In article ,
wrote:

Buying a car on Visa is an AWFULL way to finace a car!!!!!!!

Really? I bought my last (used) car with a Visa, 2.99% fixed. Better
rate than I could have gotten anywhere else. Of course, that was before
the, uh, economic downturn. Actually just paid off the last $1100
yesterday because I was sick of making the payments.

Hell Toupee wrote:

Does anyone know (or do any of these buying guides ever say)
if when negotiating for a new vehicle, if an offer to outright
buy the vehicle (check, bank draft, credit-card, etc) is seen
by the dealership as more (or less) desirable vs the typical
way most people buy cars (long term payment plan). ?

How you will pay for the vehicle should be a separate discussion
that takes place after you've negotiated the price of the vehicle.

If the dealer would rather get paid cash for the car (for what-ever
reason - cash flow, etc) then wouldn't it make sense during the
negotiation to tell the dealer you intend to pay cash? Wouldn't that
work in your favor if the dealer wants your cash and therefore would be
more likely to negotiate a lower price?

If the dealer is assuming you're going to be making payments, and if
there's some additional cost for him that he needs to take into account
and he's factoring that into the price, and then when you arrive at a
price and tell him you're paying cash - haven't you shot yourself in the
foot?

I really would like to know if, all else being equal, if (new) car
dealers like to see cash-paying customers.

HeyBub wrote:

The more cars a dealership "sells" the more business for their
service department.

That may have been true 20+ years ago, because it's my impression that
cars are much more reliable (or durable) than they used to be.

My 11-year-old '00 Chrysler 300m is still running with the original
factory battery fer christ sakes. Just about the only thing I do beyond
putting gas in the tank is give it an oil change twice a year.

Over the past decade new cars have become almost "maintainence free".

See, the problem here is that once you get past the ridiculously-long
standard warranty (what - 5 years, 100k miles?) there's absolutely no
garantee that the owner of the car (which could be the second owner by
then) is going to have the car serviced at the same dealership that sold
the car. And by serviced, I mean the dinky stuff, like oil and fluid
changes, tire rotations, wiper blades, brake pads, emissions tests,
etc. You're not going to cover your payroll selling that stuff.

But cars need service every day of the week.

Only once they become 5 to 10 years old. Unless they need collision
work - which isin't typically done at a dealership.

The service department is much more predictable and stable.

And much more predictibly over-priced compared to independant or chain
service shops.

On 8/11/2011 10:11 PM, Home Guy wrote:
Hell Toupee wrote:

Does anyone know (or do any of these buying guides ever say)
if when negotiating for a new vehicle, if an offer to outright
buy the vehicle (check, bank draft, credit-card, etc) is seen
by the dealership as more (or less) desirable vs the typical
way most people buy cars (long term payment plan). ?

How you will pay for the vehicle should be a separate discussion
that takes place after you've negotiated the price of the vehicle.

If the dealer would rather get paid cash for the car (for what-ever
reason - cash flow, etc) then wouldn't it make sense during the
negotiation to tell the dealer you intend to pay cash? Wouldn't that
work in your favor if the dealer wants your cash and therefore would be
more likely to negotiate a lower price?

If the dealer is assuming you're going to be making payments, and if
there's some additional cost for him that he needs to take into account
and he's factoring that into the price, and then when you arrive at a
price and tell him you're paying cash - haven't you shot yourself in the
foot?

I really would like to know if, all else being equal, if (new) car
dealers like to see cash-paying customers.
Dealer would PREFER you finance through them- it is a profit center for
them. Some dealers charge more for cash customers, since there is no
ongoing profit. How-to books I have read said to finance through them,
then walk in a week later and pay it off.

I hate car dealers, and will try to avoid buying from them ever again if
at all possible. Auction or private-party, like I used to do, before the
last two purchases. Both left me slightly bow-legged. In my mind, I knew
exactly what they are doing, put after an hour of the BS, I just wanted
out of there so bad (which is exactly what they were counting on, of
course)....

--
aem sends...

On Aug 11, 8:21*pm, "
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 23:33:25 -0700 (PDT), gpsman
wrote:

On Aug 10, 11:52*pm, "
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 22:32:04 -0400, Metspitzer wrote:

Should I expect to try to get the best
offer on the truck and then get the rebate or is the rebate usually
the best offer?

The rebate has nothing to do with the sticker price. *Look up the truck's
invoice price, if the dealer won't show it to you, and offer $100 over, *AND*
keep the rebate.

There is such a thing as dealer participation wrt to some rebates.
Does that apply to his?

Dumbass, if the dealer is telling him of a rebate and not discounting from the
sticker, it is *NOT* a dealer rebate.

Wrong. The factory may demand dealer participation in "factory"
rebates.

You should shut up about things you know so little about.

How do you continue to live? *You really are too dumb to breathe.

So I hear, from the most ignorant nitwits Usenet has to offer.
-----

- gpsman

On 8/11/2011 7:11 PM, Home Guy wrote:

I really would like to know if, all else being equal, if (new) car
dealers like to see cash-paying customers.

They hate them.

On 8/11/2011 7:29 PM, aemeijers wrote:

Dealer would PREFER you finance through them- it is a profit center for
them. Some dealers charge more for cash customers, since there is no
ongoing profit. How-to books I have read said to finance through them,
then walk in a week later and pay it off.

We had a dealer renege on a signed purchase contract when it became
clear that we were not financing, not buying an extended warranty, and
not buying any of the extra garbage. They came up with a cock and bull
story about how the car had been damaged on the lot, then repaired, and
they were waiting for Toyota to "clear the car for sale." Probably
illegal, but what could we do, sue them?

The next day we went back, found a different sales person, bought the
same model again (but not the color we really wanted), but financed,
then paid it off when the first payment was due. Paid a little interest
for those few weeks, but it was worth it considering how little they
were selling the vehicles for.

SMS wrote:

I really would like to know if, all else being equal, if (new) car
dealers like to see cash-paying customers.

They hate them.

Care to expand on that?

In article , Home Guy wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

The more cars a dealership "sells" the more business for their
service department.

That may have been true 20+ years ago, because it's my impression that
cars are much more reliable (or durable) than they used to be.

My 11-year-old '00 Chrysler 300m is still running with the original
factory battery fer christ sakes. Just about the only thing I do beyond
putting gas in the tank is give it an oil change twice a year.

I'll go you one better than that.

I mentioned earlier in this thread the '84 LeSabre that we bought in '91. In
the fall of '97 it needed a new battery -- turned out the battery in it was
the original. Date code showed it was manufactured in Nov '83.

Home Guy wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

The more cars a dealership "sells" the more business for their
service department.

That may have been true 20+ years ago, because it's my impression that
cars are much more reliable (or durable) than they used to be.

My 11-year-old '00 Chrysler 300m is still running with the original
factory battery fer christ sakes. Just about the only thing I do
beyond putting gas in the tank is give it an oil change twice a year.

Over the past decade new cars have become almost "maintainence free".

That's you. Many people take their car in to the dealership every 8,000
miles (or whatever) for the factory-recommended "maintenance" once-over
(check the oil in the differential, adjust the outside rear-view mirrors,
etc.).


See, the problem here is that once you get past the ridiculously-long
standard warranty (what - 5 years, 100k miles?) there's absolutely no
garantee that the owner of the car (which could be the second owner by
then) is going to have the car serviced at the same dealership that
sold the car. And by serviced, I mean the dinky stuff, like oil and
fluid changes, tire rotations, wiper blades, brake pads, emissions
tests, etc. You're not going to cover your payroll selling that
stuff.

Virtually ALL dealerships cover their payroll (plus rent, insurance,
utilities, maintenance, taxes, and everything else) from parts and service.


But cars need service every day of the week.

Only once they become 5 to 10 years old. Unless they need collision
work - which isin't typically done at a dealership.

The service department is much more predictable and stable.

And much more predictibly over-priced compared to independant or chain
service shops.

Independent and chain shops cannot do everything a dealership can do. Cars
are more reliable than ever before and they have more proprietary parts than
ever before, parts and diagnostic equipment that are not readily available
to the neighborhood mechanic. I'll wager most independent shops say at least
once a day "You'll have to go to the dealership for that..."

On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 01:45:21 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:16:24 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , Metspitzer
wrote:
The Ford place has a 2011 Ranger XLT I would like to have. The
sticker price is 25K. The last car I bought was a 2011 Honda Civic
last year when they first came out and I was able to get 2k off its
21K list price.

Woo-hoo! Big discount there...

Ford is giving a 4.5k rebate on the new (but a year old 2011) truck
with a sticker price of 25k. Should I expect to try to get the best
offer on the truck and then get the rebate or is the rebate usually
the best offer?

Buying a new car is *never* a financially sound decision, rebate or no. The
only thing that makes financial sense is to buy used, at least three or four
years old. Let someone else pay the depreciation.

You want to talk about discounts from list price? After our second child was
born, in 1991, we bought a 1984 Buick LeSabre for $4200; the original window
sticker was still in the glove box, showing a list price of about $14K. The
car had 54K miles on it when we bought it, and it was still running when we
sold it ten years later at 211K.
Actually, there IS a financially sound reason for buying a new car
IF you are going to be financing the car AND the dealer is offering
zero percent financing. You can often buy the new car for the same or
less money than a 2 year old used car at bank finance rates.

That doesn't mean that buying a new car is a good idea -- only that it might
be a less bad, bad idea, than buying a two year old used car.

If the dealer is offering zero percent financing, you can bet that he's making
his money some other way -- like not cutting you much of a break on the price.

If you are paying CASH, a new car NEVER makes financial sense.

It doesn't matter HOW you're paying. It's still not a sound financial
decision. Let someone *else* pay the depreciation, and buy the car after it's
lost 1/3 to 1/2 of its value.


May as well let it loose 75% of it's value, or more.

On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 22:35:45 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Home Guy wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

The more cars a dealership "sells" the more business for their
service department.

That may have been true 20+ years ago, because it's my impression that
cars are much more reliable (or durable) than they used to be.

My 11-year-old '00 Chrysler 300m is still running with the original
factory battery fer christ sakes. Just about the only thing I do
beyond putting gas in the tank is give it an oil change twice a year.

Over the past decade new cars have become almost "maintainence free".

That's you. Many people take their car in to the dealership every 8,000
miles (or whatever) for the factory-recommended "maintenance" once-over
(check the oil in the differential, adjust the outside rear-view mirrors,
etc.).


See, the problem here is that once you get past the ridiculously-long
standard warranty (what - 5 years, 100k miles?) there's absolutely no
garantee that the owner of the car (which could be the second owner by
then) is going to have the car serviced at the same dealership that
sold the car. And by serviced, I mean the dinky stuff, like oil and
fluid changes, tire rotations, wiper blades, brake pads, emissions
tests, etc. You're not going to cover your payroll selling that
stuff.

Virtually ALL dealerships cover their payroll (plus rent, insurance,
utilities, maintenance, taxes, and everything else) from parts and service.

Used to be - but you can fire a cannon through many dealership service
departments today and not hit anything or anyone. 80% absorption today
is pretty darn good for an american car dealer.
Sadly (for them) you can pretty well fire a cannon through the
showroom without hitting anyone too.


But cars need service every day of the week.

Only once they become 5 to 10 years old. Unless they need collision
work - which isin't typically done at a dealership.

Even a lot of 10 or 15 year old cars only need service 3 times a year
these days - and very little even then.

The service department is much more predictable and stable.

And much more predictibly over-priced compared to independant or chain
service shops.

Many "chain" shops may post a lower rate - but STILL cost you more
over-all than a dealer shop.
Independent and chain shops cannot do everything a dealership can do. Cars
are more reliable than ever before and they have more proprietary parts than
ever before, parts and diagnostic equipment that are not readily available
to the neighborhood mechanic. I'll wager most independent shops say at least
once a day "You'll have to go to the dealership for that..."

And MANY independents can do just about everything the dealers can do
(and some even "sub" work for dealers).
I know an independent shop did all the alignments for 2 (large)
dealerships.

Yes, there are a lot of "dealer only" parts - and SOME diagnostic
equipment that independents can't get or afford to have - and SOME of
that cannot be worked around.. Some - but very little.

On 8/11/2011 6:45 PM, Doug Miller wrote:

It doesn't matter HOW you're paying. It's still not a sound financial
decision. Let someone *else* pay the depreciation, and buy the car after it's
lost 1/3 to 1/2 of its value.

That can work on vehicle brands that have very poor resale value, but
buying uses is often a bad financial decision if you're buying a car
that depreciates very slowly. The ten worst vehicles in terms of
depreciation are all from the Big 3. The ten best are from Toyota,
Honda, BMW, and amazingly the Mini Cooper (a very unreliable vehicle).

Buying a two year old Honda or Toyota for 90% of what a new one costs is
not all that smart since you've lost two years of warranty, and the
resale value if you ever sell it is less because it's two years older.
For a Honda or Toyota to sell for 50% of the street price of a new one
would mean buying a 5 or 6 year old car.

However buying a two year old Ford, GM, or Chrysler for 50% of what a
new one costs may be a good financial decision.

If not for sales tax, you could buy a new Honda or Toyota at the time of
year when they are most heavily discounted, then sell it one year later
for more than you paid for it.

wrote:

Virtually ALL dealerships cover their payroll (plus rent, insurance,
utilities, maintenance, taxes, and everything else) from parts and
service.

Used to be - but you can fire a cannon through many dealership service
departments today and not hit anything or anyone. 80% absorption today
is pretty darn good for an american car dealer.
Sadly (for them) you can pretty well fire a cannon through the
showroom without hitting anyone too.


That's probably quite true today due to the parlous times in which we live.

Nevertheless, it is still an economic and business goal that the dealership
should rely on parts and service to keep the place running.

In article , wrote:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 01:45:21 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

It doesn't matter HOW you're paying. It's still not a sound financial
decision. Let someone *else* pay the depreciation, and buy the car after it's
lost 1/3 to 1/2 of its value.


May as well let it loose 75% of it's value, or more.

That depends largely on how skilled you are at making your own repairs. I've
been doing the vast majority of my own service for 35 years (including engine
and transmission rebuilds), so buying older, high-mileage vehicles does not
daunt me. The newest used car I've ever bought was five years old; the oldest,
nineteen. Average about ten.

With any used vehicle, there's a point where cost of repair has a greater
influence on total cost of ownership than does the initial purchase cost. If
you have to pay someone else to do your repairs, that point comes earlier in
the vehicle's life. For those folks who can't do their own repairs, it's
likely to be somewhere around 40-50% depreciation. I'm quite content to buy at
75% depreciation, but then, I pay only the cost of parts for nearly all my
repairs.

In article , SMS wrote:
On 8/11/2011 6:45 PM, Doug Miller wrote:

It doesn't matter HOW you're paying. It's still not a sound financial
decision. Let someone *else* pay the depreciation, and buy the car after it's
lost 1/3 to 1/2 of its value.

That can work on vehicle brands that have very poor resale value, but
buying uses is often a bad financial decision if you're buying a car
that depreciates very slowly.

Wrong. That just means you need to wait longer before you buy.

Let someone *else* pay most of the depreciation.

The ten worst vehicles in terms of
depreciation are all from the Big 3. The ten best are from Toyota,
Honda, BMW, and amazingly the Mini Cooper (a very unreliable vehicle).

Buying a two year old Honda or Toyota for 90% of what a new one costs is
not all that smart since you've lost two years of warranty, and the
resale value if you ever sell it is less because it's two years older.

That doesn't mean it's smart to buy a new one -- it just means that it might
be less stupid to buy a new one than a two-year-old one.

For a Honda or Toyota to sell for 50% of the street price of a new one
would mean buying a 5 or 6 year old car.

So buy a 5 or 6 year old car. So what?

Let someone *else* pay most of the depreciation.

On 8/12/2011 5:26 AM, Doug Miller wrote:

So buy a 5 or 6 year old car. So what?

If the only important factor in your purchasing decision is the
percentage of depreciation, that works.

In article , SMS wrote:
On 8/12/2011 5:26 AM, Doug Miller wrote:

So buy a 5 or 6 year old car. So what?

If the only important factor in your purchasing decision is the
percentage of depreciation, that works.

Total cost of ownership is *never* lowest with a new car.

In limited, unusual circumstances, it may be lowER with a new car than with a
1- or 2-year-old used car. But it is never lowEST when buying new. Never.

On 8/11/2011 5:25 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:56:07 GMT, wrote:

Home wrote in :

Does anyone know (or do any of these buying guides ever say) if when
negotiating for a new vehicle, if an offer to outright buy the vehicle
(check, bank draft, credit-card, etc) is seen by the dealership as
more (or less) desirable vs the typical way most people buy cars (long
term payment plan). ?

I mean, if you have the means (and inclination) to fork over the full
purchase price for a new vehicle, does that work in your favor when
negotiating the price, or would the dealer (or his financing company)
rather bleed you for $300 - $700 a month for 5 years?

I negotiated to have my purchase go through 100% on my credit card
when I bought my '2000 Chrysler 300m back in the fall of 1999. After
I signed the deal, they came back and said that they can't do it
because they didn't anticipate the Visa transaction cost of putting
such a large purchase through. I balked and said they signed the
deal, but eventually settled and met them half way on the transaction
cost. I got a ****-load of frequent-flyer miles because of that
purchase.



I bought my last 2 cars on Visa. Both were used but from a new car
dealer. The first time they said max $3000, so I started to walk, they
went to half and then to the full price. The second car they agreed to
Visa right away. You're right about the load of miles, we call then
points up here in Canada. Sure there are Visa transaction costs for them
but it is just part of the dickering. All the things they bring up may
be legit but the final cost to me is all that matters. I think they made
good money on both deals.

A couple of days ago I went with my Dad to look at new cars and we said
it would go on Visa and they both agreed but we didn't get to the nitty
gritty. It seems to be more comonplace now.
Buying a car on Visa is an AWFULL way to finace a car!!!!!!!

1999: i bought my last car with a credit union loan because it was fast
and cheap. that week got a credit card offer in the mail. 0% loan for 12
months, no fee loan transfer. paid off the CU loan that month onto the
credit card. didn't pay any interest for a year, paid off the car in
that year, so it cost me $0 in interest for a year.

2001: built a new house. paid for all materials for construction on my
visa, then gave the bills to the bank to pay off each month. this paid
for multiple trips to Europe and the Caribbean and got cash back.

those years are long gone, i'm afraid.

On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 06:31:40 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:

Virtually ALL dealerships cover their payroll (plus rent, insurance,
utilities, maintenance, taxes, and everything else) from parts and
service.

Used to be - but you can fire a cannon through many dealership service
departments today and not hit anything or anyone. 80% absorption today
is pretty darn good for an american car dealer.
Sadly (for them) you can pretty well fire a cannon through the
showroom without hitting anyone too.


That's probably quite true today due to the parlous times in which we live.

Nevertheless, it is still an economic and business goal that the dealership
should rely on parts and service to keep the place running.

Don't I know it.
I was service manager for 10 years.

On 8/12/2011 4:35 AM, HeyBub wrote:

Imagine the overhead - and the risk - necessary to handle the financing for
a few hundred sales a year. If I owned the dealership, I'd shed that grief
in a heartbeat.

The dealer has no risk and little overhead. It's all done by finance
companies. If the borrower defaults then the finance company repossesses
the vehicle. The dealer wants to add profit centers, not get rid of them.

On 8/11/2011 8:57 PM, wrote:

Yes, there are a lot of "dealer only" parts - and SOME diagnostic
equipment that independents can't get or afford to have - and SOME of
that cannot be worked around.. Some - but very little.

Very little. The biggest chunk of parts sales at a dealership is to
independent shops. My mechanic goes to the Toyota training classes, and
prefers to use OEM parts for most repairs even when the after-market
parts are less expensive. Many of the after-market parts are of such
poor quality that he'd end up doing free labor to replace the
after-market part within his warranty. If he's ever stumped on a
problem, or a proprietary code comes up on the OBD scanner, he knows who
to contact at Toyota for assistance. The key is being a good
diagnostician. An experienced mechanic has seen the same problem so many
times that it's usually not hard to diagnose it.

On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:23:14 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , wrote:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 01:45:21 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

It doesn't matter HOW you're paying. It's still not a sound financial
decision. Let someone *else* pay the depreciation, and buy the car after it's
lost 1/3 to 1/2 of its value.


May as well let it loose 75% of it's value, or more.

That depends largely on how skilled you are at making your own repairs. I've
been doing the vast majority of my own service for 35 years (including engine
and transmission rebuilds), so buying older, high-mileage vehicles does not
daunt me. The newest used car I've ever bought was five years old; the oldest,
nineteen. Average about ten.

With any used vehicle, there's a point where cost of repair has a greater
influence on total cost of ownership than does the initial purchase cost. If
you have to pay someone else to do your repairs, that point comes earlier in
the vehicle's life. For those folks who can't do their own repairs, it's
likely to be somewhere around 40-50% depreciation. I'm quite content to buy at
75% depreciation, but then, I pay only the cost of parts for nearly all my
repairs.
Likewize - but gee, WHAT repairs??
By the time my 6 year old Chysler was 18 years old I had done a
valve/guide job, replaced the exhaust, and replaced the transmission,
as well as 2 complete sets of brakes.I replaced a few CV joint boots.
I think I rebuilt the alternator once, and replaced the timing belt
and water pump. That was IT.
My 1990 Aerostar had a trans front seal leak,transmission input shaft,
U-joints, and ball joints plus one exhaust system and about 4 or 5
sets of front brakes before I sold it at 11 years of age with over
240,000 km on it. (not counting the warranty replacement of the short
block because of a piston slap virtually from new) I had bought it
from my Dad, who bought it new.
My 1996 Mystique had a problem that turned on the check engine light
- bank 1 lean - that I chased for a couple months after I bought it at
age 6 years. Replaced intake gaskets and a few other things before I
found the defective vacuum hose that collapsed under high vacuum,
opening a crack that leaned out the engine.
Other than that, A/C reciever, trans oil pan gasket, engine mount,
lower strut bushings, brakes and a few electrical contact problems
(brake lights 3 times, heater once, right front door window once.
Thankfully not much - because it is a real PAIN to work on (2.5 L V6,
4 wheel disc brakes, etc. The antilock brakes/traction control has an
issue now - don't think I'll bother fixing it. - and can't forget -
the infamous "moosing" problem - solved by drilling a 3/16" hole in a
1/2" copper pipe cap and stuffing it into the hose to the IAC.

The 1995 TransSport was a totally different kettle of fish. You'd
think the darn thing was made in England - if you didn't open the hood
and fondle it's nuts about every other week it didn't feel good.
About the second worst vehicle I ever owned. Ball joints and front
wheel bearings lasted about as long as oil filters. CV Joints were
not much better. Oxygen sensors should have had wing-nuts on them and
the trim quality made my Chryslers look like Rolls Royces.

On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 06:18:04 -0700, SMS
wrote:

On 8/12/2011 5:26 AM, Doug Miller wrote:

So buy a 5 or 6 year old car. So what?

If the only important factor in your purchasing decision is the
percentage of depreciation, that works.
But if you get rid of your cars at about 18 years, depreciation is
not an issue. Cost is - initial cost and repair cost - which
translates to cost per year.

A new car, bought right, CAN cost less per year over 18 years than the
used one, bought at 3 years, over 15 - or sometimes even the used one,
bought at 5 years, over 13.

Depends a LOT on how you buy it. (cash or finance - what finance rate,
and how good a deal you get - bought private, from dealer, or off used
car lot (often the poorest deal)

On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 22:35:45 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

Home Guy wrote:
snip

The service department is much more predictable and stable.

And much more predictibly over-priced compared to independant or chain
service shops.

Independent and chain shops cannot do everything a dealership can do. Cars
are more reliable than ever before and they have more proprietary parts than
ever before, parts and diagnostic equipment that are not readily available
to the neighborhood mechanic. I'll wager most independent shops say at least
once a day "You'll have to go to the dealership for that..."

Interestingly, the dealership I was taking my car to, told me to take it
somewhere else because they would be too expensive for an exhaust system. They
were sure right![*] So I did, and have been ever since. ;-)
[*] The dealer said the entire exhaust system needed replacing. The place I
took it, and have since, replaced everything behind the CC, for about 10% of
what the dealer wanted.

On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 14:02:45 GMT, (Doug
Miller) wrote:

In article , SMS wrote:
On 8/12/2011 5:26 AM, Doug Miller wrote:

So buy a 5 or 6 year old car. So what?

If the only important factor in your purchasing decision is the
percentage of depreciation, that works.

Total cost of ownership is *never* lowest with a new car.

In limited, unusual circumstances, it may be lowER with a new car than with a
1- or 2-year-old used car. But it is never lowEST when buying new. Never.
Never is a LONG time.

There ARE situations where it CAN be. Rare, but possible.
My cost per year on the used Pontiac wasn't much lower than a new one
would have been, assuming the new one didn't have all the problems the
high mileage used one had.

The biggest mistake with a used car is not getting out quick enough
if/when it starts going sour. You just spent $500 on it - gotta get
another couple of months out of it. Just spent another thousand - it
should be good for another year -Now I've got $1500 more in it - what
else can go wrong? and it does. Do I fix it again and try to get some
money's worth out of it, or get out while the getting's not
necessarily good, but at least a known loss???

Same goes with a new car. But if it is troublesome while it is IN
warranty, take the depreciation loss and get out while you can still
get something for it - don't hang onto it figuring you will soon have
all the problems fixed. It's been known to happen - but you can't
count on it.

When buying a (relativly new) USED car, you are gambling that this HAS
happened - all the bugs are ironed out of the "new" car, and you have
a few years of trouble-free driving ahead of you.

When buying a "well depreciated" car, you are gambling that the cost
of expected repairs, added to the low price you paid for the car, will
still be lower than the depreciation and either financing cost or
opportunity cost (what the money you spent to buy the car could have
done for you otherwise) of buying a new one, over the life of the car.


I like to buy a "well depreciated", "experienced" car with full
service records and a solid service and performance history.

If it has behaved well over the first 5 years or more of it's life,
and has been well serviced and maintained, it's a good bet it will
continue to do so for quite some time if properly maintained in the
future.
If it has been problematic in the past, it's a good bet it will
continue to be.

A customer of my brother's shop has an older Camaro - SS - with the
Corvette engine - that he bought new and had trouble with from the
word go. By the time it was off warranty just about anything that
could go wrong had gone wrong and been fixed under warranty. He LOVED
the car (don't know why) and it had gone six months without trouble so
he decided to keep it. Within a year, the cycle started again - and
now My brother said he should put the guy's name on one of the hoists
and "reserve" it for the Camaro. Yhe guy bitches and complains about
the cost of maintaining it (keeping it alive), but refuses to let it
lie down. If it was a horse, he wouldn't even need to shoot it - just
take it off life support!!

Imagine buying THAT piece used!!

wrote

Interestingly, the dealership I was taking my car to, told me to take it
somewhere else because they would be too expensive for an exhaust system.
They
were sure right![*] So I did, and have been ever since. ;-)


With rare exception, dealers cost more than a good independent shop. I
really hate going to a dealer for service and only use them for warranty
work or the occasional deal they may offer on oil changes. Of course, once
they get you in there they want to sell other services.

As a forinstance: Dealer I bought my last two cars from says you should get
the fuel injector cleaning every year @ $129. Two cars would cost me $258 a
year. I've never had an injector problem in many years of driving so I'm
thousands of dollars ahead of taking their advice.

On 8/12/2011 8:17 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

As a forinstance: Dealer I bought my last two cars from says you should
get the fuel injector cleaning every year @ $129. Two cars would cost me
$258 a year. I've never had an injector problem in many years of driving
so I'm thousands of dollars ahead of taking their advice.

You haven't taken your vehicles in for their annual Bilstein Wallet
Flush service?

On 8/12/2011 11:17 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

wrote

Interestingly, the dealership I was taking my car to, told me to take it
somewhere else because they would be too expensive for an exhaust
system. They
were sure right![*] So I did, and have been ever since. ;-)


With rare exception, dealers cost more than a good independent shop. I
really hate going to a dealer for service and only use them for warranty
work or the occasional deal they may offer on oil changes. Of course,
once they get you in there they want to sell other services.

As a forinstance: Dealer I bought my last two cars from says you should
get the fuel injector cleaning every year @ $129. Two cars would cost me
$258 a year. I've never had an injector problem in many years of driving
so I'm thousands of dollars ahead of taking their advice.

I've never had what I consider to be a good experience with a dealer
service department. Multiple do-overs on simple work, wall jobs for
recalls, having to leave it all day for stuff other places do while I
wait, attempted up-sells, high prices for labor and parts, 'waiting on
parts' while they did high-profit jobs instead, and in one case they
broke my windshield and denied they did it. And this is multiple
dealers in several states over 30+ years.

I avoid them if at ALL possible.
--
aem sends...

On Sat, 13 Aug 2011 05:34:57 -0400, aemeijers
wrote:

On 8/12/2011 11:17 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

wrote

Interestingly, the dealership I was taking my car to, told me to take it
somewhere else because they would be too expensive for an exhaust
system. They
were sure right![*] So I did, and have been ever since. ;-)


With rare exception, dealers cost more than a good independent shop. I
really hate going to a dealer for service and only use them for warranty
work or the occasional deal they may offer on oil changes. Of course,
once they get you in there they want to sell other services.

As a forinstance: Dealer I bought my last two cars from says you should
get the fuel injector cleaning every year @ $129. Two cars would cost me
$258 a year. I've never had an injector problem in many years of driving
so I'm thousands of dollars ahead of taking their advice.

I've never had what I consider to be a good experience with a dealer
service department. Multiple do-overs on simple work, wall jobs for
recalls, having to leave it all day for stuff other places do while I
wait, attempted up-sells, high prices for labor and parts, 'waiting on
parts' while they did high-profit jobs instead, and in one case they
broke my windshield and denied they did it. And this is multiple
dealers in several states over 30+ years.

I avoid them if at ALL possible.
I always had a loyal following wherever I worked - and my dealership
had an EXTREMELY high retention rate for the 10 years I was service
manager because I DID NOT allow that kind of thing to occur.
My service department was the ONLY dealer service department in the
Waterloo/Wellington area that was NOT a flat rate shop. All my guys
were paid straight time. No incentives. No Flat Rate Bonuses.
I paid them enough to make it worth while coming in to work in the
morning - and they got paid the same if they were fixing a customers
car, a company used car, or the hoists/workbenches etc, or cleaning
the place, etc.

They were ALWAYS busy.
And both our absorption rate and retention rate were the envy of
every dealership around - big or small.

You guys who know about such things - how does 130% retention rate
over 3 years sound??
Yup - we serviced, at leazt 3 times a year, 30% more (of our
brand)cars than we had sold over the last 3 years. Plus the used cars
we sold, and other customers who brought their off-brand cars in for
my guys to service.

This WAS over 20 years ago - but even THEN, it was good.

On 2011-08-13, wrote:

Waterloo/Wellington area that was NOT a flat rate shop. All my guys
were paid straight time. No incentives. No Flat Rate Bonuses.

I don't know anything about "Flat Rate Bonuses", but what's wrong with
flat rate? It's the time a factory thinks it should take a competent
mechanic with the proper tools to do a specific job. If the mechanic
is better, he will do the job quicker than the "flat rate" and can do
more in a given time and will earn the business more money. Plus, the
customer is charged a fair rate according to what it SHOULD take a
competent mechanic to complete the job, not the time some slacker or
novice will take. I once worked as a mechanic at flat rate. I was
slower when I began and became quicker as I gained experience. Seems
like a fair way to do things.

Many years later, I was shocked when I asked the flat rate on changing
a hydraulic steering line on my car and the service mgr said there is
no longer any such thing as flat rate and if it took 6 hrs, that's
what I'd be charged. I told him to jam it up his ass and did it
myself in 1.5 hrs, having no previous experience on said car.

nb

notbob wrote:
On 2011-08-13, wrote:

Waterloo/Wellington area that was NOT a flat rate shop. All my guys
were paid straight time. No incentives. No Flat Rate Bonuses.

I don't know anything about "Flat Rate Bonuses", but what's wrong with
flat rate? It's the time a factory thinks it should take a competent
mechanic with the proper tools to do a specific job. If the mechanic
is better, he will do the job quicker than the "flat rate" and can do
more in a given time and will earn the business more money. Plus, the
customer is charged a fair rate according to what it SHOULD take a
competent mechanic to complete the job, not the time some slacker or
novice will take. I once worked as a mechanic at flat rate. I was
slower when I began and became quicker as I gained experience. Seems
like a fair way to do things.

Many years later, I was shocked when I asked the flat rate on changing
a hydraulic steering line on my car and the service mgr said there is
no longer any such thing as flat rate and if it took 6 hrs, that's
what I'd be charged. I told him to jam it up his ass and did it
myself in 1.5 hrs, having no previous experience on said car.


All other things being equal, take your car to the dealership with the
largest parts department.

Mechanics want to get your car fixed and rolled out of thier service bay so
they can work on another. If they need a part that has to come from another
dealership, they get a lot of down time. Therefore the BEST mechanics tend
to gravitate to the dealerships with more part numbers in stock. If they can
get the part they need, they can get your car fixed sooner.

On 2011-08-13, HeyBub wrote:

All other things being equal, take your car to the dealership with the
largest parts department.

Not sure what this has to do with flat rate, but OK, I'll respond.

Many dealerships have been actively divesting themselves of parts
inventories. Overhead, I reckon. I went to my local Mopar dealership
to get a part. They no longer carried it. So, went to my local Napa
dealer, who did have it. While waiting for them to ring it up, I
groused about how the Chrysler dealership was going down the tubes.
While bitching, I turned around and discovered the parts man from the
Chrysler dealership was standing in line at the Napa parts counter.
He smiled, sheepishly.

nb

On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 23:17:25 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:


wrote

Interestingly, the dealership I was taking my car to, told me to take it
somewhere else because they would be too expensive for an exhaust system.
They
were sure right![*] So I did, and have been ever since. ;-)


With rare exception, dealers cost more than a good independent shop. I
really hate going to a dealer for service and only use them for warranty
work or the occasional deal they may offer on oil changes. Of course, once
they get you in there they want to sell other services.

The dealer where I lived before was run by a best friend, so no one ever
up-sold me. ;-) I'd get a loaner whenever the cars were in for service, too.
After I moved here, I had no idea who to go to, so continued going to the
dealer. I've now found someone else I can trust (and even more convenient),
so don't go back to the dealer. I'll probably take my wife's car back there
for tires in a couple of weeks, though.

As a forinstance: Dealer I bought my last two cars from says you should get
the fuel injector cleaning every year @ $129. Two cars would cost me $258 a
year. I've never had an injector problem in many years of driving so I'm
thousands of dollars ahead of taking their advice.

Yeah, I don't buy any of that crap either. I do have the transmissions
serviced on the schedule, though.

On 13 Aug 2011 13:50:31 GMT, notbob wrote:

On 2011-08-13, wrote:

Waterloo/Wellington area that was NOT a flat rate shop. All my guys
were paid straight time. No incentives. No Flat Rate Bonuses.

I don't know anything about "Flat Rate Bonuses", but what's wrong with
flat rate?


Simple. It entices the mechanic to cheat and take short cuts , and to
sell work that isn't required.

It's the time a factory thinks it should take a competent
mechanic with the proper tools to do a specific job. If the mechanic
is better, he will do the job quicker than the "flat rate" and can do
more in a given time and will earn the business more money. Plus, the
customer is charged a fair rate according to what it SHOULD take a
competent mechanic to complete the job, not the time some slacker or
novice will take.

The customer was charged by the flat rate.
A LOT of flat rate mechanics make more money with their pencil than
with their tools - and I've seen BOXES of parts under mechanic's
benches that were NOT replaced, that should have been replaced as part
of the job, and the customer (or warranty) paid both for the parts and
the installation.

The flat rate pay system encourages cheating. I don't like it. I've
worked it. And yes, under flat rate, I could have made a LOT of money
(when things were busy).. Straight time guarantees the paycheque, even
when things are slow. Some guys like that.
I once worked as a mechanic at flat rate. I was
slower when I began and became quicker as I gained experience. Seems
like a fair way to do things.

Many years later, I was shocked when I asked the flat rate on changing
a hydraulic steering line on my car and the service mgr said there is
no longer any such thing as flat rate and if it took 6 hrs, that's
what I'd be charged. I told him to jam it up his ass and did it
myself in 1.5 hrs, having no previous experience on said car.

nb


Flat rate does NOT apply to older vehicles, where rust and other crap
can cause major problems. It also does NOT cover diagnostics. For MANY
jobs, diagnostics can be well over half the time spent on a job - and
it is "clock time". It does not cover "extenuating circumstances" If
an exhaust stud breaks off in a manifold, it is "clock time" untill
the stud is replaced - unless the mechanic gets creative and adds "r &
R manifold" to the flat rate job - and THEN goes to clock time to
remove the stud - then adds "replace stud" to the flat rate job -
which means he gets paid twice for over half the job.

No flat rate for replacing rusted fuel lines, brake lines or
transmission cooling lines. Not for rusted power steering lines
either.

Factory flat rate is "warranty time" - the time a reasonably adept
mechanic should take to replace the part on a reasonably new car - set
by the factory - for warranty purposes.
Many manufacturers pay a different hourly rate for warranty repairs
too. Generally less than retail door rate

Then there's "Chilton time" and several other versions of "Flat Rate"
used mostly by general repair shops. Generally about 20% more than
"factory" time.

I spent half my working life as a mechanic - both flat rate and
straight time - including 10 years as service manager - so I got to
see both sides of the problem.

On 13 Aug 2011 15:16:50 GMT, notbob wrote:

On 2011-08-13, HeyBub wrote:

All other things being equal, take your car to the dealership with the
largest parts department.

Not sure what this has to do with flat rate, but OK, I'll respond.

Many dealerships have been actively divesting themselves of parts
inventories. Overhead, I reckon. I went to my local Mopar dealership
to get a part. They no longer carried it. So, went to my local Napa
dealer, who did have it. While waiting for them to ring it up, I
groused about how the Chrysler dealership was going down the tubes.
While bitching, I turned around and discovered the parts man from the
Chrysler dealership was standing in line at the Napa parts counter.
He smiled, sheepishly.

nb
And half the time they charge the Napa part out at Mopar price to
the customer. Not too bad if they use the premium Napa part - but the
cheap value line crap is a different story.

On 2011-08-13, wrote:

The flat rate pay system encourages cheating.

Total nonsense. An honest mechanic does not become unscrupulous just
because a flat rate system is in place. I was an honest mechanic and
the customer got full measure of what he paid for, regardless of how
long it took me, whether I was quick or slow. OTOH, scumbags need no
encouragement to be unscrupulous. They'll cheat you, flat rate or no.

I spent half my working life as a mechanic - both flat rate and
straight time - including 10 years as service manager - so I got to
see both sides of the problem.

I can inderstand how certain repair circumstances create problems.
BTDT. OTOH, the training of an unexperienced new mechanic should not
be the responibility of and/or be paid for by the customer. Let more
experienced mechanics do the diagnostics. Besides, who does free
diagnostics, anymore? Sure, flat rate applies to newer warranty work,
and that's what we applied it to.

How many shops survive working on clapped out rusting hulks, unless
it's their specialty and they have the set-up and priceing structure
for it. Even if it is warranty or fairly new car work, sometimes you
get a job that's a loss. That's a std part of business. You can't
start hosing all customers just cuz you lose money on occassion. Oh
wait!! ....apparently, you can! I know it's damn sure become SOP to
try.

nb

On 2011-08-13, wrote:

And half the time they charge the Napa part out at Mopar price to
the customer. Not too bad if they use the premium Napa part - but the
cheap value line crap is a different story.

I've been a mechanic my whole life, too, but I got out of that facet
of it early, moving on to high tech engineering and R&D. I've found
exactly two auto mechanics I actually trust, in my entire life, which
is why I do my own work.

nb

On 13 Aug 2011 22:02:15 GMT, notbob wrote:

On 2011-08-13, wrote:

And half the time they charge the Napa part out at Mopar price to
the customer. Not too bad if they use the premium Napa part - but the
cheap value line crap is a different story.

I've been a mechanic my whole life, too, but I got out of that facet
of it early, moving on to high tech engineering and R&D. I've found
exactly two auto mechanics I actually trust, in my entire life, which
is why I do my own work.

I've known two, three counting my son.
I nearly always do my own work except trans and exhaust.
Best to grow you own mechanic.
But I pay him well, so I don't save any money, just more convenient.

--Vic

On 8/12/2011 8:17 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

With rare exception, dealers cost more than a good independent shop. I
really hate going to a dealer for service and only use them for warranty
work or the occasional deal they may offer on oil changes. Of course,
once they get you in there they want to sell other services.

The upselling is just too annoying and too time consuming to bother with
a dealer oil change special any more. The last time I went to the dealer
for an oil change special they tried to sell me very overpriced tires
(when I asked what the treadwear warranty was they said that tire
manufacturers no longer had them, which is untrue), as well as a list of
additional unneeded services. I finally just left, without the oil change.

I bought the set of filter wrenches that actually properly fit the
filters on my Toyota vehicles and it's made the oil changes much easier,
http://www.tooltopia.com/assenmacher-toy300.aspx. With an OEM filter
and 5 quart jugs of oil on sale, an oil change costs about $15 and takes
30-45 minutes (on my 4Runner I have to remove the skid plates which adds
15 minutes).