Coming Soon to GM Showrooms: A Camry

Don’t be surprised to see a Toyota Camry or Honda Accord at your local Chevrolet or Saturn dealership this summer. According to reports from CNN and Automotive News, dealers could soon be carting in Camrys and Accords to display next to the Saturn Aura and redesigned 2008 Chevrolet Malibu. The hope is that once shoppers see both cars up close, they’ll set their sights on the GM.

The Malibu doesn’t arrive until fall, but GM says you’ll be able to test drive both the Aura and Camry at Saturn dealerships starting next month, according to CNN. Given that salespeople will probably have a thing or two to say while you’re browsing, it doesn’t seem likely that the Camry or Accord would get a fair shake this deep in enemy territory.

All shilling aside, GM does have one thing in its favor: pricing. Malibu prices have yet to be announced, but the Aura tops out around $28,500. Spy the window sticker on a fully loaded Camry (yes, it starts with a “3”) and it might just be enough to sit you down in the Aura — no persuasion needed.

To Sell a Malibu, get a Camry (Automotive News) — Must register to view article
GM dealers offer Toyota test drives (CNN.com)

Comments

I think there should be a law prohibiting these types of sales practices.

The reason is that there is no way to control the spin that competing dealers could put on another brand's cars. As the article alludes to, dealers could easily give false information about other cars that they do not sell. Besides just flat out lying or withholding information about competitors' products, I wouldn't even trust dealers to know all the features on their own cars, much less all the features on cars they don't sell. Having competitors' cars on a dealer's lot for the purpose of side-by-side comparison just seems too conducive to the sharing of false information.

Secondly, I'd be willing to wager my first born child that dealers will not be maintaining competitors' cars like their own cars on their lot. Would you change the oil on a car every 3,000 miles (hey, while we're at it let's use synthetic!) that you were trying to outsell? Would you detail it and keep it parked under a roof, or would you put birdseed on the hood and leave it out in the sun/rain/snow every day? Or worse, would you take the liberty of modifying the car's internals to degrade its performance? The great reputation upheld by the stereotypical car dealership suggests that conscience would not direct their words or their hands.

Third, GM needs to stop trying to bring down competing brands and just get better at building cars. Relying on below-the-belt sales tactics isn't the right way to get market share back. Japanese brands proved that they could break into a domestic-dominated market when they first came to the US with zero market share and no automotive legacy. From those humble beginnings, they put in work and look at where they are now--beating domestic brands at their own game on their home turf.

To me as a potential car buyer, when a car company slanders another brand in their advertising (or in this case, on their own dealer's lot), it comes across as an admission of inferiority. It shows they are admitting that another car is more popular or more highly regarded than their car, and they are putting their energy towards ripping it apart instead of focusing on improving their own products.

GM, make better cars. Work harder. The old-fashioned way works. Toyota proved that. If you get discouraged, take a hint from Nike:

Just Do It.

Peace,

Jake, 21
Honolulu, Hawaii

Jake, you are my HERO!

And I gotta agree with you because I watch all these phony ads all the time on the TV, just trashing the competitors to lure customers who have not done their homework.
Saying one of the available configuration of the vehicle beats the competitor in power, than says the same model with different configuration beats the same competitor in MPG, but you won't find out unless you read ALL those fine prints in just 2 second when they are on the screen!

Mike, you are kind of right. I see the potential for nefariousness, although we should perhaps hold off on calling it slanderous until it actually happens, if it indeed does. Yes, the General does need to build good cars, and in my opinion they now do - as far as liking how they look is purely up to the individual however. Toyota and Honda have built up their businesses quite admirably, but I think that GM has finally smelled the coffee so to speak. They still have a way to go, but I feel they are the only domestic manufacturer that is actually trying to do their best. Although there are still a few items with the current line-up of GM that the bean counters need to keep their hands off of.

@Jake: good points!

Although Camry MSRP's are high, a buyer with a clue knows that there are big discounts to be found and many are selling at or below invoice. That means the $31k Camry (V6 XLE/SE or Hybrid, with in-dash navigation that Aura doesn't currently offer) has $3500 off sticker.

to be fair, any mistake done by GM is known and goes on the frontpage and some car reviews complain about that the malibu isn't as this or that as the accord etc.

maybe people will think they are wrong or see that the gap isn't much and would consider buying saturn. or they will see that paying more for a slightly better leather isn't worth it.

I think it is a good idea. Let the consumer decide.
But we shouldn't forget that Saturn is the only car where the price the customer is going to pay is known. Any other dealer can play with the numbers to make misinformed people to pay a lot of money for the car.

Pretty sure they will have the strip down base models of the Camry and Accord...next to the top of the line Malibu and Aura, doubt it will be fair game.

It's a free country; I say it's a great idea. That’s putting faith in there products. Toyota can’t handle that :)

"Toyota can't handle that..."

Matt, man, u got this all wrong. If anyone who can't handle "that," it's GM, NOT Toyota. As far as putting faith in "there" product; look dude, there's sthg called "propaganda" - and you can do WHATEVER YOU WANT with it. It's more fair to leave the comparison to car magazines and 3rd parties (even though most domestics supporters think that there's an anti-domestics bias on all these mags). But seriously though, when you need to use someone else's product (in this case) for comparison and say that I'm better, that's just lame. I have NEVER heard of the smart people, such as Einstein or Hawkings, saying "I'm the smartert than the other guy," or the richest people, like Gates or the Royal families of Kuwait/England, saying "I'm richer than the rest of you."

Only an under-achiever will rely on this sort of tactics.

BTW, well-said, Jake.

amuro, then by your logic toyota isn't smart.

Hi everybody, great topic to have an opinion on. I have recently moved to the United States from Europe and have been looking to buy two new cars. My experience has been a disaster purely down to the way the american dealerships do business. Jake makes his point admirably and I agree with him 100%. The Japanese have it sussed they know to make cars. There is no point knocking your competitors achievements to further your own success, the savvy car buyer will see this for what it is. In other words acknowlege what the opposition has achieved and try to better it not knock it. A stunt like this from GM would send me over to the competitors lot to do the comparison myself. Keep it straight and keep it fair happy motoring y'all.

Juan,

Did I say Toyota's smart?

And I meant to say in my original post "I'm smarter than the other guy," not "I'm the smartert than then other guy."

Typing while my brain was asleep already.

I don't think the plan is to "knock toyotas" as you all seem to think.
The article says that they are going to have a toyota there to look at in comparison. I don't think anyone shopping for a car on their own at a new car dealership is going to believe that toyotas arent reliable, or well engineered, or whatever. But what do toyotas lack? Looks. The Camry is pure vanilla, its the uneducated car buyers dream. If you want something carefree that gets you from A to B, you buy Toyota. Is a Saturn Aura a better car? In many aspects no. Does it look better than a Camry? In many ways, yes.
Both cars are available to see, both cars are available to drive. Give the consumer some credit and let them make the choice, rather than claim that this should be not allowed. Toyota and Honda slam all other carmakers because they are ahead in the MPG race, can't other carmakers slam them because their cars are ugly?

"Only an under-achiever will rely on this sort of tactics."

Are you kidding me? Have you seen those commercials for the Toyota Tundra? They compare everything from brake rotors to trailer hitches. I would guess that the majority of car commercials have some kind of comparison in them, just as many other products do. Stephen Hawking isn't trying to compete with other astrophysicists to sell himself. Salespeople MUST compare their products with the competition because that's what their costumers are doing.

Anyway, I agree it won't be a fair competition, but I sort of think GM is answering a question no one asked. People buy Camrys for the perceived superior reliability, not because they're more aesthetically pleasing or finely appointed than the competition.

Doug G,

Are you kiddin me? American cars are one of the ugliest cars out there. Theres one good reason why i hate domestics. And i dont know what your smoking but the new camry is viewed as beautifully designed, especially the camry SE.

There's a pretty good reason why most European countries have laws against directly mentioning competitors in print and TV ads: it invites exactly the kinds of misleading distortions that J and others mention above.

And it certainly won't improve things if you are trying to get accurate model information and pricing from someone working for the "other side" so that your attempt at comparing might actually make sense.

sign of desperation: deception...its sad that GM has to go this low. they dont get it...the camry and accord are all about loyalty, jus like the F150 & silverado are.

Sanchez:

You said "...we shouldn't forget that Saturn is the only car where the price the customer is going to pay is known."

Wrong. Scion (a division of Toyota no less) has "pure pricing" as well. Although individual Scion dealers might choose to abandon this philosophy, many dealerships, including the one here on Oahu, adhere to it.

Doug:

If you read the CNN article linked above, it says:

"...General Motors is asking Saturn dealers to have one or more of the competing models in the showroom so customers can look at it, sit in it and drive it."

This sounds like the cars are there for more than just visual comparison, so I think it would end up being about knocking Toyotas.

Why does the "which car looks better" argument always come up when it's such a subjective evaluation? You can argue all day about whether one car looks better than another. But, since you brought it up, I'll take a crack at it. I don't know about you, but when I hear "Saturn" my blood really gets pumping! When I pick up my hot date, I want to roll up in a Saturn! These are the guys that took 5 years to figure out that their straight-across horizonal headlights of the 90s made the cars look like neglected, under-educated, buck-toothed kids. Honestly, I'd rather take the bus than be caught driving a Saturn, but maybe that's just because I'm 21.

We're comparing a Saturn Aura to the new Camry? Well, the Aura's bug-eye headlights and boring taillights (that seem to be on every GM these days) don't impress me. And what's up with that strange metallic panel above the rear bumper? It's worse than Infiniti's new G35 Sedan trunk dressing. I agree with audi^, the new Camry is a pretty car. Even as a 21 year-old, I wouldn't mind being seen driving that one.

Criticizing the Camry for looking like vanilla is pretty common, but it's a poor argument because the Camry is a high volume seller. It needs to appeal to a broad audience in order to be the best-selling car, so it doesn't take many risks in the looks department. Toyota positions it that way. It has other niche vehicles, such as the FJ Cruiser, that are meant to appeal to a smaller slice of the market.

Lil Tom:

I'm all for comparison. Compare all you want. I'm saying that having a competitor's car on your lot is crossing the line of fair competition. Truck advertising is another beast in itself. Companies are always touting higher towing capacity, higher torque, higher horsepower, higher everything. Basically, bigger is better. They are going after the male ego most of the time, and for some stupid reason that's what gets a response. So in that case, I think it reflects more on the type of buyer that buys big boy trucks. Kinda sad, huh?

-----

Why would GM need to have a Camry on their dealer lots, anyway? A shopper probably saw 20 of them on the way there! They know what it looks like. How many Auras did they see? Probably zero. If anything, Toyota dealers should put Saturns on their lots so people will actually know what they look like. If a Toyota salesperson mentioned how the Camry is better than an Aura, the customer would probably say:

"An Aura...what's that?"

Jake

I really dont think that America needs to take any cues from european countries when it comes to commercialism and market freedom... Socialism is not good for economy. Like I said...shouldn't we give the consumer a little bit of credit?

Heres some great looking American Cars:
Solstice
Sky
Corvette
Mustang
Fusion

I'm not an american made fanboy, if I had a choice I'd take an Rx-8 or a G35/37.

But seriously why does it piss everyone off so much that Saturn wants to put a Camry next to an Aura? If the camry is hands down better looking, has better reliability, and drives better in a test drive, then why does anyone care that GM is doing this?

I used to love the camry, always wanted to own one. Then I started learning about cars, reading online, reading magazines. Sure, Camry is a great car. I'd never buy one now though, it's just a car, not a car I could love or love to drive. It's not even available in a 5/6 speed manual, unless you buy the super budget trim. If it came down to an aura or a camry I'd rather walk, but I still think the Aura looks better.

This is actually kind of funny. Why's everyone getting pissed off? A side by side comparison is a good thing. That's what sells the car magazines we all love to read. This allows potential buyers to do the same.

The new Camry is by no means invincible. Car magazine reviews have talked about drops in interior quality compared to the previous model (and attributed it to growing pains..trying to be no. 1 in the world).

U.S. manufacturers hurt their reputations in the 70s and 80s when they starting making "disposable cars" in an attempt to increase sells. The thought was that if your car wore out quicker, you'd by another Ford or Chevy. This caused them to lose a fiercely loyal costumer base (which they were seeking to take advantage of with that policy). Now they're trying to live that down, which isn't an easy thing to do when automotive reviewers and the media have been pointing out your many faults for so long that it has become habit, and they start glossing over your achievements.

The Aura and coming Malibu appear to be solid cars with modern engines (get rid of the four speed auto please). Putting an Accord or Camry in the showroom for comparison will allow buyers to see for themselves how they stack up against the industry "benchmarks".

Personally, I've nothg against Saturn's strategy (or GM's strategy), but the problem,or danger, here is that while you are "viewing" or "test-driving" the 2 vehicles, you'll be under frequent, if not constant, influence from the Saturn's sales people, who are out there to sell u the Saturn, not the Toyota, and who really have no training/proper info on the Toyota vehicles! So let me warn those - mostly pro-domestics - who blindly think that this is a good idea or a fair comparison - if you believe that those SALES PEOPLE will be fair in comparing the 2 vehicles:
(1) you should believe that Iran is really developing Nuclear Power for safety use - for their nuclear power plants;
(2) you should believe that citizens of N. Korea are all very proud of their leader, and that N. Korea is ALSO developing Nuclear Power for peaceful use;
(3) You should believe the Communist Chinese Gov't that, back in 1989, the massacre in Tiennman Sq was just a special effect made by the US TV stations;
(4) You should believe that the killing of Whales by Japan & Norway is solely for "scientific research."
There are more that I could've listed, but I hope that u do get my point now - when you try to present facts or data that will support your argument, but you are the only person who set up the entire condition of what can be presented and how the info can be manipulated for your own good, and the entire presentation is through your OWN point of view, and most importantly, there's NO 3rd party involved to support or object during the same moment of time when you are presenting all your "favorite" facts, that's just as convincible as those examples I've listed above...

Amuro, you win the award for stating the most obvious facts of capitalism that exist.

Yes, the GM people will try to convince to buy a GM instead of a Toyota. It's how they try to stay in business. A Toyota dealer will also try to convince you to buy a Toyota over a GM, because its also how they stay in business.

One of them provides a competitors product on site to compare against, that's what GM is doing.

The other does not provide any on site example of a competitors product, that's what Toyota is doing.

Seriously, what is the problem with this? Both car companies are trying to sell their cars, but one of them is willing to park their car side by side with a competitor. Toyota will not even provide an example of a competitors car, and I guarantee you that if you ask a Toyota dealer about a Saturn you are going to get a biased response.

Why do people have an issue with this?

Doug still doesn't get it.

There is something fundamentally wrong about parking a Toyota on a GM lot, and if you can't see why, then you need to get your head checked.

I'll give it one more try.

First of all, the Camry would be neglected on a GM lot. Poorly maintained, not cleaned, not detailed, etc. because GM dealers aren't going to put energy/money towards making a car they are trying to outsell look better. Second, false information will be given either on purpose to make the Aura stack up better, or on accident because GM sales people are not trained on Toyota products.

Side-by-side comparisons are great. But a Toyota on a GM lot is not a side-by-side comparison for the above reasons. Side-by-side comparisons can be found in car review magazines, or other third party resources. You should go to the respective dealerships and evaluate the cars yourself. That's your job as a buyer, to do that work on your own. Having GM "facilitate" a comparison isn't an objective method.

For example, you don't go to Louis Vuitton and ask to see a Burberry bag for the purpose of comparison. You don't go to Jack in the Box and ask to see a Big Mac so you can compare the two sandwiches. Why? Because LV doesn't make Burberry bags, and Jack doesn't make Mickey D's burgers. And if they went to their competitors' stores and bought their products to put on display in their own store, then those products have been tampered with as soon as they step foot outside their parent store. Once a product is tampered with, any comparison becomes a complete wash and holds no weight.

There's nothing wrong with trying to convince buyers to buy your product instead of someone else's. But what GM is proposing to do is crossing the line of ethical business practices.

Jake

Jake,
The moment that false information is given out there will be a law suit. If it's a company directive there will be a massive lawsuit, if its one uninformed car salesman they will just put that dealer out of business. This is not an evil plan by GM. The toyota will be well maintained in most cases. Give the consumer some credit, assume that they are not a mindless zombie that will buy a car the first 30 seconds they are on the lot.

Let me ask you Jake. Are you smart enough to go onto a GM lot and see a Camry and think that maybe, just maybe they will try to make their car seem better?

Assuming you are smart enough, are you significantly smarter than the entire rest of the United States that you think that everyone in the country will suddenly be duped into buying a Saturn, the lamest car brand, over a Toyota, the undisputed leader of car brands because they saw a Camry in the same room as an Aura while some guy was shouting "AURA IS BETTER!"?

You obviously think that everyone in the world besides yourself is a helpless mindless fool.

Doug,

Sorry to be blunt here, but YES, I agree with Jake - many of the consumers are just mindless customers who will go into a dealership and not think 'bou "true" info like some of us do - and that Many OUT COUNT the smart ones. If you don't believe me, here's what I can tell you, from a family member of mine who sells cars - and these incidents have occurred VERY frequently to him:
(1) He sold many cars because of the color - without actual test drive;
(2) He sold many cars because of (consumer) family reference - again, w/o td.
(3) He sold cars because that person just wanted one;
(4) He sold many cars because he was able to give much discounts (emphasize how much discount you can give, like $5000 - with all rebates and stuff, rather than continually repeating how much it will cost the customer to buy. GM's been very generous with discounts in the past, and that's sthg the other manufacturers were unable to match);

The #1 rule of car sales is NOT to have the client thinking for him/herself. Sales skill is the rule of thumb here. The car is a dead object, but it's the sales who is alive and try to throw everything at you to convince you to buy it. Constant pickering toward the client is necessary, because if you give the customer a chance to think - that's a bad thing.

BTW, as far as lawsuit goes - unless you've sthg documented - it's difficult, if not impossible, to prove sthg thru' the words of mouth. For example, if the sales say - oh, the Saturn is more stylish than the Camry, drives smoother too, and handles better as well. When people look at the Saturn, they will "wow, nice car," but not the Camry since it's so common. Most importantly, we've a longer warranty, and our service dept will do the best it can to help you out when you need it. Finally, we'll do whatever we can to give you the best savings from taking $ out of your pocket.

Look at the above statement - so subjective that you can hardly present it as an argument in court, yet they may NOT be agreeable through official tests or comparison. But wait, there's NO official test or comparison, only 3rd party references (like C&D, Cars.com, etc.)

As a marketing strategy, what GM's doing is the right thing for it to sell/promote its lineup. From a society/client p.o.v, that's a bad thg.

Look Doug, if I really want to defeat this argument of it's good to have a Camry in a GM dealership, all I have to say is, "well, if GM is so confident about the vehicle they are selling, why can't it just point the customers to visit a Toyota dealership and do the test drive there, listen to the "official" info on the TOYOTA's PART (meaning offiical info on the Camry through a Toyota sales), and let the consumer decides? If the GM's product is good, that buyer will come back...

(P.S. No need to answer, but the golden rule again - It's all about "sale" skill - don't EVER give the consumer a choice, 'coz if he/she has gone to the other dealership, chances are, they will buy the other product most of the time, if the other dealer has a very good sales...)

Hey hey, let's stay on topic and keep the personal jabs aside.

But with your last sentence, I must say that you contribute towards making it seem like a very possible proposition.

I'm trying to find clear, valid points in your arguments but there are none. Try addressing the points in the other posts instead of repeating yourself every time. Or maybe we can invite some other people to chime in before this discussion goes to...

Jake

sorry, Amuro beat me to the post...the above post is directed towards Doug.

I totally agree with the fact that most Japanese cars have been superior to domestics brands for many many years, but to say that having a Camry on the lot is going to lead to dealerships spinning things in one car's favor is silly- they already do that. If the Camry is the superior vehicle, it will show through. What everyone needs to do is give credit where credit is due. If GM and Ford start building great cars again, great. It will only lead to more competition and more choices. To be guite honest- everyone who raves about the build quality of the Camry or the interior should stop by any German dealership, sit in a Jetta- it'll make that Toyota feel on par with the domestics- but the German cars have their faults too.
Has everyone become so impressed with Toyota that we can't appreciate anyone else's improvements and accomplishments.
Toyota is great. So are Nissan and Honda. Is it such a bad thing that the domestic brands are learning and starting to build great cars too.

What personal jabs have I made? You guys are the ones telling me I need to have my head checked.
And I never once suggested you were stupid, in fact I based my whole statement on the fact that you were intelligent enough to make a good decision on a car.

Here are my clear points, whether or not you think they are "valid" or not is irrelevent since we are all giving our oppinions here and none of this is fact.
1.) Consumers should have as much information as they can get. Whether that information is on a GM lot or a toyota lot is irrelevant.
2.) If they were really interested in hearing about the Camry they would be at a Toyota dealer. If they are at a GM dealer I assume they want a GM.
3.) If they are stupid enough to be convinced by a GM dealer that Toyota's are bad, I'm also assuming that they aren't going to shop around before purchasing, which means they want a GM.
4.) When it comes to business, and car sales especially, there is no such thing as "ethical business practices". There are things that are protected by laws, and there is everything else.
5.) A car dealer is not there to be your friend and help you buy a competitors car. A toyota dealer will NEVER tell you to go to the GM dealer across the street before making a hasty decision and buying their car first. A GM dealer should not be expected to send buyers to a Toyota dealer first.

Those are my oppinions, and are the reasons that I see no problem in GM providing a compareable product on site. I think it's good for consumers to see, and I think that anyone that will take the time to shop around and make a good decision is bright enough to not be swayed by shady business practices and a poorly maintained camry. I support free market economics, and don't believe that the government should have to protect people from buying a car, especially when there are lemon laws and consumer protection laws in every state already.

So let's hear your clearly stated oppinions and a summary of your position. Remember, you don't have any facts, and neither do I. Also please dont insult me by saying that I need to have my head checked.

If you just want to go ahead and admit that you are supporting the idea of a socialist economy where the consumer is barely trusted with their own earned income, go ahead and say so.

I still clearly remember a couple Fusion AWD commercials on air since about a year ago.
Number 1, it says it is the only AWD in its class. Well, I have to tape down the commercial and paused at the fine prints screen for 15 seconds just to read all of it.(It was displayed for only 2 seconds in the commercial) The class it was talking about is Mid-size sedan under 28K. Subaru Legacy had been offering AWD for under that price for years.

Number 2, it used Car and Driver's driving event to compare the AWD Fusion with the Camry and Accord, and everyone says the Fusion is the better choice, including handling, and design.
First of all, the design is subjective, so I am gonna leave that part alone.
Second, Camry and Accord are FWD, so by comparing an AWD to them is not a fair comparison to start with.
Just like saying you can run faster than me when you are wearing some running shoes while I am wearing flip-flops.

These had been evidence that proves the domestic manufacturers will not be playing fair if they put their competitors on their lot.

J,
Trust me, domestic manufacturers are no the only ones spinning trims and numbers.
Hyundai and Kia are the worst offenders I've seen lately, they directly cite the luxury counterparts that their cars emulate.
Toyota and the American truck makers are fighting and citing each others trucks in commercials for towing/hauling/etc for trucks.
Toyota and Honda are fighting for the MPG crown, and routinely cite poor avg. gas mileage of competitors.

Look, I'm not a domestic fan. My cars are a mazda and a scion, and my next car will be a mazda or an infiniti. You can trash on a domestic cars quality all day long and I wont lift a finger to defend them.
However, when you fabricate these one sided examples of how unfair domestics are, and how they are out to dupe stupid american consumers, and how all foreign automakers wish for everyone to be happy and would give cars away if it werent for evil domestics, I have to take exception.

It is very naive of you to think that domestic car manufacturers are the only ones willing to spin numbers and comparisons to make their vehicles look better.

Doug:

1.) "Consumers should have as much information as they can get. Whether that information is on a GM lot or a toyota lot is irrelevant."

I agree consumers should get as much information as they can. What you don't want is bad information. And yes, this already happens at dealerships, but you want to keep it to a minimum if at all possible, and allowing competitors to have each other's products on their lot would only make it harder on customers to get straight talk.

2.) "If they were really interested in hearing about the Camry they would be at a Toyota dealer."

So don't tell them about a Camry at your GM dealership. They don't need to hear you cuss out the Camry in front of them. Just tell them about your cars. They can research the Camry on their own.

"If they are at a GM dealer I assume they want a GM."

No, they could be shopping around like the good consumers they are. I thought you wanted to give consumers more credit. Maybe they want to give other cars a crack at it. Maybe they want a Camry but can't afford it, and need to look elsewhere. There's a million reasons why a customer could end up at a GM dealership.

3.) "If they are stupid enough to be convinced by a GM dealer that Toyota's are bad, I'm also assuming that they aren't going to shop around before purchasing, which means they want a GM."

Your reasoning makes it sound like stupid consumer = not shopping around = wants a GM. So are you saying stupid consumers want a GM? Anyway, I think you're making too many assumptions. Even if a customer goes into a GM dealership wanting a GM, that does not give GM free reign to manhandle a Camry.

4.) "When it comes to business, and car sales especially, there is no such thing as "ethical business practices". There are things that are protected by laws, and there is everything else."

I disagree. There are ethical business practices. Some people actually have something called a conscience, and can't sleep at night knowing they just robbed someone of their lifetime savings. Yes, there are some who feel just fine about doing that, but there are people out there trying to earn an honest living. Personally, I don't care how dishonest a car salesman is. I don't need a car salesman to educate me about a car, because I've already researched it myself. But not every consumer is as well-prepared. Maybe they don't have to capacity to be. Even if they don't have all their research done, that doesn't give businesses a right to have their way with them. When their dishonesty is at another brand's expense, a line has to be drawn. It's like credit card contracts. They swindle people every day. But they have to put their APR in big bold numbers, clearly displayed at the top of the contract. It could have been just in the fine print at the bottom, but consumers were getting the rug pulled out from under them, and someone had to step in a put some kind of regulations in for the protection of the consumer.

5.) "A car dealer is not there to be your friend and help you buy a competitors car. A toyota dealer will NEVER tell you to go to the GM dealer across the street before making a hasty decision and buying their car first. A GM dealer should not be expected to send buyers to a Toyota dealer first."

I agree. That's not the job of the dealer to tell a consumer to shop it around. The consumer should do that on their own. Therefore by your reasoning, there is not a need for a GM dealer to have a Camry on their lot. If the comparison were as transparent as you make it out to be, showing a Camry on your lot would be the equivalent of sending the customer to the Toyota lot to do the exact same thing. Now I know what you're thinking: GM is trying to have a Camry on-site to keep the customer there and not head over to the Toyota lot. They'll say, "We have a Camry here so that you don't have to go over to Toyota to compare the two cars." The problem with that is, GM is then presenting themselves as an authority on Toyota products. Effectively what they are saying is that they represent Toyota as well, which they do not.

Sulli:

Yes it would be great to have all the brands building good cars, so that's what they should focus on doing. I think some brands rely on other types of strategies to get sales, such as 0% financing, big rebates, or long warranties, sometimes to the point that they are dependent on them to sell cars because they haven't focused enough on improving the build quality. But yes improvements are being made all around and that's great for consumers.

The superiority of the Camry may not show through in the hostile environment of a competing dealership. They can do whatever they want with the Camry, and no one will be able to control it. What I'm trying to say is that a comparison becomes invalid at that point, because one of the cars isn't given a fair shot. That's the bottom line. You can go around in circles and make other arguments off of tangents but what it boils down to is GM wanting customers to compare their cars with the benchmarks. This is not a legitimate comparison. Effectively, consumers are already making those comparisons themselves and are choosing other cars, which doesn't make GM too happy. So GM wants to stack the cards in their favor so that they come out on top in a comparison.

The problem is that GM is losing ground to other automakers and is looking for quick fixes to patch holes in a sinking ship. There are no quick fixes when your company has some serious fundamental flaws. They need to get their act together and take steps one at a time to rebuild their company. If they do this they can get the crown back from Toyota. I'm all for that if they are willing to put in the work. It will just take a very long time, and I don't think they are willing to come to terms with that reality.

Jake

Jake,
I agree with you nearly 100%, but I'm just not going to say that GM "SHOULD NOT" be able to do this.
I understand the reasons why they want to do it, I understand that it could become an unethical situation with bad information, but I also have to give GM the benefit of the doubt and guess that there will also be many instances where the information is good and ethical.
Should GM do this? Probably not. The camry is a better looking car than most everything on their lot besides a Sky. In my opinion, GM is going to lose as many sales as they will gain with this strategy.
Should GM be ALLOWED to do this? Hell yeah, it's America. If I have to put up with macintosh commercials that trash microsoft, hyundai commercial that trash BMW, subway commercials that trash mcdonalds, etc etc. I certainly won't lose sleep over the fact that somewhere in the world a GM salesman is going to be telling someone that an Aura handles better than a camry.
I think it's pretty ballsy of them to allow test drives. But Toyota is all grown up as far as companies go, and they can handle themselves. The minute that some dealer starts disseminating false information about toyota products, or installing garbage shocks onto camrys to make test drives seem rougher, there will be lawsuits and exposure.

Until then GM is welcome to sell their cars any way they want, as is Toyota, and every other company that sells in America specifically to be free of socialist restrictions and economy.

Fair? All makers are doing their share, domestic and foreign.
It is fair that the cars which come from Japan receive huge supports due to an artificially low yen? The yen is the big joke in the exchange world.

I went overseas and wanted to buy a camry but I found the prices so high compared to other cars. Think we are lucky.

I always love a camry. Not just because its the car I can afford.

Sort of relevant here: Has anyone seen the commercials that run all the time by Ford? Car and Driver does a test drive of the Fusion, Camry, & Accord. They ask subjects as to what car handles better. The thing is the the Fusion model they are using is all-wheel drive so of course it's going to handle better than a Camry or Accord with front wheel drive. Kia could probably put out an all-wheel drive that'd "handle" better.

As if most New Car Dealerships don't have extensive Used Car Lots with the competitor's vehicle on them (as trade ins perhaps?) Not to mention dual-brand dealerships.

Most educated shoppers will have already looked at both cars. It's kind of ambitious to put both cars in the same showroom though.

Spanky,
Yes, I've seen it. Is it an untrue statement? No, it's a comparison, and a true one. Is it a fair comparison? If Ford sees the fusion as a direct competitor to the Camry and the Accord, then yes it is. If there were and AWD camry, or an all wheel drive Accord but ford still used the FWD versions it would then be approaching a dishonest comparison. Would it be invalid for Toyota to compare a hybrid camry to an AWD fusion and laugh at its measly MPG?

And could Kia do a better AWD? Be careful here, you should know that the Fusion is a copy of the Mazda 6 which has a very capable AWD, and you don't want to insult Mazda, we are rabid fans and will pour out of the woodwork to defend our zoom-zooms. : )

All car companies do this. Hyundai consistently compares their best trim to the competitors worst trim when it comes to acceleration, top speed etc. Toyota compares the prius MPG to non-hybrid MPG. Duh, hybrids get better mileage. Is it a fair comparison? Of course.

Keep in mind, I'm not defending Ford in particular. I would jump to Toyota's (or mazdas...zoomzoom!) aid just as quickly if someone came in and started unfairly thrashing them.

Well, at least with all the Camrys and Accords GM will be purchasing for their Saturn & Chevy dealerships, it will only increase the sales of their competitors. And when GM decides to stop the showroom comparison strategy, they might be in for a sticker shock when they find out the resale value of those used cars.

Maybe they can compare the Saturn to a brand New Tundra...eh, wait,...