1 hour ago, David said:

• 52% believe a positive impact on urban communities
• 51% believe a positive impact on suburban communities

WTF does this even mean? Driving an electric vehicle makes your urban or suburban community a better place? 

"An oversample of +/- 350 voters per state was conducted in New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, and Hawaii between October 18-31. State oversamples were recruited separately via stratified sampling and not included as part of the national sample.  The sample size in Hawaii was 153 respondents. In California, Florida, and Texas, respectively, 233, 195, and 196 voters were surveyed as part of  the national poll, and the respondents were weighted to approximate a target sample of registered voters in the state."

This seems like a pretty small sample size to write a headline of: 

Also, not surprised by the "unbiased" sponsor...

I take less of an issue of ‘what’ than I do of ‘when’. The SOP of Gov’t is continual lateness, and I have little faith the infrastructure will be ready in a scant 8 years; on the public charger volume, on the electricity-generation volume, and how to address urban charging issues that seemingly are un-addressable. Couple that with the average $19K higher costs for EVs / extremely limited choice (currently) and I think it’s safe to say it’ll get pushed back to 2040 at minimum.

2 minutes ago, balthazar said:

I take less of an issue of ‘what’ than I do of ‘when’.

100% agree. They're talking less than 9 years to be fully electric. 

I can see a good mix of options finally available to purchase by 2030 but I can't imagine a 100% electric USA in only 8+ years. It just doesn't make sense. 

2 hours ago, ccap41 said:

WTF does this even mean? Driving an electric vehicle makes your urban or suburban community a better place? 

As per with any poll, those that identify as Urban or suburban saw electric as a positive. To me seems obvious that in situations where you have a person identifying as say an Urban community member, then that number would mean that percentage of those that identify there is what the percentage approving it to be.

As I stated, interesting posting that is getting media coverage and yet such a small group of people polled by the universities, but those numbers do get attention. Thought it would be an interesting discussion to have here.

1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

100% agree. They're talking less than 9 years to be fully electric. 

I can see a good mix of options finally available to purchase by 2030 but I can't imagine a 100% electric USA in only 8+ years. It just doesn't make sense. 

Keep in mind it is not 100% electric by 2030, but as I stated sales of new auto's are to be 100% electric by 2030. If the bulk of the OEMs deliver on their schedule of having 20 to 30 models out and ready for sale by 2025 to 2030, then plenty of choices to sell new electric auto's only and let traditional ICE just naturally phase out on it's own.

1 hour ago, balthazar said:

I take less of an issue of ‘what’ than I do of ‘when’. The SOP of Gov’t is continual lateness, and I have little faith the infrastructure will be ready in a scant 8 years; on the public charger volume, on the electricity-generation volume, and how to address urban charging issues that seemingly are un-addressable. Couple that with the average $19K higher costs for EVs / extremely limited choice (currently) and I think it’s safe to say it’ll get pushed back to 2040 at minimum.

Excluding Texas and the mess of a power grid they have there, many states say they can deliver on power needs. Washington has an excess of power they constantly sell into the market where California which always seems to have a shortage buys it up.

It is interesting times we live in to see how this plays out. I do think it will take longer than a 2030 mandate can deliver on. 

In regards to charging stations/terminals, I think the US is in a better spot than many realize as it is a habit change and as states dictate that new home building must include chargers, I think we will see the habit change to home charging no different than charging your cell phone.

I would be all for EV's only in 2030, but I don't think the technology will be there.  Maybe in 2035.  The battery tech just has to get way better and cheaper so these EV's are in another price tier.  The Mach-E, Model Y, VW iD4, etc are like Toyota RAV4 size, but cost $20k more, you have to erase that gap by 2030 if you want to get rid of ICE.  A lot can happen in 10 years but that is asking really a lot.

2 hours ago, David said:

states dictate that new home building must include chargers

That's a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of existing homes. 

- - - - -
Here's the issue RE "64% believe it will have a positive effect on climate change".

Automobiles are (reputedly) 29% (IIRC) of 'greenhouse gas' emissions. Selling 100% BE's in the U.S. will be on the order of 15 million (no evidence to suggest that consumers will switch en mass). But 15 million is only 0.05% of all vehicles in the U.S.. Therefore- the effect on climate change would be 5% of 29%... or; the net influence on climate change from automobiles would be maybe 1.5%. Yet we have 64% of this tiny sample of consumers thinking they'll see a change. 
 

Morgan Stanley industry forecast says Ford's BE percentage of all its sales in 2030 will only be 33.7%. That would represent 1.22 million BE Fords. Thru the 3rd quarter of 2021, Ford has sold 21K BE's.

That 21K represents Mach E sales and its forecasted to sell about 24K for the year.  Which is also forecasted to beat GM's EV sales and out selling GM for EVs this year.  All forecasted of course but its trending that way.   Bolt and Bolt EUVs sales are halted due to battery problems.  

Not saying anything other than the Mach E is forecasted to sell 24 thousand units for 2021.  

I will be saying though, is that there is lots of room to sell MORE!!!  And I wished it kinda did sell more.  At least if it hit 30 thousand units.  Maybe for 2022.  

But then again, (realistically speaking)  I would want Ford to sell 40-50 thousand Mach Es for 2022

We could also see Chinese electric cars come here and drastically undercut Ford and GM in price.  I wouldn’t really bet on it, but it possible that the Chinese do what the Japanese did 50 years ago when they take into the American market quickly gained ground. That could accelerate the EV push.  

Chinese makes have been attempting to gain access to the USDM but have failed numerous times (on a host of issues) to be OK’d. Do they fonally have their shit together?? 

2 hours ago, smk4565 said:

it possible that the Chinese do what the Japanese did 50 years ago when they take into the American market quickly gained ground. That could accelerate the EV push.  

After 15 years of trying in vain, it took a national gas crisis for the japanese to rise above ‘niche segment’, and primarily because there were few significantly fuel-efficient US models. With established players a-plenty here now, there is no market void like in the ‘70s. Plus, the demographic that bought cheap, miserly cars then is gone. Gotta have those heated/cooled seats!!

- - - - - - - - - - - 
DETROIT (Reuters) - Stellantis NV Chief Executive Carlos Tavares said external pressure on automakers to accelerate the shift to electric vehicles potentially threatens jobs and vehicle quality as producers struggle to manage the higher costs of building EVs.

Governments and investors want car manufacturers to speed up the transition to electric vehicles, but the costs are "beyond the limits" of what the auto industry can sustain, Tavares said in an interview at the Reuters Next conference released Wednesday.

"What has been decided is to impose on the automotive industry electrification that brings 50% additional costs against a conventional vehicle," he said.

"There is no way we can transfer 50% of additional costs to the final consumer because most parts of the middle class will not be able to pay."

Automakers could charge higher prices and sell fewer cars, or accept lower profit margins, Tavares said. Those paths both lead to cutbacks. Union leaders in Europe and North America have warned tens of thousands of jobs could be lost.

Automakers need time for testing and ensuring that new technology will work, Tavares said. Pushing to speed that process up "is just going to be counter productive. It will lead to quality problems. It will lead to all sorts of problems," he said.

Tavares said Stellantis is aiming to avoid cuts by boosting productivity at a pace far faster than industry norm.

"Over the next five years we have to digest 10% productivity a year ... in an industry which is used to delivering 2 to 3% productivity" improvement, he said.

"The future will tell us who is going to be able to digest this, and who will fail," Tavares said. "We are putting the industry on the limits."

Electric vehicle costs are expected to fall, and analysts project that battery electric vehicles and combustion vehicles could reach cost parity during the second half of this decade.

Like other automakers that earn profits from combustion vehicles, Stellantis is under pressure from electric vehicle maker Tesla Inc and other pure electric vehicle startups such as Rivian.

The electric vehicle companies are far smaller in terms of vehicle sales and employment. But investors have given Tesla and Rivian higher market valuations than the owner of the Jeep SUV brand or the highly profitable Ram pickup truck franchise.

That investor pressure is compounded by government policies aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The European Union, California and other jurisdictions have set goals to end sales of combustion vehicles by 2035. The United Kingdom has set 2030 as the deadline for going all-electric.

Tavares said governments should shift the focus of climate policy toward cleaning up the energy sector and developing electric-vehicle charging infrastructure.

Stellantis, created in 2021 with the merger of French automaker Peugeot SA and Italian-American automaker Fiat Chrysler NV, is on track to deliver 5 billion euros in cost reduction through streamlining its operations, Tavares said.

Tavares has accelerated Stellantis' electric vehicle development, committing 30 billion euros through 2025 to developing new electric vehicle architectures, building battery plants and investing in raw materials and new technology.

On Tuesday, Stellantis said it had invested in solid-state battery startup Factorial alongside German automaker Daimler AG.

"We can invest more and go deeper in the value chain," Tavares said. "There may be other (investments) in the near future."
- - - - - - - - - - - 

11 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

That 21K represents Mach E sales and its forecasted to sell about 24K for the year.  Which is also forecasted to beat GM's EV sales and out selling GM for EVs this year.  All forecasted of course but its trending that way.   Bolt and Bolt EUVs sales are halted due to battery problems.  

Not saying anything other than the Mach E is forecasted to sell 24 thousand units for 2021.  

I will be saying though, is that there is lots of room to sell MORE!!!  And I wished it kinda did sell more.  At least if it hit 30 thousand units.  Maybe for 2022.  

 

But then again, (realistically speaking)  I would want Ford to sell 40-50 thousand Mach Es for 2022

I would love this too, but there is one big BIG BIG glaring problem. Dealership GREED, I like the looks and am interested in the Mach-E, but my local ford dealers have all put anywhere from 10,000 to 20,000 adjusted market value on the auto's, as such I am seeing more and more Mach-E sit on the lots. This is not good for Ford and not good for consumers when the greedy dealerships screw you over. This is what will make it hard on changing over when states protect greedy dealerships rather than letting sales via all means, online, direct and dealership play out.

The old days of dealership protection needs to come to an end and let them compete on services.

1 minute ago, David said:

I would love this too, but there is one big BIG BIG glaring problem. Dealership GREED, I like the looks and am interested in the Mach-E, but my local ford dealers have all put anywhere from 10,000 to 20,000 adjusted market value on the auto's, as such I am seeing more and more Mach-E sit on the lots. This is not good for Ford and not good for consumers when the greedy dealerships screw you over. This is what will make it hard on changing over when states protect greedy dealerships rather than letting sales via all means, online, direct and dealership play out.

The old days of dealership protection needs to come to an end and let them compete on services.

Competition is great.  You would have to abolish all dealer agency laws in each state first.  It is still difficult to shut down an underperforming dealership without a giant exit fee from the automaker, even now.

If they're marking them all up that much, they're selling to somebody because of demand. I think those buyers are idiots but there'd be no markups if they weren't selling at all. They're probably selling every single one of them they can build, because of the chip shortage. 

I have a hard time understanding the 'greedy dealership takes away sales from the manufacturer' argument.

This is how I understand the OEM/dealership relationship works:

• An OEM will produce a certain amount of units.
• The dealership BUYS those units DIRECTLY from the OEM.
• The OEM sells every single one it produces.  The dealership is the one stuck with the unsold inventory. 
• If dealership A-G overprice their inventory but sells every single one of them. Its OK, right?
• If dealership H-P overprice their inventory but doesnt sell a single unit, its their problem, right?
• If dealership Q-Z prices their units at MSRP and sells them at MSRP or below and they sell every single unit, that is good too, right?
• Dealerships A-G and Q-Z have their inventories depleted, so they order more, right?  OEM builds more and sells to dealerships A-G and Q-Z.   Maybe dealership A-G and Q-Z buys up the inventory of dealerships H-P, right?

If my understanding of the OEM and dealership is correct, this is why I do not understand the argument.  Sure, there are greedy dealerships, but if they do not sell their inventory, its on them. The OEM has already sold those units...   But if greedy dealerships sell to overzealous and dumb customers, you cant fault the dealership to do so.  And if THAT business model is successful, then the 'greedy' moniker should cease to be given to said dealership. 

If however that business model is a failure, then the 'greedy' moniker should also cease to be given.  Dumb business owner should be the moniker given.   Greed has NOTHING to do with buying and selling.  Greed is a different animal...

Anyway, back to the misunderstanding of the OEM/dealership relationship. 

Of course if all dealerships A through Z are incapable of selling a certain model and the OEM finds itself over producing, than that is a different angle.  But the OEM will sell those units anyway and offer cash back to the dealership who will offer that cashback to the customer via rebates, right? In  order to sell the units the OEM produced.  In which case these units are NOT going to be sold OVER MSRP anyway, right?    

There will be a time when dealerships H-P will realize that their business model of trying to sell that particular unit ABOVE MSRP is not working and will eventually price correct, right?   

55 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

I have a hard time understanding the 'greedy dealership takes away sales from the manufacturer' argument.

This is how I understand the OEM/dealership relationship works:

• An OEM will produce a certain amount of units.
• The dealership BUYS those units DIRECTLY from the OEM.
• The OEM sells every single one it produces.  The dealership is the one stuck with the unsold inventory. 
• If dealership A-G overprice their inventory but sells every single one of them. Its OK, right?
• If dealership H-P overprice their inventory but doesnt sell a single unit, its their problem, right?
• If dealership Q-Z prices their units at MSRP and sells them at MSRP or below and they sell every single unit, that is good too, right?
• Dealerships A-G and Q-Z have their inventories depleted, so they order more, right?  OEM builds more and sells to dealerships A-G and Q-Z.   Maybe dealership A-G and Q-Z buys up the inventory of dealerships H-P, right?

 

If my understanding of the OEM and dealership is correct, this is why I do not understand the argument.  Sure, there are greedy dealerships, but if they do not sell their inventory, its on them. The OEM has already sold those units...   But if greedy dealerships sell to overzealous and dumb customers, you cant fault the dealership to do so.  And if THAT business model is successful, then the 'greedy' moniker should cease to be given to said dealership. 

If however that business model is a failure, then the 'greedy' moniker should also cease to be given.  Dumb business owner should be the moniker given.   Greed has NOTHING to do with buying and selling.  Greed is a different animal...

Anyway, back to the misunderstanding of the OEM/dealership relationship. 

 

Of course if all dealerships A through Z are incapable of selling a certain model and the OEM finds itself over producing, than that is a different angle.  But the OEM will sell those units anyway and offer cash back to the dealership who will offer that cashback to the customer via rebates, right? In  order to sell the units the OEM produced.  In which case these units are NOT going to be sold OVER MSRP anyway, right?    

 

 

Yes, I completely agree. While I will never buy a vehicle (or probably anything) over MSRP, there REALLY isn't anything wrong with it. It's simply supply and demand playing out. 

I don't think the dealerships are scumbags, just trying to run a profitable business. I'll never support that myself, but it's just simple business. 

OEMs (almost always) maintain a set MSRP for the model year, and adjust rebates at the first of every month to adjust to market conditions. At least right there the buyer has a basis of comparison.  When dealers invest in advertising & competition, that further exerts a small degree of price control in the local market.  This all favors the consumer.  

In an OEM-controlled direct-sales model, there is nothing to stop the OEM from bumping MSRP monthly, because the OEM has zero competition (as with Tesla).

I stated it here before; my local Buick-GMC dealer had a '21 Yukon Denali on the floor, with a $10K market adjustment. $83K > now $93K.  I was told it was the last of 8 Yukons, and the other 7 all flew out the door, all with $10K M.A. on the sticker/no rebates.  They had people buying them sight-unseen 4 states away.  Buyers aren't walking away from these in this market.

M.A. isn't something I would ever want to pay, either, but this IS an unprecedented market.  Dealers charging M.A. are quite simply shifting their revenue to make up for major supply issues. 

I get the point you're all making, but to me as @ccap41 has state he would never support them, I also refuse to support a dealership like that. Sadly, all the dealerships around me are using M.A. on the Mach-E so getting one might not happen for me. 

Another reason to continue to do the maintenance and take care of my existing autos till this shortage craziness is over.

Pickings are razor thin right now. toyoter dealer nearby is down roughly 60% from normal, and half of what's on the lot looks pre-owned / off-brand.

If you can wait, I'd recommend it. Or- order one if you want; from discussion with the sales dude, it seems ordered vehicles sidestep M.A. pricing. Look into it, get better pricing and the exact vehicle you want. Just don't expect a sub-MSRP number (but you've indicated you prefer paying MSRP, so that shouldn't be an issue for you).

5 hours ago, balthazar said:

Pickings are razor thin right now. toyoter dealer nearby is down roughly 60% from normal, and half of what's on the lot looks pre-owned / off-brand.

If you can wait, I'd recommend it. Or- order one if you want; from discussion with the sales dude, it seems ordered vehicles sidestep M.A. pricing. Look into it, get better pricing and the exact vehicle you want. Just don't expect a sub-MSRP number (but you've indicated you prefer paying MSRP, so that shouldn't be an issue for you).

I am going to wait this mess out as like you, I have no problem taking care of my rides and going long on owning them. One thing that is crazy especially on the Mach-E is that some of my coworkers who have pre-ordered them on the internet with Ford have hit the dealerships to finish up the deal only to have them say they want X amount of M.A. to finish the deal and that has killed many a EV purchase as I do not blame my coworkers for NOT wanting to be gouged. Kinda Sucks.

^ Dumb (but within their right).  It's a better, and better built vehicle than the Tesla Model Y, another BE SUV that starts $16 grand higher. Even a M.A. of 10 grand on the Mach-E is still a great deal, no? 

1 hour ago, balthazar said:

^ Dumb (but within their right).  It's a better, and better built vehicle than the Tesla Model Y, another BE SUV that starts $16 grand higher. Even a M.A. of 10 grand on the Mach-E is still a great deal, no? 

An example is BOSE, no retailer is allowed to discount their products unless they have approved such a promotion, nor is any approved retailer allowed to sell above MSRP. They ensure the retailer makes a fair profit and they make a fair profit.

Ford problem is they market an amazing auto at a MSRP price. They should be ensuring their dealership network sells at the MSRP price and makes a fair profit. M.A. is greed pure and simple and give Ford a black eye by those wanting to buy their products.

I do not see a Mach-E that I agree is a better product than a Tesla Y being sold with an M.A. of $16 Grand to use your example of a great deal.

Ford set expectations of their selling price of a Mach-E with the MSRP. The Dealers should be honoring this as a retailer for Fords Products. Ford should be ensuring the dealers make a fair profit and not allow the gouging. 

IMHO

50 minutes ago, David said:

I do not see a Mach-E that I agree is a better product than a Tesla Y being sold with an M.A. of $16 Grand to use your example of a great deal.

That wasn't my example. 

I posted a hypothetical that a Mach-E with a $10 grand M.A. over MSRP is still coming in $6 grand under the Model Y.
If the Mach-E is a better vehicle in many metrics (per some reviews), one would still be happy to pay less than a lesser SUV, right?

Or to look at it another way; what if Ford is making $10 grand off the Mach-E at the base MSRP of $42.8K? Is Ford "being greedy"? Should it instead be $37.8K??

I'm having difficulty determining where your 'objection line' truly lies.

 

9 hours ago, David said:

Ford problem is they market an amazing auto at a MSRP price. They should be ensuring their dealership network sells at the MSRP price and makes a fair profit. M.A. is greed pure and simple and give Ford a black eye by those wanting to buy their products.

First, Ford is absolutely not the only company with market adjustments. I've seen Volkswagens, Toyotas, Chevys, Jeeps and even the Hyundai/Kia Palisades/Tellurides. Anything that is remotely in high demand is getting a market adjustment right now. Second, that isn't "pure greed". It's just a business trying to make money and stay afloat in a time when they simply cannot get sales numbers anywhere close to where they were two years ago. There is no supply for them to make money like they used to so the other way is to mark up the few vehicles they get with high enough demand to allow the adjustment. 

The last time I was at my local Ford dealership, I talked to one of the sales guys just BSing about the new Bronco and if/when they'd get one in. He then said they currently have 8 new Fords on the lot. I had to ask what their "usual" inventory was like and he said they are used to having about 80-100 new vehicles. He went on to say he's checked other local Ford dealerships and they're also in the 10% inventory levels and those are much larger dealerships. 

33 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

Second, that isn't "pure greed". It's just a business trying to make money and stay afloat in a time when they simply cannot get sales numbers anywhere close to where they were two years ago.

That would be a fine point if it weren't for the fact that dealerships have been doing this for FAR longer than two years. The current environment has nothing to do the decades of overall greed in the form of dealership MAs. Trust me. When all this supply chain nonsense winds down, that practice will not stop.

Dealer MA’s were never the norm outside of super-specialty models.
 

I bought a well sought-after truck early this year for well under MSRP.

NOW it’s a norm however.

33 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

That would be a fine point if it weren't for the fact that dealerships have been doing this for FAR longer than two years. The current environment has nothing to do the decades of overall greed in the form of dealership MAs. Trust me. When all this supply chain nonsense winds down, that practice will not stop.

Yes, and only for extremely high in demand vehicles, because people wouldn't buy the products if they weren't in demand. Which, is still the norm, for the most part. Broncos, Sports, Mach-Es, GT500s, they're all brand new and in incredible demand right now (because the supply is so low). 

17 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Dealer MA’s were never the norm outside of super-specialty models.
 

I bought a well sought-after truck early this year for well under MSRP.

NOW it’s a norm however.

I’ve worked at three different dealerships in two states and I will respectfully disagree with you and @ccap41 on this. 
 

And you got lucky on your truck, end of story because that is not the norm on full size trucks and you know that. 

NOW it’s not, but early this year/last year it WAS. And I shopped numerous dealers before buying. Last time I noticed a MA at my dealer was on a last gen Ford GT.

It’s certainly possible that both of our experiences are accurate…

Just two years ago it was the norm NOT to pay MSRP. If you weren't getting your XLT F150 for $10,000 off sticker, you lost the deal and the same goes with the mid-packaged Rams and Silverados. 

On 12/2/2021 at 10:56 AM, ccap41 said:

Just two years ago it was the norm NOT to pay MSRP. If you weren't getting your XLT F150 for $10,000 off sticker, you lost the deal and the same goes with the mid-packaged Rams and Silverados. 

Ah how times have changed. . . . for the worse.

Dealers may move to a customer order model and not carry inventory.  Carrying a lot of inventory is a pretty good use of real estate and money, they could cut all that out and probably save a lot of money, and let people just order the model, color, spec they want.  And you really only need to keep 1 of each model as a demo on the lot for test drives.

Also the dealership model is in question anyway.  All these start ups like Tesla, Lucid, Rivian, etc aren't using dealers because obviously they are starting with a clean slate and see the dealership model as flawed.  And the legacy OEM's should really treat dealers like Apple treats retailers.  Apple sets a retail price on a product and that's the price whether you go to Target, Walmart, Best Buy or the Apple store.  And if you don't sell it at Apple's retail price you lose the right to sell their product.  

So given that if Ford says the Mach-E is $42,000, then any dealer that doesn't sell that car for the exactly $42,000.00 sticker should lose their franchise rights, end of story. Then the price is the same at every dealer nationwide, no market adjustments, discounts, no price haggling, etc.    OEM's give dealers too much power, cater to dealers too much.  Tesla has no dealers and outsells Cadillac with 500 dealers.  

And in the new EV world, one way to cut price down would be a direct sales model.

22 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Dealers may move to a customer order model and not carry inventory.  Carrying a lot of inventory is a pretty good use of real estate and money, they could cut all that out and probably save a lot of money, and let people just order the model, color, spec they want.  And you really only need to keep 1 of each model as a demo on the lot for test drives.

Also the dealership model is in question anyway.  All these start ups like Tesla, Lucid, Rivian, etc aren't using dealers because obviously they are starting with a clean slate and see the dealership model as flawed.  And the legacy OEM's should really treat dealers like Apple treats retailers.  Apple sets a retail price on a product and that's the price whether you go to Target, Walmart, Best Buy or the Apple store.  And if you don't sell it at Apple's retail price you lose the right to sell their product.  

So given that if Ford says the Mach-E is $42,000, then any dealer that doesn't sell that car for the exactly $42,000.00 sticker should lose their franchise rights, end of story. Then the price is the same at every dealer nationwide, no market adjustments, discounts, no price haggling, etc.    OEM's give dealers too much power, cater to dealers too much.  Tesla has no dealers and outsells Cadillac with 500 dealers.  

And in the new EV world, one way to cut price down would be a direct sales model.

Cadillac has admitted that just over 500 dealers have agreed to their EV plan and with that is a move to a made to order model. I think GM is testing this with Cadillac and if it works and is profitable then I would expect Chevrolet, Buick and GMC to move to this model as well and you are right, we will see a big reduction in dealerships and they're overall size as they reduce the need for land.

Since some dealerships have free service loaners, I still expect that they will have to have more than a single demo model of each model sold as they will need their service fleet on top of say 2 to 3 versions of each model to allow customers who choose to not order via online but want like me to sit in the actual auto to see if I can fit as well as my family.

Getting rid of the lousy M.A. gouging would be great. Would rather move to a set price that gives the OEM a fair profit and allows them to pay the dealership a fair profit.

We are in interesting times, and I am watching how the Cadillac Dealerships play out. Due to the component shortages, I have seen that my local Cadillac dealer has stopped free loaners as they have none. They sold them all and they have gone back to a curtesy van to pick you up and take you home or you can schedule to have your auto picked up and brought back by them when the service is done.

This does make me wonder if GM could move to having their dealerships do on-site repairs over having it brought to the dealership? Tesla and Rivian have moved to a hybrid model where small repairs / maintenance are done on site and major repairs are to be done at designated repair sites.

36 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

one way to cut price down would be a direct sales model.

Once you eliminate all competition and create a monopoly, the exact opposite will occur.
You're playing right into the OEM's hands.

38 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

All these start ups like Tesla, Lucid, Rivian, etc aren't using dealers because obviously they are starting with a clean slate and see the dealership model as flawed.

OR, they don't have the money / infrastructure to create one.

10 minutes ago, David said:

Would rather move to a set price that gives the OEM a fair profit and allows them to pay the dealership a fair profit.

Under your preference, I would have to have paid $10 grand more for my truck. YOU can pick up the difference for me next time, thanks!

12 minutes ago, David said:

Tesla and Rivian have moved to a hybrid model where small repairs / maintenance are done on site and major repairs are to be done at designated repair sites.

The wait times NOW for Tesla service/repair work often stretches out months, wait until Tesla has 10 or 100 million vehicles across the country.

Online sales snapshot; works OK when tiny/starting up, but problems multiply with growth. 
 

*SIGH*

Quote

Then the price is the same at every dealer nationwide, no market adjustments, discounts,

THAT is IMPOSSIBLE...

Different markets, different locations, different everything REQUIRES that the sales price IS different.  

Remember folks that MSRP means Manufacturer SUGGESTED Retail Price.

Why?

Because different locations have different taxes and rents to pay.   You see THAT in affect when you buy a Big Mac right smack in the middle of Times Square New York, New York and you compare the price of that same Big Mac in Plattsburgh, New York.   

Also, most of you have undoubtedly have encountered this statement:  At PARTICIPATING stores.  

THAT gives the freedom of the owner of a franchise to decide for him/herself what is THE best pricing strategy for them.    

Different locations and different areas absolutely have different markets and by that perfectly normal reality, prices WILL vary. 

Market adjustment pricing is no different.  Costs for these dealerships have gone up. Different market reasons. Covid is one big one.  Shipping costs because of Covid shut downs and shipping lane bottlenecks have caused this.  NOT ALL of these market adjustments are of the price gauging variety... 

Some of it is. Some of it is not.   But law of supply and demand is in full effect here.  And its the basis of a free market system.    

Here is the kicker:

The law of supply and demand BEFORE Covid FAVOURED the consumer on some products. 

We all enjoyed the rebates when an outgoing model was going away and the dealerships wanted to clear their inventories of last year's cars to make room for the new ones to sell...

The tables have flipped...deal with it. 

^ Agreed. And I made this very example previously; if a McDonald's cheeseburger doesn't have the same price at every store in every state all the time, why would one expect a motor vehicle to; a product that's incalculably more complex & varied?

On 12/4/2021 at 11:26 AM, riviera74 said:

Ah how times have changed. . . . for the worse.

Oh I know... It's rough out there now in a lot of segments, autos and homes being the worst. 

On 12/4/2021 at 10:42 PM, balthazar said:

The wait times NOW for Tesla service/repair work often stretches out months, wait until Tesla has 10 or 100 million vehicles across the country.

I know somebody out in Vegas who needed a bumper replaced as his parked car got hit one night. He called Tesla and they literally brought a truck and replaced it as his home within 5 days. It couldn't have been a more convenient process. BUT, I know that's now how it is for everybody. 

If we must have mandates, mandate carbon neutral drop-in fuels we use in transportation, electricity, and heating. We could achieve carbon neutrality in years, not decades. ZEVs are great, let the grow naturally as they mature as a technology and are adopted by the market. 

On 12/5/2021 at 8:40 AM, balthazar said:

Online sales snapshot; works OK when tiny/starting up, but problems multiply with growth. 
 

Carvana and all like it are not long for this world because they are a joke in clown shoes.

On 12/4/2021 at 11:35 PM, balthazar said:

OR, they don't have the money / infrastructure to create one.

I'm with @smk4565 on this one. There have a few stories (industry related) that confirm this. I know you're a dealership fan but that is simply a fact that many folks have viewed dealerships as a failed model in the 21st century. Just saying.

A LOT of folk consider a LOT of things 'obsolete'.  That doesn't mean their opinion is fact-based.

How could the dealership be considered a "failed" model?  Individually, of course they sometimes go out of business (for a wide variety of issues). That is the (individual) definition of 'failed'; yes. But as a model?

Dealers have adapted as times & consumer preferences change, and many have been enormously successful. Many have been economic hubs in a community, contributing employment, taxes, community involvement, etc, while performing a viable service. They're invested in a community (they do sometimes move/leave, of course).

'Online dealers' don't do these things, and are far less beholden to local consumers since they have no local investment other than a distribution yard. When I search for 'Carvana near me' the map shows an irregular red outline covering an hour & a half of linear travel time and no 'pin'.  Where's the actual location??  Everything they sell is used and massively overpriced. Selection is poor.

- - - - - -
Carvana : '20 GMC Sierra 1500 Elevation, crew cab/5.5' bed, 5.3L, 1 option package (Pseats, heated wheel/seats, HD radio), refrigerator white, $500 delivery fee.  Details say it has a "Tow-Hitch Area" ? , so don't expect ANY sort of accurate information about the vehicle or how to operate it.  29K miles and it's $51.5K - 3 grand more than my brand new Pacific Blue Sierra 6.5' bed DuraMax was.  And who's going to service it; not Carvana. 

Just built a '22 Elevation Limited 5.3L to the same specs, brand new & with delivery its $51.2K.  Same price, 2 years newer, 30K less miles.

Gee.... lemma think...

I'll defend the dealership model just a tiny bit here as one of my buddies works at one and he told me this a couple weeks ago and I thought it was really awesome.

So we all know the markups on new vehicles (MARKET ADJUSTMENT) on some pretty common/basic vehicles. He was telling me how they won't mark any vehicle up to anybody who's local to us (not sure what kind of radius he's talking) but if somebody is calling from Chicago looking for a Tahoe or Silverado that they have in stock, they mark those up. They don't want to piss up their local customers who have been buying from them for years or will be buying from them for years to come. 

I just thought this was a pretty cool thing because they could mark things up across the board and still sell them but they won't for their local clientele. 

10 hours ago, balthazar said:

Carvana : '20 GMC Sierra 1500 Elevation, crew cab/5.5' bed, 5.3L, 1 option package (Pseats, heated wheel/seats, HD radio), refrigerator white, $500 delivery fee.  Details say it has a "Tow-Hitch Area" ? , so don't expect ANY sort of accurate information about the vehicle or how to operate it.  29K miles and it's $51.5K - 3 grand more than my brand new Pacific Blue Sierra 6.5' bed DuraMax was.  And who's going to service it; not Carvana. 

Just built a '22 Elevation Limited 5.3L to the same specs, brand new & with delivery its $51.2K.  Same price, 2 years newer, 30K less miles.

Gee.... lemma think...

When do you want your vehicle? If you're wanting something now or even within the next month or two, you don't have much of a choice. I'd wager to say the vast majority of the buying public are not willing to wait it out like you did or I would to get exactly what I want AND for the best price. These people who don't care about debt just see $40/month instead of $3,000. Ignorance is bliss and the general public is really freakin stupid and terrible with money. 

@balthazar While I hate dealerships for the most part, I do agree with you that they have their place and the good ones have morphed into a more Hybrid model for the 21st century. These dealerships that have morphed saw what Amazon was doing to retail and realized they had to change to survive. Good for them, wish them all the best. 

The terrible dealerships that have prayed on ignorant customers and have had bad press in the local news are closing up or being sold off to other dealership groups due to state investigation and hopefully they correct and survive, but I have seen a massive closing of dealerships in my state. One has to drive much farther between brands now than in the past.

I think the Pandemic has forced the living week by week playing money games of the weak businesses out and that is good for everyone IMHO.

@ccap41 I would love to see what your friend has told you in writing as comments like that are like assholes, everyone has one and only in writing does it hold water. I hope it is true and the local folks do not get the terrible AMPs. 

I totally agree with you about the cost thing, this is the one thing I wish Schools, Fire Departments, Police, City, County and state government would be forced to be held accountable to actually telling the truth on real full year cost. At the voting time, they are always pushing the need to increase taxes by saying it is only $1.50 per $500 assessed home value tax as an example. Yet when you live in an area where the average home is selling at $750,000, then that tax becomes a $2,250 tax bill on your annual property taxes paid every 6 months. Not everyone actually plans for large bills like this.

Local school district put out a $175 million-dollar 40-year levy saying they needed the money for new technology in the school but were very vague on what specifics they would spend that money on and only the year before had put out and passed two new bonds of $40 million and $85 million as the first was to pay for maintenance on schools over the next decade and the second was to pay for new elementary replacement schools. 

People have short memory of all the bonds, levy's etc. and how those taxes add up. My house property tax was only $2,500 in 2019, my 2021 tax was $5,700 and I just got the notice that for $2022 my tax will be $6,127 due to the latest taxes the local city and county gov passed this past November.

It would be great if I could get pay raises that go up as fast as the taxes have gone up. People wonder why it is so hard to buy a home now if you are not a dual income household and even then, without saving first for that 20% down as the first-time buyers 3% down makes the monthly mortgage payment crazy.

In regard to EVs incentives here in Washington state, we still have the same ones they passed in 2019.

Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Plug-In Hybrids Washington State Tax Exemptions

On August 1, 2019, Washington State reinstated the sales and use tax exemption for the sales of:

• Vehicles powered by a clean alternative fuel.
• Certain plug-in hybrids.

The exemption applies to dealer and private sales of new, used, and leased vehicles sold on or after August 1, 2019.

• New vehicle transactions must not exceed $45,000 in purchase price or lease payments.
• Used vehicles transactions must not exceed $30,000 in fair market value or lease payments.

These thresholds may also include the value of your trade-in, if applicable.

Example

If the cost of a new vehicle is $48,000, and the value of your trade-in is worth $6,000, you can't receive the tax exemption. Even though the trade-in brought the cost down to $42,000, the new vehicle was still worth over the $45,000 limit. You cannot use a trade-in to lower the price of a vehicle to meet the exemption limits.

1 hour ago, David said:

Local school district put out a $175 million-dollar 40-year levy saying they needed the money for new technology in the school but were very vague on what specifics they would spend that money on and only the year before had put out and passed two new bonds of $40 million and $85 million as the first was to pay for maintenance on schools over the next decade and the second was to pay for new elementary replacement schools. 

School districts are fiscally out of control... but they make sure to hit the kids first with real tangible, gut checks, like 'we can't afford tissues anymore' when pleading for millions.

I've railed before here about the local city high school. They tore down the existing building, moved to a new site and built a $190 MILLION dollar building "for the future leaders of the country. $190,000,000 for 2300 students, or $93,000 per student. Could only find a couple pics of the interior, but the entrance had marble flooring and stained woodwork everywhere. Expensive as hell to build. Client of mine worked there, told me the building has TWO nurseries for babies. Maybe that's indicative of the unchanged mid 70% graduation rate and the national school ranking of 10,8xx.

What angers me the most is that energy-efficiency wise, the building footprint is horrible. In order to make it look absurdly upscale in a depressed city, they gave it a disproportionately high exterior surface area (TONS of jogs & levels & glass). But it was pitched 'for the children', so how dare you speak against it (I do not live in the city). 

3 hours ago, balthazar said:

School districts are fiscally out of control... but they make sure to hit the kids first with real tangible, gut checks, like 'we can't afford tissues anymore' when pleading for millions.

I've railed before here about the local city high school. They tore down the existing building, moved to a new site and built a $190 MILLION dollar building "for the future leaders of the country. $190,000,000 for 2300 students, or $93,000 per student. Could only find a couple pics of the interior, but the entrance had marble flooring and stained woodwork everywhere. Expensive as hell to build. Client of mine worked there, told me the building has TWO nurseries for babies. Maybe that's indicative of the unchanged mid 70% graduation rate and the national school ranking of 10,8xx.

What angers me the most is that energy-efficiency wise, the building footprint is horrible. In order to make it look absurdly upscale in a depressed city, they gave it a disproportionately high exterior surface area (TONS of jogs & levels & glass). But it was pitched 'for the children', so how dare you speak against it (I do not live in the city). 

Uh, how did this happen?  The plans for the new school and how/when it was built . . . .

^ Built in 2010. Today that would be $230M.  407,000 square feet (average Home Depot : 105K SF) for 2300 students.
Zero improvement in graduation rates. Ranked 287 out of 339 NJ high schools.
Because, you see; it's not buildings that teach students.

It was orchestrated thru a State-run "Schools Construction Corp", so you KNOW it was rife with waste & corruption.
This Corp was a result of a State Supreme Court finding stating that "students in the poorest city schools should have the buildings and resources [meaning; the buildings] comparable to those in the wealthiest suburbs."

In other words, a vanity project. Because [see above comment about buildings].

To that point: a 2005 State audit found the Corp was susceptible to "mismanagement, fiscal malfeasance, conflicts of interest and waste, fraud & abuse of taxpayer funds". 

You don't say.


 

The new 'failed model' for car sales- online 'dealers'?? ?