Will New tariffs effect my order ??

[HammaMan]

The change is that this customer showed up at the dealership and accepted that vehicle. Maybe it was him in person, maybe it was his friend, maybe it was some agent acting on his behalf, it does not matter. From any dealership perspective someone came and took possession of the truck and left. Just like I did too.

Now I know if I have some issue once I take possession, it will most likely be a warranty issue. I am 1100 miles from the dealership so it will be on me to find somewhere to have it done close to home. My option to refuse the vehicle and not take possession was lost when I, or someone on my behalf, picked it up. I could have said I am not accepting this vehicle and gone back home and we could have sorted it out. I could have said just cancel the whole thing never taking possession, and that would have been a very different scenario.

This doesn't absolve Granger from some responsibility, and they should have done better prepping but if you read that thread there was conversation about the issues before the post. It sounds like the OP was not happy about the reply or options and then came here.

You just proved why the traditional dealer model is outdated and ford should just sell direct to customer at a lower cost. Had this been the sales model used here, the dealer wouldn't have been able to bend the customer over because the factory rep would have delivered the vehicle to the customer.

Furthermore, to simp for grown men cowering behind their desks over the thought of fixing their own truckup. Well sir, we know who empowers the e thots now don't we. Who wouldn't take a lower price plus not have to put up with some of the most chickenshit thing I've seen any online business try and pull, but I'll be damned if the hammer does hit its nail in describing a stealership.

Sponsored

 

[Larrymoe]

The change is that this customer showed up at the dealership and accepted that vehicle. Maybe it was him in person, maybe it was his friend, maybe it was some agent acting on his behalf, it does not matter. From any dealership perspective someone came and took possession of the truck and left. Just like I did too.

Now I know if I have some issue once I take possession, it will most likely be a warranty issue. I am 1100 miles from the dealership so it will be on me to find somewhere to have it done close to home. My option to refuse the vehicle and not take possession was lost when I, or someone on my behalf, picked it up. I could have said I am not accepting this vehicle and gone back home and we could have sorted it out. I could have said just cancel the whole thing never taking possession, and that would have been a very different scenario.

This doesn't absolve Granger from some responsibility, and they should have done better prepping but if you read that thread there was conversation about the issues before the post. It sounds like the OP was not happy about the reply or options and then came here.

I mentioned this in that thread (although not as well worded) and was not very well received for bringing up this point.

But, you are right. There is at least a portion of responsibility on the customer.

 

[HammaMan]

I mentioned this in that thread (although not as well worded) and was not very well received for bringing up this point.

But, you are right. There is at least a portion of responsibility on the customer.

So by your metric, if the truck showed up with all of the windows bashed out, it's acceptable for the dealer to just 'ship it'? It's all or nothing here, I see no wiggle room. Be it a lack of adequate paint, a hole in the block, or any missing/damaged component. If your position is the dealer has no responsibility then by the same metric the dealer has no reason to exist.

 

[Snakebitten]

I'm 100% certain that we, the forum members, do not know both/all sides of the story.

Perhaps if we did, nobody would even change their current opinion the least. But without knowing, we don't know that either.

One thing I do know is that I personally wouldn't wish that experience on anyone!
And I'm relieved to see that it's very rare.

 

[VRFlyer]

Served with some mediocre quality popcorn and piss beer! ?

 

[Larrymoe]

So by your metric, if the truck showed up with all of the windows bashed out, it's acceptable for the dealer to just 'ship it'? It's all or nothing here, I see no wiggle room. Be it a lack of adequate paint, a hole in the block, or any missing/damaged component. If your position is the dealer has no responsibility then by the same metric the dealer has no reason to exist.

I don't know that it's acceptable, but I would also never buy a truck that I'm not going to inspect before I take possession or responsibility for it. As I said in that thread, I'm never ordering a truck from a place that I can't get to in short order.

Throwing up your hands and blaming Ford and the dealer isn't the end of this. Which is what everyone in that thread wants to do. The buyer has some amount of responsibility because they allowed it to happen to them.

 

[Larrymoe]

I'm 100% certain that we, the forum members, do not know both/all sides of the story.

Perhaps if we did, nobody would even change their current opinion the least. But without knowing, we don't know that either.

One thing I do know is that I personally wouldn't wish that experience on anyone!
And I'm relieved to see that it's very rare.

I 100% guarantee there's more to both sides of this story than is being presented by that poster.

Note, that after the truck was repaired, he still had problems with it.

 

[Suns_PSD]

In my industry (Commercial Heavy Duty Truck Sales), we were hit with a tariff surcharge today, it's a 4 digit $ amount, but I can't be too specific as that's proprietary. This surcharge guarantees us our price from the pre-tariff days of, last month, plus the surcharge, no matter how much the manufacturer gets hit with.

The catch? Anything not already ordered by the end of this month AND completed by May, and I'm quoting here as this is exactly how it reads: "will be subject to the FULL (emphasis theirs, not mine) unmitigated tariffs."

We've also been informed that these surcharges are taxable, so that includes the 12% Federal Excise Tax, as well as State Sales tax (when applicable).

It would seem that since the tariff is currently quite low compared to what we expected, the units that are being built during this time period are actually likely to receive little to no actual tariffs as they utilize on hand materials and supplies, but the manufacturer is building up a 'fund' to deal with the tariffs before they fully hit. Seems like a smart play.

Through the grapevine I'm hearing that some brands have more foreign made parts than others. Some a lot more (and some probably less), and therefore will experience wider price swings.

Every industry, and therefore our economy, will be hit hard imo by the sudden and significant inflation. But I sincerely hope that I am wrong.

 

[JCsTruck]

Glad I bought my truck when I did now. This will be interesting to watch. ??

 

[GypsyDanger]

Ford generally honors MSRP of when the order was placed. Now if the dealers become frantic and try to front load cost or be sleezy they could in their own right raise the price via a few ways. If they have a good reputation they will probably try to maintain it and you shouldn't have any issues.

 

[SumGuy]

In my industry (Commercial Heavy Duty Truck Sales), we were hit with a tariff surcharge today, it's a 4 digit $ amount, but I can't be too specific as that's proprietary. This surcharge guarantees us our price from the pre-tariff days of, last month, plus the surcharge, no matter how much the manufacturer gets hit with.

The catch? Anything not already ordered by the end of this month AND completed by May, and I'm quoting here as this is exactly how it reads: "will be subject to the FULL (emphasis theirs, not mine) unmitigated tariffs."

We've also been informed that these surcharges are taxable, so that includes the 12% Federal Excise Tax, as well as State Sales tax (when applicable).

It would seem that since the tariff is currently quite low compared to what we expected, the units that are being built during this time period are actually likely to receive little to no actual tariffs as they utilize on hand materials and supplies, but the manufacturer is building up a 'fund' to deal with the tariffs before they fully hit. Seems like a smart play.

Through the grapevine I'm hearing that some brands have more foreign made parts than others. Some a lot more (and some probably less), and therefore will experience wider price swings.

Every industry, and therefore our economy, will be hit hard imo by the sudden and significant inflation. But I sincerely hope that I am wrong.

That just seems lazy, imo. The EO, and related clarifications, should spell out exactly what is tariffed and the effective date. The supplier should be able to correctly calculate the tariff in near real time. Not add a surcharge slush-fund.

 

[Suns_PSD]

I suspect it's extremely hard to calculate. For one thing the countries, items included, and percent of the tariffs change nearly daily.

But more long term, let's take Alcoa, who manufactures wheels using raw Al from Canada. At what point does the Al they are using come from their existing stockpile vs. stock effected by tariffs? This is probably hard to calculate. For that matter, if they know that it's going to cost a lot more to replace, they probably need to ask at least a bit more for existing product.

Anyways, I was just told the actual tariffs on some specific products that were coming across the Southern border, and truthfully, it's much higher than I expected.

I'd expect anywhere from a 10-20% increase in cost on most complicated items like vehicles/ appliances/ tools/ etc, depending on their percent of parts built in the USA vs. our partner countries.

In actuality, many of these products will continue to still be produced in foreign countries, as 25% tariffs paid on, for example a Mexican made lawn mower, is still cheaper than they could be built in the USA. So, in the end, Americans just pay more, and the rest of the planet gets the benefit of an international economy.

I have to say, that if I was Canadian, there is not a thing in this world that you could do to get me to buy American products right now. If Americans have voted for 'America First', shouldn't the Canadians be for 'Canada First'? And European first? And Mexico first? I think the entire rest of the planet has a heck of a motivation to effectively team up to do what they do best and have free trade agreements that exclude the USA entirely.

 

[HammaMan]

In actuality, many of these products will continue to still be produced in foreign countries, as 25% tariffs paid on, for example a Mexican made lawn mower, is still cheaper than they could be built in the USA. So, in the end, Americans just pay more, and the rest of the planet gets the benefit of an international economy.

For the short term. Briggs plant not far from me is more than happy to step up

I have to say, that if I was Canadian, there is not a thing in this world that you could do to get me to buy American products right now. If Americans have voted for 'America First', shouldn't the Canadians be for 'Canada First'? And European first? And Mexico first? I think the entire rest of the planet has a heck of a motivation to effectively team up to do what they do best and have free trade agreements that exclude the USA entirely.

Here's the problem. CA represents 1% of the US economy, the US economy represents 10% of the CA economy. DE's gas problem has them in really bad shape w/ ~3% economic regression. That's made massive hardships. They (CA) doesn't have the cards to dictate the terms.

We're on the titanic dodging the iceberg and people are complaining about the ship listing. Trade normalization is short term pain, long term gain. The US welfare state is bankrupt by 2033 at these rates. None of this is sustainable and radical short term moves are required --- the alternative is going off the cliff.

 

[Suns_PSD]

For the short term. Briggs plant not far from me is more than happy to step up

Here's the problem. CA represents 1% of the US economy, the US economy represents 10% of the CA economy. DE's gas problem has them in really bad shape w/ ~3% economic regression. That's made massive hardships. They (CA) doesn't have the cards to dictate the terms.

We're on the titanic dodging the iceberg and people are complaining about the ship listing. Trade normalization is short term pain, long term gain. The US welfare state is bankrupt by 2033 at these rates. None of this is sustainable and radical short term moves are required --- the alternative is going off the cliff.

Not sure that you really speak for Briggs, but I know that when it comes to simple products like lawn mowers, rarely are things like this made at a better value in America. I prefer to sell Latin America F150s (for example) and allow them to make the lawnmowers. Now, Ford will set up factories there, or the Mexicans will just buy VWs.

Could you explain to me what you are indicating by the bolded above? That is just a very vague statement. Google nor AI gives me nothing back on what this could possibly represent.

I would think it's pretty obvious that the richest and most consumerist nation on the planet manufacturing many complex products is going to import, more than it exports. From Canada specifically we import energy and pieces of the puzzle that allow us to make complicated products.

As far as the actual trade deficit, Canada is 2nd to the lowest as far as deficits compared to all of our trading partners. The trade deficit with China is 10x larger than the deficit with Canada. Which is astounding when you consider that China has 1.5 BILLION people and Canada only has 40 million. Needless to say, Canada is absolutely pulling it's own weight.

TD Economics - Setting the Record Straight on Canada-U.S. Trade

As far as 'dictate the terms', I think that you and I have a radically different idea about how we should treat our friends and partners. This is about 51st statehood, and nothing else. I'm going to avoid getting political, but attacking Canada and Mexico economically (for now) is bad for our economy and security and has nothing to do with the things you speak of. If it had anything to do with economics, well our administration would pursue the countries that are: 1) are actual enemies, 2) we have much higher trade deficits with, especially on a per capita basis, 3) nations, such as Russia/ China/ Iran that starting trades war with, won't specifically damage our own industries severely. These trade wars make are enemies stronger and us weaker.

 

[HammaMan]

Not sure that you really speak for Briggs, but I know that when it comes to simple products like lawn mowers, rarely are things like this made at a better value in America. I prefer to sell Latin America F150s (for example) and allow them to make the lawnmowers. Now, Ford will set up factories there, or the Mexicans will just buy VWs.

I'd rather have them buy US made mowers and vehicles. If they want to buy "peoples car" from DE, by all means let them. Sure it'd be nice to have them buy 150s, but we can barely afford ford's poorly-run-company-requiring-substantial-margins. It's not even a US built thing. They're building rangers in Thailand and competing against chinese cars that cost ~40% less w/ more standard features in them. How is that? Both have access to cheap labor but somehow the chinese are able to drastically out compete w/ all things being equal (sans massive corporate bloat).

Ford's issues are corporate inefficiencies and poor management. Their sucking-the-consumer-dry approach is broken. That goes for the Germans too -- see their energy costs have skyrocketed making them uncompetitive. Their auto market is getting destroyed right now and VW's debt is staggering. They DE govt is trying to keep them afloat but they're going to fail anyway. Turns out when their "friend" blew up their gas pipeline it was the deathblow to their industry as a whole.

Could you explain to me what you are indicating by the bolded above? That is just a very vague statement.

As far as 'dictate the terms', I think that you and I have a radically different idea about how we should treat our friends and partners.

Absolutely. Canada's trade into the US accounts for ~1% of US GDP. US trade into Canada impacts 10% of their GDP (as in our economy is significantly larger and relies on far more inputs than theirs, tariffs have a YUGE impact on the GDP).

So when there's a trade imbalance, as in you buy more from someone than they buy from you, your capital is fleeing your market. When capital flees your market, you have less overall economic activity because the capital isn't there. Instead it's being sent to other nations to artificially prop up their economies, at your economies expense. Now when this "friend" or "ally" as you'd like to call them, helps create this trade imbalance by placing tariffs on your products and making them less than competitive, it fuels this trade imbalance.

For too long everyone and their dog has been taking advantage of the US allowing this to happen, some might say it's been a result of incompetent leadership and policy -- sounds about right. Meanwhile, while all of this trade imbalance has been occurring, the govt has been borrowing trillions of $ -- putting the US taxpayer on the hook for that money. We're essentially borrowing money, to send to other nations buying goods, to prop up their economies? With friends like that, who needs enemies?

A true balanced approach to trade is roughly parity on trade. We buy 1234 from one country, they buy 1234 from us. Maybe if they can't use certain goods we can enter multilateral relations in a manner where it pretty much all balances out between partners. That's not how it currently works. Instead we send ~$1tril of $ that could be used within the US economy overseas instead of buying American or having balanced trade. So long as it continues to work like this, it's a losing proposition.

As the saying goes, When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

For the countries facing the realities of trade realignment, my buddy Justin has a song for it

Sponsored