CARBIZ

The Aztec may have had looks that only a mother could love, but at least it was original. The Element is a copy of the Aztec, yet because of the 'H' on the hood, idiots buy it in droves. As to the remarks about your 'buddy:' there are a dozen reasons why the vehicle may not have started at the dealership. I sold two 2006 brand new Impala LTZs in April of this year and BOTH had total battery failures at almost exactly 3 weeks after delivery: the vehicles had been on our lot for nearly a year and the batteries had gone flat a few times. In retrospect, we should have replaced the batteries, but GM won't pay for warranty replacement on a battery that MIGHT fail. I am not going to defend the Aztec, but will say that we can't keep used ones on our lot. They are great bargains and, surpisingly, they ride nicely, too. We all know that GM and Ford have had their fair share of ups and downs, but Chrysler is NOT in the same league - not by a long shot. We can debate the whys and wherefores as to Chrysler's dominance in the minivan market, but it certainly has not been because of their legendary quality. I hate it when people deride Detroit, based on cars they (or their parents) owned in the '80s, but I had 2 total $h!boxes that were Dodges and that swayed me to GM in '91. I know Chrysler has improved a lot, but as customers I've had from Magna have told me (who sell to the huge plant in Bramalea), Chrysler always goes for the cheapest 'doorhandle.' I mean, really - why the hell do you think Daimler is so glad to be rid of Chrysler? I would venture to say (no pun intended ) that it has been minivan sales that have kept Chrysler from being a total flop this past many years. The auctions tell it all: Windstars rot on the lot, Dodge minivans are a dime a dozen, the U-vans (Venture/Montana/Silhouette) were better equipped so they command higher prices, and the Siennas & Odysseys are at the top of the pack. Before the usual suspects read too much into this, a lot of it has to do with the fact that the Chrysler and GM minivans sold in much higher volumes than the OTHER GUYS. In 2000, for example, the U-vans sold (new) a lot more than either the Odyssey or Sienna, so it would be safe to say there will be a lot fewer of latter two vehicles available used. Chrysler has maintained their dominance by a) clever marketing, b) re-inventing itself with each new generation (the first with dual doors, the King of Cupholders, lots of other clever innovations), c) volume and incentives. Keep in mind that the 'Stow 'n Go seats are not theirs: the rights are owned by another company and very soon other manufacturers will have the same innovation. I don't know why this 'debate' has gotten so personal and nasty. I will give Chrysler credit where credit is due: they have done a bang up job of marketing their vans and asking their customers the rights questions. If GM had used the same people in their marketing department, then perhaps we would still be crowing about GM having 40% market share across the board!

I busted my ass for 11 years to build my company, but bigger competitors with deeper pockets kept taking pot shots at me until I realized it was no longer worth it and I moved on. Capitalism is great, isn't it? If companies stumble and fall, they have to hire big talent to earn the trust of the banks and creditors: do you think that 'talent' is free? I agree the optics suck, but those workers wouldn't still have their jobs if some one hadn't figured a way out of this. If everyone wants to earn six figures, then they'd better get their asses back into University and get smart. Or become a drug dealer.

Chrysler can put what they want on the window sticker, but the transaction prices will be $5-8k lower. They won't dare go up against the prices of the Toyota and Honda. Again, as I said, they have lots of under the table money and direct mail to their 'loyal' minivan base. They've marketed their vans far better than GM or Ford ever bothered to try. We can debate horspower numbers and other such stuff until our fingers are numb, but with the more recent Chrysler minivans, the ride and power were lacking. If they want to maintain their market share, for their sake, I hope the '08 is a vast improvement. Even the outdated and tired '07 Uplander rides better than the '07 Chrysler offerings. And before the usual suspects get their feathers all ruffled: go and drive the '07 Uplander. The 3.9 litre engine, plus suspension tweaks really makes this old van impressive. GM has done a lot with little interest or resources. I desperately hope that GM has something in the wings that we don't know about, because we sell more Uplanders in a month than Tahoes in a year. To this market, the minivans are very important.

There is a lot of emotion here, but not a lot of substance. First, Chrysler has kept #1 in the market by doing more things right most of the time, clever marketing and by marketing directly to their current minivan owners. By focusing on cupholders and complicated seat configurations, they have for the most part kept ahead of the market. Oh, and they have been giving the vans away, I might add. When a customer comes in with a '99 Caravan that is worth $3k at the auctions, but Chrysler dealers are offering said owner $4k and more, you know that Corporate has some hidden seed money to help the dealers out. Second, the Odyssey and Sienna, while PROBABLY better minivans over all, are wildly over priced. This may not matter to a lot of snooty import humpers, but to the average family, this is a big consideration. Third, Chrysler's problems with their previous minivans are legendary. In the early '00s, I used to sell a lot of Ventures to people who had their Caravan stolen right out of their driveway. Ask any cop or tow truck operator: those vans were hideously easy to break into and drive away with. Transmission problems, while spotty, were a nightmare for some people. My sister has had 3 Caravans and now drives a Silverado because her last Caravan transmission cost her nearly $2k when it was only a few years old. While a lot of the 'problems' with the Caravan were anecdotal, some people were horribly burned by their purchases and still crow to anyone who will listen what 'crap' their [insert year, probably from the late '90s, here] Caravan was. Fourth, they cut corners where they shouldn't. Drive the higher models and they are quite nice. Drive the basic ones and they are a bad place to be. I am sure the 2008 Grand Caravans will be a place to behold, but stuff a family into the $19k one and it will be scary, scary, scary. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing: poor people deserve to drive new vehicles, too. The trouble is, it makes Chrysler easy fodder for elitist enthusiast snobs and import apologists. This is why Ford, and to a lesser extent GM, have gotten out of the minivan market: they were unwilling to invest to keep up with the Toyotas and Hondas, while Chrysler owned the bottom rung of the ladder.

There's no news here: the sedan was 'redesigned' for 2007: the interior materials were greatly improved. The black panels look quite nice. All GM is doing is slapping the 'face' from the 2007 sedan onto the 2008 5 door as well. These cars in 5 spd form are almost spritely; in automatic form, less so. Nobody driving a Bimmer or CTS is going to be impressed by these cars. That's fine: there are legions of people out there (my partner, for example) that simply don't like 'large cars'. By 'large,' I mean even vehicles like the Malibu or Sonata. Since both our countries are being over-run by people from such countries, it is only prudent that GM freshens up its line up with these micr-cars to tap into that market. Still, I would yearn for the cars GM showed us at the New York Auto Show.

And why does that not surprise me?

I don't have time to look up the exact math - perhaps Enzl can enlighten us, but since most of the 'rental' GPs end up on the (what - double?) the number of GM lots and the same number of Camries end up on HALF the number of Toyota lots - which would give the consumer a worse impression of used cars being 'flooded' on the market? As I said before, only people with agendas bother to count how many vehicles are 'fleeted' out. The average consumer doesn't give a $h! - unless told to by (get ready for this): people with agendas. However, what the consumer does give a crap about is how many GPs or Malibus they can see on an individual dealer's lot. Following the 'blood in the water' shark syndrome, if a Toyota lot has twice as many used Camries as a typical GM lot has used Malibus, then would that prospective consumer not assume (whether true or not, doesn't matter - PERCEPTION IS EVERYTHING, RIGHT?) that they could haggle down the price of the Camry more so than the Malibu? Just wondering, is all.

Yeah, I've been to Great Falls. I drove through the northern U.S. in the summer of '93 (when the mid-West was getting flooded out!) and loved Montana. Beautiful vistas. It would be a great place to buy a cabin and write a book!

1. EVERY major urban area in the world has neighborhoods you shouldn't go out at night in - even Toronto. 2. Smaller cities in Brazil, like Jaoa Passoa are populated by real, decent, hard working people.l 3. (And this is the most important point - and my own pet peeve: THE MEDIA LIES. Violence and killings sell papers, just like bashing GM, so don't look like a tourist, hide the expensive camera and just have a good time.

Brazil. Jaoa Passoa. About an hour's drive north of Recife. Amazing beaches. Incredible weather. No hurricanes, tornadoes or other natural disasters. NO SNOW EVER. Perpetual 85 degrees year around. Very nice people. Cheap, cheap, cheap.

But try trading a BMW or a Mercedes in after 2 or 3 years and see if you aren't 'upside down.' The only difference may be that the MB buyer would not put zero down. The culprit with being upside down is our addiction to 'cheap' money.

If you're referring to the Auto Pact, no. The Auto Pact is pretty much dead. Superseded by NAFTA. As a Canadian, I have always felt the Big Three were 'ours.' Growing up here in the '60s and '70s, that is all we saw on the streets. In reality, the big difference between Canada and the Asian invaders is that Canadians bought nearly a half million GM cars and trucks last year. How many did the Japanese buy? 50k? The Koreans? Zilch? Korea is a more open market than Japan, but only because it still needs American money, not to mention American protection along its northern border.

Don't get too excited. I think RWD is making a 'come back' for higher end and boutique cars, but the economics of FWD still makes far more sense for most people. I would like to see the Impala and G8 both be RWD. That makes sense from a marketing point of view, but vehicles like the Malibu and G6 would always be the volume leaders. Someone spending $40k for a Caddy or BMW doesn't care about gas mileage or spending money on winter tires, but a family barely making ends meet does.

TOO SHUT PEOPLE LIKE YOU UP? Just throwing that out there, is all. The trouble is that so-called enthusiasts don't get out of their BMWs and Hondas long enough to realize that many, many people end up driving a RENTAL when their 14 year old beater dies on the side of the road, and that that RENTAL could persuade that person to consider that particular vehicle they are driving. I just sold a Cobalt to a woman whose 13 year old Buick suddenly died. She was renting a G5 for a week. Yes, compared to a BMW, the G5 is a piece of crap, but this woman is a teacher and doesn't want to blow $500 on leasing a status car. She loved the G5, so bought a Cobalt. If she had rented an Excel, and it hadn't stalled or fallen apart on her, she may have been inclined to buy one of those. Not every single person out there counts how many Discount stickers go by. There was a time when every single taxi in Toronto was an Impala or Century. That was an example of bad 'fleet' sales because even the layperson could see those cars everywhere. Now, the taxi market here is a more even mix of Impalas, Taurases, some Camries and others. It's pretty easy to explain away why fleet sales (to rental companies only) MAY be a bad thing: when GM's market share was holding steady at 35-40%, having 100k Luminas out there to rental companies was a way of keeping the used car market going. Now, with GM's market share sliding, those 100k Malibus are a greater proportion. Toyota, on the other hand, has a slowly expanding market share and the demand for its used cars is going to be higher, partly because their new cars are so damned expensive and partly because 2 or 3 year old used Toyotas are rarer than 2 or 3 year old used Chevys. Plain simple supply and demand. Nothing evil about it. But as long as every single newspaper, magazine and self-appointed expert internet site continues to crow that GM and Ford's sales to fleet are the source of all Evil in the Universe, sheeple will continue to believe that and buy Toyota because they were told to.

Enthusiasts contempt for the minivan segment on C&G is amplified ten-fold in the media world. There is nothing wrong with a minivan. For my money, I would rather drive a minivan than a Tahoe or Explorer: it is the SUV market that is the sum of all Evil in the Universe, IMO. Chrysler has always done a lot of things well with its minivans. It's Achilles heal has been in cutting corners in places where it hurts. Anyone who has driven any of their 2006 or 2007 more BASIC models can attest to that. Keep in mind, when any manufacturer hands over the keys to its models to the media, it rarely does so with the base model. The T&C has always been a nice looking vehicle, but it is the base Caravan that has been the volume leader and those are very forgettable: no Stow'n Go, no swivel seats, no ABS - not much of anything. We have one of the largest Chrysler dealers on our doorstep, yet we are one of the highest volume Uplander dealers in Toronto. I hope for Chrysler's sake the 2008 is an improvement in the riding dynamics on their BASE models, because if not they will have to continue giving them away. On a Saturday afternoon dealer tour, most customers come back to the Uplander after they've driven the base Caravan or Grand Caravan. Yes, the higher models are nicer, but the base ones are pretty spartan. And I desperately hope somebody at GM is taking note with the launch of Chrysler's 'new' minivan. There is a big market for a well priced, well executed minivan out there. It would not be hard to cut the middle between the Chrysler stripped vans and the Toyota/Honda over-priced vans to carve out a respectable quarter million units a year. It would just take convincing someone in the RenCen that a minivan is a worthy vehicle to be seen in.

We have a saying. Write this down: "Of all the Managers I have met, you are the most recent." Sales slump: fire the managers. CSI tanks: fire the managers. Company needs to save some money: fire the expensive managers and replace them with cheaper ones. Oh, and the best of all: every time a manager walks in and tries to clean house, the top sales guys go behind his back to the GM or the dealer principle (often the same person) and bitch and complain until that Manager quits in frustration. The only good thing about being a Manager, from my observation is that IF you are really good, you can land on your feet pretty quickly after being fired. The great thing about managers is that they are often powerless to make any real change, yet their very livelihood depends on it. Ever try walking into a situation where YOU are the 'new' manager but the 6 or 8 senior sales guys have been there 10 or more years and just run circles around you? Ever watch the BBC sitcom "Yes, Minister?" You should. Stick to sales, 68: get good at it and you can call your own shots. The GM would never dare let you go and the managers end up kissing YOUR ass. I've seen it happen time and time again. BTW: Just for full disclosure, I have never had a manager's lips on my ass.

I beg to differ: the Caravan has been the #1 selling vehicle in Canada, off and on, for many years: outselling the F-150 and any car. At one point,GM was selling over 200k minivans. That market still represents a million units a year. If GM considers itself a 'full line' manufacturer, then abandoning the minivan market is not an option. If gas proces spike once again, it will be the SUV and pick up market that will tank. The cross-over 'phenomenon' is yet another artificial creation by some market whiz-kids who refuse to drive a true wagon. Nothing can replace a minivan for utility, and as gas mileage becomes important once again, it will be a vital market that GM cannot afford to stay out of.

When I see an actual DEBATE break out over a subject that is so clearly wrong and stupid, i just despair at what our future will hold. Frankly, I thing the Western world is dying and deserves to become extinct. When foreign companies can set up wherever the hell they want to on our soils, open a warehouse, then declare themselves 'American', and then supposedly intelligent people debate the issue, all is completely lost. We are being beaten over the head with our own stick.

+1 :rotflmao:

The thing about always being the 'also-ran' company is that Chrysler has traditionally not been afraid to take risks. They have pushed a lot of weird and innovative ideas over the years: push button trannies, oval steering wheels, the plexiglass 'dome' that housed the instruments in the early '60s - a lot of great stuff. There are lots of people out there who will buy something because it is 'different' or unusual. If Detroit is going to stand out in a sea of boring beige Toyotas, they are going to have to start with a clean sheet. I agree with the remarks about the Quest. It was actually a beautiful design - for a minivan. Just because people who drive minivans have families and are on a budget, does not necessarily mean they don't want to at least pretend to be cool.

Sure, one would expect a $45k Town & Country wagon to have a nice interior, but what about the 'bread and butter' vans? You know, the $19k van interior? I don't think Chrysler's vans are all that bad, but Chrysler has surely gone downhill in the past few years. I remember a few years ago when a customer showed me their new 2000 Sebring convertible with the cream leather interior: my jaw dropped - it was gorgeous. Back in those days, Chrysler was leading the pack with some of the 'horniest' looking interiors out there, but in the past few years they have very obviously been cutting corners - at the very worst possible time, IMO.

In sales, probably more than any other line of work, attitude is everything. If you are having a bad day, customers will sense that. I liken selling cars to being single and hanging out in bars: you have to have the courage to keep asking and the strength to enjoy being turned down, but when the right person says 'yes,' the reward is well worth it. Truly, I worked it out, that if you use the same skills you (should have) learned while dating, you will succeed in sales. For example, never, ever ask a question that you do not know the answer to, or cannot control that answer. Ask a girl/guy for a dance, or if you can buy her/him a drink - what will the probable response be? A 'conditioned,' NO. Same thing as asking a customer on the floor if you can help them. What will their probable response be? "No, thanks - just looking." Crash and burn in both cases. Whether trying to pick up someone in a bar or connect with a customer, you need to control the conversation and keep the goal in mind. The prospective date/buyer will sense the confidence and pick up on that. If you are fed up and not liking your job and if the management is pissing you off, customers will sense that, too. No matter what, you have to keep your emotions in check. Ever go to a bar in a bad mood? Did you get laid? Did you go there at the end of a great day, with a bunch of your pals, and suddenly every chick in the room wants your number? Sales can be very, very rewarding. I would hate to have a 'fixed' paycheck. And I will tell you something else, after a few years, your paycheck is fairly steady. Even a bad month is usually followed by two or three good ones. Sounds like you are in a crappy dealership with irrelevant management. I wouldn't necessarily give up on car sales - just that dealership.

Crap, I dressed up for nothing!

UH, OH! Now the BF is going to think I am on just 'another one of those porn sites,' instead of keeping up on car stuff!

I doubt it. Last night, 10 pm, the DVP is closed. I don't remember reading about that. (I do remember reading that the Gardiner Expressway was closed Sunday, but not the DVP - as well!), so try and get off at Don Mills northbound, but wait - that arterial road is closed, too. Twenty minutes to gain about 6 miles. On a Sunday night. I am sure L.A.'s traffic is legendary, but you have to understand that Toronto (5 million) does not have ANY roads that criss cross the lower half of the city that are more than single lane most of the time. Add to that street cars that lurch along and force all lanes to stop each time they pick up passengers and you have a formula for disaster. LA may have choked freeways, but at least it has them. The only two highways out of Toronto's downtown core are 3 lanes in each direction. THREE LANES. No alternate routes. That is why the 401 (16 lanes in some places) has surpassed the Santa Monica Freeway as the busiest in North America. Now there is something to be proud of. Toronto's traffic is worse than any American city I have driven in yet. (Chicaco, Atlanta, Minneapolis and others) I look forward to the challenge of L.A.