98EX4cyl
 |
|
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/honda-toyota-record-highest-average-101500174.html
True Car provides several industry breakdowns:
1) Average Sale Transaction for brands
2) Incentive spending
3) incentives % / sales
|
longhorn
 |
|
|
How does Toyota have such lower incentives than Honda? It must be the Accord vs Camry battle.
|
98EX4cyl
 |
|
longhorn wrote:
How does Toyota have such lower incentives than Honda? It must be the Accord vs Camry battle.
|
Possible due to fleet sales? Not sure if they are counted but it may skew the numbers.
|
honda95
 |
|
|
Yes it fleet. I think Camry and Altima have bump the Taurus off the number 1 fleet car spot.
|
CarGuyLee
 |
|
honda95 wrote:
Yes it fleet. I think Camry and Altima have bump the Taurus off the number 1 fleet car spot.
|
Yeah the Taurus with it's 6900 sales is a real fleet queen....
|
danielgr
 |
|
longhorn wrote:
How does Toyota have such lower incentives than Honda? It must be the Accord vs Camry battle.
|
That is TrueCar picture, Edmunds usually depicts the opposite one... go figure which is given you a better representation of the real figures...
Last edited by danielgr on 07-04-2012 02:29
|
notyper
 |
|
Edmunds' data is pretty bad. They don't have a very good data collection effort and it shows in their TMV and TCO stats as well (their TMV or True Market Value prices are usually way off). There is no way that Honda is in the sub $1500 range on incentives right now. The cost of subsidizing the Accord and Civic leases alone well exceeds that, and then when you add in dealer cash and other stuff it goes way up.
SC
|
danielgr
 |
|
notyper wrote:
Edmunds' data is pretty bad. They don't have a very good data collection effort and it shows in their TMV and TCO stats as well (their TMV or True Market Value prices are usually way off). There is no way that Honda is in the sub $1500 range on incentives right now. The cost of subsidizing the Accord and Civic leases alone well exceeds that, and then when you add in dealer cash and other stuff it goes way up.
SC
|
I'm curious of how do you came to the conclusion that Edmund's data is pretty bad... do you base that on your dealer prices? your area? a few models?
As far as I understand (might be wrong) incentives are supposed to measure what automakers spend to sell their cars cheaper than MSRP, and those represent national averages over the whole line-up.
You mentioned dealer cash for example and I don't know how could that count as an incentive for whatever Honda is concerned.
Now whether it's a good business to sell Honda cars or not is something we should ask to Honda dealers, but I never read they were having much trouble making a living out of it... Again, may be wrong, but I'd like to know where does your statement come from.
Besides, I would guess Edmunds applies the same formula to all automakers, and what truly matters is not so much the absolute figures but the relative spending among competitors. Obviously TrueCar is counting some stuff that Edmunds doesn't consider an incentive (because all the figures are a bit higher), but still find it surprising that data for the other manufacturers is rather close (specially for Detroit ones) yet completely disparate for just Honda. Obviously though, based on your recent stance (justifying Honda sales of models you don't appreciate by supposedly crazy incentives) I'm not surprised you downplay Edmunds figures; just want to know the reasons.
Does anyone know a precise site where their respective methodologies are explained?
|
98EX4cyl
 |
|
notyper wrote:
Edmunds' data is pretty bad. They don't have a very good data collection effort and it shows in their TMV and TCO stats as well (their TMV or True Market Value prices are usually way off). There is no way that Honda is in the sub $1500 range on incentives right now. The cost of subsidizing the Accord and Civic leases alone well exceeds that, and then when you add in dealer cash and other stuff it goes way up.
SC
|
I feel like Edmunds has been slipping in many ways for the better part of a year or more in almost all areas.
Less comparison tests
They seemed to do away the 'Actual consumer' comparos
Long term tests are plentiful but focus on too much nonsense
Too many typos and errors
News reports that are of little interest, too far off topic, or have misleading titles. (Iron Man NSX comes to mind)
on a positive note:
Fleet of long term cars is growing in number
Doing more dyno test
One writer is committed to doing car seat checks
|
TonyEX
 |
|
notyper wrote:
Edmunds' data is pretty bad. They don't have a very good data collection effort and it shows in their TMV and TCO stats as well (their TMV or True Market Value prices are usually way off). There is no way that Honda is in the sub $1500 range on incentives right now. The cost of subsidizing the Accord and Civic leases alone well exceeds that, and then when you add in dealer cash and other stuff it goes way up.
SC
|
Well... with interest rates essentially being 0% right now and with the looming thread of inflation around the corner, money being priced today is incredibly cheap.
So, it makes a lot of sense to hold the line on your prices but lose money short term on the lease because in two years, assuming that inflation kicks in, the cost of that lease will be zilch.
Also, so long as Honda Financial is doing the deal, then it's all within the family so it's all paper. Meaning that Honda Financial is in the business of subsidizing AHM sales.
I still can not get over the fact that GMAC started to write leases on other brands. My first Acura, an 86 Integra, was actually leased through GMAC at an incredible low cost (I have had good credit for most of my life... the one time the OC Assessor due to their error... screwed me... well that's a different story...)....
|
|
|
| |