These are not Ferarris. They really are not super premium luxury cars that have annual production of around 200 or less cars. These are inexpensive sport roadsters sold by GENERAL MOTORS. I do not recall seeing even a BMW, Mercedes-Benz or Jaguar badge anywhere on these vehicles.

GM isn’t doing so well right now and they sure could use as many sales as they can get.

If I have the means and I’m looking for a Ferarri or Lambo, I’m sure to expect some markup for exclusivity.

Markup on an inexpensive budget sportscar may make perfect sense and reason to marketers and dealerships but it doesn’t fly with me. Even if I have the $27,000 for a Sky Redline.

Unfortunately GM is in a position where they need to build up their brand rep. They can do this by having lots of the new hot and flashy cars on the road. That alone will bring in folks to a dealer to check out the car, and potentially purchase a GM product. Hell, I am an import fan, and I will at least test drive one this summer. I like the styling so much that it is in my mind a potential purchase.

GM’s move to try to foil price gouging makes sense to me, as if they take a 26,000 car and add 2-3k in dealer markup, you are now competing against a different class of car. It will be an easy decision for me to walk down the road and purchase an S2000 or 350Z for 30k versus a 30k GM product.

If this were a GM fansite, then yes.

But it isn’t. Nobody HAS to like General Motors.

Has any other brand taken such steps? Toyota (Prius)?
Ford (Thunderbird)? Even other GM makes Pontiac/Solstice, Chevy (Corvette)?

Can some of you ever give credit when a GM brand does something good?

The real news is, “Interestingly, the Sky Redline is rumored to cost just $3,000 over the base model [$23,690].” If I can go to a Saturn dealer and pay $26,690 + TTT for a Saturn SKY Redline, I think that’s pretty good news.

Stealership claimed no responsibility. One got traded for Freestyle Limited while the other is awaiting best deal on a new RAV 4 Sport.

My friends brothers roomates fathers bosses daughters uncles gardener had 1988 Hyundai Excel that was a POS, does that mean that the Azera is a POS?

and the VUE… did your friends with the problems have the Honda engine in it? What was it taken in for and what were the problems coming out? What was the dealerships response to the issues?

Tell that to my friends and family who have been burned multiple times by GM products. All have been replaced by either import product or a couple of FMC and Dodge products. BTW, two of the people burned had Saturn Vue SUV’s and they were running fine when they went in for routine service appts.

As far as Solstices holding value, they aren’t even through model year 1 so I would hope that the resale value hasn’t tanked that badly yet! Check back in a couple of years pal, when these things are 2 or 3 years old.

Has nothing to do with bias, just not as enamored with GM products like yourself.

Saturn has ALWAYS had HIGHER marks for dealer service departments than any of the import brands!

Falling apart when the warranty is up? ANY company has a lemon or two… but this is 2006, not 1986. Even a Hyundai will last you 100k without falling apart. It is impossible to purchase a “bad” vehicle now-a-days. Some vehicles may fit your needs more than others, but nothing is a “bad” vehicle.

It is obvious by your post that you do not care abot facts and figures. Tuck in your skirt, your bias is showing.

How about regaining the “trust” that the car won’t fall apart once the warrantee is up. How about regaining the “trust” that some yahoo at your local Saturn (Or other GM brand) dealership won’t F up your car while doing routine maintenance.

I do know that I can “trust” future resale values on these new Saturn products will tank miserably (Used car bargains!)At least GM products are consistantly reliable at that function.

Anti-trust does not enter into the equasion of GM instructing their dealer network not to gouge customers.

Price fixing would be GM consulting with all other brands to increase the price of their automobiles each year at double the rate of inflation. That way, the automakers make more money, yet the consumer doesn’t equate it as a gouge since all companies are increasing at the same rate.

Price fixing could also be GM discounting their vehicles to $5,000 so that everybody buys from them and no one else. Sell the cars at a massive loss for a period of time, but competitors would go out of business by not selling a single car. Once the competitors are out of business, raise the prices to higher than they should be because you now have no competition. (for an example, look at United Airlines and WestPac airlines at DIA)

Price fixing and Anti-trust have no relevance to this. This is a parent company instructing their dealer network not to bend their customers over a chair. The parent company is pouring A LOT of $$$ into the brand and do not want to hurt the revitalization by gaining a reputation for massive dealer markups.

Further, certain small-scale, high-end products, like Dana Design backpacks or B&W speakers do not allow their distributors to put their products on sale without a special excemption (Dana Design did until they were sold at least) to protect their retailers. Wouldn’t this also be an anti-trust violation?

It seems to me this may be a misaplication of the anti-trust concept?

If they conspired with the dealer network TO gouge the customers that STILL would not be a violation of anti-trust…

Where the hell does anti-trust come in to play?

oh, btw, the article even states that “ban” is Edmunds words, not GM’s…..