Direction GM's taking Saturn
J B
tires, and noticed another thread: "The Death of Saturn". It was started
by what appears to be a fairly new saleslady who was tired of seeing
negative posts lamenting the direction GM has Saturn going in. Even
though I thought she came across as a bit arrogant, I understand she's
defending her (new) employer. She's excited about working there and is
defensive. That was my take anyways. It started a debate that was
interesting to read from some of the long-time Saturn owners.
For one thing I didn't realize Saturn was doing away with the Polymer
side panels that help prevent dents. According to the saleslady it was a
"division that was losing money" and the owners who don't like the
change are basically crybabies. hah.
Some of the owners seem to believe that GM is ruining Saturn.
I bought my car 2nd hand from a friend because he gave me the trade-in
price he was offered for it when he bought a new VUE in 2003. I had
always said I wouldn't have another 4-cylinder but the deal was too good
to pass up and I needed a better car at the time. Once I started driving
the SW2 I enjoyed having it. As much as I hated (and still hate) how low
the wagon sits, I still have really enjoyed having it. It's roomier than
it looks from the outside. And to me the Polymer is a bigger draw than
that lady seems to think. It set Saturn apart I thought. And Saturn's
prices seemed competitive at least.
Me personally, I'm waiting for a new American car company to start up
that'll give people the opportunity to buy a very reliable car, that's
very affordable, and is simple for an owner to work on without
everything under the hood being crammed together, and still be one
that's stylish and attractive. I'm not crazy about having computers run
things in cars either. I'd like to see a car being sold for $8,000 -
$10,000 that a family could feel safe in and have it not be a piece of
junk. With the exportation of American jobs overseas there there's a
bigger market than ever for a really affordable car.
Whenever I see on tv the old American cars from the 50's still being
worked on and driven by Cubans on the island, I wonder if that could
happen with today's cars in a similar situation.
I got a little sidetracked, but I'm curious about what you all think
about how GM is running Saturn.
Thanks, Jeff
SMS
> For one thing I didn't realize Saturn was doing away with the Polymer
> side panels that help prevent dents. According to the saleslady it was a
> "division that was losing money" and the owners who don't like the
> change are basically crybabies. hah.
The saleslady has a point. GM is not an unlimited source of money for
ventures that never generate any return for the corporation. It simply
isn't financially possible for a small division to do it's own unique
designs for low volume products. The polymer panels have been
problematic from the very beginning, and were much more expensive to
manufacture, even though the raw material was marginally cheaper. They
may also have contributed to Saturn's relatively poor crash test
performance.
> With the exportation of American jobs overseas there there's a
> bigger market than ever for a really affordable car.
Yes, this is why Honda and Toyota are successfully building affordable
cars in the U.S.. The styling may not be exciting, but they are
reliable, fuel efficient, and relatively inexpensive. You can still get
an entry-level Camry or Accord for around $16,000, and it will easily
last 15 years with minimal maintenance.
SnoMan
wrote:
>
>Yes, this is why Honda and Toyota are successfully building affordable
>cars in the U.S.. The styling may not be exciting, but they are
>reliable, fuel efficient, and relatively inexpensive. You can still get
>an entry-level Camry or Accord for around $16,000, and it will easily
>last 15 years with minimal maintenance.
THe main reason they have been successfull is QUALITY. THey are not
strapped with GM's labor costs and philosphy which will destroy Saturn
eventually. The only chance the Saturn has to servive is to split from
GM management on labor rules and vehicle philosphy because they are
abondoning the low end market they started in and focusing on higher
dollar and less fuel efficent model that tend to be more trouble prone
too.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
marx404
salesman and still a Saturn fan although I work for Chevy now.
Most will bash Saturn w/o knowing the history of the company nor knowing
that GM had been cutting their funding prior to them fully joining the GM
family. This caused a lack of improvement for Saturn and arrested growth for
years. Considering that GM has fully funded Buick and Pontiac and has lost
money on them as well, this has to be taken into consideration as well. It
was only a short while ago that GM was considering which of the 3 to close
and Saturn was seen as the most profitable to keep of the three.
Quality and fit and finish are some of the many reasons that polymer must
go. I love my polymer personally, but I have no qualm with perfect fit and
finish, and hydroformed steel panels are better looking anyways. Just look
at the SKY.
As far as safety and crash testing, I'm not sure anymore that to believe in
what I read. Recent crash testing says that the Aveo has a 5 star rating
while the ION is much lower. That's US ratings. In Europe, the Aveo,
otherwise known as the Kalos, and many other names all over the world has
miserably failed crash ratings. Why? Perhaps our tests weigh against any car
without standard side air bags. ION doesn't have them standard.
Do I believe that? Heck no. What I do believe in is the many customers and
people that I have met across the years who have survived major car crashes
in a Saturn. Nuff said. Real life experience speaks louder than lab
controlled tests. I also survived what might have been a serious accident if
I hadn't been in my old trusty SL2.
Change is good sometimes, if this means that GM will make better fitting
panels and still retain or increase safety, great. If thes means that Saturn
will become a mainstream name when people see the Aura or the SKY or Outlook
on the street and this means Saturn will finally become synonymous with
quality and luxury, Im all for that too. Can't wait to see what the future
brings for Saturn.
But I'm not ready to trade in my SC2 yet. ;-)
marx404
SnoMan
>Change is good sometimes, if this means that GM will make better fitting
>panels and still retain or increase safety, great. If thes means that Saturn
>will become a mainstream name when people see the Aura or the SKY or Outlook
>on the street and this means Saturn will finally become synonymous with
>quality and luxury, Im all for that too. Can't wait to see what the future
>brings for Saturn.
Change at GM is mostly about cutting costs to boost profits, not make
a better product.With GM having 70% of cost of building a car going to
labor, quality will suffer. Unless they start spending less money on
labor and more on car parts and quality, they will slowing go down the
toilet as Toyota is nipping at their heals now after overtaking Ford.
The future is not bright for GM unless they can get labor cost in
check.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
raa...@hotmail.com
the whole thing about saturn and the polymer panels was innovation. gm
and saturn have forgotten that, if you innovate, you can lead, but if
you follow, you will always follow and never win. the consumer is the
one who the saturn is made for, not gm. gm is making the mistake of
it's life by bankrolling a comeback of an outdated gas guzzler camaro.
theres quite a number of fast muscle cars, but few cars that provide
the owner with superior quality and reliability. that's where the
market is.
SMS
> THe main reason they have been successfull is QUALITY. THey are not
> strapped with GM's labor costs and philosphy which will destroy Saturn
> eventually. The only chance the Saturn has to servive is to split from
> GM management on labor rules and vehicle philosphy because they are
> abondoning the low end market they started in and focusing on higher
> dollar and less fuel efficent model that tend to be more trouble prone
> too.
They can't split on vehicle philosophy because Saturn can't sell enough
vehicles to justify the design and tooling costs for a line of unique
vehicles. Remember, Saturn sells only in the U.S. and Canada, despite
abortive attempts to sell in Taiwan and Japan. Contrast this with
Toyota, who sells (and manufactures) their mass market cars like the
Camry and Corolla, all over the world, amortizing the design and tooling
costs.
SnoMan
Nice Comment. GM does have a "focus" problem too. It is not the Camaro
though as it is the philosphy of try to keep big iron the main focus
when its time is passing. THis is why Toyota and other have been so
successfull. They did not steal the market, Detriot gave it to them
but stubbornly clinging to old ideas.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
SnoMan
wrote:
>They can't split on vehicle philosophy because Saturn can't sell enough
>vehicles to justify the design and tooling costs for a line of unique
>vehicles. Remember, Saturn sells only in the U.S. and Canada, despite
>abortive attempts to sell in Taiwan and Japan. Contrast this with
>Toyota, who sells (and manufactures) their mass market cars like the
>Camry and Corolla, all over the world, amortizing the design and tooling
>costs.
They started Saturn out to be different but if they just want it to be
another cow in the herd not they might as well kill it now.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
Steve
"SnoMan" <ad...@snoman.com> wrote in message
news:jiabf2hqsvcvia1p3...@4ax.com...
This discussion prompts me to think about the question, why did GM start
Saturn in the first place? Remember "a different kind of car; a different
kind of car company?" The early marketing would seem to suggest that GM
wasn't as much concerned with the fact that they wouldn't be able to "sell
enough vehicles to justify the design and tooling costs for a line of unique
vehicles" (to quote scharf.steven). If this was true and what steven says is
now true, then I would say that GM has pulled (even if without having
intended it, originally) something similar to a "bait and switch." They
lured us away from Japanese product with the SL, SC and SW lines (polymer
panels, reliable, inexpensive, fun, [relatively] powerful 4-cylinder OHC
engines) and now offer products that are completely different but with
synergies to other GM product. Well, I guess it's back to Asian imports ....
:( <frown>
BläBlä
In article <1156944966.6...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
raa...@hotmail.com says...
> it's life by bankrolling a comeback of an outdated gas guzzler camaro.
> theres quite a number of fast muscle cars, but few cars that provide
> the owner with superior quality and reliability. that's where the
A car that makes 400hp and probably will get 28 mpg highway is far from
a gas guzzler. Find me something else making that much power and getting
better gas mileage. There wouldnt be any notable difference in gas
mileage between it and a 6cyl Honda powered Vue. It probably wouldnt
hurt gas mileage the slightest bit to put a 300hp rated LS2 in the
Saturn Vue and gear it taller since it doesnt tow anything anyway. The
latest V8's from GM are downright indestructible and amazingly
efficient. Next time you jab at gas mileage look at the power output.
J B
Blame me I guess since I started it. I was just curious what you guys on
here thought. And I'm glad I did because I've read some interesting
posts. I have to admit I didn't pay real close attention to what Saturn
had to offer until I bought my SW2 from my friend in 2003. The quality
of the car surprised me, although I wish it had a 6-cyl. instead of a 4.
The inside is set up nice for a wagon, and is a comfortable ride,
especially on the highway.
After reading what that saleslady had posted on SaturnFans, it made me
aware that some folks don't like the changes being made. Some of which I
didn't even realize were happening.
Interesting posts...Thanks, Jeff
About another week and I should be able to get my new tires. Can't wait
to get the Affinity's off the car since they don't have alot of tread
left. I'm leaning towards the Allegra's but the Goodrich Touring T/S
Pro's they have at Sam's Club look pretty nice also. Probably can't go
wrong with either one. And there's only a $4/tire difference with the
Allegra's being the more expensive of the two.
SMS
> They started Saturn out to be different but if they just want it to be
> another cow in the herd not they might as well kill it now.
They want to exploit the relatively positive image that Saturn had at
the beginning. Saturn is no longer "different," it's just another GM
division. They don't even stick to the one-price policy any more.
SMS
> This discussion prompts me to think about the question, why did GM start
> Saturn in the first place? Remember "a different kind of car; a different
> kind of car company?" The early marketing would seem to suggest that GM
> wasn't as much concerned with the fact that they wouldn't be able to "sell
> enough vehicles to justify the design and tooling costs for a line of unique
> vehicles" (to quote scharf.steven). If this was true and what steven says is
> now true, then I would say that GM has pulled (even if without having
> intended it, originally) something similar to a "bait and switch." They
> lured us away from Japanese product with the SL, SC and SW lines (polymer
> panels, reliable, inexpensive, fun, [relatively] powerful 4-cylinder OHC
> engines) and now offer products that are completely different but with
> synergies to other GM product. Well, I guess it's back to Asian imports ....
> :( <frown>
The problem is that they didn't lure nearly enough people away from the
Japanese products (most of which are not even imports any more). The
reliability turned out to be a myth, the crashworthiness wasn't there,
and the prices, while okay in terms of comparative MSRPs, were high
compared to actual street prices. Saturn got a bad reputation for
reliability with the oil burning and cracked head issues on the S
series. It's hard to overcome all this.
raa...@hotmail.com
BläBlä wrote:
>>
> A car that makes 400hp and probably will get 28 mpg highway is far from
> a gas guzzler. Find me something else making that much power and getting
> better gas mileage. There wouldnt be any notable difference in gas
> mileage between it and a 6cyl Honda powered Vue. It probably wouldnt
> hurt gas mileage the slightest bit to put a 300hp rated LS2 in the
> Saturn Vue and gear it taller since it doesnt tow anything anyway. The
> latest V8's from GM are downright indestructible and amazingly
> efficient. Next time you jab at gas mileage look at the power output.
Sure, you might have the facts on your side, but it doesn't mean much
when the public perception is different. SUV's are dead by the way, 10
more years, people will be looking at the and asking what were they
thinking? like those veneer wood panel stationwagonsof the 60s and 70s
Also, those mileage stats don't hold up in the real world, just
corporate propoganda because some executive fool at gm said, hey, why
don't we bring back the camaro ? instead of really using his brain and
saying, why don't we just develop the polymer panel technology a bit
more and build better cars than anyone else with it ?
PerfectReign
flipping burgers to boot the etch-a-sketch and scribble out:
I thought that was Saturn was designed for from the beginning.
--
kai - theperf...@yahoo.com
www.perfectreign.com || www.livebeans.com
Wo ist der Ort für den ehrlichsten Kuss
Ich weiss, dass ich ihn für uns finden muss
Auf 'ner Strasse im Regen, auf 'nem Berg nah beim Mond
Oder kann man ihn nur vom Totenbett holen
SnoMan
<KILLFILTE...@BR3TLUDW1G.SN0M4N.M1ST3RF4CT.S!RCRE4P.C0M> wrote:
>A car that makes 400hp and probably will get 28 mpg highway is far from
>a gas guzzler.
Maybe in your dreams it will get 28 MPG (with a tail wind at 55 MPH)
It will likely average about half that or less in town and that is a
gas guzzler. There are speed limits and you do not need anything never
400 HP to exceed them in a car nor do you need 400 HP to get there. GM
should spend research money on better MPG cars, not trendy cars to
make a few fast bucks. I drove a old Cmaary with a 4cyl and a 5 speed
for years that would easily exceed 100 MPH with no real effort aand it
got about 30 MPG in town and around 40 on highway running 65 to70. It
had a bad day when it only got 35 or 36 on a trip. Drove it well over
200K miles and its mileage was always consistant and never varied more
than a few MPG in its life. It can be done but GM is not interested in
it.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
SnoMan
wrote:
>The problem is that they didn't lure nearly enough people away from the
>Japanese products (most of which are not even imports any more). The
>reliability turned out to be a myth, the crashworthiness wasn't there,
>and the prices, while okay in terms of comparative MSRPs, were high
>compared to actual street prices. Saturn got a bad reputation for
>reliability with the oil burning and cracked head issues on the S
>series. It's hard to overcome all this.
Part of the reason for the lack of lure was GM np haggle price that
chased away a lot of sales. They had a interesting concept but lacked
the guts to follow it through. Saturn prior to about 2000 were pretty
well built overall and there is a lot of high mileage mid 90's ones
out there. Now Saturn are getting to be just like other GM cars with
just a different label on them but the same quality and parts under
the skin which will kill Saturn long term. Dumping the plastic body
parts that were a corner stone for its rust resitance. durabilty and
there resitance to bumps and dings will hasen its fall because it will
no longer be different than any other GM car other than styling.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
SnoMan
<theperf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:20:46 +0000, SnoMan took a five-minute break from
>flipping burgers to boot the etch-a-sketch and scribble out:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:38:51 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Yes, this is why Honda and Toyota are successfully building affordable
>>>cars in the U.S.. The styling may not be exciting, but they are
>>>reliable, fuel efficient, and relatively inexpensive. You can still get
>>>an entry-level Camry or Accord for around $16,000, and it will easily
>>>last 15 years with minimal maintenance.
>>
>>
>> THe main reason they have been successfull is QUALITY. THey are not
>> strapped with GM's labor costs and philosphy which will destroy Saturn
>> eventually. The only chance the Saturn has to servive is to split from
>> GM management on labor rules and vehicle philosphy because they are
>> abondoning the low end market they started in and focusing on higher
>> dollar and less fuel efficent model that tend to be more trouble prone
>> too.
>> -----------------
>> TheSnoMan.com
>
>
>I thought that was Saturn was designed for from the beginning.
THat was the original intent but it has been abandoned now.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
BläBlä
raa...@hotmail.com says...
>
> BläBlä wrote:
> >>
> > A car that makes 400hp and probably will get 28 mpg highway is far from
> > a gas guzzler. Find me something else making that much power and getting
> > better gas mileage. There wouldnt be any notable difference in gas
> > mileage between it and a 6cyl Honda powered Vue. It probably wouldnt
> > hurt gas mileage the slightest bit to put a 300hp rated LS2 in the
> > Saturn Vue and gear it taller since it doesnt tow anything anyway. The
> > latest V8's from GM are downright indestructible and amazingly
> > efficient. Next time you jab at gas mileage look at the power output.
>
> Sure, you might have the facts on your side, but it doesn't mean much
> when the public perception is different. SUV's are dead by the way, 10
> more years, people will be looking at the and asking what were they
> thinking? like those veneer wood panel stationwagonsof the 60s and 70s
>
> Also, those mileage stats don't hold up in the real world, just
> corporate propoganda because some executive fool at gm said, hey, why
The last WS6 Firebird made 325 hp and it received a 28mpg highway rating
from the EPA. The problem was the epa never goes above 60mph. In real
world use the WS6 has been known to get not only 28mpg but also tip
30mpg and that was before DoD. My car is rated by the EPA at 28mpg
Highway and I've gotten that driving hard and doing 75mph over long
trips. In the worst freezing cold conditions when I was doing short
trips to work have I EVER hit the 18mpg epa "city" rating. My engine
NEVER got warm on those trips... I guess some mileage stats do hold up
in the real world huh?
> don't we bring back the camaro ? instead of really using his brain and
> saying, why don't we just develop the polymer panel technology a bit
> more and build better cars than anyone else with it ?
What's so great about polymer panels that you "must" have them? They're
certainly nothing to cry over. They were as advance as they were going
to get.
raa...@hotmail.com
BläBlä wrote:
>> What's so great about polymer panels that you "must" have them? They're
> certainly nothing to cry over. They were as advance as they were going
> to get.
you buy a car, someone does something that puts a ding in it, you hate
seeing it, everytime you look at it you see it, it turns you inside out
because when it happened it was avoidable, but it's too expensive to
replace
SnoMan
<KILLFILTE...@BR3TLUDW1G.SN0M4N.M1ST3RF4CT.S!RCRE4P.C0M> wrote:
>The last WS6 Firebird made 325 hp and it received a 28mpg highway rating
>from the EPA.
Need to clarify somie thing here, the EPA does not test rate them any
more and has not for years, Detriot performs there one tests and speed
avewrage on highway cyclle is 48 with top speed of 59. Anoy wne that
says they get 30 MPG with one of those cars is really spinning a yarn
big time (maybe 30 KPG but not30MPG)
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
ote...@yahoo.com
It has 2 very tall overdrives for a reason dips;;;.
Lead foots need not apply!
> Need to clarify somie thing here, the EPA does not test rate them any
> more and has not for years, Detriot performs there one tests and speed
> avewrage on highway
buh buh buh what?
cyclle is 48 with top speed of 59. Anoy wne that
buh buh buh
SnoMan
>buh buh buh what?
>
>cyclle is 48 with top speed of 59. Anoy wne that
>
>buh buh buh
This wireless key board sends wrong letters sometime, I need to watch
it more closely I guess. The average speed for highway test is 48 and
top speed is 59. Nobody averages 48 on hiway unless it is a real
traffic jam or on icy roads maybe. Detriot does test too, not EPA as
they pushed for that rule change to make it easier to "fudge" the
tests and figures. Kinda like letting the fox watch the hen house.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
raa...@hotmail.com
SnoMan wrote:
> >
> Part of the reason for the lack of lure was GM np haggle price that
> > TheSnoMan.com
I liked the no haggle price concept-- the car I bought was the same
deal as the next guy as the one before me--I didn't drive away
thinking, damn, I bet if I had argued another 2 hours I could have ....
SnoMan
>I liked the no haggle price concept-- the car I bought was the same
>deal as the next guy as the one before me--I didn't drive away
>thinking, damn, I bet if I had argued another 2 hours I could have ....
No dealer needs to make or be guarenteed 3 to 6k profit on the sale of
a vehicle (depending on list price). As far as haggleing, there is
none, you tell them what you are will to pay and then tell them is can
sit in there driveway or yours and if they do not bite you walk out
plain and sinple. They will call you whe they figure out that you are
serious. I shout for a dealer to make 300 to 500 bucks on a sales or
so because I am not going to pay a extra 3K or more for them to profit
from.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
Buster
suppose the dealer pays for the building, taxes, the lights so you can
shop at night, the guy who keeps the car clean, etc. Some profit is
essential for a retailer to stay in business, they aren't supported by
your tax dollars. That said, I'm all for getting the best deal you
can! Your buying technique is the most effective one out there, btw.
Buster
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 11:13:53 GMT, SnoMan <ad...@snoman.com> wrote:
<snip>
Buster
than any other car? I've bought a couple of replacement Saturns
because they still look pretty good after several years, while the
metal paneled cars are all dinged up. Without plastic panels, there is
no significant reason for me to choose Saturn over another brand.
Buster
<snip>
SnoMan
>If it weren't for the plastic panels, what would make my Saturn better
>than any other car? I've bought a couple of replacement Saturns
>because they still look pretty good after several years, while the
>metal paneled cars are all dinged up. Without plastic panels, there is
>no significant reason for me to choose Saturn over another brand.
>Buster
Yes just imagine the new saturn owners that discover that door panels
and fenders are no longer ding and rust proof and that a 12 year old
one will look better than a new one when it gets few years old and has
dings and rust from scratches. GM is making a BIG mistake here with a
car feature/trademark but they have been making a lot of mistakes on a
lot of things so this is no surprize. And people wonder why they are
loosing more market share every day. It is all about building them
cheaper not better.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
Steve B.
>
>Need to clarify somie thing here, the EPA does not test rate them any
>more and has not for years, Detriot performs there one tests and speed
>avewrage on highway cyclle is 48 with top speed of 59. Anoy wne that
>says they get 30 MPG with one of those cars is really spinning a yarn
>big time (maybe 30 KPG but not30MPG)
>-----------------
>TheSnoMan.com
I really wouldn't be that surprised with his mileage. In addition to
my Saturn I have a '95 Fleetwood with the same basic power train and
probably an extra 1k pounds of weight. I regularly get 27mg on the hi
way running 70 ~ 75. In town runs around 17 so the Saturn sure is
kinder to the pocket book there.
Steve B.
Private
"Buster" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:jvbgf2lpdejnnokpl...@4ax.com...
The plastic body panels (and the low rpm peak torque) were the major reasons
why I purchased two new S1 Saturns. If the S1 wagons had not been
cancelled, I would have bought a third. I do not see anything in the Saturn
showroom today that I would consider buying. If I am going to buy a
standard GM product, I want to be able to purchase my parts from my standard
GM parts (wholesale price) dealer. Since GM has also abandoned the fuel
efficient mini station wagon, I can see nothing I want from GM (except a new
Vette).
The upside is that since GM killed the S1, the used prices have dropped
significantly and a used S1 is now a great value and they are available for
very low prices and parts are now appearing in the self serve wrecking yards
so they will be cheaper to fix. I would advise anyone to purchase the next
low mileage SW1 that they find in good condition.
RIP Saturn
SnoMan
wrote:
>If I am going to buy a
>standard GM product, I want to be able to purchase my parts from my standard
>GM parts (wholesale price) dealer.
Do not bank on this too much as I have a friend that is a manager with
Advanced Auto and he told me that in 2006 GM patented a LOT of new
parts so that they will be dealer only and they add to list every
years so buy a new GM will not be much better than a Saturn
aftermarket parts wise. I have owned GM's for over 30 years (and
jeeps for over 20 years and a few other brands for less but I think
that I have about bought my last GM product unless they can really
turn their act around.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
SnoMan
>$300-500 doesn't even cover the salesman's commision. How do you
>suppose the dealer pays for the building, taxes, the lights so you can
>shop at night, the guy who keeps the car clean, etc. Some profit is
>essential for a retailer to stay in business, they aren't supported by
>your tax dollars. That said, I'm all for getting the best deal you
>can! Your buying technique is the most effective one out there, btw.
>Buster
Sure they can and most dealers make the money off of used cars and
service anywa plus they get hidden factory insentives on sales as I
have a freind that is in GM fleet sales at a dealer and he told me
that when they are pushing cars at low prices to move them, GM gives
them money for doing it to maintain profit for them. I have not paided
over 500 bucks over true dealer cost (minus hidden kick backs) for
over 25 years now and I have bought 7 new vehicles in that time frame
too. If you feel sorry for them and want to bank roll them have at it
but not me.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
Private
Bad news, but I was not talking about aftermarket parts or dealers. It has
always bugged me that while my genuine GM parts GM dealer is happy to sell
me my GM truck and car parts wholesale, they are unable to get Saturn parts
through their normal (excellent) GM parts pipeline. Many simple parts that
are cheap from GM (like horns and fuel filters) are exorbitant (and usually
full retail) from a Saturn dealer. Aftermarket Saturn parts (when
available) are much more expensive than equivalent (and widely available)
aftermarket GM parts.
I have been a GM (Chevy) fan for most of my life but do not like their
reliance on fuel guzzling high margin luxury pickups and SUVs. Their high
performance vehicles do get remarkably good fuel economy (when driven
conservatively) but they have decided not to produce small, light, super
fuel efficient vehicles and have abandoned the mini station wagon which I
find is by far the most utilitarian body type combining good performance
(because of weight) good handling (because of weight and low CG) and great
economy (because of weight) and easy to park (because of size) but still
versatile and big enough to pack a significant load (particularly with a
roof rack and front mount rack for long loads) and are very comfortable to
sleep in.
GM killed the EV1 (and made Saturn carry the bad PR) and has failed to
develop hybrid and/or small turbo diesel engines like the VW TDI. If Saturn
still made the S series SW but with a small TDI (70 mpg) (or maybe hybrid),
I would be a buyer.
YMMV
SMS
> Sure they can and most dealers make the money off of used cars and
> service anywa plus they get hidden factory insentives on sales as I
> have a freind that is in GM fleet sales at a dealer and he told me
> that when they are pushing cars at low prices to move them, GM gives
> them money for doing it to maintain profit for them. I have not paided
> over 500 bucks over true dealer cost (minus hidden kick backs) for
> over 25 years now and I have bought 7 new vehicles in that time frame
> too. If you feel sorry for them and want to bank roll them have at it
> but not me.
A lot of people don't realize that true dealer cost, and dealer invoice
are two entirely different things. $500 over dealer cost is invariably
still well under invoice, is a pretty fair price to pay. Of course a
dealer can't survive if everyone paid $500 over dealer cost, but
fortunately there are enough people paying invoice or more to make up
for those people that pay less.
SnoMan
wrote:
>A lot of people don't realize that true dealer cost, and dealer invoice
>are two entirely different things. $500 over dealer cost is invariably
>still well under invoice, is a pretty fair price to pay. Of course a
>dealer can't survive if everyone paid $500 over dealer cost, but
>fortunately there are enough people paying invoice or more to make up
>for those people that pay less.
GM used to have a minimum 3% hold back of invoice price that they
would give dealer after sale and 3% of 30K is 900 bucks so even a
invoice they are making at least 900 bucks on a 30K sale. They are not
starving as long as they can sell something it is when they cannot
sell anythiong at all that they feel the squeeze. BTW, my price
factoed in hold back too when I got cars 500 or less over true cost.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
SMS
Yes, you always want to factor in the hold back when calculating the
price to offer. On Toyota's they had some other stuff as well, 1% for
"Wholesale Financial Reserve," 2% for hold back, and 2% for TDA (ad
fee). Actually the dealer does have to contribute to the regional
advertising fund, but some dealers try to add that contribution back
onto the invoice price, even though Toyota gives them back the 2%. In my
area, it's a $500 contribution per vehicle, so if the invoice price is
greater than $25,000, the $500 is more than covered by Toyota.
Sometimes it's nearly impossible to find the factory to dealer
incentives, but if a dealer is advertising "all at this price" at well
under invoice, then you know that there are some factory to dealer
incentives in place.
SnoMan
wrote:
>Sometimes it's nearly impossible to find the factory to dealer
>incentives, but if a dealer is advertising "all at this price" at well
>under invoice, then you know that there are some factory to dealer
>incentives in place.
Yes they are guarding that info a lot more these days but if you did
around on Internet you can find out.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com