Automotive Strategic Outlook

External data and analysis on forces shaping the automotive landscape

Several structural forces are reshaping automotive demand simultaneously. This assessment traces each through independent external data.

What's Sustaining Demand

Before examining what works against demand, start with what sustains it.

The average vehicle on the road is 12.8 years old, the oldest on record and still climbing.

Deep dive →
  • Individual vehicles are more reliable: problems per 100 fell 29% from 2006 to 2018 model years (J.D. Power)
  • But vehicles over 10 years old break down 2× more often and need towing 4× as often (AAA)
  • With 289 million vehicles on the road, vehicle age outweighs per-vehicle improvement

Meanwhile, the vehicles that do break down are harder to self-rescue.

Deep dive →
  • As of the most recent industry study, roughly 1 in 4 new vehicles shipped without a spare tire
  • Consumer Reports puts the figure at 60% using a broader definition
  • Either way, a flat tire increasingly means a tow — not a roadside fix

Vehicles are also getting heavier, compounding the service requirement.

Deep dive →
  • Average new vehicle: 4,419 lbs (EPA)
  • Electric F-150 Lightning: 6,015 lbs, 1,000+ lbs above its gasoline equivalent
  • Heavier vehicles require flatbed towing and wear through tires faster
These forces are structural, not cyclical. Per-vehicle reliability is improving, but vehicle age and service complexity are growing faster. The net effect sustains demand through this decade.
What's Suppressing Usage Over Time

If vehicle age is sustaining demand, what's working against it?

Crash-avoidance technology cuts rear-end collisions roughly 50% (IIHS). Nearly 95% of new vehicles have it. But the vehicles on the road tell a different story.

Deep dive →
  • Only 26% of registered vehicles have automatic braking today (IIHS/HLDI)
  • For roadside, the effect is further muted — accidents have never been a major roadside call driver
  • A federal AEB mandate takes effect in 2029 (proposed delay to 2031). At current turnover, full adoption is two decades away

Electric vehicles also break down less, but the advantage narrows with age.

Deep dive →
  • At two years old, EVs break down 69% less than comparable ICE vehicles
  • By four years, the gap shrinks to 34% (ADAC, 3.6M vehicle sample)
  • EVs remain roughly 2% of U.S. vehicles on the road — real advantage, limited reach
79%
of new vehicles globally ship with embedded OEM telematics (Berg Insight, 2024). Most automakers now bundle branded roadside assistance with new purchases — a direct channel that reaches drivers before their existing roadside provider does.
Both forces are real and directionally negative for usage. But real-world impact is gated by adoption speed, and adoption is slower than most forecasts assumed.
What's Changing the Service Mix

Some forces don't reduce usage. They change what members call about.

When EVs do break down, the cause is not what most expect.

Deep dive →
  • The 12V auxiliary battery accounts for 50% of EV breakdowns (ADAC)
  • Engine and fuel system failures (23% of ICE breakdowns) don’t exist in EVs
  • The failure profile shifts, not just the rate — battery-related calls are rising as a share of total volume

How quickly that shift matters depends on what's actually on the road.

Deep dive →
  • Even in the strongest EV markets, on-road penetration lags new-sales share by years
  • At current turnover rates, 28 million gasoline vehicles remain on the road in 2050 under aggressive adoption (NREL)

What vehicles are entering the road is also shifting.

Deep dive →
  • Hybrids surpassed BEV sales in 2024 and widened the lead in 2025
  • BEV volume declined 2.2% after the federal tax credit expired
  • The near-term vehicle mix is hybrid-heavy, not the full-electric transition most forecasts projected
The call mix is shifting from mechanical failures toward batteries, tires, and service complexity. Planning for what members call about may matter more than planning for how often.
What's Not a Factor Yet

Autonomous vehicles add another variable, but at modest scale.

Deep dive →
  • Waymo captures roughly 6–7% of rideshare in its strongest market and less than 1% nationally
  • S&P Global projects 230,000 autonomous vehicles by 2034, under 0.1% of vehicles on the road
  • Worth monitoring, not planning around
  • The external data points in the same direction: improving reliability and OEM capture on one side, an older and more complex vehicle population on the other
  • The balance favors sustained demand through this decade — what changes is the service mix, not the existence of demand

Full sources and methodology available in the data & methodology appendix. Explore the deep dive →

← Executive Summary
What's on the Road
Strategic Implications
Older vehicles on the road sustain roadside demand, but the buffer has a horizon.
  • The average vehicle on the road is 12.8 years old (S&P Global Mobility), the oldest ever recorded, with a sustained upward trend since 2010.
  • Vehicles over 10 years old break down 2x more often and need tows 4x as often (AAA).
  • Each model year is more mechanically durable than the last. J.D. Power VDS shows ~29% fewer problems across model years 2006–2018 (see green PP100 line). Rising vehicle age is partly evidence of improved reliability, not only a risk.
  • This buys time for roadside providers to adapt. But as newer, more reliable vehicles replace older ones on the road, this tailwind fades.
Sources: S&P Global Mobility (2010-2025 vehicle age series); AAA “Double Digits” report (2018); J.D. Power VDS; ADAC Pannenstatistik • Data & methodology
Open question
Do the older vehicles on the road actually translate to more roadside calls, or is that relationship already weakening? Total call volume has declined since 2019 despite rising vehicle age.
How this was built
Question
How old is the U.S. vehicle fleet, and is it getting older? Does older necessarily mean less reliable?
Data
Fleet age: S&P Global Mobility (Polk lineage), 16 annual data points. Three years interpolated (2011, 2017, 2018), marked with open markers on the chart. Series runs from 10.9 (2010) to 12.8 years (2025), monotonically non-decreasing. Reliability: 13 individually sourced J.D. Power VDS press releases, one per model year (2006 to 2018). PP100 fell from 170 to 121. Left axis is calendar year, right axis is model year. Two independent trends, not a correlation.
What we checked
"29% more reliable" = (170 − 121) / 170 = 28.8%, rounds correctly. The PP100 bump in model years 2012 to 2014 is infotainment complexity, not mechanical reliability. ADAC mechanical data confirms the divergence. Post-2022 J.D. Power changed methodology (incomparable scale), correctly excluded.
What a skeptic should know
The 2023 age figure (12.6) has ±0.1yr ambiguity from back-calculation vs. direct S&P citation. Does not change the chart shape or narrative. J.D. Power measures all problems, not just mechanical. For the roadside demand thesis, what matters is mechanical breakdown rates, and ADAC confirms those improved even when total PP100 rose.
← Executive Summary
What's on the Road
Strategic Implications
EV headlines overstate the reality on the road. New-sales share runs 3–25% across the western U.S., but actual fleet penetration is 0.1–4%.
  • Nationally, EVs are ~10% of new sales but only ~2% of vehicles on the road (EIA/AFDC). The gap takes 15–20 years to close.
  • Outside California, fleet EV penetration in the western U.S. ranges from 0.1% (Wyoming) to 1.8% (Nevada) — the vast majority of vehicles on the road are gasoline-powered (AFDC/FHWA 2023).
  • Even California — where 1 in 4 new cars sold is electric — has only ~4% EV fleet share statewide. Bay Area MSAs run 10–12%, the highest in the western U.S. (AFDC 2023).
  • The fleet changes slowly: median vehicle lifetime is 17–25 years, annual scrappage is ~4.5%. Even under aggressive EV sales scenarios, 28 million gasoline vehicles remain on U.S. roads in 2050 (NREL/DOE).
Sources: AFDC/Experian EV registrations 2023; FHWA Table MV-1 2023; EIA AEO 2025; CNCDA 2024; NREL/DOE • Data & methodology
How this was built
Question
How many EVs are actually on the road in western states, not being sold, but registered and driving?
Data
Fleet share: AFDC state EV registrations (Experian-sourced, Dec 2023) divided by FHWA Table MV-1 total registered vehicles by state (2023). Division checked for all six states with raw numbers (NV, UT, AZ, MT, AK, WY). CA uses a direct CEC/AFDC statewide figure. Sales share: AAI Q4 2024 (national and state-level), CNCDA Q2 2024 (NorCal).
What we checked
All six state-level divisions match. CA 4.1%, NV 1.8%, UT 1.3%, AZ 1.4%, MT 0.2%, AK 0.4%, WY 0.1%. National ~2% is a rounded composite from mixed sources. The gap between "what's selling" and "what's on the road" is the chart's visual argument.
What a skeptic should know
FHWA MV-1 counts all motor vehicle classes (commercial, farm, trailer), slightly deflating rural EV shares. This directionally reinforces the chart's message. New-sales (2024) and fleet (2023) are from slightly different periods. MT and AK sales shares are estimates. AZ source is industry analysis, not AAI primary.
← Executive Summary
What's on the Road
Strategic Implications
Hybrids, not electric vehicles, are driving the powertrain shift. Hybrids still break down in traditional ways.
  • One in five new vehicles sold in 2025 is electrified. Hybrid sales nearly tripled from 766K to 2.1M in three years (BTS, Argonne National Lab).
  • Electric vehicle sales declined after the federal EV tax credit expired (EIA).
  • Hybrids still have engines, still need oil changes, still require traditional roadside service. The near-term shift is more nuanced than “everything goes electric.”
Sources: Bureau of Transportation Statistics Table 1-19; Argonne National Lab; EIA Today in Energy • Data & methodology
← Executive Summary
How Technology Changes the Equation
Strategic Implications
~97% of new vehicles have automatic emergency braking. Only ~26% of registered vehicles do. The impact on roadside demand is a decade away.
  • Automatic emergency braking reduces rear-end crashes by ~50% (IIHS, Cicchino 2017).
  • The federal mandate requires it on all new vehicles by 2029 (NHTSA FMVSS 127; proposed slip to 2031). That accelerates new-vehicle adoption but does not change the on-road penetration timeline.
  • On-road saturation takes 15 to 20 years (HLDI). The gap between new-vehicle and on-road adoption is the window the industry has to adapt.
Sources: IIHS; MITRE PARTS (2024); HLDI Bulletins 37-11, 42-04; NHTSA • Data & methodology
Open question
Is ADAS already suppressing roadside assistance usage? With 26% of registered vehicles equipped, the effect may already be measurable in call data, even before on-road saturation.
← Executive Summary
How Technology Changes the Equation
Strategic Implications
Electric vehicles break down less, but the advantage shrinks fast. U.S. electric vehicles on the road are entering the age range where demand materializes.
  • At 2 years old, EVs break down 69% less than gasoline vehicles. By 4 years old, the gap narrows to 34% (ADAC, 3.6M+ roadside interventions).
  • Breakdown rates nearly double between years 3 and 4 for both powertrains, aligning with warranty expiration.
  • The average U.S. electric vehicle is now 3.7 years old (S&P Global Mobility), crossing into the age range where breakdowns accelerate.
Sources: ADAC Pannenstatistik 2025; S&P Global Mobility • Data & methodology
Open question
What do EV breakdown rates look like beyond 4 years old? No data exists yet. The trend suggests the gap will continue to narrow, but how far it closes will determine the long-term impact on roadside demand.
How this was built
Question
Do electric vehicles actually break down less than combustion vehicles, and does the advantage hold as they age?
Data
ADAC Pannenstatistik 2025 (3.6M+ roadside interventions, 159 model series). Breakdown rates extracted by registration-year cohort from the German PDF primary source. Same-age comparison: BEV vs ICE at 2, 3, and 4 years old. An earlier secondary source had mislabeled categories. Corrected against the German original.
What we checked
Advantage % = (ICE rate − BEV rate) / ICE rate. At 2yr: (5.4 − 1.7) / 5.4 = 68.5%, rounds to 69%. At 3yr: 47.6% rounds to 48%. At 4yr: 34.1% rounds to 34%. All correct. BEV nearly doubles from year 3 to 4 (1.98x). ICE increases 57%.
What a skeptic should know
European data. U.S.-specific breakdown rates by powertrain are not publicly available, which is precisely what Workstream 1 will investigate. Warranty expiration timing and driving patterns may differ by market. No data exists beyond 4 years old for BEVs.
← Executive Summary
How Technology Changes the Equation
Strategic Implications
The 12V battery is the #1 breakdown cause for both powertrains. The service mix shifts, but breakdowns do not disappear.
  • The 12V auxiliary battery accounts for roughly half of all breakdowns, regardless of powertrain (ADAC).
  • 23% of gasoline breakdowns are engine/drivetrain. Only 10% of EV breakdowns involve the motor or high-voltage system (ADAC).
  • Important: these are shares, not rates. Because engine failures largely disappear for EVs, other categories become a larger share of a smaller total. In absolute terms, EVs have fewer breakdowns across every category.
  • Service capability needs to evolve (more electrical diagnostics, fewer engine repairs), not contract.
Sources: ADAC Pannenstatistik 2025 (category labels verified from German primary source) • Data & methodology
← Executive Summary
How Technology Changes the Equation
Strategic Implications
Autonomous vehicles are real but hyper-local. Even in their strongest market, they're less than 7% of rideshare. Nationally: 0.3%.
  • Waymo is the only company operating fully driverless commercial rideshare at scale. Cruise shut down (Dec 2024). Zoox is pre-revenue.
  • In San Francisco — Waymo's most mature market and a major roadside assistance territory — AVs handle ~6–7% of metro-wide rideshare trips (CPUC/Consumer Edge). Phoenix: ~5%.
  • Nationally, Waymo's ~14 million rides in 2025 represent ~0.3% of U.S. rideshare volume (vs ~4+ billion Uber+Lyft trips).
  • Waymo operates in 10 cities (4 launched Feb 2026 — no rideshare data yet). A large roadside assistance provider serves 7 western states. Only SF and Phoenix overlap with Waymo. Most of the territory has zero AV presence.
Sources: Consumer Edge (2025); CPUC quarterly data; TechCrunch Feb 2026; Lyft FY2025 earnings; Driverless Digest • Data & methodology
Open question
Waymo's SF and Phoenix operations overlap major roadside assistance territories. As AV fleets scale, the physical service relationship — towing, tire service, fleet maintenance — is an emerging business line, not just a disruption risk.
How this was built
Question
How much of the rideshare market do autonomous vehicles actually serve, in their strongest cities and nationally?
Data
City-level AV trips divided by total metro rideshare trips. SF uses CPUC regulatory filings (highest confidence). Phoenix and LA use Consumer Edge transaction data. Austin and Atlanta rely on analyst estimates, marked "est." on the chart. National denominator: Lyft FY2025 (945.5M rides) + Uber domestic estimate, totaling ~4.3B trips.
What we checked
Metro-wide share, not within-zone. Press-reported "27% in SF" covers Waymo's operating geofence only. Metro-wide is ~6.5%. More conservative, more honest. National: 14M Waymo trips / ~4.3B = 0.3%. Waymo is the entire AV category (Cruise shut down Dec 2024). ~3,000 vehicles across 10 cities as of Feb 2026.
What a skeptic should know
Austin and Atlanta shares are analyst estimates, not regulatory data. Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and Orlando launched Feb 2026 with no rideshare data yet. Uber does not report U.S.-only trip counts, so the domestic estimate is derived. Only SF and Phoenix (navy bars) are in the analyzed service territory.
← Executive Summary
Structural Shifts
Strategic Implications
Up to 60% of new vehicles ship without a spare tire. Every flat without a spare becomes a tow call.
  • OEMs eliminate spares to reduce weight for fuel economy compliance. This trend is driven by federal regulation and will not reverse.
  • Sealant kits cannot fix sidewall damage or blowouts (AAA).
  • This creates a floor under towing demand that persists regardless of how reliable vehicles become.
Sources: AAA (2006, 2015, 2017); Consumer Reports (2024, broader definition) • Data & methodology
← Executive Summary
Structural Shifts
Strategic Implications
Vehicles are getting heavier — especially EVs. Heavier vehicles wear tires faster and require flatbed towing.
  • The average new vehicle weighs 4,419 lbs in 2024, up from 4,060 lbs in 2000 — a 9% increase driven largely by the market shift from cars to SUVs and trucks (EPA Automotive Trends, 2024).
  • EVs are up to 22% heavier than comparable ICE trims (F-150 Lightning 6,015 lbs vs F-150 ICE ~4,900 lbs). Battery packs alone weigh ~1,000 lbs.
  • Heavier vehicles accelerate tire wear (Michelin/Consumer Reports: 15–20% faster; Bridgestone: 30–40%) and cannot be towed wheels-down — every EV tow requires a flatbed. J.D. Power 2024: 39% of BEV owners replaced tires within 12 months vs 20% ICE.
  • The car/truck split (see chart) shows the bigger weight driver is the market shift from cars to SUVs/trucks. EVs amplify the trend.
Sources: EPA Automotive Trends Report (1975–2024, by regulatory class); Ford OEM specs; Michelin; Consumer Reports; Bridgestone; J.D. Power 2024 • Data & methodology

Sources & Methodology

Vehicle Age
Chain Verified
Sources
  • S&P Global Mobility — average light vehicle age, 2010–2025 (Polk lineage)
  • J.D. Power Vehicle Dependability Study — 13 press releases (2009–2021 studies), model years 2006–2018
  • AAA “Double Digits” report (2018) — age-risk relationship (2x breakdown, 4x towing at 10+ years)
Caveats
  • PP100 bump (2012–2014 model years) reflects infotainment complexity, not mechanical reliability. For the roadside demand thesis, mechanical breakdown rates are what matter — ADAC confirms mechanical trends diverge from JDP total PP100.
  • 2023 age figure (12.6) has ±0.1yr ambiguity (back-calculated vs. direct S&P citation). Does not change chart shape or narrative.
Download CSV (fleet age) Download CSV (J.D. Power PP100)
Sales Mix
Source Confirmed
Sources
Methodology
  • Annual sales by powertrain from BTS (2022-2024) and Argonne (2025). Gasoline computed as residual (total minus electrified) to ensure stacked bars close exactly. Chart uses 2022-2025 only.
Caveats
  • 2015-2021 historical series has BEV+PHEV conflation in some BTS records. Not shown in chart. BEV decline in Q4 2025 reflects federal EV tax credit expiration (Sept 30, 2025), a policy discontinuity.
Download CSV
The EV Gap
Chain Verified
Sources
Caveats
  • New-sales (2024) and fleet (2023) from slightly different periods. Total registrations move slowly YoY, so mismatch is minimal. Montana and Alaska sales shares are estimates (*). Arizona source is industry analysis, not AAI primary.
Download CSV (EV gap) Download CSV (fleet forecast)
Safety Tech
Source Confirmed
Sources
Methodology
  • New-vehicle curve from IIHS voluntary pledge reports + MITRE PARTS model year series. Fleet-level curve from HLDI registered-vehicle analysis (4 anchor points + 2 projections). Gap years (2017, 2019-2021) confirmed via exhaustive search: no published fleet-level AEB data exists.
Caveats
  • Dip from ~97% to ~94% (MY 2022 to 2023) reflects a methodology shift (MITRE PARTS vs. IIHS pledge), not a real decline. Fleet-level figure (26%) is standard-equipment only; total including optional is ~41%. 2029 mandate has a proposed slip to 2031 under current administration.
Download CSV
Breakdown Rates
Chain Verified
Sources
Caveats
  • European (German) data. U.S.-specific breakdown rates by powertrain are not publicly available, which motivates Workstream 1. Warranty expiration timing and driving patterns may differ by market.
Download CSV
Breakdown Mix
Source Confirmed
Sources
Methodology
  • Category split as percentage of all breakdowns within each powertrain, 2-4 year old vehicles. Categories were corrected from the ADAC PDF primary source after an earlier secondary source was found to have mislabeled categories (Tires 13% corrected to 5%; Motor/HV 18% corrected to 10%).
Caveats
  • “Electrical system/lighting” (18%) includes components shared with ICE vehicles (starter, alternator, lights). It is not EV-specific. European service mix may differ from U.S.
Download CSV
Spare Tires
Source Confirmed
Sources
Methodology
  • AAA definition: “no spare tire of any kind.” Consumer Reports uses a broader definition (no full-size or temp spare, which includes run-flats and sealant kits as “no spare”). Shown as separate markers on chart with methodology footnote. No interpolation between sparse data points.
Caveats
  • No data between 2006-2014 or 2018-2023. The jump from 28% (2017) to 60% (2024) partly reflects the definition change, not just trend acceleration. AAA has not updated their national spare tire study since 2017.
Download CSV
AV Rideshare
Chain Verified
Sources
  • Consumer Edge / YipitData (2025) — SF, Phoenix, LA rideshare market share (transaction data)
  • CPUC Quarterly Reports — California AV trip counts (regulatory filings)
  • Driverless Digest / analyst estimates — Austin, Atlanta market share
  • Lyft FY2025 Earnings — 945.5M rides (national denominator component)
  • TechCrunch (Feb 24, 2026) — 10 cities, ~3,000 vehicles
Caveats
  • Austin/Atlanta shares are analyst estimates, not regulatory data (marked “est.” on chart). Dallas/Houston/San Antonio/Orlando launched Feb 2026 — excluded (no rideshare data yet). Uber does not report US-only trip counts; domestic estimate is derived.
Download CSV (AV rideshare) Download CSV (AV fleet history)
Vehicle Weight
Source Confirmed
Sources
  • EPA Automotive Trends Report — annual average new vehicle weight by regulatory class (Car/Truck), 1975–2024 (downloadable data explorer)
  • Ford OEM specifications — F-150 SuperCrew 4x4 vs F-150 Lightning weight comparison; Michelin, Consumer Reports, Bridgestone tire wear data; J.D. Power 2024 BEV tire replacement rates
Methodology
  • Production-weighted average curb weight of new vehicles sold, from EPA annual compliance data. 50-year series (1975–2024) downloaded from EPA Automotive Trends Data Explorer, split by regulatory class (Car vs Truck). EV weight premium (+22%) calculated from F-150 SuperCrew 4x4 like-for-like comparison (ICE ~4,900 lbs vs Lightning 6,015 lbs).
Caveats
  • Weight trend is primarily driven by the market shift from sedans to SUVs/trucks (compositional effect), visible in the car/truck split lines. EV weight premium (up to +22% for comparable trims) is additive to this baseline trend. EPA data is new-vehicle sales-weighted average, not fleet-weighted.
Download CSV