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 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
General Motors discussions
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
How about 5%? It's been almost a full year, and you can't even get there? :confuse:
What would Lutz say if you told him last year the New Silverado couldn't add 5000 units to your volume next year. It would do the same numbers. What would he say?
The incentive argument only goes so far, because that's GMs baby to begin with, and now they can't throw the baby out.
The truck is a decent truck, but a Toyota salesman wouldn't be afraid of someone comparing the two. They actually smile!
GM's problem is they sell the deal, not the truck. The truck is an afterthought. Nobody cares, because Gm doesn't care. They didn't care 6 years ago. Nothing's changed. :confuse:
Your previous owners should produce a 10% yearly increase, period. If it was a truck they wanted. There is no excuse, and you know this. MAN! :P
DrFill
GM is flat for 5 reasons:
1. People don't go to GM to get a great vehicle, they go for the deal. The vehicle is not important. The deal is everything! So redesigning the truck is inmaterial.
2. GM got caught by Tundra's power and ad campaign. Whether you like it or not, Toyota has The Hammer. the Thunder. The truck is just better than expected.
3. Incentives are lower than last year, but not by much, so that's a weak crutch.
4. GMs dominance is far from a concensus. And it suffers in power to the normally soft Tundra. Some still say the Titan is a better truck.
5. A lot of buyers are waiting to see next year's Ram and F-150.
DrFill
Rule of thumb: If you want to buy new, buy a Japanese make, if you want to get used, get an American or some other make that depreciates bigtime- probably get a good car for a good price.
I'll confess that I've always had a liking for the Park Ave. I'd imagine that something like this probably stickered for an easy $40K new, but with incentives and such, probably left the showroom floor for much less.
My neighbor had an older one, and it had an even earlier demise of the transmission. Maybe two, not sure on that.
Nice seats, and decent gas mileage, if it was better designed, it had some potential. A new transmission came out in the 1988 models.
Can not some how believe the Buick model to have been any different. - Loren
industry standard for residuals.
https://www.alg.com/Default.aspx
I am not saying that GM does not have a residual problem but the data shows that in 2006 many GM vehicles have residuals close to the Toyota residuals per the data. Just data though. You can spin it anyway you want. And I know we will :P
Loren
How about 5%? It's been almost a full year, and you can't even get there?
What would Lutz say if you told him last year the New Silverado couldn't add 5000 units to your volume next year. It would do the same numbers. What would he say?
The incentive argument only goes so far, because that's GMs baby to begin with, and now they can't throw the baby out.
The truck is a decent truck, but a Toyota salesman wouldn't be afraid of someone comparing the two. They actually smile!
GM's problem is they sell the deal, not the truck. The truck is an afterthought. Nobody cares, because Gm doesn't care. They didn't care 6 years ago. Nothing's changed.
Your previous owners should produce a 10% yearly increase, period. If it was a truck they wanted. There is no excuse, and you know this. MAN!
The truck is a decent truck, but a Toyota salesman wouldn't be afraid of someone comparing the two. They actually smile!
If the Tundra is so easy to sell, why do they need $5000+ in incentives to move it. Like I said, GM will sell more than 800,000 GMT900's this year. Toyota will be lucky to sell 200,000 with huge incentives. The numbers tell the story.
Anyone who says toyota dealers do not sell the deal is out of touch or is simply lying in order to make a point. In my local paper Toyota dealers do NOTHING but advertise discounts and rebates. In large letters you will see "$5000 off MSRP!!!" in front of every vehicle ad, especially SUVs. trucks and the Sienna. Give me a break. Toyota doesnt care and they know that the actual features on their vehicles are average and the styling is below average. They makes sales based on their quality rep and discounts, its that simple.
Also, stop making excuses about rebates. The argument has been for years that GM needs rebates because it makes crap and it has to bribe people to buy its product. Now that Toyota is addicted to rebates you want to say its unfair to criticize them because GM used to use them. That logic is extremely twisted, even for you. If it was stupid when GM was doing it, it's still stupid today. Please explain to us how Toyota is well served by using huge rebates on its slow selling trucks and minivan.
I never said anything about outselling any models. I was countering your incorrect claim that they are not a success. When the plant is running on 3 shifts with the lowest rebates in the segment, that's a success. You just can't bring yourself to admit it because of your bias. I have no problem stating a Toyota success. The Camry is a great success. It sells great and has fairly low rebates for it's segment. That sounds an awful lot like the GMT900 pickups and the Lambda's.
So true my man. Imagine what Tundra sales would be without the discounts and $100M ad campaign. Toyota has the advantage of being up agaisnt three inferior trucks and one equal truck with lower discounts. The Ram and F150 will be new next year and it will be a whole new ballgame. Expect Tundra discounts to go through the roof when that happens.
Its bad when GM does incentives and rental sales, but OK for TOyota and others- thats what you need to remember. I rented a car this past weekend and when I took it back I was surprised at the imports on the lot. A mazda 3? A sentra? A rav4? Couldnt be, perhaps it was an illusion. I never knew RAv4's were sold to fleets but I do now. A few years back the majority of enterprise cars were domestic with GM being the largest % but things are changing.
Honda handles pricing about the best in the industry. Advertising is closely monitored.
Loren
I think I even saw Tundas on the satellite rental lots around the area. I'll go through the Airport Rental lots tomorrow to see for sure. Toyota is probably pushing them into the fleet sales at high discounts as we speak. There goes the neighborhood!!! :P
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
That's a funny statement since GM is selling more full size pickups than anyone else with the lowest incentives. Your OPIONION is counter to actual stats.
2. GM got caught by Tundra's power and ad campaign. Whether you like it or not, Toyota has The Hammer. the Thunder. The truck is just better than expected.
Sorry buddy, but the 'hammer' in the full size world are heavy duty diesels, something Toyota can only dream about at this point. You must be a new follower to the full size market. GM, Ford and Chrysler have been leapfrogging eachother on power for years. The most powerfull Gas and Diesel pickups today are available at GM dealerships. Again your OPINION is wrong.
3. Incentives are lower than last year, but not by much, so that's a weak crutch.
Are you kidding? GM's incentives were alot higher last year than this year on the trucks. Plus the average incentives in the full size market is higher this year while GM's incentives are down. Again, your OPINION is wrong.
4. GMs dominance is far from a concensus. And it suffers in power to the normally soft Tundra. Some still say the Titan is a better truck.
I never said GM's dominance is concensus. The market seems to think that though. The Titan is a complete failure in this segment, but it must be better if 'some' say it is.
5. A lot of buyers are waiting to see next year's Ram and F-150.
They sure are. Finally, you got something right
That's like the pot calling a pot a pot!
My point is this my truck is better than your truck nonsense. $3500 is plenty on a new truck. And if you can't increase sales with that, look in the mirror. You might find the source of the problem.
Better than looking next door.
Do you really think someone WANTS to buy a full-size truck from Toyota? Who're you kiddin'?
Tundra is pretty strong, but Toyota still may need to buy their way in. They're coming from Planet Zero.
What's GM's excuse again? I mean besides the fact they give away all of their vehicles anyway.....
You guys act like there are no incentives on the Chevy. Yu can get any of these trucks for invoice! And any buyer worth his salt knows that.
The only question is which one? A lot of GM owners are sayin' no. That's a problem. :sick:
DrFill
http://www.pickuptruck.com/html/news/iihs/07tundra.html
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=70
Sumpin' about being the best.....
DrFill
This consensus that the Chevy is the best truck apparently hasn't made it past this forum.
This website can't wait to disagree"
You are aware that Toyota overpriced the truck and then piled on incentives. If the Tundra is the most expensive truck out there AND Toyota has little to no fleet business it would only make sense that Tundras would have higher transaction prices. This isnt rocket science, believe it or not. You find all types of stats to prove the Tundra's superiority but 200k isnt more than 800k any way you slice the stats. You can talk about GM being caught off guard (lie) or the "market" not receiving the Silverado well (lie) or whatever else, but at the end of the day the truth is Toyota didnt anticipate the excellence of the GM trucks and now they are discounting their Billion Dollar Baby. I guarantee you that was NOT the plan early this year. Toyota never comes to market with a product intending to discount by $5k in the first 6 month. The last gen Tundra didnt get those kind of rebates until the end of it's lifespan.
wrong again. I would also like some clarification as to how you have determined that the GM trucks "arent getting the job done". What are your criteria for failure? I dont think 60k units a month is a failure, but that's just me. You are making a big deal about the Tundras sales increases, but dont mention that the old truck wasnt competitive AND Toyota has far more capacity for the new truck thanks to a $1.2B plant in Texas that didnt exist until this year. Think those facts, plus a huge ad campaign have anything to do with the sales increase as opposed to your assertion that the Silverado is crap?
Loren
Tundra is pretty strong, but Toyota still may need to buy their way in. They're coming from Planet Zero.
This is their third try at the full size segment. The fact they are coming from planet zero says more about there previous efforts than anything else. The T100 was a joke and the first gen Tundra was marginal at best.
Playtime's over! See you in the rearview.
DrFill
Yeah, his name is Hertz.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
"What's GM's excuse again? I mean besides the fact they give away all of their vehicles anyway....."
stop lying, GM's incentives are down in general. why are Toyota's incentives up if they have all the answers and all the hot product?
"Do you really think someone WANTS to buy a full-size truck from Toyota? Who're you kiddin'?"
Yes, there are tons of Toyota die hards out there who are trading in Tundras and Tacomas for the new truck. Add in a small number of Detroit defectors and you have huge sales increases over the previous trucks sad numbers. If GM only sold 12k units a month last year imagine how great their 2007 sales numbers would look. There are lots of people who want a Toyota truck with $5k in rebates. Even I would take a look with all those incentives.
I noticed months ago that the remote large Toyota dealer had one of each of the other brands of pickups in the front row of the used lot to make it look like Chevy, Dodge, and Ford owners were trading in. I figured he got them at the Middletown auction.
The dealership has a new ownership (supposedly) and I'll have to go buy lottery tickets (it's in Indiana where I can buy Powerball tickets) and see if the dealer is still doing that.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Loren
Tundra was the ONLY ONE NOT offering 0%:
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2007/03/29/041661.html
Looks like Toyota was just trying to keep up with The General.
DrFill
Any company with 50 years of US experience, a great rep and $13B in profits SHOULD be making a great pickup so I dont see why such a big deal is being made about the Tundra- I mean we have been wating 5 decades for this. One of the main reasons Toyota's sales are so high in the US now is that they finally started making competitive and large SUVs and trucks in the last decade or so. Sure TOyota cars are doing well (at least Corolla and Camry and Pruis) but that has been the case for a long time. The real story is their constantly expanding truck and SUV lineup. A decade ago there was no RX, highlander, GX470, FJ, Sequoia, Tundra (there was the crap T100), Sienna, etc. Between trucks, hybrids and increased use of discounts its no wonder Toyota is setting sales records.
why would that be necessary with a completely superior truck? Makes no sense.
they have been at this for decades. Sure this is only the 3rd gen full size truck but Toyota has been selling pickups here since the 70s or 80s and has been in this market for 50 years. When people say GM's turnaround cant happen overnight people like you dont want to hear such talk and say excuses are being made. People say "Gm has had long enough to get everything right". Could be true, but same could be said for Toyota and pickups.
GM's incentives are down? That's like saying Lindsay Lohan only had 5 Yeagershots!
From $3300 to $3k. Wow! Can you hear the applause?
Toyota incentives are all the way up to $1600. And half the lineup has none. :shades:
Yeah. Prius. FJ. Rav4. HL. Avalon. Yaris.........
Yes, there are tons of Toyota die hards out there who are trading in Tundras and Tacomas for the new truck.
With the shabby resale of domestics, it's hard to get out of one, even with that much money on the hood. Don't forget that. Domestics resale stink. I wonder why? Ask GM, again. There are many people Toyota just has to turn away. Whether you want to admit that or not.......
DrFill
Now as for Toyota getting it right with pickup trucks, I would say for the targeted markets, they are spot on. First the small little trucks for the average Joe to haul stuff, or a delivery service in town to use. They were and are popular. The Tacoma seems to be much better than the Colorado. Take a look at the reliability figures some day, the sales figures, then talk a bit to owners. The T100 of course is not a heavy duty truck, but is reliable and gets its appointed jobs done. The Tundra new and old seems to be well liked by owners. If the GM, Ford and Dodge pickups are head and shoulders above the Tundra and Titan, what's your concern? Actually, isn't it the domestic market which is well on top and has to lose position. Best to make a product each and every year just so good in comparison to those foreign makes that no one would consider a move over to that other brand. There is usually a reason to move to that other brand.
I don't think Toyota is going to shoot first for the price market, but rather approach the tougher image and durability side this time. They started with the New Tundra this way, and it seems to be working. The Dodge of a few years ago certainly had the image look down correctly, and Ford has been a price leader. Of course Ford has the tough thing going on too in ads. So what truck is really tougher? How do you judge this over say five years time of ownership? Perhaps if you tow and carry a lot and still have the same tranny, that's a good thing. Dodge seems to push looks, and power -- that Bad Boy image a lot.
Personally, I am not sure if Toyota should be in this race. Seems like a lot of marketing money, costs, one crowded market, and possibly a distraction from the car lines. They had better reliability numbers when they had less cars, and simple cars, and just a couple simple trucks. But they have a plan. This is a World of trucks market place, so I guess their quest to top here is just but one step along the way. You know the Crown did not dethrone the Cutlass Supreme in but a months time, but the rest is history. It was GM's place to lose when a Toyota was seen as but a toy in the earliest years here in the States.
I do hope GM can keep up with the competition in trucks, while building a new line up of cars, and all the other balancing acts which must be performed at the same time. It ain't so easy a thing to do.
Looks like emerging markets will generate profits for GM. China looks promising. Here in the States, it may be wait and see time as the Aussie cars sail in, and if the New Malibu takes off. Throw in the economy as an unknown, and we got an uncertain future.
Loren
Loren
I mean it was a joke compared to the real full sizers at the time. The T100 was really a mid size pickup being peddled as a full sizer.
Tundra was the ONLY ONE NOT offering 0%:
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2007/03/29/041661.html
Looks like Toyota was just trying to keep up with The General.
GM was not offering 0% on the GMT900's in April. Where did you get this information. They were offering 0% on GMT800 pickups (i.e. old style). Are you just making up stuff now? Why can't you just come to accept that GM has lower rebate than Toyota and much higher sales?
I got the information from the link! :confuse:
DrFill
The thing is, though, that the Lucerne works best with fewer gears. The engine is identical to the one in the Cadillacs. The only thing that was changed was the engine computer mapping(ie - chip) and the gearing ratios.
So the Cadillac has less low-end power and more upper-end, while the Buick is the opposite. But we're talking about veryu minor differences. GM did the same with the LaCrosse CXS as well. It has the CTS 3.6 engine in it. They traded about 10-15% HP for 25-30% more low-end torque. Hardly any surprize that the LaCrosse actually runs better than the CTS around town.
But getting back to the transmissions. The GM 4 speed is fine since the Northstar has enough torque to compensate. The 3800, OTOH, really needs tighter gearing and a 5 speed.
The general rule of thumb is 4 cylinder=6 gears, 6=5, and 8=4 for about the same results. That's the big advantage of torque here. And, yes, it's an old stodgy design, but it costs HALF what the Toyota, Honda, BMW, Mercedes or Audi transmisions cost to fix. The Hyundai has a lot of gears but when it does break out of warranty, enjoy the $4000 bill. I'll be paying $1600 at most.
Old is good because it's reliable and cheap to fix.
So what is your take on the Northstar engine? Is it as good as billed? More reliable than say the old 350 engines. It is lighter no doubt, and made for FWD. After what year is there no oil seal problems?
We may not agree on everything, but I must say sometimes simple yet effective is a good thing. I had a little Miata for a few years, and while it was no high tech engine or fancy tiptronic transmission car, that simple paid big dividends. The engine is bullet proof and half as costly as those German cars, and the transmission was so fun to shift with the 5 sp, yet all so basic. The car had roll up windows, but heck they worked just fine. Kinda miss it some times, so I may get a second generation some day for play again. And likewise, I thought of getting a Camaro, with the 350 V8 Z28 or even the 3.8V6 with a stick. Simple, solid axle car, with simple drive train. But it does what it is suppose to do. Won't out corner the Miata, but it is quick, looks all so sharp, and once again is simple so upkeep, if keeping for years, would be cheap. Did you know the cost of a New Stang for repairs is higher than previous generations? And the Corvette keeps rising. Sir, you made a good point in the cost to own from a parts and labor standpoint goes in favor of the old. Now, if cost is not the object, the added benefits of new technology have something to say for themselves as well. And then there are safety advances. My new car has stability control and that new advanced stuff which is all pretty amazing.... hopefully not too costly down the road. It does handle well and goes like the wind.
Loren
Old is good because it's reliable and cheap to fix.
GM and cheap seem to work well in a sentence. Not an accident, I presume?
They did get Ford to foot the bill on something new, so they may have a future on note brokerage.
DrFill
I just posted that Honda incentives are up 40% so the whole industry is having pricing problems in this soon to be called recession. One problem with finding out what the incentives are is that Honda does the lease support programs and hard for a layman to see the amount. But they, like everyone else, is having a problem selling trucks. It is also end of the model year so look for clearance sales from everyone. (Please, I am only commenting with data, hate to be shown as biased.)
2007 models
Acura RL $3,500
TL $1,500
Honda Pilot, Ridgeline $3,500
S2000 $2,000
Element $1,000
Are you kidding? GM's incentives were alot higher last year than this year on the trucks. Plus the average incentives in the full size market is higher this year while GM's incentives are down. Again, your OPINION is wrong.
Here is the data from the apologist (I guess me):
Today 2007
2007 Silverado....$1500
2007 Tundra.......$3500
August 2006
2007 Silverado....$2000
2007 Tundra.......$none
2006 Silveraco....$4500
2006 Tundra.......$4000
So the data shows that the current Tundra has a much higher incentive level than the current (and both about the same age) Silverado. However a year ago both past models, but current model years, Silverados had more incentives than today but Tundras had lower (none).
Both had about the same end of model year clearance incentives.
And in actuality Toyota is almost the highest in the industry(even the ones with the old models) with incentives. Dodge is at $5000 and Ford, $2000 and Nissan $2500. Only Dodge with the going out of business sales is higher.
Now this is all going to change. End of year means that GM and everyone will probably start having huge sales. Everyone has way to many days supplies of trucks. Even Honda has 127 days suppply of Ridgelines and they keep the days supply closer to 30.
toyota has admitted they made a mistake with their Tundra model mix. They assumed that the lower priced work models would sell much higher volumes. What they found is that the top of the lines were in demand while the work trucks languished on the lots.
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/04/16/toyota-getting-educated-changing-tundras-mode- - l-mix/
This sounds like a great problem for Toyota and probably is a good thing. They are selling the topline pretty trucks which really raises their Average Transaction Price. Now this happens with every new model. First buyers have the money and buy top end models. After the bloom is off the lower priced models penetrate higher.
BUT, and I have no data so these are my thoughts, the Tundras being sold now are probably being bought by non work folks. The contractors and electricians tend to buy the lower priced trucks because they actually have to make a living with them. So perhaps Toyota will not get heavily into that market and since gas is so high and truck volumes are trending down they will have to continue to discount heavily to get into the real meat of the large work truck market. If they want to sell the volume to keep 1 1/2 plants open they will need to crack the work truck market. I have no doubt they can do it but it will not be a cake walk.
Tundra was the ONLY ONE NOT offering 0%:
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2007/03/29/041661.html
Looks like Toyota was just trying to keep up with The General.
I completely miss your point. Even your data shows that GM had lower incentives. Silverado had $1529 while Tundra had $1647 (true cost of incentives)
Tundra had low incentives on the new pick up. That is exactly what I would have expected Toyota to do in the past. The new GM Silverado had a whopping $1000 (plus some financing). That is what I expect GM to do. A little incentive to entice the buyer. That is what GM does and what everyone agrees is the wrong thing to do on a new truck. Fine, the old ways were bad.
The article you gave said that Tundra could not compete so they were going to put incentives on the hood. Dodge had $5000 and Ford had $3000. That is exactly what is being said here. Toyota could not compete with Ford and Chrylser incentives. Today we see exactly that. Toyota with Ford and Chrysler incentive levels. GM way down.
Maybe we have a failure to communicate!
And to be fair(from April Auto News incentives):
Tundra* – 3.9-5.9%
*$1,000 trade-in allowance also available
Toyota was offering cut rate financing (but not 0) with a rebate.
Must of missed the memo. 11 out of 17 have incentives
2007 models
Toyota Tundra $0-$3,500 0%
Highlander Hybrid $0-$2,000 0-3.9%
Sequoia $0-$2,000 1.9-3.9%
Highlander (excl. Hybrid) $0-$2,500 0-3.9%
4Runner $0-$2,000 0-3.9%
Sienna $0-$2,000 0-3.9%
Tacoma $0-$1,000 3.9-5.9%
Corolla $0-$1,000 0-5.9%
Matrix $0-$1,000 0-5.9%
Camry Solara $0-$1,000 2.9-5.9%
Camry (excl. Hybrid) $0-$500 3.9%
"We want to be competitive in the marketplace and there has been increasingly heavy spending by our competitors," said John McDonald, GM spokesman.
Sales of full-size pickups, which rely on buyers in industries like construction, have been hurt by weak housing starts and higher gas prices. U.S. sales of full-size pickups have slipped 2.4 percent so far this year.
And most likely the reason why GM sticks with things like the 3800 and the 4 speed. Reliable yes, inspiring no. Without new and improved designs we would all still be driving 140 HP V8's getting 12 MPG. I'll take my chances on a modern V6 coupled to a 5 or 6 speed to make use of the power.
2025 Ram 1500 Laramie 4x4 / 2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic
Good thing GM also offers what you want.