We Ask Toyota & Subaru about James May's Claim that Toyota Gets 90% of GT 86/FR-S/BRZ

[brzadrian]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

From Day 1 I always thought the 86 looked more like it had 240Z DNA than AE86. I get a lot more folks asking me if its a "new Z" than anything else.

Also, in the pictures ^above^ I think the MR-S looks a lot better in the photo than it does in person. As big an MR-* fanboy as I am, I never really cared for the latest one.

yeah it has that Z look specially from the side and that s2000 in it I personally love 60's and 70's cars and Im glad this car came out looking like it did

[ICantAffordAnLFA]

Subaru bloodline is clear

[carbonBLUE]

Originally Posted by moniz

Well it was Toyota's idea and motivation that launched the project, but minus the injection system and their interior/exterior design, it's all Subaru, manufactured in Subaru's plant. In actual physical fact is really Subaru's car, with Toyota making design and injection contributions.

it was a lot more than that actually...

Toyota:
Injection system
Decision on what materials to use for the engine block
Outside body design
interior design
they engineered the Aerodynamics
limited slip diff
designed BOTH transmissions
wishbone/multilink suspension design
ALL the electronic bits (subarus use toyota's keyless tech)
decision on what the chassis/frame was made of
decision on the weight distribution
decisions on engine dimensions (86 bore and stroke) whether or not you want to accept it, it is a subaru "built" engine but toyota designed the thing from the ground up... that engine holds more horsepower with stock internals than an STI engine block or really any subaru engine ever... and its an open deck motor....
They also funded the entire project

Subaru
Ring frame design
Builds The car
Builds the engine
had the chassis design
...umm thats about it

[gymratter]

Originally Posted by ICantAffordAnLFA

Subaru bloodline is clear

pretty ugly...

[Captain_Awesome_Pants]

Originally Posted by gymratter

pretty ugly...

Well, during their day they weren't. That XT6 interior for instance was something straight out of science fiction. I only wish they had done something to push the edge a bit on the FRS interior instead of giving us that late 90's retread.

[86BRZ]

Here we go again...Toyota or Subaru...

[wu_dot_com]

Originally Posted by HotLava

Don't worry. Once the car is no longer "hot", Toyota will offer Subaru all the production they want.

offering Subaru all the production?? doesn’t make any sense.

production numbers are mostly driven by contract demands. since Subaru is building their own design, Toyota will probably have no say as to how much BRZ Subaru can make.

its really up to Subaru to decide how much BRZ they want to make based on thier capacity.

[wu_dot_com]

Originally Posted by gymratter

they did for the LFA. speaking of the LFA they could just used the factory that built the LFA no? production has ended so that factory isn't being used.

a limited 2 years production of 500 cars total is much different economy of scale than the production (100K / year) volume when it comes to manufacturing setup optimization.

plus for a 300K car, there are huge rooms for markup. for a 25K car, the markup is relatively low. now couple this with low full production number of 100K, at most they will break even if Toyota decide to manufacture the car.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by wu_dot_com

a limited 2 years production of 500 cars total is much different economy of scale than the production (100K / year) volume when it comes to manufacturing setup optimization.

plus for a 300K car, there are huge rooms for markup. for a 25K car, the markup is relatively low. now couple this with low full production number of 100K, at most they will break even if Toyota decide to manufacture the car.

not saying that i dont agree with your conclusion but i would be willing to bet that there is more room for markup on the frs than there was on the lfa.

[wu_dot_com]

Originally Posted by fatoni

not saying that i dont agree with your conclusion but i would be willing to bet that there is more room for markup on the frs than there was on the lfa.

True, but for the sake of simplification lets say you have a fix 20% markup and it cost 25K to make an FRS and 300K to make the LFA, which one will yield more?

for a fix 20%, the LFA would enjoy a 60K profit, whereas the FRS would enjoy 5k.

now let’s say the FRS gets an additional 5% markup and the LFA take a 5% cut in the mark up. the LFA for the same 300K cost would still enjoy 45K profit while the FRS would only get a 6.25K profit.

now frame this information into a setting with a fix per unit manufacturing overhead cost, which one would make more sense for low production number?

you would need to sell 7.2 FRS inorder to make the same profit as if you were to sell 1 single LFA. this is not even taking variable cost like inventory storage into consideration.

in addition, limited production items with high MSRP tend to enjoy much higher profit margin than those mass produce item. the target customer for both product lies on the opposite end of financial mindset spectrum.

for someone who is buying an LFA, they most likely not price sensitive. whereas people who are buying an average price car are much more price sensitive

now let’s take our car for example. Many people online have already complain about how FRS is more expensive than it should be while the BRZ is just way over price.

Lets look at the math here.

The FRS cost 25255 while the BRZ cost 26195. The difference between the two is 940 or 3.7% of the total cost of a FRS. A BRZ limited will cost 28195 which is 2940 difference from FRS or a 11.6% difference.

On the other hand, a base price for LFA is 375K with the track package cost of 445. The difference between the two trim is 70K or an whopping 18% difference from 375K base price.

by applying the same 18% difference to the base FRS 25K price tag, it would result in a 30K car (hence the S2K). at this point, regardless of the performance add on, it would not be price competitive with the current market offering from other brands.


This just further proof that it’s impossible to squeeze further margin from the twins because of their intended customer base.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by wu_dot_com

True, but for the sake of simplification lets say you have a fix 20% markup and it cost 25K to make an FRS and 300K to make the LFA, which one will yield more?

for a fix 20%, the LFA would enjoy a 60K profit, whereas the FRS would enjoy 5k.

now let’s say the FRS gets an additional 5% markup and the LFA take a 5% cut in the mark up. the LFA for the same 300K cost would still enjoy 45K profit while the FRS would only get a 6.25K profit.

now frame this information into a setting with a fix per unit manufacturing overhead cost, which one would make more sense for low production number?

you would need to sell 7.2 FRS inorder to make the same profit as if you were to sell 1 single LFA. this is not even taking variable cost like inventory storage into consideration.

in addition, limited production items with high MSRP tend to enjoy much higher profit margin than those mass produce item. the target customer for both product lies on the opposite end of financial mindset spectrum.

for someone who is buying an LFA, they most likely not price sensitive. whereas people who are buying an average price car are much more price sensitive

now let’s take our car for example. Many people online have already complain about how FRS is more expensive than it should be while the BRZ is just way over price.

Lets look at the math here.

The FRS cost 25255 while the BRZ cost 26195. The difference between the two is 940 or 3.7% of the total cost of a FRS. A BRZ limited will cost 28195 which is 2940 difference from FRS or a 11.6% difference.

On the other hand, a base price for LFA is 375K with the track package cost of 445. The difference between the two trim is 70K or an whopping 18% difference from 375K base price.

by applying the same 18% difference to the base FRS 25K price tag, it would result in a 30K car (hence the S2K). at this point, regardless of the performance add on, it would not be price competitive with the current market offering from other brands.


This just further proof that it’s impossible to squeeze further margin from the twins because of their intended customer base.

i understand math, and your point. i was merely saying that because of the claims that toyota lost money on every lfa sold

[wu_dot_com]

Originally Posted by fatoni

i understand math, and your point. i was merely saying that because of the claims that toyota lost money on every lfa sold

by losing money from no profit margin yes. but i think at the worst they are breaking even.

I think when big company whom is not in financial trouble making those statement are the same as those mom and pop furniture shop saying they are going through a liquidation sale year after year.

[AsianStyle]

http://www.onehotlap.com/2013/01/the...-s-or-brz.html

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by wu_dot_com

..I think when big company whom is not in financial trouble making those statement are the same as those mom and pop furniture shop saying they are going through a liquidation sale year after year.

I have no proof of course, but I believe Toyota when they say they lost money on each one sold. The reason is, it was a loss-leader. They were banking on the improved brand image and the free publicity the car brought them to justify the loss. Also, it basically was a technology test bed for them.

In the end, they made up the cost in gains in other areas.