Honda Car Forum

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:24:22 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

>In article <b36ih2pnu0simar3es8bv979f4u331gs9h@4ax.com>,
> dgk <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote:
>
>> In early July I decided I wanted an Orange Fit, and went to my current
>> Honda dealer who quoted $19,000 without tax (Sport Model). I asked why
>> it was so much over list and was told that there weren't many and that
>> they could deliver the car and other dealers couldn't.
>>
>> I went to another nearby dealer and was surprised that I could order
>> it at list,
>
>dude, you are SO naive.
>
>of COURSE he's going to tell you that. At least that way, he has a
>chance of your changing your mind to a different color. Worst case,
>he's no worse off--he doesn't sell you a car.
>
>you are SO naive.
>
>Go away.

But didn't you say that calling it bait and switch was wrong? If he
knew he couldn't get it and wanted to offer me something else, that is
bait and switch, no?

I'm curious about the way the dealer "find" system works though. Do
the dealers pay over the "dealer cost" to get a popular car from
another dealer?

As for the "find" technique, I have found that dealers simply trade
comparable cars. When I ordered my Odyssey Touring, all my favorite
dealer had on the lot were some EX-Ls, so they called another nearby
dealer and traded a hybrid Accord and a hybrid Civic for it....it was
originally going to be a Ridgeline, but the 2nd dealer got a shipment
in later that day.

So essentially, it's just a matter of which dealer needs more of what,
then they work out a deal to get it to their customers. However, with a
seemingly rare car like the Fit is now, I'd think that there wouldn't
be many dealers willing to give it up...

But that's just my thoughts.

dgk wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 19:48:17 -0400, "tww" <twaugh5@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
> Well, not quite right. I assume the Civic has a dead pedal. That's a
> serious problem with the Fit. Well, history anyway now. My 91 Accord

For me no deal pedal is a huge selling point.

"dgk" <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:8oqkh2hafs9pa4nqh2e4dcr7k44bbk0lou@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 19:48:17 -0400, "tww" <twaugh5@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
> >I have seen Civic LXs sedan at 17,500 on the lot at my dealer. Why a Fit
at
> >almost the same price -- and you might be able to deal the Civic down. At
> >19k you are getting close the price for an Accord LX I4 with a 5 spd.
> >>
>
> Because I want two things out of this car. One is to be able to throw
> a bike into the back without needing to get the bike rack. The second
> is to have a long roof for a 9 1/2 foot surfboard. The Fit is better
> than the Civic in both ways. I rarely need to carry five adults and
> there really is nothing that the Civic has that the Fit doesn't that I
> care about.
>
> Well, not quite right. I assume the Civic has a dead pedal. That's a
> serious problem with the Fit. Well, history anyway now. My 91 Accord
> is currently undergoing timing belt (and waterpump) surgery so I'll
> keep it for another year or two.

Sounds like an Element is more what you are looking for. More money of
course, but not that much more.

dgk wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 19:48:17 -0400, "tww" <twaugh5@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
> >I have seen Civic LXs sedan at 17,500 on the lot at my dealer. Why a Fit at
> >almost the same price -- and you might be able to deal the Civic down. At
> >19k you are getting close the price for an Accord LX I4 with a 5 spd.
> >>
>
> Because I want two things out of this car. One is to be able to throw
> a bike into the back without needing to get the bike rack. The second
> is to have a long roof for a 9 1/2 foot surfboard. The Fit is better
> than the Civic in both ways. I rarely need to carry five adults and
> there really is nothing that the Civic has that the Fit doesn't that I
> care about.
>
> Well, not quite right. I assume the Civic has a dead pedal. That's a
> serious problem with the Fit. Well, history anyway now. My 91 Accord
> is currently undergoing timing belt (and waterpump) surgery so I'll
> keep it for another year or two.

Suzuki is coming out with CX-4. Same money as Fit but more room and
awd.
Check out the preview on roadandtrack.com

In article <1159422829.849102.237230@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
"Body Roll" <aglyport@gmail.com> wrote:

> Suzuki is coming out with CX-4. Same money as Fit but more room and
> awd.

23/28 mpg? Big freaking deal! I have a 94 Lexus ES with 168,000 miles
on it, and--using Shell 93 octane--I get 24mpg city and 29mpg highway.

We are not amused.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <1159422829.849102.237230@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
> "Body Roll" <aglyport@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Suzuki is coming out with CX-4. Same money as Fit but more room and
>>awd.
>
>
> 23/28 mpg? Big freaking deal! I have a 94 Lexus ES with 168,000 miles
> on it, and--using Shell 93 octane--I get 24mpg city and 29mpg highway.
>
> We are not amused.

Heck, my carb'd '87 Accord gets 28mpg city!

Matt Ion wrote:
> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> > In article <1159422829.849102.237230@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
> > "Body Roll" <aglyport@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Suzuki is coming out with CX-4. Same money as Fit but more room and
> >>awd.
> >
> >
> > 23/28 mpg? Big freaking deal! I have a 94 Lexus ES with 168,000 miles
> > on it, and--using Shell 93 octane--I get 24mpg city and 29mpg highway.
> >
> > We are not amused.

I am. Probably they got gearing right. Huge selling point for me. Civic
Si I'm considering
is no better gas guzzling wise. That's acceptable for me. Many more
cars do much worse.

On 28 Sep 2006 14:02:27 -0700, "Body Roll" <aglyport@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Matt Ion wrote:
>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> > In article <1159422829.849102.237230@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
>> > "Body Roll" <aglyport@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>Suzuki is coming out with CX-4. Same money as Fit but more room and
>> >>awd.
>> >
>> >
>> > 23/28 mpg? Big freaking deal! I have a 94 Lexus ES with 168,000 miles
>> > on it, and--using Shell 93 octane--I get 24mpg city and 29mpg highway.
>> >
>> > We are not amused.
>
>I am. Probably they got gearing right. Huge selling point for me. Civic
>Si I'm considering
>is no better gas guzzling wise. That's acceptable for me. Many more
>cars do much worse.

The funny thing is that I'm not overly concerned with mpg that much; I
only drive 5-6k/year. I really wanted the Fit because it was a cheap
way to get a reliable new car with the space that I want.

So I keep the 91 Accord another year or two. I just spent $1000 to do
the timing belt and take care of the oil in the sparkplugs.
Essentially it was the Honda 90k service plus a little more. It took
$80 at the cheap muffler place to take care of that, and for another
$300 or so I can likely fix all the other annoyances that have crept
up over time. All except the rust.

And maybe in a year or two I can pick up a nice used Fit.

dgk wrote:
>
snipped tale of woe

No contract, no lie.