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
Any Questions for a Car Dealer?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
That said, if one was to "fall on hard times" it would be darned painful to have one's transportation repossessed. Most auto finance companies are NOT into "re doing" loans, they want to REPOSSESS ASAP...
The a home equity loan (floating HELOC or fixed conventional {which is really just a fancy name for a second mortgage...}) offers MOST people more flexibility. {And yes, I am comfortable with a floating HELOC, because I currently believe there is more DEFLATIONARY pressure than inflationary pressure in the financial markets for at least the 3-5 year horizon that matters for HELOC. Further, most HELOC run at a small premium to a specific federal funds rate, at we are not going to see even 4% rates on that for a long time...
For instance, suppose you do fall on hard times and want to get rid of that new car and get a nice cheap used car. No problem, you hold the title to the car "FREE 'N KLE-UH", you can walk onto any used car lot and 'trade down', maybe even putting enough money into your pocket to close out the home equity loan (assuming that you have not gotten yourself upside down...) Conventional auto loans can't offer that kind of flexibility.
Of course the dealership would go broke if everyone followed my thinking oh this.. haha
Thats not a bad deal 48K to get 56K for ten years.
But seriously, I know what you mean
TB
But that seems outdated these days. With the substantial increase in car prices (partly due to required safety equipment) and the increased durability of cars, 60 months seems reasonable now. Of course, less is better if you can handle it.
I understand what you say about a 3-year term is best for keeping up with the depreciation. I never thought of that, but it makes sense.
Now if people would just get rid of the idea that they have to keep up with the Joneses, maybe they'd find that they have a lot of reliable vehicle left after 3, 4, or 5 years, and don't need a new one.
Then again, car sales are good for the economy, especially in times like these.
To each their own. Me, as much as I love cars, I'm hoping not to be in the market for one for another 8 years or so. Of course, I've thought similar things before, but gave in to a Jones of my own.
Here in NJ, car dealers routinely advertise cars at ridiculously low prices, and when u read the fine print, find out the price includes "dealer rebates" such as "recent college grad", "realtor", "customer loyalty", etc., etc.,
Further reading of the fine print says you must have been a college grad within 6 months and for the customer loyalty rebate have purchased from them within the last 3 months.
At this point, what exactly have you, as a dealer acomplished?
1) You've ticked me off because, to my thinking, that is a fictitious price, and I now have to add numbers back in to get a real price for the car. I mean, just how many people are recent college grads, qualify for the customer loyalty rebate, are in real estate, or military... well need I say anymore?
2) I have eye strain from reading all the fine print.
Is it worth placing those ads when some people will never visit those dealerships, and others will leave disgusted when the real price is revealed?
My favorite so far has been the Chrysler dealer who advertised a Jeep Liberty with no AC and when all the rebates were added back in, the cost was about 600 under invoice, iirc.
At the same time, it will have fewer than 40K miles over that same period. Knowing that we can keep this van for probably 10 years at the rate of 10K miles/year makes it easier to choose a 60 month loan. Of course, we've been treating it as a 48 month loan by paying an extra 20% each payment. We now have the luxury of being several payments ahead, so if something were to happen financially, we could take three or four months off from our payments without any problems from the lender.
Of course this has a cost too. The interest rate for a 60 month loan is higher, and even if we pay it off in say 46 to 47 months we will still pay more interest than with a tradition 48 month loan.
However, for my car, I drive 25K-30K/year. I would be a moron for taking out a 60 month loan on a car like that. The car would be more than used up in most cased 48 months into the loan, or at the very least, it wouldn't be worth two nickles to most people with 120K on the clock. In that case, 36 months, I feel, is the maximum I could go on a new car loan.
I guess my rule of thumb is, you should have it paid off before you plan to get to 100K miles, and better yet, paid off before you get to 50K miles.
But, it is your money, you are spending, not mine, so you get to decide what you want to do with it.
TB
Just like the low rate financing - it has served to pull in gillions of bad credit people who think they can actually qualify for 0%, when they can't get 18% with half down.
Screamer ads pull in people I refer to as "sheep". Folks that don't understand what they're doing, don't care about the fine print and want to drive the nicest thing they can, whether it kills their budget or not.
I am sure there are people, like myself and co-workers, who will not venture into the viper's den of showrooms which engage in such advertising practices. For example, I know of no one willing to go venture anywhere some of our most notorious highway auto dealers, and some of those dealerships have been heavily fined by the state. How do you measure lost sales by people turned off by your advertising?
It may very well be that dealers make lots more money from "sheep" than anyone else, _in the short term_, but down the road they may very well be shooting themselves in the foot.
One car dealer I know has had sales staff there for over 10 years and their service department is highly regarded. He does very little advertising, and most of his recommendations are by word of mouth, which IMHO, is the most effective form of advertising.
Maybe those shepherds with the screamer ads should just get the flock out of town.
Wile E. Coyoté
The people who do their homework and put their ear to the ground for possible trouble with a dealership are the kinds of people that type of dealer doesn't care to see.
Thanks for any information anyone can give me.
: )
Mackabee
Of course, I'm an old guy (57) who remembers the terrible inflation of the 70's. We bought a Datsun for $2600 in 1972 and a Honda Accord for $10500 in 1985, a four-fold increase in just 13 years. Now, 17 years later, you can buy a nice Accord for under 20K. If prices had been increasing at the old rate, a new Accord would cost about $50K.
Someone said that new car loans are for more that 3 years partly because new cars are so high priced. Well, I don't think new cars are high priced at all.
Dad and I had a neat discussion in 1990, right before I went to Korea. He, my two brothers and I went downtown Weimar, TX (pop 2,104!) for pool shooting and a few beers. I bought the first round and the beers were cheap (in comparison to clubs in Abilene, TX, my base (Dyess AFB)) at $1.00 each. I brought 4 beers back to our pool table and my Dad, being the ever-skinflint asked "What'd that set you back?". I said "$4".
He said "A dollar a piece? I remember back in 1935 when I entered the Army, we could get a glass of beer for fifteen cents".
Totally frustrated by hearing again what I'd heard my whole life, I said "Dad, let's do some math". There was a calculator at the bar.
"Check this out, Dad" - in 1935, as an Army private, you made $21 a month. 15 cents is .00714% of your total monthly income. Now, you make $1,716 a month. That $1.00 is .00582 of your total monthly income."
"You're paying less now for a beer than you did in 1935".
A friend of mine who is a doctor, ordered the most basic '98 Ford Explorer that a person can buy. The only options it has is air, automatic, 4x4...that's all. It has vinyl seats, no dark tinted windows, no rear defroster or wiper, no power locks or windows, no nothing! He wants to sell it but who wants a car so basic?
Considering all of the extra's now on cars, I would say the prices are pretty reasonable compared to the old days.
M.
I remember an old prof telling us that back in '67 or thereabouts one of the Big Three was advertising "A dollar a pound all around" or roughly $2000 for a car.
Bobst, if prices had been increasing at the old rate, so would have interest rates and, to a degree, wages.
And Zues, it was 0.714% of his base pay and 0.0583% of yours. Or, if beer had kept pace with army base pay (I'm assuming that is what the $1716 represents), it would have cost $12.25 for that beer.
Or another way of looking at it, in 1935 he could have bought 140 beers on his base pay. In 1990, he could have bought 1,716.
Car_man
Host
Smart Shoppers / FWI Message Boards
1957 DeSoto Firdome: $3800 (auto, ps, pb, am radio)
1967 Pontiac Catalina 'vert: $4000 (auto, ps, pb, am radio, a/c, tilt wheel)
1968 Dart 270: $3300 (V-8, auto, ps, a/c, am radio)
1969 Dart GT: $3600 (225 \6, auto, ps, a/c, am radio)
1979 New Yorker 5th Ave: $12,000 (just about every option they had back then, except sunroof and the 4-bbl on the 360)
1980 Malibu: $7000 (229, ac, auto, ps, pb, am/fm radio)
1986 Monte Carlo: $13,500 (305-4bbl, a/c, base model, crank windows, power antenna, nice stereo)
In a lot of respects, you do get a lot more car for your money nowadays. For example, I once calculated that my '79 5th Avenue would cost about $29-30,000 today. Once you figure in rebates and incentives, you could probably get any Concorde or 300M for about that price, and it'll have a lot more safety features (but not necessarily comfort features) than my '79. But then in 1979, a New Yorker was also a much more prestigious car, priced about on par with a Lincoln Continental or Caddy DeVille, Nowadays those cars are well into the $40,000-50,000 range.
As for the whole car affordability thing, I wonder if they've gotten more "Affordable" because with the recession maybe people are buying more reasonable cars, instead of the most they can qualify for?
Also, the big kicker is "before taxes". Once upon a time, fewer states had a state tax, and even I can remember when they didn't take out as much for Social Security. You used to be able to write off more deductions on your taxes as well, so you kept more of your money. While car prices, as a percent of gross income, may look more affordable, I'm sure after taxes they're more out of reach than ever!
Here in NJ, we have a 6% sales tax. That means you're talking $1200 on a $20,000 car. This is a regressive tax at its worst, hurting the folks at the bottom of the economic ladder the worst.
Yet, other states are far more sinister, not calling it a sales tax, but instead saying it is a "Road Use Tax". Whether people drive or not, they all use the roads to get and from work/shopping/school and derive benefits from the roads.
I would love to see the sales tax eliminated, even if that meant paying more state income tax, but I know that won't ever happen. I hope car dealers would love to not have to charge sales tax, effectively lowering car prices.
Recently around my town I've been seeing a 2-door DeSoto Firedome (1957, I believe) in what looks to be an original yellow and black two-tone. Driven by a young guy, it is a great car - all tailfin from the door back.
http://users.nbn.net/~plh/monroney.html
The approproiate "replacement" of the sales tax on vehicles is a hike in the fuel tax. Still affects only those people who actually have a vehicle, without causing undue burden on those who don't.
kcram
Host
Smart Shopper and FWI Message Boards
They don't need more money, they need to do less. For example, why is Federal Money used in local highway projects. Should states and local governments be the only ones responsible for their roads? The Federal Government only has three jobs, National Defense, Foreign Policy and Constitutional Defense (a legal system, supreme court, etc.) All of this other stuff being done by the Feds is simply a power grab by politicians who are trying to buy your votes with money they TOOK from your pockets.
Why do taxes need to increase at all? Taxes are "indexed" to prices and incomes. If those are rising, then generally, tax revenues should also rise by a proportional amount.
If a city is growing, tax revenues will also grow, in proportion to the tax base. If a city is shrinking, then why does the government need to stay the same size?
The primary reason taxes are going up is because the government is growing ever larger. (What is the last program you ever heard was dismantled, and not merely gobbled up by some other existing bureau?)
Am I the only one growing tired of 40-50% of my hard earned dollars going into the myrad of taxes I pay. Federal Income Tax, Payroll Taxes, Sales Tax, Excise Taxes on Utilites, the Phone and Cable System, Gasoline Taxes, State Income Taxes, Capital Earnings Taxes if I ever may anything in the stock market or sell my home at a gain. Not to mention, after paying property tax, the city has the nerve to send me a bill for trash and sewer service. If you are going to tax me, then at least provide those services. Or better yet, just don't tax me, LOL.
Sheesh, I get depressed when I add it up.
And listening to the radio, people calling in wanting the government to do MORE.
Hasn't anyone ever heard of doing things for themselves.
Sadly, I think the American dream of making something of yourself is only alive in those who try every day to enter our nation. The ones who are born here seem, by and large, to expect that the government coddle them from cradle to grave.
TB
Who would rather see a dealer make a profit by doing an honest days work than another tax dollar being given to the ever increasing government machine.
PS, I feel better now.
Seriously now, I agree with you! Right on
When you reach 50 years old, you come to your senses, if you have any sense at all. You appreciate whatever good health you have. Even if you can't do some things as well as you used to, you are happy that you can still do them at all, and you get more pleasure from them than you ever did.
Yeah, taxes are high, but there is stil plenty of reasons to be thrilled to be alive.
Car_man
Host
Smart Shoppers / FWI Message Boards
a) How much better a car I can drive if the taxman doesn't take a BMW 3er worth of taxes from me every year.
b) Why does the government have so darn many nice cars to sell at those GSA auctions? Ford Expeditions and the like go through those lanes at the auctions I've seen.
You get the idea.
And so do I.
TB
cause without taxes there are no roads.
I'm not anti-tax. I'm just against:
a) wasteful government spending
b) redistribution of legally earned wealth by tax policy
c) expansion of the federal government into what should be done at the state and local level. (Essentially anything not in that big three mentioned above.)
But to bring it back around to the automotive issue, is it ok for the taxes on many new cars to be greater than a dealerships profit?
I think not.
BTW, let the roads be built with the gasoline tax money, even if it rises. However, don't use a dime of gasoline tax money for anything other than road maintenance and repair, not even public transit projects.
TB
Trying to stay with the automotive spirit.
However, they DO need to be involved in interstate transportation. How could a state like Vermont with a population of less than a million people even afford to have highways? The per-capita cost would be prohibitive. While that might not matter too much in Vermont (who needs to go there anyway?) it would make a huge difference in the large western states with sparse populations. You wouldn't be able to drive (or move military units) from Saint Louis to Los Angeles.
That is just an example - there are numerous areas where the Federal government needs to be pulled back, but not necessarily out of the states' business.
This is one example where the usage and basically the market can build just the right amount.
Now a place like Vermont may need to float some bonds, but with less use, they wouldn't need to rebuild or spend as much on maintenance as say Minneapolis or Philadelphia that have higher rates of usage.
Well, my daughter wants her computer back to play some video games (purchased not pirated BTW) so I guess I need to find another computer to share my views from.
I'll give you that originally the interstate system was designed for national defense. However, my question now is what percentage is it actually used in national defense?
Today equipment is seldom transported directly by the military, but moved by contractors, who will ( or should )pay for the roads with the taxes they pay on fuels.
However, I still believe that the folks who chose to live in Vermont ( or whereever ) really should pay for their own roads.
People with far less money, roads and transportation resources than we have today were able to move from all over the globe to here two hundred years ago. So if the transportation resources of a small state are not sufficient, can't the people of today move as well without Federal assistance?
TB
bobst...I'm not a whole lot younger than you are. Your points are valid as well.
Just think about that new 2003 Blahmobile that you got from the dealer at invoice. Great job, the dealer made a few pennies on you. But guess what, Blah Motor Company probably made at least 50% profit selling it to the dealer. (thats right, your car cost $10,000 to produce, but it was sold to the dealer for about $20,000).
I am not being anti capitalist or anti profit here. It just seems strange to me so many people complain about how high taxes are, but they gladly pay exorbinantly high retail markup rates without blinking an eye.
A national sales tax, would be a vast improvement over the federal income tax. Of course, there would have to be no exemptions, not on homes, not on cars, not on anything.
If you don't like what you pay in taxes or how the govt spends that money, GO VOTE. Get involved in your govt and participate. Oh I forgot, we're all too busy for that, sorry.
If one store needs to sell a TV at 50% markup to make money, and another woth lower operating costs can sell the same TV at 30% GP, the market will decide which is a better deal based on selection, service, convenience etc. Some retail goods are marked up even higher (jewelry comes to mind), but you probably wouldn't want to pay the debt service or insurance on their inventory. The car business is exactly the same, with the exception that negotiation is the norm.
Buy stock in those companies.
Oh...wait a minute, I just opened my latest IRA statement...gasp...looks like I'll be working quite a few more years..!
I don't think that taxes provide the same option.
However, one cannot legally escape taxes.
I have an idea, since the government needs vehicles and we need something for prisoners to do besides watch cable TV, take college courses, lift weights and play basket ball, why not have them take in a vehicle after the consumer is done with it. The prisoners can recondition it for government use, and then THOSE vehicles go into government service.
I like that far better than the hefty tax bite take.
Of course, in the spirit of the topic, how do my used car dealers here like the idea of the state for federal government taking my old car as a tax credit?
TB