I understood that they were repainting the cars up to 6 years old in that period because of the paint incompatibility. I was told the paint company was paying part of the cost. The paint company had told the car companies and provided paint that would require only two layers instead of the previous three; but it turned out the top layer didn't stick to the primer layer like they ahd promised. It wasn't a GM error. It was PPG as the company name I was told.
Later I've read that paint deterioration is due to EPA requirements mandating lower duration paints to meet air quality where the painting is done. Higher quality paints can't be used...
Later I've read that paint deterioration is due to EPA requirements mandating lower duration paints to meet air quality where the painting is done. Higher quality paints can't be used...
Sorry, I just can’t convince myself of that. If that were the case we’d be seeing all cars riding around without paint. Some companies know how to built cars right down to how to paint them, then there are companies that don’t care and will try to get away with everything.
The body shop manager at the Pontiac dealer where I took my 95’ Bonneville said that Pontiac thought they had the problem solved by controlling the temperature more closely during the primer/painting process and it seemed to work for a while, then they must have stopped this new process because they had to push more cars down the assembly line. So, when you don’t care, you go back to your old ways!!! :sick:
Anybody care to guess how many gazillion gallons of this combination they must have had in their warehouse/s before they made a new lot buy of the right stuff?
jmonroe
'15 Genesis V8 with Ultimate Package and '18 Legacy Limited 6 cyl
There is actually some truth to the whole EPA forced a change in the paint formulation rules thing. Some companies did a better job of compensating then others.
We used to havein Independent Shop not for from here that only worked on Peugeots. Since the dealers had failed and the other shops HATED Peugeots, he was the only game in town.
I understand he did decent work but he soon developled a very cavalier attitude.
I'm not sure where your logic gets the conclusion tha we'd see all cars riding around without paint...
The location where the car was being painted was a factor in what could be used. I assume Canada, US, Mexico, Japan, Korea all have different requirements about the things that could be in the paint that would volatize as well as end up in waste from the painting are.
Also higher cost paints as on our GM car may have different formulations because of multiple layers. I recall when shopping in 98 for a car a ruby red paint color had been discontinued because of pollution problems. They said that color wouldn't be available and I've not seen it again.
>they must have stopped this new process because they had to push more cars down the assembly line.
I was in a GM plant recently and although I didn't go through the painting area, I doubt they just say "Let's speed up the paint line to put more cars through per hour" at _any_ company's paint shop in a plant, including Ford's Range Rover plant.
I have two stories involving the Nissan rep that services our area.
1. The tape player on my '03 Maxima died about 6 months out of warranty. I use one of those tape adapters for my iPod and those things are pretty stinkin cheap, so it wasn't much of a surprise. I had resigned myself to replacing the head unit myself with an aftermarket with iPod integration, but when I brought my car into the dealer for an oil change I mentioned the tape deck. It was just kind of off-the-cuff, sort of a, "well, I had my very first problem with my Maxima!". Much to my surprise, she said that she would call the local Nissan rep, and see what she could do.
When I picked my car up, she said that they had to ship it from Japan, but I would be receiving a brand new HU gratis. She'd call me when it came in (took about a week). What surprised me is that it wasn't a cheap HU, it was a freakin' 6 disc Bose changer (yes, with tape deck, and yes, the thing is huge). I asked how much it would have cost for me to buy one if Nissan hadn't covered it, and the answer was $650.
2. About 2 years after buying their new 1996 Altima, my dad noticed that the engine was burning more oil than he thought it should. He brought it into the dealer, and while the specifics are lost in the wind, Nissan just replaced the entire car with a new Altima. Because of this incident, my parents are FANATICAL Nissan buyers. The replacement Altima soldiered on until 2 summers ago, when my brother in law smacked a deer with it (even though it was my sister's car at that point, the folks were still sick about that one).
While these are only two anecdotes, I have to say that it will be very difficult for me to ever buy a different make of car.
jmonroe said . . . I said I’ve been a loyal GM customer since I had my first car (NEVER even once owned anything else) and they were all a lot more than five years old and they all had paint when I got rid of them and furthermore, I never knew paint was considered a consumable item on a car. I asked the guy at Pontiac to e-mail their decision so I could have it for my records. Believe it or not he sent me an e-mail that accurately stated Pontiac’s position. I really didn’t expect to get one at all let alone one that was that detailed.
I've never been back to that dealer since. I've bought 7 cars since then.
When I bought my last two cars (05’ and 06’) and when my two sons bought their last two cars each (4 cars) after this event with Pontiac we each e-mailed a copy of the Pontiac e-mail I received, along with scanned copies of the bill of sales for all 6 cars to Pontiac and GM stating why we don’t plan to buy anything else from GM. FWIW, several friends and acquaintances have also sent my e-mail and copies of their bill of sales to the same e-mail addresses. By my last count, I think 12 e-mails have been sent to Pontiac and GM. Will they get the point? I’m sure they won’t but as a dissatisfied customer, this was the best I could come up with.
On top of this, my 95’ Monte Carlo with 67K miles in 2005 started to drink water and would cost at least $1200 to replace the head gaskets. I gave that car to Goodwill and received a statement that I could claim $700 as a gift on my 05’ 1040 tax return.
I’m sure posters have heard me speak poorly of GM; “Now you know the rest of the story”.
Sorry for the length of this post but I wanted to fully explain the situation.
BRAVO, BRAVO!! I think you handled the whole situation BEAUTIFULLY!!
Boy....ain't that the truth....J! I've bored all of you with the Cadillac story. The zone rep could have made me happy. Instead, he continued his deny, deny, deny routine until, I forced Cadillac to buy the car back as a lemon. A couple of well timed "yesses" from him would have made me a customer. Now, I'll never step foot in a Cadillac showroom again (neither will my neighbors).
On the other side of the spectrum, BMW repainted my entire bumper for no-charge for a "scar" that I caused. Guess who'll get my business when I'm ready to get another BMW?
oldfarmer....I can't blame you for not buying a Dodge, again. What should have been an easy "yes" call, turned into a fiasco.
Sure, there are customers who will try to "stick it" to any company. But, I'm of the firm belief that they're the exceptions, not the rule. I'd rather get taken by the few "bad ones", than to irritate and lose all the "good ones".
>jmonroe said . . . I said I’ve been a loyal GM customer since I had my first car (NEVER even once owned anything else) and they were all a lot more than five years old and
I also got the impression that the dealer made no money on the repaints in their shop or even lost money based on payment from GM in that case. There was a period where lots of brands had paint troubles of varying types. So the dealer could nix a deal or they could have done a repaint on their own tab in your case.
The EPA mandated a change in chemicals and paint application process to prevent damage to the atmosphere and air quality.
They also mandated a change in paint application technique.
In the olden days, paint was applied with high pressure and the paint atomized and went into the air, and like 20% actually went on the car and 80% or so when bubye. They switched to a high volume low pressure system and the paint goes from the gun to the car. That was a process change - with just over 10 years of warning.
The other big change was using water-based paint instead of oil based paints. The materials weren't quite ready for this and it lead to a lot of paint peel. This seem to affect a lot of mid-80s early-90s cars.
Incidentally, they still use HVLP and water based paints today so apparently, they figured it out to some degree.
". . . .EPA requirements mandating lower duration paints to meet air quality . . . ."
Yup. Anyone remember Ditzler enamel? God, it was great, especially when applied by a person who'd done it before.
This latex (or whatever) green-friendly paint nearly always sucks, unless it's applied absolutely, positively perfectly. In my world, it's not a "robust" process. The enamels were much more forgiving -- the finish was smooth & it didn't fall off. This new s***, not so much.
This is one of my hot buttons. Buying a $30-40K car with orange peel and/or lots of knocked-off bits six months later is beyond depressing, especially for those of us who know it can be done so much better.
I own a car that cost much more to buy new than any I'd ever owned before, and portions of it look like the paint was applied with a roller.
I also read in the WSJ today that nice discounts are available for European cars purchased over there. They also provide test drives on ice cover lakes. Some prior posters were stating certain luxury cars were not available for test drives. Over there you can get a test drive and enjoy a European vacation with the money you saved on the car purchase!
I'm not sure where your logic gets the conclusion tha we'd see all cars riding around without paint...
The point I was trying to make was, if all companies complied with the EPA mandate for cleaner air like Pontiac did on my 95’ Bonneville we would see a lot of cars with paint shedding in large blotches but thankfully almost everybody else got it right.
Not only did I hear this primer/paint compatibility problem from a Pontiac dealer, I heard this explanation from EVERY body shop I took the car to for estimates (at least 6 independent shops). Everyone of them said they had done a dozen or more re-paints because of the primer/paint compatibility problem. FWIW, all of the independent shops said the Japanese had NO problems with paint. Chrysler and Ford had some problems but GM by far had the most. After hearing this time and time again you begin to believe what you hear especially when it makes sense.
I was in a GM plant recently and although I didn't go through the painting area, I doubt they just say "Let's speed up the paint line to put more cars through per hour" at _any_ company's paint shop in a plant, including Ford's Range Rover plant.
I’ll have to disagree when you say you “doubt” that companies would speed up the paint process because from what the Pontiac dealer said along with almost all of the independents I went to they all said this happened. Again, where there is that much smoke there must be a fire.
jmonroe
'15 Genesis V8 with Ultimate Package and '18 Legacy Limited 6 cyl
British Rover... I read in my May issue of Automobile magazine that Land Rover is going to use a different name on their vehicles. The LR3 will be called the 'Range Rover County'. Have you heard anything about this?
Also, the article said that the new LR2 will be scratched from the line-up as they want Land Rover to be more upscale.
Quoted from the article.." Although it's only recently been introduced, the LR2's slim profit margins and the new all-Range-Rover strategy would scratch the compact SUV from the company's lineup."
What's your take on this? :confuse:
Mark156
2010 Land Rover LR4, 2013 Honda CR-V, 2009 Bentley GTC, 1990 MB 500SL, 2001 MB S500, 2007 Lincoln TC, 1964 RR Silver Cloud III, 1995 MB E320 Cab., 2015 Prevost Liberty Coach
Yeah I read that a while ago. None of it makes any sense at all. The LR2 is selling great in the US and the rest of the world. They spent millions of dollars upgrading Halewood so that it could make the LR2.
Why would they drop it after only a couple years of production?
I think that article was just filler for the magazine. They needed a couple more pages and so combined a bunch of hearsay, rumors and a tiny bit of fact to make an article that would get people talking.
The stuff they say about Jag makes even less since. Jag is not going to be a volume make ever. The reason Jag is in so much trouble now is because they were trying to be a high volume make. Jag is never going to have a SUV and why the hell would they make an R-Class competitor as that vehicle is tanking.
Land Rover is going to market the Land Rover and Range Rover models a little differently.
Fresh styling is a key feature of the project, codenamed L405. Land Rover’s new design boss, Gerry McGovern, and his Gaydon-based team are working on distinct styling directions for Land Rover and Range Rover under the buzz words ‘premium adventure’ for Land Rover and ‘premium sophistication’ for Range Rover.
Most of that article is also bunk including the concept drawings of the next range rover but the part I quoted is correct. No one knows what the next range rover will look like but it won't look like that.
Land Rover is going to try and market Range Rover as a Premium brand within the Premium brand that is Land Rover. This is a good idea since most people think Range Rover is the make and not the model anyway. Take advantage of that and market a couple of different Range Rover models that will suit the needs of different kinds of customers.
In short there is a lot of speculation going on right now about Land Rover and Jag. I think most of it is just that speculation with very little basis in fact. I am pretty far down the food chain but I always make it a point to talk to higher ups in Land Rover when I get the chance. Very little that is in either of those articles fits with the information I have.
I disagree...I think LR and Jag are both going. I agree that LR has done a good job the last couple years but they don't fit into the plan. Ford has done a great job of blending the engineering benefits of Mazda and Volvo thru the entire company. LR and Jag don't provide this kind of support to the mothership...Mullally's plan doenst have room for divisions that don't share alot of synergies with other divisions.
for all you buyers out there. Don't be so quick to use the invoice ploy to get a car deal. Most dealerships will have you out on the street if you start off saying that you know what invoice is. Buying a car isn't about getting it for nothing, it is about getting a good car at a fair price, and having the best experience possible. We salesmen are just out there to make a few dollars not to hose every customer we see.............anyone DARE to comment? :mad:
LOL, yeah... I think members "dared to comment" about 12,500 times, from the looks of this discussion
Welcome to the Forums, but no need to get defensive and use the angry car straight away! Most folks are pretty reasonable around here. Plus, we host this discussion (on a consumer-focused site) because we LIKE hearing the salesperson's perspective.
We'd love to hear any interesting or crazy sales stories you've got, though.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
What is the invoice ploy? One thing I've come to understand reading this forum is that there is no set price for all cars. Below invoice might be just right for that old stinker that got slammed by Consumer Reports while that new Shelby GT might fetch a 10K ADM. The car folks here say that the market determines the price, nothing else.
I think consumers use different ploys because they are afraid that the car salesman is going to take them for a ride (I don't mean a test drive). They get defensive and out of fear they come in with guns blazing to show the salesman that they are not to be trifled with.
But I'll make a deal with you. I won't use the invoice ploy if you won't tell me that 5 year old domestic cars go UP in value the longer they are on the lot and you promise that the price of a car doesn't go up because I wanted to think about it for 24 hours.
BTW, what do you think of Edmund's TMV price for your average new car? Fair, high or BS?
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
I think most of them are fair, but some are WAY off......especially invoice prices.....they just throw invoice numbers around like they know what each one is. I had a guy come in and show me what he thought invoice was for a vehicle and he was off by about 2k.......what does that tell you about the "TMV" ?? and by the way....."thinking about it for 24 hrs" = "shopping about 6 or 7 dealers to save $100"
Sometimes when I read posts written by car salespeople I am reminded of the U.S. government and taxes. It often seems that government thinks everything in the U.S., including all wages and compensation paid to its subjects, belongs to government. Government just takes as much as it wants out of your paychecks, and if any is left over then that is just a windfall to the wage earners. I have been to some car lots where the salespeople seem to have the attitude that once anyone steps onto their lot, he must buy at that dealership and that a nice big commission is already earned somehow, just because the shopper is on the property. Any reluctance to hand over that commission on the shopper's part is met by a generous helping of disdain by the salesperson. But maybe that's just me.
kinda funny...when I read posts like yours it reminds me of the people who send those folks to Washington. You know, the layabouts who expect something for nothing and that the government should get them a better deal because they are too lazy to get it themselves.
I've talked to customers who seem to have the attitude that once they step on my lot that I must sell them a car for thousands behind invoice and retail plus for the trade...as if they are entitled to this because they showed up and demanded it. Oddly enough any reluctance to hand over profit on the sellers part is met by a helping hand of disdain from the customer. But, maybe its just me.
EXACTLY! You just admitted the point I was trying to make. BRAVO!
You see, there is NO profit unless the buyer buys. But you are already counting the profit. As a seller you just CANNOT do that. If there is any profit in a deal, it is exactly that amount, however small or large it may be, NOT some amount you felt entitled to.
I don't really expect you to understand this post but maybe others will. Anyone?
Actually I wasnt counting any profit...I was making fun of your post. Pointing out that it could apply to either side of the argument. You right,there is no profit unless the customer buys but there isnt a new car unless there is a dealership to sell it....sounds like both sides needs the other to make the deal. I didnt really expect you to understand my sense of humor.
Sure you were counting the profit. Right there where you said,"...Oddly enough any reluctance to hand over profit on the sellers part is met by a helping hand of disdain from the customer..."
You cannot hand over profit that does not exist and never did exist. You really don't see it, do you? Until the buyer buys the car (which of course the seller must agree to sell) there is NO profit at all. And when the car is sold, the profit is only that amount that it is. It might be $100 or $1000, doesn't matter. It is what it is. The buyer is not asking for nor expecting you or the dealer to reach into your pocket after the deal is completed and give some of your profit BACK TO the buyer. Can you tell the difference here? It does not cut both ways. The buyer and seller come to an agreement. NO profit is returned to or left with the customer. NONE. The dealer gets ALL the profit. Every time!
The buyer is not asking for nor expecting you or the dealer to reach into your pocket after the deal is completed and give some of your profit BACK TO the buyer.
How wrong you are. Many times, usually on cars sold to grinders with little profit, the customer will want free this or free that. It usually ends up they are asking for hundreds of dollars of free accessories.
"...and by the way..."thinking about it for 24 hrs"=shopping about 6 or 7 dealers to save $100"..."
Except in my case that's exactly what I did. I thought it over, figured if my budget would support the payments and returned. Only to find the price was now $500 higher. Who was using a ploy in that case?
I know you guys figure that every customer is a liar and a grinder...but not everybody is. I get grinders every day in my business. How would you like to have someone haggle for 20 minutes over 50 cents worth of tomatoes?
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
YESSIR!!! You couldn't be more right about the customers in the car business nowadays.......YOU NEED TO SELL ME A CAR BECAUSE YOU ARE DESPERATE FOR MY SALE........what? Really? ask the other 20 people who I have sold a car too if I was desperate for their sales too.....HAHA good job audia8q :shades:
Comments
Lose life long customers for their company. :sick:
jmonroe
'15 Genesis V8 with Ultimate Package and '18 Legacy Limited 6 cyl
He used to be a Peugeot/Renault tech many, many years ago before he was a Land Rover tech and then a Land Rover rep.
Think how many times he said no as a Peugot/Renault tech back in the late 70s.
No, your car will never run again.
No, we cannot stop the rust.
No, your repair bill will not be less then 5,000 dollars.
Later I've read that paint deterioration is due to EPA requirements mandating lower duration paints to meet air quality where the painting is done. Higher quality paints can't be used...
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
-Moo
Just stupid of them not to cover it if the car was only 9 months old.
Sorry, I just can’t convince myself of that. If that were the case we’d be seeing all cars riding around without paint. Some companies know how to built cars right down to how to paint them, then there are companies that don’t care and will try to get away with everything.
The body shop manager at the Pontiac dealer where I took my 95’ Bonneville said that Pontiac thought they had the problem solved by controlling the temperature more closely during the primer/painting process and it seemed to work for a while, then they must have stopped this new process because they had to push more cars down the assembly line. So, when you don’t care, you go back to your old ways!!! :sick:
Anybody care to guess how many gazillion gallons of this combination they must have had in their warehouse/s before they made a new lot buy of the right stuff?
jmonroe
'15 Genesis V8 with Ultimate Package and '18 Legacy Limited 6 cyl
I understand he did decent work but he soon developled a very cavalier attitude.
The location where the car was being painted was a factor in what could be used. I assume Canada, US, Mexico, Japan, Korea all have different requirements about the things that could be in the paint that would volatize as well as end up in waste from the painting are.
Also higher cost paints as on our GM car may have different formulations because of multiple layers. I recall when shopping in 98 for a car a ruby red paint color had been discontinued because of pollution problems. They said that color wouldn't be available and I've not seen it again.
>they must have stopped this new process because they had to push more cars down the assembly line.
I was in a GM plant recently and although I didn't go through the painting area, I doubt they just say "Let's speed up the paint line to put more cars through per hour" at _any_ company's paint shop in a plant, including Ford's Range Rover plant.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
1. The tape player on my '03 Maxima died about 6 months out of warranty. I use one of those tape adapters for my iPod and those things are pretty stinkin cheap, so it wasn't much of a surprise. I had resigned myself to replacing the head unit myself with an aftermarket with iPod integration, but when I brought my car into the dealer for an oil change I mentioned the tape deck. It was just kind of off-the-cuff, sort of a, "well, I had my very first problem with my Maxima!". Much to my surprise, she said that she would call the local Nissan rep, and see what she could do.
When I picked my car up, she said that they had to ship it from Japan, but I would be receiving a brand new HU gratis. She'd call me when it came in (took about a week). What surprised me is that it wasn't a cheap HU, it was a freakin' 6 disc Bose changer (yes, with tape deck, and yes, the thing is huge). I asked how much it would have cost for me to buy one if Nissan hadn't covered it, and the answer was $650.
2. About 2 years after buying their new 1996 Altima, my dad noticed that the engine was burning more oil than he thought it should. He brought it into the dealer, and while the specifics are lost in the wind, Nissan just replaced the entire car with a new Altima. Because of this incident, my parents are FANATICAL Nissan buyers. The replacement Altima soldiered on until 2 summers ago, when my brother in law smacked a deer with it (even though it was my sister's car at that point, the folks were still sick about that one).
While these are only two anecdotes, I have to say that it will be very difficult for me to ever buy a different make of car.
I've never been back to that dealer since. I've bought 7 cars since then.
When I bought my last two cars (05’ and 06’) and when my two sons bought their last two cars each (4 cars) after this event with Pontiac we each e-mailed a copy of the Pontiac e-mail I received, along with scanned copies of the bill of sales for all 6 cars to Pontiac and GM stating why we don’t plan to buy anything else from GM. FWIW, several friends and acquaintances have also sent my e-mail and copies of their bill of sales to the same e-mail addresses. By my last count, I think 12 e-mails have been sent to Pontiac and GM. Will they get the point? I’m sure they won’t but as a dissatisfied customer, this was the best I could come up with.
On top of this, my 95’ Monte Carlo with 67K miles in 2005 started to drink water and would cost at least $1200 to replace the head gaskets. I gave that car to Goodwill and received a statement that I could claim $700 as a gift on my 05’ 1040 tax return.
I’m sure posters have heard me speak poorly of GM; “Now you know the rest of the story”.
Sorry for the length of this post but I wanted to fully explain the situation.
BRAVO, BRAVO!! I think you handled the whole situation BEAUTIFULLY!!
Lose life long customers for their company.
Boy....ain't that the truth....J! I've bored all of you with the Cadillac story. The zone rep could have made me happy. Instead, he continued his deny, deny, deny routine until, I forced Cadillac to buy the car back as a lemon. A couple of well timed "yesses" from him would have made me a customer. Now, I'll never step foot in a Cadillac showroom again (neither will my neighbors).
On the other side of the spectrum, BMW repainted my entire bumper for no-charge for a "scar" that I caused. Guess who'll get my business when I'm ready to get another BMW?
oldfarmer....I can't blame you for not buying a Dodge, again. What should have been an easy "yes" call, turned into a fiasco.
Sure, there are customers who will try to "stick it" to any company. But, I'm of the firm belief that they're the exceptions, not the rule. I'd rather get taken by the few "bad ones", than to irritate and lose all the "good ones".
I also got the impression that the dealer made no money on the repaints in their shop or even lost money based on payment from GM in that case. There was a period where lots of brands had paint troubles of varying types. So the dealer could nix a deal or they could have done a repaint on their own tab in your case.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The Range Rover line at Solihull makes 70 Range Rovers a day. That is not 70 per shift but 70 per day for all shifts.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Land Rover has been setting sales records world wide and in the US/UK for the past three years.
The only way I can see them selling Land Rover is if there is no other way to get rid of Jaguar.
If they have come to the determination that Jaguar is worthless to them the only way anyone will take it is if they get Land Rover too.
Jag and Land Rover are the same entity now.
They may need the cash.
Packaging Jaguar and Land Rover together... the assumption is that a private equity fund will buy them.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
hmmm... cerberus? ;b
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
well, volvo is part of PAG, but supposedly not for sale ... yet.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Like this article here...
TOTAL TOTAL BS
None of the stuff in their makes any sense.
They also mandated a change in paint application technique.
In the olden days, paint was applied with high pressure and the paint atomized and went into the air, and like 20% actually went on the car and 80% or so when bubye. They switched to a high volume low pressure system and the paint goes from the gun to the car. That was a process change - with just over 10 years of warning.
The other big change was using water-based paint instead of oil based paints. The materials weren't quite ready for this and it lead to a lot of paint peel. This seem to affect a lot of mid-80s early-90s cars.
Incidentally, they still use HVLP and water based paints today so apparently, they figured it out to some degree.
Yup. Anyone remember Ditzler enamel? God, it was great, especially when applied by a person who'd done it before.
This latex (or whatever) green-friendly paint nearly always sucks, unless it's applied absolutely, positively perfectly. In my world, it's not a "robust" process. The enamels were much more forgiving -- the finish was smooth & it didn't fall off. This new s***, not so much.
This is one of my hot buttons. Buying a $30-40K car with orange peel and/or lots of knocked-off bits six months later is beyond depressing, especially for those of us who know it can be done so much better.
I own a car that cost much more to buy new than any I'd ever owned before, and portions of it look like the paint was applied with a roller.
At least it handles well.
The point I was trying to make was, if all companies complied with the EPA mandate for cleaner air like Pontiac did on my 95’ Bonneville we would see a lot of cars with paint shedding in large blotches but thankfully almost everybody else got it right.
Not only did I hear this primer/paint compatibility problem from a Pontiac dealer, I heard this explanation from EVERY body shop I took the car to for estimates (at least 6 independent shops). Everyone of them said they had done a dozen or more re-paints because of the primer/paint compatibility problem. FWIW, all of the independent shops said the Japanese had NO problems with paint. Chrysler and Ford had some problems but GM by far had the most. After hearing this time and time again you begin to believe what you hear especially when it makes sense.
I was in a GM plant recently and although I didn't go through the painting area, I doubt they just say "Let's speed up the paint line to put more cars through per hour" at _any_ company's paint shop in a plant, including Ford's Range Rover plant.
I’ll have to disagree when you say you “doubt” that companies would speed up the paint process because from what the Pontiac dealer said along with almost all of the independents I went to they all said this happened. Again, where there is that much smoke there must be a fire.
jmonroe
'15 Genesis V8 with Ultimate Package and '18 Legacy Limited 6 cyl
I don't think anyone would blame you for feeling like you do. If I had a winner like you've found, I'd ride it until it died.
jmonroe
'15 Genesis V8 with Ultimate Package and '18 Legacy Limited 6 cyl
Also, the article said that the new LR2 will be scratched from the line-up as they want Land Rover to be more upscale.
Quoted from the article.." Although it's only recently been introduced, the LR2's slim profit margins and the new all-Range-Rover strategy would scratch the compact SUV from the company's lineup."
What's your take on this? :confuse:
Mark156
Why would they drop it after only a couple years of production?
I think that article was just filler for the magazine. They needed a couple more pages and so combined a bunch of hearsay, rumors and a tiny bit of fact to make an article that would get people talking.
The stuff they say about Jag makes even less since. Jag is not going to be a volume make ever. The reason Jag is in so much trouble now is because they were trying to be a high volume make. Jag is never going to have a SUV and why the hell would they make an R-Class competitor as that vehicle is tanking.
Land Rover is going to market the Land Rover and Range Rover models a little differently.
Fresh styling is a key feature of the project, codenamed L405. Land Rover’s new design boss, Gerry McGovern, and his Gaydon-based team are working on distinct styling directions for Land Rover and Range Rover under the buzz words ‘premium adventure’ for Land Rover and ‘premium sophistication’ for Range Rover.
Source
Most of that article is also bunk including the concept drawings of the next range rover but the part I quoted is correct. No one knows what the next range rover will look like but it won't look like that.
Land Rover is going to try and market Range Rover as a Premium brand within the Premium brand that is Land Rover. This is a good idea since most people think Range Rover is the make and not the model anyway. Take advantage of that and market a couple of different Range Rover models that will suit the needs of different kinds of customers.
In short there is a lot of speculation going on right now about Land Rover and Jag. I think most of it is just that speculation with very little basis in fact. I am pretty far down the food chain but I always make it a point to talk to higher ups in Land Rover when I get the chance. Very little that is in either of those articles fits with the information I have.
Welcome to the Forums, but no need to get defensive and use the angry car straight away! Most folks are pretty reasonable around here. Plus, we host this discussion (on a consumer-focused site) because we LIKE hearing the salesperson's perspective.
We'd love to hear any interesting or crazy sales stories you've got, though.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
What is the invoice ploy? One thing I've come to understand reading this forum is that there is no set price for all cars. Below invoice might be just right for that old stinker that got slammed by Consumer Reports while that new Shelby GT might fetch a 10K ADM. The car folks here say that the market determines the price, nothing else.
I think consumers use different ploys because they are afraid that the car salesman is going to take them for a ride (I don't mean a test drive). They get defensive and out of fear they come in with guns blazing to show the salesman that they are not to be trifled with.
But I'll make a deal with you. I won't use the invoice ploy if you won't tell me that 5 year old domestic cars go UP in value the longer they are on the lot and you promise that the price of a car doesn't go up because I wanted to think about it for 24 hours.
BTW, what do you think of Edmund's TMV price for your average new car? Fair, high or BS?
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
you don't sell Hondas by chance, do you
Not everyone that comes into your dealership is going to be a graduate from Harvard. If you don't like their offer don't take it.
It often seems that government thinks everything in the U.S., including all wages and compensation paid to its subjects, belongs to government. Government just takes as much as it wants out of your paychecks, and if any is left over then that is just a windfall to the wage earners.
I have been to some car lots where the salespeople seem to have the attitude that once anyone steps onto their lot, he must buy at that dealership and that a nice big commission is already earned somehow, just because the shopper is on the property. Any reluctance to hand over that commission on the shopper's part is met by a generous helping of disdain by the salesperson.
But maybe that's just me.
I've talked to customers who seem to have the attitude that once they step on my lot that I must sell them a car for thousands behind invoice and retail plus for the trade...as if they are entitled to this because they showed up and demanded it. Oddly enough any reluctance to hand over profit on the sellers part is met by a helping hand of disdain from the customer. But, maybe its just me.
I couldn't resist...but it cuts both ways.
You just admitted the point I was trying to make. BRAVO!
You see, there is NO profit unless the buyer buys. But you are already counting the profit. As a seller you just CANNOT do that. If there is any profit in a deal, it is exactly that amount, however small or large it may be, NOT some amount you felt entitled to.
I don't really expect you to understand this post but maybe others will.
Anyone?
Right there where you said,"...Oddly enough any reluctance to hand over profit on the sellers part is met by a helping hand of disdain from the customer..."
You cannot hand over profit that does not exist and never did exist. You really don't see it, do you?
Until the buyer buys the car (which of course the seller must agree to sell) there is NO profit at all. And when the car is sold, the profit is only that amount that it is. It might be $100 or $1000, doesn't matter. It is what it is.
The buyer is not asking for nor expecting you or the dealer to reach into your pocket after the deal is completed and give some of your profit BACK TO the buyer.
Can you tell the difference here?
It does not cut both ways. The buyer and seller come to an agreement. NO profit is returned to or left with the customer. NONE.
The dealer gets ALL the profit. Every time!
How wrong you are. Many times, usually on cars sold to grinders with little profit, the customer will want free this or free that. It usually ends up they are asking for hundreds of dollars of free accessories.
Except in my case that's exactly what I did. I thought it over, figured if my budget would support the payments and returned. Only to find the price was now $500 higher. Who was using a ploy in that case?
I know you guys figure that every customer is a liar and a grinder...but not everybody is. I get grinders every day in my business. How would you like to have someone haggle for 20 minutes over 50 cents worth of tomatoes?
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
A very very small percentage of my customers resemble that remark - and no professional will prejudge.
AMEN
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
BOTH - That is what makes a deal