Surprise! The Best Selling Vehicles of 2011

2012 Ford Fusion

The number one best selling vehicle last year was the Ford F-150. No big surprise there, right?

Dealers sold a total of 584,917 F-Series trucks in 2011, beating out the second-place Chevrolet Silverado by 169,787 vehicles. If anything proves that the people in the U.S. like their trucks more than their gas money, this is the list that proves it.

While the number one and two spots on the list are not a surprise, things get interesting from there. The Accord/Camry fight has been infiltrated by a third player, and an aging contender, once thought to be washed up, came back with a surprising showing.

Keep reading for the list!

1. Ford F-Series: 584,917

2. Chevrolet Silverado: 415,130

3. Toyota Camry: 308,510

4. Nissan Altima: 268,981

5. Ford Escape: 254,293

6. Honda Accord/Crosstour: 253,599

7. Ford Fusion: 248,067

8. Ram Pickup: 244,763

9. Toyota Corolla: 240,259

10. Chevrolet Cruze: 232,588

Yes, we now live in a world where the Altima and Escape outsell the Accord. In fact, the little Escape, which will get a complete redesign for next year, jumped into 5th place after a 13th place finish last year. The Ford Fusion came within 5,000 copies of pushing the Accord even further down the list.

Ford had three of the top 10 selling cars in the country last year. I think this year the Focus could make it four. I also predict Hyundai will crack the top ten in 2012. Will Honda continue to fall?


Find Used Cars in Your Area at CarGurus

Used Ford F-150
Used Chevrolet Silverado
Used Toyota Camry
Used Nissan Altima
Used Ford Escape
Used Honda Accord
Used Honda Crosstour
Used Ford Fusion
Used Ram Pickup
Used Toyota Corolla
Used Chevrolet Cruze


  1. As I get older, I’ve come to realize that more and more, Americans are no longer deserving of the freedom we enjoy. If we used it responsibly I wouldn’t say that, but we’re rapidly becoming one of the lazyest, dumbest, and most greedy group of apes on the planet.

    We’ve created a system where we make war on the most backwards societies we can find, where we make our poor people do our fighting for us and then we won’t take care of them when they come back shot up, we consume far more than our fair share simply because we can afford to (what will happen when someone else will pay more) and we’re creating a culture where those who produce the wealth do not share in it.

    So really, I’m not espousing an Orwellian culture, I’m noting that we already have one.

    There’s nothing wrong with making overconsumers pay much higher prices for their overconsumption. That’s an intelligent way to raise revenues and provide some extra incentives to conserve. We’ve had a gas guzzler tax for many years now and I haven’t heard you carp about that. Why? Because you don’t have to pay it. If that skinny housewife had to pay quite a bit extra to buy, register and drive that unneeded Hummer, she’s not prevented from doing so, she simply has to pay a tax for her overconsumption. If more Americans would act more responsibly, we might be able to start adressing some of these problems. However, when people won’t be responsible (such as with phone use while driving) sometimes the problem is serious enough for government to get involved. A great example is all the gadgets you’re forced to buy on your new car such as air bags, stability system, ABS brakes and padded interiors. Remember, all those were “forced” down our throats by that evil goverment. Result? Lowest traffic fatality rates since the car was invented. After all, the primary function of our government is to protect the lives, freedom and property of responsible people, not be an enabler for jerks.

  2. Don’t forget a lot of those trucks end up as the front ends of delivery trucks, on farms, electric company fleet vehicles that get replaced often, et cetera. It’s not just skinny women buying them.

    People who buy large fuel-inefficient vehicles already pay a huge energy surcharge, by the way- it’s called ‘buying a lot more gas’. In the process, they pay a lot more taxes as they included in the cost of that gas.

  3. @Randy
    Wow! Some pretty strong commentary! Seldom do I disagree with your points of view, but here I must protest and disagree. I think it is dangerous for you or government to tell people what they ought to be buying or doing with their money. That smacks of Fascism and 1984. I know you mean well and have very strong opinions about damned near everything and that’s okay, but to espouse energy and registration surcharges, deciding what people ought to need, and calling people idiots for their choices is an abomination. Shame!

    You have every right to voice your opinion or to make suggestions about what you think people and government ought to do, but to present them in the manner that you chose today is totally inappropriate for this forum and for society as a whole in my opinion. You are coming off as a “loose canon” here and that is very inconsistent with your usually very thoughtful insights on the auto industry.

    There is usually some common ground that we can agree to concerning our lack of a coherent energy policy and the balance needed there with our environmental concerns. It is possible to compromise the views of the far left and far right if we seek to find a “common” solution that doesn’t include radical solutions that hurt the economy or those that destroy our air and water.

    Your decrying people’s choices of vehicles comes off like an unelected government bureaucrat making decisions about the light bulbs you mentioned. If people want incandescent bulbs and can afford to buy them or prefer them to the yellow hue put off by the newer and poisonous energy efficient bulbs and they still live in America, they should have that choice. If choosing them harms others, say like cigarets, perhaps your argument would have more merit. You called people idiots for the choices they made, yet you say nothing about the poisonous mercury in the new energy efficient bulbs. So a little consistency here would be appreciated. Perhaps some people are not in your income level and can’t afford the new bulbs or perhaps they are above your income level and can afford anything they want. In either case they should have the right to choose.

    Every human activity has positive and negative impacts on our economy and our environment and for you to make statements about what people ought and ought not be doing based on your economic and environmental
    positions smacks of Orwell’s 1984 and if that was your intent, is certainly not a place that I would want to be.

  4. I’m surprised (and a bit troubled) that the first two top sellers were large pickup trucks and you have to add up the sales of approximately the next four top sellers (all passenger cars except the Escape) to equal the sales of those gas hogs. I really doubt that all those sales represent people who really need a large truck like that. I see lots of them around here, skinny little women picking up their kids in huge land yachts or doing grocery runs with something designed to haul a 15,000 pound trailer. The unfortunate thing for car makers is that these idiots line up to buy these oversized vehicles in good years then run away in bad years, leaving the car makers in the red.

    Perhaps it’s time for our government to step in and penalize people who buy inefficient vehicles that aren’t needed? An energy and registration surcharge is a good place to start. I’m sure coupon suzy’s husband might think twice about giving the Ford F250 to her as a daily driver if he had to pony up an extra $1,000 a year to register it and had to pay an extra $2 per gallon of gas. Of course, the tradesman who needs such a vehicle on a daily basis could be allowed to deduct those expenses, but I’m not sure even the big trailer owner should be exempt, mainly because the oversized vehicle is used as a daily driver when not towing a trailer. Given the low use of typical travel trailers, renting a tow vehicle for a few weeks a year should be cheaper and make more sense, especially when you can rant a more efficient Diesel tow vehicle.

    One thing you can count on is just more talk talk talk blah blah blah about our energy problems with little action other than to subsidize the various energy scams run by friends of politicians and no real progress on addressing the real problem- piggish American consumers. Good example? The recent back peddling by Congress on eliminating incandescent light bulbs, which should have been outlawed some years ago.

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.