Man, this just isn't right:

http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=103292

 

Apparently they are worth more. And I'd say it plays a role in the higher resale value of the Toyohondas.

A telling sign of the state of the industry: During the recent two-week-long US Open (tennis), both GM and Honda were major advertisers. GM was pushing employee pricing, trucks, and SUV's, emphasizing their quality. Honda's ads were promoting their certified used vehicles.

I don't recall EVER seeing a US manufacturer spending millions on promoting their used vehicles.

 

Absolutely, they are worth more.

So what do you do when you don't have enough?

Loosen your standards.

Putting lipstick on a pig.

 

All the manufacturers do it here (including Ford).
For a lot of reasons - better resale is one of them - but it also improves dealer-manufacturer relationships, dealerships sales make a substantial part (if not most) of thier money on selling used vehicles.

Same thing with special servicing and parts.
For example: Ford will do a special on brake pads for cars 6-10years old, and advertise it nationally.
Greater parts sales. Greater servicing. Brings people into the dealership. Improves customer relations.

 

When you pay extra for a certified used car, you are simply buying a used car bundled with an extended warranty. Since an extended warranty is simply insurance, I would prefer to have the opportunity to decline and save money.

 

Why isn't it right? They are allowing older vehicles and higher mileage vehicles. When you buy a used car you know both of these factors, and make your decision with them in mind. If they loosened the mechanical inspection requirements, that would be different.

 

GM and FORD both tried in Canada, I only know that from the TV commercials I saw a few years ago, don't know what happened since though...

 

It is correct, and many manufacturers use a program similiar to this. A "certified" used car is more than a late model vehicle bundled with a warranty- there are certain service checks the vehicle has to pass to be called "certified." Also, we have some lenders that extend more favorable terms on a "certified" used car as opposed to non-certified.

 

Haven't you been reading the articles about this? In fact, the "service check" standards are so loose and unenforced that virtually any car can fit. Many dealers are using the "certification" process to clense buybacks and heavily damaged/repaired cars.

California just passed a law to stop some of these abusive practices.

Any loosening of the certification "standards" is not good for the consumer.

 

[B]jschira[/B]-"Haven't you been reading the articles about this? In fact, the "service check" standards are so loose and unenforced that virtually any car can fit. Many dealers are using the "certification" process to clense buybacks and heavily damaged/repaired cars."

I can't speak for other manufacturers, but Chevy and Ford will pull the dealers certification priveledges for activities that you've listed.

"California just passed a law to stop some of these abusive practices."

As far as buybacks and damaged vehicles- disclosure laws have been on the books for over a decade relating to those vehicles, and they are actively enforced on the West Coast (Oregon and Washington are as pro-active as California). Buybacks and damaged vehicles automatically get kicked out the certified used deal- GM and Ford have pretty accurate databases, and screen those vehicles (and dealers) out of the system. I'm sure other manufactuers do the same.

edit: you're home state has consistently been home to some of the worst offenders- lax DMV enforcement, title database searches, etc.

 

Yes, if they check. And that has been the problem, lax enforcement.

All manufacturers' certification programs "prohibit" such vehicles. But enforcement has been based on the honor system.

"Certified" vehicles are supposed to be the cream of the crop. Any loosening of the standards by definition is bad for the consumer.

I think the most interesting point to the whole article is Toyota's motivation. Certified cars are selling like hotcakes and Toyo started running out, so they redefined the product. "Presto". No more shortage.

How does that help me?

 

jschira-Yes, if they check. And that has been the problem, lax enforcement.

All manufacturers' certification programs "prohibit" such vehicles. But enforcement has been based on the honor system.

No- the manufacturers check because who the heck do you think pays the bill when the warranty claim comes in? Honor system my foot- there's some real money on the table here, and the manufacturers aren't about to give it away.

"Certified" vehicles are supposed to be the cream of the crop. Any loosening of the standards by definition is bad for the consumer.

OK- are they or aren't they the cream of the crop? I guess where I'm taking issue here is I do believe they are, but from your posts you believe they aren't (damaged vehicles, buybacks, lax oversight, etc). Then you spin right around and say they are. So...are they, or aren't they? If they aren't, it wouldn't matter. But we both know they are- and I do believe your second comment is correct.

I think the most interesting point to the whole article is Toyota's motivation. Certified cars are selling like hotcakes and Toyo started running out, so they redefined the product. "Presto". No more shortage.

And you think Toyota does business in a fundamentally different fashion than GM or Ford? They're just better at it sometimes, my friend.

 

This may be the way it is in your neck of the woods, but it just ain't so everywhere. I could go back and post links to all the articles taking about the abuse of the certification programs, but I do not want to take the time, and you can do it as easily as me.

Why do you think that CA felt the need to adopt a new statute?

What part of supposed to be did you not understand?

 

The only new statute I can find in California is a proposal relating to financing caps and the ability to return a used car within 72 hours after purchase- nothing related to our discussion. If you have a link to something else, I'd be interested in seeing it.

What part of supposed to be did you not understand?

The part that related to the first part of your posts, which implied that certified cars were nothing but a scam to extract more money from the consumer, and then the second part, which asserted that the loosening of the standards would be bad for the consumer.

If it's just a scam, it wouldn't matter, right? But if it's not...it sure does. Which is it?

 

From Wards Auto - Dealer Business -

A quote from Ford: