Quote:
Originally Posted by DGthe3
But that has no direct correlation to profit margins. It relates to incentives, but GM is at least competitive if not lower than Ford & Dodge there.
Although, I must admit ... I may be taking the wrong approach on this one. Afterall, you made the claim. It is your responsibility to back it up. But not with opinions, not guesses, not general statements. Facts & numbers. Afterall, to make a definitive claim like Dodge is making more money per Challenger than GM on the Camaro, or Ford on the Mustang, you must surely have numbers that, right? Because if you don't have something that shows that Dodge makes, I don't know, say $2,217 per Challenger (on average) while GM makes $1,812 off of Camaros, and Ford makes $1,994 on Mustangs you can't justifiably say one way or the other which is more profitable, can you? Sure, you could guess or speculate but without numbers you wouldn't know would you?
So since you clearly aren't pulling this out of thin air, show me the article or press release where the profit per vehicle on the Camaro, Mustang, and Challenger are broken down. If its from a respectable source, I will have no choice but to believe it.
Or, if you did all the number crunching yourself, show me how much the OEMs sell each car for, as well as how much it costs for them to build each one, and what the incentives package is for each one sold (and your sources for all this). I'll double check your numbers.
|
I have only heard what Camaro's profits were and those numbers are not confirmed. Since both Ford and GM averaged about $1100 per unit in 2009 and Dodge was in a close 3rd, I can only use what marketing has taught me and look at things I can plainly see. The formula can be as simple as this, take the total amount produced and subtract the amount sold and it will give you a good solid idea on how well internal projections are being met. The proof would be in the trends and numbers, profits of all three are kept close to the chest but I can guarantee that the Challenger cost less to make 5 years ago than the Camaro did in 3. That will overall mitigate profits longer because the product naturally will cost more to produce and take a higher sales volume and high unit price over a longer period of time to turn a real profit. If GM really made $8000 per Camaro in the first 2 years, most of that profit is actually swept back into the initial cost of the vehicle. Do you think that funding comes out of pocket when these guys lay down big money on factories, research, developement and basically anything else that involves the auto industry? No, manufacturers acquire funding for new products the same way dealers acquire new products from the manufacturer. Through loans, so... since the sales of this NEW model has been relatively low as far as new cars go, It would be a safe bet to say that the Camaro is still in the red. Do you know how long it took Ford to go green on the S197 even with twice as many sales? take a wild guess... this is why products are stretched out so long, to actually make some real money...
The market is growing smaller, the Mustang sales numbers are absolutely horrible right now.. I think everyone on this site would agree... So what does that make the other pony cars? Actually, the Mustang's sales were considered bad in 2008 when total sales were 94,000... Which is right where the Camaro has been since it came out... I am having a hard time understanding, when the Camaro sales 61,000, 98,000 and looks like 89,000 cars a year, for 3 of its first years... how does that make more profit when invoices are similar but production years were spread out in a 3-5 year period and affected by inflation? I want to understand this.... The numbers are not there and never were, are you saying that GM somehow discovered a way to avoid inflation, produce the 2010 Camaro for less than the first year Mustang and Challenger and somehow... somehow... paid for the loans in which R&D came from, produced a profit on a car that has been available for only half the time at the same price of competition? All the while, they are overproducing the product by 20%... I am no rocket surgeon but I can always ask Alice if this is feasible
here is a link to what we are talking about...
www.commonsense.com
Just a joke, don't hit me with the ban hammer...
Quote:
Originally Posted by doc7000
Why is the Pill so disconnected with reality?
It doesn't take a mathematician to be able to tell that the pony car market is currently larger then it was in 2005, back then with only the Msutang it was something like 160,000 units a year and we are well above that point as we are already at 157,000 units and we have 2 months left in this year. I expect that in the next two months we will add about 30,000+ units to this total for an est. of 190,000 units. This makes the pony car market some 30,000 units larger then it was in 2005 and not to mention that the total auto market was larger then.
|
First of all, I am connected, second.. I like this statement. The current cars are outselling the 2005 Mustang. The 2005 Mustang's production was pushed up to 190,000 to meet demand, 166,000 were sold in the US and the remaining cars were sold in Canada. If you eliminated the Mustang and Challenger altogether right now, those lost sales would not just stack on top of the Camaro. The Camaro side of Oshawa maximum capacity is 18,000 a month or 450-460 per day on 3 shifts. Currenty, Camaro Oshawa operates on 2 shifts and produce 20% more Camaros a year than what actually sell. There will never be another pony car that sells in those volumes single handed. Broading the market introduced new buyers more than strayed them away from the other product. How many 2005-2009 owners bought new Mustangs, Camaros and Challengers? Even if it were all of them, they are repeat buyers in the market.. good observation though...