Has anyone bought a vehicle under invoice?

[Ebtek]

please post your experience.

also, when shopping for a vehicle, the rule last year was to get the CCC report and offer $500 over invoice. have times changed? is there a new strategy we should be following?

[RobDek]

You expect dealers to pay you to take cars off their lots??? :confused::confused:

[originalnutta]

You expect dealers to pay you to take cars off their lots??? :confused::confused:

And they better throw in free oil changes too.

[deal_with_singh]

I know for a fact that some dealerships in canada of chrysler and gm have been selling below invoice and ALL chrysler/gm dealerships in US which have been chosen to close down are selling way below cost as chrysler refuses to take back inventory...

[mkerian]

Its possible to get it under "invoice". CCC (Car Cost Canada, their Pres. recently "joined" the forum) is not God, as much as they put themselves out to be.

Quite often, the manufacturer provides holdbacks and incentives to the dealers to just get the cars off the lots so the dealer can buy new ones, or bonuses on how many vehicles sold. These sort of deals are hidden even from the almighty CCC.

Last time I bought my pickup, (during the gas crisis last summer) I knew the CCC invoice price but didn't walk in and tell the dealer that. I simply gave the price I was willing to pay, which was under the invoice, and after a little bit of haggling I still managed to pay less than invoice.

Keep in mind that CCC is a business. CCC provides people with the idea that they're getting a deal by outsmarting the dealership. While people do save money and time, you have to think why don't dealers try to stop this practice? It's because people walk in and say "I'll buy this car for $500 over invoice, and even if the dealer immediately agrees, it's still profit.

Also, by customers stating that they know the supposed 'invoice' price (which often is not the complete picture), they are providing the dealer with an excuse. All the dealer has to say is, "You have the invoice price, why would I sell the car for a loss", when in fact their could be additional holdbacks and bonuses.

I would suggest that people still use CCC to determine the invoice price, but don't tell the dealer. Just use it as a reference point. Start negotiating under that price, not absurdly so but as much as you're comfortable. If the dealer claims that they would lose money, just state the fact that you don't know all the additional holdbacks, hidden incentives, and bonuses. A car dealership is not a charity. Pay as much as you want, and if it's too much, walk out. If someone has the time, are willing and determined, often you can save hundreds to thousands of dollars.

[circumventer]

You expect dealers to pay you to take cars off their lots??? :confused::confused:

wow where have you been lately?

[crono06]

Its possible to get it under "invoice". CCC (Car Cost Canada, their Pres. recently "joined" the forum) is not God, as much as they put themselves out to be.

Quite often, the manufacturer provides holdbacks and incentives to the dealers to just get the cars off the lots so the dealer can buy new ones, or bonuses on how many vehicles sold. These sort of deals are hidden even from the almighty CCC.

Last time I bought my pickup, (during the gas crisis last summer) I knew the CCC invoice price but didn't walk in and tell the dealer that. I simply gave the price I was willing to pay, which was under the invoice, and after a little bit of haggling I still managed to pay less than invoice.

Keep in mind that CCC is a business. CCC provides people with the idea that they're getting a deal by outsmarting the dealership. While people do save money and time, you have to think why don't dealers try to stop this practice? It's because people walk in and say "I'll buy this car for $500 over invoice, and even if the dealer immediately agrees, it's still profit.

Also, by customers stating that they know the supposed 'invoice' price (which often is not the complete picture), they are providing the dealer with an excuse. All the dealer has to say is, "You have the invoice price, why would I sell the car for a loss", when in fact their could be additional holdbacks and bonuses.

I would suggest that people still use CCC to determine the invoice price, but don't tell the dealer. Just use it as a reference point. Start negotiating under that price, not absurdly so but as much as you're comfortable. If the dealer claims that they would lose money, just state the fact that you don't know all the additional holdbacks, hidden incentives, and bonuses. A car dealership is not a charity. Pay as much as you want, and if it's too much, walk out. If someone has the time, are willing and determined, often you can save hundreds to thousands of dollars.

Could not agree more. If this was the TRUE 'invoice' that we were getting, I'm sure dealerships would be trying to shut down CCC. There are definitely hidden "profits" in this so called 'invoice' price. Also, like others have said, holdbacks, bonuses for volume sold, etc.

It's just like at BB/FS, they say that this is the "cost" of the item. But it's definitely inflated...

[HP_John]

At the same time though, for those arguing about holdbacks, you also have to factor in that dealers pay interest on all the cars sitting on their lot that are unsold. Also, sales staff are never told about holdbacks, so it's pointless to argue with them about how much profit it gives them. The only time you get current model yr cars for below invoice is in extreme circumstances with a good brand, probably happens more with domestics (not saying they're not good, just that they're struggling a lot more, so much more desperate).

[afretes]

Could not agree more. If this was the TRUE 'invoice' that we were getting, I'm sure dealerships would be trying to shut down CCC. There are definitely hidden "profits" in this so called 'invoice' price. Also, like others have said, holdbacks, bonuses for volume sold, etc.

It's just like at BB/FS, they say that this is the "cost" of the item. But it's definitely inflated...

The invoice numbers that CCC offers are the "TRUE" invoice numbers. Now there is something else called; holdback, reserve, etc. but it is very minimal.
We are selling pretty much every car at or below invoice due to: cash rebates, Supplier Program, Fleet incentives, etc.

[Azxster]

I negotiated a 2008 Impreza down to cost (no strings attached) but then gf's parent added on extended warranty, rust proofing, etc... so the dealer made money.

[plymouthhater]

Back in the mid 80's the local Mazda dealer foolishly put an advertisement in the Toronto Star advertising "Special an extra $2500 disount off your best deal for the first 5 purchasers of a new 1985 Mazda RX7"

I went in to the dealership that evening and asked if the coupon was valid (was I one of the 1st 5 purchasers). Salesperson said yes and proceeded to attempt his sales pitch. I told him not to bother - I didn't want a test drive etc - let's sit down and do the paperwork.

So out comes the contract and I ask him to order the "S" Model. (The S Model was a stripped down version of the vehicle - no cassette deck, no A/C, crappy narrow Bridgestone Tires, steel wheels etc.)

Salesman tells me there is no way he can order me the car as the dealership gets an "annual quota of each model and their dealership has already sold their quota of the S model for the year... Besides, we don't make $2,500 on the S Model and there is no way we are going to lose money on the sale of a vehicle".

I tell him to fill out the contract and take my deposit anyway since it was the evening and they couldn't check with Mazda Canada till the next morning to see if perhaps a vehicle was available. I also told the salesperson if no vehicle was available I would be back to chose an upgraded model and re-negotiate the contract as "I really want an RX7" . So the contract gets filled out and accepted by the owner of the dealership.

The next morning at 9 am I called Mazda Canada head office in Pickering (at the time) - I managed to speak to the Regional Sales Manager and I proceeded to ask if there are any S Models available in the GTA. "Of course, he replies...it's October - early in the model year"

So I call the dealership back and proceed to tell the salesperson that I just got off the phone with Mazda Canada and the vehicle I want is available. Salesperson tells me there is no way they will honour the deal as they don't make $2500 on the base model vehicle and that their cost is more than that.

I tell them "a contract is a contract - that they can either provide the vehicle or I will see them in court"

I had the vehicle within a week. Vehicle ended up costing me $10,800 + tax.

Salesman tells me afterwards that they made a mistake and forgot to put a clause in the advertisement that stated "GSL-SE Model Only".

[maniacshopper]

you're lucky they were stupid and didn't have good lawyers.

Although a contract is legally binding, it can be broken if there was a true and unintentional error made by one of the parties entering into the contract. If there was no bad faith and the contract was really signed by mistake the judge would likely refuse to enforce the contract and would order it broken.

Even with written contracts, sometimes mistakes do happen and the law will not usually force a contract to go through that was clearly erroneous.


http://www.canadiandriver.com/2009/05/25/steering-you-right-a-contract-made-in-error.htm (http://www.canadiandriver.com/2009/05/25/steering-you-right-a-contract-made-in-error.htm)

also you should get the comment someone left at the bottom, hilarious.

[potato]

Factory rebate + Dealer rebate + negotiation = less than invoice.

MSRP - 41K

Factory Rebate - 6299
Dealer rebate - 2999
Negotiated - Free sunroof(1000) and $250 referal coupon.

New cost $30702
So we also saved on taxes.

The invoice price that I looked up was $35200 with sunroof.
It wasn't official from car cost just on a forum.
But I know I got a good deal.

[brian.gerson]

Although a contract is legally binding, it can be broken if there was a true and unintentional error made by one of the parties entering into the contract.

I'm not disputing what you're saying, but do you have a legal precedent I could read? This is highly counterintuitive, because I could claim "honest error" and get out of any contract I have ever signed. There are a ton of folks in the mortgage forum, for example, who have onerous penalties for prepaying their mortgages to get a better rate, and didn't really understand this when they signed.

EDIT: Check out the following article on Wikipedia, which covers the situation described in that Quebec lawyer's article. Wikipedia thinks the dealer wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistake_(contract_law)

[deal_with_singh]

I'm not disputing what you're saying, but do you have a legal precedent I could read? This is highly counterintuitive, because I could claim "honest error" and get out of any contract I have ever signed. There are a ton of folks in the mortgage forum, for example, who have onerous penalties for prepaying their mortgages to get a better rate, and didn't really understand this when they signed.

EDIT: Check out the following article on Wikipedia, which covers the situation described in that Quebec lawyer's article. Wikipedia thinks the dealer wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistake_(contract_law)

its a different story when an average person mistakenly signs a contract and when an entire business or in this case a dealership makes a mistake and signs a contract

[Feb30th]

I'm not disputing what you're saying, but do you have a legal precedent I could read? This is highly counterintuitive, because I could claim "honest error" and get out of any contract I have ever signed. There are a ton of folks in the mortgage forum, for example, who have onerous penalties for prepaying their mortgages to get a better rate, and didn't really understand this when they signed.

EDIT: Check out the following article on Wikipedia, which covers the situation described in that Quebec lawyer's article. Wikipedia thinks the dealer wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistake_(contract_law)

maniacshopper is right... I took commercial law at univeristy and a contract made in honest error can be broken... of course the burden of proof lies on the defendent.