Rogue Toyota Dealers Price Gouging on 2010 Prius

I gather your dealership tries to get over MSRP for the 2010 Prius?

 

Your hypothetical conversation is flawed as most Prius owners (as you would know if you checked the demographic stats posted by the Prius Team on this site would indicate...look it up on a recently posted thread) are not struggling to pay their monthly car payment. In fact, the majority of the demo are well educated, above median income people...sorry to burst your bubble. $2,000 over MSRP is not going to make someone have to pick up extra hours...or they would be buying a vehicle at half the cost of a 2010 Prius. You are making your argument based on opinion and not facts...never a winning argument.

I will agree with you that Diane is a great example of a tremendous friend to priuschat and someone that does a great job of catering to this crowd...she should be congratulated...I've read much about her on many threads.

But don't disparage other private business owners that decide not to operate at or under MSRP...it's an absolute oxymoron to live in this country and expect to get a "deal" when buying a 2010 Prius...maybe on other cars you would have more luck. The entire reason everyone on this site has been drooling for months and months about the 2010 Prius is the same reason dealers are charging over MSRP for it...because many on this site and obviously thousands around the country/world are willing to pay for it!

Also, your point that someone that pays over MSRP for a 2010 Prius is wasting the money they could have saved on gas and essentially breaks even on their purchase is invalid. If you knew anything about fuel economy you would know that plenty of people own cars that are 10 years old (and older) that get better fuel economy than any Prius by modding them for economy...and most do it for just a few hundred dollars while the cost of there cars are just a few thousand dollars.

If you want to talk facts I'll play along...but don't randomly hit keys on your computer expecting people to believe it.

 

Are you serious? You can make a 10+ year old car get over 50+ MPG? How? I mean I have a Honda Accord 2001. Please do tell what do I need to do to beat on mileage everyone here with a Prius. Specially for a few hundred dollars? That sounds like the deal of a lifetime to me. Sounds like we've all been wasting our time here, praising the Prius. Somebody let the moderators know, the Prius is out, 10 year old cars are in. Our friend here will guide us through the transition. Please sir, do proceed.


Also, on a more serious note, I wanna say something you respectable sir have failed to mention. The clunkers program was not only meant to boost car sales, but it was supposed to help people who need a car. Not want, need. I must disagree when you say a car is a privilege. I dont know anything about where you live, but here in Houston you are technically useless without a car. Most employers require you to have your own vehicle. How can you call that a privilege? If I didnt have a car, I couldnt possibly attend college and go to work in time-efficient manner. Now back to C4C. There are people with low incomes, plenty that I know, who took advantage of C4C by buying the cheapest car they could possibly find, such as a $9980 Nissan Versa with no A/C. You have no idea how fast those sold. Most of the people in this category live check by check, and many of them were trying to find an efficient way to get rid of that clunker that was costing them hundreds of dollars in repairs every month or so. Suddenly somebody tells them they'll get between 3500 to 4500 dollars for their piece of crap if they agree to buy a new car. People with this kind of income would probably agree, but would definetely try to go for the cheapest of the cheapest available. Now, if honest hard-working people like this who are really counting on this program to help them get a vehicle to simply help them get from point A to point B, encounter a salesman whom, as you say, "is only doing his job" by telling those folks "we are sorry, but that very base model of nissan versa with no A/C you are looking for is in very high demand, so we have to charge you an market adjustment of $4500"
Now, in this case, we both know that a salesman can tell a person's income and status by their demeanor and their prospective purchase choices. This salesman sees that this people are very insistent on the cheapest thing available, and refuse to get any add-ons whatsoever. He also sees the old clunker they drove to the dealership in, beat up, noisy, and ready to give out any minute. This salesman has realized these are people who NEED a car, not WANT one. This salesman makes a decision in his head: I can either simply sell them what they need at the MSRP price, still making a good profit for myself and for my dealership, and earning a satisfied customer to my side, or I can trick them into believing they need to pay me an arm and a leg for a car with no A/C, and trick them into completely losing all the money from a federal program that was designed to help them in the first place?
Good sir, can you honestly look at this situation and tell me there is absolutely nothing morally wrong with it?

I agree with you, a person who overpays for luxury doesnt have as much right to complain as somebody who overpays for water in the middle of a hurricane (and trust me, being one of Hurricane Ike's evacuees I can tell you many f'ed up things that gas stations pulled on me during the hurricane). But when the car your are buying is not a luxury, but a necessity, the game changes.

 

I take it from that story that Chrysler then did the logical thing, find another supplier to get their steel from? At least they never dealt with you again, and that's the way Chrysler chose to do business.

Because what would you call somebody who, for a 30 minute drive, could save over $2000? I would call them either uninformed or stupid. Would the couple I'm talking about have driven the 30 minutes to save $2000? I don't know, maybe they're making more than $4000/hour and it wouldn't be worth it to them?

And what is upsetting to me is that just by my looking at the same Prius they were looking at could have caused them to make an uninformed decision. I wasn't going to purchase that Prius anyway.

 

l

Of course it can be done. You know, the magnets around the fuel line, the "Tornado" Vortex Air Cleaner, the nitrogen in the tires. How much would these "MPG boosters" cost? Probably well under $100 for the bunch. Oh, maybe not, just the "Tornado" is $69.98 from the factory, plus shipping of course. But maybe for the other $20 or so bucks you can get one of those "100 mpg carbeurators".

 

The problem with some Toyota dealers, like the ones mentioned here that charge a premium, is that they are an example of whats worse in this country, not an example of a great dealership or company, capitalism with no restraint has caused the current crisis. Those dealerships were simply taking advantage of their customers, not offering a reasonable product for a reasonable price.

 

Yes that's exactly what Chrysler did. And we were OK with that because we knew the consequences upfront. We ended up selling that steel to other buyers at the higher prices and everybody was happy.

Then 2-1/2 years later the Jeep plant in Toledo called us and said that they'd been having so much trouble with the replacement supplier that they were going to Auburn Hills and demand that we be reinstated.

They did and we returned to supplying nearly all the exterior panels on every Jeep made there. But that's the way business is done.

As to your couple who wouldn't travel 30 miles to get a better deal the key point in all sales is this: a sale will be made only when the buyer sees sufficient value in acquiring the product offered. Your couple apparently saw enough value in doing business at that one store with the $2000 ADM so they gave up their funds and concluded the sale. This is the way all sales are done.

If the deli tells me a Reuben sandwich is $15, I walk.
At $10 it better be HUGE so that I can save half.
At $5 I'm sitting down.
And if the sandwich is not good enough, then I don't come back.

Vehicles, and basic steel, are the same. I can attest to that after 40 years of being on the selling end. I've also found that neither you nor I can impose our way of thinking on the buyer. It's purely a personal or corporate decision. I've sold the same steel product to 10 different customers at 10 different prices all subject to how much value those buyers put on our steel. In a tight market the variations in prices between those buyers might be significant.

 

This is a real tear jerker and all, but lets not forget about all of us who live paycheck to paycheck and pay our taxes. Paying our mortgage, car payments, kids college funds, etc, and then we see our hard earned (and heavily taxed) money go to buy cars for other people. Are you kidding me? That makes me want to vomit. I absolutely think the C4C was the worst idea anyone ever had. What made it even more so stupid is they only qualified certain vehicles. The only way it would have been remotely fair to the TAX PAYERS OF AMERICA is if was just a tax rebate on buying a new hybrid/fuel efficient (30+ or whatever mpg) vehicle.

The bottom line is probably most of the people that C4C helped were poor people - I'm sick of my tax dollars buying things for these people. Especially cars.

Edit: Owning and driving a car is a privilege, not a right. Go buy a bicycle

 

deleted

 

Huh, kinda like health care and insurance, except there's a lemon law for cars.

 

Dear Sir,

Be careful when being so sarcastic about getting great mpg's in a non-Prius...just because you don't now how to do it doesn't mean it's not possible. You can mock me as much as you want...but do some research to back up your sarcasm...and then put your tail between your legs after I back up my words with fact...not high-brow opinion or speculation.

There are plenty of examples of high mpg cars (not new cars either) on ecomodder.com and other sites that are pulling better than Prius mpg. And, for you my sarcastic friend...many Honda Accords that are getting low 40's mpg (60-80% over EPA). Most of these cars are modified for very little money and there not using gimmicks like all the things someone mentioned earlier. They are modded for aero and economy...add in some driving skills and you have 60-80 mpg in many, many cars.

Here's just a few of the dozens of cars on ecomodder.com that get over 60 mpg...and they are a Pontiac Firefly, Honda Civic and Geo Metro...and they are not new by any means...and you can go there yourself to see their stats in the links below...convinced yet?

1998 Geo Metro Gas Mileage (Blackfly) - EcoModder.com
1992 Honda Civic CX Gas Mileage (Aerocivic) - EcoModder.com
1994 geo metro 4 dr HB Gas Mileage (the metro experience) - EcoModder.com

Spend a little time reading the mpg results in the ecomodder.com garage and I think you will change your tune...and I'll be waiting for my apology for your sarcasm.

And...the C4C program was not meant to help people that needed a car...the people participating already HAD a car to trade in. And don't tell me that there cars were undriveable because they had to be insured and registered to qualify for the program...cars they were already driving. Sure, compared to a new car the trade ins look like crap...but they still needed a car to trade in to participate so the program was NOT MEANT to get cars for people that did not have one. The program was meant to get higher mpg cars on the road and lower mpg cars off it (many say the program was meant to stimulate the auto industry which I'll buy as well...but it was not meant to get cars to those that did not have one as you stated). You're argument is truly incredible to me...flawed at best.

 

The bottom line is that the C4C program was designed to be an economic boost to the economy. Whether you approve it being done or not, it has been done, and it did achieve the goals that it was created to achieve:

1.) Removing over 1/2 million guzzlers off the road.
2.) Replacing over 1/2 million vehicles with more fuel efficient vehicles.
3.) Generate over 1/2 million new auto sales at automobile dealerships.
4.) Benefit over 1/2 million consumers who got rid of a clunker, got a new car, and got $3,500 or $4,500 to make that happen.

It did achieve these goals, and as such, should be deemed a success. Not many government programs actually achieve their stated goals as quickly as this one did.

 

The bottom line is probably most of the people that C4C helped were poor people - I'm sick of my tax dollars buying things for these people. Especially cars.

Wow, this topic sure degenerated quickly. I started reading it thinking I'd chime in and endorse the capitalist theme and note that the deal requires educated buyers and sellers.
Now I feel deeper seated opinions are a part of the discussion...:heh:
I believe the C4C handout was primarily set up to stimulate sales and help SAVE the auto industry (many thousands of jobs) with a kick start. Our government had already put up many billions to keep the big 3 afloat and C4C would get the consumers back into the equation. Fuel economy considerations apparently were not "really" that important.
We, the taxpayers, provided individual and corporate welfare to, what we believed would, save all of us from a Greater Recession than we've been in for many months.
Right or wrong our nation appears more secure today than six months ago based on stock market growth., So much so that we can comfortably discuss market adjustments instead of failed dealerships and many more lost jobs.

The bottom line appears that we "helped" the haves (banks, auto industry,etc) as well the have nots (poor buyers and unemployed) eat cake (and perhaps saved the USA from total meltdown.)
I regret that our government had to help anyone but I'm not sick and tired of helping others including the least of these. :hug:

 

Very well said, but now the big question, apparently not thought by the government, is:

What heck is going to happen with all guzzlers sitting in the dealer lots got as trade-ins? Are they going to be destroyed? Of course not! They are going to be back on the road, or do you think dealers are willing to get ripped to save the world? I don't think so!

So, the program was not that successful achieving goals 1 and 2... Unfortunately!

 

The C4C program states that all clunker trade ins by law must be disabled via the engine so they can't be resold as driveable. They can either be sold to a salvage yard (which must document their arrival) or they can be scrapped for parts.

Now, this is all assuming that the dealers get their money from the government...which will happen in time (how much time is not known). But dealers cannot resell the clunkers to you and me...you will not see them back on the road in the form the trade came onto the lot as...maybe parted out...but not resold as driveable.

 

I think this has de-generated some. My point was that while jacking up the price of whatever is legal, may or may not be "right" , we don't have to participate in it. There are other automobile dealers that don't "jack up" the price when they can. For whatever reason, they don't.
As educated consumers it's our right to seek them out, you don't have to pay "jacked up" prices.
As far as bargaining every price like "fish mongers" let me know how that works on your tax bill, electric bill, water bill,fuel bill, etc. etc. some things we don't have a choice on. Cars we do.
Many, many years ago, I used to get almost as good a highway fuel mileage out of my Volkswagon Golf Diesel as I do the Prius, factor in what used to be the price of Diesel and my cost per mile fuel wise was as good or better than a Prius, so it can be done. BUT, I don't want to drive an old VW Diesel.
Nope, I believe in free enterprise, I think without it, we are in for troubling times, but you don't have to pay the jacked up price, you can walk away and shop else where.
I predict these jacked up prices won't last, what's funny is that 30 days ago it was all gloom and doom for auto dealers, now they jack up prices?
IF enough walk away from the dealers trying to take advantage of a temporary situation, it will correct itself, isn't that one of the bases of free enterprise?

 

Most of them have already been disabled by chemicals (seizing the engine, as required by the C4C program. the rest will be done, as soon as salvagers can remove them.

They cannot be resold, as they will not be able to title them legally.

Dealers will not be paid by the government on their C4C deals without paperwork evidence of C4C vehicles have been destroyed.

 

Heck, even an unmodded Geo Metro with a 3-cylinder engine does as well as a Prius. For someone with low income and long commutes, this is a far more reasonable option than a new Prius, IMO.

2010 Honda Insight vs. 2010 Toyota Prius, 1998 Chevy Metro - Comparison Tests

The laws of physics with accelerating something that barely weighs 1800 pounds help a lot. On the downside, you have to drive downhill to get up to interstate speeds in any reasonable time and if you don't, well, the crash protection and light weight won't help you much. Not real flexible for families compared to a 3000 pound midsize with a real back seat and cargo space. I'm sure you could mod a Smartcar for better fuel economy, too. It's essentially today's equivalent of the Metro.

On the other hand, it would be very interesting to see the laws of physics bent to convert a 3000 pound midsize to get anywhere remotely close to the same mileage as a Prius for a typical driver for just a few hundred bucks. Heck, if you could improve the SmartCar's fuel economy by even 25% for a few hundred bucks that would be invention of the decade. If this could be done, Smartcar or someone else would be making billions doing it. THAT is how business is done. If it's not being done on a large scale, then you have to ask why. Safety, reliability, conspiracy, etc.

 

Right.

This, I don't agree with. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's the number two goal of the program. My reasoning? Well, first, it was stated as a goal when the program started , and second, the MPG requirements of the program, on both the trade-ins and the new vehicles purchased. Trade-ins (for most vehicle types) were only accepted if they got 18mpg or less. I don't think that's by accident. You'll save over 40% more gas over time by trading in a 18MPG car for a 22MPG car than you would trading in a 22MPG car for a 26MPG car (and similar numbers going from 18 to 28 vs 22 to 32, to get the full cash benefit of the program).

 

My post was indeed tongue and cheek but apparently some people on this forum have no sense of humor. Bottom line is that in my opinion ONLY you're an idiot if you pay $3000 over list price for a 2010 Prius. There are plenty of resources for people to utilize to find a better deal. I guess the story is true that a sucker is born every day.