Yea I don't think you will be able to pay invoice on a brand new model such as this unless they aren't selling at all. When I went to purchase my last vehicle, I offered 3% above invoice for the vehicle which is fair profit for them and fair price for me. They had little room to argue with me.

 

Well we are not in 2009 yettttttt
Lets say Oil prices are at $150 a barrel or more
What will people want to spend.
And lets not forget GM lost so far another 15 billions dollars
and not saying what they will lose 3 months from now?????
You really think GM will make a profit????
GM said they will not make a profit in 2009(I guess that means Camaros SS also???}
Yep dealers can charge whatever they want
But I am sure there will be TONS of Camaros SS on dealer lots and they will be crazy not to sell them at invoice otherwise they will just stay on their lots....
I will not mind paying a tad over Invoice on a Camaro SS ($200-$300}
But anything higher ,I am sure other dealers will do better......

Lets remember there are TONS on GM dealers within 1 hour from us.
And even less Toyota,Nissan and honda dealers.
So I think if many dealers will have a few Camaro SS on their lots I would think they would want to get rid of them in early 2009......You really think people are gong to run and buy them???I am sure there will be a few.
But most will look at the Stang Gts,Challengers Rts and then Camaros.
GM will make as many as they can
There will be as many as Camaro as Mustangs on the road.
The Camaro SS will not be a limited car by farrrrrrr.
To me limited is 2000 cars and under being made.................

 

Please don't confuse the issues. I 100% hope you are right and you and I can get into new SS's dirt cheap. However, if you are, then the Camaro marketing campaign failed before it even started. Dealers will not order (or consign) vehicles to their lots that they can't make a profit on. They'll let the Camaros rot in some holding pen outside Oshawa and sell Malibus and Impalas with better MPG and better profit margins. Keep in mind that GM can't force the dealers to put any car on their lot.

That's when the factory to dealer incentives start raising their ugly heads from the sand, and GM (Chevy) takes DIRECT LOSSES to get the dealers to take possession of the discounted vehicles. Works in the short-term for people like you and me, but sinks GM farther into debt. We both know they can't afford that. They have too much invested in the Camaro at this point to have not done their homework on this one. IMO, the Camaro could actually have the power to make or break Chevy. This is a totally different ballgame from a 3-year GTO production run made overseas on a line already basically making the same car...

 

a 3% profit margin is FAIR?? do you do this everywhere you go whenever you shop? do you not see ANY VALUE in what you buy? so if the camaro SS comes out at 25,000 MSRP, you don't think that's a good value? Your one of the reasons dealerships turn as bad as they do when it comes to customer service. You don't see value or service, you only see a price tag.

 

You too have to be a little fair in your assessment. No, on the surface, a 3% profit margin doesn't seem fair to the dealership. However, keep in mind the "sacred" holdback money; in Chevy's case, 3%.

ref-> http://www.edmunds.com/advice/incent...ack/index.html

6%, or $1800 on a 30,000 car doesn't really sound abusive to either side. Personally, I don't think either side is being abused at 3-4% over invoice- sounds about right. If the cars are staying on dealer lots "too long" and thus costing the dealer inventory costs, either the invoice pricing was set wrong by the factory or the dealer isn't willing to deal to the public. In that case, the average Joe isn't to blame.

 

I know all about hold back. I used to work at a dealership. Most of the time the hold back is ~$1,300, but it all depends on the car. The holdback is hardly even profit, it basically pays the maintenence, electricity, water, advertising and leasing of the land. The $500-$900 on the other end goes towards the Dealership (usually $300-$500) and then the rest goes to the General Manager, Desk Manager, Closer, finance manager, fleet manager, lot attendants, the car wash guys. And oh ya, let's not forget the sales guy.

 

There are only 2 entities that count in determining whether a deal is fair, the buyer and the seller. You me and everybody else don't count. If the dealer didn't think 3% was fair they had all the power in the world to tell him to take a hike, but they didn't, so apparently they thought it was fair. A fair price is whatever the buyer and seller can agree to..

That being said, I think the new Camaro is going to be the one vehicle to make me break my "never pay MSRP" rule. I'll pay MSRP and smile while doing it. Of course I'm already socking money away in my "Camaro fund" so it won't hurt that bad. No car will ever make me break my "never pay over MSRP" rule though, the early adopter premium is just not for me...

 

Just to be clear, I never said paying invoice was fair to the dealership. If all the dealership could make was 3% selling a car (assuming selling at invoice), they may as well just close the dealership and put the money in tax-free municipal bonds. They'd make about the same rate and have absolutely no issues to contend with. They deserve to make money like the rest of us- risk vs reward- but to say they deserve MSRP on every vehicle sold just doesn't hold water either.

Everyone knows that it's a starting point for negotiations- including the dealers. Obviously the 3% "holdback" on a $20,000 (?) base model Camaro is only $600 vs the same 3% on a $70k Z06 Corvette being $2100 so there's more wiggle room as you move up to more expensive vehicles.

Assuming the MSRP / invoice difference on the base Camaro is $1300, we can also assume the associated difference on the Corvette is probably around $8000. You can't sit there with a straight face and tell anyone that the dealer should make $8k PLUS the $2100 holdback for selling a Corvette. If I was in the market for a Z06, I'd pay no more than invoice +2000. That's a total of $4100 to the plus for the dealership but still equates to only 5.7% profit based on MSRP.

Maybe I'm rambling a bit but I'm just trying to illustrate that actual dollar amounts vs. percentages vary greatly when comparing car models sold.

 

dealers don't always take the fair deal. they'll move a unit just to move a unit, even if it's a loser deal sometimes. it doesn't mean they thought it was "fair." there's a whole slew of reasons why they may take the deal, but that doesn't mean that they think it was "fair."

and everybody else does count. Burger king sells whoppers for ~$2.50, which they make for $0.30 cents. so the actual value is 31 cents then? the person making the burgers, the cashier, the manager, the custodian all shouldn't be factored in?

 

you've just made my point. you dont see any VALUE in the car. In your eyes, the car is not worth it. all your seeing is $$ figures.

 

And perhaps you see too much value in it. Beauty (value) is in the eye of the beholder as the saying goes. To me, the "arbitrary" value of the 70k Z06 is 64k, to you apparently it's closer to the 70k. Just because the Z06 MSRP is set at 70k doesn't mean it's worth it. If they raised the MSRP to 75k does the inherent value of the vehicle increase in your eyes?

 

you can flip it the same. if they raised the msrp from 70k to 75k, all of a sudden your "value" of the car goes from 64k to 69k for no reason?

Im not advocating paying MSRP because that's what it should be worth. Im saying pay what you think the car is WORTH as in VALUE. If the Camaro SS is $29k MSRP but you feel the car is inferior and not worthy of it, then go ahead and go for less. See the value in what your buying, not just the $$ amount. Too many people see the $$ amount and instantly want less for no reason without seeing the real value.

 

I will say this:
I did (do) think the "value" of my 04 GTO far surpassed any GM product I owned in the past. Form, fit, function, hell even the seats are nicer than either of the Z28's I had. The interior rivals top imports (in the class) in my humble opinion. I had been waiting for something to kick me in the nuts to get rid of the 96 Z28 and the GTO was definitely it. BUT, while the GTO itself was "a better value" than what I was driving, I didn't think it was any screaming value deal at $33,700. When I got the email regarding $3500 factory to dealer incentives though, I was all about it at 30k and maybe saving another $1000 on top of that "playing the game". So for somewhere between 29k and 30k I was going to buy the car. I left paying 26 and change (+ttl). Whose fault is that?

 

I'll say this again. The definition of a "fair deal" is one that both the buyer and seller can agree to.

"Fair" is a bullsh*t word that people use to describe the deal they like best. Its so completely arbitrary a conecpt as to be meaningless. In the context of free exchange of goods/services/money, I would dare you to come up with a definition of "fair" that is not completely arbitrary. Whether you're talking raw dollars, percentages, or whatever, "fair" is in the eye of the beholder.

Lets assume for a second that you're my employer using your Burger King example below. I think it would be "fair" if my employer paid me $50/hour to come in to work the cash register, I mean crap I got bills to pay. By your arguments, Burger King should just pony up regardless of the relative value of the transaction. Now you and I both know thats not going to happen because from BKs perspective of value, that deal is anything but "fair." Whats going to happen is there will be a negotiation of sorts which will result in a "fair" solution in which I come to work for $7.50/hour, any less and the value is not enough for me to sell my labor and any more and its too much for BK to hire me.

Again "fair" is whatever they can convince people to pay for it, whether its $0.10 or $10. As the buyer, I don't give a d*mn what the seller's overhead is. Its NOT MY CONCERN. My only concern is the relative value I get from exchanging my money for the hamburger, ie I'm hungry, they have the burger, giving them $2.50 is less painful than being hungry, therefore from my perspective the relative value is high.

Your above example about dealers selling cars just to move a car falls into that framework. Whether people want to admit it or not, it costs money to have inventory sitting around, no matter what the business. When it comes to the choice of sell to the customer for a small loss or let the car sit for another 30, 60 or more days, the better value for the dealer is to get rid of the car. If it was not the better value and thus not "fair" by the definition I outlined above, they wouldn't sell the car.

This is really basic economics...

 

TrickStang hit the nail right on the head, people are more worried about the $$ sign on the window than the product. If the Camaro SS came out with an MSRP of 20K some people would still want to pay 16K for it even though it would be built to 30++K standards.