Filed under: Car Buying, Sports/GTs, Tokyo Motor Show, Supercars, Nissan
Prospectors beware: Nissan may void warranty on second GT-R owner
The anticipation of the forthcoming Nissan GT-R cannot be understated, particularly since it's the first time the automaker will grace our shores with its dominating grand tourer. As expected, the waiting list has grown rapidly, which is giving Nissan pause. The problem, according to the automaker, is that speculators are likely topping that list, and the plan to flip the vehicle for a profit is at the forefront of many prospective owners minds.
Jan Thompson, the veep of marketing for Nissan, disclosed to InsideLine that the company is considering voiding the warranty on any GT-Rs that change hands within the first year it's on the road. The idea being that if buyers are in the market, they'll head on down to their local dealer, rather than buying a second hand vehicle.
According to Nissan's director of product public relations, "A warranty decision will be made before the Tokyo auto show," when the production GT-R makes its official debut.
[Source: InsideLine]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Ivey League Educated 10:10AM (8/22/2007)
This is a great idea. I happen to be on the waiting list and will be pissed if some jacktard "speculator" gets one and I don't just to sell it and not be enjoyed by real enthusiasts like myself. This car is going to PWN.
Reply
djSyndrome 10:56AM (8/22/2007)
You would think that someone intelligent and wealthy enough to be on the 'waiting list' would know how to spell 'Ivy League' correctly.
Bruiser 12:48PM (8/22/2007)
Your not on the waiting list, you wish you were but your not. You must be at least 18 to be on one and using terms such as jacktard I have serious doubts, just like I do about your "education". Why does everyone who picks up and Motor Trend or Car and Driver, reads a story or two about an Evo or GT-R dubs themself as an "enthusiast"?
Rocket Punch 6:03PM (8/22/2007)
Yeah, I am on the waiting list too, but its for the 1.3m lambo. GT-R is for poor people.......Mr. Iv3y L33t
hokiebird 10:11AM (8/22/2007)
An interesting tactic. I know a few people who would have been trying to do this and I'm sure we would have been seeing them on ebay as soon as they hit the shores.
Reply
tony2x 10:16AM (8/22/2007)
I can't see this working. I know the manufacturers are keen to keep the speculators at bay but voiding warranties for an owner change sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen. Imagine if you bought a TV and they tried to do the same, it would just not wash.
This sounds like a good case of the marketeers playing up the fact that the vehicle will attract such customers ahead of it's launch, and that *is* smart marketing! We're all now going to expect to pay way over list for the first few cars. I wonder if Nissan will put the same controls on their dealers or will they be permitted to stick ten grand on the first few customer cars?
Reply
Shawn 10:27AM (8/22/2007)
Terms of a warranty is established by the manufacturer, not by the buyer. They can easily write first owner coverage only into any purchasing contract.
Eric L. 10:44AM (8/22/2007)
I imagine these terms will be made absolutely clear to the buyer before they purchase the car - yes it may affect resale value during the first year, but the people it will hurt are the people who purchase and quickly sell the vehicle (the "speculators" as someone described above) and I think the car deserves a better fate than that. So I don't see anything wrong with this arrangement if it is specified in the purchase contract and explained to the customer.
This isn't the same as when Mitsubishi decided to void Evo Lancer warranties in the USA when they figured out people were beating them at the track, and then expecting the manufacturer to fix worn out components due to racing.
tony2x 12:17PM (8/22/2007)
I am not disagreeing with anything you both say, of course it is down to the manufacturer to set these terms, but we live in a litigious age and I bet you my $9 a month legal services fee subscription that someone, somewhere will sue.
Chuck 10:30AM (8/22/2007)
I don't think this would do much to stop dealer ADMs.
http://www.nagtroc.com/
Reply
iamhoff 10:55AM (8/22/2007)
I completely agree that it won't stop the dealer ADMs, but they're the one "speculator" that won't be hurt by any of this. I think the idea is great because it will discourage (to a certain extent) the people who buy it and put it up on eBay as soon as they know their delivery date. As much as dealer markups are a pain in the ass, IMO those guys do a greater disservice to the enthusiasts who truly want the car to actually have and drive it.
spdracerut 10:31AM (8/22/2007)
I think it's a great tactic. If the vehicle is sold for the original purchase price or more, void the warrenty. No one will try to 'flip' the car if they won't make money on it.
Reply
Danny Boy 10:33AM (8/22/2007)
i'll tell you I don't this car...for the reason that, wealthy people are going to buy it for s**** and giggles....they should make you take a test to show if you are worthy of the car.
Reply
MKIV 5:22PM (8/22/2007)
Danny Boy,
You know that in this country, if you are to give a simple test that you have to take in Europe to get your license, better than 80% will fail the test. I think my 13 year old daughter, given the chance, will pass the driving test here without too much trouble.
Not to bag on US drivers, but most of the drivers out in our streets know almost nothing about road discipline. Just get on any freeway and you can pick and chose all the people who are clueless.
I do support the idea of making drivers of certain caliber vehicle be required to have some type of advanced driving knowledge and would hope this same process applied to freeway drivers by only allowing the first and second lane to be used by those who are in possession of this permit.
Danny Boy 10:53AM (8/22/2007)
listen i went to Poland for 5 weeks, I know how they learn to drive...much better then people in the U.S. I'm just saying that if people buy high HP cars, they should have to take a course for it....not only for our safety, but their ego and their safety....i agree, U.S. drivers have, to my knowledge, the easiest way to pass a driving test. When I took mine 10 months ago, I thought of it as easy as hell, however there were people who failed because of a stop sign.
Alex 10:41AM (8/22/2007)
i also agree with this tactic.
this car carries the GT-R badge, which is the "Pride of Japan" according to the Initial D anime. ;p
it's already bad enough that most people probably won't be able to buy the damn thing. i wouldn't want it to become some thing that's constantly traded around just because it's the first GT-R to head to the states.
Reply
akatsuki 10:46AM (8/22/2007)
The problem is how many people will be screwed for buying above cost and then finding out their warranty is voided? If they really want to avoid the reselling, they should structure their sales as a lease to own deal.
Reply
iamhoff 11:00AM (8/22/2007)
Great thought, but no dealer worth his profit margin is going to make any kind of concessions on this car. Demand is going to be too huge. My wonderful yet somewhat naive GF wanted a 350z when they first came out. She had negotiated a great deal on her Celica 5 years prior, so she couldn't understand why the dealers weren't willing to negotiate (despite the fact that I'd already told her about demand, markups, etc.). It took a blunt sales rep telling her that if she didn't want to pay the $10k markup he had 20 people in line who were willing, to make her understand. The first guy who tries to negotiate a deal for anything less than the dealer's terms is going to be laughed out of the showroom.
Reply
spike 11:19AM (8/22/2007)
If I remember correctly, BMW did something similar when the Mini was released. I don't think this will stop people from buying and reselling. There will be a lot of car nuts that will want to modify the stock form so that will void the warranty anyway.
Reply
Eric 11:20AM (8/22/2007)
I'm thinking that there are consumer protection laws that Nissan will need to break for this to happen.
Reply