2019 Special Edition BRZ, any ideas???

[Jordanwolf]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Make up your mind. Before if it didn't put a dollar in s shareholders pocket it was't "profit" but now it is? they can gain the tech ROI and never make a penny on the actual vehicle.

They also have mandatory cost reductions through the life of the contract and many other clauses and twists that are not seen anyplace but the auto industry.

Yep many posts means no life. The fact that most of my posts are either helping or entertaining people with just a small percentage spent arguing with clueless people is meaningless. I suppose I should take up other hobbies such as basket weaving or butterfly collecting so that I have your approval.

I suppose you should, you no life, working adult, with responsibilities and achievements in life. I suppose you should.

[mrg666]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

See everybody seems to understand this except one person.
Not just a matter of knowing it wouldn't have huge numbers it was planned that it wouldn't. They said from the start it would be a low volume, low margin vehicle. They were never ever looking for Corolla numbers out of it. If somebody can show me some fields of built but unsold cars someplace I will be concerned about declining sales but they plan the annual build and sell what they built so they are satisfied with that. Making the broad sweeping statement of "they will drop it because volumes are not there" is sadly mistaken. If they do plan to drop it after just one generation that decision was made before the first car ever rolled off the line not now. Some people like to second guess them but Toyota/Subaru know what they are doing. Any money lost or gained on these cars is so insignificant in the global picture that to think they would drop it because it isn't "profitable" is laughable.

Cancellation of 86/BRZ production is just a matter of the corporate management looking at this car from a slightly different angle. They could easily cancel it under some conditions I can imagine:
- if they need the production line for something else
- at a time they need to do some cost reduction
- they find the interest is fading and they don't have the interest/resources to do a redesign
- when they think there is a new product that can do the same kind of corporate promotion (like the new Supra)

Corporations frequently layoff hundreds for saving a penny per employee, they could easily cancel this car as well especially since they don't have direct profits.

We can speculate all we want, it is in the end up to the decision of another subjective decision process of the corporate management. I am just thankful for such a car was built and I was able to buy. I suggest let's move on and keep driving.

[Jordanwolf]

Originally Posted by rvoll

The technology improvements ARE a monetary ROI as they are part of the project ROI calculation. To not include those benefits means you would never undertake that development. How many technology project ROI's have you seen?

Supplier contracts have start dates and end dates -- they do not go forever. Many also have volume dependencies and as purchased volume decreases, costs increase. It is bloody hilarious that you don't understand these contracts.

Yes, with an average of 33 posts per day for numbers of years, I'm sure you can outlast anyone who has a life.... Have at it....

Well now aren't you the bad ass. Only I can insult Tcoat.

Lol, damn child. Learn how to not be so passive aggressive, it adds nothing to your arguments, besides making you look like a 5 year old from xboxlive.

[Jordanwolf]

inb4 series.power.jump.to.match.miata

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by mrg666

Cancellation of 86/BRZ production is just a matter of the corporate management looking at this car from a slightly different angle. They could easily cancel it under some conditions I can imagine:
- if they need the production line for something else
- at a time they need to do some cost reduction
- they find the interest is fading and they don't have the interest/resources to do a redesign
- when they think there is a new product that can do the same kind of corporate promotion (like the new Supra)

Corporations frequently layoff hundreds for saving a penny per employee, they could easily cancel this car as well especially since they don't have direct profits.

We can speculate all we want, it is in the end up to the decision of another subjective decision process of the corporate management. I am just thankful for such a car was built and I was able to buy. I suggest let's move on and keep driving.

Exactly! Except it is only subjective from our viewpoint. Whatever they decide will be based on a totally objective part of the business plan.

[krayzie]

Originally Posted by rvoll

The Miata came out when there were a lot of small sports cars. Sales were much higher than the Twins ever had. Mazda, and "zoom-zoom" was into small car performance so the Miata was consistent with corporate philosophy. They had other cars like the RX7 and RX8 so they had a sports car line. In addition, there are many parts of the current Miata like engine, transmission, interior, infotainment system, etc., that are used on other models. Since the intro of the RF, sales have increased, but they are significantly down this this year. However, their volume remains significantly higher than the Twins. So the Miata did come about through corporate decisions about the market they wanted to pursue and they did have experience in that market already. If you don't think that Mazda did an ROI on the car, you're fooling yourself.

That tells me you didn't watch the 25 mins Bob Hall video I posted.

I think you are confusing the late 80's with Y2K. The Miata came out at the end of the 1980's and entering into the 90's Mazda did have a sports car line (MX-5, MX-3, MX-6, RX-7, Cosmo, AZ-1). But the type of sports car the MX-5 Miata was had no direct competition when the LWS project was being developed in total secret to the rest of corporate as a side job.

By Y2K (when the zoom-zoom slogan was invented), a lot of sport compact cars from Japan were being discontinued to the point Best Car bi-weekly publication in Japan had an issue with a list of at least 20 cars listed that were slated to disappear within a year.

By the time the NC came out, the only other sports car Mazda had was the RX-8 (a sporty 323/Lantis/Protege/Mazda3 doesn't count imo). I wouldn't really call a two model line-up a sports car line. By your thinking they would have axed both cars in 2011.

In Japan the 86/BRZ product is actually considered a direct competitor to the Miata by the manufacturer. Toyota went as far as to study how Mazda developed the entire package including car clubs and meets, one-make races, ease of modification, and technical certification with aftermarket tuners albeit all in Japan only). The car was never made with profit in mind. The ROI is on how this project totally altered the way they develop and tune sports cars for both Toyota and Subaru, and never meant to make money but to shape the company image and re-educate the car buying public.

[FRSBRZGT86FAN]

Originally Posted by mrg666

Cancellation of 86/BRZ production is just a matter of the corporate management looking at this car from a slightly different angle. They could easily cancel it under some conditions I can imagine:
- if they need the production line for something else
- at a time they need to do some cost reduction
- they find the interest is fading and they don't have the interest/resources to do a redesign
- when they think there is a new product that can do the same kind of corporate promotion (like the new Supra)

Interesting enough on your points then the 86/BRZ only has a few years left then:


1) Production line is owned by subaru in Gunma, and it produces all 86/BRZ/(frs when it was sold as that as well), so it's up to them if they needed it for something else
2) Cost reduction we can't foresee unless theres another economic crisis happening globally
3)Interest is fading as sales are dropped off considerably because those that wanted the car already have it.
4)The supra does not fit the same market segment as the twins and they are very aware of that

[rvoll]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Make up your mind. Before if it didn't put a dollar in s shareholders pocket it was't "profit" but now it is? they can gain the tech ROI and never make a penny on the actual vehicle.

They also have mandatory cost reductions through the life of the contract and many other clauses and twists that are not seen anyplace but the auto industry.

Yep many posts means no life. The fact that most of my posts are either helping or entertaining people with just a small percentage spent arguing with clueless people is meaningless. I suppose I should take up other hobbies such as basket weaving or butterfly collecting so that I have your approval.

Never said that, but you post so much I'm sure you get confused. Did you get your 33 posts in yesterday? You assume, wrongly, that ROI's are only calculated on "actual vehicles". That's wrong, Grasshopper, as they are calculated on ALL programs including technology investments. Everything that is not government mandated done in a large corporation is profit oriented and ROI's are calculated.....

I didn't realize that you were the head of a charity dedicated to helping the victims of buying a Twin. Not bad for a primary job. You must be a great philanthropist....

[Clipdat]

[rvoll]

Originally Posted by Jordanwolf

Well now aren't you the bad ass. Only I can insult Tcoat.

Lol, damn child. Learn how to not be so passive aggressive, it adds nothing to your arguments, besides making you look like a 5 year old from xboxlive.

You guys from Canada are so much above it all.... But you should really look up the definition of passive-aggressive. Let's see, avoidance of direct confrontation? Really? Procrastinating? Really? Let me put it this way.... I really dislike posters who are trying to be "King of the Board" and think they are the authority on everything. So I tend to DIRECTLY CONFRONT them immediately without PROCRASTINATING. And yes, corporate development and strategy is my wheelhouse. I've spent 50 years with Fortune 100 companies doing it. And I don't generally push the envelope unless one of those "Kings of the Board" start spewing nonsense. The other areas where I have some expertise, but not specific experience on the Twins, is in the area of wheels and tires as related to performance. I do some posting on things like the phone holder solution I've done or the front sensors I've installed just for interest. But I have no need to post in other areas where I have little knowledge although I tend to read and learn a lot from the posts of others. And have learned a lot about my car from those posts. I can't tell you how much this board has meant to me just in terms of researching topics that have been covered before. And yes, even @Tcoat was helpful in some of those areas. But he is out of his element here....

[rvoll]

Originally Posted by krayzie

That tells me you didn't watch the 25 mins Bob Hall video I posted.

I think you are confusing the late 80's with Y2K. The Miata came out at the end of the 1980's and entering into the 90's Mazda did have a sports car line (MX-5, MX-3, MX-6, RX-7, Cosmo, AZ-1). But the type of sports car the MX-5 Miata was had no direct competition when the LWS project was being developed in total secret to the rest of corporate as a side job.

By Y2K (when the zoom-zoom slogan was invented), a lot of sport compact cars from Japan were being discontinued to the point Best Car bi-weekly publication in Japan had an issue with a list of at least 20 cars listed that were slated to disappear within a year.

By the time the NC came out, the only other sports car Mazda had was the RX-8 (a sporty 323/Lantis/Protege/Mazda3 doesn't count imo). I wouldn't really call a two model line-up a sports car line. By your thinking they would have axed both cars in 2011.

In Japan the 86/BRZ product is actually considered a direct competitor to the Miata by the manufacturer. Toyota went as far as to study how Mazda developed the entire package including car clubs and meets, one-make races, ease of modification, and technical certification with aftermarket tuners albeit all in Japan only). The car was never made with profit in mind. The ROI is on how this project totally altered the way they develop and tune sports cars for both Toyota and Subaru, and never meant to make money but to shape the company image and re-educate the car buying public.

Some good points. However, with the Miata there is a lot more overlap with other models than with the Twins. I had a 2014 Mazda 3 a couple of cars ago, with the same engine, transmission, and most of the dash/infotainment system of the current MX-5. Again, I have great difficulty believing that Toyota, who did the engineering of the Twins, did not have profit in mind. They were a large Japanese manufacturer who wanted a presence in all of the car segments. Toyota has done a lot of joint development/production with partners where the product volumes were not large enough for them to pursue the models on their own. It is profit that drives that kind of development. They are now doing it with BMW and neither company is actually producing the car which also tells me they are looking at profit to make that decision. Small, third party manufacturers do not have high output mass production lines and can handle smaller volumes with less capital investment. All of this is done with a profit model.

If you are saying that they entered this segment with questions about how large it would be, then that is true for practically any new product introduction. But they would do it with an ROI and profitability in mind. I know of no board of directors in a public company that would approve of money spent to produce no profits.

[Jordanwolf]

Originally Posted by rvoll

You guys from Canada are so much above it all.... But you should really look up the definition of passive-aggressive. Let's see, avoidance of direct confrontation? Really? Procrastinating? Really? Let me put it this way.... I really dislike posters who are trying to be "King of the Board" and think they are the authority on everything. So I tend to DIRECTLY CONFRONT them immediately without PROCRASTINATING. And yes, corporate development and strategy is my wheelhouse. I've spent 50 years with Fortune 100 companies doing it. And I don't generally push the envelope unless one of those "Kings of the Board" start spewing nonsense. The other areas where I have some expertise, but not specific experience on the Twins, is in the area of wheels and tires as related to performance. I do some posting on things like the phone holder solution I've done or the front sensors I've installed just for interest. But I have no need to post in other areas where I have little knowledge although I tend to read and learn a lot from the posts of others. And have learned a lot about my car from those posts. I can't tell you how much this board has meant to me just in terms of researching topics that have been covered before. And yes, even @Tcoat was helpful in some of those areas. But he is out of his element here....

But you drive a KIA, so I fail to see how your opinion can be valid here in anyway shape or form. You also like to cherry pick words in responses and attempt to tailor them to your liking because you have an "I'm always right" attitude, but fail to see that you contradict yourself.

Ain't nothing wrong with us people from Canada, you just fail to see things for how they are, it's simple really (I make zero reference to anything discussed in this thread with this statement, besides you and I).
woof

[FRSBRZGT86FAN]

Originally Posted by rvoll

You guys from Canada are so much above it all.... But you should really look up the definition of passive-aggressive. Let's see, avoidance of direct confrontation? Really? Procrastinating? Really? Let me put it this way.... I really dislike posters who are trying to be "King of the Board" and think they are the authority on everything. So I tend to DIRECTLY CONFRONT them immediately without PROCRASTINATING. And yes, corporate development and strategy is my wheelhouse. I've spent 50 years with Fortune 100 companies doing it. And I don't generally push the envelope unless one of those "Kings of the Board" start spewing nonsense. The other areas where I have some expertise, but not specific experience on the Twins, is in the area of wheels and tires as related to performance. I do some posting on things like the phone holder solution I've done or the front sensors I've installed just for interest. But I have no need to post in other areas where I have little knowledge although I tend to read and learn a lot from the posts of others. And have learned a lot about my car from those posts. I can't tell you how much this board has meant to me just in terms of researching topics that have been covered before. And yes, even @Tcoat was helpful in some of those areas. But he is out of his element here....

Originally Posted by rvoll

Never said that, but you post so much I'm sure you get confused. Did you get your 33 posts in yesterday? You assume, wrongly, that ROI's are only calculated on "actual vehicles". That's wrong, Grasshopper, as they are calculated on ALL programs including technology investments. Everything that is not government mandated done in a large corporation is profit oriented and ROI's are calculated.....

I didn't realize that you were the head of a charity dedicated to helping the victims of buying a Twin. Not bad for a primary job. You must be a great philanthropist....

Calm down, the points you made in the two posts I quoted add nothing, and make no sense. It's like you are smashing the keyboard with some in anger because someone said a viewpoint they believed.

[krayzie]

Originally Posted by rvoll

I know of no board of directors in a public company that would approve of money spent to produce no profits.

Or even for very little profit just to give back to the enthusiasts community cuz shareholder dividends above all else.

But when it comes to statement products or technical exercises to buck the trend I can see how once a while something would be able to sneak thru the corporate bureaucrats and get produced in the end. Maybe not in America but I take it that Theory Z management is seemingly different.