gal would do to these shows.
I'd bet that most people attending these shows by driving there haven't driven more than a few hundred miles at most---longer distance attendees would be flying anyway.
That's what I was thinking. The car shows I attend are all within 10-15 miles of where I live.
Again, I think gas prices that would approach $10....even $6, %7 or $8/gal would cause wars. The haves (U.S., Russia, Middle East, Venezuela) would come under attack by everyone else (including China) as it would be used as a worldwide weapon (as OPEC tried to do). Oil companies would absolutely have to be government controlled (and we don't want that), given that they're already awash in cash at $3.00-$3.50/gal. Tripling that would allow just a few individuals and corporations to control the world wide economy.
As I mentioned before, that's in addition to world crippling, rampant inflation, a worldwide depression, and entire industries wiped off the map.
I think if oil became that expensive, nations would just start hoarding more of it for their reserves, and rationing the rest to the population. Think of what happens in a water drought---rationing, prices become "tiered", fines, regulations, etc.
Oil is essential to national security---you can't fight anybody without oil. All your weapons become useless.
While I concur, a country like China would probably not sit still if other countries would begin to ration their oil supplies. Then, you have rogue nations, that would align themselves with other rogue nations to attack countries with oil.
In short, it would make the dangerous world much more dangerous, and would lower the standard of living for everyone save the few who are manipulating the price increases.
Here in the U.S, there certainly would be a huge civil unrest movement. I would think/hope there would be politicians who would be elected to office who would enforce a national price ceiling. Citizens would call for civil investigations (not completed by puppet political committees) trials and incarcerations of anyone remotely involved in such price fixing schemes.
I could see this, not as worst case scenario, but as a reality of anything remotely approaching those types of gas prices.
Oil prices are already artificially inflated. I wouldn't want to fathom the criminal behavior, graft and corruption on top of the already corrupt people boosting oil prices now.
Americans are into "fairness"--as long as the burdens are shared equally, they are not prone to civil unrest of any kind.
I would predict that all gas-hungry cars will be safely locked away in such an environment as severe rationing.
I concur....Americans are into fiarness. When we see how the oil companies manipulate prices (and all the BS excuses we've heard as to why prices are so high), we realize there isn't any "fair" to it.
I got my license afte all the hooplah was over regarding gas rationing and doubling/tripling of gas prices. We believed the oil companies when they decried "the end is near" regarding oil supply. They made a profit before all this happened. But, they needed to figure out a way to make more. Bilk the consumer, but find a reason that's pallatable. Voila, oil crisis. Oil companies get obscene amounts of money, as do the OPEC countries, as does the government from increased tax revenue. Everyone wins......except the millions upon millions of consumers, who have been fleeced mercilessly ever since.
I do remember during the Reagan years, his administration allowed regular old supply and demand take hold with the oil companies. A bbl of oil when from $35-$40 to $12-$15. A short 9-10 years earlier, it was the end of the oil industry. A few years later, no one to prop it up, all that turned out to be a lie. Prices went back down to reflect economic reality.....until an oil man got into the Whilte House after Reagan.
Boy do I wish we could find someone who is willing to do that again....let the economy our country is based on, and let it run free to determine supply, demand, and ultimately, price.
There's been nothing fair about the oil industry practically since I've been alive.
If gas rose to $9.89 per gallon, it would be time for armed insurrection. We have a virtually unlimited supply of oil and natural gas in the US--assuming these strategic natural resources are effectively managed. For gas to go to $9.89 would almost certainly require malfeasance on the part of our government or a serious failure of leadership. Either would be cause for a radical change...
Well it could just be the greed of the oil companies. Our government can't enforce price controls, or won't I mean, politically speaking. There's probably no legal precedent in place to do so anyway, or the congressional support for it. As GW Bush once said "Nobody tells those guys what to do".
Besides I kinda doubt Americans will sign up to die for the right to drive long distances.
The price of gas overseas is 20-30% real cost and 70-80% taxes, usually collected at multiple points, from border crossing to wholesale, to point of sale (tariffs, excise, sales) give or take (which makes total combined tax rate over 400% in some cases). US doesn't charge such high rates - considering domestic (and near, i.e. Canada and Mexico) abundance, there is no economic justification for $9/gallon price (there may be political, but not economic). US experienced highest price increases and volatility in terms of percentage, exactly because of relatively low level taxation on fuel (when gas goes from $1 to $4, it's 300% increase, when it goes from $3 to 8$, it's "only" 166%).
American consumers felt the highest pinch in terms of relative impact due to those lower "starting" levels and entire infrastructure built around cheap gas. There were way too many people having vehicles they had no business to have, but due to consumer credit, they were allowed to buy. Notice that the cars that suffered most during the crisis were not the biggest ones Suburban, Expedition, Escalade), but the truck based midsize SUV (Trailblazer, Explorer, Durango) for obvious reasons - the rich owners of Escalades could take a hit (didn't like it, but they could), which middle class owners of Explorer, who barely made payments on those vehicles, got completely obliterated on unexpected doubled, tripled or even quadrupled gas bills. Those models went nearly extinct and not are getting resurrected in unitbody front/all wheel drive forms of "large crossovers". What's the difference? Enough time passed to leave the shock behind and people adjusted expectations.
The answer for the title question is - it depends how fast we get there. If the process is gradual, spread over say 10 years, but still relentless creep up, the vehicle market and economy will catch up with that. If the process is sudden and volatile, the shock will be very disruptive. Real hardship will be exacerbated by propensity of American consumers to get hysterical and overreact, just like they did in 2007/2008.
One thing is for sure - $9 gas any time soon may only happen if politicians raise taxes, or kill the dollar. There is no shortage scenario any time soon that could raise the price that high. $5-$6/g yes, on some combined Middle East and Russia instability, earthquake in West Coast refineries and hurricane passing through Houston. However, $9/gal is too far for current economy and taxes. In first case (more new taxes), it would be a real problem - in second case (death of the dollar), the inflation of wages will dull that - gas may be $9/gal, but annul salaries will also go up with that.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
That's an interesting angle on explaining the shift towards CUVs, athough even the high end luxury car makers are getting into that market.
But I agree---with gradual gas price increases people tend to make only gradual lifestyle changes--but with a sudden jolt in prices, all hell breaks loose.
I've read quite a bit about the gas "crises" of the 1970s, and for a short time people were so panicked that you couldn't GIVE away a large, gas-hungry American car.
Full-sized SUVs took a hit as well when gas prices shot up. The difference is that the likes of the Expedition, Tahoe, Suburban, etc, have a pickup truck basis, share a lot of common parts, and can be profitable even with lower volumes, because people will always buy pickup trucks.
I always thought that GM, Ford, and Mopar made a mistake back in the early 00's when they began differentiating the Trailblazer, Explorer, and Dakota from the pickup versions. That made them more costly to produce, so they had to depend on higher volume. Note that Toyota and Nissan kept a commonality with the 4Runner/Tacoma and, until very recently, the Pathfinder/Xterra/Frontier.
Nowadays though, these more car-like midsized crossovers make a pretty good jack-of-all-trades. Good room inside, fairly easy to get in and out of, good cargo volume, decent fuel economy for their size, some semblance of towing capability, etc. And some advantages like a high-up seating position, that you just can't get in a car.
IMO, what passes off as a "large" car these days really doesn't give you much advantage over a decent midsize. And then it gets to the point that a crossover doesn't get much worse economy than some of these bigger cars.
I had been thinking about getting a Dodge Charger as my next car. But, I've gotten so accustomed to the seating position of my 2012 Ram...lots of stretch out room, big door opening that would make it nice and easy to get into, if it didn't sit up so danged high, good visibility, etc, that when I drive a car, it feels like a major adjustment. I had to drive my uncle's 2012 Camry the other day, and hated it. And last week when I drove my 2000 Park Ave, it just felt weird, and vulnerable, sitting down that low. So I'm actually thinking about trying something like a Durango.
Interesting comments, Andre. My wife has been driving SUV's and CUV's for most of the past 15 years (Expedition, Explorer, 2 Saturn VUEs and her current Mazda CX-7).
For her next car, however, she wants a wagon - specifically, the new Volvo V60. Why? Carbon footprint, for starters (Mazda is rated at 17/23 while the Volvo she wants is rated at 20/29). And, physical footprint - I think she's tired of driving such large vehicles (to her - she's 5'2") and wants something smaller, but still retains some practicality.
I think the Durango (or Jeep Grand Cherokee) might be the right compromise for you. You might want to take a look at the new Jeep Cherokee as well - it's a bit smaller, but still might suit you.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and let us know! Post a pic of your new purchase or lease!
MODERATOR
2015 Subaru Outback 3.6R / 2024 Kia Sportage Hybrid SX Prestige
>
One big wakeup call for me came last Monday. We had to take my 90 year old grandmother to the emergency room. Should have just called an ambulance, but my Mom and uncle started squabbling, and wanted to do it themselves. Anyway, we shoved her in the front passenger seat of his 2012 Camry. Because the seat is kind of low, and the opening isn't that big, it was a bit of a chore to get her in. I was the only one of the bunch strong enough to lift her, but bending down that far to get her situated (only about 112 pounds, but pretty much dead weight) and it threw out my back.
To make matters worse, after we got her to the emergency room and out of the car, I parked it while my uncle checked her in. Well, when I went to look over my shoulder to back the car into the spot, I had to lean forward while looking back to even see anything (I'm one of those old fashioned types who actually LOOKS, rather than depending on the mirror), and ended up banging my head on the ceiling! Sorry, but that should NEVER happen in something that its manufacturer calls a midsized car! Now granted, I'm 6'3", so I'm fairly tall. But I'm not abnormally tall, like a basketball player or something. And most of my height is in my legs; my torso is more average. So if I'm finding ways to hit my head in a Camry, then either I'm extra clumsy, or a lot of other people are, as well.
However, on the flip side, I don't know that it would have been so easy to get Grandma up into my Ram, either, so that's an extreme in the other direction!
As for the new Cherokee, I sat in one earlier in the year. I forget why I was back at the dealer...possibly getting the oil changed in my Ram or something. It didn't seem too bad inside...something I could tolerate if I had to (as opposed to saying hell no I won't go!). Only thing is, if I'm buying a new car, I don't want something I simply tolerate. I want to LIKE it! But, I only sat in it for a few minutes, so if I was seriously in the market, I'd give it a more thorough looking over than that.
Interestingly, I don't find some of those big, truck-based SUVs to be all that roomy inside, either, so exterior bulk doesn't always translate into interior roominess. With the GM rigs, even the Suburban, I don't find legroom, front or rear, to be all that generous. I swear the small Equinox/Terrain/SRX feel like they have more legroom! The Fords felt a little roomier, but still not what I'd call generous.
I really wish Dodge would get back into the Expedition/Tahoe market. Although, with gas prices the way they are, and will inevitably head, probably not the right way for them to go. Especially if it hit $9.89 per gallon!
Actually, I'm surprised that pickups and full-sized SUVs haven't been more serious candidates for the hybrid treatment. You'd think that as big as they are, there would be plenty of room for all the extra hybrid stuff to integrate into, without sacrificing passenger or cargo volume. I know GM tried it with their mild hybrids, but GM never seems to take that stuff all that seriously.
We learned pretty fast to let the pros do that kind of stuff. Best to your grandmother.
A reporter is looking for shoppers who recently traded in a midsize sedan for an SUV because they think gas prices aren’t a big deal anymore or they were just blown away by the fuel-efficient crossover offerings now available. If you think you can help, please reach out to pr@edmunds.com by no later than Wednesday, September 10, 2014.
>
Funny that would come up, fairly soon after my daydreaming about going with something like a Durango instead of a Charger for my next vehicle. But, I haven't pulled the plug yet...probably won't, for awhile.
I filled up yesterday for $3.14; almost makes the ~16 mpg I'm getting around town tolerable.
Almost...
Many, however, see the recent price drop as a rare bonus with good timing. A common sentiment: Celebrate, but don’t get used to it.
Gallup polls from the past seven years reveal our national tendency to brace for higher gas prices over and over again. When they spike, we blame the president, Congress, oil companies and the Middle East (but seldom express surprise). When they dip, we’re hesitant to return to happy-go-luckier driving habits.
Why Americans don’t trust lower gas prices (washingtonpost.com)