2019 Special Edition BRZ, any ideas???

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by rvoll

I see you post an average of 33 posts a day over several years -- so posting must be your primary job. I'm retired and produce an average of 2 posts per day. I'm already over my quota for today and have other things to do in my life. If you respond to this, I'll get back to you in the coming days. Have a great day.....

[weederr33]

Garbage. This is all pure garbage. Stop it.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by weederr33

Garbage. This is all pure garbage. Stop it.

[rvoll]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

No. I did not say you were lying about anything. It was a simple questions as to what the products were. They are notably not automotive.


Yes. I have participated in the development and manufacturing of new designs at both the individual part and assembled product level. I did not claim to be an expert at all aspects of the industry but do have a very good knowledge of the systems and why things are done.


The fact that companies do make and sell cars at or even below cost is well know and has always been a part of the industry. They make up for it in other ways.


The declining sales numbers are meaningless data without knowing the number planned and built. If the decline was forecast and planned for then they met their goals. You still fail to produce the Toyota business plan which shows they have an issue with the reduced number of units sold.


The testing of the self driving vehicles is exactly an example of a non monitory ROI that I was talking about. In fact your whole statement of why they invested is my point. Not all the "profit" from ROI is directly related to cash on each individual unit.


Ahhhh there it is, the good old "you are here a lot so you don't work" argument that always comes up when there is nothing real to put forward. There are several people here that know where I work and what I do that can vouch that I do indeed hold the credentials and position that I stated. The fact that I am at that level in the industry is precisely why I have the time to argue with people that don't have a clue what they are talking about but want to spread their own gospel.

So you are at a level at work where you don't have to do much work? It didn't work that way in my case.... Oh, well....

If you know anything about ROI's, you'd know that pursuing "self-driving" cars is, indeed, part of future profits. Here, I thought you knew something about product development. Let me explain.... When you create a self-driving car, you are developing several technologies in sensor development, computer safety logistics, braking, steering, communication protocols, navigation development, etc. So the result doesn't have to be a self-driving car, but the use of one or more of these developed technologies. So when you are creating the program ROI, you assume the use of these technologies in your cars, even though they are not completely self-driving. So ROI's don't just include a particular car, but have the investment of the entire programs assumed in the return. Then you add a sensitivity analysis to determine potential low and high returns and make an informed judgement thereto.

Regarding your declining sales assumption, you couldn't be more wrong. Each year, and sometimes each quarter, you take the information you have and create sales and profit projections for the next quarter and next year. The number planned is thus meaningless. Your suppliers could charge more than expected, you might distribute your cars to more distant locations, the contracts you have with ships might change, you might have a strike in your plant, your product mix might be quite different, etc. Declining sales always lowers profits unless you are milking a brand, which seems to be the case with the twins, i.e., no advertising, promotion, and minimal product changes.

This is another case of not understanding how corporate decisions are made....

[rvoll]

Originally Posted by dtbdan

If you really know that exec why not just ask him whether or not it's going to continue rather than arguing with us on the internet. Lexus, which last time I checked is toyota, lost money on every LFA sold. The common commuter car or SUV is 100% tied to profits, cars like the lfa or 86/brz serve a separate purpose besides just making a profit, and both companies in every interview with their executives seem proud of what they made in the the twins platform. I can guarantee that subaru or toyota do not lose money on the twins when they sell them, they add to the brand's profile since they are offering a sports car, and that's value that goes above just profit margins. Once a car is developed the CEO is the final authority on whether a car is killed or saved. Considering toyota is still spending ludricious amounts of money at le mans, is developing their own hypercar, and has a stated commitment to making their lineup sportier, I can guarantee you that the car will survive. I really don't care what you think because their decision is made regardless of what any of us say on these forums. Just stop taking these arguments so personally.

The exec I know in the family is retired as of a few years ago. I never got specifics from him, but I do know how corporate decisions are made. If you read my quote more carefully, you'd see that I didn't include supercars (like the Ferrari and LFA) because they have such high prices and huge margins. Since they are primarily hand built, you don't have the huge investment in plant and equipment that you do for a mass produced vehicle. So your example of the LFA is totally irrelevant. Please re-read my statements.

How can you guarantee that the twins make a profit? Neither of us know for sure. As to helping define the brand, the BRZ doesn't help the brand at all as Subarus are know as 4WD family cars with a high level of safety. That's why you see no advertising of the BRZ because it would confuse the consumer.

I agree that a sports car helps Toyota as they do still have corporate racing and performance vehicles with 2WD. That's why they are in joint development with BMW for the new Supra.

I understand that you'd like the twins to continue, and there is a very slight probability that is will -- perhaps for a year or two. But eventually, the volume will get so low that even milking the car won't work. Distribution carrying costs alone will kill it.

FYI, I expected that the BRZ will go out of production when I bought mine this year. That didn't stop me as I really like the car -- it's loads of fun. Also, because it is a declining brand, I got a great deal even though I ordered it directly from the factory. I have absolutely no inside knowledge of the decisions being made at either Subaru or Toyota, but after spending my entire career of 50 years in large corporations, I do understand how these decisions are made and the telltale sign in the marketplace.

One of the other nails in the coffin for the 86 is the spy photos of the new Supra. They aren't the ones shown as a supercar. The new camouflaged pictures shows more of a coupe than a sports car with no fender flares. It looks too close to the 86 to see both of them survive. That's another sign...

[krayzie]

I can see the twins being discontinued if another financial collapse happens, and most likely discontinued overseas first before it gets the axe in Japan.

Nobody mentioned in 5 pages that the 86/BRZ was a pet project of Akio Toyoda and Toyota is the largest shareholder of Subaru Corp (previously known as Fuji Heavy).

The twins came to light very similar to Akio Morita's Sony Walkman.

Remember Toyota is a Japanese corporation and not your average American absolute profit above all else corporate decision making firm.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKqLKO-t5q0[/ame]

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by rvoll

So you are at a level at work where you don't have to do much work? It didn't work that way in my case.... Oh, well....

If you know anything about ROI's, you'd know that pursuing "self-driving" cars is, indeed, part of future profits. Here, I thought you knew something about product development. Let me explain.... When you create a self-driving car, you are developing several technologies in sensor development, computer safety logistics, braking, steering, communication protocols, navigation development, etc. So the result doesn't have to be a self-driving car, but the use of one or more of these developed technologies. So when you are creating the program ROI, you assume the use of these technologies in your cars, even though they are not completely self-driving. So ROI's don't just include a particular car, but have the investment of the entire programs assumed in the return. Then you add a sensitivity analysis to determine potential low and high returns and make an informed judgement thereto.

Regarding your declining sales assumption, you couldn't be more wrong. Each year, and sometimes each quarter, you take the information you have and create sales and profit projections for the next quarter and next year. The number planned is thus meaningless. Your suppliers could charge more than expected, you might distribute your cars to more distant locations, the contracts you have with ships might change, you might have a strike in your plant, your product mix might be quite different, etc. Declining sales always lowers profits unless you are milking a brand, which seems to be the case with the twins, i.e., no advertising, promotion, and minimal product changes.

This is another case of not understanding how corporate decisions are made....

Exactly. A non monatary ROI just as I have said many times.

OK you truly do not understand the differences in the auto industry and I am sick of trying to explain them to you. Suppler can INCREASE prices in the middle of a contract is bloody hilarious.

As far as the personal insults and innuendos go just keep it up I have worn down far better than you.

[krayzie]

Originally Posted by rvoll

This is another case of not understanding how corporate decisions are made....

So why hasn't this car been axed?

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yauFjNknhSg[/ame]


Because cars like the Miata and the 86/BRZ did not come about solely thru your so-called corporate decisions.

[rvoll]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Exactly. A non monatary ROI just as I have said many times.

OK you truly do not understand the differences in the auto industry and I am sick of trying to explain them to you. Suppler can INCREASE prices in the middle of a contract is bloody hilarious.

As far as the personal insults and innuendos go just keep it up I have worn down far better than you.

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....

[rvoll]

Originally Posted by krayzie

So why hasn't this car been axed?

Because cars like the Miata and the 86/BRZ did not come about solely thru your so-called corporate decisions.

Totally wrong. I'm sure they had great hopes for the Twins when they were created. They will continue to make Twins until it becomes unprofitable or when there is a better use for the capital. However, there is no evidence, nor reason, to invest in a dying line of cars. You have a line that is fully amortized, and no advertising or promotion expense, so you run it out as long as you continue to make money. But you don't invest in the next generation. At the time the BRZ was conceived, Subaru was more in the performance mode as a brand. Given their success in family oriented, safe, 4WD vehicles, which has had significant growth over the past few years, their corporate orientation has changed. Building a performance trim from an existing model is not that costly. Building a different model is expensive.

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.

[J1Avs]

....so it sounds like we all agree then...2019 Series.Gray

[Tcoat]

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....

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.

[mrg666]

Originally Posted by rvoll

Totally wrong. I'm sure they had great hopes for the Twins when they were created.

I think they exactly knew that this car was not going to sell in large numbers and become a major source of profit. Like krayzie posted above, it is a project for the company for reflecting/shaping their corporate image. This car is so great for what it is since the design wasn't shaped by mass marketing concerns. As an engineer, as an enthusiast, I appreciate the engineering-biased design of my car every time I drive it or work on it.

Just my 2c.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by mrg666

I think they exactly knew that this car was not going to sell in large numbers and become a major source of profit. Like krayzie posted above, it is a project for the company for reflecting/shaping their corporate image. This car is so great for what it is since the design wasn't shaped by mass marketing concerns. As an engineer, as an enthusiast, I appreciate the engineering-biased design of my car every time I drive it or work on it.

Just my 2c.

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.