Largest Chevrolet Dealer Group CLosing Doors

On 30 Sep 2008 22:10:53 GMT, Jim Yanik > wrote:

>how do the "imports" and "domestics" compare in resale value?
>
>I'm thinking about their quality after a couple of years on the road.


I did a post on just this in the same thread that evidently isn't
linked to this forum.

Copied from that thread which is in alt.autos
___________________________________

There is a mediocre debate currently running called Why GM and Ford
are having problems? Working along the idea of that thread I figured I
wuold take a few minutes to look at a reason or two.

The biggest reason is going to be customer perception. After all,
perception is reality to the person who is looking.

Taking this into account I went to Edmunds.com and put in the same
info for 4 each of a lines entry cars and midsize sedans. All info is
left basic with the following attributes.

All are 2003 models
All are listed as silver (base paint)
All are automatics
I used 50,000 miles (10k a year)
I used Average as a modifier though I could have used clean. I figure
most cars will be average after 5 years of normal use/wear &
tear/cleaning. Keep in mind, average does not reflect the car
enthusiast likely to be in here.

All prices are Average Dealer Retail.

The original MSRP of each car, while not listed, was very close among
the brands. IE: the upper level Civic EX (not high performance Si but
the more common EX) had an MSRP of about $16k which was similar for
the Focus, Corolla SE, and Cavalier when each had similar equipment on
it. This was just a rough compilation and it should only be taken as
such. I did not add any options save for an automatic transmission.
For the sedans I chose the V6 model of each as a representative group.
I couldnt' care less about rebates and incentives, only MSRP. If they
have to use the rebates and incentives it simply says they are not
competitive on the price point they want to play at.

***ONCE AGAIN*** I will stress that this is a base-line test and no, I
didn't take the time to dial in every single little option or detail
to make it perfect. This is a broad group that is representative of
the average for-sale car.

Here are the results:

Entry level sedan/4-door:
Honda Civic EX $9,650
Toyota Corolla SE $8,372
Chevy Cavalier LS $5,510
Ford Focus SE $5,736

Midsize Standard sedans/4door:
Honda Accord EX V6 $12,766
Toyota Camry SE V6 $11,046
Chevy Malibu $5,964
Ford Taurus SES $5,964

Odd that the Taurus SES and Malibu were both listed as the same price.
In all cases the 'domestics' are roughly half (50-65%) the value of
the imports over a given period of 5 years. That would be one of the
resons these companies are having a hard time. In order to be
competitive they are having to give away a lot of incentives and
rebates simply to unbury their previous customers. To make matters
worse, they destroyed anyone who recently bought a car when they
started doing the Employee Pricing gimmick. What that means is that
anyone who bought a car for anything near a normal price is now
HAMMERED in the cars they bought and, without a significant amount of
cash to bail themselves out, are now stuck with them.

Yes, when you kill your own customers it's hard to get repeat
business. It's harder, still, to attract new business.

adventuremyk wrote in :

> On 30 Sep 2008 22:10:53 GMT, Jim Yanik > wrote:
>
>>how do the "imports" and "domestics" compare in resale value?
>>
>>I'm thinking about their quality after a couple of years on the road.
>
>
> I did a post on just this in the same thread that evidently isn't
> linked to this forum.
>
> Copied from that thread which is in alt.autos
> ___________________________________
>
> There is a mediocre debate currently running called Why GM and Ford
> are having problems? Working along the idea of that thread I figured I
> wuold take a few minutes to look at a reason or two.
>
> The biggest reason is going to be customer perception. After all,
> perception is reality to the person who is looking.
>
> Taking this into account I went to Edmunds.com and put in the same
> info for 4 each of a lines entry cars and midsize sedans. All info is
> left basic with the following attributes.
>
> All are 2003 models
> All are listed as silver (base paint)
> All are automatics
> I used 50,000 miles (10k a year)
> I used Average as a modifier though I could have used clean. I figure
> most cars will be average after 5 years of normal use/wear &
> tear/cleaning. Keep in mind, average does not reflect the car
> enthusiast likely to be in here.
>
> All prices are Average Dealer Retail.
>
> The original MSRP of each car, while not listed, was very close among
> the brands. IE: the upper level Civic EX (not high performance Si but
> the more common EX) had an MSRP of about $16k which was similar for
> the Focus, Corolla SE, and Cavalier when each had similar equipment on
> it. This was just a rough compilation and it should only be taken as
> such. I did not add any options save for an automatic transmission.
> For the sedans I chose the V6 model of each as a representative group.
> I couldnt' care less about rebates and incentives, only MSRP. If they
> have to use the rebates and incentives it simply says they are not
> competitive on the price point they want to play at.
>
> ***ONCE AGAIN*** I will stress that this is a base-line test and no, I
> didn't take the time to dial in every single little option or detail
> to make it perfect. This is a broad group that is representative of
> the average for-sale car.
>
> Here are the results:
>
> Entry level sedan/4-door:
> Honda Civic EX $9,650
> Toyota Corolla SE $8,372
> Chevy Cavalier LS $5,510
> Ford Focus SE $5,736
>
> Midsize Standard sedans/4door:
> Honda Accord EX V6 $12,766
> Toyota Camry SE V6 $11,046
> Chevy Malibu $5,964
> Ford Taurus SES $5,964
>
> Odd that the Taurus SES and Malibu were both listed as the same price.
> In all cases the 'domestics' are roughly half (50-65%) the value of
> the imports over a given period of 5 years. That would be one of the
> resons these companies are having a hard time. In order to be
> competitive they are having to give away a lot of incentives and
> rebates simply to unbury their previous customers. To make matters
> worse, they destroyed anyone who recently bought a car when they
> started doing the Employee Pricing gimmick. What that means is that
> anyone who bought a car for anything near a normal price is now
> HAMMERED in the cars they bought and, without a significant amount of
> cash to bail themselves out, are now stuck with them.
>
> Yes, when you kill your own customers it's hard to get repeat
> business. It's harder, still, to attract new business.
>

I suspect the "domestics" quality after a few years of road use is lower
than for the "imports".
Stuff like rattles,flaky controls.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

krp turned on the Etch-A-Sketch and wrote:

>
> "Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>>>>> Are the cars better today than in 1970? Of course. It would be hard
>>>>> to
>>>>> be worse. But from a reliability view they still suck compared to many
>>>>> foreign brands. Good example? You can't keep main bearing seals on the
>>>>> GM
>>>>> 3.8 and above V-6. Any time the engine passes 6k rpm the seals are
>>>>> likely
>>>>> to go. GM has never been able to build an efficient a/c system.
>>>
>>>> What in the hell are you talking about? Where do you get this stuff
>>>> from?
>>>
>>> From knowing the cars and the engine. The 4.3 litre V-6 was
>>> particularly
>>>a problem with main seals.That persisted through the 80's into the 90's.
>>>
>>
>> Gee, that must be why my 89 4.3 at 184,000 original miles with neither
>> the engine or AT ever touched does not leak a single drop of oil from
>> ANYWHERE and that's with Synthetic Oil in it.
>
> Have you ever had the engine rev over 6,000 rpm?

I had teh 4.3L in my '95 Jimmy.

http://www.perfectreign.com/stuff/jimmy_sm.jpg

(That's the for sale picture I took.)

Except for the idiotic design on the fuel injectors in my particular year
(which were replaced three times in six years/150K miles), the engine was
rock solid. I don't remember the redline on it but I rarely needed to reach
there.

It was probably the most trouble-fee engine I've had (outside of the
injector spider). The only reason I got rid of it was because I wanted more
seating and ended up with a minivan.

So far, my 5.3L V8 on the Avalanche is also doing quite well. I've only got
40K miles in a little over two years, but it hasn't had one issue.

Of course, I learned from my mechanic grandfather to always change fluids at
a regular interval and to never have too many of the grain-based fluids
while doing said engine fluid changes. :P


--
www.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org

government is a process which utilizes 45.5% gut reaction, 45.5% laws and
statutes and 1% logic

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:41:02 +0100, PerfectReign > wrote:

> krp turned on the Etch-A-Sketch and wrote:
>
>>
>> "Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>> Are the cars better today than in 1970? Of course. It would be hard
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> be worse. But from a reliability view they still suck compared to many
>>>>>> foreign brands. Good example? You can't keep main bearing seals on the
>>>>>> GM
>>>>>> 3.8 and above V-6. Any time the engine passes 6k rpm the seals are
>>>>>> likely
>>>>>> to go. GM has never been able to build an efficient a/c system.
>>>>
>>>>> What in the hell are you talking about? Where do you get this stuff
>>>>> from?
>>>>
>>>> From knowing the cars and the engine. The 4.3 litre V-6 was
>>>> particularly
>>>> a problem with main seals.That persisted through the 80's into the 90's.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Gee, that must be why my 89 4.3 at 184,000 original miles with neither
>>> the engine or AT ever touched does not leak a single drop of oil from
>>> ANYWHERE and that's with Synthetic Oil in it.
>>
>> Have you ever had the engine rev over 6,000 rpm?
>
> I had teh 4.3L in my '95 Jimmy.
>
> http://www.perfectreign.com/stuff/jimmy_sm.jpg
>
> (That's the for sale picture I took.)
>
> Except for the idiotic design on the fuel injectors in my particular year
> (which were replaced three times in six years/150K miles), the engine was
> rock solid. I don't remember the redline on it but I rarely needed to reach
> there.
>
> It was probably the most trouble-fee engine I've had (outside of the
> injector spider). The only reason I got rid of it was because I wanted more
> seating and ended up with a minivan.
>
> So far, my 5.3L V8 on the Avalanche is also doing quite well. I've only got
> 40K miles in a little over two years, but it hasn't had one issue.
>
> Of course, I learned from my mechanic grandfather to always change fluids at
> a regular interval and to never have too many of the grain-based fluids
> while doing said engine fluid changes. :P

Followup abuse detected.

[plonk]

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

5759 Year according to Jewish calendar
4696 Year according to Chinese calendar
1063 Total # of years that Jews went without Chinese food

"PerfectReign" > wrote in message
news:10731526.OYqbYHicSJ@perfectreign...
> krp turned on the Etch-A-Sketch and wrote:

>>>>>> Are the cars better today than in 1970? Of course. It would be
>>>>>> hard
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> be worse. But from a reliability view they still suck compared to
>>>>>> many
>>>>>> foreign brands. Good example? You can't keep main bearing seals on
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> GM
>>>>>> 3.8 and above V-6. Any time the engine passes 6k rpm the seals are
>>>>>> likely
>>>>>> to go. GM has never been able to build an efficient a/c system.
>>>>
>>>>> What in the hell are you talking about? Where do you get this stuff
>>>>> from?
>>>>
>>>> From knowing the cars and the engine. The 4.3 litre V-6 was
>>>> particularly
>>>>a problem with main seals.That persisted through the 80's into the 90's.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Gee, that must be why my 89 4.3 at 184,000 original miles with neither
>>> the engine or AT ever touched does not leak a single drop of oil from
>>> ANYWHERE and that's with Synthetic Oil in it.
>>
>> Have you ever had the engine rev over 6,000 rpm?
>
> I had teh 4.3L in my '95 Jimmy.
>
> http://www.perfectreign.com/stuff/jimmy_sm.jpg
>
> (That's the for sale picture I took.)
>
> Except for the idiotic design on the fuel injectors in my particular year
> (which were replaced three times in six years/150K miles), the engine was
> rock solid. I don't remember the redline on it but I rarely needed to
> reach
> there.

Maybe you missed the part where I said it blew if the engine revved past
6,000 rpm. If you never wound your engine, no problem.

krp turned on the Etch-A-Sketch and wrote:

>> Except for the idiotic design on the fuel injectors in my particular year
>> (which were replaced three times in six years/150K miles), the engine was
>> rock solid. I don't remember the redline on it but I rarely needed to
>> reach
>> there.
>
> Maybe you missed the part where I said it blew if the engine revved past
> 6,000 rpm. If you never wound your engine, no problem.


Isn't that why they put the little red line there - so you won't go past it?

IIRC, I did reach there a few times. Particularly when I got my injectors
fixed. I was supposed to blow out extra carbon deposits after pouring in
some SeaFoam.


--
www.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org

government is a process which utilizes 45.5% gut reaction, 45.5% laws and
statutes and 1% logic

Peter Hucker turned on the Etch-A-Sketch and wrote:

>> Of course, I learned from my mechanic grandfather to always change fluids
>> at a regular interval and to never have too many of the grain-based
>> fluids while doing said engine fluid changes. :P
>
> Followup abuse detected.
>
> [plonk]
>

OMFG! I hace been plonked!

The brutality of teh intraweb!

What am I going to do??


--
www.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org

government is a process which utilizes 45.5% gut reaction, 45.5% laws and
statutes and 1% logic

" krp" > wrote in message
...

>
> Maybe you missed the part where I said it blew if the engine revved past
> 6,000 rpm. If you never wound your engine, no problem.
>

No - he probably did not miss that part. More likely he chose to ignore it
because it is foolish - like everything else you've posted. There is no
need to take the engine above it's red-line, so your point is moot. Unlike
Japanese engines, GM engines build more torque at lower RPM's and there is
no need to rev that high.

--

-Mike-

Mike Marlow turned on the Etch-A-Sketch and wrote:

>
> " krp" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>> Maybe you missed the part where I said it blew if the engine revved past
>> 6,000 rpm. If you never wound your engine, no problem.
>>
>
> No - he probably did not miss that part. More likely he chose to ignore
> it
> because it is foolish -


Yeah, well, since the tach only went to 6,000 rpm, and there's this
big-assed red line from about 5500 rpm up, I'd say, "no." I did not go
past it.

Anyone who does deserves what they get.

> like everything else you've posted. There is no
> need to take the engine above it's red-line, so your point is moot.
> Unlike Japanese engines, GM engines build more torque at lower RPM's and
> there is no need to rev that high.

Yeah, my Maxima wouldn't even come alive until about 4500 rpm. The Jimmy
rarely got above 3000 rpm, even when accelerating uphill onto the freeway.

IIRC, the Maxima redlined at 8000 rpm, and didn't even flinch until 6500
rpm. Of course it was a dual-overhead cam engine, compared to the
single-cam 4.3L.
--
www.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org

government is a process which utilizes 45.5% gut reaction, 45.5% laws and
statutes and 1% logic

"PerfectReign" > wrote in message
news:1407991.D9i19AF2Wm@perfectreign...
> krp turned on the Etch-A-Sketch and wrote:
>
>>> Except for the idiotic design on the fuel injectors in my particular
>>> year
>>> (which were replaced three times in six years/150K miles), the engine
>>> was
>>> rock solid. I don't remember the redline on it but I rarely needed to
>>> reach
>>> there.
>>
>> Maybe you missed the part where I said it blew if the engine revved past
>> 6,000 rpm. If you never wound your engine, no problem.
>
>
> Isn't that why they put the little red line there - so you won't go past
> it?

Most engines don't blow seals at 6K.