autoblog

"According to Edmunds.com, Toyota spent on average $4,485 in incentives on each Tundra its dealers sold last month"

Toyota dealers use alot of Factory to Dealer incentives....stuff that dealers can use to "seal the deal" but aren't widely advertised like domestics.

Another pointless thread for regfootball to cry about how the domestics are treated unfairly blah blah blah

The thing is, Toyota is using the price breaks to clear out old models, like a year-end clearance. That is completely different from offering lots of incentives or price reductions on current models.

In a way, these incentives aren't bad at all. They make each individual buyer feel like they got a good deal, and not like they're getting a cheaper product (since the reductions aren't advertised, but handled on a person by person basis).

In the past, Toyota has used increased ammenities in place of incentives, disguising the incentives where most of the others just place the cash on the hood.

VW is another that uses manufactuerer to dealer cash mainly so customers think they're special and getting a great deal and can still brag "Well so-and-so car isn't sold with nearly the incentives of your GM!" It helps keep resale higher.

You're not on something, are you?

let me get this straight. it's ok for toyota to gash 5 grand off sticker. but its not for GM. do i have this correct?

Another pointless thread for regfootball to cry about how the domestics are treated unfairly blah blah blah

When did he ever say domestics were treated unfairly? He's simply saying that the Big Three aren't the only ones who use big incentives to move product. Obviously you have no excuse for the Tundra having big incentives, so you tried to change subjects

The thing is, Toyota is using the price breaks to clear out old models, like a year-end clearance. That is completely different from offering lots of incentives or price reductions on current models.

In a way, these incentives aren't bad at all. They make each individual buyer feel like they got a good deal, and not like they're getting a cheaper product (since the reductions aren't advertised, but handled on a person by person basis).

Last I checked, most of GM's incentives are on old vehicles. The GMT800s have like $6k tacked on the hood, but no one is going to buy them if they don't since the 900s are here.

GM's 2006 incentives: http://gmbuypower.com/viewCurrentOffersPage.bp?zip=61821

As you can see, Cadillac has no incentives except for the Escalade, Saturn has no incentives, Saab only has incentives on the 9-2X, Pontiac has $1k on the outgoing SV6 (and four models with $0), Hummer has no incentives, GMC has a lot on Yukons, $500-2500 on the outgoing Sierra (that's at least $2k less than the Tundra's average), and $1250-1750 on the highly overpriced Canyon. Chevy trucks are about the same as GMC, and the most on any Chevy car is $750. The three outgoing Buick models each have $1k on the hood, everything else is $500 or less.

So, it would appear the average on the Tundra is quite a bit above even outgoing GM models.

You think people feel like they're getting a cheaper product because of incentives? I think the whole reason people like incentives (hidden or not) is because they're getting a good deal. If people thought they were getting a cheaper product, why were they so effective for quite a long time? Did people continue to want a "cheaper product"?

incentives are merely 'market adjustments'. what this means to me is the loser tundra is overpriced or not as many people want one (i.e. they overproduced and made too many). a lot of times incentives are merely adjustments to compensate for MSRP's that were too high.....like with GM before they starting trimming margins and MSRP's

Edited March 21, 200619 yr by regfootball

When did he ever say domestics were treated unfairly? He's simply saying that the Big Three aren't the only ones who use big incentives to move product.

Well the "TOYOTA USES THEM TOO!" in the subtitle kinda makes me think he isn't simply saying Toyota uses incentives, but rather trying to make a point that Toyota uses them but doesn't get the negatives GM does (I don't know, maybe it's the all caps that does it ).

Then there's the post above your post that kind of alludes to the same conclusion.

Obviously you have no excuse for the Tundra having big incentives, so you tried to change subjects

I didn't change the subject, I was saying Toyota uses the price breaks in a different way than GM.

Last I checked, most of GM's incentives are on old vehicles. The GMT800s have like $6k tacked on the hood, but no one is going to buy them if they don't since the 900s are here.

Well I didn't check. I only know what I see on TV commercials and web advertisements. And I know I've seen plenty of Cobalt incentives advertised.

In this neck of the woods the Cobalt has very little in the way of incentives. No zero percents, no cash rebates. Even the lease rate is 2.7%, which is a lot higher than it has been in a long time. The incentives are in line with the Mazda 3 and Corolla, yet the Cobalt is holding its own.

There are currently no cash incentives and only a few vehicles (Equinox, Trailblazer) have things like free sunroofs or the free DVD in the Maxx. These are more like frills rather than incentives - an easier way to upsell a vehicle that will hold its value better for resale.

my ford had a 500 dollar lease incentive and free leather off msrp.

that's not 4,500 bucks.

In this neck of the woods the Cobalt has very little in the way of incentives.  No zero percents, no cash rebates.  Even the lease rate is 2.7%, which is a lot higher than it has been in a long time.  The incentives are in line with the Mazda 3 and Corolla, yet the Cobalt is holding its own.

What about the $1,500 drop in MSRP for the Cobalt at the beginning of this year (which was widely advertised I might add, at least on TV here)?

GM recently did that here, dropping MSRPs on the Cobalt by about $1,000 Canadian. This was largely ignored in the media here but I think this is a better strategy discounting. The MSRP has to have some level of credibility. If the customer expects a $2000 discount from a $17,000 car then there is a credibility gap.

Although I am sure this is going to be painful in the short term, I believe GM is on the right track in reducing the MSRPs rather than increasing incentives. However, it is regrettable that the Cobalt wasn't such an incredible leap ahead that it could be overtaken (although just barely, IMO) by the Civic less than two years later.

Again, typical of how GM has been building cars lately, they didn't aim far enough ahead with the Cobalt and now they have to reduce the price to increase its value against the Civic.

incentives are merely 'market adjustments'.  what this means to me is the loser tundra is overpriced or not as many people want one (i.e. they overproduced and made too many).  a lot of times incentives are merely adjustments to compensate for MSRP's that were too high.....like with GM before they starting trimming margins and MSRP's

Don't say that over at ToyotaNation. Some people overthere seem to think this is good and that the Tundra is underproduced!