Dealer down here is offering military discount and matching your down payment up to $6k. I think I might go buy one.

2/16/2013 11:09:53 AM

man, that's a no brainer.

2/16/2013 11:11:22 AM

I don't think it's regarded highly in its class, if I remember those magazine reviews correctly

but it looks nice

2/16/2013 11:11:41 AM

It's highly regarded in the $10k class.

Also, dealer offers free tires, oil changes, and powertrain warranty for life for original owner.


I'm headed down there to see what the fine print is.

[Edited on February 16, 2013 at 11:23 AM. Reason : I don't care how shitty it drives, anyway]

[Edited on February 16, 2013 at 11:24 AM. Reason : ]

2/16/2013 11:20:56 AM

I'm sure it's worth a $10k investment over the life of the car, relative to used cars in that pricerange, no?

2/16/2013 11:21:08 AM

i take it this will be hannah's first car? she's what, 5 now?

[Edited on February 16, 2013 at 11:40 AM. Reason : ^^ does maintenance have to be done in their service dept?]

2/16/2013 11:39:58 AM

Man, WTF, I expected some fine print; no way it would be as good of a deal as the ad sounded, but this wasn't really even a deal.

They had no Forte hatchbacks (which is what I wanted), and offers didn't combine--so the contracted USAA price wasn't subject to the down payment matching.


...but the down payment matching (up to $5k, although I could have sworn the radio ad said $6k) still would have been a good deal--$5k off a car with an MSRP of $18k? OK, still pretty good.

However, they had their "sale price" of $23k that you had to use for that deal.


On top of all that, I checked the manuals; Kias now have EDRs. As of a couple years ago, they didn't.

[Edited on February 16, 2013 at 2:39 PM. Reason : ]

2/16/2013 2:39:10 PM

is an EDR really an issue in an appliance car that struggles to speed with any frequency?

2/16/2013 4:33:37 PM

I have a Forte Koup. It's not a bad car. It's certainly not the same car it was in 2009 when it was released, so magazine reviews from that time are misleading. I guess it all depends on what you expect from it. A sports car? Or a decent car? If you're able to get a deal on one, do go for the 2.4 L engine. It's what I have in my car (not available in the sedan), and I love it.

2/16/2013 5:03:41 PM

I'd just want one as a slow, cheap commuter.

...but I don't want one for a mediocre deal. I was only interested in an offer I couldn't refuse. I also don't appreciate car dealers playing fucking games like this one did, wasting my time.

[Edited on February 16, 2013 at 5:54 PM. Reason : ^^ really? The slowest of cars can still greatly exceed any dawdling speed limit.]

2/16/2013 5:43:16 PM

maybe it's the shit traffic here, but if you can't accelerate quickly, you aren't speeding

2/16/2013 8:06:41 PM

Quote :

"offers didn't combine"

that's how our company discount is with Ford. It's X% off the MSRP (not the dealer price, iirc) and cannot be combined with any other discounts. Mgmt says you're better off negotiating than using it

[Edited on February 16, 2013 at 8:37 PM. Reason : ]

2/16/2013 8:37:43 PM

Yeah, I'm not pissed about not being able to combine offers...I get that.

I just think it's fucked up to advertise $5,000 off (I think it was $6k on the ad, but whatever), only to mark up fucking your fucking Kias by $5k.

2/16/2013 9:13:03 PM

Wait, dealers are misleading and jack-up prices to make a profit? Next, your going to tell me that doc fees are required!

2/16/2013 9:30:35 PM

i heard a local ad once that said "drive a new car for half off msrp". went up there and it turned out to be a 24 month lease.

2/18/2013 7:37:42 AM

Sucks the deal didn't pan out. We have a Forte Koup as well, and I actually went with the smaller engine--I didn't feel the ~25 HP advantage of the 2.4 was worth the hit in gas mileage. So yeah, it's slow, but it gets 32-33 MPG highway all day long. And it's not scary slow, just compared-to-my-previous-cars slow. Ours is a 2012 so it has the 6-speed auto rather than the 5-speed of previous years. (Couldn't talk the lady into the manual as she drives it most days.)

Plus the 100K warranty is nice.

For $10K it would have been a definite no-brainer. For $18K, not so much. Not that it's a terrible price (assuming it's an EX or SX) but it's not a drop-everything-and-go-buy-one price. And a base of $23k is jacked way up for that car.

2/18/2013 11:45:18 PM

Quote :

"I just think it's fucked up to advertise $5,000 off (I think it was $6k on the ad, but whatever), only to mark up fucking your fucking Kias by $5k."

That just sounds like something that would be illegal. I wonder if the state attorney general is aware of this?

2/19/2013 6:40:48 PM

Quote :

"That just sounds like something that would be illegal"

Why should it be illegal? It's not false advertising if they are indeed taking off $5k from their list price. If they explicitly say MSRP or something, then that's one thing. If you don't like the price after their $5k off, then don't buy it. No one is forcing you to buy it.

2/19/2013 6:44:31 PM

Yeah, not illegal, but douchey. They had a salesman call me to follow up; I told them I already bought another car, and politely asked them to inform their sales manager that the dealership's tactics were misleading and anger-inducing.

2/19/2013 7:38:57 PM

Life is too short to drive a Kia.

2/19/2013 9:00:03 PM

If I had a hamster, I'd buy it a Kia.

Bitches love hamsters in Kias.

2/19/2013 9:20:04 PM

Quote :

"Why should it be illegal? It's not false advertising if they are indeed taking off $5k from their list price. If they explicitly say MSRP or something, then that's one thing. If you don't like the price after their $5k off, then don't buy it. No one is forcing you to buy it."

Quote :

"Why should it be illegal? It's not false advertising if they are indeed taking off $5k from their list price. If they explicitly say MSRP or something, then that's one thing. If you don't like the price after their $5k off, then don't buy it. No one is forcing you to buy it."

The FTC regulates this type of bullshit. I think this may be applicable:

Quote :

"FTC GUIDES AGAINST DECEPTIVE PRICING Sec 233.1 233.2 233.3 233.4 233.5 Former price comparisons. Retail price comparisons; comparable value comparisons. Advertising retail prices which have been established or suggested by manufacturers (or other nonretail distributors). Bargain offers based upon the purchase of other merchandise. Miscellaneous price comparisons. Authority: Secs. 5, 6, 38 Stat. 719, as amended, 721; 15 U.S.C. 45, 46. Source: 32 FR 15534, Nov. 8, 1967, unless otherwise noted. §233.1 Former price comparisons. (a) One of the most commonly used forms of bargain advertising is to offer a reduction from the advertiser's own former price for an article. If the former price is the actual, bona fide price at which the article was offered to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time, it provides a legitimate basis for the advertising of a price comparison. Where the former price is genuine, the bargain being advertised is a true one. If, on the other hand, the former price being advertised is not bona fide but fictitious -- for example, where an artificial, inflated price was established for the purpose of enabling the subsequent offer of a large reduction -- the ``bargain'' being advertised is a false one; the purchaser is not receiving the unusual value he expects. In such a case, the ``reduced'' price is, in reality, probably just the seller's regular price. (b) A former price is not necessarily fictitious merely because no sales at the advertised price were made. The advertiser should be especially careful, however, in such a case, that the price is one at which the product was openly and actively offered for sale, for a reasonably substantial period of time, in the recent, regular course of his business, honestly and in good faith -- and, of course, not for the purpose of establishing a fictitious higher price on which a deceptive comparison might be based. And the advertiser should scrupulously avoid any implication that a former price is a selling, not an asking price (for example, by use of such language as, ``Formerly sold at $XXX''), unless substantial sales at that price were actually made. (c) The following is an example of a price comparison based on a fictitious former price. John Doe is a retailer of Brand X fountain pens, which cost him $5 each. His usual markup is 50 percent over cost; that is, his regular retail price is $7.50. In order subsequently to offer an unusual ``bargain'', Doe begins offering Brand X at $10 per pen. He realizes that he will be able to sell no, or very few, pens at this inflated price. But he doesn't care, for he maintains that price for only a few days. Then he ``cuts'' the price to its usual level -- $7.50 -- and advertises: ``Terrific Bargain: X Pens, Were $10, Now Only $7.50!'' This is obviously a false claim. The advertised ``bargain'' is not genuine. (d) Other illustrations of fictitious price comparisons could be given. An advertiser might use a price at which he never offered the article at all; he might feature a price which was not used in the regular course of business, or which was not used in the recent past but at some remote period in the past, without making disclosure of that fact; he might use a price that was not openly offered to the public, or that was not maintained for a reasonable length of time, but was immediately reduced. (e) If the former price is set forth in the advertisement, whether accompanied or not by descriptive terminology such as ``Regularly,'' ``Usually,'' ``Formerly,'' etc., the advertiser should make certain that the former price is not a fictitious one. If the former price, or the amount or percentage of reduction, is not stated in the advertisement, as when the ad merely states, ``Sale,'' the advertiser must take care that the amount of reduction is not so insignificant as to be meaningless. It should be sufficiently large that the consumer, if he knew what it was, would believe that a genuine bargain or saving was being offered. An advertiser who claims that an item has been ``Reduced to $9.99,'' when the former price was $10, is misleading the consumer, who will understand the claim to mean that a much greater, and not merely nominal, reduction was being offered. [Guide I]"

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/guides/decptprc.htm

This dealer is a scumbag who wasted hours of your life. Report him and let the FTC decide if what he's doing is illegal. Who knows...You might end up with a $10k Kia after all and/or they might end up with an assload of fines and a radio commercial they're no longer allowed to air. Either way, it'd be sweet to be the guy who shut that shit down.

[Edited on February 20, 2013 at 9:49 AM. Reason : l]

2/20/2013 9:44:12 AM

Good catch. I'll send it in.

I'm pretty much the opposite of a legal-eagle, concerned with everyone following the letter of the law. I really can't stand it when people fuck other people with slimy behavior, though.

2/20/2013 8:38:59 PM

I don't agree with the FTC in the deceptive pricing... I understand what they are saying, however, I don't see anything wrong with what was done. As long as the advertisement is true: (ie: correct in the statement that it was $10 and now $7.50), then it is up to the consumers to judge whether the deal is indeed a bargain. I don't like government and policies holding people's hands through everything. It makes society apathetic. People stop thinking for themselves. More free market please.

Again, this is just my belief. I'm not saying FTC is wrong with their policy as I totally understand and appreciate what they are doing. I just don't concur with it.



[Edited on February 20, 2013 at 9:42 PM. Reason : .]

2/20/2013 9:41:46 PM

I think it's definitely wrong, regardless of the law. Whether or not it should be illegal is debatable. Even as one opposed to regulation, I can see both arguments.

Either way, fuck 'em. What they're doing is bullshit, and if the law exists (whether it should or not) to stop them, then I'd like to.

2/20/2013 11:22:01 PM