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
Comments
Wow. Is there anything left to say?
It seems that you missed my point. I'll repeat myself. I do support somebody having a very negative opinion of a brand, even after a decade or two, if the cost was high and the product or service was disastrous. I don't understand why that's so tough to take.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
I don't consider 60K much time. Give it to 120 and report back.
Plus, you read here and elsewhere, and one would think one couldn't get 36K miles out of a Mopar.
I've gotten my $6,930 purchase price's value already.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2013/01/03/us/ap-us-subaru-recall.html?hp&_r=1&
Seems, unscientifically, that Subaru doesn't typically have many recalls, although this is a big one in number of vehicles.
My wife's car is probably included. She's due for an oil change so we'll have it done at the same time.
Source said no fires, but some complaints of smoke.
I do blame him for cars shared among all GM divisions, very little differentiation, reduced horsepower (although that was happening everywhere, not just GM), etc.
Prior to him, I think the last great new products were the '77 B- and C- bodies. I think that overall, they really did their homework on those. I'd still enjoy one.
There are no '94 Neons, so yes, it was '95.
But there's more to it then that.
If not for the first asinine bailout I wouldn't have suffered through Chrysler's Exec's treachery, and let's call it what it is, treason. For running our manufacturing base into the ground requiring "too big to fail" bailouts should be called treason. And they have done it not once, but twice.
I wish I could have told enough people to avoid Chrysler at all costs so that they would have gone bankrupt prior to the financial crisis, so that they didn't get lumped into TARP money.
If not for the first bailout, and the precedent that set, perhaps the bailout of GM and Chrysler #2 wouldn't have been passed.
Of course, they used to be partially owned by GM. Back when GM had the certifiably genius (or certifiable, anyway) idea of a Subaru-built Saab.
Wow. Is there anything left to say?
You honestly don't find a companies executives going to the government for a massive bailout twice in your own lifetime distasteful in any way?
The fact they had the gall to ask for a bailout not once, but twice, irks me quite a bit. If they were Japanese they'd of done the honorable thing, and committed suicide for the shame of it; sparing us billions in bailouts.
The difference being of course, that the market agrees with me, hence, the two bailouts done against the majority of voters' wishes.
Meanwhile, weddings are a lucrative business, in part because many people eventually remarry, despite those bitter divorces.
Yeah, but divorce still costs more than marriage. Wanna know why? Because it's WORTH IT!! :P
orservice was disastrous.Disastrous, GREAT adjective, and tremendously appropriate and accurate.
However, in my case, you can change that "or" between product and service to "AND."
The first time was not a bailout - it was loan guarantees.
The second time was in desperation on the parts of both Chrysler and the government. There was no way that Chrysler - nor GM - was going to get any funding in the financial marketplace and the government was concerned about the affects that a Chapter 7 bankruptcy would have on the economy.
I'd imagine the rental grade golf would compare favorably, as it would still be a solid feeling vehicle. Interior quality may be equal now that VW has cost cut in that department.
I think VW has a 5 year 60K power train warranty though. Don't know what Mazda's is.
As to different price classes with Audi, yes, that's true, about $10K apart for the A3.
Although you'd think the 40-50 extra horses, 60-70 extra lb/ft of torque, all the while getting better fuel mileage (prior to the new Mazda engines), much nicer interior, better warranty (at Audi for bumper to bumper), free loaners during service, and such might be enough to compensate for the price difference.
That's a semantical argument, I personally consider loan guarantees to be a bailout, as you haven't pointed out what part of the US Constitution says the federal government is in the loan guaranteeing business yet to me.
You might point to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, but those examples led to two more massive bailouts as well.
The big question is, would Chrysler have survived without the bailouts...er... excuse me, loan guarantees/government intervention?
There was no way that Chrysler - nor GM - was going to get any funding in the financial marketplace
That's not true... I'd of loaned GM my personal savings if they agreed to say... 15% interest rates and a guarantee of collateral with priority processing in the event of bankruptcy, and oh yeah, a personal guarantee tying Wagoner's assets and home to pay for the loan in the event of a GM default.
GM just wasn't willing to borrow at "market" rates. Nor where they willing to sell assets at "market" prices in order to gain cash. That lack of willingness to do anything led to the bailouts.
and the government was concerned about the affects that a Chapter 7 bankruptcy would have on the economy.
People have been saying (not just me) that GM was headed for bankruptcy for years and years and years prior to 2008, why did the gov't not intervene sooner and be proactive rather than reactive?
If Amazon and Apple said they could increase profits by 500% if we doubled their capital by "bailing them out" that might be something worth looking at doing.
Someone on these forums did well putting GM stock money into Amazon a while back.
But the government is bailing out our worst run companies, our most poorly managed enterprises.
The only argument for that is they "need it," whereas Apple and Amazon need no help employing workers and managers.
Good month.
Nor do I, but I do take issue with those that continuously bark out quotes and mantra about "free markets" and laissez-faire, while at the same time supporting government supplements, subsidization and direct cash payments to companies because "other countries do it".
Yes, they do, but these so-called "free marketers" need to just decide which side of the argument one wishes to back.
Yearly farm subsidies alone are about we "lost" by bailing out GM.
"General Motors shares are up 2.3 percent to $29.80 and new 52-week highs after the company reported a 5 percent increase in December sales" (dailymarkets.com)
What a great lesson for all our future American MBA's. Learn to drive a company into the ground every 30 years, and your great! Just be good enough to keep it going for 30 years after a massive bailout, and you're gravy! Give yourself 100X the pay you deserve, fat massive bonuses right up until the doors close in year 30.
Oh, and when it's about to all end, lobby for a massive bailout, make sure you lobby for plenty, you need it to be big enough to sustain you for another 30 years, and repeat!
Grade: A! Go USA!
The big question is, would Chrysler have survived without the bailouts...er... excuse me, loan guarantees/government intervention?
Probably not. Yes, the capitalist in me says they should have failed but the pragmatist in me knows that allowing GM and C (as well as Goldman, AIG, BOA, et al) fail would have put the economy into a depression far worse than any ever seen.
That's not true... I'd of loaned GM my personal savings if they agreed to say...
Hmm - maybe GM should have considered microloans...
People have been saying (not just me) that GM was headed for bankruptcy for years and years and years prior to 2008, why did the gov't not intervene sooner and be proactive rather than reactive?
If that were the case, why didn't GM file for bankruptcy sooner? I don't know the answer. The government acted in 2008 because at that point there was no other choice. It was the old saw: you owe the bank $1000, the bank owns you. You own the bank $1 million, you own the bank.
What you fail to grasp is that the free market, capitalist market we have really is not the case. Business, society and government are deeply intertwined.
That was me. I just looked at my records to refresh my memory. I had bought some GM stock on 11/18/10, at $35.46 per share, figuring I'd take a chance.
As of 12/31/10, it was actually up modestly, to $36.86 per share. But then, I started getting a bad vibe, and ended up selling on 4/4/11, at $32.38 per share, which represented a 5% loss.
I used that money to buy Amazon.com, also on 4/4/11, for $183.46 per share. As I recall, it actually went to $230-240 that year, but towards the end of 2011 was back down, and closed out the year at $173.10/share.
But as of a couple minutes ago, it was going for about $258/share, so that's roughly a 40% increase I've seen, over the course of 21 months.
In somewhat of a defense of GM, they're back up to almost $30 per share. And, they had a 52 week low of $18.72 per share.
So, if someone had the foresight to buy GM at that low price, they'd be sitting on a 60% ROI right now, over the course of less than a year.
Ding ding ding - that would be me. Actually I dollar cost averaged at a slightly higher price. My ROI right now is only 25% in the past 4 months.
I'll concede the depression would have been deeper and perhaps sharper if you will concede the recovery and boom would have been much faster, quicker, and steeper an uphill climb than what has currently happened.
Imagine how homes that are $400,000 today selling for $100,000 would have spurred an economic boom! I know I'd be a buyer! as would many others.
I think right now we'd be in a HUGE economic boom period had it not been for all the bailouts.
As it stands, home prices are still too high and my current home too cheap to make me a buyer. Deflation would have been awesome in my opinion. Granted, the mismanaged banks would have had an awful time.
As to micro loans, Hahahah... how do you know I'm not secretly Donald Trump or Bill Gates or Warren Buffet? Anyway, I heard that micro loan business websites are on the up-tick?
I ended my taste for the banking/financial industry as a teenager, when my friends would often make it very difficult to get paid back from a small loan or borrowed money. I pretty much figured out I hated loaning money as it was too much of a hassle to get paid back, and keep track, and furthermore, a lot of humans are just deadbeats.
Now if a friend or family member asks me for a loan, I just tell them I'm not in the banking business as a way to say No nicely.
I'm just flabbergasted!
I'll concede the recovery would have a steeper uphill climb but IMHO it wouldn't happen faster or quicker.
Imagine how homes that are $400,000 today selling for $100,000 would have spurred an economic boom! I know I'd be a buyer! as would many others.
And you would be buying that home with what? Nobody would have the money to do so and the banks wouldn't have any money to lend. And what about the folks that owe more than $100K on those homes? The banks that would be stuck with all of them when people walked away from them. That situation would only have created a deeper financial depression IMHO. Further, real estate taxes are the number one source of funding for every town, city and county in the country. Tax rates would have to go up or services cut dramatically.
Andres - ask Japan what they think of it. There's a fly in the ointment because we are not a closed loop economy. Our economy is global. Deflation affects the dollar. Wage drops over time exceed pricing changes.
Tax rates would have to go up or services cut dramatically.
Important point. Much of what is going on is a big shell game. If the Federal gov cuts, it gets shoved onto the states who then shove it down to the cities and municipalities. Just a question of which taxes and fees get jacked up to pay the costs.
Personally, I think the Fed is getting too involved in the economy. They don't have a good long term track record whether it was Volcker or Greenspan. Bernanke should pay heed. Artificially induced economics usually always have an ugly backside.
It may not seem like it now, but back then, they seemed so lean to me...like there wasn't a bit of fat on them. I think consciously or subconsciously, that's one reason I've liked Larks and Hawks too.
Those '77's just excelled (IMHO) in ride, drive, handling (with the proper optional suspension), noise suppression, use of interior space, styling...all the big things to me back then. My first car was my parents' three-year-old hand-me-down bright red '77 Impala coupe. When I traded it in on an '81 Monte Carlo, my buddy bought it and put big wheels and tires on it and drove it for several years and many miles 'til the frame rusted out on it.
I think even today, they still have a lean look about them. Cars today are actually pretty fat, when you consider the ratio of width to length. And the larger passenger cabins, coupled with stubbier trunks and hoods, and taller designs in general, just makes most modern cars look awkward in comparison...IMO at least.
I thought GM's B/C bodies had nice proportions for the most part, other than a few minor details, like those optional opera windows on the Catalina and Bonneville coupes. When the downsized Panthers came out for '79, I didn't like them as much. They just seemed stubbier, and less graceful.
And compared to what was being made just a couple years before, a giant leap forward.
Those are plastic wheelcovers that are 'scooped out' for depth. I actually liked those better than the wire wheelcovers they used on the Landau models.
I'm with andre on the smaller 'landau' windows on the Pontiac cars....I was never a fan of the 'Landau' look on any car if it reduced the size of the quarter window. I just hated the "Cabriolet" tops on Novas of that general period.
I'm not a big landau-cabrio look fan either.
Knowingly or not, you just described the Great Depression of the 1930's...
Get a local property plat map of your local county dated around 1935 and see who the property owners were back then. I have one, and the vast majority of land (mostly agricultural back then) was owned by insurance companies. Metropolitan Life was a biggie in the area.
Ken Burns recently did a PBS show on the Dust Bowl, which was heavily entwined with the depression. Well worth viewing...
I'm sure they saved a heck of a lot more than 2 bucks. Those 90 degree returns add cost.
Malibu had another ho hum month. 11,630 sold vs 19k for the Fusion. Camry sold 31k, Accord 29k, Sonata 20k, and Altima 24k. The Malibu has to be a huge disappointment for not placing in the top 20. The Passat even outsold the Malibu with 14k units, doubling last December.
Buick only sold 1,500 Regals, I wonder how much longer until it's discontinued. Sales are running 1/2 of what they were last year. Verano is selling in decent numbers with 4k sold.
Focus outsold the Cruze by about 400 units and the Civic was the best selling car for the month at 33k.
Here's WSJ auto data.
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html#autosalesC
Ford may not been up as much as GM overall, but Ford cars were up 22% vs 14.2% for GM. Ford trucks were down 5%.
Report back, on a MOPAR board, if and when this vehicle gets beyond 200K miles.
Yes, the banks would have been creamed by walk aways. The people with cash would have cleaned up good homes for cheap!
Then you could rent them out for cheap since the mortgage is so cheap.
Yes, property tax revenue would plummet, but even the gov't could buy land and buildings on the cheap.
The banks would have been the one's left holding the bag.
I wouldn't own any car that long, but that's just me.
If I have to pay twice as much for a car to go twice as long, or routine maintenance is far more expensive, is that really a smart way to spend money?
Remember that Nissan complaints to NHTSA for 2005 and later models actually even exceed Chrysler's (but not that much).
Plus, I have to at least somewhat like a car to buy it.