T&T OFFICIAL New Vehicle Prices & Discussion Thread

[damieG82]

norstar2k, that "fully loaded" CS coming with a sunroof? And incidentally there's an ad in today's Express about the CY Lancer being on special at $175,000... so who exactly is gonna buy the CS at 5k more?!

Visited Lifestyle yesterday... I see Suzuki prices gone up too. Rep said the Swift is now $155K, and the SX4 Sport (only SX sedan they bringing from now on apparently, ) is $174K. At that new price the Swift is still extremely competitive given the price of its rivals, Yaris Mazda2 Fiesta Fit/City etc. The SX4 I aint too sure about... that money getting you a Cerato, Elantra, and as of today, a CY Lancer too. I remember it being $159K not too long ago. what gives?!

The Fiat Grande Punto has always been a local Suzuki Swift contender, and at $133K its value for money.

I know, but with the new Swift, I'm sorry to say the gap has widened A LOT. In terms of features, the Punto doesn't have rear power windows, intelligent key (including keyless-go), or fingertip audio. The Swift's interior is more modern looking too. And well in the engine department, the Swift outclasses it... its 1.4 16v with 94hp and 130nm is far superior to the Punto's 1.4 8v with 77hp and 115nm. Punto wins in exterior looks still tho. Are the differences worth $20K+, I guess buyers will have to decide.

[NorStar2K]

I found this really good read. I thought I'd share it especially with those who are unsure what configeration to buy, or are basing their decisions on what they think they know. (I don't care if its a repost, it's pertitnent to the thread).

What Wheel Drive?

How many driven wheels does a vehicle really need? The proliferation of SUVs on America's highways and byways over the last ten years would suggest that two simply isn't enough. But what exactly are the advantages of four-wheel drive (or all-wheel drive) versus front-wheel drive and rear-wheel drive?

First of all, before we're "driven" to confusion by all of this terminology, let's lay a few ground rules. In most automotive circles (and for the purposes of this discussion) the following acronyms will hold true:

AWD = all-wheel drive
4WD = four-wheel drive
RWD = rear-wheel drive
FWD = front-wheel drive

Each of these drive systems has its own advantages and disadvantages which I'll cover in greater detail.

Since the majority of vehicles sold today are front-wheel drive, we'll start here. As the name suggests, FWD vehicles use only the front wheels to deliver power from the engine to the pavement. While relatively rare on the streets of America during the first half of the 20th century, FWD cars now account for approximately 70 percent of new car offerings. Why the recent switch from RWD to FWD in new cars? Well, since most vehicles carry their engines up front, it is a simpler task to get that engine power to the driven wheels when they are both on the same end of the car. Essentially, you turn the engine sideways and connect a short driveshaft between either side of the engine and the two front wheels. Less distance and fewer parts between the engine and the driven wheels means less horsepower loss through mechanical inefficiency. Additionally, fewer parts means reduced production costs and, ultimately, a lower sticker price. One final advantage of FWD is that it puts the engine weight directly over the driven wheels which can improve traction on slippery or snow-packed roads.

Despite its practical advantages, FWD has several disadvantages when related to vehicle performance. First of all, since vehicle weight shifts to the rear of a car during hard acceleration, FWD cars will always be fighting a losing battle when it comes to straight-line acceleration. Handling performance also suffers on FWD platforms since the option of using "throttle-induced oversteer" or sliding the rear end doesn't exist (unless you get really creative with the emergency brake).

In the end FWD is a very practical way to power a vehicle but its inherent design is contradictory to performance. Look at it this way: Your car came with four wheels, why put the stress of steering, braking, and acceleration on only two of them?

Take everything I just said about FWD cars and reverse it for RWD cars. Performance goes up because now the two rear wheels handle the duties of acceleration, leaving the front wheels to focus solely on directing the vehicle (plus the majority of braking). This means that when you punch it, vehicle weight transfers to the rear end, just where you want it during acceleration. You can also "steer" a RWD car with the gas pedal by applying power and sliding the rear end while in a corner. If you don't think this is an advantage, try driving a Mazda Miata and a Chevy Cavalier convertible through the same set of backroad twisties. Even though they're both top-down, four-cylinder compact cars, the experience will be very different with a clear victory in "fun factor" going to the Miata.

This doesn't necessarily make rear-wheel drive the "better" configuration since it has disadvantages too. As mentioned earlier, RWD cars require a driveshaft (and dreaded interior "hump") and a differential to get power from the engine to the rear wheels. These components add extra cost and weight to a vehicle while robbing horsepower and making RWD cars generally less efficient than FWD vehicles. This layout is also more challenging to drive in inclement weather where, without the aid of traction control, a RWD car can more easily end up on somebody's front lawn or stuck in a ditch.

I personally have an affinity for RWD because its biggest disadvantage is also its biggest advantage; it's less practical and, consequently, more fun.

Both of the previous drivetrain layouts are based on using only half of a vehicle's wheels to deliver power to the ground. But those other wheels are just sitting there, why not use them too? Actually, the concept of using all-wheel drive is not new. A Dutch manufacturer named Spyker had one of the first full-time 4WD vehicles on display at the Paris Motor Show in 1903.

While we're here let's go over what the supposed differences are between four-wheel drive and all-wheel drive. 4WD was basically the original term used to describe all four wheels being driven on early Jeeps and trucks. These systems were not very advanced in that they simply put power to all four wheels, usually after an interior shift lever was moved and/or the vehicle's hubs were manually "locked" by the operator. During this period 4WD was thought of as a purely off-road utility. Today 4WD still refers to vehicles that can opt for two- or four-wheel drive. These vehicles often have a 4WD "low" and "high" setting that can be switched using an interior lever. The "low" setting provides even greater torque for pulling or climbing in an off-road environment. The "high" is useful for slippery on-road situations like packed snow or ice. 4WD also uses a locking center differential to avoid unnecessary slippage between the right and left wheels while off-road.

AWD generally operates all the time with no "low" or "high" gearing options. While 4WD is basically an SUV term, associated with off-road use, AWD is a car/wagon/minivan term that means traction improvement for performance or bad weather reasons. Some vehicles, like the Mercury Mountaineer or the Lexus RX 350, are tougher to classify because they are SUVs in appearance but use AWD instead of 4WD. Many of these types of vehicles are being called "crossovers."

The "all" part of all-wheel drive is a bit misleading since the majority of AWD vehicles use the front wheels primarily and only direct power to the rear wheels when a sensor detects front-wheel slip. Other cars, like the Porsche 911 Turbo, use AWD for performance purposes like getting from zero-to-sixty in 3.4 seconds. Even with sufficient horsepower, a Porsche with only two-wheel drive would be traction-limited to high 4- or low 5-second zero-to-sixty times. AWD also helps keep Subaru wagons and Toyota minivans from sliding on wet or snowy roads by redirecting power from "the wheels that slip to the wheels that grip."

So, it seems like 4WD/AWD is the best way to go, right? Well, not exactly. Both of these systems add substantial weight, complexity and cost to a vehicle. They also reduce gas mileage because of increased drag on the drivetrain. When you consider that traction control is becoming more and more common on front- and rear-wheel drive cars, the supposed advantages of 4WD/AWD start to wane.

By now it should be obvious that there is no "best" drivetrain layout; just different designs with different characteristics. Hopefully, after reading this column, you'll have a better idea which one is right for your circumstances and not get suckered into buying an all-wheel drive Subaru for your daily commuter in Phoenix or a BMW M3 for exploring the Yukon.

edmunds.com

[DSM_05]

Came across this video, interesting AWD comparison:

[Stephon.]

I just realized how cheap the Lancer was fully loaded @210 That's not bad, unless I'm looking at the wrong price or the prices needs updating, I've been hearing good things about this car but people were always saying that it was very expensive.

[damieG82]

Have a question about the In-One package Ansa Auto offers... well assuming anyone here knows more than the seemingly clueless rep I spoke with yesterday.

I was given a price sheet for the Lancers and he indicated that all quoted prices are for the In-One package. So based on those prices, the monthly installment will be worked out when amount of downpayment and length of the loan are factored in. So my obvious question was, if you're buying the car without the In-One, what's the *recalculated and reduced* price? Because the In-One sum would include provisions for the insurance, servicing, and interest on the loan. The rep responded by saying there's no price difference if you don't purchase using In-One How correct, legit, ethical, or logical is that? So if one purchases a car cash, you're essentially paying for insurance and servicing costs twice, and for interest on a loan you didnt sign up for

Can anyone shed some light on this or was that rep a total noob who clearly needs some more training?

[Rory Phoulorie]

I just realized how cheap the Lancer was fully loaded @210 That's not bad, unless I'm looking at the wrong price or the prices needs updating, I've been hearing good things about this car but people were always saying that it was very expensive.

Isn't that the model with the 1.5L engine? $210k for a car with a 1.5L engine is not a good price at all. You would have fully loaded Korean Chevy Aveos with their 1.5L engines leaving you in their dust. You would be better off forking out the extra cash for the 2.0L model.

[Habit7]

fully loaded Korean Chevy Aveos with their 1.5L engines

?????

[acesinghit]

Some Chevy Aveos came with 1.6 engines. The basic ones had 1.5. All sold out though so no need to mention this chevy again.

[Rory Phoulorie]

?????

What? If you have a question, then ask it. No need to be afraid.

If you are querying the engine displacement, the Aveos came with 1.5L engines.

If you are querying "Korean Chevy Aveos", these cars were designed and built by GM-Daewoo of Korea.

Unfortunately, I can't read your mind so I hope I have addressed your confusion.

[Habit7]

^^^never knew that, thx

I know, but with the new Swift, I'm sorry to say the gap has widened A LOT. In terms of features, the Punto doesn't have rear power windows, intelligent key (including keyless-go), or fingertip audio. The Swift's interior is more modern looking too. And well in the engine department, the Swift outclasses it... its 1.4 16v with 94hp and 130nm is far superior to the Punto's 1.4 8v with 77hp and 115nm. Punto wins in exterior looks still tho. Are the differences worth $20K+, I guess buyers will have to decide.

I went to get a first hand experience with the Suzuki Swift and it hard for me to spend that extra money. The keyless entry and press button start is cool, and the climate control is great. I think there are Lamborghinis with more truck space. The Punto's 6 gear transmission is more advanced and sportier than the Swift and might result in a faster 0-60. Its probably more fuel efficient. But the Swift is a newer design, and has more resale value.

The price though is getting outrageous, $154K for the current Swift and they said they are getting the 1.6 Swift Sport by April 2012 for $190K Just spend the extra money and buy a Mini Cooper or Audi A1

[tiger balm]

The price though is getting outrageous, $154K for the current Swift and they said they are getting the 1.6 Swift Sport by April 2012 for $190K :shock: Just spend the extra money and buy a Mini Cooper or Audi A1

$190k for the new Swift Sport?? Just now everyone will be driving SUVs and crossovers.

[noshownogo]

Habit7 you see how much a Mini Cooper or Audi A1 cost, both cars are easily around the 300k mark

[Stephon.]

2012 crv fully loaded 419 approx.

[noshownogo]

Odd as Honda is touting this as a new CRV at the same cost as the old, yet we manage to to slap tens of thousands on an already inflated price.

Lets see how well they sell. Personally a CRV closing in on half a million is laughable.

[DSM_05]

^^Exactly. This car is around the same price as the old in other markets.

Yet here, every time a new model comes the price goes up.

Wait for the $750,000 CR-V ...it's coming

[Stephon.]

Well according to my parents, the current model isn't even worth the 350 price tag.

[acesinghit]

Habit...190k for the 2012 sss vs 275k for the current audi a1. Just spend the extra money you say and buy an a1? AFAIK, $85k aint just "extra money".....that's a heck of a lot of coin to spend for 2 less doors and less hp right?

For those in here who complaining about new Honda prices, like you guys don't profile these owners or what? Classic catering for a niche buyer and if you watch them carefully they are actually the same crowd who considers the CRV as an entry level luxury SUV. Of course to us seasoned car cuckoos in here that is a bunch of kaka.

Consider the Subaru Forester and Mazda CX-7......the CR-V has less features and power and priced higher than those two turboed utes....retarded? Not for classic as all units are being booked.

The middle class unfortunately has to settle for 150k tiidas and roro wingroads and axelas. The Upper Class is not affected by these prices and their demand for new vehicles carries on.

Also you have to realize Classic Motors is part of ANSA McAL and the syrian/lebanese community generally sway Hondas including local Chinese and white. That niche market seems to be recession proof.

[DSM_05]

^^FTW - exactly!

[Habit7]

Sorry, I forgot that ppl dont usually have an extra $80K

I guess a Fiat Bravo or Kia Koup would be a better alternative for a $190K Suzuki Swift Sport

[Dizzy28]

Have a question about the In-One package Ansa Auto offers... well assuming anyone here knows more than the seemingly clueless rep I spoke with yesterday.

I was given a price sheet for the Lancers and he indicated that all quoted prices are for the In-One package. So based on those prices, the monthly installment will be worked out when amount of downpayment and length of the loan are factored in. So my obvious question was, if you're buying the car without the In-One, what's the *recalculated and reduced* price? Because the In-One sum would include provisions for the insurance, servicing, and interest on the loan. The rep responded by saying there's no price difference if you don't purchase using In-One How correct, legit, ethical, or logical is that? So if one purchases a car cash, you're essentially paying for insurance and servicing costs twice, and for interest on a loan you didnt sign up for

Can anyone shed some light on this or was that rep a total noob who clearly needs some more training?

No scene in what they doing. You can go to the bank with the cash price they give you and get a loan. Your payments will be less than an InOne p'mnt however the InOne already has insurance included.
Its up to you to determine overall if it worth it depending on all costs taken in to arrive at a figure for comparison for both loans (the InOne is a loan with insurance and legal/administrative fees included already)

[dsaint]

Have a question about the In-One package Ansa Auto offers... well assuming anyone here knows more than the seemingly clueless rep I spoke with yesterday.

I was given a price sheet for the Lancers and he indicated that all quoted prices are for the In-One package. So based on those prices, the monthly installment will be worked out when amount of downpayment and length of the loan are factored in. So my obvious question was, if you're buying the car without the In-One, what's the *recalculated and reduced* price? Because the In-One sum would include provisions for the insurance, servicing, and interest on the loan. The rep responded by saying there's no price difference if you don't purchase using In-One How correct, legit, ethical, or logical is that? So if one purchases a car cash, you're essentially paying for insurance and servicing costs twice, and for interest on a loan you didnt sign up for

Can anyone shed some light on this or was that rep a total noob who clearly needs some more training?

The price they quote you is the principal on the car. The installments factor in the Principal plus Interest for 3, 4 or 5 years (depending on what you decide) as well as Insurance and Service for 3 years. As pointed out, if you go to a bank with the principal amount the installments are likely to be lower. Not sure what Ansa's formula is for their financing but when you work out the Insurance and cost of services from them, the InOne doesn't seem that bad....

[mammoo]

1.4 Turbo Super Charged Engine (160 Horsepower)
With 16" Navarra Rims ($230,000)
With Sunroof & 17" Queensland Rims ($240,000)
7 Speed DSG Tiptronic Transmission
Bluetooth Handsfree with Display On Radio
Electromechanical PowerSteering
Climatronic 2-Zone A/C
All One-Touch Power Windows
Remote Central Locking
Front, Side & Curtain Airbags (Front Passenger with deactivation)
4 Wheel Disc Brakes
ABS with Electronic Stability Programme
Telescopic adjustable Steering
Height Adjustable Driver & Front Passenger Seat
Split Fold Rear Seat 60/40
6 Cd/Mp3 Touch Screen In Dash Stereo with SD Card Slot
10 Speaker Stereo System
Fog Lights
Rear Map Reading Lights
Multi-Function Steering
Speed Control Door Locks
Front & Rear Optical Parking Sensors (Display on Radio)
Keyless Entry
Anti-Theft System & Immobilizer
Side Impact Door Beams
Power Side View Mirrors
Interior Motion Sensor Alarm
Media In (Ipod ready)

First shipment in Sept were sold out by the 2nd day of arrival. Second Shipment in early January, half already pre-sold.

PM OR CALL ME FOR MORE INFO - 722-2222

[Stephon.]

Cousin still waiting on his It's been like 2 and a half months waiting so far lol

[NorStar2K]

2012 Nissan X-Trail (Facelift) in country

X-Trail
$325,000.00 2.5L XR-707 (Fabric)
$342,000.00 2.5L XR-711 (Leather)

[Stephon.]

$325,000.00 2.5L XR-707 (Fabric)

I thought the X-Trail was supposed to be an economical SUV, or does that only apply to the X-Trail classic? The future of SUVs are looking expensive, an X-Trail is more expensive than a Captiva?

[NorStar2K]

$325,000.00 2.5L XR-707 (Fabric)

I thought the X-Trail was supposed to be an economical SUV, or does that only apply to the X-Trail classic? The future of SUVs are looking expensive, an X-Trail is more expensive than a Captiva?

It's about time ppl start to realize that the MVT impacts significantly on the cost of a 2.2. 2.4, 2.5 vehicle, etc. Add VAT and the bottom line is a vehicle with a high on-the-road price. e.g. the MVT & VAT on the 2.5 'X' is over $100K. (The MVT is a whopping $62,200.00)

Not to mention the 'Classic' as its called is an old SUV; Gen.1 2001-2007, carried over by Nissan LA due to demand. Quite frankly, the Gen.1 is overpriced considering its past its end-of-model year (2007) over 4 years ago. The damn thing actually has a cassette player in it. Supply could end at any moment.

The Gen.2 (2007-date) is new tech, and like all the other newer models across the brand spectrum, one has to expect the inevitable. The Classic doesn't have a reverse camera, or 6-airbags, but the Gen.2 does.

btw, the Captiva is a 2.0L engine. If you read my earlier post the 2.2L Captiva (2011/12) may be too expensive for this market, and may out-price itself.

[NorStar2K]

Have a question about the In-One package Ansa Auto offers... well assuming anyone here knows more than the seemingly clueless rep I spoke with yesterday.

I was given a price sheet for the Lancers and he indicated that all quoted prices are for the In-One package. So based on those prices, the monthly installment will be worked out when amount of downpayment and length of the loan are factored in. So my obvious question was, if you're buying the car without the In-One, what's the *recalculated and reduced* price? Because the In-One sum would include provisions for the insurance, servicing, and interest on the loan. The rep responded by saying there's no price difference if you don't purchase using In-One How correct, legit, ethical, or logical is that? So if one purchases a car cash, you're essentially paying for insurance and servicing costs twice, and for interest on a loan you didnt sign up for

Can anyone shed some light on this or was that rep a total noob who clearly needs some more training?

No scene in what they doing. You can go to the bank with the cash price they give you and get a loan. Your payments will be less than an InOne p'mnt however the InOne already has insurance included.
Its up to you to determine overall if it worth it depending on all costs taken in to arrive at a figure for comparison for both loans (the InOne is a loan with insurance and legal/administrative fees included already)

Here's an InOne example:

The InOne on the $349K CRV:
$20% down ($69,800); $6575 for 5 years.

No matter the type of loan, the big-saver shall always be; the higher the down-payment, the lower the monthly installment. Period!

[noshownogo]

When I done I paying 465k for a CRV Classic name suits them

[vickyexp]

When I done I paying 465k for a CRV Classic name suits them

plus you'll be struggling to get 1/2 of that back
if you decide to sell after >3years

[NorStar2K]

When I done I paying 465k for a CRV Classic name suits them

You can't look at it that way. Anything bought via a loan/hire purchase will have interest added on annually for the term of the loan.

That's like complaining that your $750k home ended up cost you over $2MM at the end of your 20-25 year mortgage.