• Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0

    A New Study Show Which Vehicles Are Returned In The First Year


    • Which Vehicles Get Traded-In the Most After A Year of Ownership?

    While Americans are keeping their cars longer (Experian Automotive says the average ownership length is now 7.75 years), there are some models that owners can't wait to get rid off within a year of buying.

    iSeeCars.com recently compared new car sales against used-car purchases in 2014 to figure out which vehicles were traded-in the fastest. Their analysis showed that on average, around 2.7 percent of all new vehicles are traded in after only a year’s ownership. More surprising was the vehicles that had the highest amount of trade-ins. The expectation would be that the vehicles with the highest amount of trade-ins would be cheap. Not so fast. iSeeCars.com in their analysis the vehicles with highest trade-ins range from $18,000 to $45,000.

    “iSeeCars.com analysts think the fact that consumers are giving more of these cars up than the average is directly linked to quality or perceived quality of the cars,” says Phong Ly, CEO of iSeeCars.com. “Because purchasing a new car is expensive and something most people tend to spend a lot of time on, it stands to reason they would make a change shortly afterward if they felt the quality was lacking.”

    Here's the list of the vehicles with the highest trade-in amounts,

    1. Buick Regal - 10.7 Percent Traded-In
    2. Chevrolet Sonic - 8.9 Percent Traded-In
    3. BMW X1 - 7.8 Percent Traded-In
    4. Dodge Charger - 7.7 Percent Traded-In
    5. Mercedes-Benz C-Class - 7.4 Percent Traded-In
    6. Chevrolet Cruze - 7.2 Percent Traded-In
    7. Nissan Frontier - 6.9 Percent Traded-In

    Source: Forbes

    0


      Report Article
    Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0


    User Feedback


    Does this count fleet cars?  Some of those cars are high on rental car lots, so there could be a buy and sell after one year.

     

    The C-class surprises me, unless people are trading the old one on the new model year, normally I'd think people would keep one of those.  The X1 is tiny, so I could see the yuppies trading to an X3 after a year and realizing they bought a small wagon more than a crossover.

     

    Charger, Sonic and Cruze not surprised, I am surprised the Chrysler 200 or Dodge Journey isn't on there.  If they even make the Journey still.

    1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    C-Class is a curiosity, but I wouldn't be surprised that buyers are jumping ship to the A4, or even Mercedes' CLA. The CLA still gets the badge, and more stuff inside for a lower price. 

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    C-Class is a curiosity, but I wouldn't be surprised that buyers are jumping ship to the A4, or even Mercedes' CLA. The CLA still gets the badge, and more stuff inside for a lower price. 

     

    The old C-Class was way behind the times compared to the competition. The new C-Class you'd have to pry from my cold-dead hands.

    1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Those new C-classes are sweet.  I was hoping to get one as a loaner on my last service visit, but I got a GLK instead.

     

    The Journey must have a lot of sales to Avis and National.  People can't seriously buy that thing.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I'll be blunt... the Regal, although a really nice car, doesn't do anything exceptional.  It doesn't offer anything special.  And if you're tall, like me, it's impossible to get in/out of.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Those new C-classes are sweet.  I was hoping to get one as a loaner on my last service visit, but I got a GLK instead.

     

    The Journey must have a lot of sales to Avis and National.  People can't seriously buy that thing.

     

    Why not?  It is one of the few small to mid-size crossovers that still has a V6. The V6 gets pretty good fuel economy (better than the EPA rating).  They updated the interior about 2 years ago.  It has a 3rd row for children at a price point that only gets you a 2-row at Toyota, Honda, GM, and Ford.

     

    Not hard to see why it still sell... you just need to look. 

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Guest kara

    Posted · Report

    According to the study methodology, fleet cars were excluded from the analysis. THopefully this will be updated soon on Forbes' website.

    Does this count fleet cars?  Some of those cars are high on rental car lots, so there could be a buy and sell after one year.

     

    The C-class surprises me, unless people are trading the old one on the new model year, normally I'd think people would keep one of those.  The X1 is tiny, so I could see the yuppies trading to an X3 after a year and realizing they bought a small wagon more than a crossover.

     

    Charger, Sonic and Cruze not surprised, I am surprised the Chrysler 200 or Dodge Journey isn't on there.  If they even make the Journey still.

     

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I'm really surprised about the Regal.  I wonder what it gets traded on.

     

    In that eassist on buicks thread i started in Buick forum, this was what i posted

     

     

     

     

    There is a glut of used 14's on the market for cheap. Was it possible there were some fleet only regals without turbo OR eAssist?

    For the pricing I could live with less go juice for 30mpg everyday. That would be a luxurious 'econocar' alternative at that price. Cobalt only gets 27-28 in winter anyways.

     

     

    I am not convinced all these regals are being 'traded in'.  I did recongnize there were a buttload of 2014 regals for good deals, but i bet they were fleet vehicles or otherwise dealer vehicles that were titled and then turned used.  I can't help but think there is a sub story behind this.  The Regal is a good vehicle and the only thing i can think is some old farts bought Regals thinking they were floaters and then found out they were not and maybe wanted the bigger backseat of the lacrosse too.

     

    GM prob built a whole batch of 14 regals non turbo for fleets only and those are the used regals we see being 'traded in'.  a few turbos in the mix too.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Regal needs a V6.  It is not a premium vehicle without one.

    But a possible $70,000 Cadillac CT6 is going to have a 4-cyldiner, so by that level of engine placement the Regal should have a base turbo 3-cylinder and the top end Lacrosse a turbo four.

     

    Personally, I think Cadillac should use the 330 hp V6 as their base CTS and CT6 engine, turbo 4 in ATS only.  I am all for the "there is no replacement for displacement" argument, since the Maxima, Camry, Passat, Accord all come with a V6, I'd have no problem with a Regal V6.  If the Malibu is 4-cylinder only, giving the Regal a V6 is a good way to separate the two.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    Regal needs a V6.  It is not a premium vehicle without one.

    But a possible $70,000 Cadillac CT6 is going to have a 4-cyldiner, so by that level of engine placement the Regal should have a base turbo 3-cylinder and the top end Lacrosse a turbo four.

     

    Personally, I think Cadillac should use the 330 hp V6 as their base CTS and CT6 engine, turbo 4 in ATS only.  I am all for the "there is no replacement for displacement" argument, since the Maxima, Camry, Passat, Accord all come with a V6, I'd have no problem with a Regal V6.  If the Malibu is 4-cylinder only, giving the Regal a V6 is a good way to separate the two.

     

     

    Is this really going to be the dead horse you beat for the next 5 years?

    The CT6 (bigger than a 740i remember) actually has a curb weight a few pounds under the Buick Regal and an all new 8-speed auto to make the most of the 2.0T's torque.  It is not the same transmission that the CTS has currently, so you can't base the performance off that. 

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Kinda makes you wonder what model Regal was traded in....base models I could see, but I like the GS....

     

    Sonic- You really don't get the fun models until you get the higher trims...at that point you are in Cruze range already....with very few leases on them...

     

    Cruze- No one seems to like the 1.4 in that car....doesn't help that the engine has issues also.....also one of the oldest looking compacts out there.....

     

    X1-Why? The realized they wasted money on this little thing....

     

    Charger- Bet most were traded for the new model....

     

    C class- other automakers stepping up their game....

     

    Nissian- Can only think they might have been traded in on the new GM twins......

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    As has been noted by several people already, I sure wish they would've included an idea at least of what these vehicles people are obtaining in place of them.  That might help explain some things ... & maybe give more insight.  But, what do I know!?

     

     

    Cort :) www.oldcarsstronghearts.com

    1979 & 1989 Caprice Classics | pigValve, paceMaker, cowValve
    "And the simple truth so very much clearer" __ Everything __ 'Hooch'
    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Guest Brandon

    Posted · Report

    My wife and I bought a Regal GS six speed manual in 2013, the car was awesome. However it had to have timing chains replaced at 6,000 miles, we traded for a crew cab 6.2l sierra

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    As has been noted by several people already, I sure wish they would've included an idea at least of what these vehicles people are obtaining in place of them.  That might help explain some things ... & maybe give more insight.  But, what do I know!?

     

     

    Cort :) www.oldcarsstronghearts.com

    1979 & 1989 Caprice Classics | pigValve, paceMaker, cowValve
    "And the simple truth so very much clearer" __ Everything __ 'Hooch'

    oy

    Nothing wrong with a little more info.....

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Another harebrained theory:  Buick buyers WANT a soft riding, quietly luxurious car to drive after dealing with patients all day.  Regal jars them with its Euro sport sedan demeanor, it is incongruous with what people expect, and want, from a Buick. LaCrosse, Enclave and Verano seem to fit in better with that image.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I see no reason Buick can't offer both types of cars. If you want something sporty, get the Regal (and it's not bone jaring at all, unless you're in a GS using the GS setting, then what do you expect?). If you want soft luxury, get the Lacrosse or Enclave

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    agree with Drew here.  Buick can do both, within reason.  That 2011 Regal manual I test drove a few weeks ago was just about perfect for me.  Fairly quite and nice riding, but not a floater.  Still very luxurious.  Regal is the best car for it.  One that car is redone, lightened etc., it will improve in the market i think.  Its not marketed now, and its tight in the rear seat, but the car is a nice size for between small and barge.

     

    Adjustable suspensions is one way a lux car maker can do both, cush and sport.  I wonder if Cadillacs new rep as drivers cars is taking away from their old cush rep, and affecting their sales.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

    Guest
    You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
    Add a comment...

    ×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    Loading...



  • Popular Stories

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Raybob9289
      Raybob9289
      (50 years old)
    2. Z06C6Vette
      Z06C6Vette
      (28 years old)
  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      'Autonomous Emergency Braking' (AEB) and the various names this system goes under have the same goal; to bring the vehicle to a stop if the driver doesn't fails to engage the brakes. But a new study done by AAA reveals not all systems are equal and a very worrying trend concerning a consumer's belief in the system.
      There are two types of emergency braking systems, ones that are designed to bring the vehicle to stop to avoid a crash and ones that reduce speed to limit the severity of a crash. Unsurprisingly, AAA's tests showed that systems designed to avoid a crash did a better job than systems designed to limit the crash damage. At speeds under 30 mph, systems designed to avoid crashes were successful about 60 percent of the time. Systems designed to limit damage had a success rate of 33 percent. Increase speed to 45 mph and the systems designed to avoid a crash had a success rate of 74 percent. The systems designed to limit damage were successful 9 percent of the time.
      AAA also surveyed Americans familiar with the technology and it revealed something very troubling. Nearly two-thirds of those surveyed believe autonomous emergency braking systems will totally avoid a crash without driver intervention.
      “AAA found that two-thirds of Americans familiar with the technology believe that automatic emergency braking systems are designed to avoid crashes without driver intervention. The reality is that today’s systems vary greatly in performance, and many are not designed to stop a moving car,” said John Nielsen, AAA’s managing director of Automotive Engineering and Repair in a statement.
      This is important as 22 different automakers have agreed to make this technology standard on all of their models by 2022. Currently, 10 percent of new vehicles have this system as standard while more than 50 percent of new vehicles have it as an option. AAA recommends that if you're looking at a vehicle with an AEB system to make sure what system you'll have. It will make a difference when it comes to avoiding a crash.
      Source: AAA
      Press Release is on Page 2
      Hit The Brakes: Not All Self-Braking Cars Designed to Stop
      AAA Tests Reveal Automatic Emergency Braking Systems Vary Significantly ORLANDO, Fla (August 24, 2016) – New test results from AAA reveal that automatic emergency braking systems — the safety technology that will soon be standard equipment on 99 percent of vehicles — vary widely in design and performance. All the systems tested by AAA are designed to apply the brakes when a driver fails to engage, however, those that are designed to prevent crashes reduced vehicle speeds by nearly twice that of those designed to lessen crash severity. While any reduction in speed offers a significant safety benefit to drivers, AAA warns that automatic braking systems are not all designed to prevent collisions and urges consumers to fully understand system limitations before getting behind the wheel.
      “AAA found that two-thirds of Americans familiar with the technology believe that automatic emergency braking systems are designed to avoid crashes without driver intervention,” said John Nielsen, AAA’s managing director of Automotive Engineering and Repair. “The reality is that today’s systems vary greatly in performance, and many are not designed to stop a moving car.”
      In partnership with the Automobile Club of Southern California’s Automotive Research Center, AAA evaluated five 2016 model-year vehicles equipped with automatic emergency braking systems for performance within system limitations and in real-world driving scenarios that were designed to push the technology’s limits. Systems were tested and compared based on the capabilities and limitations stated in the owner’s manuals and grouped into two categories — those designed to slow or stop the vehicle enough to prevent crashes, and those designed to slow the vehicle to lessen crash severity. After more than 70 trials, tests reveal:
      In terms of overall speed reduction, the systems designed to prevent crashes reduced vehicle speeds by twice that of systems that are designed to only lessen crash severity (79 percent speed reduction vs. 40 percent speed reduction). With speed differentials of under 30 mph, systems designed to prevent crashes successfully avoided collisions in 60 percent of test scenarios. Surprisingly, the systems designed to only lessen crash severity were able to completely avoid crashes in nearly one-third (33 percent) of test scenarios. When pushed beyond stated system limitations and proposed federal requirements, the variation among systems became more pronounced. When traveling at 45 mph and approaching a static vehicle, the systems designed to prevent crashes reduced speeds by 74 percent overall and avoided crashes in 40 percent of scenarios. In contrast, systems designed to lessen crash severity were only able to reduce vehicle speed by 9 percent overall. “Automatic emergency braking systems have the potential to drastically reduce the risk of injury from a crash,” said Megan McKernan, manager of the Automobile Club of Southern California’s Automotive Research Center. “When traveling at 30 mph, a speed reduction of just 10 mph can reduce the energy of crash impact by more than 50 percent.”
      In addition to the independent testing, AAA surveyed U.S. drivers to understand consumer purchase habits and trust of automatic emergency braking systems. Results reveal:
      Nine percent of U.S. drivers currently have automatic emergency braking on their vehicle. Nearly 40 percent of U.S. drivers want automatic emergency braking on their next vehicle. Men are more likely to want an automatic emergency braking system in their next vehicle (42 percent) than female drivers (35 percent). Two out of five U.S. drivers trust automatic emergency braking to work. Drivers who currently own a vehicle equipped with automatic emergency braking system are more likely to trust it to work (71 percent) compared to drivers that have not experienced the technology (41 percent). “When shopping for a new vehicle, AAA recommends considering one equipped with an automatic emergency braking system,” continued Nielsen. “However, with the proliferation of vehicle technology, it’s more important than ever for drivers to fully understand their vehicle’s capabilities and limitations before driving off the dealer lot.”
      For its potential to reduce crash severity, 22 automakers representing 99 percent of vehicle sales have committed to making automatic emergency braking systems standard on all new vehicles by 2022. The U.S. Department of Transportation said this voluntary agreement will make the safety feature available on new cars up to three years sooner than could be achieved through the formal regulatory process. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, rear-end collisions, which automatic emergency braking systems are designed to mitigate, result in nearly 2,000 fatalities and more than 500,000 injuries annually. Currently, 10 percent of new vehicles have automatic emergency braking as standard equipment, and more than half of new vehicles offer the feature as an option.

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      'Autonomous Emergency Braking' (AEB) and the various names this system goes under have the same goal; to bring the vehicle to a stop if the driver doesn't fails to engage the brakes. But a new study done by AAA reveals not all systems are equal and a very worrying trend concerning a consumer's belief in the system.
      There are two types of emergency braking systems, ones that are designed to bring the vehicle to stop to avoid a crash and ones that reduce speed to limit the severity of a crash. Unsurprisingly, AAA's tests showed that systems designed to avoid a crash did a better job than systems designed to limit the crash damage. At speeds under 30 mph, systems designed to avoid crashes were successful about 60 percent of the time. Systems designed to limit damage had a success rate of 33 percent. Increase speed to 45 mph and the systems designed to avoid a crash had a success rate of 74 percent. The systems designed to limit damage were successful 9 percent of the time.
      AAA also surveyed Americans familiar with the technology and it revealed something very troubling. Nearly two-thirds of those surveyed believe autonomous emergency braking systems will totally avoid a crash without driver intervention.
      “AAA found that two-thirds of Americans familiar with the technology believe that automatic emergency braking systems are designed to avoid crashes without driver intervention. The reality is that today’s systems vary greatly in performance, and many are not designed to stop a moving car,” said John Nielsen, AAA’s managing director of Automotive Engineering and Repair in a statement.
      This is important as 22 different automakers have agreed to make this technology standard on all of their models by 2022. Currently, 10 percent of new vehicles have this system as standard while more than 50 percent of new vehicles have it as an option. AAA recommends that if you're looking at a vehicle with an AEB system to make sure what system you'll have. It will make a difference when it comes to avoiding a crash.
      Source: AAA
      Press Release is on Page 2
      Hit The Brakes: Not All Self-Braking Cars Designed to Stop
      AAA Tests Reveal Automatic Emergency Braking Systems Vary Significantly ORLANDO, Fla (August 24, 2016) – New test results from AAA reveal that automatic emergency braking systems — the safety technology that will soon be standard equipment on 99 percent of vehicles — vary widely in design and performance. All the systems tested by AAA are designed to apply the brakes when a driver fails to engage, however, those that are designed to prevent crashes reduced vehicle speeds by nearly twice that of those designed to lessen crash severity. While any reduction in speed offers a significant safety benefit to drivers, AAA warns that automatic braking systems are not all designed to prevent collisions and urges consumers to fully understand system limitations before getting behind the wheel.
      “AAA found that two-thirds of Americans familiar with the technology believe that automatic emergency braking systems are designed to avoid crashes without driver intervention,” said John Nielsen, AAA’s managing director of Automotive Engineering and Repair. “The reality is that today’s systems vary greatly in performance, and many are not designed to stop a moving car.”
      In partnership with the Automobile Club of Southern California’s Automotive Research Center, AAA evaluated five 2016 model-year vehicles equipped with automatic emergency braking systems for performance within system limitations and in real-world driving scenarios that were designed to push the technology’s limits. Systems were tested and compared based on the capabilities and limitations stated in the owner’s manuals and grouped into two categories — those designed to slow or stop the vehicle enough to prevent crashes, and those designed to slow the vehicle to lessen crash severity. After more than 70 trials, tests reveal:
      In terms of overall speed reduction, the systems designed to prevent crashes reduced vehicle speeds by twice that of systems that are designed to only lessen crash severity (79 percent speed reduction vs. 40 percent speed reduction). With speed differentials of under 30 mph, systems designed to prevent crashes successfully avoided collisions in 60 percent of test scenarios. Surprisingly, the systems designed to only lessen crash severity were able to completely avoid crashes in nearly one-third (33 percent) of test scenarios. When pushed beyond stated system limitations and proposed federal requirements, the variation among systems became more pronounced. When traveling at 45 mph and approaching a static vehicle, the systems designed to prevent crashes reduced speeds by 74 percent overall and avoided crashes in 40 percent of scenarios. In contrast, systems designed to lessen crash severity were only able to reduce vehicle speed by 9 percent overall. “Automatic emergency braking systems have the potential to drastically reduce the risk of injury from a crash,” said Megan McKernan, manager of the Automobile Club of Southern California’s Automotive Research Center. “When traveling at 30 mph, a speed reduction of just 10 mph can reduce the energy of crash impact by more than 50 percent.”
      In addition to the independent testing, AAA surveyed U.S. drivers to understand consumer purchase habits and trust of automatic emergency braking systems. Results reveal:
      Nine percent of U.S. drivers currently have automatic emergency braking on their vehicle. Nearly 40 percent of U.S. drivers want automatic emergency braking on their next vehicle. Men are more likely to want an automatic emergency braking system in their next vehicle (42 percent) than female drivers (35 percent). Two out of five U.S. drivers trust automatic emergency braking to work. Drivers who currently own a vehicle equipped with automatic emergency braking system are more likely to trust it to work (71 percent) compared to drivers that have not experienced the technology (41 percent). “When shopping for a new vehicle, AAA recommends considering one equipped with an automatic emergency braking system,” continued Nielsen. “However, with the proliferation of vehicle technology, it’s more important than ever for drivers to fully understand their vehicle’s capabilities and limitations before driving off the dealer lot.”
      For its potential to reduce crash severity, 22 automakers representing 99 percent of vehicle sales have committed to making automatic emergency braking systems standard on all new vehicles by 2022. The U.S. Department of Transportation said this voluntary agreement will make the safety feature available on new cars up to three years sooner than could be achieved through the formal regulatory process. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, rear-end collisions, which automatic emergency braking systems are designed to mitigate, result in nearly 2,000 fatalities and more than 500,000 injuries annually. Currently, 10 percent of new vehicles have automatic emergency braking as standard equipment, and more than half of new vehicles offer the feature as an option.
    • By William Maley
      Back in June, we learned that Skoda (a Czech brand under the Volkswagen group) was investigating possibly entering new markets. One of those new markets was North America, a place where 20 percent of global car sales take place. At the time our original report, Skoda hasn't set a timeframe for a decision. Also as we noted, Skoda would need to get more crossovers and SUVs ready if they want to try and make inroads in the U.S.
       
      Speaking of SUVs and the U.S., a recent article done by Autocar piqued our interest. Skoda CEO Bernhard Maier said if they were to launch the brand in the U.S. in the near future, they would have their upcoming seven-seat Kodiaq leading the charge.
       
      “If we do decide to compete in the US, we will have one chance to make a good first impression. We feel that if we were there now, the Kodiaq would be a home-run car,” said Maier.
       
      Maier did stress that the U.S. isn't on Skoda's immediate radar. At the moment, the brand is looking closely at Iran, Singapore, and South Korea as possible new markets. But Maier isn't saying the U.S. isn't on their radar at all.
       
      “America is the one that we don't currently compete in with the biggest potential.”
       
      Skoda appears to have taken a page out of PSA Peugeot Citroën's playbook. Autocar says the automaker has begun a feasibility study as to whether or not it makes sense to enter the U.S.
       
      Source: Autocar
    • By William Maley
      Despite the hoopla and endless praise for Tesla and their vehicles, there are a number of owners who aren't happy with the company. Go on to any Tesla forum and you're bound to fin endless posts from owners of the Model X listing issues from poor paint quality to doors not closing. The Model S is no stranger to problems with batteries failing and the infotainment system freezing.
       
      This is a big issue for Tesla as they have been burning cash for the past two years, with a good amount of this cash coming going to repairs and warranty costs. CEO Elon Musk has promised investors to slow down the burn and curtail costs retaining to repairs. With Tesla announcing their results later today, we'll see if that promise was kept.
       
      But how much is Tesla spending when it comes to repairs? Reuters did some analysis on Tesla's recent annual report by looking at the total vehicles sold and total spending from warranty repairs and accruals - money set aside for future warranty work. Their analysis showed Tesla spent $1,043 per vehicle on repairs and set aside $2,036 per vehicle for future warranty work. The good news is these numbers are 17 and 34 percent lower than 2014. But compared to the likes of General Motors, Ford, and Daimler, Tesla's numbers are quite high.
      General Motors: $400 per vehicle on repairs, $332 for future work Ford: $429 per vehicle on repairs, $308 for future work Daimler: $970 per vehicle on repairs, $1,294 for future work It should be noted that Tesla only sold 50,000 vehicles last year, while GM, Ford, and Diamler sold millions. Nevertheless, spending just over $150 million of the total $700 million burnt for repair work isn't a good sign. 
      Telsa in a statement to Reuters said it has reduced the cost of repair claims in the first year along with the amount it reserves for future repairs.
       
      Source: Reuters


      Click here to view the article
    • By William Maley
      Despite the hoopla and endless praise for Tesla and their vehicles, there are a number of owners who aren't happy with the company. Go on to any Tesla forum and you're bound to fin endless posts from owners of the Model X listing issues from poor paint quality to doors not closing. The Model S is no stranger to problems with batteries failing and the infotainment system freezing.
       
      This is a big issue for Tesla as they have been burning cash for the past two years, with a good amount of this cash coming going to repairs and warranty costs. CEO Elon Musk has promised investors to slow down the burn and curtail costs retaining to repairs. With Tesla announcing their results later today, we'll see if that promise was kept.
       
      But how much is Tesla spending when it comes to repairs? Reuters did some analysis on Tesla's recent annual report by looking at the total vehicles sold and total spending from warranty repairs and accruals - money set aside for future warranty work. Their analysis showed Tesla spent $1,043 per vehicle on repairs and set aside $2,036 per vehicle for future warranty work. The good news is these numbers are 17 and 34 percent lower than 2014. But compared to the likes of General Motors, Ford, and Daimler, Tesla's numbers are quite high.
      General Motors: $400 per vehicle on repairs, $332 for future work Ford: $429 per vehicle on repairs, $308 for future work Daimler: $970 per vehicle on repairs, $1,294 for future work

      It should be noted that Tesla only sold 50,000 vehicles last year, while GM, Ford, and Diamler sold millions. Nevertheless, spending just over $150 million of the total $700 million burnt for repair work isn't a good sign.
       

      Telsa in a statement to Reuters said it has reduced the cost of repair claims in the first year along with the amount it reserves for future repairs.
       
      Source: Reuters
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Who's Online (See full list)