[90503]

Originally Posted by MEDISIN

Snapshot of retail sales and ATP's year to date. Considering the market, the sales numbers aren't all that bad.

2017 Retail ATP's YTD (JDPin)
Camaro: $40,645
Challenger: $37,298
Mustang: $36,298

2017 Retail Sales YTD
Camaro: 33,739
Mustang: 30,343
Challenger: 23,702

While Mustang is leading total sales in 2017, Camaro is leading retail sales and doing so at a higher price point.

Originally Posted by camaro5

This is THE story month after month, whether people understand it or not.

What we probably can't understand is the ATP and the profit picture for GM...
Why should we care? We can only buy one car at a time at the best price we can negotiate...

Looking at the numbers for retail sales is a lot easier to understand. Camaro leading in retail sales is probably why we don't see a massive advertising campaign....What for? To impress some boardroom execs at the rental agencies?...

Which car the retail buying public prefers seems pretty obvious and looks simple to understand.

My $.02. (Put it towards GMs profits if they need it).

[camaro5]

Originally Posted by Number 3

This would be the story IF the development costs for both cars was the same, the capital required to build the car was the same and piece cost of every component and subsystem were the same. It's safe to say they aren't, but since we don't know the details................

Also remember every GM car has a big monkey on it's back that Ford and no other OEM comes close to. Paying the pensions of 1,000,000 (at least that was the number during the bankruptcy) retirees and survivors. Yes, Ford has those too, but no where near what GM has to pay.

And as the Mustang has higher volumes to spread those costs across, it's entirely possible the Mustang generates more profit for Ford.

So on a high level, selling at a higher transaction price is great, as long as your piece cost, development cost, capital tooling and contribution margins aren't higher than your competitor.

We just don't know the details to say which car is more profitable.

You're leaving out the giant monkey GM dumped with bankruptcy.

All those lawsuits from "old GM" vehicles got swept away forever, (except key-gate) that got grandfathered in by the courts and public opinion.

The Supreme Court has denied General Motors’ legal efforts to use its 2009 bankruptcy to block lawsuits over injuries and financial losses related to the carmaker’s long-ignored ignition switch defect.

https://consumerist.com/2017/04/24/s...nition-defect/

But all other lawsuits were dumped. Bankruptcy was the best thing that ever happened to GM in some ways.

Law360, New York (September 30, 2013, 6:18 PM EDT) -- General Motors LLC is not liable for a settlement its pre-bankruptcy predecessor reached in a consumer class action over faulty transmissions, a New York federal judge ruled Monday.
U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman said General Motors, known as New GM, does not have to honor an estimated $61 million settlement Old GM reached over defective transmissions in some 2002 to 2005 Saturn cars made by the automaker.

Just one example of a lawsuit gone - there were many.

[MEDISIN]

Originally Posted by camaro5

But all other lawsuits were dumped. Bankruptcy was the best thing that ever happened to GM in some ways.

Not entirely. Had GM been allowed to go through bankruptcy without the government contingencies, then GM would be in a much better place today. Not shedding the pensions continues to hobble GM. Then there's the UAW...another unnecessary burden on American automakers. Take away these two factors and GM would be the most profitable automaker on planet Earth year after year.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by camaro5

You're leaving out the giant monkey GM dumped with bankruptcy.

All those lawsuits from "old GM" vehicles got swept away forever, (except key-gate) that got grandfathered in by the courts and public opinion.



But all other lawsuits were dumped. Bankruptcy was the best thing that ever happened to GM in some ways.



Just one example of a lawsuit gone - there were many.

All OEMs have lawsuits ongoing and legacy. Yes, the "new" GM was off the hook for some of the old ones.

But $61 million (transmission example) is nothing compared to the pension liability, which is BILLIONS.

But again, you can go on and on about GM and the Government and the bankruptcy. There are a lot of emotional opinions on that.

My point is we have no idea how profitable the Camaro is or isn't and we have no idea what the planning volume was for the program. GM may very well be happy as clams right now with Camaro sales. They may also be very dissatisfied and wishing they had invested all the money they did on the Camaro on two more SUVs for Cadillac (one is coming soon but late to the game)

GM has stated it clearly and demonstrated it by walking the talk (India). They are in business to make money, not cool cars that don't make profit. And if it loses money, or doesn't make enough return on invested capital to satisfy stock holders we may see less money spent on the Camaro.................or like the Malibu a hurried refresh followed by another hurried refresh.

And the hidden issue is the other two cars on the Alpha architecture (ATS/CTS) are both selling like crap. There has not been an MCE on either of those cars and the ATS has been out for 5 years now with nothing new except the rumored 2019. GM is spending almost no money on them. Combined I don't think they are outselling the Corvette right now. The Camaro in LGR is a huge help for that plant and it's overall operations.

My worry is simply based on history. There was a time when the Camaro did not sell well enough to earn it's position or future investment. GM killed the Firebird/Camaro because of poor sales.

With the onslaught of self driving EVs coming (can't be stopped), will GM continue to invest in something that makes us VERY happy on Camaro5/6 but doesn't make money?

This is from the announcement in September 2001:

The Camaro has seen sales in the first eight months of the year fall to 22,339, down 25 percent from a year earlier, while the Firebird sales have dropped 28 percent to 16,225. But the models retain loyal customers and enthusiasts, GM conceded in its statement.

"We appreciate the strong emotions that our customers have for these cars," said a statement from John G. Middlebrook, GM vice president and general manager vehicle brand marketing & corporate advertising.

The company said part of the reason for the decision is the increasing popularity of light trucks, such as sports/utility vehicles, rather than car models.



- Note that the combined sales of both cars was 38,000 units in 8 months, or a bit over 4,500 per month.

So I have openly stated, I want the car to sell better simply to ensure it stays around.

[midlifecrisis2]

Hi end models aside ........I think base model mustangs and challengers have been cheaper to buy since like forever ????? not sure about cheaper to own but .............it all comes down to money

[douglas2742]

Originally Posted by RenegadeXR

Ouch. Camaro took a nosedive. What's interesting is that this is the first time the Challenger, a nearly 10 year old car at this point, is in the lead. I wonder if FCA's marketing of the Demon is causing a halo effect. They certainly know how to get attention, unlike GM.

I also stand by the idea that people just like a rockin' classic looking Muscle car at a lower price point. Ford and GM abandoned this notion in their latest generations and left a lot of people behind, I think. If I was ever in the market for a new car, I hate to admit it, but a Scat Pack would be on my radar. Like a lot of people, I could care less about handling or track day performance and more about road presence. It's nice to see GM go after the likes of BMW, Porsche, and European brands, but it's not an objective I can associate with at a personal level.

I'm very surprised too with the Challenger numbers. I'm one of those Gen 6 Camaro SS owners who previously drove BMW's, Audi's, GTI's, etc and really appreciate the sports car feel of the Gen 6. In fact I wish the Camaro could be 600 lbs lighter and quite a bit smaller in overall dimensions. What sold me on the '17 SS was the roads tests against the BMW M3 and M4 in which the Camaro was more liked in every category. To me the Challenger sits too high, is way too heavy and big. But that's just me. So it looks like sports cars converts like me were not enough to offset the pure muscle car people in the pony cars sales race.

[b4z]

Fords v8 engine is more expensive to build but the mt82 tranny is cheaper than the tremec6060. And there is a $4300 atp spread that I am sure Ford is jealous of. Especially when they are selling the same number of cars.

[b4z]

If both the mustang and Camaro sell 60,000 cars a year that's $258,000,000 million more in revenue for GM. GMs strategy starts to make sense with those kind of $.

[MEDISIN]

Originally Posted by b4z

If both the mustang and Camaro sell 60,000 cars a year that's $258,000,000 million more in revenue for GM. GMs strategy starts to make sense with those kind of $.

You realize that's less than 0.2% of GM's annual revenue right?

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by b4z

If both the mustang and Camaro sell 60,000 cars a year that's $258,000,000 million more in revenue for GM. GMs strategy starts to make sense with those kind of $.

Revenue is important. But if your piece cost for all those Camaros is $300,000,000 more than a Mustang............or if it cost you $300,000,000 more to develop it and tool it up...............

If you don't know the cost of production, and we don't, simply selling it for more is only part of the equation to determine profitability.

We do know GM has higher costs than Ford that each Camaro has to cover. So it's a mix of higher costs per car for the Camaro and total volume.

Your numbers are using the retail ATP and retail volumes.

The higher Ford volumes overall, rental fleets or not, help keep the plant running and help spread the tooling and development numbers across that higher volume making those costs lower per unit.

The big issue with selling to rental fleets isn't simply that you sell them at a lower price. The biggest problem is when the rental fleets turn around after a year and sell those cars used at an even bigger discount. This hurts residuals and keeps the OEM from having attractive lease deals. It also hurts customers who want to trade in their cars for a new one, they are now competing with super discounted cars from rental companies. This, in the long run, hurts future sales and future pricing. But in the short term, it helps spread the fixed costs over more units.

And to put it in perspective, unless a plant is set up to build low volumes (Like Bowling Green KY) 60,000 units, retail or not, doesn't keep a plant open very long.

2 shifts (6.5 hours each) running 6 days per week, 50 weeks out of the year at 60 jobs per hour is 234,000 units. LGR is building around half of that across 3 models.

Again we only know the highest level of accounting. The devil, as they say, is in the details. And we don't know them.

This might be the most profitable car GM has ever made. We just don't know.

I hope it is as that keeps it around................at least until the robots are driving.

And I want it around long enough for a Gen7 that has better visibility and trunk space

[Number 3]

Why sales matter.

Yes, these cars all sell worse than Camaro, but Impala, CT6, Volt??? May just be posturing with the UAW, but sales matter and this is what happens when they don't.

http://www.freep.com/story/money/car...eup/501292001/

[BluinSC]

^ They're on the hook because nobody is buying cars. If gas was $4 for regular they'd be selling like gangbusters.

I'd be sad to see the LaCrosse go. I like the way they look and I want one bad. I also owned the new style Impala excellent car with 0 issues.

[BluinSC]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Revenue is important. But if your piece cost for all those Camaros is $300,000,000 more than a Mustang............or if it cost you $300,000,000 more to develop it and tool it up...............

If you don't know the cost of production, and we don't, simply selling it for more is only part of the equation to determine profitability.

We do know GM has higher costs than Ford that each Camaro has to cover. So it's a mix of higher costs per car for the Camaro and total volume.

Your numbers are using the retail ATP and retail volumes.

The higher Ford volumes overall, rental fleets or not, help keep the plant running and help spread the tooling and development numbers across that higher volume making those costs lower per unit.

The big issue with selling to rental fleets isn't simply that you sell them at a lower price. The biggest problem is when the rental fleets turn around after a year and sell those cars used at an even bigger discount. This hurts residuals and keeps the OEM from having attractive lease deals. It also hurts customers who want to trade in their cars for a new one, they are now competing with super discounted cars from rental companies. This, in the long run, hurts future sales and future pricing. But in the short term, it helps spread the fixed costs over more units.

And to put it in perspective, unless a plant is set up to build low volumes (Like Bowling Green KY) 60,000 units, retail or not, doesn't keep a plant open very long.

2 shifts (6.5 hours each) running 6 days per week, 50 weeks out of the year at 60 jobs per hour is 234,000 units. LGR is building around half of that across 3 models.

Again we only know the highest level of accounting. The devil, as they say, is in the details. And we don't know them.

This might be the most profitable car GM has ever made. We just don't know.

I hope it is as that keeps it around................at least until the robots are

And I want it around long enough for a Gen7 that has better visibility and trunk space

You are correct of course. But seeing as how much of the underpinnings of the Camaro are shared between 2 other cars (ATS/CTS) I would think the cost would be less. But again we don't know.

[ssrs2lt]

Oh crap lordstown takes another hit..wife worked there for yrs but got layed off...