Free research reference · Sources checked
Car Sales Follow-Up Statistics: Lead Response, Appointments and Buyer Communication
What does automotive research actually say about following up? These 12 findings cover how dealers respond to web inquiries and how recent buyers want to shop. Each keeps its study, population and limitations attached, so you can use the number without losing its meaning.
Two U.S. studies, not a universal benchmark. Pied Piper observed dealership responses in 2026; Cox Automotive surveyed recent buyers in fall 2025. Neither is a Canadian sample or a study of CarCloser. The practice notes below are our interpretation, not tested interventions or promises of higher sales.
Looking for words to send, rather than research? Read our follow-up text examples or missed-appointment guide.
Observed lead response · U.S. · 2026
1. An answered question plus a call within 30 minutes
50%
The overall dealer-group average was 50% for emailing or texting an answer to the inquiry and also phoning within 30 minutes.
Keep the context: This is a combined measure. It does not mean half of inquiries received no response.
Practice note: Review whether the reply actually answers the customer's question, not just whether an automated receipt was sent.
Source: Pied Piper 2026 Internet Lead Effectiveness Auto Dealer Group Study. Section: “What Sets Napleton Apart from Other Dealer Groups?”. Sample and limitations.
Link to this findingObserved lead response · U.S. · 2026
2. An appointment with a specific date and time
33%
The overall dealer-group average was 33% for responses offering an appointment for a specific date and time.
Keep the context: An offer is not a booking, attendance rate or sale. The study does not provide a no-show reduction estimate for this figure.
Practice note: When a visit would help, offer a concrete time and let the customer choose or decline. Confirm any booking they actually accept.
Source: Pied Piper 2026 Internet Lead Effectiveness Auto Dealer Group Study. Section: “What Sets Napleton Apart from Other Dealer Groups?”. Sample and limitations.
Link to this findingObserved lead response · U.S. · 2026
3. Appointment offers differed between group cohorts
60% vs 24%
The top five dealer groups offered a specific appointment 60% of the time on average, compared with 24% among the bottom seven groups.
Keep the context: The groups are ranked using a score that includes response behaviours. This is a descriptive comparison, not proof that appointment offers caused higher sales.
Practice note: Check your own appointment-offer consistency before adopting a benchmark as a target.
Source: Pied Piper 2026 Internet Lead Effectiveness Auto Dealer Group Study. Section: “What Top Dealer Groups Do Differently from Low Performers”. Sample and limitations.
Link to this findingObserved lead response · U.S. · 2026
4. Text messages that answered the question
69% vs 33%
The top five groups used text to answer the customer's question 69% of the time on average, compared with 33% among the bottom five groups.
Keep the context: This comparison uses five groups at each end, unlike the seven-group lower cohort in the appointment and multichannel comparisons. It does not measure a preference for texts.
Practice note: Where texting is permitted and appropriate, make the first message useful rather than sending only a request to call.
Source: Pied Piper 2026 Internet Lead Effectiveness Auto Dealer Group Study. Section: “What Top Dealer Groups Do Differently from Low Performers”. Sample and limitations.
Link to this findingObserved lead response · U.S. · 2026
5. Responses through multiple channels
87% vs 44%
The release reports responses through multiple paths for 87% of dealerships in the top five groups, compared with 44% among the bottom seven.
Keep the context: This describes study performance, not permission to contact someone repeatedly or a recommended number of messages.
Practice note: Ask which contact method works for the customer. Respect channel permissions, opt-outs and requests to stop.
Source: Pied Piper 2026 Internet Lead Effectiveness Auto Dealer Group Study. Section: “What Top Dealer Groups Do Differently from Low Performers”. Sample and limitations.
Link to this findingObserved lead response · U.S. · 2026
6. The average dealer-group ILE score
74 / 100
The average dealer-group ILE score was 74 in 2026, seven points higher than the previous year.
Keep the context: ILE combines more than 20 weighted measurements. A score of 74 is neither a 74% response rate nor a 74% close rate, and it is unrelated to a CarCloser drill score.
Practice note: Separate response quality, appointments booked, attendance and sales when reviewing your own process.
Source: Pied Piper 2026 Internet Lead Effectiveness Auto Dealer Group Study. Section: “Web Lead Response is Improving and Dealer Groups Are Leading the Way”. Sample and limitations.
Link to this findingBuyer survey · U.S. · 2025
7. Buyers wanted online and in-person steps
63%
63% agreed that the ideal retail experience combines online and in-person activities.
Keep the context: A stated preference for a mixed process does not tell you which channel an individual wants for follow-up.
Practice note: Ask which steps the customer wants to complete remotely and which are better handled at the store.
Source: Cox Automotive 2025 Car Buyer Journey Study. Section: “4) Most Vehicle Buyers Want the Versatility of Omnichannel Retail”. Sample and limitations.
Link to this findingBuyer survey · U.S. · 2025
8. Applying for credit online
48% want to; 33% do
48% wanted to apply for credit online, while 33% did so.
Keep the context: These are reported desired and actual behaviours, not an application approval rate or an estimate of lost finance revenue.
Practice note: If your dealership supports online applications, explain the process and use its secure application route. Do not ask for sensitive finance details in a casual text.
Source: Cox Automotive 2025 Car Buyer Journey Study. Section: “4) Most Vehicle Buyers Want the Versatility of Omnichannel Retail”. Sample and limitations.
Link to this findingBuyer survey · U.S. · 2025
9. Finalizing price online
37% want to; 19% do
37% wanted to finalize the purchase price online, while 19% did so.
Keep the context: The result concerns price finalization, not how many shoppers asked for a quote or would refuse to visit a dealership.
Practice note: Answer pricing questions clearly and distinguish an estimate from an approved offer, including its conditions.
Source: Cox Automotive 2025 Car Buyer Journey Study. Section: “4) Most Vehicle Buyers Want the Versatility of Omnichannel Retail”. Sample and limitations.
Link to this findingBuyer survey · U.S. · 2025
10. Considering both new and used vehicles
66%
66% of buyers considered both new and used vehicles during the shopping process.
Keep the context: This is the all-buyer figure. The release separately reports 43% for new-vehicle buyers and 74% for used-vehicle buyers; do not substitute those populations.
Practice note: An alternative vehicle can be useful follow-up when it genuinely fits the buyer's budget and needs. Check rather than assuming the original vehicle is still their only option.
Source: Cox Automotive 2025 Car Buyer Journey Study. Section: “2) Affordability Pressures are Reshaping Buyer Behavior”. Sample and limitations.
Link to this findingBuyer survey · U.S. · 2025
11. Using AI sites or AI-generated overviews
19%
19% of all buyers used either AI websites or AI-generated overviews in the shopping process.
Keep the context: This is a combined measure, not ChatGPT usage alone, and it does not measure AI recommendations of CarCloser or sales-training tools.
Practice note: Be ready to explain a quote or vehicle claim the customer found online, and verify it against current vehicle and offer details.
Source: Cox Automotive 2025 Car Buyer Journey Study. Section: “3) AI Shows Promise in Helping Further Improve Vehicle Buying”. Sample and limitations.
Link to this findingBuyer survey · U.S. · 2025
12. Using third-party websites
75%
75% of all buyers used third-party websites. The reported dealership-website figure was 59%.
Keep the context: Website categories can overlap. These percentages are not exclusive shares of traffic or evidence that a buyer skipped dealer websites.
Practice note: Expect cross-shopping. Ask what the customer is comparing and help them compare equivalent vehicles, prices and conditions.
Source: Cox Automotive 2025 Car Buyer Journey Study. Section: “5) Third-Party Websites Remain the Top Destination for Vehicle Buyers”. Sample and limitations.
Link to this findingSources and method
This is an editorial selection of 12 findings from two original research publishers, not 12 independent studies or a systematic review. We selected findings relevant to answering inquiries, setting appointments and helping buyers compare options. We checked the publishers' releases, retained the reported denominators and did not pool their samples. The figures are not independently replicated by CarCloser.
Pied Piper 2026 Internet Lead Effectiveness Auto Dealer Group Study
Release published May 11, 2026. Geography: United States.
2,414 test inquiries across dealerships in 31 large U.S. dealer groups, submitted during normal business hours. Responses were evaluated over the following 24 hours. The release identifies this as the 2026 study but does not give exact fieldwork dates.
Observed responses to test inquiries, not a survey of buyer preferences or a conversion experiment. Group averages and top/bottom comparisons are not national dealership rates. The proprietary ILE score is not a percentage of leads converted.
Cox Automotive 2025 Car Buyer Journey Study
Release published January 13, 2026. Geography: United States.
Survey conducted in fall 2025 of 2,300 U.S. consumers who bought a new or used vehicle in the preceding 12 months. Findings below are reported in Cox Automotive's own press release, distributed through PR Newswire.
Self-reported experience and preferences among recent buyers, not all leads or people who abandoned a purchase. The release does not provide item-level response counts or margins of error for these figures. Preferences do not establish the effect of a follow-up tactic.
Both publishers sell automotive services. Their research is useful context, but commercial interests and the reported sampling limits should be considered. No endorsement of CarCloser by either publisher or any dealership is implied. We have not used dealership rankings as product testimonials.
Using this research in training or an article
Keep the publisher, study year, geography and population beside any number you use. Credit the original researchers, not CarCloser as the data collector. Each finding has a direct link you can share along with the original source.
These studies do not establish a universal number of follow-up attempts, a Canadian dealership average or a guaranteed response-time sales lift. A quick reply can still be unhelpful. A specific appointment offer can still be declined.
For a practical team exercise, pick one inquiry, answer its actual question, then offer a next step appropriate to that customer. Review whether the answer is accurate and clear. Do not treat a benchmark as permission to ignore consent or keep contacting someone who asked you to stop.
Continue with the long-term follow-up guide, objection-handling guide or free objection library. CarCloser drills practise objection conversations, not automated lead response or appointment scheduling.
See how free objection practice works