Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has proposed comprehensive rules changes regarding dealership advertising and how finance and insurance offices are handled. However, dealers, specifically the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), aren’t happy with these new ideas and have issued formal challenges to the regulatory scheme.
While the FTC is citing an uptick in consumer complaints regarding price as its core justification for wanting some new rules on the books, car buyers seem confused with financing options and why the advertised price of a vehicle never seems to be the number at the bottom of the contract they’re agreeing to pay. It also wants to streamline the car-buying process in an effort to save consumers upwards of three hours per transaction and remove any hidden fees that could be argued as predatory. But NADA says regulators are going too far and is arguing that the FTC is making decisions based on incorrect assumptions that could benefit certain groups unfairly. There are also concerns that a lot of the noise encouraging regulators to act so aggressively is based on surging auto prices.
That makes this one of those issues where it’s hard to decide which team to root for. Plenty of dealerships have acted in a predatory manner since vehicle demand improved. With supplies remaining limited thanks to an industry that now seems incapable of functioning properly, plenty of shops realized there was a window where customers would pay exorbitant fees for vehicles that would have retailed for thousands less just a few months earlier. But we also have to remember that it was the regulatory actions taken by governments across the world over the last two years that set the stage for the ensuing disaster.
NADA is presently seeking an extension for the window for public comment on the rule, which opened on July 13th and is poised to close this September. That gives the group (and you, if you have strong opinions about the issue) a fair bit of time to create a defense for the FTC’s proposals. But a fair amount of reading will be required to get to the bottom of what those changes actually entail because everything is cloaked in feel-good language that doesn’t make it immediately clear what’s at stake.
The FTC says it just wants to “protect consumers and honest dealers by making the car-buying process more clear and competitive.” But the actual changes would only impact businesses exempt from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) jurisdiction and aren’t limited to automotive shops. Stores selling RVs, boats, motorcycles, trailers, or anything else that could loosely qualify as a motorized vehicle will also be on the hook. Though the general premise remains enviable if we take it at face value. The FTC basically claims it wants to prohibit shops from including hidden fees and the true cost of ownership for a given vehicle by making the practice illegal.
Broken down, this means that the FTC wants to make dealers liable for any (1) misrepresentation in the purchasing, financing, or leasing of a vehicle; (2) failures to make any clear and conspicuous disclosures about the offering price, optional add-on products and services, and the total number of payments and the total amount the consumer will need to pay; (3) charging consumers for add-on products/features that provide no tangible benefits, optional add-on products without presenting specific disclosures, or any item without obtaining a consumer’s express, informed consent in advance.
But here’s where things start getting a little tricky. The FTC believes its changes will result in streamlined transactions where customers end the day feeling pleased with their purchase while NADA has argued that getting a buyer’s expressed consent ahead of the final signing is going to force everything to drag on. The group is also arguing that the proposals are sloppy, overly broad, and fail to take into account how the market actually works. Automotive News, which always seems to be fairly chummy with the National Automobile Dealers Association, recently conducted an interview offering its rebuttal to the situation and the general sentiment seems to be that the group believes the FTC is off its rocker here.
“The FTC absolutely needs to go back to the drawing board on this,” said NADA CEO Mike Stanton.
Paul Metrey, NADA senior vice president of regulatory affairs, likewise claimed that the agency’s justification for the updated rules wasn’t based on hard data. Many of the complaints the FTC cited were unverified and some of the studies used qualitative (not quantitative) results to make claims about how confused consumers were about automotive pricing in general. NADA is claiming that the number of valid complaints is likely less than half of a percent for all transactions — even if we assumed every single one was legitimate and not someone blowing off steam after making a bad decision.
From Automotive News:
And the FTC’s auto complaint category goes beyond dealerships, Metrey pointed out. It incorporates customer gripes with auto parts, service and rentals. Just auto finance and sales yielded 84,672 complaints last year.
The FTC cited three motor vehicle roundtables it held in 2011 following enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act to determine whether rules beyond the unfair and deceptive practices law were necessary, Metrey said. The agency wrote last month that at the roundtables, consumers “expressed confusion regarding aspects of the financing process and commented that they were surprised when they reached the dealership that the price advertised was not available to them.”
However, at the time, nothing came of the roundtables.
The agency didn’t even file an advance regulatory notice asking the public whether a rule was warranted. “That record generated nothing,” he said.
But now, Metrey said, the agency is cherry-picking from the old record to justify its new rules.
Another big problem for NADA was a study from 2017 that used qualitative data, rather than quantitative data that would have been accompanied by hard figures and some statistical analysis.
“The study found that many participating consumers were left in the dark about key terms,” read the FTC’s new proposal. “Consumers recalled dealers renegotiating vehicle prices at different stages of the transaction and being confused about the price of the vehicle. Despite the lengthy transaction, many study participants felt review of the final documents was rushed and were surprised to learn of additional add-on charges in their contracts.”
The 2017 research incorporated interviews with 38 borrowers who purchased new or used vehicles in Washington, D.C. and the FTC wrote that it represented “a small, non-representative sample of consumers” in the introduction. This meant it was “not useful for forming quantitative or generalizable conclusions.” But the agency still leveraged it as evidence that the laws surrounding dealer-customer interactions needed to be changed.
NADA’s remaining complaints seem to revolve around how rushed it feels the FTC’s latest actions have been. Metrey is trying to argue that regulators haven’t studied the effectiveness of its proposed solutions to a point where they should be making any big decisions. Dealers want to know exactly how the FTC’s proposals are going to save consumers time, ensure the market is regulated fairly, and avoid creating an abundance of red tape that will make it harder for shops to do their jobs. We’ve already seen smaller showrooms lose ground to the larger franchises that can afford to meet manufacturer demands. Some have even argued this is a step toward nullifying the dealer model entirely and handing over the space to manufacturers that have already signaled an interest in direct-to-consumer sales — even if your author feels that’s probably a bridge too far.
While I have very little sympathy for large dealer groups that have enjoyed record-breaking profits by leveraging economic strife and some less-than-savory tactics the FTC wants to make illegal, NADA does have a few valid points. Very little of what the government is proposing is accompanied by a comprehensive breakdown of exactly how these rule changes will be implemented. Though, assuming you still have faith in federal regulators, I suppose that’s what the public comment is for. Whether this is a well-intentioned initiative or short-sighted regulatory flex, the FTC is still supposed to be in service of the public good and should still provide hard data that supports its agenda. But the industry (not just dealer groups) likewise needs to get its act together because nobody in 2022 is going to believe it’s acting in the best interest of the average car-buyer.
[Image: Gretchen Gunda Enger/Shutterstock]
Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.
I’m fairly nonplussed by NADA’s defense which seems to boil down to:
-There aren’t enough complaints from consumers to take action. Although it isn’t like the FTC mails out surveys after every purchase.
-Having stronger disclosure requirements about the $800 pinstripes and the Superstar Triple Platinum Diamond Protection Package would be annoying.
If the car dealers are angry about the proposed changes, that shows that they’re not going nearly far enough. Anything that hurts the general day-to-day business of the average car dealership is fine in my book.
What if it ends up destroying the business?
In the flowchart, that event is covered by a box that reads, “Here a miracle occurs.”
“What if it ends up destroying the business?”
It is called “creative destruction”. New businesses with new business models will be created, like fully online sales directly from OEM.
Don’t you think the dealers eventually are destroying their own business with 10k or more markups above MSRP and charging exorbitant prices for things they add onto a vehicle that the buyer doesn’t want. If anything the recent conduct and business practices of many dealerships will drive more customers to demand direct sales and eliminate the franchise dealership model. Yes I know that state laws make franchise auto dealerships the only outlet for most car sales but if enough customers get mad they might demand their state legislators allow direct sales. Most of us are not that worried about the mega dealer franchises that have a near monopoly on dealerships. If I am going to pay full MSRP or above for a vehicle then I would rather order directly from the manufacturer especially if that dealer is going to tack on thousands of dollars of extras that I don’t want. As customers we do have a dog in this fight and many of us want to put the bite on dealerships.
Any dealership who cannot make a profit working honesty should have gone out of business a long time ago. That this is being considered only now is crazy enough. I’m quite disappointed my the NADA’s response, and it only strengthens my view that most dealerships are filled with swindlers and con artists.
There’s a good reason that people on average hate going to a car dealership more than going to a dentist,
Agree if you are an honest dealership and treat customers honestly and with respect there should be no problem with FTC’s requirements. Most of us know about the Monroney sticker and I don’t hear anyone complaining about the requirement to have it on all new cars. If many of the dealers didn’t pull the shenanigans then there would be no need for any oversight but they do. My last dealership was surprisingly good but it was the exception and not the rule and it was a smaller family runner dealership run by the same family for over 80 years and yes I had to pay MSRP but no add ons and no more than MSRP just a straight forward transaction. That dealership was the exception with many dealerships being an outright fight and not ever going back.
“and it only strengthens my view that most dealerships are filled with swindlers and con artists.”
The bullsh!t I experienced trying to find a new diesel ZR2 was amazing. Dealer markups, idiotic dealer add-ons, trying to charge extra for the factory rock sliders, and listing sold vehicles on web sites. Some dealers didn’t bother to return my calls or emails.
My son’s friend is a sales manager at a local dealer and they could not get me a vehicle through their affiliate so he called in a favour at the local Chevy dealership. The sales manager didn’t bother to call me. A month later he unleashed a lot-lizard on me even though he had agreed to deal with me directly. They got me in the dealership just to tell me they couldn’t get me what I wanted.
The dealer I bought my truck at tried some BS. Oh, undercoat is standard and you need to get the “nitrogen” package. I had to tell them NO on 3 separate occasions. I had to wait a couple of hours to sign off on the contract because they added disability/life insurance to my loan but I refused it. They had to reapply for a new loan.
I’m not going to pretend that dealerships aren’t often gross. But there’s been a pretty clear modern trend showing that heavy regulation often advantages the biggest business entities.
My fear is that the FTC doesn’t have a good plan in place and will ultimately make life harder for the littlest dealerships, allowing for more consolidation, or simply make it so the U.S. defaults to direct sales and automakers simply take over the space previously occupied by dealerships. That means fewer jobs for regular people and a tightly controlled used vehicle market.
I have never seen a dealer try to hide anything. Oh sure, there will be a thousand dollar pinstripe and some gold kit along with fabric protectant and what not, but it is always listed on the contract. If they don’t take it off you go elsewhere but they are pretty meticoulous in documenting every add on. If you can read, this isn’t typically an issue. If you are a moron you get taken.
“The stupid you have with you always”
-Jesus (or something like that)
Yes, but you have to allow a couple hours to read it all, and another couple hours to haggle over the stuff you want taken out. Then the salesman will call in the finance manager and you’ll have to haggle with him too. You can get what you want from a dealership, at what you want to pay, more or less, but it’s an all-day event, so pack a lunch.
Takes all of 2 minutes since all charges are on a single piece of paper.
Yep. Not really something I need the government to intervene on my behalf over. I guess some folks need their hand held to take a dump though. Same folks that can’t read a student loan contract I suppose.
@Art Vandelay – you are correct that dealers list the add-ons on the contract. The problem lies in the fact that they go out of their way to leave the impression that it is SOP and isn’t something one can refuse. In the current sales climate leaving the dealer and shopping elsewhere isn’t much of an option since vehicles can be in short supply or every other dealer plays the same game.
I was able to say NO to their add-ons because it had not arrived at the dealership. I’d have been screwed if my truck had add-ons since it’s next to impossible to find another comparable vehicle.
Dealers *always* rebuff curtailment of their business-as-usual, which often include the shenanigans cited above.
And they’re solidly opposed to the direct sales model.
Not surprisingly, direct sales customers have a much happier experience.
Today’s triumvirate of mfr, dealer, and bank provides plausible deniability to all parties. Each is able to say they “must” charge you fees for this and that, or that they other guy “must” charge you for them. It’s total BS.
While I applaud the FTC’s proposal, they ought to collect more quantitative evidence to make their case. But seriously, how often does the Federal Trade Commission come to the mind of an unhappy auto consumer?
“consent”?
OK, here’s how I read it:
the dealers want to continue doing what they do, which is bang you over the head, drag you into the cave (finance office) by your hair, and rape you with no consequences.
The FTC wants to go the route of “consent” for every step along the way.
The Saturday before last, I bought an ’06 Camry XLE V6 (sales price $7488) for Daughter No. 3 from a local Toyota dealer. I was paying cash, so I didn’t want any add-ons. The salesman first came back with a price that was $1200+ above the cash+TTL, adding on LoJack (he said, “We install LoJack on all our cars”) and some kind of protection plan.
I said I didn’t want any extra charges or protection plans on a 16-year-old cash car, so he walked back to the finance guy, then came back with a different number – he took off the protection plan, but left the $595 charge for the LoJack. I told I’m not paying for LoJack, they can uninstall it, and I’m ready to walk out, and go look at some other dealers. Each time I said I don’t want any add-ons, I had to sign the sheet of paper saying so.
He went off again, and this time came back with the agreed $7488+TTL, or $8250.46 out the door. When I got to the F&I guy’s office, he knocked off the 46 cents, making it $8250 even.
I ended up getting a year of LoJack for free (it’s kinda cool, really), and I’ll decide at the end of a year whether I want to keep paying for the service (or my daughter can, if she wants to).
My wife is normally the hard-nosed negotiator, but she wasn’t with me at the dealer, so I had to pick up the slack.
The car is pretty nice. It has a lot of miles (169k), but is loaded, it runs and drives well, the leather is perfect, and the Carfax showed it has always been serviced by Toyota dealers. It also has a Studebaker Drivers Club sticker and a Kimi Raikkonen Fan Club sticker in the back window, so the previous owner was a gearhead.
You still got taken paying $8250 for a 16 year old Camry with 169k miles.
It’s where the market is now. Three years ago, the same car would’ve been $5,000. It only needs to run for another three or four years, and with a Camry, I don’t worry about that. The transaxle was replaced at a Toyota dealer at 100k, so it’s only got 69k on it. The 3MZ-FE is bulletproof, so long as you replace timing belts per the schedule. The car is in great condition, always maintained by Toyota dealers. I didn’t get taken.
The week before, I looked at a 2010 Corolla LE at a used car dealer. It had 188k, and they were asking $7988. It had a partial respray that didn’t look great, and spray-on bedliner material on the top of the rear bumper cover (and on the top of the center of the dash, for some reason – maybe to grip a phone?). Also some kind of clear spray paint on the dash, center console, etc. – WTH? It could’ve been a decent car, except for the questionable choices made by the previous owner. The Camry was a much better deal.
I’ve had good luck buying cash cars for my kids, at least as long as they didn’t wreck them. Then there was the Kia Forte that got rear-ended when I was driving it home from buying it. When the insurance company paid it off, I got $1500 more than I paid for it.
A chunk of that price is the “Toyonda Tax”, even before our current market Toyotas were generally overpriced imo.
Anyone wanting to pay $10k for a used 22 year old Toyota Corolla should hit me up.
Prices are nuts. In February, we bought my wife a 2017 Honda Pilot EX-L AWD with 70K on the clock. $28,500, and as far as I can tell, about $4K more than the same car a year earlier.
This just further hardens my resolve to never again buy a new vehicle from a dealer: something that I’ve done but once. That experience, added to the ultimately useless amount of money spent on a never-used warranty, had the sole effect of my returning my custom to the used vehicle market. It’s staying there, too.
When we bought our car from the dealer recently, both the Tahoe RST and my daughter’s Tacoma, I got nothing but respect.
Sure for the Tacoma they wanted $2,500 market adjustment and some Toyo protection thing. But in neither dealership did I get any pressure from them about long term warranties or any add ons.
Dealers are making so much money they don’t need that stuff. Government under Branden wants to destroy every business in America. They should stay out of the business of business.
Put me in the camp that doesn’t need the government to protect me from my own personal choices. I’ve walked away from deals before and would do it again.
I’m inclined to agree. I don’t really like NADA. But poor regulation often advantages bigger businesses and we’ve already seen smaller, independent shops drying up as the big franchises take over the market. The next step is direct-sales where the manufacturer calls all the shots.
Though I would still like to see predatory dealerships taken to task when they show a pattern of screwing people over — whether by an informed public that’s had enough or the laws that are already on the books.
“Broken down, this means that the FTC wants to make dealers liable for any (1) misrepresentation in the purchasing, financing, or leasing of a vehicle; (2) failures to make any clear and conspicuous disclosures about the offering price, optional add-on products and services, and the total number of payments and the total amount the consumer will need to pay; (3) charging consumers for add-on products/features that provide no tangible benefits, optional add-on products without presenting specific disclosures, or any item without obtaining a consumer’s express, informed consent in advance.”
Well I for one am outraged. What would the automotive industry be without misrepresentation?? (Won’t someone think of the kittens.)
More seriously, President Elizabeth Warren is going to fix this once and for all.
They’re all criminals, screw them. And much bigger crimes happen in the service dept and useds car sales.
Say no to all add-ons. I definitely don’t want the hacks/techs taking things apart, splicing wires, etc. Some things they won’t/can’t remove or undo, so free.
Just say no to dealers all together. The last new trucks I’ve bought were commercial so my hands were tied, but I avoid those criminals as much as possible after the fact. Minor warranty claims I fix myself or by an independent. Major repairs are very rare anyway.
I tell them where they can stick their free oil changes. I don’t want the criminals touching it.
I have had some of those dealer add-ons like remote start that didn’t work and as for the oil changes they put their youngest and most inexperienced technician on them and many of them aren’t paid enough to care. Not going to say all dealers are bad but there are enough bad ones out there to spoil it for everyone.
A dealer isn’t a thing. You’re dealing with individuals only looking out for themselves, and that’s the best case. They’re not your friends. The FTC could cripple the dealer sh!t show by requiring background checks.
A good starting point would be to insist that any dealer advertised price include all “mandatory options” and market adjustments so a consumer knows what he is facing before meeting the jackals on the sales floor. I don’t know how anyone could object to this.
Oh no, not “cheesed”. That’s some great writing right there folks.
I’m with Matt on this one. It’s hard to choose a side on this.
As much as I despise dealing with a car salesperson, I despise an uninformed government regulator more. Many times when the government gets involved to help with a problem they make it worse or create a whole new bunch of headaches, especially this administration.
I agree with Denver Mike that background checks would help the situation. Also, the bullshit between the salesman and finance people should be eliminated.
I think the bigger problem is the uninformed consumer not knowing terms or basic math. In HS we used to have a class called Consumer Math – it covered all this kind stuff.
Don’t see any need for another rule, if the finance person wants to sell you something you do not want, just leave the dealership and go to another one. There are just a handful of bad dealers, why punish the. Many for the activities of a few?
The problem is there is no transparency in the process. You can’t compare apples-to-apples between dealers and the final number only comes out once your on step 9 of 10. By this point dealers know the majority of customers will not walk because they have invested in 3 hours of senseless and confusing paperwork.
If all they were doing was trying to sell stupid add-ons (like worthless paint protection) that would be easy to cross off the sales sheet – its the other “fees” they sneak in and claim are required but are not disclosed until the very last minute when your stuffed in that tiny room up against someone who job is getting another $300 out of you.
“There are just a handful of bad dealers, why punish the. Many for the activities of a few?”
Ruggles, is that you?
There are just a few that are NOT bad dealers. I corresponded with every dealership in my province and 1/2 the dealerships in Alberta. I had 2 or 3 that did not play games.
How would you know? Just because you weren’t treated bad or cheated, what about everyone else, some not as buyer aware? And do you just not realize you were cheated? Or don’t want to know?
Did you visit the service dept? With a non warranty repair? Or warranty denied? Are you expert enough to spot the ripoff? What about your grandma?
@Denver – “How would you know?” It’s rather obvious if one spends time researching. My son’s friend is a sales manager. We had a chat about what sort of sh!t to watch.
No, just anyone that defends dealers, and based on what? There are no good or bad dealers, but all them screw consumers. Again they employ individuals, paid on commission, obviously dealing with consumers in way over their head most of the time, confused, emotional, intimidated, etc, etc.
Buying a vehicle is worse then buying a house. With a house I make an offer and its accepted or not. Sure there are plenty of banking fees but all can be determined BEFORE purchase, including insurance. Buying a car? Yeah right… the agreed purchase price is NEVER the out-the-door price. And if you try to get the OTD price you will be given the run-around as much as possible. Even then a “mistake” is always made and the price magically goes up.
The entire system is designed to A) have you fall in love with the vehicle and sign on the dotted line, then B) add tons of fees and create confusion so you get frustrated and just cave in, giving the dealer hundreds of more dollars just so you can go home and continue your life. This system works and dealers know it, they don’t want anyone disrupting it. No other purchase you make is this confusing aside from vacations (resorts, cruises, airlines, hotels) that tack on various “fees” that are constantly hidden in fine print. I can easily buy a TV, stove, refrigerator or other expensive item and know the OTD price to the penny before even setting foot in the store.
I had a dealer recently claim there was $800 in “government fees” yet could not explain ANY of them to me. Nothing even remotely that high could be found on my states DMV website regarding tags, titles, etc. The most I could come up with was around $300 total. The dealer’s numbers were pure BS but all of my challenges were denied. Because in FL there is a law that allows the dealer put a disclaimer in that “fees” can include dealer profit. With that one line they can charge whatever they want and hide it behind any terms that sounds mandatory, aka dealer prep, doc fee, waste fee, inspection, disposal, etc, etc. Some of these are legit but dealers mark them up and consumers have no idea they are being ripped off.
I’m not sure dealers know how to do the math working backwards from an OTD price. Multiplying and adding are easier than dividing and subtracting.
It appears to me that the FTC is attempting (maybe – remember this is a US Government bureaucracy) to “help” the consumer (once again, US Government bureaucracy) with a noble effort that is a knee-jerk to the current vehicle market. I see some merit to this – 1). Truth in advertising, something that has been lacking from most dealer advertising in the many states where I have lived over the last 50+ years. Undisclosed information affecting prices publicly published in print or electronically fails the truth in advertising test. I see this as important to police. And 2). As for misrepresentations made during the final negotiations back in F&I at signing the bottom line, this should always be a “buyer beware” as it involves a purchaser handing over his money for a product. If someone is so unaware of how to negotiate when putting his current and future finances on the line for a product, perhaps he/she should have someone with them to help. No government involvement needed. You got screwed at the signing away of your money? Shame on you. Dealers are a business, big business (hookers and blow ain’t cheap, ya know). Dealers have been allowed since time immemorial to lie in advertising without serious pushback (which violates “truth in advertising” and is illegal already in most locations) as well as pulling stunts in the F&I (the old “five-finger close” that covers the contract detail line items at signing comes to mind) are both part and parcel of the current dealer system. The bigger question might be, “Will anything really change with a new FTC regulation or two?”. Nope. As with most things, attorneys will write the new regulations and dealership attorneys will find creative ways around them. My $0.02 on this.
Having recently negotiated a new vehicle purchase for a family member, I can confirm that most dealerships have significantly reduced their sales and marketing staff. There are few if any demos. Inventory is barely existent. Some inventory is not for sale. For example the Corolla Cross that one dealer had. They refuse to sell it as it attracts customers who then put a deposit on a vehicle to be delivered in 4 to 6 months.
However as some managers told me in confidence, as they are selling fewer vehicles they can make a greater profit per vehicle.
For some dealers this is a better business model than keeping large inventories, having to negotiate prices, and not being able to ‘insist’ on add-ons.
So here in Southern CA- there is the advertised price- then the actual price which includes all the add on stuff… this seems to range between an extra 2k and 4K – ceramic coating, door edge guards exc- so was recently car shopping- and the only thing I will say- is it sucks having them advertise the car price without the extra add on crap – If NADA is going to fix that so the advertised price is the price with all the extra crap added on Im all for it
Funny how even when calling, the sales person wouldnt be honest and would forget to mention all the add on crap over the phone
So here in Southern CA- there is the advertised price- then the actual price which includes all the add on stuff… this seems to range between an extra 2k and 4K – ceramic coating, door edge guards exc- so was recently car shopping- and the only thing I will say- is it sucks having them advertise the car price without the extra add on crap – If NADA is going to fix that so the advertised price is the price with all the extra crap added on Im all for it
Funny how even when calling, the sales person wouldnt be honest and would forget to mention all the add on crap over the phone
Now is a horrible time to buy a car. However, lthree days ago I bought a 2016 Dodge Durango in a totally hassle free environment because I bought it at a Carmax dealership. I had already selected the vehicle via their website. We walked in, were assigned a sales associate and told him what vehicle we came to see. He went and got the car, we drove it and then came back to complete the paperwork. The prices there are non-negotiable so there was no haggling involved. At the tail end of the session he pulled out a brochure about their extended warranties, we very politely said no and he put the brochure away. There is no F&I office. A young lady came out from their business office to have us sign the title paperwork, and that was it. We got in the car and drove home. The whole experience was painless, and pretty much like going into a department store to buy a pair of shoes. The amusing thing was this Carmax store was right next to a large Chevy dealer. His lot was very nearly empty, on the other hand, the Carmax lot was filled to overflowing wth late model used cars. And yes, the posted price was reasonable and correct. I have used Carmax twice now (years ago to purchase a new minivan) and the experience then was just as pleasant.
I’m too poor (or is it too rich — I get confused) to spend much time at new car dealerships. And for this reason I never get any good coffee (the best coffee on the planet is the free coffee at the new car dealer, is the legend I’ve been sold). I recently acquired some unroasted green coffee beans and my roaster should show up soon. What are the chances that I can approach the quality of the Lexus barista?
[The coffee roaster is electric not gasoline-powered, sorry Matt]