Jump to content

GM Signals That Higher Average Transaction Prices Are Here To Stay

Gorehamj

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 33
  • Created
  • Last Reply
KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted

I haven’t seen it yet in the way I had bought trucks. Usually longest on the lot or end of the model year. Example when I bought my 14. It was on 12-13-13. It was a 40K truck for 27K, longest on the lot. The same dealer this year had SLTs end of models runs for 32K. It will be interesting to see what the 19s discounts will be in September.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

zikronix Enthusiast

zikronix

Posted
Posted
On 5/2/2019 at 9:47 AM, Chris walker said:

Im not sure its wise to advertise that tactic. To me its basically stating their sales strategy is to offer a less competitive truck at higher prices because your loyal buyers will keep buying.

 

Am I missing something?

Ive has some issues with this 2017 and its unlikely that my next vehicle will be a GM. There are better built vehicles with better options for the same or less price

truckofwinandawesome Senior Enthusiast

truckofwinandawesome

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

I'm pretty sure I'm just done. Price increases since I bought my 2015 are...….can't find the right words. Lock me out of my PCM, BCM and TCM? I bough it. I own it. End of story. Got rid of everything I have an interest in buying. RCSB. Full sized FAMILY cars. Eliminating what I want to PUSH me toward higher margins only pushed me to used. The idea that if one thing is all I have to choose from will get me to buy that one thing? Think again. I still have two feet and like walking. Cheaper and  more healthful too. Strong arm me? Get a grip! :fume:

and even then, with used car demand and people wanting a king's ransom for a clapped out pile of crap with WELL over 200K on it, its actually pushing some buyers out of the car market ENTIRELY.

econometrics Senior Enthusiast

econometrics

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, truckofwinandawesome said:

and even then, with used car demand and people wanting a king's ransom for a clapped out pile of crap with WELL over 200K on it, its actually pushing some buyers out of the car market ENTIRELY.

Yeah, I bought a new 2019 because the prices for used K2s with less than 30K miles was just goofy. I bought new within $5000 of what was being asked for 2017/2018s. 

Yondu Enthusiast

Yondu

Posted
Posted

Let's make the trucks noticably cheaper inside, increase the price and brag about how much more profit we are making per unit. 

 

Great long term strategy.  

 

It shouldn't be surprising that when you increase the price you should also increase the quality.  They've been getting blasted for a cheap interior.  

 

So. Oblivious.  

L86 All Terrain Senior Enthusiast

L86 All Terrain

Posted
Posted

If GM kills their truck market, the company will fail overnight. And they are well on their way to doing it. MSRP's can not increase by 20% every time you put new body metal on your trucks. I wont pay it anymore. I paid $37cad for an SLT in 2010, my 2015 was worth $53k all in, now the same truck is MSRP of 73,000, I would be lucky to get out the door for $65,000 and I wont pay that, no way. My wage doesn't increase 5% per year, so I believe it is a bit excessive to ask that we pay these astronomical prices for arguably worse quality products. None of these trucks will last 20 years like the 98 Silverados still going down the road today, the paint fell off my 2010, now its falling off my 2014 already and now we have shakey pieces of garbage with less than adequate computer hardware that constantly screws up and needs updates. Are you going to ask for software update on your 2014 in 2027? Not likely. Charge more, deliver less sounds like a pretty good recipe for failure to me. I wont downgrade from my SLT's to a WT so I am just not going to buy trucks for personal vehicles anymore. I have a work truck, I will trade my summer truck in and buy a sports car. Cheaper to buy a 1LZ Z06 than a SLT Carbon Pro, that is insane. Mary Bara can **** off at anytime before she runs this company into the ground if she hasn't already.  They want us to pay $70,000 for something that is worth $12,000 in  5 years, if we don't pay these prices, they will have no choice but to drop the prices, or drop dead as a business. But our corrupt politicians would just bail them out again with our money, so pay GM now, or pay them when they fail again...

econometrics Senior Enthusiast

econometrics

Posted
Posted

L86, as much as I agree with the point you're making on the basis of sensibility, I think the reason GM (and Ford... they are pretty bad at boosting their margins as well!) can keep getting away with big MSRP increases against a much more modest increase in wages is due to modern financing. 

 

You can finance vehicles now for up to EIGHT YEARS. It's insane. 

 

There are many out there who will finance the $73K MSRP truck you speak of almost entirely. And when you do that over 84 or 96 months, the payment can be reasonably the same (or even less!) as it was on your 2015 truck that MSRP'd for $50K. 

 

The only corrective force here is not buyers walking from GM, it's a market downturn that tightens credit across the board, like it did in 2008/9... when GM was paying people to take brand new trucks off the lots. 

KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted

I needed a truck for work. My wife drove two door cars mostly with three kids. They were impalas or equivalent. I think if it was today it would be that new V-8 camaro or equivalent for around 35K. She’d probably pick the stick.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

L86 All Terrain Senior Enthusiast

L86 All Terrain

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, econometrics said:

L86, as much as I agree with the point you're making on the basis of sensibility, I think the reason GM (and Ford... they are pretty bad at boosting their margins as well!) can keep getting away with big MSRP increases against a much more modest increase in wages is due to modern financing. 

 

You can finance vehicles now for up to EIGHT YEARS. It's insane. 

 

There are many out there who will finance the $73K MSRP truck you speak of almost entirely. And when you do that over 84 or 96 months, the payment can be reasonably the same (or even less!) as it was on your 2015 truck that MSRP'd for $50K. 

 

The only corrective force here is not buyers walking from GM, it's a market downturn that tightens credit across the board, like it did in 2008/9... when GM was paying people to take brand new trucks off the lots. 

Yeah, I cant believe people do those deals. By the end of your payment terms your warranty is gone, you have may have had to put in a $5,000 transmission or $12,000 engine in at your own cost at that point, now you are still paying $1,000/month on a rusted out sh!tbox that you wont even get $10k on trade for. I always pay 40-50% upfront and keep my payments down to 500/month. Trade them in for 60% of the MSRP in 5 years, recycle the growing down payment. Not anymore. I refuse to pay over 60,000 for a 1/2ton, especially with drastically reduced reliability and overall quality. 

 

GM likes those deals because they know you will be in there in 5 years to trade up because the truck is shot, so they take your 3 years left of your payments, and add them on to your new 8 year plan so now you pay $85,000 for a LT instead of 45,000. 

econometrics Senior Enthusiast

econometrics

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, L86 All Terrain said:

I always pay 40-50% upfront and keep my payments down to 500/month. Trade them in for 60% of the MSRP in 5 years, recycle the growing down payment. Not anymore. I refuse to pay over 60,000 for a 1/2ton, especially with drastically reduced reliability and overall quality. 

 

GM likes those deals because they know you will be in there in 5 years to trade up because the truck is shot, so they take your 3 years left of your payments, and add them on to your new 8 year plan so now you pay $85,000 for a LT instead of 45,000. 

Yeah, I used to be a "pay cash, own it till it can't go any more, repeat." person. But now with the new technology in the trucks (and cars), I've changed my mind on that. I'm moving to a 3-5 ownership and trading on that cycle. 

 

I personally feel it's less about the reliability of the truck - I think they will be great for a long time - but more for the fact that you really lose value after 7 years. By that time, the model/platform is really outdated and the tech is so behind that you're not getting much privately or trade-in. We live in a different age where our vehicles are basically computers with wheels now. 

KARNUT Senior Enthusiast

KARNUT

Posted
Posted

There’s a way around all that. Buy a leftover work truck and build it yourself. The last ride I bought all the sales person wanted to talk about was CarPlay. All I cared about was blue tooth. You can buy that aftermarket too. A friend of mine has to have a sun roof. She like base model cars, she gets her roof aftermarket. The only reason there’re charging so much is people are paying it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

L86 All Terrain Senior Enthusiast

L86 All Terrain

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, econometrics said:

Yeah, I used to be a "pay cash, own it till it can't go any more, repeat." person. But now with the new technology in the trucks (and cars), I've changed my mind on that. I'm moving to a 3-5 ownership and trading on that cycle. 

 

I personally feel it's less about the reliability of the truck - I think they will be great for a long time - but more for the fact that you really lose value after 7 years. By that time, the model/platform is really outdated and the tech is so behind that you're not getting much privately or trade-in. We live in a different age where our vehicles are basically computers with wheels now. 

You're right they are computers on wheels, what do we know about computers? You throw them in the dump in 4 years and buy another. These trucks already aren't great right off the lot, never mind 10 years down the road. My 2015 has been at the dealer 500% more than my 2010 was. In 5 years I changed a trans dipstick tube under warranty on my 2010 that's it, my 2015 has had 5 trans updates, a new torque converter, and now a reman transmission, had some computer glitches which was a bad ground, my 2014 shakes and the paint is falling off worse than a 10 year old truck, new front end at 110,000km, AFM failed, Trans locks itself in 2nd gear at random and GM told me they don't know how to fix that trucks problems, most of the parts have China cast into them. They truly are garbage quality units, the worst GM has ever put out by far. GM had 5 brands in the top 10 of the JD Reliability test in 2012, they might have 1 brand in there now if even that. Nicest looking trucks since 1958, most comfortable to drive (when not shaking), but I will admit they are also the worst long-term ownership quality since then too. I both love and hate my K2's if you cant tell, too much of the hate to pay $70,000 for another turd, even if said turd is shiny, pretty and powerful. I want K2 looks, with GMT900 reliability with OBS quality.  

paullgj Enthusiast

paullgj

Posted
Posted

Been driving Chevy or GMC’s since 1975 (I’m 73).  Always a regular cab short wheelbase stick shift with floor mounted transfer case shifter.  But no more.  Priced me out of the market - i’m Not spending $50,000 + for an oversized electronic land yacht to beat up rock crawling.  First GM dumps the stick shift, then the reg cab SWB.  2019 reg cab has a once speed transfer case.  They don’t offer what I need for off roading and priced me out of the market.

 

Having said all that, Tipotex Chevrolet has a 4cyl stick shift 2wd Colorado on the lot for about $19,000that I have my eyes on.  Probably the last of the stick shifts as GM has discontinued that in the Colorado line.  But it’s not 4wd.  

 

My $.02 rant for this morning.

 

scdaren Enthusiast

scdaren

Posted
Posted

Just bought a 2019... and it had the standard $10k off MSRP.  Pretty comparable to the 2017 I traded in, and my out the door price was about the same.

 

I don't think they can keep up the high transaction price once all the discounted 2018's get sold off, all trims become widely available and these trucks start filling up lots.  I was looking at a Sierra instead of the Silverado, but couldn't find anything much below a SLT, so went Chevy.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled I?    Stribeck says that we need a certain amount of viscosity under conditions of load and velocity to prevent two surfaces of a know roughness from tearing each other asunder. And we have marketing trying to tell the masses that those two surfaced require less of that commodity due to more exact limits being placed on the same old clearances. We also know that there are limits to how hard something can before it becomes to brittle to be viable and to smooth to 'wet' the surface and that both of those conditions have been known and met since about the Second World War.    That viscosity value shook out at 10 centistokes at 212 F just under a hundred years ago.  Give this a look: [Anton Parr]     What is advertised is the Kinematic viscosity (mm2/s) or that which has been density adjusted but the value we are after is the dynamic viscosity (mPa.s) or true viscosity. You can see that this number is dependent on density thus base stock and temperature. You can also see that an SAE 30 doesn't reach that value in this example. However an SAE 30 that is at the upper end of the SAE 30 range; 12.5 cSt (mm2/s), might. 12.5 * .83 = 10.375 (mm2/s). If you could find an SAE 30 at the upper end these days.   Then there is the complication of viscosity modifiers or VII or VM, whatever you wish to call them. Polymers added to very thin base oils, perhaps 3 to 6 cP oils, that will meet the SAE *W30 spec at 'tested' shear rates and 100 C/212F  target temperature. So a polymer fortified base that is a fraction of the 10 cP requirement Stribeck insist upon.   This could be all well and good if those polymers didn't have two very problematic 'features'. They shear or loose viscosity both 1.) permanently and 2.) temporality. And they do both omitted in the advertised data with the distinct  purpose of deceiving the consumer of the actual operating state of the fluid. I've shown the example of Warren Oils COSTCO 10.91 cSt 5W30 formuation several times where the 100 C HTHS value is 6.9 cP!! That's the temporary shear down and with and SSI or shear stability index of 9.4 cSt. Note the intentional deception in using mixed units?    After a short while that 9.4 cSt oil has a viscosity corrected dynamic value of 7.8 cP. But as the SSI is still within the range of an SAE *W30 whose lower value is 9.3 cSt.    This allows them to continue to call this SAE 16 weight oil a 30 weight, the cake, and still meet the API requirements for fuel efficiency IMPROVEMENT mandated by the EPA. The eating of the cake. By the time you've worn out your motor doing the responsible thing by adhering to the warranty requirements, (the stick), you get deprived of the carrot, wear control. So sad, to bad.   So what can be done? Do I need actually say? [Anton Parr]       Even this must be monitored if the oil is on the low side and the VII an organic or you opt for a 0W40 with an even lighter base oil and more / higher MW VII. (Note the lower density of the 40 weight versus the SAE 30 mono-weight?)    There is another workaround. Temperature. An SAE *W30 run at a bulk temperature of between 180 and 195 F.    Being the belt and suspenders sort I am I do both. Run it cook and run it heavy.    In Part II I'll work the AW package. 
    • Atlas
      Wow I'm in a pickle. (Broke down truck) and a story.

      By Atlas · Posted

      So, do I go elbow-deep on this thing or list it for sale and play dumb? Seems to "runs good."   I'm about $1200 away from having: -a rebuilt injector ($300) -a new cat ($250) -a new cat back exhaust (OE style) ($300) -a new AC compressor ($200) -AC refrigerant charge ($150)   In theory, this should rectify the obvious detracting issues from its value and operability. Cold AC with a non-squeaking AC pulley both sounds and feels good. An exhaust that isn't cut/hacked in 17 different places and doesn't vibrate on a crossmember would make it sound and feel less janky. A working cat would help the stink, and will save the earth, but *if and only if* the fuel system is working properly, which would also address the intermittent "rich" CEL.   Heard a good one... CEL for "Rich condition" means you haven't spent enough money on the truck lately, and it's letting you know.   Rebuilding the injector would seem to be the most important part. Replacing the cat would be secondary. I don't think mine is plugged or overly restricted, but it might be a little restricted? I have no good way to tell other than seat of the pants feel. I hate the smell.   The current theory is I have a rich idle problem: A bad fuel pressure regulator, or a leaking injector(s) being the highest probabilities. I already replaced the FPR but that doesn't mean its replacement isn't also bad. It was a new part from Dorman, but the packaging looked like it had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years.   This is the (single) upstream O2 sensor shown at idle. I'm getting a lot of "rich" it seems. Sometimes it stays high like that and doesn't drop down. That makes me think it's processing injector leaks or a partially stuck open injector.     Other times it looks like this. Nice oscillations between rich and lean, which is what I think it should be. Under load and at speed, the oscillations are nice and tight and uniform looking, high and low.     Fuel trims suggest the PCM is compensating pretty hard at idle to pull fuel out. But it's not enough to trip a CEL. Something about slowing to a stop: brake vaccum booster, EGR, or the EVAP purge is delayed, or there's pooled fuel in the intake again that's draining into a cylinder is enough to set the CEL. Of course, in two days of driving, it hasn't set. I was hoping to actually look at the freeze-frame data when it sets. IAT is high because it's idling on an 83 degree day here.  
    • Another JR
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By Another JR · Posted

      Have considered installing a DC to DC charger in your camper to replace your isolator?  
    • newdude
      Gas fill door

      By newdude · Posted

      Common failure.  You need to replace the fuel door housing.   The painted cover transfers over to the new housing.  To remove the old one there is 4 spots where you poke the plastic to release it.  
    • newdude
      Gasser Subforum Has Been Quiet - - So, Regenerative Braking and Using L10

      By newdude · Posted

      No such thing as regenerative braking on a pure ICE vehicle.     Regenerative braking is the re-capture of energy from electric motors and stores it in the battery pack.  So hybrids, PHEV and EVs have regenerative braking.     What you are seeing is the charging system changing modes is all.  Its likely entering charge mode for some sort of reason is all.  All of the charging modes will be listed below.   As for L10 vs D.  L10 turns off automatic grade braking.  L10 puts you in control of grade downshifts where in D it will automatically do it based on brake pedal position and other factors.  Otherwise L10 and D drive exactly the same aside from that one aspect.    Battery Sulfation Mode The BCM will enter this mode when the interpreted Generator output voltage is less than 13.2 V for 45 minutes. When this condition exists the BCM will enter Charge Mode for 2–3 minutes. The BCM will then determine which mode to enter depending on voltage requirements.   Charge Mode The BCM will enter Charge Mode when ever one of the following conditions are met:   Windshield wipers are ON for more than 3 s. Climate Control Voltage Boost Mode Request is true, as sensed by the HVAC control module via serial data. High speed cooling fan, rear defogger, and HVAC high speed blower operation can cause the BCM to enter the Charge Mode. The estimated battery temperature is less than 0°C (32°F). Battery State of Charge is less than 80%. Vehicle speed is greater than 145 km/h (90 mph) A current sensor malfunction exists. System voltage is determined to be below 12.56 V When any one of these conditions is met, the system will set targeted generator output voltage to a charging voltage between 13.9–15.5 V, depending on the battery state of charge and estimated battery temperature.   Fuel Economy Mode The BCM will enter Fuel Economy Mode when the estimated battery temperature is at least 0°C (32°F) but less than or equal to 80°C (176°F), the calculated battery current is less than 15 A and greater than −8 A, and the battery state-of-charge is greater than or equal to 80%. Its targeted generator output voltage is the open circuit voltage of the battery and can be between 12.5–13.1 V. When fuel economy mode is active, the generator is not charging, only maintaining open circuit battery voltage. The BCM will exit this mode and enter Charge Mode when any of the conditions described above are present.   Headlamp Mode The BCM will enter Headlamp Mode when ever the head lamps are ON (high or low beams). Voltage will be regulated between 13.9–14.5 V.   Start Up Mode When the engine is started the BCM sets a targeted generator output voltage of 14.5 V for 30 s.   Tow/Haul Mode (if applicable) Pressing the Tow/Haul Mode button located on the center stack, the vehicle system voltage is raised and the remote (non-vehicle) battery will be charged. Having the headlamps on will raise the system voltage and if the Tow/Haul button is applied it will not serve any purpose. The voltage is regulated between 13.9-14.5 V.      

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...