It's no secret some of the earlier LS's had issues, but the amazing thing to me is that so many 2000-2001 LS owners are buying second ones and new ones too. Daviddiver, you got a bad one with a bad dealer, obviously, and that sucks, and you should trade the damn thing in on a Lexus right now and get over the misery! Of course, my neighbor has an Avalon that's been in the shop just about as much and Toyota dealers are just as bad here, or worse. His won't start intermittantly and has a few other issues too. No sludge/engine failure yet though.
On this site, I'm not sure you're going to get satisfaction. Writing Mr. Ford is a good idea, and burning up the Lincoln hotline is too. They ought to buy that back from you, but without a safety related repeat issue, I doubt they will.
If I were you, I wouldn't buy another Lincoln. But they're machines, and these things happen. It's a miracle they work at all. I also have lots of friends, one who lives behind me with a 2000 who is delighted with hers. I also have a friend who had a 2000 that he let go when the lease was up and got a Sable because he felt it was going to be a lot of trouble.
To the one who's considering buying a 2000 LS w/only 7K on it:
Bought my Sport V8 flat out in 10/99. While I get it my head that I'd like another car about this time in ownership, I'm planning to continue the pleasure of driving it for another 3-6 years. I love the handling and acceleration available at freeway speeds. I don't push it to the edge, but my Kentucky hills' by-way roads give me plenty of opportunity to feel the grip as I take bends harder than I could with ordinary cars. At my larger than average size, I really enjoy the auto-seat setup & particularly the telescoping steering wheel. Don't think I'll ever buy again w/o those features.
As I said in a message not long ago, new tires and an alignment at 45,000 miles makes it drive like new again. I think its mechanical systems are holding up well. Yes I'm getting dings here & there, but they make it uniquely mine. When I get it shined up, I'm still quite proud to have it. Still get compliments.
I had several of the startup problems - dropped rear window, transmission reflash, radio grounding problem that blew it out. All happened in the first 6-9 months. All handled under warranty. Nothing's happened since.
If you do buy the 2000, check out whether it's received all the Technical Service Bulletins treatments or that they all can still be done at no cost to you.
However: I own a 1999 Jeep Wrangler (Chrysler product) and my wife has a 2001 Ford Windstar (worse piece of junk since the pinto).
In comparison my LS was very trouble free. So to me the LS is Excellent.
So I bought the 2003. Since I have never owned a Lexus to compare this to I guess Ignorance is Bliss?
BTW, My sisters Accord should have been replaced under the lemon laws. In general however I think Toyota and Honda make better mid-range sedans then the Taurus and Monte Carlo.
I also think that most of the Japanese Iron is BORING. I would rather own a Jeep or a Mustang Cobra any day even if means I have to put up with some problems. The day I become a lemming and join the great unwashed in a boring/beige/proletariet machine please put me out of my misery.
...The depreciation on my 2000 LS is way too much to overcome. Yes, I understand that it's not exclusive to the LS, but since I currently own one, it hurts!
Lincoln is now advertising up to $5000 rebates on the 2003 LSs. Combined with another $2800 or so that the "x" plan adds on, thats almost $8000 off a new model. How can you go wrong??
I called up my dealer to discuss the situation, and the best he'll offer me is $16000-16500 for my 3 year old, 25,000 mile, really sharp LS. This was a $39,500 car, brand new!! I won't do it, it's a waste of money, even considering how great the 2003s are......
My 2001 V6 Manual tranny LS w/all options but heated seats at 32.6K miles has had no mechanical problems. A few PIA issues, all but 1 fixed under warranty. That one is a problem with air temp out 1 HVAC vent. A Ford engineer looked at it week and a half ago. Hope he's working on a solution. The others: - Replace intermittent radio/CD at delivery. - Replaced headlight covers. - Replaced rear window regulators. (Prevent Maint only -nothing ever went wrong.) - Replaced driver door beltline trim piece - broken hold-down clip.
I'm going to keep it around for sure. Recently put a 2002 airbox on it. Engine now breathes better, growls with authority and responds a bit better. Next, I'm putting magnaflo cat back system on it to pull some more ponies out. Soon will need new rubber. The OEM Firestones have done very well by me.
I will comment that I think the LS is overpriced. They must be a real hard sell right now. Was at the dealer week and half ago and probly 10 2003s on lot, all priced above $40k, most around $45-$47K. Around the same price as an AWD Aviator. There was also a new 2002 Vivid red LS V8 with $29,995 in the window. What a deal that would be. Of course, with rebates and all, can probly get a $47K sticker 2003 for under $40K. Still, that's $10,000 more than the '02.
Would I get another one? I'd love a 2003 with all the improvements. But no manual tranny avail any more. I'll just be happy with what I got for 150,000 miles at least. (Previous car was a MarkVIII. Sold to Sis-in-Law. It's now got 150,000 on it and running like a top.)
Lincolns are basically good vehicles, IMHO. A bit overpriced and with a mediocre at best dealer network. Depreciation? It's not good, but I'm not upside down as some are.
One downer for me right now: they're paying $$millions to Magic Johnson to be their spokesmouth. This money would be much better spent improving, say, the materials used in the LS so that it might not be as overpriced as it is. How many more Buicks has Tiger Woods sold? Personally, I'm less likely to be impressed or to buy a car whose mfgr is paying huge sums of money to a celebrity.
I agree, but it's not just the LS that depreciates that drastically either, it's caused by a domino effect pertaining to discounts, the economy, sales, etc. I even know of someone with a MB E320, who kept it for only 8 months because of numerous annoying problems, and in that just short time their vehicle depreciated by $19K.
Now, what you could do to benefit from this situation, is probably find a year old used LS or probably a demo vehicle, that way you benefit from the depreciation. Same advice I give to Taurus buyers, just buy them a year old and for $13K
the CTS is being distributed at 0% with a rebate. Other GM stuff, and all Cadillacs besides the CTS, you're absolutely correct.
For the CTS, I don't think you are. The American car that competes with the LS is the CTS. With no incentives, it's moved significantly more units this year than the LS -- and this is the significantly improved '03 LS.
I've got a 2000 LS V8 Sport and here's my experience to date with 26K miles: ball joint recall license plate lights replaced under warranty could use the tranny reflash but I don't care enough to risk going to the dealer quite yet steering wheel clunk, quite common but again don't care enough to risk the potential collateral damage from dealer as they effect the repairs. Headlights never fogged, as of yet... rear windows, in spite of my best efforts no failures yet. When they fail that will likely be the problem that has me get the other issues above resolved. My main gripe is the rapid depreciation, which I feel is worse than many other brands. Knowing what I know now I'd never buy a new Lincoln again. A clean low mile used one is the way to go. As always, YMMV
well that's a fair question but one that's a little hard to answer. My wife has a 2001 Lexus RX300 and I track my cars value in Quicken as part of my networth. When I look at how rapidly the Lincoln's value drops as compared to the Lexus it appears the Lincoln fares worse. A while back I posted a depreciation topic on another board we both frequent and Lincoln fared worse than Lexus on retained value. The figures I believe came from Money Magazine. A search of the archives may locate my original post. While I enjoy my Lincoln quite a bit I've noted many owners are a bit defensive about anything to do with retained value or how the LS compares to BMW. This is just my opinion and as I always like to add...YMMV
I think KBB us used more universally as the "benchmark" than Edmunds, which is why it appears to be more accurate.
Lincolns and Cadillacs are notoriously poor at holding value. That shouldn't be news to anyone.
Finally, why would it surprise anybody that the brand new CTS is mildly outselling the 4 year old LS? Don't forget, it's not only new, but cheaper too.
All these massive incentives offered by Lincoln on the LS must be a function of over supply -- they simply ran too many LS's off the assembly line in 2003 -- or rather, they expected to sell a lot more cars than they actually did. If they don't sell them now -- they'll take a massive hit in price once the 2004's are out there.
I wonder if this is because they moved Lincoln out of the Premier Auto Group, or the result of the competition mentioned by other posters.
By the way, despite all those problems, it is nothing compared with owning british sports cars like I did in the past -- that is why I am not upset. However, it is a mistake to mislead new buyers into believing that car has no problems, or the same problems as other cars -- the first year LS simply was the product of poor manufacturing quality control -- the vast majority of posters on this forum at that time had problems -- but the car is so much fun, and Lincoln is usually so good about fixing the problems, it had to be accepted.
Here's an example of depreciation and ownership costs, that offer's some light on another senario. This is a simple example of a case that I disected personally from 2 friends who bought, and sold their vehicles at almost the same time.
A) Bought a 98' Camry LE-V6, decently loaded, for $24,3XX. There weren't any incentives for his vehicle at that time. His insurance (clean record) came to roughly $1050 yearly. His vehicle required premium gas and spent $1320 yearly. During that time, out of warranty expenses came to $1200, this included a new A/C compressor, windshield wiper motor, power window motor, rear light bulb sets. Regular maintenence yearly (according to the maintenence manual) came to $680 (estimated yearly). He traded in his car 2 months ago and received $10,200.
Bought a 98 Taurus, heavily loaded for $22K, but with a rebates, out the door price was $19,300. His yearly insurance was $720. Car took regular gas and he estimated to $1060. Out of warranty expenses came to $420 alternator, power window motor, clitch on power mirror relay. Regular yearly maintenence at $460 estimated. He traded in his vehicle 3 weeks ago and received $8400 for it.
While we see that A) had less of a depreciation than B...B had less of an overall operating cost for the vehicle overall. Mainly helped by cheaper parts, regular priced gas, cheaper insurance (attributed to cheaper parts and availability of them). SO B might have gotten less money for his trade in, A payed for higher operating costs.
One question - is the power window motor a weak spot in general on vehicles, particularly Ford makes? My '92 F150 power window died early, replaced under warranty. A couple friend's Ford's had similar issues. I literally only ever open the window at fast food drive-thru's, which is not often. Seems like they don't last very long.
PS - thanks for all the great Ford company info in your posts, I'm sure many here are grateful for all the good info.
ANT14; I'm missing something when you write, "While we see that A) had less of a depreciation than B...". I read that A depreciated $14,100 to 42% of original cost whereas B depreciated $10,900 to 44% of original cost. How is that A didn't depreciate more than B?
I know first hand the Depreciation. My 00 V8 Sp was leased and had a 20k resid. I would have bought it if they would have taken 18k but Ford would not come down. Obviously FOMOCO credit took the hit for the depreciation when they took it to auction for 16k. They probably would rather take the write off then open a can of worms by negotiationg buy out. (open a flood gate) I bought new this time and don't care about the Depreciation as much as I am going to keep this one a long time. Hopefully by the time the warranty is out I can bolt in a supercharger and get another boost good for a couple years. )
One of the things Caddy has done well with the CTS is marketing. I think they have positioned the car to a bit younger crowd than Lincoln has with the LS. Caddy has used product placement (look how many cool movies the CTS is in lately and you know GM paid for that), Racing with the Le Mans series cars that had the same art and science theme (great styling tie-in), and some good old Led Zeppelin to get people to notice their commercials...
Carguy, It depends on the use that the power window mechanism must endure. For example, the Taurus in the above example, the issue was that the rubber seal that's at the bottom of the window, on the outside side, was craked and warped, which led to water leaking into the interior structure of the door itself, WHERE the power window mechanism is housed. The reason to this was because the person parked the car, with western exposure hitting the driver's side of the car, where the FL sun ate up the rubber seal. Again, this is the rubber seal where the window pane itself rises out from. So that explains how it was damage. Water leaked inside the housing, and by luck it happened that the water would drop into the mechanism (which is sealed and heavily bolted) but the mechanism itself was bathed in water, BECAUSE the lower part of the doors drainage holes were blocked with dirt (And the crackling plastic/rubber pieces from the above issue). Personally, it would have been easy to just open up the mechanism, and dry it out, and it would have worked. BUT because of time constraints, the person was told "HEY it's broken and needs to be replaced". You would be amazed at how many times that power window mechanism just needs a "SHOVE" to unlock it from it's stuck position, and repair places will tell you it needs to be totally replaced. More $$$ for their pockets, and those motors usually retail $80-180, depending on the brand. So far industry wise, VW is the one with the common power window problem, it's a defect from the supplier and they had a recall for it. One of the holding pins were plastic, and kept warping causing the window to just fall into it's door casing. The early LS's had a similar supplier issue, and mainly occured with the rear doors. I personally have never had a window problem with my car, but living in FL I just avoid opening windows all together. The driver's side window is the only one which I open. But overall Ford's power window mechanisms, aren't problematic, it depends on the supplier, and on which vehicle they were fitted into. Also, it's something that commonly breaks down on everyone's vehicles sooner or later. People just love ramming that button, and keep it held down when the window itself is at it's limit. I remember back when Mercedes Benz, used a relay/sensor. When the window would reach it's limit at the upper most, and bottom most level, it would it would null the button, to prevent the window from jamming. Not sure if they still use that now. With the "one touch up and down" systems, that's pretty much the case, and helps lessen the above case senario. BUT I would say 90% of the time, when a power window fails, just open up the interior trim panel, get into the system, use a good hammer or a crowbar, and force that arm braket to unjam. I've been able to help some friend's vehicle that way. 8 times out of 10, a repair shop will tell you the whole mechanism needs to be replaced, when chances are, it simply jammed.
Vhkat, The reason A) didn't depreciate overall, more than is because it's a Camry. The vehicle has reputation for being reliable, this caused a domino effect, where people will pay a bit more for the vehicle, for having that attribute. It's a vehicle that's wanted in the used car market by buyer's, and will command a higher price tag because of it. The Taurus is just everywhere, and saturated in the market as well, BUT there's many of them in the used car market, from rental car companies which unload them after 2-3 years of use. When the market is saturated by such a vehicle, it's less wanted therefore causing less value come in at trade in. No one treats rental cars nicely, I admit...
EXAMPLE: When I've had relatives come into town which have had to rent a vehicle. I usually take the vehicle within the 15 minutes they drive out of the rental car agency, ram it into a curb (depending on the vehicle, each one has a different way of de-adjusting it), causing the alignment to screw-up. Then return to the rental car agency, where they are "NICE" enough to upgrade you to a bigger vehicle for your "BAD" experience. TIP: Do not do this with a Crown Vic/Grand Marquis, their alignment is VERY hard to de-adjust.
But my example was to show that even if the person paid a price premium because of the reputation of reliability that vehicle A) had, in the end he probably did receive more money for his trade in, but overall that reliability premium wasn't that aparent because the vehicle itself required costlier service and running costs.
Overall, I say if depreciation is an issue, and your the habit to switch vehicles every 3-5 years, then maybe a vehicle Lease might be better. ONLY IF, you are able to keep it within the milage constraints. Many of the currently leased vehicles have rediculous residuals that the automaker's will take a hit for when the consumer trades them in. Why did I state 3-5 years, because that's when the depreciation of a vehicle hits the hardest, then levels down. If you lease at a 1 or 2 year period, you will definatly see a harder hit in depreciation reflected by your monthly payments. At the 3 to 5 level, it's lessened and most common. GM is commonly known for giving their current leasing customer's the option to trade in their leases ahead of time, as long as they purchase or lease another vehicle from them. This is a common tactic for them to increase sales in the new car market, but they take the residual hit from this. They do well in this tactic, ONLY when the person has some monetary catastrophy where at the end of the lease they must purchase the vehicle for whatever REASONS, then you will see the overinflated residual price, that they wish you to pay.
Excellent post#12054. That's as close as you can get to show a cost of ownership comparison without getting bogged down with too many details. Let me just add the following based on your example:
1)The Taurus had a higher trade-in value of +43% compared to Camry's -42%, and;
2)The Taurus owner saved about $1,000 a year over the Camry owner.
Yes pretty much. In a nut shell from my experiences, I've seen that it all levels itself out one way or another. Unless it's a Kia, Hyundai, Daewoo, everything is will even out. -- that's a whole other story of it's own.
So you take out the rental car and " ram it into a curb (depending on the vehicle, each one has a different way of de-adjusting it), causing the alignment to screw-up." No wonder the cost of leasing keeps going up. I don't see any indication you were kidding either. Some car guy!
ANT14: Your depreciation claims in favor of the Camry over the Taurus aren't backed by your numbers. You explain why the Camry depreciated less w/o backing it with data, undermining your arguments. Deal with YOUR facts, please. Thanks.
Vhkat, what proof would you like then? Should I scan the paperwork or something? I'm giving one example of a real world senario that's personal, that's it. Do with it what you wish.
I will say this about the LS, I can't remember the last time I saw an advertisement for one. Almost every Lincoln ad I come across is for the Navigator.
Navigator is a profit cow for Ford, with over $15K profit per each unit sold. The LS is mainly being targeted to print advertisement, so they'll be seen more in magazines with demographics which the marketing team is trying to aim to. While Navigator's advertising is a bit even thru print and televised media.
I also have some numbers since I find this topic intersting, I probably should get a life but anyway...This may not be perfect because one of the cars, the Lexus, was purchased used but otherwise here's what I did. Took the Edmunds TMV (custom apprasial) for each my 2000 LS V8 and my wife's 2001 RX300.
Lincoln paid $34K (MSRP $38K) now worth $17 per Edmunds, 26.6K miles - owned since 10-2000. depreciation $18 a day - 65 cents a mile
Lexus paid $31K now worth $27K per Edmunds, she's put 18K miles on it since July 2002. depreciation $10 a day - 22 cents a mile.
I'm not sure cost per mile is a good metric as it rewards high miles. Hope I didn't make any math errors...!!
I've got a problem with that comparison. I think it's pretty well accepted that the first year's depreciation is by far the worst, yet it isn't included in the Lexus calculation.
Also, I believe that Kelley BB has more realistic prices.
Further, even is the two cars are different, they should be appraised as being in the same condition, and same color.
about the Lexus, that's why I mentioned that in the post, but it does still appear to be a reasonable measure of the depreciation I've had over the time I've owned the cars. I've always heard the rap on KBB was they list average "asking" price not selling price. Edmunds claims TMV is based on "selling" price, who knows?
I discovered a few years ago myself, that my Continentals were depreciating like Enron stock, and my Ranger was holding value much much better. At that point, I switched from cars to SUV's, and have been getting much better residuals on my leases. This can explain the popularity of trucks in America today, to a large degree.
I've read many of your posts, here and in the Aviator board amoung others. I don't know who you work for or where you get all your insider info, but I will say that your posts are usually helpful and make a lot of sense. However, 2 of your posts over the last few days make me wonder ... well, here's the beef:
You posted some interesting figures for depreciation for a Taurus vs a Camry. But you then came to the wrong conclusion based on the numbers you presented and you can't seem to understand why people are calling you on this. Here's why:
Camry cost $24.3K Sold for $10.2K Depreciation = $14.1K Taurus cost $19.3K Sold for $8.4K. Depreciation = $10.9K Taurus depreciated $3200 LESS than the Camry. Less by % calc too. I hope that explains it.
The other beef I have is your 'EXAMPLE' in post 1258. That is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Seriously, think about what you're doing here. It could be considered a form of thievery. Not to mention the hidden damage you might possibly do to the front drive and steering on these cars. Maybe the next renter is a family with kids ...
I answered a comment to that post while on the phone with some pending business. But pertaining to the original post, the depreciation factor pertaining to maintenence costs, insurance, running costs, etc. caused the Taurus to be the better buy, pertaining to overall ownership costs. While the Camry held up with less depreciation, the depreciation factor not consisting of the running costs.
As in, WHEN most calculate depreciation, they are going by the numbers that KBB or Edmunds publishes, not taking into account the overall ownership costs, of the vehicle themselves. Granted, one vehicle (as the Camry showed) had an expensive item that needed replacement, soon after warranty expired which escalted it's ownership costs as well. Ideally, it was ironic that the "reliable" Camry would have one too many items that needed repair/replacement, but it showed real world circumstances.
Overall the whole point to the original post was, that even if a vehicle might have a lower depreciation (as set forth by Kbb, Edmunds, Black Book, etc), many times it all evens out depending on ownership/running costs. MANY-- Being the key word.
Thanks. Was going crazy thinking I'm the only one seeing Camry vs. Taurus depreciation example shortcomings. I know which postings not to waste my time on now.
I think ANT14 was talking depreciation in the strict-definition sense, difference between MSRP and selling/trade in price, not from actual buying price. I think that's why he still thinks Taurus dereciated more than Camry.
However, I do agree that calculating from actual price does make a LOT more sense than from MSRP, for the individual buyers anyway. For example, and get back to LS topic, I just bought a LS V6 base for less than $24k, MSRP was $33K+. If I were to lease it, the RV is 41% for 3yr-36000 miles, very very bad. But, if you use the transaction price, the RV would have been 54%, which is pretty much in line with the import sedans (selling at or near MSRP) in this class. And, to think that you can get a Lincoln LS at a V6 CamCord price, only fools wouldn't jump on the deal.
My 03 LS has developed a headliner seperation where the 3rd ligh is. Has anyone experienced this problem or have a suggested fix? I took it to the dealer and they applied a velcro strip, but it seperates from the headliner and doesn't solve the problem.
Hairong...I tried to make a similar purchase and the sales mgr. agreed to the price.I only deal with the mgr. My old salesman left the company. This is after starting the price negotiating weeks prior. I came back the next day and he claimed that he made a $1500 MISTAKE. I walked out of the show room. I am returning an early lease. My plan now is to let the lease expire if I have to. Could you spell out the deal that you made. Price .. rebates etc.. If you would rather email me, let me know. This type of behavior led me right over to other makes to check out their cars. Lincoln is not the only BEST car. The dealer is part of the driving experience. Lincoln is trying to move cars and keep customers and this"--------"is still playing " I'M the only game in town because you have to return your early lease to him.(Ford credit rules). I would like to show the owner of the agency your deal, and get on with it. Thanks.
Luas, I think he (the manager) MAYBE right, he might have made a mistake. Out of the $5500 incentive, $3500 cannot be used for lease on V6 base, but can be used on all other trims' lease and all purchases. If you do another lease, there's also $2000 (I think) lease renewal cash, which can not be applied to a purchase. You see, if he forgot about both, then he did make a $1500 "mistake" in your favor.
If this indeed is the case, may I suggest that you go for leasing a V6 Premium? You can get ALL $7500 incentive and apply it on a shorter term (lease) deal! I know that Premium costs a lot more ($6000?), but your actual cost over the 3 years is not much: 3500 - 6000*41% = 1040, plus maybe 300 bucks in finance charge.
There's one more incentive that may take another $1000 off your lease, but I haven't confirmed it with my dealer. If you have a '98 or newer Mystique, Cougar or Villager, which were all discontinued, you can get additional $1000 off toward a Lincoln purchase(/lease??) or $500 for a Mercury. I think Ford calls it "drive back to Lincoln Mercury" or something similar. I used this 1000 on my LS.
As of my deal, it's something like this: MSRP: 339xx Price b4 rebates: 303xx Normal rebates: -5500 (must finance through FC) Mystique rebate: -1000 Net price: 238xx
Thanks for the info. I was going to purchase the 2003 base LS. There are rebates and there is also a lease to purchase incentive. I was going to finance with Ford and then buy it after a few months. This would give me the purchase and finance rebate.He was not wrong when he quoted me. He played the old 'GOTYA' game, when I came back to pick colours and sign the papers. Maybe I am wrong but, not according to HIS original numbers. Again thanks for the info
Do you have a written quote from him? Even if you don't, don't let him off the hook that easy. Ask him to show you where he made the "$1500 MISTAKE". Go over the would-be agreement line by line. If he denies any part of the $5500+ rebates (it's something like 3500 (1000 w/ 0%), 1000, 1000 and your lease to purchase incentive), ask him to call Lincoln in front of you to see if you qualify. If your "price before rebates" is at/below invoice, you shouldn't be that much off. However, are you sure the "early lease termination" promotion has not expired? This could be significant.
I did most of what you said. The dealer wants to make his normal markup, what ever that is. I do not think he made a mistake. He realized when I came back that he would rather give up a sale and a customer than take less then his regular markup, even though I was buying a 1 year old model,but new,(2003). He has the 2004 coming in in a week or 2. My early lease turn in is good to 2 Sept. I asked the dealer to give me a letter releasing me from him so that I could go to another dealer. He wouldn't do it. I wish Mr. Rogers was still around. When he was monitoring, and with Lincoln, he helped a lot of people. I had trouble with my 2000LS,transmission stuff, and after 15 or so trips to the dealer, he stepped in and I was in a new car within weeks.The same dealer tried to make a profit on that event also. Ford corporate ate a couple of hundred dollars. Lincoln lost a good man, and I'll bet some customers, when he left. There does not seem to be a Lincoln exec who monitors this very good board. I just got back from checking out the Lexus RX330. Different then the LS but very good and with great resale. There is an under current, on this board, of many people being unhappy with their dealers.I guess I am now caught up in the undertow. Thanks for all of your suggestions.
I have always pretty much felt as ANT was trying to convey, (I think), that the real buying and selling price of a car isn't the whole cost story. And chance plays a big part in it as well. But parts for imports are expensive, and depending upon which parts the gods decide you will need to replace, you can often get off as well with a domestic car. Of course, it really comes down to what you want and like in a car. We will all pay extra for what we want to have. Pay me now, or pay me later.....
As far as parts for imports vs domestics go; I think this is a moot point for most of us. If leasing, the warranty period is usually as long or longer than your lease. The exception might be Toyota as they are sticking with their 36 mo. term.
Comments
On this site, I'm not sure you're going to get satisfaction. Writing Mr. Ford is a good idea, and burning up the Lincoln hotline is too. They ought to buy that back from you, but without a safety related repeat issue, I doubt they will.
If I were you, I wouldn't buy another Lincoln. But they're machines, and these things happen. It's a miracle they work at all. I also have lots of friends, one who lives behind me with a 2000 who is delighted with hers. I also have a friend who had a 2000 that he let go when the lease was up and got a Sable because he felt it was going to be a lot of trouble.
It's still no Yugo......
Bought my Sport V8 flat out in 10/99. While I get it my head that I'd like another car about this time in ownership, I'm planning to continue the pleasure of driving it for another 3-6 years. I love the handling and acceleration available at freeway speeds. I don't push it to the edge, but my Kentucky hills' by-way roads give me plenty of opportunity to feel the grip as I take bends harder than I could with ordinary cars. At my larger than average size, I really enjoy the auto-seat setup & particularly the telescoping steering wheel. Don't think I'll ever buy again w/o those features.
As I said in a message not long ago, new tires and an alignment at 45,000 miles makes it drive like new again. I think its mechanical systems are holding up well. Yes I'm getting dings here & there, but they make it uniquely mine. When I get it shined up, I'm still quite proud to have it. Still get compliments.
I had several of the startup problems - dropped rear window, transmission reflash, radio grounding problem that blew it out. All happened in the first 6-9 months. All handled under warranty. Nothing's happened since.
If you do buy the 2000, check out whether it's received all the Technical Service Bulletins treatments or that they all can still be done at no cost to you.
Good Luck w/decison.
However:
I own a 1999 Jeep Wrangler (Chrysler product)
and my wife has a 2001 Ford Windstar (worse piece of junk since the pinto).
In comparison my LS was very trouble free. So to me the LS is Excellent.
So I bought the 2003. Since I have never owned a Lexus to compare this to I guess Ignorance is Bliss?
BTW, My sisters Accord should have been replaced under the lemon laws. In general however I think Toyota and Honda make better mid-range sedans then the Taurus and Monte Carlo.
I also think that most of the Japanese Iron is BORING. I would rather own a Jeep or a Mustang Cobra any day even if means I have to put up with some problems. The day I become a lemming and join the great unwashed in a boring/beige/proletariet machine please put me out of my misery.
The LS has a high owner loyalty rate and we have seen numerous repeat buyers/leesees.
Lincoln is now advertising up to $5000 rebates on the 2003 LSs. Combined with another $2800 or so that the "x" plan adds on, thats almost $8000 off a new model. How can you go wrong??
I called up my dealer to discuss the situation, and the best he'll offer me is $16000-16500 for my 3 year old, 25,000 mile, really sharp LS. This was a $39,500 car, brand new!! I won't do it, it's a waste of money, even considering how great the 2003s are......
* That's $0.95/mile
* $30.13/ day
Just for depreciation; doesn't count fuel, insurance & maintenance.
And, the car falls way short of the Lincoln LS in fun-to-drive, and directional stability
- Replace intermittent radio/CD at delivery.
- Replaced headlight covers.
- Replaced rear window regulators. (Prevent Maint only -nothing ever went wrong.)
- Replaced driver door beltline trim piece - broken hold-down clip.
I'm going to keep it around for sure. Recently put a 2002 airbox on it. Engine now breathes better, growls with authority and responds a bit better. Next, I'm putting magnaflo cat back system on it to pull some more ponies out. Soon will need new rubber. The OEM Firestones have done very well by me.
I will comment that I think the LS is overpriced. They must be a real hard sell right now. Was at the dealer week and half ago and probly 10 2003s on lot, all priced above $40k, most around $45-$47K. Around the same price as an AWD Aviator. There was also a new 2002 Vivid red LS V8 with $29,995 in the window. What a deal that would be. Of course, with rebates and all, can probly get a $47K sticker 2003 for under $40K. Still, that's $10,000 more than the '02.
Would I get another one? I'd love a 2003 with all the improvements. But no manual tranny avail any more. I'll just be happy with what I got for 150,000 miles at least. (Previous car was a MarkVIII. Sold to Sis-in-Law. It's now got 150,000 on it and running like a top.)
Lincolns are basically good vehicles, IMHO. A bit overpriced and with a mediocre at best dealer network. Depreciation? It's not good, but I'm not upside down as some are.
One downer for me right now: they're paying $$millions to Magic Johnson to be their spokesmouth. This money would be much better spent improving, say, the materials used in the LS so that it might not be as overpriced as it is. How many more Buicks has Tiger Woods sold? Personally, I'm less likely to be impressed or to buy a car whose mfgr is paying huge sums of money to a celebrity.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2003-07-23-dealer-service_x.h- tm
Now, what you could do to benefit from this situation, is probably find a year old used LS or probably a demo vehicle, that way you benefit from the depreciation. Same advice I give to Taurus buyers, just buy them a year old and for $13K
For the CTS, I don't think you are. The American car that competes with the LS is the CTS. With no incentives, it's moved significantly more units this year than the LS -- and this is the significantly improved '03 LS.
Go figure.
ball joint recall
license plate lights replaced under warranty
could use the tranny reflash but I don't care enough to risk going to the dealer quite yet
steering wheel clunk, quite common but again don't care enough to risk the potential collateral damage from dealer as they effect the repairs.
Headlights never fogged, as of yet...
rear windows, in spite of my best efforts no failures yet. When they fail that will likely be the problem that has me get the other issues above resolved.
My main gripe is the rapid depreciation, which I feel is worse than many other brands. Knowing what I know now I'd never buy a new Lincoln again. A clean low mile used one is the way to go.
As always, YMMV
Is the depreciation in real dollars worse than the Lexus in my earlier post? Or the one by Ant14?
If they base it on actual purchase prices, then that's something different. Do you know which method they use?
BTW: My cousin learned, painfully, that KBB is a lot more accurate than Edmunds in estimating value of used vehicles.
Lincolns and Cadillacs are notoriously poor at holding value. That shouldn't be news to anyone.
Finally, why would it surprise anybody that the brand new CTS is mildly outselling the 4 year old LS? Don't forget, it's not only new, but cheaper too.
I wonder if this is because they moved Lincoln out of the Premier Auto Group, or the result of the competition mentioned by other posters.
By the way, despite all those problems, it is nothing compared with owning british sports cars like I did in the past -- that is why I am not upset. However, it is a mistake to mislead new buyers into believing that car has no problems, or the same problems as other cars -- the first year LS simply was the product of poor manufacturing quality control -- the vast majority of posters on this forum at that time had problems -- but the car is so much fun, and Lincoln is usually so good about fixing the problems, it had to be accepted.
A) Bought a 98' Camry LE-V6, decently loaded, for $24,3XX. There weren't any incentives for his vehicle at that time. His insurance (clean record) came to roughly $1050 yearly. His vehicle required premium gas and spent $1320 yearly. During that time, out of warranty expenses came to $1200, this included a new A/C compressor, windshield wiper motor, power window motor, rear light bulb sets. Regular maintenence yearly (according to the maintenence manual) came to $680 (estimated yearly). He traded in his car 2 months ago and received $10,200.
While we see that A) had less of a depreciation than B...B had less of an overall operating cost for the vehicle overall. Mainly helped by cheaper parts, regular priced gas, cheaper insurance (attributed to cheaper parts and availability of them). SO B might have gotten less money for his trade in, A payed for higher operating costs.
One question - is the power window motor a weak spot in general on vehicles, particularly Ford makes? My '92 F150 power window died early, replaced under warranty. A couple friend's Ford's had similar issues. I literally only ever open the window at fast food drive-thru's, which is not often. Seems like they don't last very long.
PS - thanks for all the great Ford company info in your posts, I'm sure many here are grateful for all the good info.
I bought new this time and don't care about the Depreciation as much as I am going to keep this one a long time. Hopefully by the time the warranty is out I can bolt in a supercharger and get another boost good for a couple years.
One of the things Caddy has done well with the CTS is marketing. I think they have positioned the car to a bit younger crowd than Lincoln has with the LS. Caddy has used product placement (look how many cool movies the CTS is in lately and you know GM paid for that), Racing with the Le Mans series cars that had the same art and science theme (great styling tie-in), and some good old Led Zeppelin to get people to notice their commercials...
It depends on the use that the power window mechanism must endure. For example, the Taurus in the above example, the issue was that the rubber seal that's at the bottom of the window, on the outside side, was craked and warped, which led to water leaking into the interior structure of the door itself, WHERE the power window mechanism is housed. The reason to this was because the person parked the car, with western exposure hitting the driver's side of the car, where the FL sun ate up the rubber seal. Again, this is the rubber seal where the window pane itself rises out from.
So that explains how it was damage. Water leaked inside the housing, and by luck it happened that the water would drop into the mechanism (which is sealed and heavily bolted) but the mechanism itself was bathed in water, BECAUSE the lower part of the doors drainage holes were blocked with dirt (And the crackling plastic/rubber pieces from the above issue).
Personally, it would have been easy to just open up the mechanism, and dry it out, and it would have worked. BUT because of time constraints, the person was told "HEY it's broken and needs to be replaced". You would be amazed at how many times that power window mechanism just needs a "SHOVE" to unlock it from it's stuck position, and repair places will tell you it needs to be totally replaced. More $$$ for their pockets, and those motors usually retail $80-180, depending on the brand.
So far industry wise, VW is the one with the common power window problem, it's a defect from the supplier and they had a recall for it. One of the holding pins were plastic, and kept warping causing the window to just fall into it's door casing.
The early LS's had a similar supplier issue, and mainly occured with the rear doors. I personally have never had a window problem with my car, but living in FL I just avoid opening windows all together. The driver's side window is the only one which I open. But overall Ford's power window mechanisms, aren't problematic, it depends on the supplier, and on which vehicle they were fitted into.
Also, it's something that commonly breaks down on everyone's vehicles sooner or later. People just love ramming that button, and keep it held down when the window itself is at it's limit. I remember back when Mercedes Benz, used a relay/sensor. When the window would reach it's limit at the upper most, and bottom most level, it would it would null the button, to prevent the window from jamming. Not sure if they still use that now.
With the "one touch up and down" systems, that's pretty much the case, and helps lessen the above case senario. BUT I would say 90% of the time, when a power window fails, just open up the interior trim panel, get into the system, use a good hammer or a crowbar, and force that arm braket to unjam. I've been able to help some friend's vehicle that way. 8 times out of 10, a repair shop will tell you the whole mechanism needs to be replaced, when chances are, it simply jammed.
Vhkat,
The reason A) didn't depreciate overall, more than
The Taurus is just everywhere, and saturated in the market as well, BUT there's many of them in the used car market, from rental car companies which unload them after 2-3 years of use. When the market is saturated by such a vehicle, it's less wanted therefore causing less value come in at trade in. No one treats rental cars nicely, I admit...
EXAMPLE: When I've had relatives come into town which have had to rent a vehicle. I usually take the vehicle within the 15 minutes they drive out of the rental car agency, ram it into a curb (depending on the vehicle, each one has a different way of de-adjusting it), causing the alignment to screw-up. Then return to the rental car agency, where they are "NICE" enough to upgrade you to a bigger vehicle for your "BAD" experience. TIP: Do not do this with a Crown Vic/Grand Marquis, their alignment is VERY hard to de-adjust.
But my example was to show that even if the person paid a price premium because of the reputation of reliability that vehicle A) had, in the end he probably did receive more money for his trade in, but overall that reliability premium wasn't that aparent because the vehicle itself required costlier service and running costs.
Overall, I say if depreciation is an issue, and your the habit to switch vehicles every 3-5 years, then maybe a vehicle Lease might be better. ONLY IF, you are able to keep it within the milage constraints. Many of the currently leased vehicles have rediculous residuals that the automaker's will take a hit for when the consumer trades them in.
Why did I state 3-5 years, because that's when the depreciation of a vehicle hits the hardest, then levels down. If you lease at a 1 or 2 year period, you will definatly see a harder hit in depreciation reflected by your monthly payments. At the 3 to 5 level, it's lessened and most common.
GM is commonly known for giving their current leasing customer's the option to trade in their leases ahead of time, as long as they purchase or lease another vehicle from them. This is a common tactic for them to increase sales in the new car market, but they take the residual hit from this.
They do well in this tactic, ONLY when the person has some monetary catastrophy where at the end of the lease they must purchase the vehicle for whatever REASONS, then you will see the overinflated residual price, that they wish you to pay.
1)The Taurus had a higher trade-in value of +43% compared to Camry's -42%, and;
2)The Taurus owner saved about $1,000 a year over the Camry owner.
ANT14: Your depreciation claims in favor of the Camry over the Taurus aren't backed by your numbers. You explain why the Camry depreciated less w/o backing it with data, undermining your arguments. Deal with YOUR facts, please. Thanks.
* $0.95/mile
* $30.13/ day
Depreciation ONLY.
I don't see any hard evidence that the Lincoln LS costs that much.
Lincoln paid $34K (MSRP $38K) now worth $17 per Edmunds, 26.6K miles - owned since 10-2000.
depreciation $18 a day - 65 cents a mile
Lexus paid $31K now worth $27K per Edmunds, she's put 18K miles on it since July 2002.
depreciation $10 a day - 22 cents a mile.
I'm not sure cost per mile is a good metric as it rewards high miles. Hope I didn't make any math errors...!!
I've got a problem with that comparison. I think it's pretty well accepted that the first year's depreciation is by far the worst, yet it isn't included in the Lexus calculation.
Also, I believe that Kelley BB has more realistic prices.
Further, even is the two cars are different, they should be appraised as being in the same condition, and same color.
Regards
It's my experience that KBB is a lot lower than Edmunds TMV. This says to me that KBB represents selling, & Edmunds represents asking.
Also, it's a pleasure having a rational discussion. Thank you.
You posted some interesting figures for depreciation for a Taurus vs a Camry. But you then came to the wrong conclusion based on the numbers you presented and you can't seem to understand why people are calling you on this. Here's why:
Camry cost $24.3K Sold for $10.2K Depreciation = $14.1K
Taurus cost $19.3K Sold for $8.4K. Depreciation = $10.9K
Taurus depreciated $3200 LESS than the Camry. Less by % calc too. I hope that explains it.
The other beef I have is your 'EXAMPLE' in post 1258. That is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Seriously, think about what you're doing here. It could be considered a form of thievery. Not to mention the hidden damage you might possibly do to the front drive and steering on these cars. Maybe the next renter is a family with kids ...
As in, WHEN most calculate depreciation, they are going by the numbers that KBB or Edmunds publishes, not taking into account the overall ownership costs, of the vehicle themselves. Granted, one vehicle (as the Camry showed) had an expensive item that needed replacement, soon after warranty expired which escalted it's ownership costs as well. Ideally, it was ironic that the "reliable" Camry would have one too many items that needed repair/replacement, but it showed real world circumstances.
Overall the whole point to the original post was, that even if a vehicle might have a lower depreciation (as set forth by Kbb, Edmunds, Black Book, etc), many times it all evens out depending on ownership/running costs. MANY-- Being the key word.
However, I do agree that calculating from actual price does make a LOT more sense than from MSRP, for the individual buyers anyway. For example, and get back to LS topic, I just bought a LS V6 base for less than $24k, MSRP was $33K+. If I were to lease it, the RV is 41% for 3yr-36000 miles, very very bad. But, if you use the transaction price, the RV would have been 54%, which is pretty much in line with the import sedans (selling at or near MSRP) in this class. And, to think that you can get a Lincoln LS at a V6 CamCord price, only fools wouldn't jump on the deal.
If this indeed is the case, may I suggest that you go for leasing a V6 Premium? You can get ALL $7500 incentive and apply it on a shorter term (lease) deal! I know that Premium costs a lot more ($6000?), but your actual cost over the 3 years is not much: 3500 - 6000*41% = 1040, plus maybe 300 bucks in finance charge.
There's one more incentive that may take another $1000 off your lease, but I haven't confirmed it with my dealer. If you have a '98 or newer Mystique, Cougar or Villager, which were all discontinued, you can get additional $1000 off toward a Lincoln purchase(/lease??) or $500 for a Mercury. I think Ford calls it "drive back to Lincoln Mercury" or something similar. I used this 1000 on my LS.
As of my deal, it's something like this:
MSRP: 339xx
Price b4 rebates: 303xx
Normal rebates: -5500 (must finance through FC)
Mystique rebate: -1000
Net price: 238xx
Hope this helps.