By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Regarding the sales tax: there are some dealers in NY, near the border with CT, that register cars also for CT, so you pay only CT sales taxes AFAIK.
My local dealer called me back today, and quoted a price $400 higher than in NY, after taxes. I would accept that if they only had a nice color in stock. They don't. So I will wait for another promotion.
One thing is sure: I am very impressed with what I have learned about Hyundai and Elantra. I am only afraid that CR might recommend it in the April issue, and make the prices go up.
I would also like to know where all these troubled Elantras are. I have only seen one or two problems with these cars on this board.
Both "volume dealers" in my area had about 50 Elantra GLSs in stock when we bought my son's car. Out of all of those, I found only 6 with 5-speeds and option #2 packages. They had another 20 or so GT models. It was the end of the year when we bought, so I'm sure that they were trying to move as many as possible before the end of the year.
I'd offer the dealer $250 over invoice. You keep the $1,000 rebate. The only additions should be taxes and tag transfer fees. Tell the dealer you're ready to buy when you go in. If they don't take the deal or try to "bump you up" for more money, then I would tell them you are going shopping elsewhere. Do this with 2-3 dealers. If no one "bites" on that deal, offer $50 more. Keep doing that and you'll find out pretty quickly whether you have a good deal or not.
I am already $400 below invoice and I have the rebate. They can't cut more. It's a small dealership and they have only one Elantra GLS with Option Package 2 for now, and that one is white (grrrrrr!).
I am positive I won't be able to get the car I want during this promotion. I just hope Hyundai keeps its good habit of offering incentives every 2 months.
Good Luck!
If you play the waiting game to buy the "next update" for autos, you'd never buy a car. The "newest model" is always going to be portrayed as "new and improved".
Gov't crash ratings are high for the Elatra and that's good enough for me. The insrance institutes will test what "costs them the most money to repair". Again, a bit self-serving.
Graphicguy: The IIHS rates car based on injury to their 'dummies' when the car is tested. Their tests are more stringent than the NHTSA tests. NHTSA only does the flat-into-barrier test at 35mph, while IIHS does the offset crash test. If you look at cars that have been in accidents, you will see that hardly any of them are ran flat into an object.
My friend just wrecked his 1997 Sentra back in October, against a Jersey wall on the highway. He didn't even hit flat, the left side of the car hit the wall first.
I personally think they should mandate the IIHS tests in this country, and/or make the crash tests more stringest as in Europe. I would like to see how many cars on US roads would have to be brought up to standards then.
We don't even have 5mph bumpers, for crying out loud! We get the crappy 2.5mph units, which is why bumper repair estimates are so high. This also contributes to higher insurance rates.
How is that? Do you think they erred then when they rated the Elantra GLS "Very Good"? ;-)
>>> It stands to reason that their readers will only buy what they recommend <<<
I've read CR every month for 30 years. I bought an Elantra back when they considered all Hyundais inferior, before they had tested the '01 GLS and before they had recommended the Santa Fe and Sonata. Some people get input from different sources and then make up their own minds, rather than blindly buying whatever a magazine recommends.
~alpha
http://www.newsmax.com/commentarchive.shtml?a=2002/6/28/173327
"A reasonable jury could find by clear and convincing evidence that CU sought to produce a
predetermined result in the Samurai test," Judge A. Wallace Tashima wrote for the majority.
http://www.rcfp.org/news/2002/0627suzuki.html
No big deal.
Back to the Elantra- saw a black GT sedan yesterday! Looked good.
~alpha
I find it very disturbing the CR would go to the lengths they did to rig their test. It seems like there is pretty obvious evidence against CR, and I will never look at their test results in the same way. Maybe if CR didn't have a policy of not using advertising, they could afford to fund their new facilities, instead of finding an "inventive" way to raise funds. For the consumers sake, I hope CR gets fined/punished severely for this deception.
I wish I could find the article from a few months ago regarding the "flaws" in their rating technique (I think it was in FORBES or FORTUNE).
Essentially, they said that the statistical techniques they use are self perpetuating. In other words, they only consider what their readership reports. Problem there, if CR reported that YUGOS were reliable, then the readership would tend towards buying YUGOS and rating them high because CR says they are reliable. Even if their car is junk, since the CR readers have spent money on their mag or ratings guides, then they must put some "stock" into the ratings. In setting expectations, CR's ratings set the expectation that anything that goes wrong with cars they recommend to be "normal". Therefore, the readership gives high marks to a car (conciously or unconciously) becasue CR says it is so, regardless of the ownership experience.
As far as CR testing, they have had more than their share of "faux pas". They crucified Audi back in the '80s for unintended acceleration (as did "60 minutes". Ended up being driver's error. I've never seen one case of "unintended accleration" claim ever be anything but driver's error. Audi has just started to come back after that fiasco. They also intentionally "rolled" certain SUVs, claiming them to be unsafe. Well, if you try to roll one, you most definitely will. They are meant to be driven differently than cars. The vehicle dynamics are different. More disappointing, even when they were proven to be wrong, they wouldn't admit to their mistakes. CR has lost credability since then. Although, I will "glance" at their toaster recommendations. They should stick to that.
IIHS is the same way. They rate based on the "payout" they have to make on crashes. Not whether the people who have an accident are, in reality, injured in an accident. At best, they can predict that a given single "dummy" will sustain this amont of damage at this particular angle of crash. Different shapes and weights of the people who drive a given car would result in different injury results. Further, people react differently in crashes. Dummies cannot react. A car could be mangled beyond recognition and the insurance company may have a huge payout (that's the basis for the test), but the occupants could come away relatively unscathed. IIHS can't predict those types of scenrios (neither can the NHS)...only what a single dummy that weighs a certain amount that cannot react in an accident.
Fact is, no one can predict what will happen in any given accident short of taking every body type and weight and trying to predict how a person will react in every given situation. To my knowledge, no one has done that. But the IIHS will charge you higher or lower insurance amounts based solely on the amount the insrance companies pay out, not whether inuries or death occured.
ziglifler...thanks...I just "call them as I see them" since I've been driving for 30+ years and been through numerous car purchases and (luckly) survived a few crashes. Also, have friends in the insurance business (but that doesn't make me an expert).
and you clearly arent an expert (though I appreciate your disclaimer) because the IIHS does not directly write policies, and therefore cannot charge anyone:
"But the IIHS will charge you higher or lower insurance amounts based solely on the amount the insrance companies pay out, not whether inuries or death occured." No.
"A car could be mangled beyond recognition and the insurance company may have a huge payout (that's the basis for the test), but the occupants could come away relatively unscathed." Where's your point?
Most cars in the IIHS tests are mangled beyond recognition, and the dummies come out "alive". A payout for a mangled car is much less than for a mangled car plus a dead driver- THAT is the basis for the test.
My point: If we didnt have crash tests, we wouldnt have seatbelts, crumple zones, airbags etc. Yea, thanks, I'd rather have em. For those who dont like them, its easy enough to disconnect your airbags or not buckle up.
Oh, and, thank you for pointing out that dummies cannot react in a crash. We were all unaware of this. Again, whats your point? It seems to me that even when people react, they still hit things, which is where the tests come into play.
I like to have as much information as possible. I would gladly read the Forbes article regarding CR, if you would post it please. But if CR is so "self serving", then how did Hyundai's reliability improve dramatically over the past 10 years, how did Honda's highly rated Odyssey and Civic fall two rankings, and why would the second lowest rated small car, the Cavalier, acheive an averge ranking? BEST EXAMPLE YET: THE FORD FOCUS, upon its debut, tested out highest of all small cars by CR. By your logic, all small car buyers should have flocked out to buy it, based on its high rating, then been unwilling to accurately evaluate relability, and it would have been rated at least average or better in that regard. WOW! Turns out... CR rates its reliability lower than practically any other small car out there. Highest Test Scores, but worst reliability. Crazy, man.
~alpha
Or more likely, this is all just coincidence than an insiduous plot by CR against Korean cars. The alleged actions of certain CR staffers against the Samauri are despicable, just as are the occasional rigged stories by 60 Minutes and Dateline and other news organizations. I don't think that invalidates all work done by CR, CBS, and NBC over the years. It means that some people who work for these organizations have made mistakes.
Regarding CR, I am afraid that most of the people buy cars based on CR's recommendations, and this might be the cause of the fact that Japanese cars tend to keep their value much better than Korean ones. I almost had an argument with one of my good friends who owns a Mazda and who told me that: "Yeah, Korean cars are better if you like having more toys in your car, but if you just need a good car, stick to the Japanese!".
So, I guess, I'm gonna buy my toys this week.
Funny thing is that I had never thought about Elantra until I stumbled over its CR review. I used to want to buy a Corolla or a Civic (I still appreciate both for their reliability).
You know what they say about toys... he/she who has the most toys, wins! 8-)
I like to have as much infomration as possible when making a car choice. I just don't want the information to be "skewed".
Regardless of what CR says about any car, I was just pointing out the flaws in their ratings and testing. Also, their arrogance in not admitting to their mistakes. I read several business mags every month. I wish I could recall which month I read the article, but can't. I believe it was either in FORBES, FORTUNE or BUSINESS 2.0. I was just pointint out the conclusions of the article regarding CR.
CD, MT, RT don't do a lot of testing for entry level cars. Every once in a while, one will pop up, but not often. Their readership is more for the "auto enthusiast", not the economy car enthusiast. Come to think of it, I don't think I can recall any of those pubs having anything more than just a "blurb" about the ACCENT.
When my son and I bought the Elantra, I didn't see but one ACCENT on the dealer's lot.
ejakab....you can buy extended warranties from 3rd part sources like warrantydirect any time within the manufacturer's warranty period. I'm not sure what Hyundai's policy is. Ask the dealer...they should know.
Is there any proof to your theory about IIHS tests? Just curious.
Well, my former spouse is the liason between the insurance company she works for and special interest lobbying groups. She oversees "special funding" for government lobbying and payments to special interest groups. IIHS is one of the budget line items that gets dollars from her company. Her company is one of the ones (among other major insurers) that funds the IIHS. The IIHS results are one of the ways her company sets premium rates for automobile insurance. IIHS' income is derived from these insurance companies.
Regarding offset crash results, the statistics I've seen has offset crashes being almost entirely made up of low speed crashes (fender bender type accidents). The vast majority of major dollar payouts come from higher speed "t-bone" type accidents or highway fatalities where one vehicle hits another vehicle "flush" (as in a sudden stop on the interstate like "rear enders").
Don't know if that's proof enough or not, but it works for me.
I have a friend who works for a major insurer, and am gonna ask him about this to see if he knows anything about it.
GLS with AT -----$10,600 (MSRP $13,350)
Package 2 ----------$ 400
Freight ----------------$ 500
Taxes -----------------$ 750
-------------------------------------
Total -----------------$12,250
I think I got a good deal. What do u guys think?
I like it so far and I'm pretty impressed with Hyundai's quality. I don't see any difference between this and a Civic LX, which would've costed me $14.5K+taxes (~$15.5K). I paid 3 grand less and got a much better warranty!
I didn't know any of this until my (at the time) spouse told me about it. It's kind of a "follow the money" type trail. I'm not saying that IIHS doesn't do good work. I do question the directives they get for testing and where those directives come from.
What I don't know is which specific insurance companies participate. I also don't know if all insurance companies use the IIHS for their premium guidelines (which may explain large shifts in premium amounts from company to company). My understanding is it is the major ones, though.
npkb...I agree with vocus...you'll drive yourself nuts worrying about if you got the best "rock bottom" deal. There are just so many variables like geography, dealer, stock, time of year, etc that affect individual deals.
If you're happy, that's all that matters. Congrats on the new car!
I'm confused by something that may be specific to location (I'm in Chicago area) - the issues of sales tax & rebates. Online calculaters, (Edmunds, etc.) figure taxes BEFORE subtracting rebates, yet my dealer is including this amount into figuring sales tax. So he mentioned with a 1500 rebate now my taxes will increase a little (when I looked into car last week it had a 1000 rebate). I questioned this, stating my research suggests that rebates come off after, but he said he "wasn't sure if it was IL specific or something but that's what they did". Anybody have any knowledge of this practice differing by location? Is this accurate info?
Thanks a bunch. I am excited to be getting my new manual GLS w/pkg 3 but am trying to avoid "buyers remorse!" -LH
CONSUMER REBATE/SPECIAL FINANCING
ALL NEW 2003 HYUNDAI ELANTRA'S QUALIFY FOR 1500.00 CONSUMER REBATE OR SPECIAL FINANCING AS FOLLOWS:
TERM RATE
0-60 MONTHS 0.9%
61-66 MONTHS 1.9%
Rebate: $1,500.00
Expires: 3/31/2003
Probably carsdirect.com wants to make $500 more profit.
If the dealer applies the rebate to the after-tax total, you lose about $90. If the price is good, don't worry about the loss.
npkb: Where did you buy the car (just the region)?
I meant that if the dealer applies the rebate to the after-tax total, you lose 1500 * sales tax in your state (in CT is 6%) on the transaction, versus the situation when the rebate is before-tax.
The safety of cars today (a good thing) compared to even 5 years ago, is pretty amazing. Something else that infuences the cost of insurance is the propensity of accidents any given model has. That's why two door cars tend to be higher to insure than 4-door cars. It's not that the 2-door cars are any less safe, it's that two door cars, overall, tend to be in more accidents with higher payouts. MAke what you will of that statistic, but two door cars are driven by younger age groups with less driving experience (thus, more accidents).
Another reason, is the cost of parts to repair a given vehicle. A neighbor has a custom body shop. It must be a good business since he's got a very nice house. He customizes mainly high buck sports cars for high buck clientele. Being a good neighbor, he's always been willing to take care of my minor "fender benders" as a favor. I've been to his shop (very high buck looking) where he's shown me the differnces in such mundane things as holding clips, guage of metal....all the mundane internal parts that you don't ordinarily see.
In general, American, German and Korean marks use higher quality steel, fasteners, etc that Toyotas, Hondas and Nissans (Mazdas use Ford parts). He's actually shown me the differences. He said that most Japanese marks cut costs in these mundane parts that no one ever sees. That's why the Hondas, Toyotas and Nissans have a "tinny" feel when you slam the doors or press on the metal.
Before buying my son's Elantra, I checked with my neighbor. He said that the Hyundai uses very hefty parts because they have yet to enter the stage where they need to "de-content" their offerings to hit a price point. He said that Hyundais tend to be "over-engineered". In other words, where one fastener would work, the Hyundai may use 3 fasteners, for example. He also showed me the differences in VW/Audi and BMW parts, which were very substantial. The problem with the German marks is that they cost more in labor time to repair because of the way they are made. U.S. marks tend to hit price points by being more overt in what they omit. For expample, just a few years ago, even the lowly Cavalier had anti-lock brakes. Now, on GMs lower offerings, anti-lock brakes are options that they charge extra for.
He said that Toyotas and Hondas have the thinnest paint he's ever seen. You have to move up to Lexus, Infinity, Acura to get decent paint thickness, according to him.
Regarding taxes on any given deal, it's always been my understanding that any car purchase is taxed on the actual number the car sold for. In other words, the car you buy sells for $10,000 and your tax rate is 5%...you pay $500 in taxes. Then you deduct the rebate as either part of your downpayment or you take it as a "lump sum" (which would then be considered income on your tax return). I'm not a tax specialist, however.
You all wanna feel better about how much your insurance is? I am 24 with 1 point and live in the city, have house/car with State Farm, and my insurance is $233.16 a month...
I have a PT Cruiser GT turbo and a 300M. I'm in my early 40s and the price of my insurance would have been the same whether I had a Turbo or not. That has more to do with being with the same insurance company for many years (with no chargeable accidents) than anything else, though.
My insurance was $1,000/year on both cars. Adding my 17 year old to my policy with the Elantra more than doubled my insurance...or about what you're paying for one car.
You're age has as much to do with your rates as much as anything else. I forget where the age "breaks" come regarding lower premiums, but I think they are 18, 21, 25 and 30. And, of course, if you get married. I never could understand that one...if you're an unsafe driver when you're single, odds are you'll be an unsafe driver when you're married.
I'm certain if my son was on a policy by himself (as you are), his rates would be even more expensive.
I like the PT, but I had bad experiences with a Neon and Jeep Wrangler, so no Chryslers for me. I have had bad experiences with most American cars actually (Chevy, Pontiac, Ford), which is why I never plan to buy one. The best car I ever had was my 99 Mazda Protege DX for reliabilty, not one problem in 38K hard miles. Also, my 88 Dodge Aries was good too, but it only 'lived' with me for 3 months due to a moron who didn't know what 'stop' meant...