Click bait R&T article on low selling cars of 2016.

OK, OK, so it’s click bait from R&T via Faceballs. But I clicked and I’m sure other on here have clicked similar things in the past. I am surprised at some of them, but not many. I think they’re stretching for content, but I guess it’s worked as I not only clicked, but posted about it here too. The premise is for those who don’t want to click and read that some cars sell in surprisingly low volumes. Shocker hey?

Click, click, clikety click bait.

Here are the results in the order they listed them:

1 Volkswagen Golf R – 3,947. Zero surprise here. They compare it to both the WRX and STI, to me only the latter is applicable along with the Focus RS. Let’s face it, we’re talking $40K Plus hot hatches, the market here is never going to be massive. It seems reasonable to me, especially with the RS love fest the world (rightly) has going on right now.

2 Mazda MX-5 Miata – 8,732. Mildly surprised at best. Lots of competition for small sporty cars and it was barely on sale for a full year.

3 BMW 3-Series - 63,718. FFS, come on, 65k units in a market in love with crossovers, that seems very healthy to me. You’re really stretching here R&T

4 Alfa Romeo 4C – 457. OK, I might have expected it to reach 1,000 units, but a tiny specialist sports car that’s best suited to 3rd or 4th car duties. No big news here.

5 Ford Fiesta - 45,035. I’m not sure how 45k sales is bad for a car that’s been out since 2008 in a country that’s not supposed to like small cars. It seems very healthy to me.

6 BMW i3 – 6,834. Mildly surprised at this at best. They are wrong calling it ugly, it look awesome. I really thought that there could be more of these sold. It seems to be there perfect car for the urban commuter.

7 Porsche Boxster & Cayman – 5,887. This one honestly does surprise me. I really expected many 10’s of thousands of Boxster Caymans. I see far far more of these than all other cars on this list combined, and they are better cars than any non special (Turbo, GT# etc.) 911 model.

8 Chevrolet SS – 2,919. Wow, so you’re telling me a big ass V8 manual trans car isn’t selling when status conscious America can get any number of BMW’s, Mercedes’s or Audis for less money with an auto or DSG. What a shocker! NOT. The issue is that outside the few hundred of us on here, most of who are not in the market for this car new at this time, there’s a very limited market for a car like this these days. It will be a massive hit on the used market in 10 years when everyone complains that no one sells cars like this, ongoing the fact they no one sells them as no one wants them. It doesn’t matter how good the car it, it’s just not a car for the times.

9 Mini Cooper - 35,603. This seems pretty sound for a premium priced sub-compact car in this country. With gas still being given away and more and more 5,000lb SUV’s the market has to be pretty limited.

10 Nissan GT-R – 652. Zero surprise here. The spec has barely changed since it was introduced and it looks identical to the car launched here in 2009. Once the initial appetite had been satisfied what are its selling points ongoing?

11 Dodge Viper – 571 I’m honestly surprised it was that high, I was expecting double not triple digits. It’s an old old outdated design that has little going for it beyond the race track. It’s just too old, too crude and simply not elegant or exotic enough for the price tag and performance in today’s marketplace.

12 Toyota 86 / Scion FR-S / Subaru BRZ - 10,827. No big surprise here, it’s been out a while and it seems to be reasonably good figures for a niche car.

Only comment I have is on the Chevy SS--it is exactly the car I would want, but I cannot afford it. It is a car my dad would want, but he can't really drive stick anymore--maybe when he retires he'll get it when he isn't driving every day, but an auto and it might have been in his garage... until you sit in his Infiniti and you think, yeah, he's not going back to a Chevy when he can get an Infiniti for the smae price.

Same here. I'd have a manual SS in a heartbeat if I had the clams.

mtn wrote: Only comment I have is on the Chevy SS--it is exactly the car I would want, but I cannot afford it. It is a car my dad would want, but he can't really drive stick anymore--maybe when he retires he'll get it when he isn't driving every day, but an auto and it might have been in his garage... until you sit in his Infiniti and you think, yeah, he's not going back to a Chevy when he can get an Infiniti for the smae price.

You can get an auto in it. In fact, it was auto-only in 2014.

Some of those cars are just low volume models, like the Viper and SS. They were never meant to sell in big numbers. It would be more interesting to see how their 2016 sales compared to previous years than to look at one number in isolation. 64k 3-series might not be so great if they sold 80k of them last year, for instance.

I don't know, man. Of all the terrible articles R&T does produce, this one seems a lot better than you've given it credit for. They even give justification for why the car made the list...

Also, that article isn't "that some cars sell in surprisingly low volumes." It's literally "We've combed the sales data through the end of November to find the cars that you aren't buying, but really should."

The "high" number cars all represent a serious slump from last year, or low numbers compared to their competition. The MINI, for example, sold 50% less this year!

I think your title and article is more click bait than R&T's original.

Tom_Spangler wrote:

mtn wrote: Only comment I have is on the Chevy SS--it is exactly the car I would want, but I cannot afford it. It is a car my dad would want, but he can't really drive stick anymore--maybe when he retires he'll get it when he isn't driving every day, but an auto and it might have been in his garage... until you sit in his Infiniti and you think, yeah, he's not going back to a Chevy when he can get an Infiniti for the smae price.

You can get an auto in it. In fact, it was auto-only in 2014.

Huh--we had no clue. I thought it was manual only.

In reply to mtn:

I see WAY more auto trans SS than sticks. Same with gen2 CTS-Vs.

BMW sold 112,838 3/4 Series cars in 2015 so for them to only sell 65K is a huge drop here. If 2015 was only 80K no big deal but to drop in half, that is a big loss.

I feel sorry for the FIAT dealers who invested hundreds of thousands of dollars to remodel and add Alfa Romeo branding to their stores and they only ROI they've seen so far was the sale of a handful of 4C's. The Giulia needs to be a smash hit right out of the gate.

bmw88rider wrote: BMW sold 112,838 3/4 Series cars in 2015 so for them to only sell 65K is a huge drop here. If 2015 was only 80K no big deal but to drop in half, that is a big loss.

Depends whether R&T's numbers included the 4 series or not. That could be the other half of the sales right there.

Count me in the "I would totally drive a Chevy SS with a manual if they were more affordable" camp. That said, used ones (at least the automatic ones) are starting to come down in price. I'm seeing them dip below $30k for the first time. FWIW, a Pontiac G8 GXP will still command well over $30k with a stick, if you can find one.

Another thing, on the low take rate of the Alfa 4C:

This past fall, I got up close and personal with a 4C for the blog I write for. As some of you know, I'm a big dude. I didn't fit at all. Also, I wasn't the only one: many "smaller dudes" did not fit inside the car either. This car is made for people less than 150 lb, and 5'7" and below. Maybe that's a factor in the low sales? Us fat 'Mericans just don't fit in the thing!

SilverFleet wrote: This car is made for people less than 150 lb, and 5'7" and below. Maybe that's a factor in the low sales? Us fat 'Mericans just don't fit in the thing!

Finally, a benefit for being short. I hope these things depreciate like a stone!

Fitting in a car is such a personal thing. I fit an NA Miata fine at 6' and over 200lb's. Can't fit an ND Miata for E36 M3 though even though it's apparently bigger inside in every way.

I also hope the Alfa depreciates like, well an Alfa TBH.

Adrian_Thompson wrote: Fitting in a car is such a personal thing. I fit an NA Miata fine at 6' and over 200lb's. Can't fit an ND Miata for E36 M3 though even though it's apparently bigger inside in every way. I also hope the Alfa depreciates like, well an Alfa TBH.

Yup. I hope I don't have the same experience with the ND, but we'll see.

FWIW, I fit in an NA and NB miata well, but I don't fit in a Lexus IS. Headroom issues. Go figure.

Interesting thing is neither are all that good. The worse performance Year over year of any manufacturer

BMW 3-Series 11/16 YTD 63,718 11/15 YTD 89,278 Change -28.6%

BMW 4-Series 11/16 YTD 32,129 11/15 YTD 40,468 Change -20.6%

BMW 5-Series 11/16 YTD 30,293 11/15 YTD 41,177 Change -26.4%

BMW GROUP: All models 11/16 YTD 328,535 11/15 YTD 365,678 Change -10.2%

In reply to bmw88rider:

Who is stealing thier pie? In Houston I see CLA GLA Mercedes in all the places I used to see lower 3 series (teacher parking lots, the mall during the day, etc.) but I don't have any numbers.

I'm seeing more Mercedes but in general, I'm seeing less luxury cars in general here in Austin and when I travel to Dallas.

It seems like more people are getting just regular cars. With the real estate getting more expensive here I don't see how a person can afford 2K+ of house payments with tax and insurance and then 2 luxury cars in the driveway.

I agree. I see less automotive "aspiration" than in the past. Not sure why that is.

mazdeuce wrote: I agree. I see less automotive "aspiration" than in the past. Not sure why that is.

Could be that "regular" cars are so loaded and refined, there's not that much advantage to a luxury brand these days.

Tom_Spangler wrote:

mazdeuce wrote: I agree. I see less automotive "aspiration" than in the past. Not sure why that is.

Could be that "regular" cars are so loaded and refined, there's not that much advantage to a luxury brand these days.

I think it's similar to that but not exactly.

The Euro Lux and semi Lux brands have been riding it high for the last two decades. The (fully justified) decline of the domestic auto makers sales due to utter turd mobiles in the 90's and early 00's gave a golden opportunity to BMW, Audi, Merc, Volvo etc. They expanded their product line downwards based on the stela reputation of their then current and prior models. Let's be honest, in the 80's German cars represented solid vaults with reliability to match. They were Cleary superior in ride, handling, NVH etc. than the mid-sized Domestic cars. They enthusiastically jumped into the market place and filled it with ever expanding models and options until something like a base 3 series BMW was selling in massive numbers. Complexity and reliability started to slide. For years you still had people buying VW's believing they were superior quality to anything Domestic while in reality they had proudly earned their place at the bottom of JD power rankings.

Just as it took decades for the impact of malaise era domestic cars to alienate people and give the Asian and Euro brands a chance to thrive in this country, could it be that 15 years of dodgy Merc electrics, BMW cooling systems and interiors plus VW group CEL's and diesel gate are now starting to catch up with them just as the Domestic and nontraditional Asian brands are really starting to put out some stunningly good vehicles at a better price point with better real world reliability (as in post warranty period).

Look at the newer Lincolns, Genesis or Cadillac vehicles compared $ for $ with BMW or Audi.

I'm not saying this is cut and dried, I'm sure people will pile on with examples of why I'm 100% incorrect, but I think it's at least one reason.

Also cars have got more expensive, although I'd argue that they are still absolute bargains compared to most other durable household purchases like refrigerators, washing machines, ranges etc. With the average new vehicle transaction now at a record high pushing $35K and median (not average as that's skewed by many high high earners) house hold income not keeping up, something eventually has to give.

Maybe BMW isn't offering the same lease deals?

Adrian, I think your comments about the Viper are a bit out of date. The current Viper model is only a few years old. FCA made a concerted effort to make it more "modern" than previous models. Of course, a big media complaint now is that the car isn't a Viper anymore and has lost much of what made it different than other performance cars in a similar price range.

IMNSHO, MINI sales have dropped because the new F56 - while better performing than previous generations - is simply gawd-awful ugly. And expensive. Add a few options for a Cooper S and you're easily into the $30K range, which is a lot of money for the performance.

The average age of vehicles on the road in the US continues to rise. It's somewhere around 11.5 years old right now. I think we're at a point where increased quality of older cars and decreased affordability of new cars means that there's less incentive for people to splurge on a new vehicle when their older ride does most of the same stuff for far less money. 10 or 15 year old cars with 100k miles are no longer the ticking time bombs they once were.

STM317 wrote: The average age of vehicles on the road in the US continues to rise. It's somewhere around 11.5 years old right now. I think we're at a point where increased quality of older cars and decreased affordability of new cars means that there's less incentive for people to splurge on a new vehicle when their older ride does most of the same stuff for far less money. 10 or 15 year old cars with 100k miles are no longer the ticking time bombs they once were.

Or, folks are doing what I did and buying 1-3 year old used cars that still have a warranty and modern features, but are 50-60% of the price of new.

Tom_Spangler wrote:

STM317 wrote: The average age of vehicles on the road in the US continues to rise. It's somewhere around 11.5 years old right now. I think we're at a point where increased quality of older cars and decreased affordability of new cars means that there's less incentive for people to splurge on a new vehicle when their older ride does most of the same stuff for far less money. 10 or 15 year old cars with 100k miles are no longer the ticking time bombs they once were.

Or, folks are doing what I did and buying 1-3 year old used cars that still have a warranty and modern features, but are 50-60% of the price of new.

As with most trends that only lasts so long. Once everyone tries to do that the cost of those 1-3 year old cars rises and they are suddenly 70-80% of the cost of a new car and the new car becomes desirable again.

It's funny how we were just having a thread the other week about OEM's wanting to make cars obsolete (complex 8 speed transmissions) while ignoring the fact that new cars are now so reliable that they actually last longer and the average age is going up all the time. :)

Look at this it shows how fast the average age of cars on the road has risen. Look at the early 80's, it was only around 7 years. That's when they were making cars we consider dead simple.

Man I'm taking my own thread off the original topic aren't I?