[FoundNemo]

Originally Posted by Smokin19

Drinking morning coffee and reading thru this thread. This site is becoming more obsessed with all things Dodge. I am about to start having dreams about owning a Dodge. Someone put me out of my misery.

Better Dodge that purchase idea.

[mosaic6]

Originally Posted by Smokin19

Drinking morning coffee and reading thru this thread. This site is becoming more obsessed with all things Dodge. I am about to start having dreams about owning a Dodge. Someone put me out of my misery.

All I ask is please just stay away from the manual transmission Hellcat Redeye non-widebody models inventory, those are the ones I'm leaning towards & with these supply problems I don't need any more competition!

[Maro_89]

Originally Posted by mosaic6

All I ask is please just stay away from the manual transmission Hellcat Redeye non-widebody models inventory, those are the ones I'm leaning towards & with these supply problems I don't need any more competition!

The Redeye doesn't come in a manual.

[mosaic6]

Originally Posted by Maro_89

The Redeye doesn't come in a manual.

My understanding is that the SuperStock is the one that's auto-only?

[pauly1119]

Originally Posted by TTown918

That's pretty funny. But, Camaro owner likely has a mullet too.

Says the guy bragging about owning a 06 explorer in his signature.

[Maro_89]

Originally Posted by mosaic6

My understanding is that the SuperStock is the one that's auto-only?

The Redeye and Super Stock are both auto only. The only Challenger trim models that have the optional manual transmission are the R/T, Scat Pak and regular Hellcat. Bummer I know, as a few folks wished the Redeye had the manual option. You definitely can't go wrong with a manual in the regular Hellcat though if you only want the 6 speed.

[serper3]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

So when you see someone driving a nice new car, does it somehow make you feel better to think that they got a horrible deal or are gonna regret it in the future? Who GAF what someone else is paying or the terms of their agreement? Heck there are some people who can just flat out buy a $70K, $80K, $90K in cash. To them all of us who finance got a horrible deal. So again, why does it matter soo much to some of you how someone got into a comparable vehicle?

no, I don't make assumptions about people's financial position, credit, etc. my response was to you saying that we need to congratulate FCA for making these low credit deals:

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Congrats to FCA for finding a way to get people with money and low credit into an amazing car. And guess what, if it also means they can charge more on interest and those people actually do pay their car note then even more congrats.

The difference is if someone finances with the scenario I mentioned they are going to pay a boat load more interest vs someone who is in the 4-6% range. $55k loan at 84 months, the difference in interest paid at 5% vs 15% is $24k in interest. That's just the difference in interest. so no, i dont care what some random guy paid, but i also dont think FCA needs to make 3% or whatever more sales like this to get a few more cars out the door. its irresponsible.

I think no one needs to pat FCA on the back for trying to make 15% deals, rolling negative equity, etc. FCA is probably going to be okay, but the 22 year old kid who sees the shiny new 392 or whatever, and is 10k upside down on his 2 year old car gets screwed every time. you think that FCA needs to be congratulated for screwing people up like that?

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by serper3

no, I don't make assumptions about people's financial position, credit, etc. my response was to you saying that we need to congratulate FCA for making these low credit deals:



The difference is if someone finances with the scenario I mentioned they are going to pay a boat load more interest vs someone who is in the 4-6% range. $55k loan at 84 months, the difference in interest paid at 5% vs 15% is $24k in interest. That's just the difference in interest. so no, i dont care what some random guy paid, but i also dont think FCA needs to make 3% or whatever more sales like this to get a few more cars out the door. its irresponsible.

I think no one needs to pat FCA on the back for trying to make 15% deals, rolling negative equity, etc. FCA is probably going to be okay, but the 22 year old kid who sees the shiny new 392 or whatever, and is 10k upside down on his 2 year old car gets screwed every time. you think that FCA needs to be congratulated for screwing people up like that?

First off, EVERY manufacturer does this with all their cars. Why do you think those "Bad credit? No credit? No problem" ads exist? Because the person is gonna end up paying a crap load of interest. Dodge, Chevy, and Ford have just been stupid all these years for not doing the same thing with their Muscle Cars like these are some type of elite members only type things. If someone can do that with a Toyota Camry, then why not a Camaro or Challenger? And as stated before, many people have terrible income from one thing or another "divorce, student loans, etc" but very high paying jobs. They certainly can afford a high interest loan. So if they can pay it and if FCA puts it in their hands, then it is of no concern to you what they're paying. And that is IF this is even the case and not some fantasy drummed up or some exaggeration.

[foshjowler]

They're boats anyway, just do 10-20 year terms and call it a day.

[Maro_89]

Originally Posted by foshjowler

They're boats anyway, just do 10-20 year terms and call it a day.

Speed Boats

[FoundNemo]

Originally Posted by Maro_89

Speed Boats

Motor boats on a 80yr busty grandma.

[serper3]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

First off, EVERY manufacturer does this with all their cars. Why do you think those "Bad credit? No credit? No problem" ads exist? Because the person is gonna end up paying a crap load of interest. Dodge, Chevy, and Ford have just been stupid all these years for not doing the same thing with their Muscle Cars like these are some type of elite members only type things. If someone can do that with a Toyota Camry, then why not a Camaro or Challenger? And as stated before, many people have terrible income from one thing or another "divorce, student loans, etc" but very high paying jobs. They certainly can afford a high interest loan. So if they can pay it and if FCA puts it in their hands, then it is of no concern to you what they're paying. And that is IF this is even the case and not some fantasy drummed up or some exaggeration.

I think some manufacturers and/or dealers do it more than others.

You said that FCA should be congratulated on this, and that is what i disagreed with. I think when you are upside down for the duration of your loan it is borderline greedy and predatory.

I am all for free market but it has to go in all directions... no bailouts for anyone, but that will never happen. if for example post covid, after the loan forbearance ends, a high level of defaults eventually require more bailouts.. yes that is of concern to me. Remember this happened with housing in 2008? The government deemed it was time to tighten up requirements to get a mortgage. with how expensive cars have become over the last even ten years, people's car payments and property values are getting kinda close to each other but pretty much anyone can get a $1k+ car payment, and unlike a house, a car is a depreciating (often quickly) asset.

So anyway, yea kind of a concern to me, and pretty easy to see why this is a bad idea in general.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by serper3

I think some manufacturers and/or dealers do it more than others.

You said that FCA should be congratulated on this, and that is what i disagreed with. I think when you are upside down for the duration of your loan it is borderline greedy and predatory.

I didn't say they should be congratulated. I said "congrats" to them. It's a figure of speech. Meaning I agree with what they're doing and I think it is a good idea. And it is not greedy or predatory. It is an open market. And the consumers are coming to them, not the other way around. So if someone comes to them who makes a lot of money, has little expenses, a favorable DTI ratio, can easily afford an $80K car and a $1200 monthly payment, but bad credit from a divorce or something stupid, then I should not sell them the car? That makes no sense. Because then conversely that means that someone who make little money but has great credit should be able to get an $80K car with a $1200 payment. We all know shit doesn't work that way. If a person has shown that they can easily make the payment then credit score means very little. They'll get hit with a higher interest rate for sure. But if they can afford it then WTF cares??

Originally Posted by serper3

I am all for free market but it has to go in all directions... no bailouts for anyone, but that will never happen. if for example post covid, after the loan forbearance ends, a high level of defaults eventually require more bailouts.. yes that is of concern to me. Remember this happened with housing in 2008? The government deemed it was time to tighten up requirements to get a mortgage. with how expensive cars have become over the last even ten years, people's car payments and property values are getting kinda close to each other but pretty much anyone can get a $1k+ car payment, and unlike a house, a car is a depreciating (often quickly) asset.

So anyway, yea kind of a concern to me, and pretty easy to see why this is a bad idea in general.

Well first off this was just a dump thread with no actual bearing on reality anyway. So before you go off a cliff thinking it's all doom and gloom, just remember, these companies are doing screens and giving people cars they can afford. Credit has no impact on what you can afford. Same with income alone. Some who makes $75K a year might have more money to spend than someone who makes $300K a year. And someone with a crappy credit score might be able to afford a more expensive car than someone with an 800+ score. So it means nothing. It all boils down to who can afford what.

[serper3]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

I didn't say they should be congratulated. I said "congrats" to them. It's a figure of speech. Meaning I agree with what they're doing and I think it is a good idea. And it is not greedy or predatory. It is an open market. And the consumers are coming to them, not the other way around. So if someone comes to them who makes a lot of money, has little expenses, a favorable DTI ratio, can easily afford an $80K car and a $1200 monthly payment, but bad credit from a divorce or something stupid, then I should not sell them the car? That makes no sense. Because then conversely that means that someone who make little money but has great credit should be able to get an $80K car with a $1200 payment. We all know shit doesn't work that way. If a person has shown that they can easily make the payment then credit score means very little. They'll get hit with a higher interest rate for sure. But if they can afford it then WTF cares??


Well first off this was just a dump thread with no actual bearing on reality anyway. So before you go off a cliff thinking it's all doom and gloom, just remember, these companies are doing screens and giving people cars they can afford. Credit has no impact on what you can afford. Same with income alone. Some who makes $75K a year might have more money to spend than someone who makes $300K a year. And someone with a crappy credit score might be able to afford a more expensive car than someone with an 800+ score. So it means nothing. It all boils down to who can afford what.

It pretty much is predatory by definition, can't really argue with that. When you are at 15% interest +, paying almost half the cost of the car in interest, it is excessive.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p...ry_lending.asp

If they are giving cars to people that can afford them, why do so many subprime car loans default? its around 30% from what i remember. because they can't afford them, or because they are tired of paying in perpetuity basically on a car that they are upside down on?

credit score and income are somewhat correlated. either way, these lenders prioritize profits over what would benefit the consumers, but if shit hits the fan, everyone is getting bailed out. the lenders, the people are getting stimulus checks, etc. on my dime.

should dr's prescribe pain meds at whatever quantity a patient requests them if they are "in pain"? doesn't hurt you or me, so why not let these addicts just get their prescription dope? big pharma would love it I am sure. there are tons of examples like this.