Latest news with #carDealers
Auto Blog
6 days ago
- Automotive
- Auto Blog
Why Dealers Don't Understand Buyers' Needs
By signing up I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy . You may unsubscribe from email communication at anytime. Bugatti has unveiled Brouillard, the first bespoke masterpiece from its new Solitaire division—an ultra-exclusive program that will build just two coachbuilt hypercars per year. The Kia K4 GT-Line Turbo is here to challenge what we think about the word 'cheap.' Honda, Toyota, and Hyundai should pay close attention to this one. Despite lip service, surveys show dealers still don't share the same concerns as their customers If you thought that car dealers didn't truly understand current consumer sentiment, that gap is only growing. That's the finding of an Urban Science/Harris Poll of 254 original equipment manufacturer (OEM) car dealers and 3,026 U.S. car customers who own or lease a vehicle, or intend to within 12 months. The poll was conducted mostly in January 2025, but includes a follow-up study to evaluate how attitudes have changed since new policies were put into place by the Trump Administration. Cars are seen at a Las Vegas car dealership on Sahara Avenue — Source: Sam Morris/Las Vegas Review-Journal/Tribune News Service via Getty Images A growing EV perception gap The study finds that automakers' commitment to producing electric vehicles (EVs) and the resulting promises of increased dealer revenue are causing their retailers to embrace EVs. The Urban Science/Harris Poll's finding of dealer optimism mirrors that of Cox Automotive's report that dealers remain optimistic about EVs, although that optimism stems from the continuing impact of the federal EV tax credit, which totals $7,500 federal tax credit for new EVs and $4,000 credit for used EVs. Such optimism will likely continue even after the ending of the federal tax credit for EVs on September 30, 2025. 2025 Lexus RZ 450e Premium — Source: Lexus This contrasts with car buyers, who remain increasingly wary of EVs. Just a small percentage claim that EVs meet their needs, according to the Urban Science/Harris Poll. This echoes an American Automobile Association survey in June 2025 that found only 16% of respondents saying they were 'very likely' or 'likely' to buy an EV as their next car, the lowest percentage since 2019 and down 2% from 2024. Consumers' increasing disinterest in EVs is reflected in June's sales results, as EV demand dropped 1.4% from May, and is down 3.5% year-over-year according to Cox Automotive. Similarly, used EV sales declined 7.5% month over month in June. Such declines are almost certain later this year when the federal tax credit ends, but that's only part of the perception gap between automotive retailers and their customers. Buying a car remains a nightmare Of course, consumers dread buying a car, mostly because of the dealer experience. It's hardly a secret, yet 61% of dealers strongly agree the model is optimized for the future. Car buyers aren't nearly as enthralled, with just 37% of auto buyers agreeing. That's up 13% from last year, according to the Urban Science/Harris Poll, but nine in 10 auto buyers would consider purchasing from a traditional dealership, compared to only 52% who would buy from an online retailer like CarMax or Carvana. Autoblog Newsletter Autoblog brings you car news; expert reviews and exciting pictures and video. Research and compare vehicles, too. Sign up or sign in with Google Facebook Microsoft Apple By signing up I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy . You may unsubscribe from email communication at anytime. CarMax Auto Dealership Nevertheless, 94% of dealers view Tesla or Rivian's direct-to-consumer sales model as a threat, and with good reason. Around 64% of consumers find direct sales appealing thanks to its transparent pricing, ability to customize their vehicle, and the avoidance of any price negotiation. If buyers have any hesitation, it stems from the inability to test drive and concerns over post-purchase servicing. Further alienating auto buyers from traditional dealers is the use of artificial intelligence (AI). 90% of dealers either already use or plan to implement it for sales tracking, post-sales service, inventory management, customer targeting, and website chatbots. Of the retailers who are using AI, slightly more than half say it has helped them achieve higher sales. However, consumers are becoming less enthralled, primarily due to AI's tendency to provide misinformation and its lack of transparency. It still comes down to price No matter how good or bad the buying experience, it all comes down to a vehicle's price. For most consumers, that remains a big concern, with 64% worrying about a vehicle's affordability. It's also a concern among 40% of dealers, yet 52% of car buyers are also worried about the cost of insurance, while 47% are concerned about maintenance costs. All three outrank the cost of gasoline, which worries 44% of buyers. Affordability only concerns four in ten dealers, with an equal number concerned about external cost factors. Even fewer (37%) are concerned about the cost of insurance. Given consumer reluctance to embrace EVs, it's little surprise that only 16% of buyers are concerned about the ongoing availability of government EV subsidies, a concern among 33% of dealers, who view it as an incentive to help move cars. Final thoughts While dealers might think they are providing the very best sales and service experience possible, and the best retailers in the business no doubt are, multiple studies prove that dealers aren't sensitive to the issues affecting their buyers. The negativity built up by dealers over decades in response to shady sales and service practices isn't so easily dissipated, and the push for direct-to-consumer sales is the result. New manufacturers wouldn't push for a new sales model if the old model worked so well, or wasn't abused by those who are a part of it. Consumer distrust of car dealers, which remains a part of the car-buying process, is something the industry has earned over the past century, and it could take just as long to change. About the Author Larry Printz View Profile
Motor 1
05-08-2025
- Automotive
- Motor 1
Florida Car Salesman Goes on Test Drive. Then He Gets $160 Ticket Because the Officer Doesn't Understand Magnets
Composite liftgates may be a design win for automakers, but for car dealers using magnetic tags during test drives, they're becoming a legal liability. A recent TikTok shows just how quickly the consequences can stack up when enforcement meets modern materials. Florida-based creator RobbTheCarGuy (@robbthecarguy) starts off the viral clip in a highly agitated state after receiving a $160 ticket for not displaying his magnetized dealer plate properly on a test drive. Robb details how a routine test drive turned into an unexpected confrontation with law enforcement. He says that while road-testing a Nissan Rogue, he was pulled over by a police officer who claimed the vehicle had no visible license plate. Robb tried to explain that the car was in the middle of dealer preparation and his magnet-mounted temporary tag was secured to the driver-side rear panel, which was the only surface with metal, since the vehicle's liftgate was entirely composite plastic. According to the TikToker's account, the officer was unmoved by the explanation and asked Robb why he didn't affix the magnetized plate to the windshield. The officer then tested whether the magnetic plate would stick to the glass, leaving Robb in shock. Then, frustrated that the tag did not adhere to the glass, the officer announced he was giving Robb a ticket. 'I get the ticket,' Robb says. 'Then, the guy tells me, 'Listen, you can't leave this parking lot until that tag is secured to the vehicle.' Bro, my shop is across the street. You could see it from here, and he waited till I unscrewed it, went inside, [and] bought some screws to screw it into the back.' Temporary Tag Placement Rules Laws around temporary or dealer-issued tags vary by state, but most have a few things in common: Clearly visible from the rear of the vehicle. Securely affixed in the standard license plate location —often defined as the space where a permanent plate would typically be mounted. Protected from obstruction or detachment , meaning resting loosely in the window, placed inside the vehicle, or affixed with insufficient strength, may be grounds for citation. In Florida, where Robb is based, the statutes are relatively straightforward. According to Florida Statute 320.131 , a temporary tag must be 'firmly attached to the rear of the vehicle in the location where a permanent license plate is normally affixed.' That language leaves little room for improvisation, which Robb learned the hard way. Other states use similar language. For instance, California requires temporary dealer plates to be 'securely attached to the rear of the vehicle in the place provided.' Most laws do not account for edge cases created by modern vehicle design. Many late-model vehicles, including SUVs and crossovers, now use composite liftgates or plastic rear panels, which do not support magnetized plates. But in the eyes of the law, material limitations are not considered valid exemptions. If a tag cannot be magnetically affixed to the designated area, drivers are still legally responsible for securing it with screws, adhesive mounts, or other compliant methods. Failure to comply can result in fines typically ranging from $100 to $200, and in some jurisdictions, officers have the discretion to bar further operation of the vehicle until the tag is mounted correctly. That includes demanding on-the-spot corrections, even if it means an impromptu trip to the hardware store. Why So Many Cars No Longer Have Metal Liftgates Automakers have increasingly shifted toward plastic or composite rear liftgates and panels to reduce weight and improve fuel economy. The 2014-present Nissan Rogue models, for example, often use composite materials on the rear hatch—a design choice that prevents magnetic tags from attaching. This trend isn't exclusive to Nissan. Industry reports show the trend toward the use of lightweight, non-metallic body materials has surged in recent years as original equipment manufacturers balance fuel efficiency regulations and production costs. These gains come with unintended consequences, like nowhere to put a magnetic tag on a test drive. If you're test-driving or selling a vehicle with a non-metallic liftgate, here are a few legal and practical ways to comply with display laws: Buy a suction-cup license plate holder designed for plastic bumpers and glass windows. Use adhesive-backed or Velcro tag mounts. There are also commercial adhesive tag brackets that stick to glass or smooth bumpers without screws. Invest in dealer-specific tag frames. Some dealers use clip-on mounts or frame kits designed for temporary use. The Auto Dealer Supply Store offers compliant kits for modern test-drive setups. Avoid dashboards or interior mounting, unless state-approved. Motor1 reached out to Robb via direct message. Now Trending 'I Only Go On Sundays:' Dealership Salesman Calls Out Customers for Saying 'I'm Just Looking' When He Approaches Them 'That's Definitely One Way to Do It:' Woman Says She Cried at the Mazda Dealership. Then They Gave Her the Price She Wanted Get the best news, reviews, columns, and more delivered straight to your inbox, daily. back Sign up For more information, read our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use . Share this Story Facebook X LinkedIn Flipboard Reddit WhatsApp E-Mail Got a tip for us? Email: tips@ Join the conversation ( )
BBC News
01-08-2025
- Automotive
- BBC News
Car finance payouts limited, but lenders aren't off the hook
There may well be a few sighs of relief from senior finance company and banking executives following the Supreme Court's ruling, but it is unlikely you will hear the champagne corks verdict does almost certainly reduce the potential compensation bill significantly. Lenders no longer face the prospect of having to pay £30bn to £40bn to aggrieved car buyers. The likelihood of the government stepping in also appears to have receded the industry is not off the hook. The Financial Conduct Authority may still open a redress scheme for cases where dealers had a financial incentive from lenders to ramp up interest rates on loans as much as possible. The Supreme Court's ruling also upheld one consumer claim, in which the commission payments were deemed unfair – and that could provide a template for others to follow. All of this means the compensation bill could still be in the Supreme Court's intervention has been eagerly awaited since October, when the Appeal Court issued a verdict in three test cases which could have triggered an avalanche of compensation each case, people who had bought cars on finance claimed they were partially unaware that the deal had involved a commission payment being made by the lender to the car dealer. They claimed that in law the commissions amounted to bribes, or secret Appeal Court judges agreed, essentially saying that commission payments made by a finance company to a dealer for arranging a car loan were illegal if the car buyer had not given his or her "informed consent".They also concluded that a car dealer had a "fiduciary duty" towards the car buyer when it came to arranging a car loan. In other words, the dealer should set his or her own interests aside, and act purely on the customer's meant that millions of car buyers could potentially claim compensation – if they could show that the dealer had not specified what commission payments they were receiving for lining up a finance deal. It was not enough for the details to be buried in small had feared that this would lead to an avalanche of claims against them – and that the same arguments could be used to challenge other kinds of consumer finance agreements as well, potentially increasing the compensation bill still the Supreme Court threw very cold water over those arguments. The President of the Court, Lord Reed, dismissed the idea that car dealers had a "single minded duty of loyalty" to their customers, and insisted they "plainly and properly" had personal interests in the finance agreements they were involved ruling clearly blocks off what could have been a very wide avenue for compensation claims. However, the court did side with one of the claimants. In the case of Marcus Johnson, a factory worker, it decided that the finance agreement was "unfair" under the terms of the Consumer Credit Act. This was because the size of the commission payment was very large, and because Mr Johnson had been misled about the relationship between the dealer and the lender. He was, they said, entitled to say this could open the doors for other cases in which the commission payments are seen to be is also a key question the Supreme Court ruling does not answer. This is what should happen in cases involving so-called Discretionary Commission Agreements (DCAs). These were finance deals in which the car dealer could set the interest rate of a loan, within a set scale. The higher the rate, the more commission they would be paid – and the customer would be unaware of the Financial Conduct Authority banned such deals in 2021. It is now considering whether to launch a redress scheme for consumers who were affected by them. If it goes ahead, millions of car buyers could still have a claim, though it is not clear how much compensation they would to Richard Barnwell, a financial services advisory partner at accountancy firm BDO, the bill could still be substantial."We believe there is still a potential for redress, for example, if discretionary commission arrangements are deemed to be an unfair relationship, redress could still be from to £5bn to £13bn or more," he analysts agree. According to Martin Lewis, who runs the MoneySavingExpert website, "the Supreme Court has certainly narrowed the number of people who will be able to reclaim car finance. I think you're probably talking the lower end of £10bn, as opposed to £40bn."That £10bn would still be a significant figure. But the finance industry appears to have avoided the potential free-for-all rush to claim compensation the earlier verdict had threatened to spark while the Treasury says it will "work with regulators and industry to understand the impact for both firms and consumers", the BBC understands that the likelihood of the government intervening with retrospective legislation to protect financial firms has now diminished law of bribery only applies to persons who owe a single-minded duty of loyalty and are therefore bound to have no personal interest in the matter that they are dealing the present case the car dealers plainly and properly have a personal interest in the dealings between the customers and the finance companies.
Yahoo
01-08-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
UK lenders await top court's decision over auto finance payments
LONDON (AP) — Millions of motorists in the United Kingdom could be entitled to sizeable compensation payments if the country's Supreme Court decides Friday that certain hire-purchase agreements were unlawful. The three judges are set to rule on the legality of apparently hidden commission payments made to car dealers made before 2021. The outcome could have major consequences for the financial services sector, which has been rocked over the past decade by a series of scandals, notably in relation to the improper selling of payment protection insurance, or PPI, on loans. The Financial Services Authority, the industry regulator, told the Supreme Court last year that almost 99% of the roughly 32 million auto finance agreements entered into since 2007 involved a commission payment to a broker. Some dealers received a bigger commission if they were able to secure a higher interest rate on the loan. These so-called discretionary commission arrangements were banned by regulators in 2021, prompting the subsequent challenge from three motorists. Banks, including Lloyds, have set aside big sums in the event they are liable for compensation. Friday's decision follows a ruling from the lower Court of Appeal in October that discretionary payments were unlawful. The lower court found the three motorists, who all bought their cars before 2021, had not been told either clearly enough or at all that the car dealers, acting as credit brokers, would receive a commission from the lenders for introducing business to them and should thereby receive compensation. Two lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, took the dispute to the Supreme Court, telling a three-day hearing in April that the decision was an 'egregious error." The FCA also told the U.K.'s highest court that the Court of Appeal ruling 'goes too far." If Supreme Court judges side with the claimants it could mean many people who took out car loans before 2021 may be due a payout. If the court sides with the lenders, the ruling is likely to significantly limit the scope of potential payouts to motorists. This is not the first time lenders have been accused of mis-selling products. British banks had to pay out tens of billions of pounds (dollars) in compensation over the past decade or so in relation to PPI, which was meant to cover loan payments by individuals or small firms in the event they were not able to make them as a result of illness, for example. The courts ruled that many people often didn't know about the insurance or didn't need it. Pan Pylas, The Associated Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
01-08-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
UK lenders await top court's decision over auto finance payments
LONDON (AP) — Millions of motorists in the United Kingdom could be entitled to sizeable compensation payments if the country's Supreme Court decides Friday that certain hire-purchase agreements were unlawful. The three judges are set to rule on the legality of apparently hidden commission payments made to car dealers made before 2021. The outcome could have major consequences for the financial services sector, which has been rocked over the past decade by a series of scandals, notably in relation to the improper selling of payment protection insurance, or PPI, on loans. The Financial Services Authority, the industry regulator, told the Supreme Court last year that almost 99% of the roughly 32 million auto finance agreements entered into since 2007 involved a commission payment to a broker. Some dealers received a bigger commission if they were able to secure a higher interest rate on the loan. These so-called discretionary commission arrangements were banned by regulators in 2021, prompting the subsequent challenge from three motorists. Banks, including Lloyds, have set aside big sums in the event they are liable for compensation. Friday's decision follows a ruling from the lower Court of Appeal in October that discretionary payments were unlawful. The lower court found the three motorists, who all bought their cars before 2021, had not been told either clearly enough or at all that the car dealers, acting as credit brokers, would receive a commission from the lenders for introducing business to them and should thereby receive compensation. Two lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, took the dispute to the Supreme Court, telling a three-day hearing in April that the decision was an 'egregious error." The FCA also told the U.K.'s highest court that the Court of Appeal ruling 'goes too far." If Supreme Court judges side with the claimants it could mean many people who took out car loans before 2021 may be due a payout. If the court sides with the lenders, the ruling is likely to significantly limit the scope of potential payouts to motorists. This is not the first time lenders have been accused of mis-selling products. British banks had to pay out tens of billions of pounds (dollars) in compensation over the past decade or so in relation to PPI, which was meant to cover loan payments by individuals or small firms in the event they were not able to make them as a result of illness, for example. The courts ruled that many people often didn't know about the insurance or didn't need it.
