Along with looking to ascertain how few Americans have no emergency savings, a median-income household can only afford the average-priced new vehicle in one of the 25 largest U.S. metropolitan areas, according to a new report released this week.

Turns out the lone metro area to meet the requirements study orchestrators set was Washington, D.C. The study adhered to the “20/4/10” rule, meaning a 20 percent down payment, a four-year contract term and principal/interest/insurance payments comprising 10 percent of a household's gross income. Analysts also reviewed data from a wide array of sources, including Kelley Blue Book, TaxJar, The Zebra and the U.S. Census Bureau.

If a median-income household follows those guidelines, the study showed consumers can afford less than half of the average new-vehicle price in six of the 25 surveyed markets. Miami/Fort Lauderdale/West Palm Beach came in last. In that metro, a median-income household can afford to buy a car worth just $13,577, but the average new vehicle would cost $35,368, including local sales taxes.

“The main point of this research is to illustrate how Americans are having to overextend themselves to pay for a new car at today’s prices,” said analyst Claes Bell.

“Low- and middle-income households are having to stretch loan terms to six or more years and/or spend huge percentages of their paychecks to afford reliable transportation, and it’s very difficult to get off that hamster wheel of debt once you're on it,” Bell continued in a news release.

In the District of Columbia, where the median income of nearly $100,000 is about twice as high as in south Florida, a median-income household can afford to spend $37,223 on a vehicle ($697 per month). But even there, Bell cautions that the figures apply to the entire household.

“So if you're making payments on two cars, you’re looking at a couple of $350 monthly bills, not a pair of brand-new luxury cars,” Bell said.

The top five metros for new-vehicle affordability are:

1. Washington, D.C. (total purchase price of up to $37,223/monthly payment up to $697)

2. San Francisco ($32,286/$631)

3. Boston ($30,863/$592)

4. Seattle ($26,771/$532)

5. Minneapolis/St. Paul ($26,606/$502)

The five worst are:

25. Miami/Fort Lauderdale/West Palm Beach ($13,577/$256)

24. Detroit ($13,913/$273)

23. Tampa, Fla. ($14,189/$268)

22. Orlando, Fla. ($15,902/$309)

21. San Antonio ($16,433/$324)

The full rankings are available here.

Nearly 1 in 4 has no emergency savings

As data shows that evidently many consumers can’t afford a new vehicle, another report from determined nearly a quarter of Americans have no emergency savings.

However, the study noted the percentage of those without an emergency fund currently sits at a six year low, down to 24 percent this year from 28 percent last year.

Additionally, Americans with an adequate savings cushion — enough to cover six months' expenses or more — jumped to 31 percent (from 22 percent in 2015 and 28 percent last year), a new high during the seven years has been polling on this subject.

Overall, analysts contend Americans are doing a better job at saving. Those with some savings, but not enough to cover three months’ expenses, increased from 18 percent to 20 percent. Americans with enough savings to cover three to five months’ expenses nosed higher from 16 percent to 17 percent.

“With all the spending that is not happening in the economy, something else apparently is — Americans are putting money in savings,” chief financial analyst Greg McBride said.

“We’re still not out of the woods yet — everyone should strive to have at least six months’ expenses socked away for the unexpected — but it’s encouraging to see progress being made,” McBride continued.

The tendency to have no emergency savings is highest among those ages 53-62, who seem to be all-or-nothing, as they have an equal propensity to have no emergency savings and enough to cover six months’ expenses (32 percent for each).

After that, the likelihood of having zero emergency savings declines substantially; the oldest Americans (63 and above) report the lowest likelihood of having nothing set aside for a rainy day (17 percent) and the highest probability of at least a six-month reserve (44 percent).

While one quarter of millennials and Generation Xers lack any emergency savings, younger millennials (ages 18 to 26) seem to be well on their way as they have the highest propensity to have enough to cover three to five months’ expenses (31 percent). Generation X is most likely to have some savings, but not enough to cover three months’ expenses (28 percent).

Not surprisingly, the study highlighted that those with enough emergency savings to cover at least six months' expenses tend to be higher income and more highly educated, while those with no emergency savings are more likely to be lower income and have lesser levels of education. That being said, lower-middle income households ($30,000 to $49,900 per year) are more likely to have enough savings to cover six months’ or more of expenses than to have no savings at all.

The study added that residents of the Midwest are most likely to have enough to cover six months’ expenses or more, while residents of the South are least likely.

The Financial Security Index hit a record high of 106.7 in June. All five components (job security, comfort level with savings, comfort level with debt, net worth and overall financial situation) show improvement versus one year ago, and each of the five had a higher reading than one month ago.

Those reporting increased job security outnumber those feeling less job security by 2-to-1. Those reporting higher net worth exceed those reporting lower net worth by a greater than 3-to-1 margin, the strongest reading ever. And, Americans saying their overall financial situation has improved top those saying it has deteriorated by more than 2-to-1.

Women's feelings of financial security posted the highest reading in two years (since June 2015), aided by an increased comfort level with debt.

The survey was conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. PSRAI obtained telephone interviews with a nationally representative sample of 1,003 adults living in the continental United States. Interviews were conducted by landline (500) and cell phone (503, including 309 without a landline phone) in English and Spanish by Princeton Data Source from June 1-4. Statistical results are weighted to correct known demographic discrepancies. The margin of sampling error for the complete set of weighted data is plus or minus 3.7 percentage points.