Motor Trend: 2016 Miata vs 2015 BRZ

[Rampage]

Originally Posted by why?

Or maybe you need to read a few post above mine when people are noting the new ND is barely beating sales of the NC, I guess a car everyone hated for some reason.

I am not sure where you (or anyone else) are getting your data but it is way too early to start calling out ND sales numbers. For one thing, the new MX-5 is still in very limited supply. Many potential buyers are still waiting for cars to arrive at dealers. The few that are available are automatics and most are top of the line GTs with options that many do not want. The more economical Sports are only now starting to arrive in the US. With the onset of fall across the northern states, convertible sales will slow until spring. That is when we will really be able to look at accurate sales of the new MX-5 in comparison to the older model.

In addition, there is currently no differentiation in the sales numbers between the current NCs and NDs that are being reported on sites such as goodcarbadcar.com.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

Well I've got a source and you don't. Pics or it didn't happen. Your numbers are not unbelievable if you include Celica's and worldwide sales, or if that's all Mk2 Supra's worldwide from '82-'85.

Toyota and Subaru optimistically targeted 100k units per year worldwide, I suppose your business sense is vastly superior to theirs, you should have rushed to their aid in 2012 to tell them that those numbers are garbage and they never should have made the car with expectations so low.

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4283

The only public announcement of worldwide 86 production numbers came from March of '14, where they claim they have already surpassed 100k, that comes in under the 2 year mark.

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60082

who cares about numbers? facts are garbage because they can change. this is the internet. opinion reigns supreme because they are unwavering. the earth was flat and that was a fact. i dont trust you or your numbers but my belief will never change.

[s0sl0w]

I'm not going to deny the man an erection.

[why?]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

Well I've got a source and you don't. Pics or it didn't happen. Your numbers are not unbelievable if you include Celica's and worldwide sales, or if that's all Mk2 Supra's worldwide from '82-'85.

Toyota and Subaru optimistically targeted 100k units per year worldwide, I suppose your business sense is vastly superior to theirs, you should have rushed to their aid in 2012 to tell them that those numbers are garbage and they never should have made the car with expectations so low.

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4283


The only public announcement of worldwide 86 production numbers came from March of '14, where they claim they have already surpassed 100k, that comes in under the 2 year mark.

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60082

maybe you need to take a chill pill. or maybe you just enjoy acting like a clown. Sad you cannot have a discussion without saying stupid crap. I have no idea where those numbers came from, I saw them a long time ago. I wouldn't trust estimates from a classic car magazine for a car that came out 30 years ago either though.

I wish they could sell more 86's, I would love them to be able to hit 100,000 sales a year in the US, because that would give them enough to make turbo and other versions of the car. Unfortunately two door cars just don't sell that much. There is a reason nearly every manufacturer from Subaru to VW to Ford is bringing out there non muscle car sporty cars with 4 doors.

Originally Posted by Rampage

I am not sure where you (or anyone else) are getting your data but it is way too early to start calling out ND sales numbers. For one thing, the new MX-5 is still in very limited supply. Many potential buyers are still waiting for cars to arrive at dealers. The few that are available are automatics and most are top of the line GTs with options that many do not want. The more economical Sports are only now starting to arrive in the US. With the onset of fall across the northern states, convertible sales will slow until spring. That is when we will really be able to look at accurate sales of the new MX-5 in comparison to the older model.

In addition, there is currently no differentiation in the sales numbers between the current NCs and NDs that are being reported on sites such as goodcarbadcar.com.

no idea where anyone is getting the sales numbers. It is really early to gauge much of anything, but Miata enthusiasts are usually crazy fast buying up all the special editions. For the snow states, this is usually the best time to get a rwd car as dealerships usually are willing to make a deal so they are not sitting on the lots the entire winter. Not sure if that would apply for a car as new as the Miata.

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by why?

maybe you need to take a chill pill. or maybe you just enjoy acting like a clown. Sad you cannot have a discussion without saying stupid crap. I have no idea where those numbers came from, I saw them a long time ago. I wouldn't trust estimates from a classic car magazine for a car that came out 30 years ago either though.

I wish they could sell more 86's, I would love them to be able to hit 100,000 sales a year in the US, because that would give them enough to make turbo and other versions of the car. Unfortunately two door cars just don't sell that much. There is a reason nearly every manufacturer from Subaru to VW to Ford is bringing out there non muscle car sporty cars with 4 doors.



no idea where anyone is getting the sales numbers. It is really early to gauge much of anything, but Miata enthusiasts are usually crazy fast buying up all the special editions. For the snow states, this is usually the best time to get a rwd car as dealerships usually are willing to make a deal so they are not sitting on the lots the entire winter. Not sure if that would apply for a car as new as the Miata.

Quoted in it's entirety for posterity. First post I responded to below for context.

Originally Posted by why?

Cars are actually not selling like they use to, in fact SUVS/Crossovers outsold sedans for the first time in history.

Our economy sucks. We have a stock market that is making record highs by having some of the fewest number of trades ever. That is not good. We have more people not working now than since the Great Depression, we have a government that has more unemployment numbers then ever before. We have more government debt than in the known history of planet earth.

Yes everyone on this one forum owns a two door. How many have Toyota and Subaru sold combined so far? I guarantee Toyota sold more MK2 Supras in 1982 alone than both companies have sold 86/FRS/BRZ's in all years so far.

Or maybe you need to read a few post above mine when people are noting the new ND is barely beating sales of the NC, I guess a car everyone hated for some reason. Or maybe you need to go into sales data and see there is a reason why Subaru/Mitsubishi/Ford/etc are making all their sporting cars with 4 doors. Maybe it could be because almost no one is buying 2 door cars nowadays? Or maybe note that Porsche, Lamborghini,Maserati, et all are coming out with 4 door cars and SUV's because their mainline sporting 2 doors aren't selling as much as they would like.


Wow you are so brilliant, or did you mother have to give you that line?

[phobos512]

Originally Posted by why?

no idea where anyone is getting the sales numbers. It is really early to gauge much of anything, but Miata enthusiasts are usually crazy fast buying up all the special editions. For the snow states, this is usually the best time to get a rwd car as dealerships usually are willing to make a deal so they are not sitting on the lots the entire winter. Not sure if that would apply for a car as new as the Miata.

The problem is there are waaay more automatics in the pipeline than manuals so far. Even in the Club model - and the manual Club is the one the enthusiasts want, because it's got the LSD, the STB and the option for BBS wheels and Brembos brakes. You can't get any of those things in the Sport or the Grand Touring, and the you can't get any of those things if you get the automatic (even in the Club).

And you can't get the Recaros in the US at all for some damn reason (at least for 2016).

[Tcoat]

Not going to respond directly to each person but here are some realities of the auto industry that outsiders frequently do not grasp.

In no particular order:
1) Autos sell more often then manuals - We enthusiasts that love our MTs are the exception not the rule. The vast majority of the car buying public buy a car to get from point A to point B and just don't give a crap if they are "more connected" or any of the other MT proponents arguments.

2) Manufacturers make exactly the number of cars each year that their business plan called for - Regardless of if a car sells over or under expectations they follow the plan. End of story. The planned number is not a random guess but a very carefully researched and thought out goal with numbers set for years ahead. Even if everything that they made is sitting unsold in a storage compound or all of the production run is sold before it comes off the line they are not going to change the numbers mid plan.

3) It can take 2 or 3 years to increase or decrease the numbers produced - It is not just a matter of flipping a switch and turning the production up or down. Every single aspect from assembly line availability to the parts supply have been planned for years and even a slight change can take an unbelievable amount of time and cash. Contracts with the suppliers that make everything from trim washers to full body shells specify exactly how many of each are expected and to increase or decrease that number is going to cost the manufacturer big bucks. The supply of parts is in a delicate balance and anybody that has ever had to be involved in building and tooling a plant from scratch will know exactly how complex this is. Car manufacturers these days should really be called "assemblers" since they rarely actually make many of the parts themselves anymore.

4) Comparing the big volume "muscle cars" to specialty cars is ridiculous - The vast majority of the Mustangs and Camaros ever built were not the muscle versions but the base line "hairdresser" ones. These cars are little more then 2 door econoboxes that just look like their performance brethren. There are 100s of every lower level of these cars for each performance level one. If you only considered the true, factory made performance, versions then the sales numbers would drop to a level that you would ask if it was worth it to make them at all.

5) If more sold then we would get the turbo, convertible, targa, etc - No, no and no. If such models were planned they would already be on a secret agenda someplace and how many sold to that point would not change it. I say again that the manufactures don't just randomly decide what they are doing from year to year and they have far more qualified people to determine what will sell (in numbers that make a profit) then a bunch of random armchair marketers on a forum.

I know this will ruffle feathers and a dozen people will tell me I am wrong but after almost 30 years in the Tier 1 automotive parts manufacturing business I can assure you that this is the real world like it or not.

[totopo]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

4) Comparing the big volume "muscle cars" to specialty cars is ridiculous - The vast majority of the Mustangs and Camaros ever built were not the muscle versions but the base line "hairdresser" ones. These cars are little more then 2 door econoboxes that just look like their performance brethren. There are 100s of every lower level of these cars for each performance level one. If you only considered the true, factory made performance, versions then the sales numbers would drop to a level that you would ask if it was worth it to make them at all.

5) If more sold then we would get the turbo, convertible, targa, etc - No, no and no. If such models were planned they would already be on a secret agenda someplace and how many sold to that point would not change it. I say again that the manufactures don't just randomly decide what they are doing from year to year and they have far more qualified people to determine what will sell (in numbers that make a profit) then a bunch of random armchair marketers on a forum.

4) I think a big difference is that, before, the baseline v-6 mustang and camaro were complete POS's. like the 4th gen mustangs with their 145-190hp/215-225 ft.lb of torque. or the 4th gen camaros with 160hp/200 ftlb. Where punk azn's in their parents' i-4 camry's and accords could beat them in a drag race, and where the econo "sporty" cars could slaughter them at the track. The early 5th gen mustang wasn't much better at 210hp/240. The new v-6 and turbo i-4 mustangs and camaros though, are some of the fastest cars you can get for your money on the drag strip and on road tracks. I do think it is eating away at the market share of all the other sports cars.

This forum is biased towards those that did end up with the twins. The strong point of the twins is in driving feel. So if that is your most important priority, of course you wouldn't really cross shop the mustang and camaro. it would be more the miata, used s2k, etc.

If, however, you go to the mustang and camaro forums, you will see there are tons of people that cross-shoped them and the twins, where driving feel wasn't the highest priority. Maybe the engine was a bigger priority. Where they ended up buying a mustang/camaro instead.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by totopo

4) I think a big difference is that, before, the baseline v-6 mustang and camaro were complete POS's. like the 4th gen mustangs with their 145-190hp/215-225 ft.lb of torque. or the 4th gen camaros with 160hp/200 ftlb. Where punk azn's in their parents' i-4 camry's and accords could beat them in a drag race, and where the econo "sporty" cars could slaughter them at the track. The early 5th gen mustang wasn't much better at 210hp/240. The new v-6 and turbo i-4 mustangs and camaros though, are some of the fastest cars you can get for your money on the drag strip and on road tracks. I do think it is eating away at the market share of all the other sports cars.

This forum is biased towards those that did end up with the twins. The strong point of the twins is in driving feel. So if that is your most important priority, of course you wouldn't really cross shop the mustang and camaro. it would be more the miata, used s2k, etc.

If, however, you go to the mustang and camaro forums, you will see there are tons of people that cross-shoped them and the twins, where driving feel wasn't the highest priority. Maybe the engine was a bigger priority. Where they ended up buying a mustang/camaro instead.

Yes, yes and yes.
I should have been more clear and said "comparing sales numbers of...". It wasn't the cars themselves but their volumes that I was speaking to.

[Entroper]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

1) Autos sell more often then manuals - We enthusiasts that love our MTs are the exception not the rule. The vast majority of the car buying public buy a car to get from point A to point B and just don't give a crap if they are "more connected" or any of the other MT proponents arguments.

That's not really true for Miatas, though, and probably not true for the twins, either.

There was a lot of aggravation when the Launch Edition MX-5s became available for pre-order, because the manuals sold out in minutes while automatics remained available for weeks. The allocation was roughly 50/50, because Mazda used NC sales as a predictor, and NCs were roughly 50/50 manual/auto over its lifetime. But people interested in Launch Edition cars, and people interested in the first MY, aren't the same audience as people who bought NCs over the last 10 years.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Entroper

That's not really true for Miatas, though, and probably not true for the twins, either.

There was a lot of aggravation when the Launch Edition MX-5s became available for pre-order, because the manuals sold out in minutes while automatics remained available for weeks. The allocation was roughly 50/50, because Mazda used NC sales as a predictor, and NCs were roughly 50/50 manual/auto over its lifetime. But people interested in Launch Edition cars, and people interested in the first MY, aren't the same audience as people who bought NCs over the last 10 years.

There are exceptions. Even with the cars you mentioned though after the initial run on the first release the majority will go to Joe/Jill Average not the enthusiast.

[why?]

That is interesting info. Sounds like you have a cool job, you just seem to travel a ton.

The only thing I would disagree on is point 5. I think the show cars proved they were on a secret agenda somewhere, and while yes it could take years for them to change that agenda, it has been years, and if they had planned on introducing new models at the mid cycle refresh that is plenty of time to change things. I don't think they ever expected to introduce all the models up front, but I do expect they would introduce the 86 and give it some indeterminate amount of time and see what happened before they planned on introducing sub models. I understand we could be talking about 5 years or more here, and I understand it is more than simple sales figures that would go into that decision. It is also too early to say they ruled them out. I also think that when the president of a company says to do something people below him will jump through all sorts of hurdles to do it, since that is what happened with the 86 to begin with.

Of course they know what they are doing more than we do, I hope no one would be dumb enough to argue against that.

I could argue against point 4 as well. While bottom of the line muscle cars are not super performance cars, neither is the 86. Pretty sure every current base muscle car is more powerful than our car. To simply call them hairdresser cars is the same as every imbecile everywhere that says the 86 is under powered. For every person that could afford to buy a brand new top of the line muscle car, I am sure there were a few that just didn't think it was worth it for whatever reason.

Originally Posted by Tcoat

There are exceptions. Even with the cars you mentioned though after the initial run on the first release the majority will go to Joe/Jill Average not the enthusiast.

That I agree with completely. The majority of most cars, even sports cars, go to "Joe/Jill Average" and not car enthusiast.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by why?

That is interesting info. Sounds like you have a cool job, you just seem to travel a ton.

The only thing I would disagree on is point 5. I think the show cars proved they were on a secret agenda somewhere, and while yes it could take years for them to change that agenda, it has been years, and if they had planned on introducing new models at the mid cycle refresh that is plenty of time to change things. I don't think they ever expected to introduce all the models up front, but I do expect they would introduce the 86 and give it some indeterminate amount of time and see what happened before they planned on introducing sub models. I understand we could be talking about 5 years or more here, and I understand it is more than simple sales figures that would go into that decision. It is also too early to say they ruled them out. I also think that when the president of a company says to do something people below him will jump through all sorts of hurdles to do it, since that is what happened with the 86 to begin with.

Of course they know what they are doing more than we do, I hope no one would be dumb enough to argue against that.

I could argue against point 4 as well. While bottom of the line muscle cars are not super performance cars, neither is the 86. Pretty sure every current base muscle car is more powerful than our car. To simply call them hairdresser cars is the same as every imbecile everywhere that says the 86 is under powered. For every person that could afford to buy a brand new top of the line muscle car, I am sure there were a few that just didn't think it was worth it for whatever reason.



That I agree with completely. The majority of most cars, even sports cars, go to "Joe/Jill Average" and not car enthusiast.

I do have a very cool job and yes I travel a pile. Never to cool places though it is always somewhere like Detroit or Butfeck Illinois.


The thing for the big changes is that they pretty much said outright from the very beginning that they would never be doing a high HP version. I don't think (opinion alert) that it was ever in the plan or that it ever will be. It seems to us here that there are loads of people screaming for them but the real numbers are probably way below a profit point.


I wasn't very clear when I spoke of the muscle cars. I was not meaning to imply that they were low powered or poor performers just that they are not the big name versions of legend. They are the bread and butter of the industry for those that want the name, style, history, etc of the cars but don't care about the performance. I was not comparing them to the 86 in function but just illustrating the point that if the only versions that existed were the performance ones than even the Mustang would be a low production car. Be sort of like if the twins were just upgraded Corollas then they would have that huge volume base model for the average person and the short run performance version for those that wanted it. Since 86 does not have this high volume version it stands alone as a low production car.

[why?]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

I do have a very cool job and yes I travel a pile. Never to cool places though it is always somewhere like Detroit or Butfeck Illinois.


The thing for the big changes is that they pretty much said outright from the very beginning that they would never be doing a high HP version. I don't think (opinion alert) that it was ever in the plan or that it ever will be. It seems to us here that there are loads of people screaming for them but the real numbers are probably way below a profit point.


I wasn't very clear when I spoke of the muscle cars. I was not meaning to imply that they were low powered or poor performers just that they are not the big name versions of legend. They are the bread and butter of the industry for those that want the name, style, history, etc of the cars but don't care about the performance. I was not comparing them to the 86 in function but just illustrating the point that if the only versions that existed were the performance ones than even the Mustang would be a low production car. Be sort of like if the twins were just upgraded Corollas then they would have that huge volume base model for the average person and the short run performance version for those that wanted it. Since 86 does not have this high volume version it stands alone as a low production car.

I couldn't imagine having to go to Detroit frequently. I hate travel, my idea of a travelling job is me getting up and walking 5 minutes and being at work. Any more travel than that and I am not happy.

Agree with the rest. Still waiting on the rumored lower powered version of the 86 that unfortunately never came. Not sure even if they did choose to add a turbo it would be "high hp" by anyone's definition, I almost would love to see them introduce a new turbo 86 with 220 hp and 220 lb/ft of torque just to laugh at all the people who freak about how that still isn't enough power. And then they'd freak about the $30-$35k price tag attached to it. And they still wouldn't buy a new 86. Damn I just wish they'd stop ruining our currency.