Perception is reality. If most people like the feel more, it probably does feel better.
That's not what "Perception is reality" means
What it means is "to that person" it feels better
If I perceive something to be cheap, it doesn't matter that IN REALITY that thing was more expensive. My perception is my reality.
it does not mean that MY perception is YOUR or anyone else's reality
your POINT, however, is well taken: if most people think that material A is nicer than material B, material A probably IS a nicer material
of course, this completely begs the question of longevity, robustness (does the "nicer" material stain more easily? crack more easily? lose it's sheen sooner? etc. etc.), etc. etc.
I'd love to feel Ultrasuede on every fabric surface I might touch in a car. But since that material really needs to be flame resistant, I wouldn't want Ultrasuede in any car I own.
(A) Buick's ranking in the initial quality study has fallen because of new models like LaCrosse and Lucerne - so, three years from now Buick may not be there (I hope I am proved wrong by Buick).
(B) Toyota and Honda is right below those 4. But Chevy is way below - somewhere near average. Same is the case with Ford. Chevy and Ford are more important brands than Mercury or Buick. Also, Toyota and Honda brands are consistently among top few in both initial quality and long term studies - same can't be said about Ford and Chevy.
(C) Also, the study only looks at first 3 years. So, it doesn't compare a 7 year old Camry with a 7 year old Malibu. I guess many consumers mean more than 3 years when they say long-term.
(D) Last but not the least, this ranking is apparently not related to depreciation. Mercury may rank above Toyota in this study, but Mercury is much below Toyota as far as depreciation goes. Depreciation (poor resale value) really hurts ordinary consumers, and good quality during first 3 years may not mean much to many if the vehicle depreciates rapidly. Resale value is often related to fleet sales, rebates, etc. and not directly related to quality.
If we're going to us depreciation (market) as a means of measuring a car's dependability..., we need to compare real selling prices after discounts, rebates, dealer incentives, dealer extra fee added on, etc., and then compare cost of ownership in a real manner including the dealer techniques to up the maintenance required, and then we can compare resale values.
I buy a car expecting to keep it for 10 years. I've had fine results from my cars because I've chosen based on quality and cost of maintenance, real cost of ownership.
Resale value doesn't mean a rats tail as a criterion for purchase.
I did the rest of the list because it could be of interest; 2006 Nameplate Ranking Problems per 100 Vehicles
Lexus 136 Mercury 151 Buick 153 Cadillac 163 Toyota 179 Acura 184 Honda 194 Jaguar 210 BMW 212 Infiniti 215 Lincoln 220 Ford 224 Oldsmobile 224 Industry Average 227 Chrysler 232 Pontiac 232 Subaru 232 GMC 239 Mercedes-Benz 240 Chevrolet 241 Nissan 242 Mazda 243 Porsche 248 Hyundai 253 Dodge 258 Mitsubishi 260 Jeep 264 Volvo 272 Audi 279 MINI 280 Isuzu 283 Saturn 289 Volkswagen 299 HUMMER 307 Kia 310 Suzuki 318 Saab 326 Land Rover 438 I doubt there is that much difference in repairs until you get near the bottom 10 to 20%. An extra one or two items under warranty that might need to be fixed. If 100 vehicles had 136 problems, about one and a half per vehicle, and Mercedes had 240 or just over two problems per vehicle, it isn't a huge gap. When you get to over 300 problems it is becoming more of an issue. And, it is an indication of reliability and quality to be high on the list.
Resale value doesn't mean a rats tail as a criterion for purchase.
yep, I agree
I've always thought that people who buy new cars who make depreciation an issue are just being silly. Depreciation is a purely economic concept. If you are buying a new car, you have already decided to make a stupid economic decision (since it is so much smarter, from a PURELY economic standpoint, to buy used).
But people still go on and on about depreciation. I wonder if these people also carry credit card balances month-to-month-to-month at 20%.
If a car depreciates $10k in year one. Go spend $5k finding a bulletproof used one, and you've made.....$5k!!!!
your point about "real" depereciation is right on, of course
who the heck pays full MSRP and then measures depreciation from that?
"I buy a car expecting to keep it for 10 years." I tried doing the same. My Blazer just became very sick and I had to get rid of it after 7 years/ 72000 miles - I had 5 year/ 75000 miles GM protection plan and even after 5 years I serviced it at dealerships. But I spent $10K after the plan ended (alternator, tranny leak, bearings, front-axle collapse, engine gasket leak, power mirror failure, turn signal switch short-circuited,...). Anyway, probably all Chevys aren't as bad.
"Resale value doesn't mean a rats tail as a criterion for purchase." And, when I tried to trade the Blazer in for an Equinox, I realized how bad the resale value was. And, then I checked Edmunds - Equinox's "True Cost to Own" over first 5 years was $10K more than that of a comparable CR-V. So, I traded it in for a CR-V. So, resale value mattered to me.
"If we're going to us depreciation (market) as a means of measuring a car's dependability..., " I never said that. I just said depreciation can be more important than first 3 year reliability (at least to some consumers).
Anyway, we are again offtopic. Whatever... I believe GM needs to back up the style with other things shoppers like me look for or just risk losing us. GM may not lose consumers with a different perspective like yours.
In J.D. Power’s 2006 Initial Quality Study (IQS), 30 of 37 makes fell within two-tenths of a manufacturing defect per car of the average. The difference between number three (Toyota) and number 32 (Hummer) was 0.27 problems per car. In J.D.’s most recent Vehicle Dependability Study (VDS), 23 of 37 makes fell within half a problem per car of the 2.27 average. Only four makes— three of them domestic— bettered the average by more than half a problem per car.
Real-world problems occur in wholes. A car cannot have 1.79 problems. So Toyota’s VDS score of 179 implies that the typical Toyota has two problems in its third year. And Ford’s score of 224 implies much the same thing. Buy a Toyota over an alleged “Fix or Repair Daily” car, and you gain no guarantees, just a middling chance of avoiding a single additional problem in the third year. -from the Truth About Cars
The difference in problems per car is slight just as driver100 said, until you get to the bottom of the listing.
Tranny leak is a problem, and little bit of rattle from front passenger seat is also a problem. We still don't have a survey that really tells us more about the "seriousness" of the problems. Also, we don't know how manufacturers are responding to these problems, e.g. are they just providing a fix under warranty or giving extra warranty with the fix?
“Fix or Repair Daily”... Well, Ford probably earned that title
A few commmon ones are as follows - of course, the one on Volvo is very much about styling!
Dodge: Dead On Day Guarantee Expires Volvo: Very Odd Looking Vehicular Object Hyundai: Hope You Understand Nothing's Drivable And Inexpensive Toyota: Too Often Yankees Overprice This Auto
What is the direction GM will take with GMC ? The way I'm see GMC going is it will be a upscale SUV/Truck fighter that is "more rugged" than Cadillac.
I personally think I will pony up and buy a 400 hp. 2007' GMC Sierra Denali. The Denali trim is very nice and a little more manly than Cadillac, but doesn't make you give up the "bling bling"
Well the same can be said about "anything" Mercedes as it is driven by the "Trophy Soccer MOM's" around here. fintail, any luxury cruiser will have a fair amount of "soccer mom" types driving around town. A truck IMHO is a bit more manly then a car IMHO, and this is coming from a car guy.
Yes it will from all the research I've done. It will be a class leading Gadget truck that can be driven off-road. I probably will get the hybrid version and enjoy 30 something MPG HWY and about 26 City. :surprise:
From the pics fintail, the Bose 5.1 will be available and unlike the Escalade EXT, this truck will have a real bed and like I said beable to with stand throwing a deer carcass in the back if I needed to do so on a hunting off road trip.
Like the old saying goes,’ Looks are not everything'. GM's problems are so deeply rooted that I say,’ where in the hell do you start'? Two perfect examples of just plain stupidity: The 'NEW' GTO.....blasphemy! S10 replacement: Canyon/Colorado You don't make stupid mistakes without knowing that you have some serious problems to deal with that you know looks will not fix. :sick:
is slated to get a FWD crossover and a minivan before the end of the decade, I'd say GMC's tenure as the last survivor of management's product bungling is about to come to a sad end.
I think if GM is smart GMC should be on the way out the likes of Oldsmobile...sad for the old "Generic Made Chevy"
Put an upscale trim package on a Chevy and I think you have the GMC. I can't see the business case of a brand that's only pickups. Would be like Ford building a Mercury pickup. For some great history...http://www.mercurypickup.com/
I agree - that is the data we need that we just don't have
Edmunds gets us close, I think.
Powers doesn't.
CR does, but so many of you don't trust CR (though it's been right on whenever I've ignored their advice - which was pretty spooky, actually)
It's not just problems
It's severity AND how the carmaker handles the problem
If it drops a tranny at mile 100, but the carmaker coddles me and replaces it (and it doesn't happen again and again), then I am fine with that tranny problem. If there is a door rattle that they refuse to fix, I am pissed.
Late to the party, but #2 by imidazol is a lower line 2005-06 Camry. The XLE has fake wood around the window/door lock switches. (I can do without the fake wood myself.)
Otherwise, it works for me -- the upper part is lightly padded plastic, and the curving center insert is cloth. The switches are logically arranged. The console cupholders work fine -- I don't need bottle holders in the door panels.
The door handle is plastichrome on my '05 XLE, color-matched plastic on my '04 LE.
And sorry Andre, that '75 Olds door panel doesn't cut it -- too rectilinear for today, and you're right, the color is hideous.
Also, do you guys know why horn rings became obsolete long before airbags were placed in steering wheels? They were called "cookie cutters" for what they did to chests in frontal crashes before seat belts were available or widely used. :sick:
I understand your viewpoint. I never recommended using depreciation as a criterion. And, it's true many don't care about depreciation. However, I use it as a criterion (earlier I didn't when I bought my Blazer and changed my mind later on). So do a large number of customers. Question for you: what should GM do? Neglect the depreciation issue and the customers who care about it? Or, do something to improve the resale value? What do you think?
Late to the party, but #2 by imidazol is a lower line 2005-06 Camry. The XLE has fake wood around the window/door lock switches. (I can do without the fake wood myself.)
I remember the first Camry of that generation I got to experience close up was a base-level '02. Did they have a CE back then, or was LE the base by that time? Anyway, it just seemed really cheap to me at the time. I do remember the nicer trim levels being better though. Still, I thought it was a bit interesting that there didn't seem to be as big of a jump between the cheapest Accord and the next level up, or the cheapest Altima and the next level up.
That particular Camry was also rental-car white with a rental-car gray interior, so it wasn't the most flattering color scheme in the world to begin with. At some point though, it seemed like they started sprucing up the interior of the base Camry a bit. And by the time they did the minor refresh, I found myself liking the '05+ SE model.
As for the horn ring, when did those things finally go away, anyway? The newest car I had with the ring was a 1969 Dodge Dart GT Chrysler had something called "rim blow" in the 70's, but it's not nearly as naughty as it sounds. :shades:
Depreciation is the largest cost of owning a vehicle- often more than the costs of everything else combined (even with higher fuel costs). So for the people buying the cars, they will have to pay a premium for upgrading to a new car. And for many people in the U.S., the overall costs of having cars and trucks is a big part of their expenditures.
I always thought that the reason that GM and Ford and Chrysler had to have these big rebates to sell product is that they DID have such high depreciation on many of their vehicles- to bring the products into a competitive range, they have to bring them down in price. And many vehicles are still leased as opposed to sold in the U.S. and Canada- and if the residuals (which reflect depreciation rates) are low, then the lease costs go up- not a good situation.
The best way to improve resale value is for the manufacturer to build no more than say 90% of the cars that people actually want to buy. This should include the rentals that will get dumped.
Tranny leak is a problem, and little bit of rattle from front passenger seat is also a problem. We still don't have a survey that really tells us more about the "seriousness" of the problems.
Excellent point made here. All problems are not equal. There should be some type of weighting scale. On a 1-3, 3 being most serious, a squeak in dash might be 1 and transmission leak or clunk could be 3.
Also, JD Power press release mentioned that cars with high levels of reported problems have higher rates of failures of components such as brake pads sometimes failing under car warranty. This does not make sense since brake pads are a wear item. Don't know how you can count wear as a problem.
JD Power survey might make more sense to me if they broke down problems into 3 categories such as Serious/Critical, Medium and Minor. As a minimum, 2 categories would be better such as Major and Minor. Also need to know more about their methodology.
So, given the Buick high rating for 2003 models (LeSabre, etc), will the JD Power Survey translate into an increase in sales of the mediocre styled LaCrosse which wasn't around in 2003?
Base Camry in '02 was the LE (the CE was dumped). The interiors were unchanged from '02-'04 (I have an '04 LE). I don't consider it cheap-looking; it is rather plain for some tastes, but very functional. And the dash is soft-touch, including the middle portion above the glove box.
The main change for '05 in the interior was an upgrade to the Optitron gauges. The seat fabric pattern was also changed on the LE and XLE. The latter uses fake wood on the dash and door panels (I also have an '05 XLE).
The base model ("Standard") Camry was introduced late in the '04 model year (renamed CE for 2007).
Regarding horn rings, I don't know the last year they were used, but I would guess by the early 70s they were gone in the US.
So, given the Buick high rating for 2003 models (LeSabre, etc), will the JD Power Survey translate into an increase in sales of the mediocre styled LaCrosse which wasn't around in 2003?
Probably not. Buick wants to position itself between Chevy and Caddy. However, fleet sales, pushrods with 4 speed tranny, 0% APR, lack of youthful styling (CTS, Solstice kind of sharp styling) aren't consistent with that objective of positioning Buick above Chevy. Even interior doesn't compete well with brands like Volkswagen.
GM needs to get rid of Buick - LaCrosse, Terraza, Rainer are not reasons enough to keep Buick alive. And, as I said, Enclave can still be launched as Chevy Enclave.
Depreciation - an easy way to think about it is like this:
You buy your car - you keep it for a long time... and when you finally decide to sell it, you get some money back at the end. Now isn't it much nicer to get $10K back(Mini) instead of $4K(Ford/GM)?
It's not costing you anything extra in depreciation while you own it - that's just false math, since you have to pay off the entire loan at some point anyways. $289 a month is $289 a month until every penny of the car is paid off.
So in a way, depreciation is moot and shouldn't be factored into a car if you are buying it.(leasing is a whole other issue)
But what the resale value really is is your next downpayment. You could very well use a car and then toss it after ten years for nothing(or a small tax write-off or donate it) - and then pay $289 a month for another car, almost like a lease. But wouldn't it be so much nicer to have twice the downpayment for your next vehicle? Paying $149 a month for your next vehicle instead of $289 a month is a huge advantage, afterall.
GM needs to get rid of Buick - LaCrosse, Terraza, Rainer are not reasons enough to keep Buick alive. And, as I said, Enclave can still be launched as Chevy Enclave.
Except for rear end, Lucerne is nicely styled. If Buick were axed, Lucerne could be high end Chevy sedan, and maybe with rwd in a few years. Fully loaded, should be priced no higher than Camrys, maybe low end Avalon.
Chevrolet brand is golden and is "the" franchise of GM. A Chevrolet logo on the Lucerne model could position Chevrolet lineup similar to Toyota Avalon. Types of buyers that bought Caprices years ago would be brought back to Chevy. Of course, GM would have to handle Buick dealership issues/obligations.
While keeping a car until it dies will lessen the importance of residual/resale values, what happens when someone runs a light and totals your car? You get book value for it. You can purchase gap insurance or pay extra for a "replacement value" policy to protect yourself, but depreciation is a cost no matter if someone wants to consider it or not.
I won't use it that often, but if I ever decide to get a boat, then I'd have something to tow it with. I also do like sitting up higher because of the view. I also prefer to have 4x4/AWD capability because of all the snow, and muddy area's we have down here. fintail, we also have some dirt roads and farm trails down here with dips as deep as the sand bunkers at St. Andrews :surprise:
Trucks are very useful in this part of Texas, and is why I still have my 96' Dodge Flatbed.
Well, Lucerne can probably help GM retain some customers or steal some Crown Vic customers. I doubt whether Maxima or Avalon buyers would consider Lucerne. First of all, the name is new. Second, the premium for a 250+ HP engine is hefty. And, the depreciation is much higher compared to Avalon. People looking for a big stylish sedan are rich, well-informed customers (and not like typical Cobalt/ Malibu customers) - and, the overall "perceived" value/ quality image will make them skeptical about any Buick as the brand itself is dying. If Buick needs to stay in business, Buick needs to come up with Caddy like products (and not brand-engineered Caddys since that will hurt Caddy).
FYI, I can now see a white Escalade in my neighborhood. It looks great!!! Good job, GM.
I don't get this minimizing of concerns about depreciation. Sure, lots of people buy cars with the intention of keeping them forever. But as they say, stuff happens, and you may need (or want) to get rid of the car sooner.
You buy your car - you keep it for a long time... and when you finally decide to sell it, you get some money back at the end. Now isn't it much nicer to get $10K back(Mini) instead of $4K(Ford/GM)?
yes, it sure is
but had you bought that same car ONE year old, instead of new, you would have paid less for the car on day one, and that extra money would be in YOUR pocket instead of being driven around in the body of your car
if you have so little money that the economics of your car purchase is a real issue, then you have absolutely no business buying a new car. You should be buying used. If that doesn't make sense to you, then you need to get some financial counseling, because chances are you are making other terrible financial decisions.
If, for some reason, you want your car to be your next downpayment, then I can see the logic of that. Of course, if you bought that car used, you would already have the downpayment sitting in your bank account, instead of being driven around on the road, subject to the elements, accidents, etc.
I'd rather have my downpayment in my bank account.
People who have no financial concerns should buy new. People who have financial concerns should be used, after careful analysis, which would include taking the car to your favorite mechanic and paying him to give it the once-over. But people see that as throwing money away. So they buy new and throw even MORE money away than they would have had they bought used. And thus they fall even further behind in their quest for wealth.
I don't get this minimizing of concerns about depreciation. Sure, lots of people buy cars with the intention of keeping them forever. But as they say, stuff happens, and you may need (or want) to get rid of the car sooner.
If a person is in such a tenuous financial situation that he mght have to sell his car to make ends meet, then he has no business buying a new car. He should be buying used.
I'm not necessarily talking about a tenuous financial situation. Lots of people get bored or tired of their current rides long before 10 or so years have gone by. Maybe their needs have changed, brought on by things like a longer commute, marriage, kids, divorce, disability, or retirement. Maybe the car is unreliable. Maybe the car is just plain uncomfortable. Maybe new safety advances come along (such as side airbags or stability control) that make a significant difference in real-world crash or injury risk.
There are other reasons for buying new rather than used than simply financial concerns. I bought a new '04 Camry with side airbags to replace my '97 Camry, solely because the new car performed so well in the IIHS side impact test, not because there was anything mechanically or cosmetically wrong with the the '97. The 2004 was the first year all of the side-impact upgrades were implemented in that generation of Camry.
Later when I was looking for a car for my son when he was planning a move to L.A., I found it virtually impossible to find a good-scoring affordable used car with side airbags (Camry, Accord, Malibu, etc.), since the airbags were optional and few cars had them.
And even on the financial side, cars like the Camry and Accord depreciate very little in the first year or two, so there's not much difference in buying new. For cars like the Prius, there's almost no depreciation, and good luck finding one at all!
OTOH, in 1982 during a time of rapid inflation in new car prices, I bought a 2-year-old Volvo 240 for $8000, when a new one would have cost about $12,000. I kept that car for 21 years, so that $4000 saved upfront was certainly well worth it! Unlike today, the 80s were a time of relative stagnation on the safety front, always an important consideration for me.
I think all cars depreciate, even Camry's or Accords. Unless there is a shortage of new models, I don't think anyone would pay as much for a used car as a new one. The Prius may have greater demand than there is supply, and used ones may well sell for as much as a new one, or even more than when new. However, this is consumer madness.
GM's problem is that they can build more vehicles than dealers can sell, even with incentives. Plus, on the nearly new used car side, a lot of GM rental cars show up in the used market when they are less than a year old. This overloads the used car market, and prices have to drop.
If a person is in such a tenuous financial situation that he mght have to sell his car to make ends meet, then he has no business buying a new car.
I had to trade in a 1992 Cavalier for a 1995 Jeep because my job changed...I had to carry heavy loads. The less the Cavalier depreciated, the better it was for me. Depreciation should probably be considered when making a car purchase. Many people right here say I would never buy a GM car new, just wait a year or two and get it when it depreciates. Hondas and Toyotas don't depreciate enough to make that worthwhile, might as well buy new. This is not a great selling point if you are thinking of buying a GM. It won't save GM if everyone is waiting for their cars to become used before they will buy one.
It is kind of funny that the people who want to save GM jobs and who are so concerned about GM would never buy a NEW GM car. Buying used isn't going to save GM.
delray: I think people are reading more into my position than they should.
I never said that no one should buy new. There are all sorts of reasons to buy new. But "financial" is simply not a good reason to buy new. And if someone is making "depreciation" a significant factor in why they are buying a certain car, then they are making a "financial" decision.
again, I am ONLY talking about financial decisions, not lifestyle choice, image, safety, etc. etc., all of which are completely valid reasons to buy anything you want.
If a buyer thinks his situation is up in the air, that's all the more reason that he should buy used, and keep the "new premium" (or the depreciation) in his own pocket, rather than giving it to the car company in hopes that he will get some of it back when he sells. That's a risky proposition. Buying used and then using the "delta" between the new and the used to buy stock in that car company is probably a better bet.
Buick is waving good bye. The average for Buick dealers last year was 4 new units per month. Also, take into consideration the new GM channeling. Did GM not take a similar strategy once before? Remember Oldsmobile and Chevrolet dealers aligning together. Then Oldsmobile was silenced. IMO, two things have happened. First, GM has spoken by lack of product. One new crossover does not save a division. Secondly, the consumer has spoken by lack of new retail units. IMO, Buick is walking a thin line.
If people want to know why GM vehicles depreciate more than others, checking out fleet sales for various manufacturers would be a good place to start.
Fleet-central.com recently released figures showing the percentage of each model's sales that went to fleet customers for the first six months of 2006.
Through the end of June, 33.8 percent of Chevy Cobalt sales were to fleets, compared to 28.5 percent for the much older Ford Focus. (A whopping 0.9 percent of Honda Civics went to fleet customers. The Toyota Corolla is at 12.8 percent.)
Moving up a size class, we find that 60.3 percent of the Chevy Malibu's (not the old Classic, which is listed separately) customers were fleet buyers, and 42.3 percent of Pontiac G6s went to fleet customers, compared to 18.8 percent for the Ford Fusion. (And the Honda Accord? All of 1.1 percent of total sales were to fleet customers.The Toyota Camry is at 12.8 percent.)
I was surprised at the number the Buick LaCrosses and Lucernes that went to fleet customers - 29.3 percent and 28.8 percent, respectively.
Of all the new Chevrolet Impalas sold during the first six months of 2006, 54.8 went to fleet customers (granted, that car is popular with local police departments, which is not the same as being sold to rental car companies). The Ford Five Hundred was lower at 31.1 percent, although that is still pretty high, considering all of the noise that Ford made about limiting fleet sales to protect the car's residual value.
Those fleet sales make GM cars great buys as used cars, as one poster noted. But GM is in the NEW car business, so that doesn't really help its long-term financial health, or the public image of its brands.
If new GM car owners have more willing buyers when they want to resell, that should help sell the new cars.
I have a theory that I am trying to get an economist to study: What percentage of people in [pick a state] would have to buy new cars [not trucks] to reduce the (1) air emissions, (2) CO emissions, (3) [other], by [X] percent?
It's a spin off on the "We can spend ourselves to prosperity" theory. We can spend ourselves to clean air.
After we establish the %, we can then push the top X% of wage earners in the state to go out and buy a new car.
It's a revolution. Clean air through buyng new vehicles.
You could double the whammy by encouring the worst 10% of polluting vehicles to get off the road. Financially incentivize them to crush those suckers. (some of this goes on already - I just want to quantify how much such programs shold be expanded)
Resale value doesn't mean a rats tail as a criterion for purchase.
yep, I agree
I've always thought that people who buy new cars who make depreciation an issue are just being silly. Depreciation is a purely economic concept. If you are buying a new car, you have already decided to make a stupid economic decision (since it is so much smarter, from a PURELY economic standpoint, to buy used).
A ridiculous statement and argument. Depreciation could hit you in any number of ways. There are hundreds of reasons you might not be able to keep a car long enough for depreciation to be insignificant. Any one of them could easily happen to anyone. You could get the car totalled, thereby getting book value from insurance. You could have the car stolen, therby the same thing happening. You could lose your job and need to sell the car. You could have kids and need a bigger vehicle. You could change your mind and plan on getting another car. There are a lot of variables, and all of them are extremely risky when added together... and risk is worth money, depreciation is risky.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Comments
That's not what "Perception is reality" means
What it means is "to that person" it feels better
If I perceive something to be cheap, it doesn't matter that IN REALITY that thing was more expensive. My perception is my reality.
it does not mean that MY perception is YOUR or anyone else's reality
your POINT, however, is well taken: if most people think that material A is nicer than material B, material A probably IS a nicer material
of course, this completely begs the question of longevity, robustness (does the "nicer" material stain more easily? crack more easily? lose it's sheen sooner? etc. etc.), etc. etc.
I'd love to feel Ultrasuede on every fabric surface I might touch in a car. But since that material really needs to be flame resistant, I wouldn't want Ultrasuede in any car I own.
(A) Buick's ranking in the initial quality study has fallen because of new models like LaCrosse and Lucerne - so, three years from now Buick may not be there (I hope I am proved wrong by Buick).
(B) Toyota and Honda is right below those 4. But Chevy is way below - somewhere near average. Same is the case with Ford. Chevy and Ford are more important brands than Mercury or Buick. Also, Toyota and Honda brands are consistently among top few in both initial quality and long term studies - same can't be said about Ford and Chevy.
(C) Also, the study only looks at first 3 years. So, it doesn't compare a 7 year old Camry with a 7 year old Malibu. I guess many consumers mean more than 3 years when they say long-term.
(D) Last but not the least, this ranking is apparently not related to depreciation. Mercury may rank above Toyota in this study, but Mercury is much below Toyota as far as depreciation goes. Depreciation (poor resale value) really hurts ordinary consumers, and good quality during first 3 years may not mean much to many if the vehicle depreciates rapidly. Resale value is often related to fleet sales, rebates, etc. and not directly related to quality.
I buy a car expecting to keep it for 10 years. I've had fine results from my cars because I've chosen based on quality and cost of maintenance, real cost of ownership.
Resale value doesn't mean a rats tail as a criterion for purchase.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2006 Nameplate Ranking
Problems per 100 Vehicles
Lexus 136
Mercury 151
Buick 153
Cadillac 163
Toyota 179
Acura 184
Honda 194
Jaguar 210
BMW 212
Infiniti 215
Lincoln 220
Ford 224
Oldsmobile 224
Industry Average 227
Chrysler 232
Pontiac 232
Subaru 232
GMC 239
Mercedes-Benz 240
Chevrolet 241
Nissan 242
Mazda 243
Porsche 248
Hyundai 253
Dodge 258
Mitsubishi 260
Jeep 264
Volvo 272
Audi 279
MINI 280
Isuzu 283
Saturn 289
Volkswagen 299
HUMMER 307
Kia 310
Suzuki 318
Saab 326
Land Rover 438
I doubt there is that much difference in repairs until you get near the bottom 10 to 20%. An extra one or two items under warranty that might need to be fixed. If 100 vehicles had 136 problems, about one and a half per vehicle, and Mercedes had 240 or just over two problems per vehicle, it isn't a huge gap. When you get to over 300 problems it is becoming more of an issue. And, it is an indication of reliability and quality to be high on the list.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
yep, I agree
I've always thought that people who buy new cars who make depreciation an issue are just being silly. Depreciation is a purely economic concept. If you are buying a new car, you have already decided to make a stupid economic decision (since it is so much smarter, from a PURELY economic standpoint, to buy used).
But people still go on and on about depreciation. I wonder if these people also carry credit card balances month-to-month-to-month at 20%.
If a car depreciates $10k in year one. Go spend $5k finding a bulletproof used one, and you've made.....$5k!!!!
your point about "real" depereciation is right on, of course
who the heck pays full MSRP and then measures depreciation from that?
I tried doing the same. My Blazer just became very sick and I had to get rid of it after 7 years/ 72000 miles - I had 5 year/ 75000 miles GM protection plan and even after 5 years I serviced it at dealerships. But I spent $10K after the plan ended (alternator, tranny leak, bearings, front-axle collapse, engine gasket leak, power mirror failure, turn signal switch short-circuited,...). Anyway, probably all Chevys aren't as bad.
"Resale value doesn't mean a rats tail as a criterion for purchase."
And, when I tried to trade the Blazer in for an Equinox, I realized how bad the resale value was. And, then I checked Edmunds - Equinox's "True Cost to Own" over first 5 years was $10K more than that of a comparable CR-V. So, I traded it in for a CR-V. So, resale value mattered to me.
"If we're going to us depreciation (market) as a means of measuring a car's dependability..., "
I never said that. I just said depreciation can be more important than first 3 year reliability (at least to some consumers).
Anyway, we are again offtopic. Whatever... I believe GM needs to back up the style with other things shoppers like me look for or just risk losing us. GM may not lose consumers with a different perspective like yours.
Real-world problems occur in wholes. A car cannot have 1.79 problems. So Toyota’s VDS score of 179 implies that the typical Toyota has two problems in its third year. And Ford’s score of 224 implies much the same thing. Buy a Toyota over an alleged “Fix or Repair Daily” car, and you gain no guarantees, just a middling chance of avoiding a single additional problem in the third year.
-from the Truth About Cars
The difference in problems per car is slight just as driver100 said, until you get to the bottom of the listing.
The Truth About Cars
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Tranny leak is a problem, and little bit of rattle from front passenger seat is also a problem. We still don't have a survey that really tells us more about the "seriousness" of the problems. Also, we don't know how manufacturers are responding to these problems, e.g. are they just providing a fix under warranty or giving extra warranty with the fix?
A few commmon ones are as follows - of course, the one on Volvo is very much about styling!
Dodge: Dead On Day Guarantee Expires
Volvo: Very Odd Looking Vehicular Object
Hyundai: Hope You Understand Nothing's Drivable And Inexpensive
Toyota: Too Often Yankees Overprice This Auto
I personally think I will pony up and buy a 400 hp. 2007' GMC Sierra Denali. The Denali trim is very nice and a little more manly than Cadillac, but doesn't make you give up the "bling bling"
Rocky
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Rocky
But yeah, some MB are fairly effeminate...ML, old SLK, many C and E class, CLK...
I just couldn't resist the manly Denali comment.
Rocky
But will it have enough gadgets?
From the pics fintail, the Bose 5.1 will be available and unlike the Escalade EXT, this truck will have a real bed and like I said beable to with stand throwing a deer carcass in the back if I needed to do so on a hunting off road trip.
Rocky
GM's problems are so deeply rooted that I say,’ where in the hell do you start'?
Two perfect examples of just plain stupidity: The 'NEW' GTO.....blasphemy!
S10 replacement: Canyon/Colorado
You don't make stupid mistakes without knowing that you have some serious problems to deal with that you know looks will not fix. :sick:
Put an upscale trim package on a Chevy and I think you have the GMC. I can't see the business case of a brand that's only pickups. Would be like Ford building a Mercury pickup. For some great history...http://www.mercurypickup.com/
Edmunds gets us close, I think.
Powers doesn't.
CR does, but so many of you don't trust CR (though it's been right on whenever I've ignored their advice - which was pretty spooky, actually)
It's not just problems
It's severity AND how the carmaker handles the problem
If it drops a tranny at mile 100, but the carmaker coddles me and replaces it (and it doesn't happen again and again), then I am fine with that tranny problem. If there is a door rattle that they refuse to fix, I am pissed.
Otherwise, it works for me -- the upper part is lightly padded plastic, and the curving center insert is cloth. The switches are logically arranged. The console cupholders work fine -- I don't need bottle holders in the door panels.
The door handle is plastichrome on my '05 XLE, color-matched plastic on my '04 LE.
And sorry Andre, that '75 Olds door panel doesn't cut it -- too rectilinear for today, and you're right, the color is hideous.
Also, do you guys know why horn rings became obsolete long before airbags were placed in steering wheels? They were called "cookie cutters" for what they did to chests in frontal crashes before seat belts were available or widely used. :sick:
I remember the first Camry of that generation I got to experience close up was a base-level '02. Did they have a CE back then, or was LE the base by that time? Anyway, it just seemed really cheap to me at the time. I do remember the nicer trim levels being better though. Still, I thought it was a bit interesting that there didn't seem to be as big of a jump between the cheapest Accord and the next level up, or the cheapest Altima and the next level up.
That particular Camry was also rental-car white with a rental-car gray interior, so it wasn't the most flattering color scheme in the world to begin with. At some point though, it seemed like they started sprucing up the interior of the base Camry a bit. And by the time they did the minor refresh, I found myself liking the '05+ SE model.
As for the horn ring, when did those things finally go away, anyway? The newest car I had with the ring was a 1969 Dodge Dart GT Chrysler had something called "rim blow" in the 70's, but it's not nearly as naughty as it sounds. :shades:
I always thought that the reason that GM and Ford and Chrysler had to have these big rebates to sell product is that they DID have such high depreciation on many of their vehicles- to bring the products into a competitive range, they have to bring them down in price. And many vehicles are still leased as opposed to sold in the U.S. and Canada- and if the residuals (which reflect depreciation rates) are low, then the lease costs go up- not a good situation.
GM is a good example: The Corvette, 'V' series Cadillacs and full size pickups have good resale value.
Maybe resale values will improve over the next 5-7 years if GM continues to move up in the JD Power rankings. Time will tell.
Tranny leak is a problem, and little bit of rattle from front passenger seat is also a problem. We still don't have a survey that really tells us more about the "seriousness" of the problems.
Excellent point made here. All problems are not equal. There should be some type of weighting scale. On a 1-3, 3 being most serious, a squeak in dash might be 1 and transmission leak or clunk could be 3.
Also, JD Power press release mentioned that cars with high levels of reported problems have higher rates of failures of components such as brake pads sometimes failing under car warranty. This does not make sense since brake pads are a wear item. Don't know how you can count wear as a problem.
JD Power survey might make more sense to me if they broke down problems into 3 categories such as Serious/Critical, Medium and Minor. As a minimum, 2 categories would be better such as Major and Minor. Also need to know more about their methodology.
So, given the Buick high rating for 2003 models (LeSabre, etc), will the JD Power Survey translate into an increase in sales of the mediocre styled LaCrosse which wasn't around in 2003?
The main change for '05 in the interior was an upgrade to the Optitron gauges. The seat fabric pattern was also changed on the LE and XLE. The latter uses fake wood on the dash and door panels (I also have an '05 XLE).
The base model ("Standard") Camry was introduced late in the '04 model year (renamed CE for 2007).
Regarding horn rings, I don't know the last year they were used, but I would guess by the early 70s they were gone in the US.
Probably not. Buick wants to position itself between Chevy and Caddy. However, fleet sales, pushrods with 4 speed tranny, 0% APR, lack of youthful styling (CTS, Solstice kind of sharp styling) aren't consistent with that objective of positioning Buick above Chevy. Even interior doesn't compete well with brands like Volkswagen.
GM needs to get rid of Buick - LaCrosse, Terraza, Rainer are not reasons enough to keep Buick alive. And, as I said, Enclave can still be launched as Chevy Enclave.
You buy your car - you keep it for a long time... and when you finally decide to sell it, you get some money back at the end. Now isn't it much nicer to get $10K back(Mini) instead of $4K(Ford/GM)?
It's not costing you anything extra in depreciation while you own it - that's just false math, since you have to pay off the entire loan at some point anyways. $289 a month is $289 a month until every penny of the car is paid off.
So in a way, depreciation is moot and shouldn't be factored into a car if you are buying it.(leasing is a whole other issue)
But what the resale value really is is your next downpayment. You could very well use a car and then toss it after ten years for nothing(or a small tax write-off or donate it) - and then pay $289 a month for another car, almost like a lease. But wouldn't it be so much nicer to have twice the downpayment for your next vehicle? Paying $149 a month for your next vehicle instead of $289 a month is a huge advantage, afterall.
Except for rear end, Lucerne is nicely styled. If Buick were axed, Lucerne could be high end Chevy sedan, and maybe with rwd in a few years. Fully loaded, should be priced no higher than Camrys, maybe low end Avalon.
Chevrolet brand is golden and is "the" franchise of GM. A Chevrolet logo on the Lucerne model could position Chevrolet lineup similar to Toyota Avalon. Types of buyers that bought Caprices years ago would be brought back to Chevy. Of course, GM would have to handle Buick dealership issues/obligations.
Trucks are very useful in this part of Texas, and is why I still have my 96' Dodge Flatbed.
Rocky
FYI, I can now see a white Escalade in my neighborhood. It looks great!!! Good job, GM.
yes, it sure is
but had you bought that same car ONE year old, instead of new, you would have paid less for the car on day one, and that extra money would be in YOUR pocket instead of being driven around in the body of your car
if you have so little money that the economics of your car purchase is a real issue, then you have absolutely no business buying a new car. You should be buying used. If that doesn't make sense to you, then you need to get some financial counseling, because chances are you are making other terrible financial decisions.
If, for some reason, you want your car to be your next downpayment, then I can see the logic of that. Of course, if you bought that car used, you would already have the downpayment sitting in your bank account, instead of being driven around on the road, subject to the elements, accidents, etc.
I'd rather have my downpayment in my bank account.
People who have no financial concerns should buy new.
People who have financial concerns should be used, after careful analysis, which would include taking the car to your favorite mechanic and paying him to give it the once-over. But people see that as throwing money away. So they buy new and throw even MORE money away than they would have had they bought used. And thus they fall even further behind in their quest for wealth.
If a person is in such a tenuous financial situation that he mght have to sell his car to make ends meet, then he has no business buying a new car. He should be buying used.
Later when I was looking for a car for my son when he was planning a move to L.A., I found it virtually impossible to find a good-scoring affordable used car with side airbags (Camry, Accord, Malibu, etc.), since the airbags were optional and few cars had them.
And even on the financial side, cars like the Camry and Accord depreciate very little in the first year or two, so there's not much difference in buying new. For cars like the Prius, there's almost no depreciation, and good luck finding one at all!
OTOH, in 1982 during a time of rapid inflation in new car prices, I bought a 2-year-old Volvo 240 for $8000, when a new one would have cost about $12,000. I kept that car for 21 years, so that $4000 saved upfront was certainly well worth it! Unlike today, the 80s were a time of relative stagnation on the safety front, always an important consideration for me.
GM's problem is that they can build more vehicles than dealers can sell, even with incentives. Plus, on the nearly new used car side, a lot of GM rental cars show up in the used market when they are less than a year old. This overloads the used car market, and prices have to drop.
I had to trade in a 1992 Cavalier for a 1995 Jeep because my job changed...I had to carry heavy loads. The less the Cavalier depreciated, the better it was for me. Depreciation should probably be considered when making a car purchase. Many people right here say I would never buy a GM car new, just wait a year or two and get it when it depreciates. Hondas and Toyotas don't depreciate enough to make that worthwhile, might as well buy new. This is not a great selling point if you are thinking of buying a GM. It won't save GM if everyone is waiting for their cars to become used before they will buy one.
It is kind of funny that the people who want to save GM jobs and who are so concerned about GM would never buy a NEW GM car. Buying used isn't going to save GM.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
I never said that no one should buy new. There are all sorts of reasons to buy new. But "financial" is simply not a good reason to buy new. And if someone is making "depreciation" a significant factor in why they are buying a certain car, then they are making a "financial" decision.
again, I am ONLY talking about financial decisions, not lifestyle choice, image, safety, etc. etc., all of which are completely valid reasons to buy anything you want.
If a buyer thinks his situation is up in the air, that's all the more reason that he should buy used, and keep the "new premium" (or the depreciation) in his own pocket, rather than giving it to the car company in hopes that he will get some of it back when he sells. That's a risky proposition. Buying used and then using the "delta" between the new and the used to buy stock in that car company is probably a better bet.
Fleet-central.com recently released figures showing the percentage of each model's sales that went to fleet customers for the first six months of 2006.
Through the end of June, 33.8 percent of Chevy Cobalt sales were to fleets, compared to 28.5 percent for the much older Ford Focus. (A whopping 0.9 percent of Honda Civics went to fleet customers. The Toyota Corolla is at 12.8 percent.)
Moving up a size class, we find that 60.3 percent of the Chevy Malibu's (not the old Classic, which is listed separately) customers were fleet buyers, and 42.3 percent of Pontiac G6s went to fleet customers, compared to 18.8 percent for the Ford Fusion. (And the Honda Accord? All of 1.1 percent of total sales were to fleet customers.The Toyota Camry is at 12.8 percent.)
I was surprised at the number the Buick LaCrosses and Lucernes that went to fleet customers - 29.3 percent and 28.8 percent, respectively.
Of all the new Chevrolet Impalas sold during the first six months of 2006, 54.8 went to fleet customers (granted, that car is popular with local police departments, which is not the same as being sold to rental car companies). The Ford Five Hundred was lower at 31.1 percent, although that is still pretty high, considering all of the noise that Ford made about limiting fleet sales to protect the car's residual value.
Those fleet sales make GM cars great buys as used cars, as one poster noted. But GM is in the NEW car business, so that doesn't really help its long-term financial health, or the public image of its brands.
I'm not sure that buying used doesn't also help
If new GM car owners have more willing buyers when they want to resell, that should help sell the new cars.
I have a theory that I am trying to get an economist to study: What percentage of people in [pick a state] would have to buy new cars [not trucks] to reduce the (1) air emissions, (2) CO emissions, (3) [other], by [X] percent?
It's a spin off on the "We can spend ourselves to prosperity" theory. We can spend ourselves to clean air.
After we establish the %, we can then push the top X% of wage earners in the state to go out and buy a new car.
It's a revolution. Clean air through buyng new vehicles.
You could double the whammy by encouring the worst 10% of polluting vehicles to get off the road. Financially incentivize them to crush those suckers. (some of this goes on already - I just want to quantify how much such programs shold be expanded)
yep, I agree
I've always thought that people who buy new cars who make depreciation an issue are just being silly. Depreciation is a purely economic concept. If you are buying a new car, you have already decided to make a stupid economic decision (since it is so much smarter, from a PURELY economic standpoint, to buy used).
A ridiculous statement and argument. Depreciation could hit you in any number of ways. There are hundreds of reasons you might not be able to keep a car long enough for depreciation to be insignificant. Any one of them could easily happen to anyone. You could get the car totalled, thereby getting book value from insurance. You could have the car stolen, therby the same thing happening. You could lose your job and need to sell the car. You could have kids and need a bigger vehicle. You could change your mind and plan on getting another car. There are a lot of variables, and all of them are extremely risky when added together... and risk is worth money, depreciation is risky.