themonk

"safe" yourself some brain cells huh?.....quite the linguist you are, care to intrigue us with more of your outstanding grammar skills, or should I say lack there of?

So a manufacturer spends millions on development costs before they have any idea how the vehicle will perform sales wise....hmmmmm, so again I ask, how does development costs relate to production numbers, one is a fixed number and one isn't.

Don't try to pretend you actually know what you're talking about, you know absolutely nothing and it shows. Quit while you're not ahead, you're embarrassing yourself.

Guibo

First of all, you yourself seemed to have granted validity to suppositions in this discussion. See your earlier post:

If you want to talk about real development costs of cars being produced, then please provide the development costs for any of the other cars being discussed.
Secondly, we can talk about this theoretical Audi because the company's CEO has linked development costs, production numbers and pricing on this very project. McLaren execs have said similar things in discussing where they want to position certain cars with respect to competitors (price and volume were mentioned, with nothing mentioned about how hard/easy the speed would come).
Thirdly, what is so audacious or nonsensical about my example?

Are you sure VW would still lose money if they sold 100k Veyrons per year? Be careful when you cite sources saying VW loses X.X million euros on each one they make. Such sources might not be considering the fact that such calculation are likely based on VW's target of 450 units.
If you're using the LFA as an example of DC and production numbers having nothing to do with each other, then you may be onto something. That's assuming you think that losing money is a good business practice. If you want to recoup your development costs and make a profit, then it pays (literally and figuratively) to get the right balance of price and volume.

I don't have any idea how much it cost to develop. It sounds like you don't either. But I'll address your point. You've just linked development costs and production numbers. It's just one that doesn't make much business sense. Or maybe it makes more sense than you and I realize (and more than VW is letting on).
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0V50IT20150128
Just because there are money-losing vanity projects, that doesn't mean there is no connection between development costs and production volumes. For everyone else who wants to make a profit, production volumes, prices, and development costs are related.

Getting back to your earlier "doubt," do you think a BMW 5-Series costs more to develop than a 3-Series? The 5's starting MSRP is about 50% higher than the 3's.

Guibo

In the case of VW and Lexus, they did have an idea of how the vehicles would perform sales wise. The fact that they were apparently content to lose money doesn't mean there isn't a connection, for everyone else who wants to make a profit. What would be the point of even having production numbers, if not to recoup (and/or profit from) development costs?

themonk

300 million in DC costs is a fact, the car has been produced, it's time for sale. Now, if the vehicle is a complete flop and no one buys then obviously they will either halt production and curb their losses or it's back to the drawing board, either way the number of cars produced has nothing to do with the development costs. Whether the vehicle costs 1 dollar or 400 million to develop the DC is already there. Car companies don't limit the number of cars produced based on what it cost to develop, they don't say "well it cost us 200 mill to develop so we're going to produce 1000 in order to recoup or cost".

Guibo

And how long do you think a company is going to be in business, if it follows the Veyron/LFA model for all of its cars? Show me a successful business venture that exclusively employs the model of money loser after money loser.

So you're saying DC is variable. Depending on the project. New generation of an existing car using shared drivetrain (say, Corvette) vs an entirely new model with much more limited drivetrain sharing (say, Volt). Alternatively, if you added up the total amount of money that GM spent on the Corvette, through 7 generations as well as individual trim levels (base vs Z variants), and factored in the billions they've poured into the engine through the decades, do you think it is more or less than what they've spent on the Volt (or what Toyota spent on the LFA)?
If it cost Audi only $1 to develop this lightweight commemorative special, do you suppose they'd have any problem in green-lighting the project?
So where did GM come up with production targets of 40k/year for the Volt? Where did they come up with a production target of 25k/year for the C5?
BTW, I hope you don't conflate my point that development costs, production, and prices are related to a position which asserts that production is based solely on development costs (or vice versa). I never said any such thing.

I'm still interested in what you think it costs to develop these other cars mentioned. Specifically 3-Series vs 5-Series.

NytmereZ

Wrong on that one..... You even hear the word VIPER? , same price, I recall some azz beatings, and more to come.

NytmereZ

Well of you want to go there, the base price of a hand built Viper is 85k.

05dsom

didn't this start as a Porsche thread

rjwz28

Jesus H, this got ridiculous quick...

Regardless:

1) The GT3RS is SICK it's a shame I can't afford it

2) The original/New/current Beetle and Porsches CLEARLY have design similarities... I don't see how anybody could NOT see that, fanboy or otherwise

Yes, the Beetle looks like an obese 911, but they still share familial resemblance one can easily trace back to their origins (for those who may be in the dark here, Ferdinand Porsche designed the original Beetle)

This familial resemblance is what allowed me to convince my wife to test-drive a Boxster after she decided she wanted a New Beetle because it was cute

The fact that Porsches resemble their ancestors takes nothing away from them, IMHO


3) The Viper DOES resemble a clown shoe... and it's still an incredible, great-looking car. One does not outweigh the other.

E in Phila

I don't think anyone is making the point that there is no similarity. That would suggest blindness. The only question/debate is the degree to which the similarity reflects poorly on the 911.

And on that we agree... it does not. Some feel otherwise.

rjwz28

I was referring to these statements

E in Phila

Whoops, missed those.

Yeah, that's crazy. The cars look related, because as you point out, they are in fact related.

rjwz28

Hey, fix your post... you quoted me as the blind guy

E in Phila

Sorry, quote function doesn't seem to work with firewall at office, so I have to do it manually.

rjwz28

Thanks

gary0006

Mark Webber with 2015 Porsche GT3 RS at the Ring



15 pictures and 2 videos in the gallery

.

Rob Willis

Well said. If I could afford it I'd have one.