As for fit-and-finish - I haven't seen a Sky at the local Saturn dealer yet, but I have examined several Auras. They are definitely a cut above their platform mates (Malibu, G6) in this regard. They even look better than the Cadillac CTS and SRX!
>It is under $2.20 here and I keep waiting for it to go down to fill up my vette with premium. Have to get it though before the snow flies!!
Lots of $2.07-$2.09s in the quadrant of the metro area near Dayton. The highest is Clark if $2.69 at one stations and otherwise highest is in the $2.2Xs. What is the Clark station thinking--people want alcohol gasoline at a higher price. Theirs is the 10% low mileage stuff.
Is expect the under $2.00 to come slowly as stores try to hold up their extra margin rather than dropping price as the wholesale to them drops.
Sorry for oversating your point. I must have been hot off the line yesterday.
For the most part, I do not think any Roadster looks all that good with the top up. I believe the issue with the Sky (and Solstice) is they need a bit more material because you have to stretch it into the trunk. While it makes for a less clean look with the top up, with the top tucked away you get perfect lines.
It is no accident, in my opinion, the best roadster on the market today is the Benz SLK. It has a hard top that looks good up and folds away like the Sky when down. Of course that adds price and complexity, which many roadster buyers avoid.
I have examined several Auras. They are definitely a cut above their platform mates (Malibu, G6) in this regard. They even look better than the Cadillac CTS and SRX!
The Z4 is not cheap either and is not selling as well as the Z3 did.
The 4 is much more the driver's car than the 3. Its looks are admittedly divisive.
The Z2 is interesting. As Mr. Shiftright pointed out elsewhere, it appears the 4 cylinder BMW will use in the Z2 is from Renault. (BMW does not make a 4 now -- Renault will be making the 4 for the next gen Mini)
Enjoy it while we can, because things could change. Article in the Washington Post that if we get into a mess with Iran (possible) they could not only cut off their own oil but block the Straits of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, through which 40% of the world's crude oil goes through. If that happens, then oil could spike to $100/barrel, maybe even $150/barrel, at least for a while. We live in a world of geopolitical uncertainty- I for one don't want to be victimized by it at the gas pump. But maybe these lower prices buy GM some breathing room for now.
The deep structural cost cuts General Motors Corp. put in place this year should enable the automaker to finally make money on small cars, the company's vice chairman said.
For years, most if not all compact cars made by GM and its Detroit rivals Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group have lost money, in large part because of the extra costs they carry to pay for health care and pensions for thousands of retired hourly workers.
But GM last year reached an agreement with the United Auto Workers to slash health care costs, and this year offered buyouts that will cut its unionized workforce by about a third by the end of the year.
Those savings and others stemming from planned plant closures and other measures will lower GM's fixed costs by about $9 billion next year, the company has said.
That's enough to enable GM to begin making money on small cars, Vice Chairman Robert Lutz said in an interview in southern California.
Until the cost cuts were put in place, GM's North American operations had fixed costs of about $40 billion a year – the equivalent of about $8,000 for every car GM North America made, Mr. Lutz said.
"All our small cars were unprofitable" with costs at that level, he said.
He declined to say how much GM North America's per-car fixed costs will be once the $9 billion in cost reductions kick in next year. But he said the savings will change the profit picture on GM's small cars.
The Chevrolet Cobalt, he said, is already generating profits. "We now make money on that car," he said. The Cobalt, a compact sedan, has also been helped by increased demand while gasoline price hovered above $3 a gallon this summer. GM also changed its pricing strategy to reduce rebates and other incentives that eat into its margins.
The Cobalt is now selling without any major cash incentives, Mr. Lutz said. That also helps the car turn a profit.
The three Detroit car makers used to offset their losses on small cars with oversized profits on sports utility vehicles and pick up trucks. But sales of SUVs and trucks have sagged and incentives on them have increased, pushing all three car makers into financial difficulty and forcing them to find ways to make money on cars.
Two things: (1) Cobalt is not stylish - it's just a decent small car. Apparently, fuel-efficiency is more important than styling when gas is $3 a gallon.
(2) A profitable Cobalt should not be used an excuse to not upgrade the product and not compete with the popular trio Civic/ Corolla/ Mazda3. GM should keep working hard till people start trading in Civics for Cobalt. Toyota upgrades Camry even when it's at the top. Honda does the same. On the other hand, GM keeps killing names like Cavalier, Century, L-series and all other existing nameplates. Of course, nothing beats what Ford did to Taurus just to concentrate on F-series.
You mean, think of the future? We don't need no stinkin future. Just work to maximize quarterly earnings, everything else will just fall into place. I mean, look how well it has worked so far!
You're right in that they need continuous improvement. Those two words could be the motto of some carmakers, and the enemy of others. I don't want to be looking at 2012 Cobalts that are almost identical to 2006 models.
Very true. You limit your negotiation power if you order special.
Not true in my case. I special ordered my truck from a very good dealer kind of near me and did not lose any negoitation power. The dealer tried to sell me something from the lot which is easier for them of course, they didn't have what I wanted. I wanted the truck a specific manner, knew I would have to special order it, knew I would have to wait and was fine with it. I used edmunds as well as other sites, researched and printed out what I wanted, how I wanted the truck and what I was willing to pay. Working the invoice numbers (never MSRP) I haggled and got it for the price I was willing to pay. I bought the vehicle near the end of the model year, which helped as well. I actually typed in the order on their system as the salesman was new in using it. I must mention this was the fourth dealer I had went to (long story short, the other three thought I "just had to have" the truck...they were wrong). So whether you special order your vehicle or not does not lose you negotiating power. I was paying cash, knew what I wanted, and got it for the price I wanted. But in any event, I special ordered it as I wanted the truck a specific way.
On the other hand, I fully believe a person who special orders a car should be required to pay a significant non refundable down payment.
Highly disagree. I put $200 down. The dealer wanted about $1K. I had $200 cash and told him if he needed more I'd see him in the wind. As long as you're firm with a salesperson and are willing to walk away, you can get the deal you want. Unless you are ordering the vehicle with a non-factory finish, aftermarket components that the dealer farms out, or something that's not regularly available there is no reason a person should have to pay a significant down payment.
I said negotiation power was limited, not obliterated.
You say went to four different dealers, did extensive research and haggled. And you got a good deal. That is great.
I suggest if you went to any one of the four dealers and were willing to buy off the lot - something I never do - then you would have come to your price or below much sooner.
I always order my new cars. I have always been happy with my deal. But I expect getting to my deal takes more work than if I bought on the lot.
Why should it be non-refundable? When they say the car will take 3 or 4 weeks and ends up taking 3 or 4 months, are they going to pay interest?
Well, then they have breached their agreement, haven't they? So then you get all your money back as soon as the 3 or four weeks pass.
As long as financing is verified, a couple of hundred dollars should be plenty.
Well, from my perspective - I like to buy loaded cars, but with a manual and no leather. I respect the fact if a dealer works with me to get what I want it would be unfair to go somewhere else, leaving the dealer with something that may not sell to others for the price I promised to pay for it.
On the other hand, if I am waiting for a popular car and a dealer calls me and says I can get on the promised date if I pay more, I would not mind sticking it to that person at all.
"Well, then they have breached their agreement, haven't they? So then you get all your money back as soon as the 3 or four weeks pass."
Good luck with that. I'll see you on Judge Judy.
If you're walking because the delivery date has slipped, you know that you're going to get the run around trying to get the money back, so why tie up so much.
If you're walking because the delivery date has slipped, you know that you're going to get the run around trying to get the money back, so why tie up so much.
That depends upon what the contract says.
A simple clause, such as: 'If the car is not deliverd by Y date, then the entire deposit shall be immediately refunded to consumer' is bullet proof.
In most states were a dealer to ignore a clause like that you could get court costs and exemplary damages from a small claims judge.
If the dealer won't sign such an agreement, then you either have to accept the risk or walk before the deposit. Or, as you say, you can agree to a much a smaller deposit and let the dealer take the risk you will walk and leave them with a car few will want to buy off the lot.
>It's too bad that the TSB does not resolve the issue, at least not with my 07 SE V6. My dealer now tells me that Toyota is working on the problem but is yet to have a solution. My first Toyota experience has been a difficult one to say the least, I can't remember having to go to the dealer once in five years with my Olds Alero. I have been to the dealer at least 6 times in the first month.
"A simple clause, such as: 'If the car is not deliverd by Y date, then the entire deposit shall be immediately refunded to consumer' is bullet proof.
In most states were a dealer to ignore a clause like that you could get court costs and exemplary damages from a small claims judge."
Who wants to bother with all that? Dealers play games in the face of contrary legal requirements all the time.
They'll tell you that they mailed the check and don't know what happened to it and then try to get you to come in to pick up a replacement and then leave you waiting in hopes that you'll fall in love with a car there.
Let's talk real world instead of perfect world. Getting the grand back from the dealer or getting special wording inserted into the contract just for your sale will be nothing but a complete hassle. Unless you're sue happy, why even open that can of worms?
I believe you that this Camry has problems. But believe me that my experiene has been exactly opposite. Little or no problems with 93 Prizm, little or no problems with 02 Protege, but lots of problems with 99 Blazer. And, so far so good with 06 CR-V. I can't take Prizm as a symbol of GM quality since Prizm was essentially a Toyota.
Anyway, I will be staying away from GM not because I'm angry. In fact, I'm never angry. I just want to stay away till the resale values of GM vehicles improve - resale value is not same as quality, but in my mind they are linked. I just want to play safe! Guess what - I'm an average customer who buys a car every 3-4 years (to keep them 6-8 years since I maintain 2 cars). GM's styling won't be enough. Just like Chryslers's wasn't. I demand 6-8 troublefree years and good resale value at the end.
Working litigation and the courts is part of my job. I have a pretty high success rate getting judgments and collecting them.
Doesn't make me sue happy, part of the territory.
Real world is that many dealers are reluctant to agree to special order without a significant down payment. I am fine with that if it means I get exactly what I want. On the other hand, I want some committment from the dealer as well.
If it does not work out, seems my options are to buy off the lot, take the chance the dealer may renege on my small deposit, or insist on real committment between the two parties.
You will not get this sort of thing from most mass market companies and/or cars. But high end dealers will agree, as will mass market dealers with special cars.
The Saturn Aura thread is gathering far more posts than the combined Outlook/Enclave/Arcadia thread. Maybe the US is more prepared for Euro style now than before.
Auto analysts said Toyota and Honda have already established reputations for quality, durable vehicles and therefore haven't needed to add warranty coverage to attract buyers.
Besides, they added, consumers would rather buy a trouble-free vehicle upfront and never have to invoke the warranty than have to take a troublesome vehicle back to a dealership for repairs—even if the repairs don't cost anything because they're under warranty.
Ann Job is a California-based automotive writer.
That pretty much sums it up. Ford and GM can play around with their warranties all they want, but if they don't have consistent long warranties for all makes and models across the whole spectrum of lines, from econo to luxury, then they are saying are affordable stuff is crap, and our expensive stuff is mediocre.
Honda and Toyota don't have to match Lexus and Acura warranties, but the Americans don't have that luxury of reputation.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I like most things about the New Miata, but the seats seem narrow to me. Seem the center tunnel is a bit wide. Overall, an improved car. Saw the new hardtop convertible - not bad. The top looks proportionally small for some reason compared to regular top. Pretty neat though. Locally, they have 2006 on sale for $19,999. -Loren
You used up the exceptionally good luck in having a reliable Oldsmobile. Now the karma has reversed in that you are having problems with a normally reliable car manufacturer. Oh the irony. Hopefully they will resolve all your issues with the Toyota. It would be something indeed out of the Twilight Zone should Toyota and GM each become the other.
It could be the best years of Toyota ended by late-90's -- hard to say. My Corolla was good. Dad's Camry has been fairly good - nothing major in the way of problems so far in six years. I had the Corolla for seven years. In looking over the Camry though, I see some things about it which look like they are not wearing or broke long before the more basic Camry did back in the early 90's. Overall though, nothing major. -Loren
It seems that Ford and Chrysler are in deep trouble. GM is doing a lot better. Why the difference? Styling?
They're all in bad shape, and GM is not out of the woods. However, Wall Street looks more favorably on GM based on its product plans for the next few years - Lambda crossovers, 2008 Malibu, Camaro, probably RWD sedans for Chevrolet and Buick, new CTS, etc.
GM understood their troubles and acted accordingly. Ford and DCX, on the other hand, underestimated their problems and didn't act quickly, relying on their successful new models, like the Fusion and 300M to give them a boost. Ford, especially, suffered from a truly bad management in the last 5 yrs. Ford, CEO wasn't good for Ford after all. He basically ruined Jaguar, Lincoln and Mercury, and almost ruined volvo. All of these models suffered from declining sales. Even with Ford brand, he focused on big SUVs, cars and pickup trucks, and ignored the most important products of the current time: The Ford Focus and Escape.
Yes, GM is apparently launching more products targetting the car and crossover shoppers. Also, GM's big trucks are getting upgrades too. So, what's the key? Redesigning and new products? Or, cool styling? Or, perhaps quality improvements?
I think quality is what keeps the customer coming back. Cool styling will bring new customers into the showroom. What sort of styling is really cool is tricky - like the Solstice vs the Aztek for example.
I think GM is moving to RWD for some all new sedans (or at least replacements) which will allow them to "really" claim all new and hopefully to produce a "cool" styling theme. I think that they need some well designed products for the midsize market. This would be the Impala, Grand Prix and LaCrosse replacements. If the Impala and Grand Prix become very well done RWD sedans, this may grab new customers away from other brands as well as keep the old customers.
Yes, even though I had bad experience with my Blazer, I think GM is improving quality. One of my neighbors has just bought his second Impala and he is very happy with Impalas. Also, CTS and Escalade seem to be doing well in our area - an ex-colleague of mine leased a 06 CTS and she is very happy so far.
I will wait a bit more to see how resale values change over next few years before I buy my third GM vehicle and hopefully it will be a sharp-looking midsize RWD sedan with standard safety features. I enjoyed Blazer's RWD (I never used the shift-on-the-fly 4WD) - even on snow I preferred just driving RWD. I was disappointed to see that Blazer's replacement Equinox was FWD. And, TrailBlazer was just too big for me. GM should build a few RWD vehicles for customers like me who aren't rich enough to buy a BMW.
I was disappointed to see that Blazer's replacement Equinox was FWD. And, TrailBlazer was just too big for me.
The Equinox is clearly not the Blazer replacement. It is a vehicle meant to compete with the RAV4s, CRVs, Tuscons, etc. of the world.
The mid-Size SUV is obsolete. GM is living the market altogether. To the extent GM will replace the Trailblazer, the replacement is the Lambda Crossovers - the Outlook, Enclave and Acadia.
The large SUVs with the dual phase hybrid will bet better mileage than the Trailblazer for those who actually need a truck.
As for RWDs, GM makes Cadillac rwds. The format tends to be more expensive. Apparently, the future Impala may be built on a less expensive version of the Cadillac platform. Probably will be an announcment at the NAIAS in January.
Just saw the GM ad stating that they have the "best coverage in America." What? The warranty is better than all the others? They must use a different addition than I do. My calculation has them under the Hyundai make, and other brands in many respects. Isn't 5 years bumper to bumper better than 3? Isn't 10 more than 5 for power-train? Heck, what about the others with 4 year bumper to bumper warranties? -Loren
Well Buick, and Cadillac, both have 4 yr. bumper to bumper warranty's.
What's Hyundai's, bumper to bumper warranty Loren ?
I do think a 5 yr. 100K warranty is a big improvement and due to GM's size and number of brands it could be expensive to cover. I do think GM's improvements in reliability however will reduce the costs of covering those powertrain warranty's.
I do agree that GM, still needs to improve there warranty's especially on the bumper to bumper end of it. Oldsmobile, before they departed had a 5 yr. 60K bumper to bumper warranty. Wouldn't a warranty like that match Hyundai's bumper to bumper ?
http://www.hyundaiusa.com/global/warranty/warranty.aspx Hyundai is longer. Others, like Mazda have better warranties. What I am asking is how is the GM warranty the best coverage in America? Perhaps they are referring to the rental cars. I got to test out a lot of different cars when I owned Oldsmobiles. The local dealer was great at supplying loaner cars, or having a loaner car from Enterprise for me. They tried to please. Not their fault the car did not deliver.
Oh well, most of the new cars with the too tall doors don't feel right to me anyway, so I may get a used car next purchase. Interesting that the Solstice, with the too tall doors has a useless arm rest, while the Tiburon at least has a rest that works. If they are going to make the door window sills so high, the lest they can do is make the arm rest level and cut back far enough so the elbow can go all the way back. Loren
Best coverage by a full line manufacturer (I don't think consumer cares about the "full line" part)
Best coverage in the sense that it's the only 100K transferrable powertrain warranty. Hyundai's powertrain is 10 year/ 100K but it's not transferrable.
Also, possibly best roadside assistance.
So, you need to stretch your imagination to make sense of GM's ad. The deceptive ad makes me feel more negative about GM. The online is ad is deceptive too - a big 100K followed by 5 year in fine prints - a stupid attempt to make people confuse this with 10 year/ 100K from Hyundai/ Suzuki.
GM still has more MBAs than engineers. Not at Honda - everyone at the top are engineers and Business Week published an interesting article on this a month back. That's the difference.
End the deception. Fire Wagoner. Hire Rusty Wallace
So all GM needs to do now is add 5 additional years on to the 100K powertrain warranty and bum the 3/36K up to the Olds warranty of 5 years/60K to have the best warranty. I see that the hyundai warranty isn't transferable. Well GM's power train warranty IMHO is better than Hyundai's because of that.
Comments
I would put the Z3 at the bottom of the pile. Pure motion in ugly. Lots of creases does not make a form of beauty
CTS and SRX-pre Lutz
Looks like GM should have waited to introduce their trucks. Gas is going down.....
Someone here did say 10 months ago that gas would be under $2 again by the end of this year.
It is under $2.20 here and I keep waiting for it to go down to fill up my vette with premium. Have to get it though before the snow fly's!!
Lots of $2.07-$2.09s in the quadrant of the metro area near Dayton. The highest is Clark if $2.69 at one stations and otherwise highest is in the $2.2Xs. What is the Clark station thinking--people want alcohol gasoline at a higher price. Theirs is the 10% low mileage stuff.
Is expect the under $2.00 to come slowly as stores try to hold up their extra margin rather than dropping price as the wholesale to them drops.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The Benz is very pricey. You could almost buy a base Sky and a hybrid VUE for the price of the Benz.
For the most part, I do not think any Roadster looks all that good with the top up. I believe the issue with the Sky (and Solstice) is they need a bit more material because you have to stretch it into the trunk. While it makes for a less clean look with the top up, with the top tucked away you get perfect lines.
It is no accident, in my opinion, the best roadster on the market today is the Benz SLK. It has a hard top that looks good up and folds away like the Sky when down. Of course that adds price and complexity, which many roadster buyers avoid.
Gotta agree with ya there pal. :surprise:
Rocky
The 4 is much more the driver's car than the 3. Its looks are admittedly divisive.
The Z2 is interesting. As Mr. Shiftright pointed out elsewhere, it appears the 4 cylinder BMW will use in the Z2 is from Renault. (BMW does not make a 4 now -- Renault will be making the 4 for the next gen Mini)
The Aura is a big winner in my book.
Rocky
It's hard to tell what works and what doesn't. Anyway, GM styling isn't winning prizes. Probably, it's time to roll out a few cool Saabs and Caddys.
For years, most if not all compact cars made by GM and its Detroit rivals Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group have lost money, in large part because of the extra costs they carry to pay for health care and pensions for thousands of retired hourly workers.
But GM last year reached an agreement with the United Auto Workers to slash health care costs, and this year offered buyouts that will cut its unionized workforce by about a third by the end of the year.
Those savings and others stemming from planned plant closures and other measures will lower GM's fixed costs by about $9 billion next year, the company has said.
That's enough to enable GM to begin making money on small cars, Vice Chairman Robert Lutz said in an interview in southern California.
Until the cost cuts were put in place, GM's North American operations had fixed costs of about $40 billion a year – the equivalent of about $8,000 for every car GM North America made, Mr. Lutz said.
"All our small cars were unprofitable" with costs at that level, he said.
He declined to say how much GM North America's per-car fixed costs will be once the $9 billion in cost reductions kick in next year. But he said the savings will change the profit picture on GM's small cars.
The Chevrolet Cobalt, he said, is already generating profits. "We now make money on that car," he said. The Cobalt, a compact sedan, has also been helped by increased demand while gasoline price hovered above $3 a gallon this summer. GM also changed its pricing strategy to reduce rebates and other incentives that eat into its margins.
The Cobalt is now selling without any major cash incentives, Mr. Lutz said. That also helps the car turn a profit.
The three Detroit car makers used to offset their losses on small cars with oversized profits on sports utility vehicles and pick up trucks. But sales of SUVs and trucks have sagged and incentives on them have increased, pushing all three car makers into financial difficulty and forcing them to find ways to make money on cars.
unfortunately, the Z4 does not get 30
so I could possible see driving a Z2
but why wouldn't I just buy a Miata?
I can't believe the GM roadsters get such poor mpg.
(1) Cobalt is not stylish - it's just a decent small car. Apparently, fuel-efficiency is more important than styling when gas is $3 a gallon.
(2) A profitable Cobalt should not be used an excuse to not upgrade the product and not compete with the popular trio Civic/ Corolla/ Mazda3. GM should keep working hard till people start trading in Civics for Cobalt. Toyota upgrades Camry even when it's at the top. Honda does the same. On the other hand, GM keeps killing names like Cavalier, Century, L-series and all other existing nameplates. Of course, nothing beats what Ford did to Taurus just to concentrate on F-series.
You're right in that they need continuous improvement. Those two words could be the motto of some carmakers, and the enemy of others. I don't want to be looking at 2012 Cobalts that are almost identical to 2006 models.
Not true in my case. I special ordered my truck from a very good dealer kind of near me and did not lose any negoitation power. The dealer tried to sell me something from the lot which is easier for them of course, they didn't have what I wanted. I wanted the truck a specific manner, knew I would have to special order it, knew I would have to wait and was fine with it. I used edmunds as well as other sites, researched and printed out what I wanted, how I wanted the truck and what I was willing to pay. Working the invoice numbers (never MSRP) I haggled and got it for the price I was willing to pay. I bought the vehicle near the end of the model year, which helped as well. I actually typed in the order on their system as the salesman was new in using it. I must mention this was the fourth dealer I had went to (long story short, the other three thought I "just had to have" the truck...they were wrong). So whether you special order your vehicle or not does not lose you negotiating power. I was paying cash, knew what I wanted, and got it for the price I wanted. But in any event, I special ordered it as I wanted the truck a specific way.
On the other hand, I fully believe a person who special orders a car should be required to pay a significant non refundable down payment.
Highly disagree. I put $200 down. The dealer wanted about $1K. I had $200 cash and told him if he needed more I'd see him in the wind. As long as you're firm with a salesperson and are willing to walk away, you can get the deal you want. Unless you are ordering the vehicle with a non-factory finish, aftermarket components that the dealer farms out, or something that's not regularly available there is no reason a person should have to pay a significant down payment.
Why should it be non-refundable? When they say the car will take 3 or 4 weeks and ends up taking 3 or 4 months, are they going to pay interest?
As long as financing is verified, a couple of hundred dollars should be plenty.
You say went to four different dealers, did extensive research and haggled. And you got a good deal. That is great.
I suggest if you went to any one of the four dealers and were willing to buy off the lot - something I never do - then you would have come to your price or below much sooner.
I always order my new cars. I have always been happy with my deal. But I expect getting to my deal takes more work than if I bought on the lot.
Well, then they have breached their agreement, haven't they? So then you get all your money back as soon as the 3 or four weeks pass.
As long as financing is verified, a couple of hundred dollars should be plenty.
Well, from my perspective - I like to buy loaded cars, but with a manual and no leather. I respect the fact if a dealer works with me to get what I want it would be unfair to go somewhere else, leaving the dealer with something that may not sell to others for the price I promised to pay for it.
On the other hand, if I am waiting for a popular car and a dealer calls me and says I can get on the promised date if I pay more, I would not mind sticking it to that person at all.
Good luck with that. I'll see you on Judge Judy.
If you're walking because the delivery date has slipped, you know that you're going to get the run around trying to get the money back, so why tie up so much.
"Manual and no leather"
We agree on something.
That depends upon what the contract says.
A simple clause, such as: 'If the car is not deliverd by Y date, then the entire deposit shall be immediately refunded to consumer' is bullet proof.
In most states were a dealer to ignore a clause like that you could get court costs and exemplary damages from a small claims judge.
If the dealer won't sign such an agreement, then you either have to accept the risk or walk before the deposit. Or, as you say, you can agree to a much a smaller deposit and let the dealer take the risk you will walk and leave them with a car few will want to buy off the lot.
I just saw this in 2007 Toyota Woes and couldn't resist posting it here.
For nonbelievers: sarge07, "2007 Toyota Camry Woes" #1641, 15 Sep 2006 12:01 pm
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
In most states were a dealer to ignore a clause like that you could get court costs and exemplary damages from a small claims judge."
Who wants to bother with all that? Dealers play games in the face of contrary legal requirements all the time.
They'll tell you that they mailed the check and don't know what happened to it and then try to get you to come in to pick up a replacement and then leave you waiting in hopes that you'll fall in love with a car there.
Let's talk real world instead of perfect world. Getting the grand back from the dealer or getting special wording inserted into the contract just for your sale will be nothing but a complete hassle. Unless you're sue happy, why even open that can of worms?
Anyway, I will be staying away from GM not because I'm angry. In fact, I'm never angry. I just want to stay away till the resale values of GM vehicles improve - resale value is not same as quality, but in my mind they are linked. I just want to play safe! Guess what - I'm an average customer who buys a car every 3-4 years (to keep them 6-8 years since I maintain 2 cars). GM's styling won't be enough. Just like Chryslers's wasn't. I demand 6-8 troublefree years and good resale value at the end.
Working litigation and the courts is part of my job. I have a pretty high success rate getting judgments and collecting them.
Doesn't make me sue happy, part of the territory.
Real world is that many dealers are reluctant to agree to special order without a significant down payment. I am fine with that if it means I get exactly what I want. On the other hand, I want some committment from the dealer as well.
If it does not work out, seems my options are to buy off the lot, take the chance the dealer may renege on my small deposit, or insist on real committment between the two parties.
You will not get this sort of thing from most mass market companies and/or cars. But high end dealers will agree, as will mass market dealers with special cars.
The Saturn Aura thread is gathering far more posts than the combined Outlook/Enclave/Arcadia thread. Maybe the US is more prepared for Euro style now than before.
Besides, they added, consumers would rather buy a trouble-free vehicle upfront and never have to invoke the warranty than have to take a troublesome vehicle back to a dealership for repairs—even if the repairs don't cost anything because they're under warranty.
Ann Job is a California-based automotive writer.
That pretty much sums it up. Ford and GM can play around with their warranties all they want, but if they don't have consistent long warranties for all makes and models across the whole spectrum of lines, from econo to luxury, then they are saying are affordable stuff is crap, and our expensive stuff is mediocre.
Honda and Toyota don't have to match Lexus and Acura warranties, but the Americans don't have that luxury of reputation.
The Z3 is awesome!
-Loren
-Loren
Hopefully they will resolve all your issues with the Toyota. It would be something indeed out of the Twilight Zone should Toyota and GM each become the other.
It could be the best years of Toyota ended by late-90's -- hard to say.
My Corolla was good. Dad's Camry has been fairly good - nothing major in the way of problems so far in six years. I had the Corolla for seven years. In looking over the Camry though, I see some things about it which look like they are not wearing or broke long before the more basic Camry did back in the early 90's. Overall though, nothing major.
-Loren
They're all in bad shape, and GM is not out of the woods. However, Wall Street looks more favorably on GM based on its product plans for the next few years - Lambda crossovers, 2008 Malibu, Camaro, probably RWD sedans for Chevrolet and Buick, new CTS, etc.
http://www.300mclub.org/300mofthemonth/winnerjuly2006.html
or do you mean the current Chrysler 300/300C:
http://www.chrysler.com/300/
I think GM is moving to RWD for some all new sedans (or at least replacements) which will allow them to "really" claim all new and hopefully to produce a "cool" styling theme. I think that they need some well designed products for the midsize market. This would be the Impala, Grand Prix and LaCrosse replacements. If the Impala and Grand Prix become very well done RWD sedans, this may grab new customers away from other brands as well as keep the old customers.
I will wait a bit more to see how resale values change over next few years before I buy my third GM vehicle and hopefully it will be a sharp-looking midsize RWD sedan with standard safety features. I enjoyed Blazer's RWD (I never used the shift-on-the-fly 4WD) - even on snow I preferred just driving RWD. I was disappointed to see that Blazer's replacement Equinox was FWD. And, TrailBlazer was just too big for me. GM should build a few RWD vehicles for customers like me who aren't rich enough to buy a BMW.
They will, if you can wait until the 2010 model year.
The Equinox is clearly not the Blazer replacement. It is a vehicle meant to compete with the RAV4s, CRVs, Tuscons, etc. of the world.
The mid-Size SUV is obsolete. GM is living the market altogether. To the extent GM will replace the Trailblazer, the replacement is the Lambda Crossovers - the Outlook, Enclave and Acadia.
The large SUVs with the dual phase hybrid will bet better mileage than the Trailblazer for those who actually need a truck.
As for RWDs, GM makes Cadillac rwds. The format tends to be more expensive. Apparently, the future Impala may be built on a less expensive version of the Cadillac platform. Probably will be an announcment at the NAIAS in January.
-Loren
What's Hyundai's, bumper to bumper warranty Loren ?
I do think a 5 yr. 100K warranty is a big improvement and due to GM's size and number of brands it could be expensive to cover. I do think GM's improvements in reliability however will reduce the costs of covering those powertrain warranty's.
I do agree that GM, still needs to improve there warranty's especially on the bumper to bumper end of it. Oldsmobile, before they departed had a 5 yr. 60K bumper to bumper warranty. Wouldn't a warranty like that match Hyundai's bumper to bumper ?
Rocky
Hyundai is longer. Others, like Mazda have better warranties. What I am asking is how is the GM warranty the best coverage in America? Perhaps they are referring to the rental cars. I got to test out a lot of different cars when I owned Oldsmobiles. The local dealer was great at supplying loaner cars, or having a loaner car from Enterprise for me. They tried to please. Not their fault the car did not deliver.
Oh well, most of the new cars with the too tall doors don't feel right to me anyway, so I may get a used car next purchase. Interesting that the Solstice, with the too tall doors has a useless arm rest, while the Tiburon at least has a rest that works. If they are going to make the door window sills so high, the lest they can do is make the arm rest level and cut back far enough so the elbow can go all the way back.
Loren
Best coverage in the sense that it's the only 100K transferrable powertrain warranty. Hyundai's powertrain is 10 year/ 100K but it's not transferrable.
Also, possibly best roadside assistance.
So, you need to stretch your imagination to make sense of GM's ad. The deceptive ad makes me feel more negative about GM. The online is ad is deceptive too - a big 100K followed by 5 year in fine prints - a stupid attempt to make people confuse this with 10 year/ 100K from Hyundai/ Suzuki.
GM still has more MBAs than engineers. Not at Honda - everyone at the top are engineers and Business Week published an interesting article on this a month back. That's the difference.
End the deception. Fire Wagoner. Hire Rusty Wallace
Rocky