4 Comments

  1. Goes to show what can happen when you have Joe Isuzu as president.

    I went to his link:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/us-auto-sales-january-2016-2

    Here’s the final scoreboard:
    •Chrysler: +6.9% (-0.1% expected)
    •Audi: +2.7%
    •Nissan: +1.6% (-1.7% expected)
    •Subaru: +0.7%
    •GM: +0.5% (-0.9% expected)
    •Honda: -1.7% (-3.2% expected)
    •Ford: -2.8% (-3.2% expected)
    •Mazda: -2.8%
    •BMW: -4%
    •Toyota: -4.7%
    •Lexus: -9.5%
    •Volkswagen: -14.6%

    Two questions:

    Who the hell’s buying all those Chryslers? The U.S. Government perhaps?

    Does “U.S. Auto Sales” means auto sales that occur in the U.S., no matter who the manufacturer, or only sales of U.S.-made vehicles?

    Either way, the negatives counterbalance Chrysler’s freakish numbers.

  2. Honda expected -3.2% and scored -1.7%. That’s 1.5% better than expected.
    Ford expected -3.2% and scored -2.8%. That’s 0.4% better than expected.
    GM expected -0.9% and scored 0.5%. That’s 1.4% better than expected.

    Everyone is doing better than expected! Economy is chugging right along!

  3. “US auto sales rose at the fastest pace since 2000 in January even after a historic blizzard that swallowed major cities in the Northeast.
    According to Autodata, sales rose at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 17.58 million in January.
    Analysts had estimated that overall vehicle sales totaled 17.30 million, down from 17.34 in December, according to Bloomberg.
    In 2015, auto sales rose to a post-recession high, reflecting the robustness of consumer spending during that year.
    Analysts had expected a decline in sales to start 2016, partly because of the blizzard that hit the Northeast.
    Chrysler reported a gain by nearly 7%, leading the pack during January. Like most of its major peers, the company topped forecasts.
    Volkswagen’s sales fell the most among major carmakers, as the company continues to deal with the fallout of its emissions scandal.”

    First off, what is “Autodata” and why should we believe them?
    First statement is meaningless without proper context. The “Rate” rose the fastest since 2000 but between what two points in time is that measured?
    Nice story, so what?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.