Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
General Motors discussions
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
And I saw an Acura with similar factory-issue plastic hubcaps and was even more shocked. Why not just buy a Civic and be done with it?
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
The fastest easiest thing that GM could do to "save" itself is to extent the warranties on its vehicles to show the public that it believes in the vehicles it makes.
We purchased a 2005 Pacifica partially motivated by the 7 year 70,000 miles powertrane warranty. Likewise our 2006 Odyssey has a 5 year 50,000 powertrane warranty. It is a little peace of mind and shows that the manufacturer has some confidence in their vehicles.
I believe that GM did this for Oldsmobiles to sell them in the last year. I also believe that GM does not do this on all of its vehicles because they cannot afford the cost.
It's not sold in the US, but I have seen Canadian Acuras that are clearly rebadged Civics. I think that the they're called 1.8 TLs or CLs or something like that.
Is that the one that you're talking about? I always was curious why they're sold in Canada but not the US. If you know, how much do they go for in US dollars?
The Canadian Acura C1ivic is now called the CSX...they'd never have hubcaps either. They've been priced between the highest Civic and lowest Acura, low 20s.
Did not say that America loves Impala styling. Said that Impala styling is better than new BMW 3.
BMW might want to take some styling lessons for their 2-seaters from GM 2-seaters. GM Corvette, Solstice, Sky, XLR far ahead of BMW. Re sedans, BMW 5 and 7 series rear ends look like they were copied from rears of early 90's Mopar compacts Cirrus and Stratus.
If one wants to get beyond styling, at least GM does not do complicated I-Drive stuff with their cars.
The last Acura to have hubcaps was the base Integra in 1996. No new Acuras have hubcaps.
As for the G6, I saw a white sedan last weekend when I was leaving DC. Didn't think much of it at first, but it caught my eye because I didn't instantly recognize it. They still don't seem to be very common around here. I remember thinking damn, that's not as bad looking as I thought! :P It's not going to win any beauty contests, but I wouldn't be ashamed of its looks, either. And I think the coupe version of these is actually pretty attractive!
Then why do people lust after the 3 while the Impala was getting rebates while it was a month old?
Sure, there are plenty of people that buy the cars for their handling and performance and quality, and I'm sure there are people that do dig the styling. But I'd still imagine that for a great number of buyers (or, more aptly, leasers most likely) it's essentially an automotive strap-on.
If, by some freak of nature, we got zapped into an alternate universe where a 3-series looked like an '06 Impala and vice versa, and Spock had a real spiffy goatee, I'm sure the 3-series would STILL be selling like hotcakes and people would STILL be whining about the Impala's style, and what a loser it is for needing rebates right from the get go.
Honestly, I have nothing against the car itself. It's just not my thing. I prefer something bigger and less costly.
Neither the Corvette nor the Solstice has good interiors. Although the Corvette's improved, the Solstice has an awful interior. With cheap plastic panels and plastic bits that seemed to come off a 99cent toy, I don't understand how anyone would pay $20k+ for something so poorly made.
I will repost from my previous message on this board:
"The BMW 3 has a long history of being a top handling/performing car according to most car magazine testers and even Consumer Reports. Its heritage goes back to about 1968 - think it was a model "2002" upgraded from the "1600". Performance is probably the most prominent reason for buying one. Another "very" important reason is prestige that has accrured over the years because of the car's performance.
It would take a long time for the prestige to be tarnished due to mediocre styling as long as performance stays high. People will put up with a mediocre or ugly style if they can get outstanding performance, quality, reliability. Just look at popularity of Subaru WRX sti. I would highly doubt that anyone buys that car for its styling."
If you put a very ugly body on the next 3 series (and could happen - look at latest BMW 2-seater fastback) it will still sell well "if" handling/performance remain outstanding.
My comment was that the 3-series was not a bad looking car, but was not exceptional either. In its day, the Jag XKE was exceptional looking, or the Merc 300SL gullwing.
I think flame surfacing is a failure and certainly many of the new concept designs in the Detroit show seem to prove it. However, I do give Bangle and his bungling designers credit for maintaining the stance and posture of the preceding designs. The fenders all flow smoothly to the wheels which give the car a sporty and athletic look. So I like the proportions of the bimmers but not much more.
I think Chevy has poor styling language. Unlike Audi, which has design cues and themes that flow from their trucks to their sedans, Chevy desperately needs design themes and vision that will immediately identify itself as a Chevy.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Now, just out of curiosity, how many of you feel as though the front and rear ends of the Pontiac Pursuit(Canadian cousin to the Cobalt) look better than those found on the Chevy Cobalt? Personally, I believe that GM could sell quite a few Pontiac Pursuits in America--because it seems as though the Cobalt is selling fairly well here. I know it's just a typical GM rebadge job, but something tells me that a lot of 'Pontiac people' would opt for the Pursuit in lieu of the Cobalt if it were available to them.
Regarding GM interiors, I think that for a compact sedan the Cobalt's interior really isn't all that bad. A co-worker purchased one a while back and I rode to lunch in it one day. To my surprise, the vehicle was amazingly quiet at 65 m.p.h. Very little cabin noise for a car in this class and price range.
Ron M.
Lemko, please understand I'm not picking on you personally, but that is a sad commentary on the apparant inability or unwillingness of GM/Ford buyers to do some simple financial analysis:
Let me help:
Mercury Grand Marquis LS:
Price of new 2006 = $31,000 +/- (under invoice for a well equiped one)
Value of a 2004 w/ 25k miles = $13,900 +/- (Edmunds)
Depreciation in two years = $17,100 (57% depreciation)
Acura TL w/ Nav:
Price of a new 2006 = $33,500 +/-
Value of 2004 w/ 25k miles = $28,000 +/-
Depreciation in two years = $5,500 +/- (17%)
BMW 330i w/ sport, premium packages
Price of new 2006 = $40,000 +/-
Value of 2004 w/ 25k miles = $30,200 +/-
Depreciation in two years = $9,800 (25%)
So, in only two years the Grand Marquis depreciates over $7,000 more than the BMW 330i and a whopping $11,600+ more than an Acura TL. I expect our Porsche 911S Cab to cost me less than your Grand Marquis over two years. The 3-4-5+ year depreciation numbers change, but the relative difference stays about the same.
Funny that you bring up furniture as the place to put your savings (what savings??). May I respectfully suggest you don't make a similar Grand Marquis mistake. Buy one Stickley piece of furniture a year. Yes, yes, I know that they cost three times as much as that "real imported veneer" dining room set at the local furniture store. But they are worth 100 times as much, given that they can be handed down to your kids and grandkids and great grandkids. (An architect friend sold an original Gustov Stickley piece to Barbara Streisand a few years ago for $120,000)
Quality has a price. But junk is more expensive in the long run.
Lemko, please understand I'm not picking on you personally, but that is a sad commentary on the apparant inability or unwillingness of GM/Ford buyers to do some simple financial analysis:
Let me help:
Mercury Grand Marquis LS:
Price of new 2006 = $31,000 +/- (under invoice for a well equiped one)
Value of a 2004 w/ 25k miles = $13,900 +/- (Edmunds)
Depreciation in two years = $17,100 (57% depreciation)
Acura TL w/ Nav:
Price of a new 2006 = $33,500 +/-
Value of 2004 w/ 25k miles = $28,000 +/-
Depreciation in two years = $5,500 +/- (17%)
BMW 330i w/ sport, premium packages
Price of new 2006 = $40,000 +/-
Value of 2004 w/ 25k miles = $30,200 +/-
Depreciation in two years = $9,800 (25%)
But for the years of ownership he is able to enjoy a full size vehicle with lots of room and a ride that the TL will never come close to. The TL, while it has great handling, has a ride totally unacceptable to most looking for a pleasurable ride. Every tar strip or crack in the road is transferred to the passengers.
I do think the TL is one of the best looking sports sedans on the road and it handles and runs great with an excellent interior but for those looking for interior room and a nice ride it does not fit the bill. That is why there are so many choices out there. We all want different things in life. The Lexus ES is a much better comparison to a Grand Marquis but still does not have the room.
Chevy's styling language is about as well distinguished as the reasons why GM has so many divisions -- lost long ago. There is no rationale or styling consistency, it is all old inertia now.
You could argue that the styling cues and themes are:
- poor assembly
- cheap interior
- exposed interior screws
- hard plastic
- that chevron that says "run away from this car as fast as you can"
So, an early 90's Chevy Cavalier has styling/design just as good as a 90's Porsche 911. A railroad bridge over the Mississippi is as elegant as the Golden Gate. A Costco store building has styling/design equal to the Parthenon or Notre Dame Cathederal. There are really no elements of good design. It is merely in the eye of the beholder.
and carry two dead bodies in the truck...sound like a good deal.
So you want something that is a good car and depreciates fast. The smart money is on the Towncar/Lincoln, actually. $14K for a two year old car with 25K on it that's still got a V8 and isn't a tin can or a stripped-down Civic DX?
I work hard for my money - as little as I get, though, after the government sucks it all out for social security(more this year, for the first time, than federal withholding!) and paying for medical insurance. Saving 10-15K is a big deal and money I can use on tons of other things I actually need. Afterall, the fate of all cars is to be used and eventually die like any appliance.
Only a fool will buy factory certified.
Factory certification is a good way for dealers to to tack on few thousand dollars worth of additional profit for an hour of mechanic's time. Sometimes selling factory certified is more profitable for dealers than selling new.
Best deal is buying from private party after proper inspection. Buying extended warranty not worthwhile unless you are buying a high maintenance make like Audi or Benz.
Rental auctions is a good way of picking up used domestics vehicles at a very resonable price.
Your financial analysis is not relevant for those of us who keep cars 8 to 12 years. Middle class folks (which you are apparently are not, owning a Porsche 911) can only get ahead financially by owning cars far longer than two years.
And a few years ago, my Dad bought a used '03 Regal LS, with 19,500 miles on it, in September of '03, for aroud $10,995. New I think it stickered for around $26k (almost as much as the Crown Vic, but this Regal didn't even have leather!), but again, I'm sure it went out the door for around $22K, plus TTL.
Domestic cars can be a great deal when you buy them slightly used. And even with all the incentives they throw at you, new ones can be a deal, too.
It all just depends on what you want. If you really want the best of both worlds, just go buy you a cheap used car, and when you want to have some excitement, take 20 bucks and go down to the go-kart track! :P Heck, I've had more fun in a go-kart than I have in a BMW. Come to think of it, I've had more fun in a '79 Newport than I have a in a BMW too, because BMW's have tiny back seats! :shades:
I've seen 05 Lacrosse equipped with leather and roof for 18K-ish as well. Cheap 05 Impalas out there too, but I'd rather not.
2006 Silverado, $12,999 (was $20,645) AT, AC. Heck, this one's actually tempting, but I'm sure there's some fine print to go along with it!
2006 Cobalt, $9999 (was $14,585)
2006 Equinox, $16,999 (was $23,169). Too bad my buddy has become infatuated with the Xterra, otherwise, this would be tempting!
2006 Monte SS, $26,999 (was $32,599). And so new that they show a picture of an '00-05!
2006 G6, $11,995 (was $19,084)
2006 LaCrosse CX, $20,826 (was $24,870)
Trust me, I come from very modest roots and I will never let whatever success I've had cause me to forget that. I have far more respect for those working hard to make a decent living than those born with a silver spoon.
I still have a 1995 Nissan Maxima SE which I bought new 11+ years ago. It looks very good (washed and waxed regularly), runs great and at 155k+ miles did not require a single repair of any kind until it hit 110k miles. And most would consider a water pump replacement at that point to be normal maintenance, not a repair. That car cost $20k new in 1994, and the only option I could afford was $1k ABS brakes (no leather, sunroof, CD player, power seats, etc.). I could have gotten a loaded GM or Ford for less money, but I seriously doubt that they would have lasted as long, with as minimal repairs and looked as good as my 11+ year old Maxima. One friend that I spar opinions with, had to eat crow when his 1996 Ford Taurus literally fell apart about 5 years ago at less than 70,000 miles.
My point was simply that trying to get the most for the least up front often - make that usually - isn't the most purdent move for the long term. And when a Marquis depreciates 55%+ in two years, it's probably a good indication that it isn't a very good long term investment. Why else would folks be so desparate to dump them as to drive the price down that low? My guess is that a Marquis looks and runs good for about a third of the time and mileage of a Maxima or Accord. Yes, there are a lot of 8-10+ year old ones on the road, but most look and sound like a loose bucket of bolts compared to my 1995 Maxima. I intend to have my daughters learn to drive on that car, which means it needs to last another 10 years.
For the most part though, the Crown Vic and Grand Marquis tend to be sturdy, durable cars. And when they do break, they're usually cheap to fix.
With a Nissan from that era, I'd be a bit leery of their automatic transmissions and their timing chains. I've known several people with 3.0 V-6es and 2.4 4-cylinders from that era that had the chain fail, and then basically end up with a rebuild because it's an interference engine. And my Mom & stepdad had a '91 Stanza that started to crap its tranny around the 90,000 mile mark. Their '99 Altima wasn't as "constipated" though, as it was able to crap its tranny out completely at 35,000 miles, with little strain! :surprise: In its defense though, tranny #2 has been fine, and I think that car now has around 190,000 miles on it, of mostly highway driving. I think the only other problem they ever had was the battery failing prematurely. It ended up leaving them stranded, twice...just cut out completely while running. I guess the good old days, where you could actually pull the battery out of a car and it would still run are over with.
So the odd individual(less than 20% of the sales) who owns it as a car instead of a business expense eats huge gastly depreciation.
But that's good for normal people - you get a $25K car for $10K 3-4 years old, and again, IF you want warranty, get a certified model. If not, no biggie - where else are you going to get a car with a V8, RWD, leather, and all the goodies only a couple of years old for that little money?
Your arguments may make sense comparing a domestic front wheel drive sedan to a Maxima or Accord. But the Crown Victoria and Grand Marquis have legendary durability. The main reason their resale value is low that their sales are low now, thanks to styling that has not been substantially updated since 1992 and a platform dating back to the 1979 model year.
I see no difference between Certified Car Labeled cars and other for sale. Best deal is from a private buy. If the dealer tags on his normal mark-up over the private buy plus the so-called certified car with a warranty to the car, it may be adding $3k to $4K or more to that car. Take the difference and buy some HMC stock and if nothing happens for a few years, you got yourself a bargain plus!
The Vics are very unique, as last of body on frame cars. They just don't build them like that anymore. Once GM gets back into the RWD cars, and Ford looks to modernize the Vic, I suppose it is gone; that old body on frame car.
Depreciation rates often have nothing to do with long-term reliability. VWs hold their value relatively well; I don't think anyone would argue that they are reliable or likely to last a long time.
The only person likely to view VWs as a "good long-term investment" is the owner of an independent repair shop who can count on a steady stream of hapless VW owners who have given up on the local VW dealer (who are notorious for providing subpar service).
If anything, the Ford Crown Victoria/Mercury Grand Marquis are two cars that I would recommend to someone who wants a car that is likely to be reliable, long-lasting and inexpensive to repair when things do break (which, from what I've seen, isn't all that often).
What drives down Crown Victoria and Grand Marquis resale values is the large number that are sold to fleet customers. The Crown Victoria is popular with police departments and taxi cab companies, which is a pretty good indication of its basic sturdiness.
Compared to what? From my recollection, in percentage terms VW depreciates more rapidly than the better Japanese brands (Toyota, Honda, Lexus, Acura, Nissan) and several European brands (BMW, Porsche, some Mercedes & Volvo models).
"What drives down Crown Victoria and Grand Marquis resale values is the large number that are sold to fleet customers."
Again, not sure about the relevancy here. It's been several years since I was a 150,000 miles per year frequent flier, but Hertz ususaly had a Toyota Camry waiting for me and it's resale is among the best in the industry.
What I will concede is that if someone is convinced the Marquis is the right car for them and commits to driving one 8-10+ years, depreciation matters considerably less. After 10+ years and 150k miles, even the most reliable Accord is only worth 20% +/- of it's original cost.
That said, my hard working middle class parents got killed by GM, Chrysler and Ford unreliability in the 1960's-1990's. I never saw a car turn 100k miles until my own $4,000 1978 Datsun B210 GX made it in about 1986. I think that has burned a bad impression on me that will likely never be overcome.
P.S. As an entry in the "quality is worth it" category, I submit one of my business partners' 1983 Mercedes 300D. I saw him over the weekend and his daughter drove up in the car which had been handed down to her through two siblings. At 23 years old and 360,000 miles the car looks amazingly good. Goes from 0-60 in about a half hour, but still gets 32+ mpg on the highway. His wife threatened to divorce him when he bought it for $30k, but he promised to keep it "forever". They are still happily married.
Oh so true. The Honda legend has slipped also. And the GM products have improved from their 80's past, to wit the JD Powers data on Buick, etc.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Also, Mercedes parts are finding their way into Chrysler vehicles, not the other way around, so what's probably going to happen is that you're going to end up with the resale of a domestic and the repair bills of a European...NOT a good combination.
Interestingly, the Chrysler 300 had transmission problems when it was first introduced but, get this...it was the 5-speed Benz unit that was giving them fits, not the more notorious 4-speed Mopar unit that earned its bad rap back in the 90's.
I think one reason Benz quality has slipped is simple...competition has forced cost cutting to keep prices and profits reasonable, but at the same time the cars are just getting much more complicated...and a Benz is going to be more complex than your typical domestic.
A $30,000 Benz in 1983 probably comes out to around $57-60,000 today. And IIRC a 300D was a pretty run-of-the-mill Benz, nothing really extravagant. I'm sure they were much more over-built back in those days, when they had that market to themselves.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
During 2005, this car was called the Acura EL. The name has been changed to CSX for the 2006 model year.
I would guess that Acura needed a lower-cost car in its Canadian lineup because cars in Canada are less affordable. Not only do cars cost more relative to earnings in Canada versus the US, but the sales taxes (GST and PST) are much higher than you'd find in most of the US, often being about 15%. American consumers are definitely better off than are their Canadian counterparts when it comes to car shopping.
Of course, those were base prices, and a lot of stuff we take for granted these days was still optional back then, even on a Caddy! BTW, what would the base price of a 300D have been? Would $30K have been a basic one or pretty well-optioned?
The Crown Vic/Towncar/etc(all the same basic platform) - also great, used. Good for about ten years before it starts getting ratty. Then again, that's 7 years of service for $10K or so, which is pretty darn cheap.
And it goes fast. 60mph? Press the pedal - 80mph. Only the scenery goes by faster to tell you you are going any faster. Good brakes, lots of space, and decent mileage.