The car wasn't found for three months, so probably not.
> I remember they found the car first. Would staying by the car not have bought them enough time?
Considering they went missing in June/July, and the car wasn't found until October, I think that's unlikely.
As a general rule, absolutely, but in this case it wouldn't have been enough on its own.
I don't know if the advantage was enough, but basically the conclusion was that they found the car first. And this type of story keeps on happening (like the car in Washington state a few years ago where the only person who died wandered away from their car), to the extent there's a real lesson to stay still.