Top 10 Most Driven Cars in 2025
When new car prices are pushing all-time highs, understanding how much you're really getting out of a vehicle has never been more important. A recent study from iSeeCars looked at over 1 million used vehicles to identify which cars Americans are driving the most, and which are sitting idle in garages. The results paint a revealing picture: the most driven vehicles tend to be family-focused, fleet-friendly, or incredibly practical. On the flip side, the least driven models are often expensive, flashy, or electric.
Mileage, as it turns out, is a useful lens for evaluating value. A car driven 20,000 miles per year provides more utility (and often better long-term economics) than a car driven just 5,000 miles annually. That's why models like the Chrysler Pacifica and Chevrolet Suburban, while not the flashiest on the road, top the list of the most-used vehicles in America. These cars aren't just bought - they're depended on. Below are the top 10 most-driven cars based on iSeeCars' study, and what their mileage tells us about how Americans really use their vehicles.
The Chrysler Pacifica takes the top spot as America's most driven vehicle, averaging an impressive 20,882 miles per year, 70% more than the national average of 12,307. Despite being a minivan in an SUV-dominated market, the Pacifica's versatility, spaciousness, and popularity among large families and fleet operators make it a workhorse. Its average new price of $47,615 might not be the cheapest on this list, but its cost per 1,000 miles of just $2,280 makes it a relatively economical choice for high-mileage drivers. That combination of high usage and affordability per mile helps cement its role as the go-to hauler for people who really drive.
Following closely behind is the Chrysler Voyager, averaging 19,948 miles per year. Slightly more affordable than its sibling, the Voyager comes in at an average new price of $37,248. That lower price translates to an even better cost-per-mile figure of just $1,867 for every 1,000 miles driven, the second cheapest among the top 10. Though it lacks some of the higher-end tech and features of the Pacifica, its utilitarian appeal and common use in commercial fleets help explain why it racks up the miles so reliably.
The Pacifica Hybrid blends the utility of a minivan with the fuel-saving benefits of electrification. It's the third most driven vehicle in the country, with drivers putting on an average of 19,575 miles a year. While it has a higher sticker price than its gas-powered counterpart at $53,003, its average cost per 1,000 miles - $2,708 - is still reasonable given the added efficiency of hybrid power. With its ability to handle long hauls while offering some electric-only range for short trips, it's easy to see why families and ride-share drivers are racking up the miles.
One of the few sedans to crack the top 10, the Chevrolet Malibu averages 18,762 miles annually, well above average for any vehicle, let alone a midsize sedan. Priced at $28,637 when new, it's the cheapest vehicle in the top five and also one of the most cost-efficient, coming in at just $1,526 per 1,000 miles. Its presence here is partly due to its widespread use in rental and fleet services, but it also speaks to the model's overall durability and low operating costs, which appeal to budget-conscious consumers and fleet managers alike.
As the original full-size SUV, the Chevrolet Suburban continues to serve families, government agencies, and corporate fleets. With an annual mileage average of 18,317, it's clear that drivers rely heavily on the Suburban for long-distance trips. Its higher-than-average price tag of $70,199 means it costs $3,832 per 1,000 miles - steeper than the sedans and minivans above, but still respectable given its size, cargo capacity, and power. It's a large vehicle for people with large transportation needs, and it shows in the odometer.
The Nissan Armada is another large SUV on this list, averaging 17,885 miles annually. At an average new price of $64,467, it's on the pricier side, and its cost per 1,000 miles lands at $3,604. Like the Suburban, the Armada serves big families and commercial drivers who need passenger and cargo space in equal measure. Its strong V8 engine and towing capacity make it a favorite in regions where big SUVs are still king, especially for long-distance travel.
The Ford Mustang convertible is arguably the most surprising entry in the top 10. Known more for weekend cruising than daily commuting, it nonetheless racks up 17,660 miles per year on average. That's a lot of driving for a car associated with style and performance rather than utility. Its $49,592 price tag translates to $2,808 per 1,000 miles, making it a decent value for those who want to enjoy their drive without completely breaking the bank. Its appearance here may be partly influenced by fleet or rental use in sunbelt states, where convertible Mustangs are a common sight.
At 17,051 miles per year, the Ford Expedition Max is another heavy-duty SUV getting plenty of road time. With an average new price of $76,723 - the second highest on this list - it's not cheap to own, costing $4,500 per 1,000 miles. But for large families, government fleets, or those with long commutes and a need to haul both people and gear, it delivers. Its extended wheelbase and large cargo area make it especially valuable for those whose travel needs are constant and demanding.
Similar to the Expedition Max in size and function, the GMC Yukon XL sees about 16,926 miles per year of use. It carries a hefty average new price of $77,327, which results in a per-1,000-mile cost of $4,569. It's clearly not the cheapest option for getting around, but it offers capability, comfort, and presence. For suburban and rural drivers with long school runs, road trips, or business needs, the Yukon XL is often worth the premium.
Rounding out the top 10 is the Kia Carnival, a relative newcomer that's carved out a niche among modern minivans. It sees an average of 16,884 miles annually and costs about $2,390 per 1,000 miles. At $40,352 new, it's one of the more affordable high-use vehicles, and its SUV-like styling combined with true minivan practicality has helped it gain traction. Families love its spacious interior, and it's increasingly showing up in commercial use too - two factors that contribute to its high mileage figures.
With car prices still hovering near record highs, it's more important than ever to factor in not just what a car costs, but how much you'll actually drive it. For many, the best car isn't the flashiest or the fastest - it's the one that works hardest for every mile you're on the road.
Copyright 2025 The Arena Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Should You Buy Lucid While It's Below $3?
After a surge of interest, consumer enthusiasm for electric vehicles has fallen of late. Lucid's EVs are expensive, which can make them a harder sell amid higher economic uncertainty. While the company makes great vehicles, it faces too many serious headwinds right now. 10 stocks we like better than Lucid Group › Lucid Group (NASDAQ: LCID) makes some of the best-looking electric vehicles in the U.S. They've won accolades from automotive publications, and offer some of the EV world's longest battery ranges. So you might assume the EV start-up would have a rapidly rising share price to boot. But that's not the case. Lucid's shares have plunged by 86% over the past three years, while the S&P 500 has gained 41%. With its shares trading for less than $3, is Lucid stock a buy now? The least expensive Lucid Air sedan has a starting price of about $70,000, and the only available version of its new Gravity SUV starts at nearly $95,000. That's 18% and 60% more expensive than the average transaction price for a new EV, respectively. Lucid's luxury EVs aren't necessarily for the average buyer, so one could argue that it's fine that they cost so much. The problem is that overall demand for EVs is slowing in the U.S. A recent survey found that only 16% of Americans are interested in buying an EV, down from 21% at this time last year. Their cost is likely a factor. Interest rates remain relatively high and President Trump's tariffs are adding to manufacturers' expenses. Lucid's interim CEO, Marc Winterhoff, said recently that the company's gross margin headwind from those tariffs will be in the range of 8% to 15%. That could eventually push its vehicle prices even higher. Part of the reason why demand for EVs has weakened is that charging infrastructure still is not ubiquitous across the U.S., and it will take years to build it out. President Trump is also hampering that process, as he has paused the distribution of $3 billion in funding that Congress allotted to the states to support their efforts to install more electric vehicle charging stations. Republicans are also trying to eliminate federal EV tax credits that were worth up to $7,500 for new electric vehicle purchases. The version of Trump's "One, Big, Beautiful Bill" that recently passed in the House axed the tax credit; its fate in the Senate is unclear. Lucid's vehicles are now too expensive to qualify for the credit, but the company compensated for that by cutting its sticker prices by $7,500. Automakers' management teams often make decisions on how to invest in their companies based on the political climate. And for Lucid and other EV makers, things just don't look good right now. With President Trump seemingly set against helping the electric vehicle market expand, automakers are on their own in trying to convince the general public to buy their vehicles. The result will likely be fewer incentives to buy EVs and, therefore, less interest among some buyers. While the company has a good product, there are too many uncertainties right now in the EV industry for investors to be bullish about Lucid, or any EV stocks for that matter. I still think EVs are the future of the automotive industry, but it's taking much longer for them to be successful than many people anticipated. The fact of the matter is that Lucid's vehicles are expensive, and in a time when interest rates are elevated compared to what consumers have grown used to, costs are rising because of tariffs, U.S. government supports for the EV industry are being removed, and there's plenty of economic uncertainty ahead, finding interested buyers for them becomes meaningfully harder. That doesn't mean Lucid is doomed, but I think it would be better for potential investors to wait and see how some of these uncertainties and headwinds shake out before buying the company's stock. Before you buy stock in Lucid Group, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Lucid Group wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $651,049!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $828,224!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 979% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 171% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of May 19, 2025 Chris Neiger has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Should You Buy Lucid While It's Below $3? was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


The Hill
14 hours ago
- The Hill
Why DOGE failed
Tesla CEO Elon Musk is out. He is scaling back his political involvement and activity after investing a significant amount of time, effort and money first in campaigning for President Trump and Republicans. He lasted only a few months helming the Department of Government Efficiency. His disastrous record will linger far longer. Musk's critics underestimate him at their peril. Take the politics out of it, and his success would be an inspirational American story of innovation. Indeed, it wasn't long ago that his progressive critics sang his praises and bought his electric cars in droves. Here was someone who was going to help fight climate change and move the world to a greener future. His company, SpaceX, rescued stranded American astronauts who had remained stuck at the International Space Station for months. But we can't take the politics out of it. Musk spent $288 million to help elect Trump. Then Trump picked him to lead DOGE, and liberals turned against him. Musk kicked off his attendance at the Conservative Political Action Conference by wielding a chainsaw. Argentina's President Javier Milei presented 'the chainsaw for bureaucracy' to Musk on stage after using it as a prop during his own 2023 presidential campaign. 'Move fast and break things' is a slogan often associated with Silicon Valley. It means to embrace a swift experimental method for development, prioritizing a rapid-fire pace and innovation over perfect execution. Many American tech companies have embraced this approach that cultivates development and disruption. Computer programmers and software developers are encouraged to create, smash and sprint until they find a solution. That ethos might work for Google, Apple and startups, but a frenetic pace does not provide the stability and consistency that a functional free society needs. We need individuals with the ability to govern who make the best decisions for the common good. Most computer programmers do not have the skills to solve complex problems involving public policy, just as most politicians don't have the skills to program a computer. Expertise in one field (technology) doesn't mean mastery of every subject. Michael Jordan torched his opponents as a basketball player, but he has yet to find similar success as a team general manager. Also, you shouldn't ask a car mechanic how to fix a plumbing problem. The American public loathes politics so much that we concede so much ground to technocrats and other ill-qualified people in hopes that they have all the answers. Yet tech lords remain as unqualified regarding national affairs as the butcher, baker and candlestick maker. Musk's efforts were unsettling because he was unaccountable to anyone, unlike a senator or a president. DOGE's approach to government reform was as subtle as that of Jason Voorhees, the villain of most of the Friday the 13th movies. Musk has departed DOGE, but he leaves behind a mess that will affect vital government services upon which Americans depend. For example, DOGE dismissed 800 employees from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, raising worries about the accuracy of weather forecasts with hurricane season approaching. DOGE's efforts to find fraud and waste in the Social Security Administration backfired and resulted in delays and complaints from senior citizens. Musk is accustomed to making unilateral changes without approval, and that's just what he did at DOGE. He pushed for Gary Shapley to become the next IRS commissioner without consulting Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Bessent makes that appointment, not the leader of a made-up department. Peer past the sometimes-frustrating bureaucracy, and one finds hard-working individuals supporting the vital missions for the American people. By DOGE's own estimates, Musk's team will fall short of its stated goal of cutting $2 trillion from the federal budget. Of course it will. Without changes to defense spending and entitlement reform, it was always just a pipe dream. Instead, the real unstated mission of DOGE was to make working for the federal government untenable. Unfortunately, on that front, Musk had more success. Morale among the federal workforce gets understandably low when the next email could be notice to clear out your desk and vacate the building. DOGE's reforms come at the expense of functional government and to the harm of the American public. Donavan Wilson is a writer based in Washington.
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
Tesla Sales Plunge 67% to an Almost Three-Year Low in France
(Bloomberg) -- Tesla Inc.'s new-vehicle registrations fell further in France, undercutting Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk's assertion last month that the carmaker has recovered from its early-year sales slump. Billionaire Steve Cohen Wants NY to Expand Taxpayer-Backed Ferry Where the Wild Children's Museums Are Now With Colorful Blocks, Tirana's Pyramid Represents a Changing Albania The Economic Benefits of Paying Workers to Move NYC Congestion Toll Brings In $216 Million in First Four Months The automaker sold only 721 cars in May, down 67% from a year earlier, according to French industry association Plateforme Automobile. Tesla's registrations were the lowest since July 2022, despite the company rolling out a redesigned version of its most popular vehicle, the Model Y. Tesla shares dropped as much as 2.3% before the start of regular trading Monday. The stock has declined 14% this year. Musk recently denied the need for a plan to improve Tesla's fortunes, telling Bloomberg News in a May 20 interview that the company had 'already turned around.' While the CEO claimed Tesla was seeing sales decline along with every other carmaker in Europe, manufacturers including Volkswagen AG, Renault SA and BMW AG increased deliveries in the first four months of the year. Tesla's sales have fallen 47% through May in the second-biggest market for electric vehicles in the European Union. The Federal Motor Transport Authority in Germany, the EU's largest EV market, is scheduled to release May figures on June 6. YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom Millions of Americans Are Obsessed With This Japanese Barbecue Sauce Mark Zuckerberg Loves MAGA Now. Will MAGA Ever Love Him Back? Will Small Business Owners Knock Down Trump's Mighty Tariffs? Trump Considers Deporting Migrants to Rwanda After the UK Decides Not To ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.