Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
It seems the Malibu has lost it's appeal to MT.
One really odd thing though about the comparo. MT appears to have tested a car that does not exist in normal space: the 2009 Sonata SE with a 4-cylinder engine. :confuse: Awhile back someone here (I won't name names...) opined that rather than testing a 2009 Sonata Limited, C/D should have tested an SE in their recent mid-sized comparo, and maybe the sportier handling would have given it a few more points in the scoring. Somehow MT snagged such a car (which apparently didn't exist earlier this year) and named it... oops, sorry thegraduate. Almost slipped there!
To get that Technology pkg you are required to get a rear spoiler (which is like $350) and Fog Lights (About $200) on top of the price of the Technology pkg ($2000) for a grand total of $29160 and that's without Floor Mats!
Altimas pack a lot of technological gadgetry (bluetooth, push button start, rearview camera and what not) but they get really really expensive fast. The 2.5SL, espeically isn't a great value. For that kind of money you might as well move on up to the 3.5SL and 3.5SE, which at $32.5K, fully loaded aren't exactly good values either.
As backy put it, a simiply optioned Altima 2.5S with maybe the Conv. pkg would have done better in the test...but a loaded Altima, especially with the gruff 2.5L isn't a good value pushing $30 grand.
Another thing I'm not understanding is why the Passat is rated so highly? I take issue with magazine articles sometimes when the give certain cars "points' for meeting low price points when in reality most cars with similar equipment end up being about the same price.
For example, in the Comparison test they make note of the Accord's value against the competiton saying its a good value compared to the Altima and some others but not such a good one verses the Optima, Sonata and Camry.
I'll agree all day long that the Accord EX isn't such a great value next to a kia Optima EX or Sonata SE similarily equipped...and did anybody notice that the Sonata SE was not only a 4 cylinder but an Automatic as well? :confuse:
But when you equipt the Camry LE or SE similarly to the Accord EX, it's not such a great value, since the said Camry doesn't have the Sunoof, CD6 changer and Alloy wheels (LE models) that come standard on the Accord.
It's the opposite situation for the Passat. At $26K for a basic Passat Turbo model with no sunroof, no leather (leatherette) and a significant amout of equipment missing off of this car tha comes standard or optional on the Accord, Optima and Sonata, the Passat loses big time on the value equation...but you'd never know that reading the Motortrend comparison test...because no mention of it is made.
I just wish the automakers and these car magazines could align options and test pricing better. And for a comparison test that's supposed to be about frugality, it's funny the Passat requires premium and does not get the best gas mileage....so much for the frugality equation.
I'm still wondering which car came in first, but assuming the Sonata was 1st or 2nd, it would definitely be the winner in my eyes.
I'm willing to bet it's
Passat
Sonata
Camry
Accord
Fusion
In that Order...maybe switch Camry and Sonata.
It's funny how Motortrend's comparison usually go against everything every other magazine says. Motortrend rates the camry very highly yet most other magazines rate it midpack. I'm really surprised by the Malibu's ranking though
Accord
Camry
Sonata
Fusion
And did anyone notice the Passat was a stick shift?
As has been said, MT could have lined up the equipment in the cars better. For example, they tested a basic Camry LE and Passat but loaded-up Altima, Fusion, Optima, and Malibu (any others?--Galant?) and mid-trim Sonata, Accord, and Avenger. It throws the whole "value' equation off--if they use that as a key criterion. For example, an Optima LX with ESC/ABS package, AT, and Appearance package is very nicely equipped (with many of the features on the EX trim) and lists for under $20k (under $17k with current rebates). And the other loaded cars are at disadvantage if the loading doesn't improve the ride/handling, which it probably doesn't much. OTOH, the Camry would have probably done better had they tested the SE trim, due to its sharper handling.
It's gotta be a stick.
But I agree 100 percent Backy...the comparison has no consistency whatsoever...especially they way they try to slant the VW Passat as a "Value" leader in the group.
A Passat equipt anything like that Altima would be well over $32 grand.
They'll decide which is the most cost-effective commuter sedan from the Far East, a Kio Rio sedan or a Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution.
Then they'll head to Moab to compare the off-road prowess of two SUV's, the Jeep Wrangler Rubicon vs the Porsche Cayenne GTS :P .
Excuse me? I have the V6 Limited Sonata with navigation and it's anything but "silly." It is a great system, voice activated and touch screen with a huge POI database, dead reckoning, multi-destination routing, and the ability to play CD's and DVD's (both movies and music) all for $1,250. That under cuts the competition by as much as $750 and is just as good as anything in a Honda. Maybe it's silly to you, but for those of us who need the assistance of a nav system, and enjoy the convenience of it, the system makes a wonderful addition. It was a huge factor in getting me to look at a Sonata in the first place, and I'm sure I won't be the only one. I guarantee you that option helps with sales of the 09 on top of all the other improvements.
I have test-driven both vehicles and feel either one will be a good choice for my family. Their drivability is between the two cars I previously owned: a 96 Maxima SE and a 02 RX 300. Both vehicles are closely priced: the Accord has a price quote that is $100 above invoice, whereas the Sonata is priced $405 above the Accord's. Accord has better reputation and resale value, and Sonata has better warranty and accompaniments. Can you provide some advices/opinions to help tipping the scale? Thanks.
You might also see if you can find an SE to drive. Its crisper handling might be closer to that of the Accord, if you like the way the Accord drives better than the Sonata. And the SE would cost less than the Limited.
The LX-P is a better value than the LX IMO, but I could never own any Accord (or any car for that matter) without at least a sunroof. I prefer the styling of the Sonata Limited, with it's chrome trim bits and nicer 17 inch alloy wheels to the Accord LX-P's 16s as well.
As other have mentioned you should be able to get the Sonata for well below invoice. For some of the pricing I've been seeing over at the "Prices Paid and Buying Experiences" forum for the 09 Sonata, you should be able to get at least $2000 below invoice at a minimum for an 09 Sonata. With that kind of pricing you could very well step up to a Limited V6 and it would still be comparable in price to the Accord LX-P.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/112_0808_top_five_family_sedan_compar- ison/index.html
1ST PLACE VOLKSWAGEN PASSAT
Despite a high sticker and thirst for premium, wins by a nose due to driving fun.
2ND PLACE HYUNDAI SONATA
Only lacking the VW's verve; our #1 pick if family comes first.
3RD PLACE TOYOTA CAMRY
Efficient, well executed, it's the sound, yet charmless choice.
4TH PLACE HONDA ACCORD
Polarizing looks inside and out can't hide a great engine and chassis combination.
5TH PLACE FORD FUSION
Surprisingly athletic chassis hampered by wheezy engine and irritating transmission.
6TH PLACE KIA OPTIMA
Though due for a refresh, Kia finishes on top of the second tier. Room and economy are fine, it just needs the same refinements the Sonata received.
7TH PLACE NISSAN ALTIMA
Steepest sticker, yet not the best ride, performance, or value. CVT and light steering create an effortless drive, yet fully loaded, it still seems lacking.
8TH PLACE CHEVROLET MALIBU
Poor finish for arguably the best looker. Shame that sexy skin hides a weight problem the underpowered Ecotec can't handle.
9TH PLACE MITSUBISHI GALANT
Looks old, feels older, and saddled with many of this comparo's worsts, including power-to-weight and EPA and observed fuel economy.
10TH PLACE DODGE AVENGER
Drum brakes, four-speed trans, cheap plastics, and poor economy make this a frightful drive. Gaps between last and first don't get any wider than this.
The Passat is more for family buyers with extra cash that want to have fun. Kinda reminds me of a Mazda3 And Rabbit in the compact class. If you wanna have your cake and eat it too, it'll cost you...and it'll push you closer to a lot of other vehicles in the 25-30k range. Personally I'll stick to the 15-20k range.
The two biggest surprises to me were the Altima and Malibu being so low. I guess everyone has different likes and tastes, obviously the Motortrend people do too!
One other interesting note: The Avenger uses an engine with similar base parts to the Sonata's 2.4L, I guess hyundai did a better job tuning their engine to be smooth and reasonably powerful. The Avenger's 9.3 0-60 is pretty pathetic and the handling numbers are just as bad. It goes to show that an engine does not make a car. Of course the same base type of engine in 2.0T is also the lancer evo
Consider a Kia Amanti. I think you'll be very surprised at what you get for the money.
Larry
% of gross profit from new car sales = 22%
% of gross profit from service/parts = 42%
It didn't break down the rest in the article but I assume body shop and used car sales made up the other 36%. I would guess that used car profits probably were close if not more than the new car profits as well. The article also mentioned that this profit picture was the case for most new car dealers.
It was in the Chicago Tribune and was about vehicles sales in general and the truck/suv glut.
I don't think the statement, which says gross profit , insinuates that they make a 22% net profit margin on each new car sold.
to the contrary I'm suggesting that the 'average' dealer is LOSING money selling new cars - especially if you consider the direct (and indirect) costs incurred doing it. If there weren't used car lots and service depts. we would likely have no dealers. The fact that Autonation might generate 22% of it gross profits from new car sales means nothing simply because they might be losing money doing it (although I seriously doubt it).
Have a friend that happens to own a few dealerships and he will claim precisely that - was awarded a Ford dealership franchise and was really looking forward to what he thought would be more high profit service $ - and not necessarily because the Fords were more likely to need service, only in that there are more Fords out there (incl trucks) to fix.
The ex 'Big 3' make billions and billions of gross profits every year manufacturing cars, YET when all is said and done it turns out they LOSE billions and billions.
I'm sure there are some dealers, maybe luxury type cars, that actually make decent money off new car sales but for the more average price car dealers they make little to none. New cars end up being like loss leaders that draw people into stores with the hope they buy other things and keep coming back for service etc.
The fact that Autonation might generate 22% of it gross profits from new car sales means nothing simply because they might be losing money doing it (although I seriously doubt it).
It means they generate 22% of their gross profit from new car sales. It means exactly that, nothing more, nothing less.
Apparently the fact that their are positive "gross profits" from selling new cars, pretty much merely means they sell the cars for more than they buy them from the manufacturers. Looking at gross profits would just seem to mean mark-up is higher on parts than on new cars...not exactly something anyone would question, I presume.
Thank your and others who had responded to my questions.
My point, and I really was trying to keep it very simple, is that dealers make more profit(I guess I mean net profit) from backshop operations other than they do from new car sales. Untill someone proves me wrong, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
1. they basically charge whatever they want. At the least, a dealerships labor rate is 20% more than any shop in the area
2. Many, many, many people will not let anybody but the dealership touch their car. not even oil changes.
3. warranty and recall work will always keep them busy. and even though they sold the car, its either the warranty company; or in the case of recalls, the manufacture, who is footing the bill.
4. and because they can provide so much work, dealerships almost always pay mechanics less than private shops do. (though the higher volume of work will make up for that).
thats the cash cow for dealerships. I agree with captain. the dealers probably loose money on new car sales when all is said and done. When John Q Public can just go online and look up the MSRP, invoice and even set aside on any car on any lot and its impossible for a dealer to screw over a customer. All they can hope for is the customer is either lazy, stupid, or both.
I have seen 2 articles now where Ford/Lincoln/Mercury dealers are concerned with revenue streams because there is so little warranty work as of late. Because of all the quality improvements, there aren't the warranty issues of yore, and the dealers have to find ways to be profitable though sales.
Of course they do. And that's why the dealer "suggested" maintenance is so much more costly than the manufacturer's recommendations. Since most people never look at their manual, they don't know that many maintenance intervals are now 100,000 miles (e.g., spark plugs, coolant and transmission fluid service). If I listened to my dealer, I'd be doing those things at 30-50,000 mile intervals. Not that that's a bad thing, but probably not necessary under normal driving conditions.
Does the warranty say you have to have the car's maintenance performed at the dealership? If it does, you are paying for that warranty IMO. I have had very little warranty work done, but I've never been denied warranty service (even extended warranty) because my car was maintained by me.
I bought my first Toyota in January, 1969, and drove it 127,000 miles over the next 9 1/2 years. That car was bullet-proof. I put a hitch on it and towed a light trailer (it only had 95 hp). I drove it on jeep trails on camping trips. I forded a stream with it, and the car behind me stalled trying to cross. Toyota quality was excellent at that time, and their cars were still new to the US. I had visited Japan and noticed that Toyota dominated car sales there, which gave me confidence to purchase one.