Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Midsize Sedans 2.0

1…150151153155156…544

Comments

  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    What calculations? I mentioned someone actually measuring wheel (something you claimed to have done as well). And for my point, I did use specs on tirerack as well (compared as close to specs as possible on that and another website, down to speed/load rating).

    Replacing an alloy wheel with an alloy wheel obviously wont make a big difference

    Not quite. It is tires that don't make a big difference (may be 2-3 lb/tire at best). It is wheels that do, unless one goes for lighter alloys. But all things being equal larger wheel weighs more. Besides, automakers just don't slap wider tires regardless of the rim. In fact, Accord got 17x7.5 rims to go with the new 225 width tire compared to old 215 mm tires which did fine with a narrower rim (17x7.0). You don't think that makes a difference? 5-6 lb worth, plus couple from tires equates to an additional 30-40 lb, not less (unless you're comparing two very different things like steel wheels and alloys much less light weight alloys).
  • oldcemoldcem Member Posts: 309
    Well - to start with - I owned a 1975 model with the 3.8 that made it that far - then got totaled in an accident. My old boss had a LeSabre (late 90's model) that made it that far then he got tired of it and sold it. Right now one of our salesmen is driving a 2002 Regal with the supercharged 3.8 that has 280K on it and still going strong. I could go on and on. As basically an old Buick 400 cube V8 with 2 cylinders wacked off, its simple, strong, beefy engine.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    So true.
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    The weight advantage, or disadvantage of larger wheels depends on the actual wheels used. The differences in width, material, and design play large rolls, and they are very different from wheel to wheel. Sporty (light weight) wheels, will usually have less spokes and be made of aluminum alloy, whereas Bling wheels are usually very heavy, multi-spoke, and made of heavier material. It all depends on the particular wheels involved.
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Member Posts: 425
    Current studies suggest that weight gain causes many problems in this segment. Terminal understeer, longer braking times, worse gas mileage, and slower acceleration are all aggravated by a bloated, obese condition. Finally a car manufacturer has altered the trend toward bigger and heavier cars and here is their recipe:

    image
  • phaetondriverphaetondriver Member Posts: 175
    You asked what calculations. This is form your post isn't it Here they are again, with calculated diameter in inches:
    P215/60/R16: 26.15"
    P225/50/R17: 25.86"
    P235/45/R18: 26.33"
    You calculated these tire diameters didn't you? That is what it says, I think.

    I am saying there is no point in calculating tire diameters because each tire is different, even if they come form the same manufacturer.

    I am also making the point form an after marker view of replacing an OEM wheel an tire with an after market setup. Go look at a lot of tire weights for 75 -80 series 15 inch tires and then look at the same tire width say 215 mm for a 17 or 18 inch tire with a 40 45 series side wall. I have done this and there is an average of about 2.5 pounds to 3 pounds per tire weight savings on the 17 or 18's over the 15's
    OEM alloy wheels are the heavy weights of alloy wheels and form those I have seen you can expect to save a pound or two even going 2-3 inches larger than stock.

    So it's probably going to save about 5 pounds per corner changing to a plus 2 or plus 3 setup.

    Changing tire widths and rim widths and offset measurements can all increase or decrease the total weight differences. This isn't about OEM wheel and tires on one car or another.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    The wheel diameter calculation was in response to a different post that was about impact on speedometer. That said, the calculation is not an opinion, it is based on a standard. The standard doesn't vary by manufacturer.

    When it comes to tire weight, it will depend on several factors like tread depth and general construction. But those being equal (and only size to vary), a larger tire should weigh more simply because it uses more material to manufacture. Now, larger in this case won't mean larger diameter, but overall size. For example, for same brand/type of tire (Kumho Touring Plus)
    P195/60/R15 (24.2"): 18.6 lb
    P215/65/R15 (26.0"): 24.2 lb
    P215/60/R16 (26.1"): 24.7 lb

    The last two tires use more stuff for being bigger. Now, assuming that a 6.5" wide rim would suffice for 215 width, do you really believe 15x6.5 rim won't weigh less than a 16x6.5 rim (and I am not comparing 15x5.5 or 15x6.0 inch rim, which is all that the first tire might need). This is how numbers begin to add up.
  • phaetondriverphaetondriver Member Posts: 175
    Right!
    IF we were talking about putting a larger wheel and tire on the car and can it be done as to reduce unsprung weight and still provide the same diameter so Speedometer readings and other computer systems all work as designed. Here are some examples for a ar that came with a 225 70 R15 tire with a diameter of 27.4 inches, The Tire is an Eagle RS-a which came on millions of cars a few years ago.
    An Eagle RS-a in 225 50SR 18 weighs 27 pounds, 2 pounds less than the 15's and has a diameter of 27.3 inches. Go up to a 19 inch wheel with a 225 45SR 19 which weighs 25 lbs so you save 3 pounds per tire over the original and has a diameter of 27.1 inches. Still all Eagle RS-A's and 225 mm wide. No speedometer adjustment needed. It is important to look at the specs for the tires you want because a slight variation here or there and you can find a tire diameter off by an inch or more.

    Wheel choices are in the thousands but a couple of Enki wheels I looked up go form 16 lbs to 19 pounds for 17 to 19 inch wheels, 1 pound per inch.
    Other wheels started out a little heaver but still increased only 1 pound per inch for the same model. All are 7.5 inch wide.
    Anyway from an OEM tire and wheel that probably weighed 55 to 58 pounds you could go up to a 19 inch set and have a weight of 44 pounds.
    That looks like a nice total savings of 176 pounds. It might be a little less if the OEM wheels weighed less that 25 pounds, which is unlikely.

    IF someone found they didn't like the ride with the OEM 18 inch tires than can always go backward if the brakes will allow it. The brakes and rotors will determine how far down you can go.
  • phaetondriverphaetondriver Member Posts: 175
    Anyway from an OEM tire and wheel that probably weighed 55 to 58 pounds you could go up to a 19 inch set and have a weight of 44 pounds.

    WAIT A MINUTE, My MATH IS WACKED. it would be a savings of 11 to 14 pounds per corner of 44 to 56 pounds total. Don't know what I was thinking. probably writing and thinking and editing all at the same time.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    Do you really believe automakers are putting larger wheels to accomodate larger brakes? Think again. To use Mazda6, brakes don't grow with wheel size going up from 17" to 18" (it does only with MS6 which has 18", and understandably so because it is performance oriented as opposed to being pedestrian).

    I agree, the performance oriented vehicles get larger brakes for larger wheels, like the MS6, LGT/Spec B, G35, etc, and the pedestrian cars get big wheels for styling and performance oriented tires (215/50R17 has a lot more options then 205/60R16).

    Not quite. While turning radius also depends on track, tire's width/size does play a role.

    As far as the interaction between track and turning circle, that also depends on wheel offset. The Base Legacy wtih 205/50 tires and the LGT wiht 215/45 tires have the same turning circle, but different steering racks. The Spec B has larger wheels, a larger turning circle, but also again a different steering rack. Previously, the Honda was in the same boat with the V6 and the I4 using different steering racks do to clearance issues.

    I personally would rather have a 205/55R16 performance tire like our '05 Legacy (more so than the 205/60R16 minivan tires the Accord/Fusion have) than 155SR13s like the Colt had, but if someone else feels differently, more power to them. I just don't understand why someone would test drive a car and buy it and then complain about the things that provide its handling attributes.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Sometimes the "super-size it" issue isn't a choice. Civic LX/EX/EX-L comes standard with P205/55/R16, which happens to be bigger than 1998-2002 Accord's (including the V6) and exactly the size that comes standard on BMW 328i (and '05 Legacy as you noted). Si, comes with 17" rims, and Mugen Si goes one step further with 18". This isn't entirely about harsh ride, it is also about practicality and efficiency. But the "looks" aspect has taken over.

    Not even S2000 and NSX have been offered with anything more than 17". In fact, NSX had 15" front and 16" rear wheels when it first arrived. Now, Accord Coupe/V6 has 18" standard. I think 19" might be available as an upgrade, if HFP comes around.

    Sometimes when I think about why Accord EX/EX-L is 150 lb heavier than LX/LX-P, I can't help but think that something as trivial as wheel might be a significant chunk in that extra weight.
  • targettuningtargettuning Member Posts: 1,371
    Sure they have, I can go and collect various post numbers if need be to back that up. There are a select few Honda lovers (nothing wrong there, I guess unless the comments become absurd) who will state that outright or obscurely with that "fact" being the implication. Ford..GM..Chrysler and others have inferior engines by default (they aren't Honda's) There is no concrete evidence that a Honda engine will last longer than anything else. For every Honda engine longevity story someone can counter with one from a Ford (like mine) or a GM product or a Chrysler product (like mine) or a Hyundai product (like mine). Yeah, my comment was sarcastic in large part but it rings true where many here are concerned...just ask them.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    Sometimes the "super-size it" issue isn't a choice.

    Sure it is. Anything is a choice. I won't buy an automatic transmission car. If you don't make a stick, I am not buying it. Thats a choice. That's how I wound up with the Accord instead of the Mazda6. I couldn't find an Mazda6 stick when I needed a vehicle, and I couldn't quite swing the MazdaSpeed6.

    Not even S2000 and NSX have been offered with anything more than 17". In fact, NSX had 15" front and 16" rear wheels when it first arrived. Now, Accord Coupe/V6 has 18" standard. I think 19" might be available as an upgrade, if HFP comes around.

    The S2000 curb weight is 2800 lbs, the NSX is 3000 lbs. The '07 Accord is 3600. The GVWR of the Accord is considerably higher than that of the S2000 (which has less payload capacity than a Ninja 500) or the NSX. More weight means more momentum requiring bigger and better brake systems and stronger tires and wheels to hold the weight. Tractor-trailers use 22.5"+ size whees to support the loads and clear brakes.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Are you telling me that wheel size is determined by GVWR? That’s what tire load ratings are for. As for brakes, NSX had bigger and thicker brakes to go with smaller wheels, and S2000 has the same size with smaller wheels than does Accord. In fact, Acura TL-S is about as heavy and has a superior brake (larger and thicker)/tire package than Accord but has smaller wheel. The current Civic is much smaller and 400 lb lighter than 1998-2002 Accord, and about 600 lb lighter than 328i. Neither the curb weight nor the brake logic seems to apply.

    And getting smaller wheel isn’t a choice, unless you opt for lesser trim (or a different car). If the pace keeps up, we will soon have 19-20 inch rims as "necessities".
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    The Chrysler minivans are the top sellers in their class, but I don't think many people consider them the benchmark for minivans

    Actually, for many years they were. Chrysler was the first one to come put with a mini van. Currently, Honda claims the top spot in minivan sales. This according to their recent "Happy Honda Days" ad I saw on TV yesterday.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Inferior versus superior doesn't necessarily always imply reliable/durable. In this age, I expect engines to last the lifetime of a car, or at least 200K miles. Few people go that far.

    But with engine, it also comes down to how it feels, sounds,responds and delivers. That is, if you happen to be a car enthusiast. On many opportunities when I have rented Chrysler 300, I have felt that it is the best effort Chrysler has put in anything and it is a good package. Rides and handles well for what it is. The 3.5/V6 has enough power to not disappoint anybody within the bounds of sanity. But, it leaves a little to be desired in terms of smoothness and sound. It feels strained and sounds metallic, when it shouldn't.

    For a person who notices little things, these qualities go a long way, and well beyond lasting for 1 million miles.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    I'm thinking the Corolla is the benchmark. A benchmark offers people exactly what they want and nothing they don't. It has qualities that put it ahead of the competitors. Toyota hit the nail on the head with the Corolla.

    Well, considering that 15-20% of all Corolla sales are fleet, I would say the Corolla is not the benchmark, but, rather the Civic, for it has higher retail sales and only about 2-5% fleet sales.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    to be fair - 15-20% fleet sales is a relatively low number when you compare it to 50%+ numbers you routinely see for US (and Korean) branded cars. Honda to its credit, I suppose, doesn't mess with the rental cos. and 'discourages' any fleet sales as a matter of policy. Wonder if that's why the Civic and Accord hold their value so well....
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    As for brakes, NSX had bigger and thicker brakes to go with smaller wheels, and S2000 has the same size with smaller wheels than does Accord.

    The NSX and the Accord both have 282mm F&R brakes. The Accord is 700lbs heavier. The NSX had 16" rims in the back, and very exotic front rims to clear those brakes. If the outside diameter is 15", and the rim is 1/2-1" thick, and there is an 11" rotor plus a caliper in there... The S2000 uses a 16x7.75, bigger than the Accord (which IIRC is 16x6.5).

    The current Civic is much smaller and 400 lb lighter than 1998-2002 Accord, and about 600 lb lighter than 328i.

    I got 200 lbs between 98-02 Accord and '07 Civic. I am also pretty sure the new Civic corners better and has shorter stopping distances than the old Accord.

    And getting smaller wheel isn’t a choice, unless you opt for lesser trim (or a different car).

    Which would send a pretty clear message to the manufacturer, don't you think?
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Honda must be counting sales in some particular way, e.g. maybe just retail sales. The Chrysler vans are still #1 in the minivan market by a large margin, e.g. they held 38% of the market as of a couple of months ago, with the Dodge vans alone on pace for over 200k sales in 2007.

    A good example where the top-selling vehicle in a particular market is not the current benchmark. I would say the consensus benchmark for minivans is the Odyssey.

    Actually, I think the midsized sedan market is another good example of this. The Camry is still the #1 seller but few professional reviewers put the Camry at the top of the midsized car heap. Most put the Accord there, and now we're seeing some opinion (MT, C/D, CR for example) that others have shot past the Camry also, e.g. the Malibu, Altima, Passat, even the Optima.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Honda must be counting sales in some particular way, e.g. maybe just retail sales. The Chrysler vans are still #1 in the minivan market by a large margin, e.g. they held 38% of the market as of a couple of months ago, with the Dodge vans alone on pace for over 200k sales in 2007.

    Here's the trick; the Chrysler T&C and Dodge GC are counted seperately. It's the same reason the Ford F150 is the "best selling pickup" when in reality, I suspect Chevrolet and GMC combined sell more full size pickups.

    Chrysler Corporation sells more vans, but Honda apparently sold more Odysseys than each nameplate did their own van. It's not a terribly big deal to me.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Not to belabor this (too late), but the figures I've seen show that the Dodge vans alone outsell the Odyssey, which leads me to believe that Honda is looking only at retail sales. I''ve seen them do that before, e.g. claiming the Accord is the "#1 selling car (p.s. to individuals) in the U.S. It's all in how you count 'em.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    Nope - October had the Odyssey at 14K, Dodge at 12k and Chrysler at 11k.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I'd look for DCX to come back with the 2008s. The 2007s were 6 years old, and frankly, its age couldn't have helped sales. The same will hold true of the Odyssey in a year or two I suspect.
  • akirbyakirby Member Posts: 8,062
    I would suspect they'll outsell Ford's minivans, too (and for the foreseeable future) ;)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Quite possibly those of Chevrolet, Saturn, and Buick as well! :)
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    I think you’re getting carried away by using a point around weight on a sports car (NSX weighed about 3200 lb, by the way, in its latest incarnation) while forgetting that those cars aren’t meant to be mainstream, value oriented car like Accord is. Perhaps we should focus on two midsize sedans from Honda.

    Acura TL-S is superior to the Accord in virtually every way in terms of handling, brakes and tire package. It weighs about the same. And it has bigger AND thicker brakes (if you must go by dimensions). So, getting the job done with smaller wheels isn’t out of reach, is it?

    BTW, my 1998 Accord EX-L is listed at 3152 lb. 2008 Civic EX-L is listed at 2806 lb. That is a 346 lb difference. Civic LX (which also uses the larger wheel) tips the scale at 2751 lb (all with auto transmission). That is a 401 lb difference.

    Handling? I’m not sure if it has anything to do with wheel size either. 2001 Integra Type-R did just fine with 15” rims. Performance upgrade is sheer excuse. Bling factor is the reality.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    Handling? I’m not sure if it has anything to do with wheel size either. 2001 Integra Type-R did just fine with 15” rims.

    I think this too violates the mainstream example. The ride quality of that car was poor because of the performance oriented suspension and there was no sound deadening to reduce weight. It also came with tires similar to the NSX in that it was a VERY soft compound tire that did not have the longevity of a typical passenger car tire. Also from a handling standpoint, much like the original S2000, it didn't give a lot of warning nearing its limits.

    Performance upgrade is sheer excuse. Bling factor is the reality.

    Availability of performance oriented tires is an issue. Sidewalls with aspect ratios over 55 are considered touring and its much easier to make the short sidewall stiffer than a tall one. My old Comp T/A R1s (225/50VR15) had camber engineered into the sidewall for better cornering.

    While I don't see a need for wagon wheels on cars, having a tire with a lower aspect ratio and with enough width to make the car handle well I see as a positive. There are plenty of options for cushier tires and wheels if someone chooses (even the MS6 can run 17" wheels, especially for snow tires), and there are more aggressive tires available in the larger sizes. I think my Accord just has the worst of all combinations.

    Just because its a midsize sedan doesn't mean it has to be boring and dull. Sure the cars are made to the least common multiple, but I am sure they can be better aligned with a particular user.

    Even Toyota offers a "sport suspension" on its SE models, in both the 4 and 6 cylinder models. The domestics have been doing this for some time (the Base and LX Contour got the "touring" suspension while the SE got the "sport," Buick has several levels based on trim, etc). Honda lacks this, it is a downside of their simplified offerings (not saying its bad, just a limitation).

    I guess I just don't see 16-18" wheels as the root of all evil, there are excellent tire choices in those ranges, at varying price ranges as well. You always have a choice, if someone doesn't like something, they can vote with their wallet.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Well, that explains it. Looks like Honda was looking at sales for one month. I though sales comparisons are typically done on an annual basis, or at least a YTD basis, but as I said, it's all in how you count 'em.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    If the discussion must continue (and it has), Honda is likely talking about retail sales only and taking fleet out.

    But the original point remains. Caravan was considered a benchmark, and while no longer the top seller, it can still be considered one. And so is Odyssey.

    PS. Just saw an article on automotive news that Odyssey did pass Caravan in overall sales (not just retail). It acquired the top spot in October and extended the lead in November (158K versus 154K, YTD).

    The difference will be huge if fleet sales were taken off. For a perspective, Mid-year MY2007 (Oct 2006-Mar 2007) fleet sales percentages:
    Dodge Caravan: 54.8%
    Honda Odyssey: 1.5%
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    The difference will be huge if fleet sales were taken off. For a perspective, Mid-year MY2007 (Oct 2006-Mar 2007) fleet sales percentages:
    Dodge Caravan: 54.8%
    Honda Odyssey: 1.5%

    Where can I find these figures?
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    Maybe try the SUV board? :)

    C'mon folks, let's get back to the midsize sedans that are the subject of this conversation.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Here
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    to be fair - 15-20% fleet sales is a relatively low number when you compare it to 50%+ numbers you routinely see for US (and Korean) branded cars.

    I never said it wasn't a low number. Compared to the Civic, it is extremely high. US brands happen to own the highest number of fleet sales. I think Chrysler leads the way in that area.

    Wonder if that's why the Civic and Accord hold their value so well....

    That has a lot to do with it. That is something that hurts the Mazda6, I believe. I am hoping that the new Mazda6 does not sell into fleet as much as the current Mazda6!! :sick:
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    Not all fleet sales are to rental fleets. It is the rental fleet sales that some manufacturers are cutting back.

    This article states: Sales to daily rental fleets are generally assumed to be unprofitable while sales to commercial and government fleets are usually profitable, but not as profitable as retail sales.

    I don't know what the distribution of fleet sales are for the Mazda6. I also wonder if the fleet sales were really at much lower prices, since retail customers were able to buy for $3000-5000 below MSRP pretty much all year.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Based on latest information, 95% of fleet sales (Mazda6) was to rental companies, rest for commercial use. Overall fleet sales was 42.7% of total. The information is based on mid-year 2007 fleet registrations.

    Automakers try to avoid fleet sales and would prefer to see it low, even if retail buyers are getting heavy discounts. IMO, $2K off MSRP doesn't mean anything on a $20K car. It basically takes you to (approximately) listed invoice. Most folks should be able to get 8-9% off MSRP on any mainstream mid-size sedan. It is discount beyond that which might make a difference.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    retail customers were able to buy for $3000-5000 below MSRP pretty much all year.

    I don't know about all year. I never saw any sell for that much until August/September or so.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    I don't know about all year. I never saw any sell for that much until August/September or so
    Down here in Houston, a larger Mazda dealer advertised $6000 off any 6 in stock for about 2 months (June/July) last summer including a rebate going on at the time and in lieu of a bought down financing program also available. Assumming a $20k sticker, that puts those 6s selling at $4k UNDER invoice - likely a good deal for those folks that availed themselves of this 'special' but probably a disaster for those earlier buyers that paid invoice or even slightly less - at least in terms of residual values. 14-15k for what is supposed to be a 20k car only means that the car was 'overpriced' in the first place.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    I don't know about all year. I never saw any sell for that much until August/September or so.

    Not sure what you are looking at, but they had ~$2000 or higher rebates available since about Nov 2006. MSRP is $1500 above invoice, so $3500 below MSRP would be pretty common. I got about an additional $1500 below that in Jan and a co-worker also got one at ~$5000 below MSRP in Feb or March.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    likely a good deal for those folks that availed themselves of this 'special' but probably a disaster for those earlier buyers that paid invoice or even slightly less - at least in terms of residual values.

    I would think so too, but then I have to wonder how efficient the used car market is.

    On carmax, who does not negotiate price, the cheapest used mazda6 within 100 miles is still $12,998 and that's a 2004 with 45K mi.

    The newest Mazda6i listed on carmax, within 100 miles of me, is a 2005 with 19,000 miles for $15,699, this despite the fact that anyone can go on edmunds.com and see a better equipped new 2007 with a TMV of $16,527 (after $2500 rebate).

    Even a new 2008, based on invoice minus the current $1000 cash to dealer (which is an alternative to 1.9% for 36 mo.), would be easy to get for $18,700 or less with an email or three (and would also be better equipped than that '05).
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    Not sure what you are looking at, but they had ~$2000 or higher rebates available since about Nov 2006.

    I am looking at my program sheets from the past 12 months. Mazda did not introduce a $2000 rebate until the July/August. Currently, there is now a $2,500 rebate on all 07's. There was a $1000 rebate for most of the year prior.

    I got about an additional $1500 below that in Jan and a co-worker also got one at ~$5000 below MSRP in Feb or March.

    Never saw such discounts up here, CT. My last 2007 Mazda6 was delivered last week, and sold for $200 below invoice plus the $2000 rebate. That was the cheapest we sold one. No area dealers, NY Region (CT, NY, NJ, PA, DE, MA), sells for $5000 off MSRP, that is why I find those deals hard to believe.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    My nearest Mazda dealer (Twin Cities area) has been running an ad for weeks with 2007 Mazda6es at $5100 off, including rebates. I know those prices are legit because they are a no-haggle dealership, so the price on the car is what you pay. Since that is with a no-haggle dealership, I expect it would be possible to get a little better deal at other area dealers with some hard negotiating.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    I'm just saying in my neck of the woods, I, nor any other dealers that I know, practice that type of pricing. We don't have the incentives to go that low either.
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,729
    Because people wouldn't buy them otherwise. It's a way to pull in customers who might be hesitant about buying GM products.

    Funny! Not true, but a good try

    Actually, your wrong, it is absolutely 100% true that a vast majority of GM buyers would be hesitant to purchase a GM product if not for the long warranty.

    Honda loses virtually no customers to a relatively shorter warranty.
    '15 Audi Misano Red Pearl S4, '16 Audi TTS Daytona Gray Pearl, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,729
    So why does Honda offer any warranty at all?
    They never break and no repairs, due to manufacturing defects, ever need to be done. Heck, I guess they don't even need a service department at the dealership, just an oil change pit.

    Most of what you say is actually true! Believe it or not.

    However, Honda has to compete with Toyota (a manufacturer who has competed in their ball park and playing field all along). Therefore, Honda can't get rid of their warranties unless Toyota does too.

    Also... if they got rid of their warranties all together... a few customers might grow suspicious that they've hired too many former GM or Chrysler quality control personnel.
    '15 Audi Misano Red Pearl S4, '16 Audi TTS Daytona Gray Pearl, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    So you are saying then that GM has increased its sales well over 50% since it introduced its longer warranty? :confuse:

    Do you have any substantiation for either of your statements, or are they just opinions?
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Believe it or not.

    OK, then. Not. :)
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,729
    So I will think of this example when someone says, "Honda and Toyota don't offer longer warranties because they don't have to." While that's partly true, the other side of it is that longer warranties would hurt their profit margins.

    Well.... it might hurt Toyota and Honda's profit margins minutely. However, a 100K warranty is going to hurt Toyota and Honda a lot less than it is to GM and Chrysler.

    Again, can someone at Chrysler please answer the question "Is the lifetime warranty based on the lifetime of the vehicle or the company?"
    '15 Audi Misano Red Pearl S4, '16 Audi TTS Daytona Gray Pearl, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,729
    I'm not saying GM sales have increased whatsoever due to the increased warranty length.

    I'm implying and guessing that their sales plummet would have been far steeper, sharper, and even more dreadful if not for the increased warranty length.

    I suppose it gained them a few new customers, but I'm thinking for the most part, it just may have saved a few MORE that were just about ready to defect to another more reliable brand.
    '15 Audi Misano Red Pearl S4, '16 Audi TTS Daytona Gray Pearl, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • tedebeartedebear Member Posts: 832
    Again, can someone at Chrysler please answer the question "Is the lifetime warranty based on the lifetime of the vehicle or the company?"

    I'll let you read what it says on the chrysler.com website:

    The Chrysler Lifetime Powertrain Limited Warranty is the first of its kind to be offered by any automaker. Ever. Because with this warranty, you're covered, and it lasts as long as you own your vehicle.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles