After sitting in a Ford Flex at a carshow it finally dawned on me that this is the first affordable American car made in my lifetime that isn't a complete piece of shit. (Affordable = sub Z06, Ford GT pricing)
@GoPadge: Hey now people, the Five Hundred was an alright car. Boring yes, but in contrast to the Taurus of its time?
I ride in one regularly, the car is a great highway cruiser. Maybe even the best out there, given you can pick up a fully loaded Limited AWD for around $11,000.
I mean, whose fault is that? GM might be getting the short end of the stick, but when you realise that the newest Malibu came three years after the Fusion, for example, it seems more reasonable.
GM may be spot-on with the likes of Cadillac and Buick nowadays, and Lincoln may need a readjustment (mostly of what-wheels-drive), but it's the volume leaders that really count.
It's a bittersweet victory. On one hand, 1.5 of our automakers are about to go bankrupt. The Government is creating national debt that our grandchildren will be paying off. On the other hand, Ford is still going strong, and they may bring more Euro products to the US. So, tonight I drink for the GM and Chrysler workers who's jobs are gone, and for the hope of new Euro Ford products.
@PowerTryp: Actually, I interpreted that picture as that guy threatening to keep the T&Cs in line. "Man, I am so much better than these vans-- I could buy and sell their asses."
What makes this especially funny inside my head, is that he looks like he's about four feet tall. Short Man's Disease is an unfortunate condition, though I hear it's treatable with baby aspirin.
I understand how Chrysler can do this, under bankruptcy, but how can GM go from 6200 to 3200 dealers without bankruptcy protection?
Also, good to read that most of these cuts are in urban areas. One of the few strengths of the domestic dealers are the rural dealerships, with high customer loyalty. If these close and rural folks are forced to go into the "big city", they are NOT going to automatically just show up at the corresponding Big 3 dealer, but will take the opportunity to shop around and more likely than not go with a competitor's vehicle...
@WheatKing: Anyone else notice there's a LOT of dealerships on that list also dealing Ford/GM/etc?
Is this common, or are these being singled out? Also, what will the loss of Chrysler business do to the Ford/GM/etc side of the dealer's company? Will those also go under as a result?
@WheatKing: Oooh, I've noticed that they're getting rid of Peninsula Dodge in Redwood City, the one dealer in the bay that refuses to list their inventory online. The other bay area ones seem to be small dealers or ones in "not great" parts of the bay. So my guess is that it's purely based on sales.
@CompWizrd: I noticed a lot of dealerships that still had Eagle, Plymouth, and Olds still in the name. Guess they didn't bother to update the corporate paperwork.
Interesting quote from the Bloomberg article I linked above:
Fiat SpA, not Chrysler, decided which dealers will be brought along to the new company to be formed under the U.S. automaker's bankruptcy process, according to people familiar with the situation.
"Can someone explain how Chrysler saves money by cutting dealers? Do the auto companies actually subsidize the dealers so that each dealer costs them so many dollars/year?"
No one answered his question. I want to know also.
@Flathead Smith: The way I understand it is having too many dealers creates excessive internal competition. If you have two Chrysler dealers within a few miles of each other they are competing with each other as well as all the other dealers around them (Toyota, GM, Ford, Honda, etc.). This forces those dealers to lower their prices more than they would have to if they were just competing with other brands, which then cuts into the profit margins for Chrysler.
There are some costs that Chrysler incurs to the dealers, too, including branding costs, marketing costs, etc.
@engineerd: There used to be financing deals too. Like if a dealer sold a car and the buy used Chrysler financing then the dealership would get some combination of an upfront payment and money over the term of the loan. But Chrysler financial is gone now anyway.
The branding costs, once a dealership was established, they got pretty much nothing there. The marketing was different, it tended to be that for each car the dealership got there would be a sum from the automaker for marketing. The dealership would just treat that as income though. Then the automaker would periodically have promotions running that for every car the dealer sold in that month in a certain list, they would get some extra money from the manufacturer. Sometimes that was treated as marketing as well or other times as dealer incentive.
Another peculiar thing is that the dealerships did not actually own the new cars on the lots. Instead they financed them with low rates from the manufacturers. An interesting thing to make that more appealing was the the manufacturer would pay the dealer a fee for say the first six months that they financed the car. That made it so that there was negative interest initially. I know one particular Chevy and an Olds dealership worked that way, I am not certain Chrysler did something like that but I bet they did. I get the sense it was a domestics thing. A Honda and Toyota dealership I know about does not do something like that for example.
So that's about it, there are some sort of odd rules in play where a manufacturer pays a dealership some money. In practice though a dealership was not making much margins on new car sales. They made the bulk of their money in parts, service, and the used car lot.
Oh I forgot, I bet that Chrysler paid something to a dealership every time they sold an extended warranty as well. They also had to pay for some service (oil change vouchers) that way as well.
05/22/09
05/22/09
05/22/09
05/22/09
05/22/09
@FriscoFairlane: But he would no doubt buy an old-school Windstar with mismatched door panels.
05/22/09
But I like the look of the 500/Taurus... What does that say about me?
05/22/09
1. Your boring.
2. You need to get out more
05/22/09
I ride in one regularly, the car is a great highway cruiser. Maybe even the best out there, given you can pick up a fully loaded Limited AWD for around $11,000.
05/22/09
Bets on them being the only independent American car maker left by 2020?
I'll have a fiver with you.
/not really, though.
05/22/09
05/22/09
GM may be spot-on with the likes of Cadillac and Buick nowadays, and Lincoln may need a readjustment (mostly of what-wheels-drive), but it's the volume leaders that really count.
05/22/09
05/22/09
05/22/09
05/22/09
05/22/09
05/22/09
Although as a Ford guy myself this does get me excited in suprising ways.
05/22/09
What makes this especially funny inside my head, is that he looks like he's about four feet tall. Short Man's Disease is an unfortunate condition, though I hear it's treatable with baby aspirin.
05/14/09
05/14/09
05/14/09
Also, good to read that most of these cuts are in urban areas. One of the few strengths of the domestic dealers are the rural dealerships, with high customer loyalty. If these close and rural folks are forced to go into the "big city", they are NOT going to automatically just show up at the corresponding Big 3 dealer, but will take the opportunity to shop around and more likely than not go with a competitor's vehicle...
05/14/09
05/14/09
Affected Dealers
[chapter11.epiqsystems.com]
05/14/09
Is this common, or are these being singled out? Also, what will the loss of Chrysler business do to the Ford/GM/etc side of the dealer's company? Will those also go under as a result?
05/14/09
05/14/09
05/14/09
Fiat SpA, not Chrysler, decided which dealers will be brought along to the new company to be formed under the U.S. automaker's bankruptcy process, according to people familiar with the situation.
05/14/09
"Can someone explain how Chrysler saves money by cutting dealers? Do the auto companies actually subsidize the dealers so that each dealer costs them so many dollars/year?"
No one answered his question. I want to know also.
05/14/09
There are some costs that Chrysler incurs to the dealers, too, including branding costs, marketing costs, etc.
05/14/09
05/14/09
The branding costs, once a dealership was established, they got pretty much nothing there. The marketing was different, it tended to be that for each car the dealership got there would be a sum from the automaker for marketing. The dealership would just treat that as income though. Then the automaker would periodically have promotions running that for every car the dealer sold in that month in a certain list, they would get some extra money from the manufacturer. Sometimes that was treated as marketing as well or other times as dealer incentive.
Another peculiar thing is that the dealerships did not actually own the new cars on the lots. Instead they financed them with low rates from the manufacturers. An interesting thing to make that more appealing was the the manufacturer would pay the dealer a fee for say the first six months that they financed the car. That made it so that there was negative interest initially. I know one particular Chevy and an Olds dealership worked that way, I am not certain Chrysler did something like that but I bet they did. I get the sense it was a domestics thing. A Honda and Toyota dealership I know about does not do something like that for example.
So that's about it, there are some sort of odd rules in play where a manufacturer pays a dealership some money. In practice though a dealership was not making much margins on new car sales. They made the bulk of their money in parts, service, and the used car lot.
Oh I forgot, I bet that Chrysler paid something to a dealership every time they sold an extended warranty as well. They also had to pay for some service (oil change vouchers) that way as well.
05/14/09
05/14/09
[www.bloomberg.com]
05/14/09
05/14/09