Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion Automotive news and discussion about upcoming vehicles

Monte SS/Imapla SS pricing

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old May 2, 2003 | 02:33 PM
  #1  
bigsteve7's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 499
From: Raleigh, NC
Monte SS/Imapla SS pricing

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...4_frst2_chevy/

Base: $27,500 ???

Am I wrong for thinking thats a lot of money for "not that much" car? I mean, I guess I can understand you having to add the package price to the base price of the car, but is that an accurate estimate? I could much faster see myself in an Accord V6 or a fully equipped Maxima for that price.
Old May 2, 2003 | 02:37 PM
  #2  
CamaroBoy96Z28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,356
From: Madison Heights, MI
Thats GM for ya, over-priced low quality. Thats what they stand for nowadays.
Old May 2, 2003 | 02:45 PM
  #3  
Darth Xed's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 8,504
From: Ohio
Re: Monte SS/Imapla SS pricing

Originally posted by bigsteve7
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...4_frst2_chevy/

Base: $27,500 ???

Am I wrong for thinking thats a lot of money for "not that much" car? I mean, I guess I can understand you having to add the package price to the base price of the car, but is that an accurate estimate? I could much faster see myself in an Accord V6 or a fully equipped Maxima for that price.
That is 'estimated' price, and the S/C'd SS will probably be loaded anyway, so it's not that much more. A loaded 2003 SS stickers at $26,800 right now.

TCamaroBoy96Z28
Thats GM for ya, over-priced low quality. Thats what they stand for nowadays.
For the hundreth time, Monte Carlo and Impala have excellent quality ratings.

How is $27,500 for a presumable loaded, now supercharged, Monte Carlo overpriced? That is UNDER the National Average for a new car right now... and that is just STICKER RPICE, not what you'll actually pay.

Last edited by Darth Xed; May 2, 2003 at 03:07 PM.
Old May 2, 2003 | 02:54 PM
  #4  
guionM's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
I think this is the only website in the universe where the average car in the real world costs $30,000, and we bemoan a $27,000, supercharged Impala.

The identical under the skin Buick Regal costs $28,000, and the Pontiac GTP starts at just under $26,000. That puts Impala in the middle, a grand in either direction.

Is it the lowest price for this type of car from GM? No. But it's not the highest either. But it's still right in the neighborhood to where it should be. If you want 20 horsepower and save $1000, simply buy a GTP (assuming you are even interested in buying a FWD sedan)...... so stop yer bellyaching!

Last edited by guionM; May 2, 2003 at 02:57 PM.
Old May 2, 2003 | 03:35 PM
  #5  
formula79's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,698
From: USA
Seeing thats the same price as a GTP I can't see why anyone would buy an IMPY unless they are thrown by the styling or don;t research much. Also keep in mind that after the $3000 rebate it will only run $24,000 which is VERY competitive with whatelse is on the market.
Old May 2, 2003 | 03:39 PM
  #6  
centric's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,022
From: Newhall, CA USA
Then price it at $24,000 and lose the rebate. Then you also lose the cost of administering the program. Which might make it $23,750.
Old May 2, 2003 | 03:52 PM
  #7  
centric's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,022
From: Newhall, CA USA
By the way, where is the data coming from for an average new-car cost of $30K? This is the closest I've found, and it only supports an average cost of MAYBE $22,000, given straight-line extrapolation:

http://www.ott.doe.gov/facts/archives/fotw219.shtml

Are those numbers from the automakers, based on MSRP before rebates? Or are they real numbers paid by real people? Or did people lose their mind in 2002 and drive up the average cost by $8000 over 2001?
Old May 2, 2003 | 03:52 PM
  #8  
USHotRod's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 639
From: Anchorage, AK
Spoke to several dealers in the area regarding the price on these. They told me 22,000 pretty consistently. I guess its for rebates and dealer incentives. Sounds like a damn good deal to me.
Old May 2, 2003 | 04:30 PM
  #9  
USHotRod's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 639
From: Anchorage, AK
Another thing is at least its a step in the right direction. Theres only one more way to go after a V6s and thats to a V8.
Old May 2, 2003 | 04:40 PM
  #10  
Z28x's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Re: Monte SS/Imapla SS pricing

Originally posted by bigsteve7
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...4_frst2_chevy/

Base: $27,500 ???

Am I wrong for thinking thats a lot of money for "not that much" car? I mean, I guess I can understand you having to add the package price to the base price of the car, but is that an accurate estimate?
$27,500 isn't a bad MSRP for these cars. It's only about $1,500 over an equally equipped Non-supercharged Impala/Monte, Not bad for a factory installed blower and bigger rims/tires.

Originally posted by bigsteve7
I could much faster see myself in an Accord V6 or a fully equipped Maxima for that price.
LOL good luck getting a fully loaded Maxima for $27,500, they go for about $35,000, talk about not that much car for the money
Old May 2, 2003 | 08:09 PM
  #11  
bigsteve7's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 499
From: Raleigh, NC
Re: Re: Monte SS/Imapla SS pricing

Originally posted by Z28x
LOL good luck getting a fully loaded Maxima for $27,500, they go for about $35,000, talk about not that much car for the money
I know that the luxury versions cost more, but I thought the 2003 SE's MSRP'd in the mid 25's, and optione nicely right ~$28,000, maybe I'm wrong. The new ones are a lot more expensive.

Anyways, I just thought that these cars seemed a little overpriced. I understand that theyre right around the price that they techinically "should" be at, but I really dont see Chevy selling too many of these when you can get many comprable performers for much less. If I was a consumer, and looking for a 4 door sedan, I would look at probably the Mazda 6, Honda Accord, Impala and Maxima. The Impala SS offers comprable performance to these cars and seems to be on the larger end of the price spectrum.

I also understand that there is the GTP and Buick equivalents of these cars, but I always percieved Chevy as the "average man's" car, being affordable and whatnot when compared to GM's other branches. I guess you blame it on inflation, but I guess I just never expected to see this car priced so close to $30k.

_____
*a little off topic*

Id also like to ask how the average price of a car was calculated out to be $30,000. I understand that quoting that average price helps to explain the price placement of cars, but I dont necessarily think it serves as a justification for the price of various car models. There will always be a consumer group (probably mostly young buyers) who will be purchasing cars in the under $20k price range. Car companies seem to be forgetting about this group. One notable exception I can think of is the Mazda 6, a stout performing practical car which comes in right over $20k. What if anything is GM offering, or planning to offer for these buyers?
Old May 2, 2003 | 09:55 PM
  #12  
kizz's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 564
From: Fletcher, NC, US
Overpriced, if you ask me. Those 2 cars are leftovers from the late 90s anyway. In the next 5 years, watch how quickly they are forgotten. Not unlike the 80s Nova. I'm trying as best as I can to be optimistic about something new and fresh from Chevy in the next 2 - 3 years. And I don't mean the Aveo I think the new Malibu and Maxx might be one to succeed in bringing a forward-looking flair to Chevy to get away from those snoozer-fleet models and point toward something better to follow. I mean jeez,when you're at a new bottom, you gotta think to yourself "I can't continue here dragging at the bottom forever. Even by dumb luck, something has to improve some time". That's how I see Chevy today (and GM's overall car program).

gt

Last edited by kizz; May 2, 2003 at 09:57 PM.
Old May 2, 2003 | 10:00 PM
  #13  
Darth Xed's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 8,504
From: Ohio
Originally posted by kizz
Overpriced, if you ask me. Those 2 cars are leftovers from the late 90s anyway. In the next 5 years, watch how quickly they are forgotten. Not unlike the 80s Nova.
gt
The current Monte Carlo & Impala debuted in MY2000... they are only in their 4th year of production.

Yes, I'd like to see some styling freshening on any car at this point, but at least they are addressing the HP issue.
Old May 2, 2003 | 10:05 PM
  #14  
kizz's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 564
From: Fletcher, NC, US
When were they designed? Late 90s. And it shows. They look old and second-rate already.
Old May 3, 2003 | 01:42 PM
  #15  
guionM's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Originally posted by centric
By the way, where is the data coming from for an average new-car cost of $30K? This is the closest I've found, and it only supports an average cost of MAYBE $22,000, given straight-line extrapolation:

http://www.ott.doe.gov/facts/archives/fotw219.shtml

Are those numbers from the automakers, based on MSRP before rebates? Or are they real numbers paid by real people? Or did people lose their mind in 2002 and drive up the average cost by $8000 over 2001?
According to the NADA, in 2002 the average price of a new car was $26,700. Add in Minivans, SUVs, and trucks which account for around half the new vehicle market, and that average goes over $30,000.

You may be right in that one is based on MSRP and the other is based on actual consumer price after rebates & incentives, since one is from the Commerce Department and my figure is from National Automotive Dealers Association.

Last edited by guionM; May 3, 2003 at 02:18 PM.



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:40 AM.