By on August 11, 2015

Uber Helsinki

Police in Helsinki are asking residents to skip the fare and call the cops if they spot an Uber driver within city limits.

Cops sent out a tweet Friday asking people to call emergency services (112 if you live in Finland, apparently) so authorities could have a chat with the enterprising driver. It’s illegal to operate a cab without a license, according to the Helsinki Sanomat (via Slashdot via Jack Baruth), and police are using citizen reports and even sting operations to crack down on the drivers.

It’s unclear if police are arresting or fining the Uber drivers.

Uber lists Helsinki as one of the cities it currently services, despite the crackdown by authorities.

When Uber launched in Finland last year, officials praised the company and its services.

“Uber is a good example of what digitization can offer. It creates new possibilities,” Silja Ruokola, a senior government adviser at the Finnish Ministry of Transport and Communications, told the Helsinki Times in 2014.

Cabs in Finland are fairly expensive. On top of a €7 ($7.75) origination fee, riders pay €2 per kilometer. A typical 10 km cab ride would cost about €24 to €36 ($26 to $40 USD). A similar cab fare in Manhattan would cost roughly $25.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

47 Comments on “Uber in Finland? Cops Say Hail No...”


  • avatar
    redav

    So, are we to assume that no Uber drivers in Finland have cab licenses?

  • avatar
    Dirk Stigler

    So people hate Uber because, uh, their friends on Facebook all hate it. Social Media may have disempowered the one tyrant 3,000 miles away, but the 3,000 tyrants one mile away are certainly having a field day.

    • 0 avatar
      frenzic

      Way to completely ignore the ugly reality that is uber. I wonder what you’d think when a bunch of kids without proper education, permits, insurance and whatnot step in and undercut you. How come they get to play by different rules? Facebook has nothing to do with this.

      • 0 avatar
        Dirk Stigler

        The ugly reality of selling a service at a market-clearing price?

        You can go on all you want about education, permits and the like — that’s a completely separate issue. The real ugly reality is a taxi cartel getting the city to artificially limit the supply of taxis in circulation, so they can charge whatever they want and customers have to pay it because there’s no legal alternative.

        There has not in recent memory been a better example of a buggy whip industry overdue for modernization.

        • 0 avatar
          frenzic

          How come they get to play by different rules. It’s not about being the underdog or the supposedly shady goings on in the taxi world. It’s much bigger.

          Ofc it’s a market clearing price, they don’t have to make the same investments, sacrifices all the other players in said market are required to make by law.

          Now these laws suddenly should not apply to actors in the same market the laws were written to regulate.

          I don’t care how cheap it is, it’s not right. They are getting an unfair advantage. I’m Red nor blue btw.

          If this is allowed a lot more “disruptive” services will rise and our education will be worth zilch in the end.
          That education cost a few 100k and I’m guessing a lot of people are still on the hook for that.

          • 0 avatar
            Dirk Stigler

            I get that, but the answer isn’t to keep doing things the old way and try to force everyone else to do it too, when there’s new technology available to change the landscape.

            And again, the problem isn’t safety regulation of livery vehicles, it’s requiring a medallion to operate and then handing out only 100k of them in a city that could easily support ten times that. There is absolutely no reason for that, except to create a walled garden with no price competition.

          • 0 avatar
            orenwolf

            This is the same argument that piano-roll operators made when the phonograph came out: “We’ve invested all this time, effort, and manufacturing capacity into creating automated pianos, and now these little vinyl cylinders that require next to no effort to record or play threaten to destroy our industry.” Eventually, the government decided it was not in the public’s best interest to prop up the industry at the expense of another entrant just because of inertia and investments already made.

            People use Uber not just because it is cheaper. If that were true, only the UberX product would get any use, but uber black and uberTaxi are also huge successes, as well as uber select, all of which cost the same (or more) than taxis! Clearly, uber is offering features that customers want. Do you turn around and scold those same customers for voting with their wallets for the solution they find best?

            The answer here seems to me to be deregulation of the Taxi market so they can compete on price and features, but I have a feeling all the money in the cartels will force them to fight HARD to prevent them from losing their gravy train.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Replacing a regulated monopoly with an unregulated one is not a bright idea.

          • 0 avatar
            SunnyvaleCA

            “That education cost a few 100k and I’m guessing a lot of people are still on the hook for that.”

            Newsflash… many people driving taxies didn’t pay $100k or more for their education. If you paid that much for education and are then undermined in your job by a high-school dropout then I think the problem is with your education, not the high-school dropout.

            Like most government-managed industries, there are a few nuggets of valid business (like requiring insurance, for example), but the rest of the taxi industry is in desperate need of a reboot.

          • 0 avatar
            stuki

            ..

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          “artificially limit the supply of taxis in circulation, so they can charge whatever they want”

          No, they can’t charge whatever they want. The fares are regulated.

          • 0 avatar
            Dirk Stigler

            They’re regulated by the taxi cartel and its donations to the aldermen. Do you think they stay up at night figuring out how to give the customer a better deal?

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            You appear to blissfully unaware of both Finland and Uber’s variable pricing model.

            Put on your thinking cap, if you can find it, and figure out what would happen to prices if Uber had an unregulated monopoly.

          • 0 avatar
            Dirk Stigler

            Maybe you can enlighten me as to how taking away the regulated taxi oligopoly automatically makes its successor either unregulated or a monopoly.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Well, gee whiz, but if all of this fantastic disruption puts the traditional providers out of business and they are replaced by a single ridesharing provider that has no competition, then that would obviously be an unregulated monopoly. This shouldn’t be that hard to figure out.

          • 0 avatar
            ItsMeMartin

            What makes you think that Uber will be the sole provider of taxicab services after the regulations are done away with? Why are you so sure that no competitors will turn up to fill the void? I’m just curious but I can’t help but think that you give Uber way too much credit.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Do you see a bunch of ridesharing services now? I don’t.

            Do you see Uber’s competitors thriving? I don’t.

            Do you see a city of 600,000 people supporting a large number of ridesharing companies? I don’t.

            You guys are fond of your buzzwords such as “cartels” and “socialism”, but you don’t understand what those things are and you are otherwise hopelessly naive about how business works in real life. The pie in a place such as Finland is too small to fight for, and bandit cabs have pretty dodgy track records throughout the world, which is one reason why cab services are regulated.

          • 0 avatar
            ItsMeMartin

            I won’t comment on how it all works in the US but since this article is about Finland – and I live in a country that has a legal system comparable to the Finnish one – I can easily see that Uber’s monopoly might not actually take place. For example, established taxicab companies might introduce their own online applications for ordering cabs, nullifying one of Uber’s unique selling propositions. Several of such programs are currently offered for use in my city, and they tend to cooperate with several taxi companies each, thus reducing the fragmentation of the market, and enabling much choice for the consumer.
            I am also skeptical about the inevitability of Uber’s success because, as a matter of fact, Uber is active in my city, and I see that it is not particularly popular. It’s currently far less popular than both taxis and a certain local specialty – a legal and largely unregulated taxicab-like service in which the fare is billed as “security services” or – and I shit you not – “psychical therapeutic services”. I’m not saying that my experience is representative of other cities in Europe; I’m simply saying that there are methods in which forms of transport other than Uber may flourish, for example by taking advantage of legal loopholes and offering transport under the guise of other services.
            I’m also not certain of Uber’s success because I found many American companies to be overly optimistic about their prospects when entering European markets. Ebay’s complete failure in my own domestic market, for instance, shows that they often downplay the danger that estblished, local brands and solutions pose.
            And yes, I will keep mentioning those “buzzwords” because I believe that the currently prevalent method of organizing taxicab services in most developed countries is definitely cartel-like and constitutes a definite regulatory overreach perpetrated by local governments. It will be much more beneficial for the public to do away with the antiquated system of permits and medallions, instead enabling a larger number of people to provide one of the least complex services one might imagine – personal transport.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            There won’t be a lot of rivals to Uber because of the start-up costs involved.

            If a bunch of Uber’s rivals fail, then it will be difficult to launch new rivals because the venture capitalists won’t invest in them. These businesses aren’t shoestring operations — they will require considerable investment, and a long track record of failures with just one or two winners will discourage new entrants. No point to hitching another good horse to a bad wagon.

            Uber itself may crash and burn, but there will never be more than a couple of these companies in a small market. There is not enough business there to justify the effort.

          • 0 avatar
            stuki

            Pch

            I’ve personally ridden unregulated cabs in Helsinki, going back to the 80s.

            Uber lacks high visibility competition, specifically because they are currently NOT pricing in monopoly rents. As soon as they do, they will get competition. “Unregulated” monopolies are oxymoronic. Barring regulation, monopolies don’t stay that way. Which is exactly why the cab cartels, like anyone else who benefits from the “monopoly part,” don’t want anything to do with the “unregulated” one.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Some people need to type “barriers to entry” into a search engine. Might as well also type “Microsoft” while you’re at it.

            Uber has raised several billion dollars in venture funding, and is bound to raise more. Good luck to Ma-and-Pop Taxi or the shoestring startup in someone’s garage who tries to compete against that.

          • 0 avatar
            stuki

            “Some people need to type “barriers to entry” into a search engine.”

            While others could do well to type “Mencken Imaginary hobgoblins” into same…..

            As stated, Helsinki has been full of deregulated (“pirate”) taxis, going back to at least the 80s. Some of the drivers may even have been old enough to have a driver’s license….

            What prevented there from being more of them, was regulation. The same regulation the insiders now wants to use against Uber. Take that away, and you don’t even need mom and pop to run a taxi shop. Just son. Driving Pirate on Friday night, to fund a Koskenkorva bender on Saturday…

            It’s always easy to harass the heck out of such little guys, since they lack resources to put up much of a fight. Uber does have resources. If the outcome is deregulation proper, it’s a win for everyone from Finish cab customers to aspiring Finish cab drivers. As well as for those who would otherwise have gotten ran over by someone driving around drunk on said Vodka, who can now afford a cab home instead.

            The real danger to Uber having such a dominant position, is not deregulation. But rather that they will use their dominance to throw their weight behind a new set of regulations themselves. Replacing one regulated monopoly with another, IOW. But as long as Finns, despite newfound opportunity to not, manage to stay sufficiently sober to avoid falling into that trap, deregulation is nothing but a boon on all fronts. For anyone other than those specifically and asymmetrically favored by the current regime.

      • 0 avatar
        ItsMeMartin

        Way to ignore the ugly reality that is artificially suppressing private transport options by local government decree.
        “Bunch of kids” – am I correct that you see it as an age issue? If yes, then why do you think it holds any importance? Passing an official driving test and getting the (unrestricted) driving license is basically the proof that the government considers you a safe enough driver to allow you to operate a vehicle on public roadways. It doesn’t say that “you are safe enough for a 18-year-old” and therefore granted more leeway.
        “Education” – you are held to the same standard of road conduct regardless of the number of people on board. What’s the difference between driving with a friend and driving with a stranger who will pay you for the ride? And before you say that being a cab driver requires knowledge of the roadmap of the area served, bear in mind that almost everybody in the developed world who would consider being a cab driver is able to get a GPS navigation set or already has one embedded in his phone. Sure, it doesn’t replace practical knowledge but neither do permits or medallions – just look at NYC. Many of New York hacks are FOB migrants with little to no experience, and yet it’s legal for them to transport people.
        “Permits” – explained above. Permits do nothing to improve the quality of service; on the contrary – they are a way of limiting supply, with the nice, little side-effect of boosting the coffers of the local government. By the way, do you really think that doing professionally that what many people already successfully manage to do every day – driving a car – requires the government’s stamp of approval even though the same govenment has already once decided that you are safe and qualified enough to do so?
        “Insurance” – here you have a valid point, I’ll grant you that.
        “What you’d think when (…) undercut you” – If I knew that I am buying into a regulated industry, in which what safeguards my success is not my unique skillset, my efficiency or my professionalism but a set of arbitrarily set rules aimed at reducing competition and ensuring the exclusivity of my group, then I would expect that sometime in the future, someone will grow tired of such a system and challenge it the way Uber et al is doing now. I would know that the moment someone powerful notices that there’s money to be made in dismantling my old boys’ network, I would realize that from then on I’ll have to truly compete to earn my living without having the local government make sure that no uneducated kids without permits endanger my position.

  • avatar
    jacob_coulter

    Sounds like a great use of emergency police services and I’m encouraged they are also setting up sting operations to take down this dangerous cartel.

    The local taxi cabs tried all sorts of lawfare here and ultimately lost because it wasn’t about safety it was just a monopoly trying to squash the competition. Everyone saw through it.

    • 0 avatar
      jkross22

      You beat me to it. Setting up sting operations to catch those hardened criminals attempting to earn a living by picking people up and dropping them off at their desired location, all from the convenience of their cell phones.

      I’m sure Helsinki citizens are resting easier tonight knowing the cops are ensuring the public safety and public good by preventing these scoundrels from providing efficient, simple, affordable transportation within the city.

    • 0 avatar
      orenwolf

      This, although be, shows how much undue influence the taxi cartels have. A competitor is an “emergency” situation.

  • avatar
    ItsMeMartin

    Unbelievable! Those filthy, scheming capitalists are trying to EARN money instead of going to Social Services and collecting their welfare check, like a proper European should! The gall!

    Luckily, the Police is there to save the day. Thank Robert Schuman for that!

    Long Live the Union of European Socialist Republics!

  • avatar
    orenwolf

    @pch101,

    As one of the “older generation”, surely you’ve heard of the “Second mover advantage?” It will be far easier for competing companies to enter the market once uber has cleared the political and regulatory hurdles. Lyft (a billion dollar company in their own right, in case you somehow don’t consider that “competition”), and Haxi in Europe are two examples of companies that can’t wait for things to calm down in a region so they can enter it, without enduring what uber has.

    Uber won’t have a monopoly. They don’t now, only a larger reach and mindshare.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      Uber’s competitors are already failing, and Lyft spends nine figures per year in customer acquisition costs just to stay in a distant second place. Not much second-mover advantage for something like this.

      • 0 avatar
        orenwolf

        It is far too early in this game to see who will come out on the other side. The cab companies themselves may well end up competing, since once Uber has basically created the “low cost airline” equivalent enshrined in regulations everywhere, it will be in their best interests to do so.

        It’s too early to declare Uber as having a foregone monopoly, especially when they have few customer-facing features that can’t be easily replicated by someone who, for example, aggregates all the taxi drivers in a single app. I mean, that’s *exactly* what UberTaxi does today – aggregates cabs, handles payment, offers better customer service by offering driver ratings and position (and trip log) information. None of those are earth shattering, and some of the taxi companies here are already getting on this bandwagon.

        The landscape will continue to shift until the regulatory lansdcape settles down. I personally hope that they deregulate taxi pricing and allow them to compete on price, but I think there’s too much money in the system (especially the medallion system) for that to happen. There’s too many moguls getting fat off of holding taxi medallions for ransom over driver’s heads, and too much tax revenue from the cities to allow the system to simply cease to exist.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          Deregulated taxis will mean higher prices and inferior service.

          I’ve taken taxis in places such as Prague, Budapest and various Moroccan cities where they will try to overcharge you whenever possible. Having a guy who tries to get you lost so that he can increase the fare and efforts to intimidate so that you will pay more are some of the joys of taxi deregulation.

          • 0 avatar
            orenwolf

            Pch, that is much more difficult to do in the modern era of ridesharing.

            – For starters, each driver is rated by customers. Once you have a low enough rating (and it’s not very low! Apparently 4.1 stars out of five is where they start considering it or somesuch), they will remove you from their system.
            – Secondly, your entire route is tracked and emailed to you after the trip. It’s plain as day if the driver took a suboptimal route. the companies also provide an optimal route to the driver in the app and record when drivers deviate.
            – Third, you don’t argue with the driver over price. If you are taken for a joyride, you use Uber’s customer service. Twice I’ve complained that a) a driver took a shitty route, and b) that a driver missed a turn I clearly told them about. In both cases, Uber issued me a credit. The driver wasn’t even part of the equation.

            What you just described is part of the issue of *regulated* taxis as well. Try getting a driver to take cash off a meter because they went a different way than you wanted or missed a turn. It’s an uncomfortable experience at best. On top of that, most gripe about cash vs credit as well, depending on jurisdiction. Modern ridesharing (and indeed, this isn’t unique to ridesharing! Technically modern taxi companies could do this too!) eliminates a lot of these issues, and makes drivers *accountable* for their actions in a way that regulation alone does not.

            I once complained locally about a driver to the regulation complaints line. The person on the other end was courteous and understanding. I explained that I felt I had a terrible driver and was overcharged. At the end, he asked me if I wanted to press charges. Well, hell no! Who wants to go through that trouble for $10? Unfortunately, that was my only recourse other than telling the cab company and hoping they’d take action. That is most definitely not a better system.

            (edit: clarity)

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Monopolists behave like monopolists, and that is almost never good. No star rating system or software is going to fix that. Monopolies and oligopolies need to be regulated.

  • avatar
    vanpressburg

    Taxi business is over-regulated.
    Millions of people drive their cars tired, they haven’t slept properly
    for days, many drug addicts drive cars and any of them can hit your car
    and kill you regardless, who and how drives your car.
    There are stupid communists in Finland.

  • avatar

    I’m fine with disruption and I like the concept of uber. But über itself is pretty much one of the worst companies ever they give new meaning to bad corporate citizen. You can watch companies like tesla work around existing rules while working to get legislation in their favor. This seems to me to be the correct way. There is something wrong with a company that moves in and decides the rules simply do not apply. It’s not all about Medalllions either. Even in states that just have requirements for livery plates and background checks, über has refused to comply. In Australia there drivers are regularly fined über has taken the stand to simply pay the fines and continue breaking the law, the goal seems to be to annoy and outspend the regulators into giving up.

    Again the taxi industry needs saving and the concept of uber is ok , but the execution leaves much to be desired.

    I actually just had an idea “cargo sharing” here in ct there is no weight limit on towing if it’s for non commercial purposes. I can have all the guys with diesel pickups and race car trailers start hauling “cargo” that just happens to be going where they are (just like ride sharing). I can then use state reproprocity to allow the drivers to travel nation wide with no CDL commercial tags or dot numbers and no road taxes. Plus no other commercial vehicle restrictions. Imagine 35′ enclosed trailers with 30,000 lbs of freight being towed by your average Camry driver for 1$ a mile it will be awesome.

  • avatar
    orenwolf

    @pch101,

    You’re trying /really/ hard, but they aren’t a monopoly. Yes, uber has raised tons of money. A huge portion of that has gone into regulatory lobbying that is not looking for “uber exemptions”, but ride sharing exemptions. Clear victory for the second mover here, they don’t need to spend that money.

    Another huge portion of that money has been in worldwide expansion. Barrier to entry there for sure, but uber *already* faces local competition in some local markets, and almond at certainly will further when the taxi conglomerates start to compete on features and price instead of with rhetoric.

    Behaving like a monopoly is a nonissue here because they aren’t one – unlike Microsoft, they do not have the ability to cause vendor lock-in or, critically, charge whatever they want for a product, which is a key defined for a monopoly. They are gaining market share by undercutting. Windows used to cost hundreds of dollars and even free OSs couldn’t compete because vendors were precluded from putting other os’s on their systems. Uber has no such power.

    It’s like saying Walmart has a monopoly on retail. They are huge and have massive buying power, but Target still undercuts them sometimes, and critically, no one *has* to shop there.

    Are there barriers to entry at a global scale? Of course. At a local scale? Less do, and uber is actually making it *easier* for competition in local markets. And most existing taxi “monopolies” are local.

    • 0 avatar
      Pch101

      I’m not trying to do anything but to get you to lose your naivete.

      It isn’t easy to compete against a company with a $40+ billion valuation and access to capital. One reason why the company has such a high valuation is because it is well positioned to stomp on any would-be rivals. And those rivals that it can’t beat it will buy out. If you can’t see this, then you need to go back to capitalism school, because this is the stuff that happens in the real world.

      • 0 avatar
        Dirk Stigler

        Why yes, that’s business. There are always barriers to entry. A cabbie has to buy a cab, probably get some sort of certification, and uh, buy a medallion on the secondary market for typically more than the cost of the cab itself. That’s a big honking barrier to entry, that exists for no other reason than the incumbent taxi operators have lobbied the government for it, in order to create a barrier to entry and keep out competition. Google search term: “crony capitalism”.

        Likewise quite a lot of occupational licensure, at least when required by government. If something like that is needed, the market will come around to it, as for example with ASE certification for auto mechanics. In most cases the law doesn’t require it, but customers do. Same with most IT professional certifications. On the other hand, down in Louisiana they used to have a licensure law to sell caskets, until someone went to court over the obvious ridiculousness of it.

        And realize, the market can support multiple approaches. Those of us with the means and the preference may buy new tires for our cars at $500+ a set, but there is also the option of used/retread tires for less. Aside from government interference, Uber will likely operate alongside traditional taxis, at least in the short term. In the long term e.g. Yellow Cab is probably working on its own hailing app even as it furiously lobbies to have Uber drivers arrested.

        • 0 avatar
          Pch101

          The market won’t support multiple approaches when one of the companies has the ability to eliminate its competition.

          I’m interested in providing the best options for the consumer, which means acknowledging that not all marketplaces will have or can support large numbers of competitors. You just want to whine about licensing because that’s what you do.

          • 0 avatar
            orenwolf

            It is *way* too early to speculate on what the landscape will look like until the regulation game settles down. Not to mention what the taxi conglomerate response will be once they stop fighting by proverbially stomping their feet and threatening or bribing, and actually get to competing.

            That’s ok though, a few years from now relaity will catch up to speculation even without our assistance! About the only bet I will make is that Uber will *not* be the only choice for ridesharing in the long haul. Time will tell if my bet is correct or not.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            The regulatory issues are completely irrelevant to the point that I am making.

            This idea that we will have an abundance of ridesharing companies and that there is a market to support all of them is painfully naive. If it takes billions to get into the game, very few will bother.

            And it’s not as if the major players are just going to tolerate a bunch of rivals who attempt to take their market share. As noted, they will bankrupt them or buy them out.

            You guys need to learn that the stuff about perfect competition in the Intro to Microecon textbook is simply a theoretical model for explaining certain concepts. In the real world, there isn’t room for a lot of competition, particularly when one of them already has billions of dollars.

          • 0 avatar
            stuki

            “In the real world, there isn’t room for a lot of competition, particularly when one of them already has billions of dollars.”

            If you wanted to pick one particular “market” where perfect competition better approximates reality than virtually any other, unregulated cab driving would be it. Millions of independent buyers, interacting with potentially millions of independent suppliers…

            The fact that one has billions of dollars, is about as solid an indication as you’ll ever find, that there is, indeed, room for lots of competition.

            Where the billions of dollars may throw “market forces” out, is if all those dollars are allowed to help shape regulation. Then you’ll just be right back to the same corrupt monopoly we currently have. That’s where those concerned need to remain vigilant.

            In general, while there, at least in the short term, are instances where betting on perfect competition may look a bit naive, the endless droning on and on about imaginary “market failures”, always “requiring” official intervention on behalf of the well connected of course, is an infinitely bigger hindrance to humanity’s current and future well being.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Yes, the wonderful world of unregulated cabs leads to the abuse of customers. We license cabs to screen out some of the worst characters from driving them and to provide opportunities for recourse when the drivers behave badly.

            Having experienced this sort of thing firsthand in the places where there are few or no rules, I’m glad that we have the rules. Having some jerk who tries to get your disoriented so that he can run up the cost is not the sort of thing that we should welcome, even if the internet Atlas Shrugged crowd finds such ripoffs to be glorious.

    • 0 avatar

      I think calling out Uber as a potential monopoly is a bit farsighted, but I;m pretty sure it is Uber’s goal so it should be watched.
      As to market correction markets can do some interesting things but they are not all that great at preventing monopolies when a first mover gains to much influence and capital. Once they have established capital and a market base they can be tough to fight.
      As I said before it’s not so much that Uber is disruptive that’s the problem it’sm more the fact that it’s a company that flagrantly breaks the law.

  • avatar
    orenwolf

    Reality will provide all the confirmation required. Convenient, that.

  • avatar
    CJinSD

    I don’t know about Finland, but anyone defending the taxicab monopolies of the US has about as much credibility as Hillary Clinton.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • ToddAtlasF1: Considering what people buy these trim levels for, wouldn’t it make more sense to put the...
  • Hummer: Jeez, I can’t imagine paying that much for 1 vehicle, $1,900 is what one could expect to pay for about 3-4...
  • geozinger: Fnck. I’ve lost lots of cars to the tinworm. I had a 97 Cavalier that I ran up to 265000 miles. The...
  • jh26036: Who is paying $55k for a CTR? Plenty are going before the $35k sticker.
  • JimZ: Since that’s not going to happen, why should I waste any time on your nonsensical what-if?

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States