Originally Posted by 5tglad

I had my car detailed a few days ago and the detailer pointed out several areas on the car that had overspray and poor quality work (swirl buffing marks on clear coat, overspray, drip marks, and paint tape lines). I researched this a bit over the weekend and it appears that dealers are not required to disclose repairs on new car sales in Virginia unless it exceeds 3% of MSRP. I bought a fully loaded 2013 A6 with an MSRP of nearly $70k. So a 3% threshold would be something like $2,100 which I think is quite significant. I called the dealer and they confirmed that they had repaired the vehicle and that they did not disclose nor were they required to do so. It is also interesting that while the threshold for disclosure is set at a % of MSRP, there are no guidelines on how repair costs should be evaluated except that costs of glass and wheels/ tires are excluded. So with that and a little accounting trickery the threshold for disclosure can be manipulated. This is certainly not something that is consumer friendly.

The dealer said they would send someone to look at the vehicle to discuss how/if they will remedy the repair. I don't think I can trust them to do it right if they didn't the first time.

This practice may be legal but I do think I was cheated. I would expect that a luxury car dealer would have a more stringent disclosure policy that is better than that of state minimums. Audi should require dealers to adhere to disclosures policies and ethics policies, and a code of conduct that exemplifies some class and sophistication.

Forum members please comment back. What would your reaction be if this happened to you? If anyone had this happen before how did you resolve the issue?

One lesson learned is that everyone buying a new car should ask the dealer if they are aware of any repairs however minor that were made to the vehicle prior to taking delivery. There is no substitute to this and perhaps even get a written statement from the dealer. Caveat emptor.

Originally Posted by NJ A6

When you buy a new car, you expect a new, never damaged, lightly driven car. Otherwise, you would buy a CPO and get a discount. I looked at a 2013 CPO with 5,200 miles, one ding, one scratch and a windshield chip and decided it wasnt worth the discount being offered. WIth your experience disclosed, you wonder how many times these cars are damaged, even beyond the percentage allowed, and sold as new. Why would the dealer own up to the percentage, they control the repair process and they're the one to suffer from the disclosure.

Originally Posted by irenesbob

This is an issue I brought up to a new poster in my recently updated post about being rear-ended who told me to sell my car. At that time no one seemed to pick up on the idea that a lot of cars (especially those brought by ship to the US) have damage that is repaired and the cars sold as new. I made that point to explain to this guy that having a bumper replaced (as in my case) was not an automatic major reduction in a vehicle's resale value. If it were, none of us would buy any car. In fact, this is a concern I have had for years (along with a fear of a car being generally a lemon) causing me to lean toward leasing instead of owning. My take is that once the lease is over and the car returned without any new damage I caused it is case closed. That is why I had my 2013 A6 repaired at the dealership from which I leased it. I am hopefully creating an audit trail that will show they put their blessing on the repair so I don’t get hit for damage charges at lease end.

Originally Posted by snagitseven

feralc, your supposition is appealing re a dealer not making a profit on a trade. However, if there was no profit on selling the used car, there would likely be no trade in market. The difference between what you can get on a trade from the dealer and for what you could sell it privately covers the costs associated with selling the trade including prep, any repairs, warranty, advertising, sales commission, inventory cost, etc. and since it's a separate transaction, I would expect any retailer needs to profit from every sale possible to stay in business. Think of the dealer as a convenient middle-man to selling your car when you don't want the hassle of selling it yourself. It makes sense that the middle-man make something for his trouble (and investment).

I've sold my previously owned cars myself and traded them in. I've had the choice which way to go and I have no problem with the dealer making money on my trade if I want to avoid the time it can take and the fun of selling it myself.

Originally Posted by feralc

I understand but they are already making money on the car you are buying, I am not against people or businesses making money but, they never go to for example what KBB says trade in value is, they base their offers on auction prices therefore not taking ANY risk. I understand not everybody is like you and I or anybody in this forum (car enthusiasts that take care of our cars) but you know how good your vehicle is and the shape it is, and THEY know too, because they inspect the vehicle and they know that besides some car detailing (in cases not even that) that is how much they need to spend for selling the car from the floor (not in an auction) and they still undervalue your car to make (in some cases) a higher profit than with the new one.

Lets think of a little experiment, you buy a used car from a dealer you don't have any relationship with and you drive it home, you don't use it keep exactly as it is and the next week go back and tell them you changed your mind and you want another color (not a higher priced car because that could make them change their minds) I bet you they will not give you the same money for it, and the car could have been sitting there for a week or so.

As I said not against people making their living, but there is a point when you feel taking advantage of vs seeing as a convenience of not selling it yourself.


On a side note, how does it feel after writing a long post you hit the submit reply and the dramatic chipmunk looks at you letting you know you have to write it all again.

Originally Posted by snagitseven

feralc, your supposition is appealing re a dealer not making a profit on a trade. However, if there was no profit on selling the used car, there would likely be no trade in market. The difference between what you can get on a trade from the dealer and for what you could sell it privately covers the costs associated with selling the trade including prep, any repairs, warranty, advertising, sales commission, inventory cost, etc. and since it's a separate transaction, I would expect any retailer needs to profit from every sale possible to stay in business. Think of the dealer as a convenient middle-man to selling your car when you don't want the hassle of selling it yourself. It makes sense that the middle-man make something for his trouble (and investment).

I've sold my previously owned cars myself and traded them in. I've had the choice which way to go and I have no problem with the dealer making money on my trade if I want to avoid the time it can take and the fun of selling it myself.

Originally Posted by Maverick61

Actually the profit margin on used cars is much greater for most dealers than on new cars