Any Questions for a Car Dealer?

weaselinsuit

Oddly enough, I'd rather have the safety features but according to Toyota at least, I am in the vast minority. I bitched to them about no side airbags/air curtain on lower trim Sienna's and they just said no one wants to pay for them at that level. Maybe I can wrap the kids in bubble wrap.....

jasmith52

If you go back and read Lee Ioccoca's book, Nobody would pay anything for safety (Volvo's aside).

Before airbags were mandatory Chrysler had airbags as an option in the early 80's. Well Chrylser spent something like $10 Million tooling up for airbag production and sold something like 10000 units out of all the millions of cars they produced. This great experiment cost Chrylser something like $10000 per car sold with an airbag. That was some good money back in the early 80's.

It's pretty much the same today, nobody will pay much for extra safety.

weaselinsuit

I think this was touched on earlier but any thoughts about purchasing a lease return vehicle?

ramped

Right, safety has not historically sold well, but I think when more customers watch the insurance insititute side crash tests, they will become more interested.

In any event, the feds should require side curtains and ABS as standard equipment on all models.

A lot of people would skip seat belts, front air bags and air pollution equipment if it wasn't mandated. And now, we absorb the cost without noticing.

isellhondas

Two types of customers.

We have those who seem to think a car is unsafe unless it has EVERY latest safety feature.

And the ones who don't care at all.

Not many in the middle.

volvomax

People like safety but are unwilling to pay a premium for it.
Plus, consumers get lulled by the standards that are in place.
The Gov't test is a joke.
Also, neither the Gov't nor IIHS tests rollovers,or rear impacts.
IIHS tests rollover tendancy but they don't intentionally roll cars and SUV's.
The European NCAP tests are the best out there, although some of their criteria is going to be costly for manufacturers to meet.

weaselinsuit

I guess it depends upon how you define premium. For example, I want a mini van. I could get a D/C product much cheaper than the Sienna, with the discounts etc. probably $10K to $13K cheaper. I'm leaning towards the Sienna however, I can't afford more than $40K, and that's the absolute upper limit, which means no side airbags/curtains (anyone getting tired of me blathering on about that yet?). If they were offered on a lower trim Sienna, I would likely pop for them but I can't afford the trim line up here which does have them, the XLE, as it rings in about $48K. My point? Not sure I have one as I seem to have meandered away from it, but I think in essence, it would be nice to at least have the option to purchase the additional safety equipment. I admit to being completely ignorant about whether its feasible from a manufacturing/production viewpoint.

jlawrence01

I like having safety features in my vehicles. I had one of the first Dodges with safety belts and one of the first Fords with automatic seat belts.

I am leary about airbage and some of the newer devices as their requirement seems to me to more motivated politically than safety oriented. I would like to see a lot of empirical evidence presented before making a particular safety feature mandatory

Compared to the cars of the 60's, I believe that current vehicles are much safer.

audia8q

I think it's odd that people think a safety item mandated by some government agency is free...the expenses of engineering, production, product liability, etc...will be passed along to consumers. This added expense will hurt the people on the low end of the buying spectrum the most...forcing some to buy used cars insted of new. Now that entry level cars are $15-18K, how much higher can we go for an extry level new car??

I am a safety feature fan..I am willing to pony up the extra money. But some people don't care or are not willing to pay for them, which is also fine with me. I am very uncomfortable with things being mandated by people who are as inept and often factually blind as most government agencies.

I would like to see the cost per person saved by this side airbag mandate....I bet the cost per saved person is absurdly high.

kyfdx

Not debating the value of airbags, but...

History shows that without the government mandating some of these safety features, they might never be offered... and if they were, they would be cost prohibitive if sold in small volumes.

If you assume airbags are a good thing... then the only way they would be affordable for entry level cars, is to mandate them for every car... Yes, there is a cost, but it is much lower with the higher volumes than it would have been otherwise...

regards,
kyfdx

ramped

And, don't forget the medical costs for those involved in accidents in vehicles without safety features. If ABS allows just a few hundred drivers a year to avoid accidents, how do you calculate that cost? And that's not even factoring in the value of a life saved. Also, consider that those who won't spend for the safety features may be more likely to be scrimping on their liability insurance, too. So who pays those costs?

I'm not generally into big government programs, but as far as making cars and trucks as safe as possible, that is money well spent in my opinion.

audia8q

kyfdx....side bags are already available as an option to anyone who wants them. Off the top of my pointed head, I can't think of any new car that does not offer the side bags as an option to anyone who wants them....so this isnt an issue that government is forcing car makers to offer the option, its readily available to anyone who sees the value in the option.

ramped...I agree making cars and trucks as safe as possible, is money well spent....but not everyone agrees. you mention ABS, which can be a valuable feature in certain situations...but they can also benefit others who the guy may prevent hitting...side airbags only benefit the people who opted for the option, not the other guy..

Our side airbag option sales run in the small percentage area...people just don't want to pay for them at all. If we had sales of side airbags that exceeded 40-50% I might be more inclined to agree with the mandate....but when 10-12% of the buyers are willing to pay.....

I would be agreeable to making side airbags mandatory on cars over a certain price level. We have already pushed to many people into used car because of entry level priced cars being too high.

also, the government never stops mandating...first its side airbags then its mandated moonroofs so consumers aren't forced to inhale that new car smell

jasmith52

I'm not, in general, in favor of big government mandated programs either.

The one thing though that hasn't been explicitly said here is:

By mandating a safety item, the production costs can be shared accross all the cars being producted. Therefore the unit cost of an installed safety item can come down quite a bit.

Nonetheless, if you think of the cummulative costs of all the mandated items in a car they still add up to alot of money.

steine13

I gotta disagree with you here. When something is mandated, it becomes much cheaper for the consumer... or when everybody wants it -- ABS has become a must-have in Germany -- then the price comes down.

"Willing to pay for it" is hard to define... Typically, car makers will bundle options or limit them to higher trim lines.

ABS is a case in point: On VWs it's standard without govt mandate in the fatherland, but optional here... for a lousy $300. In a Matrix, off the top of my head, ABS is a $450 option... in the Vibe, a $600 option.

At the end of the day, I would have liked ABS but bought what was on the lot... and after a harsh winter, I'd say I'm fine without it. But I would have paid $300-400 to get it, sure thing. $600, no.

And while we're at it, options prices are NOT about cost. Case in point, I read that because of the lower numbers, it costs hundreds more ($800?) to produce a stick shift Corolla than it does to build an automatic. The auto is a nearly $1k option. Engineers are wonderful. Marketers aren't.

-Mathias

ramped

Everyone benefits indirectly when a car is equipped with side curtains. If you broadside someone in a car with curtains, the driver may walk away with a headache rather than a fractured skull or broken neck. That benefits you because you didn't hurt someone as badly as you might have; it benefits your insurance company; and it benefits us all because anyone who doesn't want to spend money on safety equipment probably is scrimping on insurance coverage, too. Somebody's gotta pay the docs.

You more than anyone are aware of the cost of adding side curtains to the Mazda 6 line. By the time you order the mandatory sport and security packages and moonroof, you are paying about $3,000 for the side curtains.

If that cost was more in line with what the side curtains actually cost, which I am guessing is a few hundred dollars, I think you would have a lot more takers.

Sorry to those who are bored silly by this topic. I'll leave it here for now. After all, still gotta find a ride And, the way Rich, it looks as though there are maybe a couple dozen side-curtain equipped Mazda 6's within 150 miles of Orlando. Not much of a selection.

volvomax

Without Gov't mandate alot of manufacturers would do without alot of safety devices. Sad but true.
With the Japanese cars you have to pay a premium to get their safety features.

Some motor companies like Volvo and Mercedes Benz would still include the latest features because its part of their corporate ethos. Of course it gets built into the price of their vehicles.
BTW did anyone see the history Channel last night? Car crash testing, an hour long ad for Volvo.

jlawrence01

1) You are all making the assumptions that some of the newer technologies will work AS PROMISED. Remember that when airbags were originally deployed, there were few warnings about the serious impact that such airbags would have on children and small statured adults sitting in the front seats. A lot of the technologies that are introduced have not been fully tested and may over time, also have some problems that may redult in death and serious injury.

2) Since when do we actually hold people responsible for their failure to use safety devices. In the few tort cases that I have sat through, I have yet to see a judge reduce an bodily injury judgment even when the harmed individual could have reduced his damages by buckling the seat belts.

3) With each generation of "safety devices", I believe that we are spending more for the devices and getting diminishing returns. Look at the basic changes that have been made that have reduced fatalities over the past forty years - collapsable steering columns, padded dash, stronger rood supports, three-point seat belts, etc.

Whenever you put yourself into a vehicle and propel yourself at 50 mph, you bear some risk of collision whether it be due to inattention, a deer, a drunk driver, or the like.

Last night, I had dinner with a fellow CPA who justified his purchase of a Porsche Boxster for "safety" purposes. He said that after a long day at work, it was safer to drive the Boxster than his Crown Vic as the latter put him to sleep while driving.

mystf18

Thanks so much for all the advice.

I have another question (seems like all I've been doing lately is researching cars!). Adding in ABS and side airbags in the Corolla also nets me a moonroof, which I'm unwilling to pay for. (The dealers tell me that all the LE's they're finding w/ ABS and side airbags have a moonroof). I'm thinking abt going w/ a Nissan Sentra, either a 2.5S or a 1.8S w/ side airbags and ABS (depending on how much of a difference I feel when I drive them). Do you think I'm better off just getting a Corolla LE w/o the safety features or going w/ the more loaded Sentra 2.5S or maybe even the 1.8S (assuming I can get the 2.5S and the Corolla LE for abt the same price, the 2.5S maybe $1K cheaper)? I don't know anything abt the Sentra except what I've read on the boards abt their loud engine and their poor front side crash rating. Or, horrors, should I be expanding my search to include other cars (I didn't like how the Civic drove as compared to the Corolla, and still no ABS on the LX, the EX is too expensive for me)?

That was a mouthful. Thanks so much for any help.

butchbr73

well, to be honest, that's up to you. If you have never driven a Sentra, I would head out to your local Nissan dealer and drive one, see for yourself, see if you "notice" the engine noise (maybe it could be louder with respect to the Corolla, but in my opinion, a lot of Nissans in general are a bit sportier than their Yota counterpart, therefore a little more engine noise, tighter suspension, etc)... Here is a popular phrase around here (quoting Terry again ...)

"Always buy and drive what YOU like"

It's hard to put so much emphasis on other people's opinions, test, etc... If you drive the Sentra and like the way it drives, feels, smells, looks, etc... better than the Corolla, I think you found your car (or any other car). I don't think you can go wrong with either one those, though. There are certain areas of a car that are more important to you than others, sounds like safety may be toward the top of your list, for some its gas mileage, performance, comfort, stereo, some like that automatic espresso maker in the back seat, everyone is different.... List 'em out, compare the areas of importance to you and you'll get a better feel

mark156

Hey folks, I've been out of town for four weeks and come back with 800 posts to read just on this one thread alone! Like a dummy, I like to read every post to see what's been going on.

Anyway, what is even more interesting is that since I was a month behind (but catching up quick) so many post have been deleted. I must have missed out on even more fun!

Alangl, I know you say you are not going to buy anything, but reading this thread since it started, you have had at least six cars in what, 3 years? I always like to see what new idea you have reguarding a car purchase.

While traveling abroad, I rented a Renault Megane diesel six speed manual....fun little car. The engine was so quiet for a diesel and the gas gauge never moved off of full in about 77 kilometers so that's about 50 miles, right?

My question to car dealers is.... have you heard if the "SMART" car (brainchild between Swatch and Mercedes)is going to be imported?

Thanks, Mark

asafonov

I've owned and own Corollas/Prizms, and have a couple of Sentra's in the extended family. With all its boring faults, Corolla is still a much more refined little car (to me). Also, if you decide to go with a Sentra, a used one may be a better bet since, unlike Corollas, they drop in price somewhat precipitously.

Finally: having driven a rental Altima, I can speculate that a 2.5 engine in a Sentra is a huge overkill.

bowke28

is the upgraded engine. the base engine is a 1.8L.

the 2.5S sentra HAS 165 hp and costs less than a comparable corolla with 40 HP less.

weaselinsuit

It may well be a jurisdictional thing, but I have seen countless cases where a plaintiff's damages get reduced for failure to wear a seatbelt based upon contributory negligence. The general rule of thumb is a reduction up to 25%, though there was one case that was up to 75%, though I think it got reduced on appeal. There has to be a link of course between the injury sustained and the failure to wear the seatbelt.

It's an interesting trade off for insurers, the more safety equipment the less injury, at least theoretically, and therefore the less payouts to injured plaintiffs. Of course you have a corresponding increase in the payouts for repairs, i.e. airbags are expensive items to fix, about $3K or so I think.

agt_cooper

One consequence of airbag proliferation is increased complexity in vehicle rescue. Long ago, when I started in the fire and rescue business (back when you had to feed the apparatus!), cutting a car to rescue a victim was relatively easy. Stabilize, secure electrical power from the battery, then cut.

Now, we have much more to think about. Is this a CNG vehicle? Propane? Is it a hybrid? How do I disconnect electric power from a hybrid?

How many airbags does the vehicle have? Have any or all of them fired? If not, how do I ensure that they won't?

As most of you know, being in front of an airbag when it deploys is not the place to be. When I'm working to rescue someone who's trapped in a car, I have to be extremely careful to ensure that all explosive devices are disarmed. These can include:

1. Airbags.
2. Roll-over protection in some high-end cars.
3. Self-tensioning seat belts.

Clearly, airbags are here to stay, and the evidence certainly seems to suggest that they can save the lives of the vehicle's occupants. There is the potential, however, that these same life saving devices can take away lives of those who come to rescue you.

It is our job to be prepared for any and all situations, and we work hard to ensure that we are. Modern safety devices simply make that job more complex, time consuming, and dangerous.

bowke28

"Modern safety devices simply make that job more complex, time consuming, and dangerous."

i would submit that, if those devices werent there, you might not have anyone to save in the first place.

volvomax

the airbag saga is well documented.
The legislation was written to protect an unbelted 5'8" 175lb man from impacting the dash.
Needless to say a child or small woman was at risk under this standard.

The automakers did object to this standard but were overridden.

Now the standard has been adjusted to protect that same man with his seatbelt on. The new "dual stage" airbag.
By and large safety systems do work. The most effective is the seatbelt.

mystf18

Hi, all.

I visited another dealership today, and got them sorta close to my price range. However, I didn't really like the way I was being treated (they kept on trying to force me into another car when I said the price I was interested in paying, and based on my research, I think I named a reasonable price.) I just didn't feel comfortable, and thought I could get better treatment elsewhere, so I left. I e-mailed another dealership with the offer I was looking for (which I think I could have gotten from the 1st dealer had I not felt too uneasy), but I told him I had already gotten that offer. Now dealer 2 is saying he might be willing to beat that offer, but could I send him the offer from dealer 1? I'm not sure what to do. The original dealer and I weren't that far from that #, but I didn't actually get that offer. I would have stayed, but I've heard on these boards that if I feel uncomfortable, then more tricks are probably on the way, so just leave.

Thanks for any advice.

isellhondas

Sounds like "tricks" get played by both sides.

First of all, if you ever feel uncomfortable when dealing with a seller of goods, it's time to leave.

Now, you weren't truthful with that second dealer and I'm sure he knows it. He knows you won't be able to produce a copy of a non-existant "offer".

It's always best to be truthful.

mystf18

LOL. Well, actually, my prob is solved, I think. I was going to delete my message, but you posted, so I wanted to tell you the new development. Dealer #1 just e-mailed me w/ the price I was looking for, so I can send that onto Dealer #2 now. If #2 matches it (doesn't even need to beat it) I will buy from him, since I don't feel too good abt #1.

Is it ok to send the quote onto Dealer #2, though? It's not revealing too much, is it?

Thanks!

bowke28

you got lucky and the guy at dealer 1 bailed you out. you dug yourself into a hole by deception. if i were dealer #2, i would feel uncomfortable.

isellhondas

Of why a smart dealer won't give an offer in writing.

Offers like this get shopped every time and many a deal has been lost for 50.00.

So much for relationship selling.

dsattler

Smart car comes here next year, initially one of the larger models (the fourfour), presumably to be followed by others if it's well received. By the by. washingtonpost.com, auto editor Warren Brown has a review of the fourfour and more info on when it arrives. Search the site and you'll find it.

mark156

mystf18

I agree that I put myself in an uncomfortable position by essentially lying, though in defense of myself, I was correct that dealer#1 was willing to go lower. However, I realize I was lucky, and won't do such a thing again. Some lessons can only be learned from experience.

I do disagree that relationship selling is not working in this case, though. As price-conscientious as I am (b/c I'm just a student, very limited budget), I would not move from dealer #2 to dealer #1 (the 1 I didn't feel that comfortable w/)for $50- I stated earlier that if dealer #2 could just match dealer #1, I would be fine w/ it. And b/c I didn't feel all that awesome abt dealer #1, I wouldn't even waste time going back to their dealership w/o some documentation of their quote, so that I know they're somewhat serious, and not trying to get me in the door. I do understand, though, that it must be frustrating to work hard on a car deal only to lose it for a minor amount.

I appreciate all the help this board has given me. Lots of useful and interesting insight.

mcbski

So this is why the nifty "Get a Free Quote by E-mail!" function is useless? I was wondering why I've only gotten one dealer quote in e-mail and it was high at that. I wouldn't walk on a difference of $50 or even $100. The feel of a situation with the dealer is more important than the overall price as long as we're talking a decent deal.

ramped

I agree that the free quote by e-mail here is a waste of time. Out of 16 inquiries to dealers representing four different manufacturers, I received a total of two price quotes. The Honda price was good, the Mazda so-so.

I keep getting phone calls from sales reps asking me for information. I give it to them, they say they'll get back, and I never hear from them.

I guess you are better off just emailing the dealers directly.

On the bright side, visits to five dealers this weekend brought four positive experiences and one big clunker. And, unfortunately, the clunker had almost exactly the car I have been looking for. Wouldn't it figure.

cocosands

honest to God.. its not a troll story.. I wish it was.. and the license scenario.. I COULD have gotten it renewed.. its just that I was out of town the very next day.. (I travel quite a bit)... I truly wish it was a joke... the only way I got my trade back was to issue a demand letter I wrote up saying either you give it up in the condition it was in or give me the trade-in value... I put a complaint to the consumer affairs and Better Business Bureau..

the trade in basically shot.. I found even more damage after the car trade was returned... and no I don't have the best credit, but I do make a decent amount of change and I've been working to pay off back bills. I actually have two car notes... so my credit can't be THAT bad...

bowke28

" I actually have two car notes... so my credit can't be THAT bad..."

not necessarily...

the worst beacon score i ever saw was a guy that made $70k a year, had 2 car notes, and was OVERextended...his score was 423. (of course he missed some payments too...)

stickguy

I would absolutely take the car back and ask for the trade value (plus what ou will lose by not getting the sales tax credit, if any). Either that, or demand full repairs, and if it requires paintwork, diminished value.

roxanna

I am retiring in three months. I have excellent credit and will have a Federal Government monthly pension. I do not own a car now but am moving and will need to buy a car. I don't know if there is an advantage to applying for a loan before I retire since afterwards my income will obviously decrease. Also since I want to buy a car shortly after retiring, I won't have gotten the first check to show as proof of income, just the estimate of income from my HR department. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks

driftracer

rate and amount of advance if you look at yourself as "on the job with XX years at current position" versus "just retired, drawing pension".

You obviously handle your money well, but lenders look at someone currently employed with 23 (for example) years on the job in a different light than someone on a "fixed income" - old school mentality, but their mentality just the same.

Of course, if you're looking at a vehicle with incentive financing and you qualify either way, it won't make a difference.

bowke28

as long as you have an income at all, if your score is high enough (750+), you automatically qualify, regardless of employment status.

but for peace of mind, i would buy before you retire.

qbrozen

does it matter? i can't remember ever being asked about my employment when buying a car. Its just been a matter of getting my social security number and pulling my score. (like bowke said) Nothing else. Is it different according to state? Or am I just not remembering correctly. My latest purchase was only a year ago, I hope I haven't forgotten by now.

bowke28

is less than perfect, then your employment status IS relevant...but if you are over 750 or so, then it shouldnt be, as long as you have an income.

steine13

[Posted on Vibe board]

Learned Friends:

I wash my car every six months, whether it needs it or not. So yesterday I took my monochrome silver '04 Vibe to the car wash, invested a few bucks, and really went after it with the high-pressure soap&water wand.

When I was done, I had peeled several pieces of paint off the cladding, ranging in size from tiny to quarter size. The plastic underneath is pitch black. Not pretty.

In retrospect, what was I thinking? Of course the paint ain't gonna stick to the tupperware the way it sticks to the metal... but I'm still pretty steamed... they might have told me about this, no?

To put everything right, worst case, requires replacement of the pass rear door molding and the trim pieces below the rocker panels, both sides. Probably many $100 and less than $1k, so it's not the end of the world.

What think the professionals? Does Pontiac owe me something or should I have known not to use the DIY wash??? I can take pictures if it helps.

TIA,
-Mathias

rroyce10

....... Are you sure the canoe didn't fall off and bust into a million pieces and the Vibe is experiencing shrapnel injuries .l.o.l...

               Unfortunately, you have a bad factory paint application and you will need to get back with your dealer .. high pressure hoses won't blow the paint off, most dealers have a 2500 psi (or better) pressure hose for the detailing of their vehicles and they use them about 1,296,754,907 times a week and experience -0- problems ~ all except for the lot guy that falls asleep with the wand in his hand for about an hour .....

                          Terry

grandtotal

I think you should have known better than to use a high pressure wand. I don't know about Pontiac, but Toyota says to wash either by hand or in an automatic car wash. On the other hand rroyce10 makes a very good point about dealer prep.

stickguy

Only one solution: get another car, now that this one is ruined.

I agree that the wand shouldn't do any damage to the cladding. It is now time to put all the good advice your hours (and hours) of Town Hall sufing into action. Just be careful who's advice you take (try not to threaten legal action agianst GM for at least the first 5 minutes).

You can also probably touch up or repaint, depending on the piece and size of the chip, and whether you are paying for it yourself.

driftracer

on it got wrecked by a lot boy and the paint repair was shoddy...

heh heh....just stirring the pot, but a real possibility.

akangl

Peeled the paint. I use those dang high pressure things all the time, used it several times on my 97 Explodeder Limited with plastic body cladding things, never peeled off that *purple haze*. In fact I've probably used it on nearly all the vehicles I've owned and never had that happen. I'd be paying a little visit to Mr Pontiac dealer if I were you.