Has The Affordable RWD Sports Coupe Become A Money Loser?

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by gramicci101

That's what I said: sheep. I saw the same thing when I lived around the Dover Speedway. Those people just couldn't understand that their Malibu and a NASCAR "Malibu" were not the same thing. They drove like it, too.

Not sure that "sheep" is an apt description. They just have different interests and the car marketing guys are good at their jobs.

[OnkelC]

Originally Posted by gramicci101

I will admit, once I had decided on these cars I was tempted by the orange.

I got hooked by the silhouette of the first concept, back in 2009:
http://www.autobild.de/bilder/tokyo-...755.html#bild1

[rice_classic]

Holy crap.. I think I'm going to talk myself into being wrong.

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I think the difference is the conversation brought in the Camaro and Mustang, neither of which are sports cars and both are intended for profitable sale. Maybe at the very top end there is some loss-leading going on there.

I think its debatable that the Corvette qualifies in the loss-leader category either. They obviously build it in quantity where they expect it to make money. Maybe 50 years ago, but not now. GM doesn't seem interested in going after that type of market presence.

The new Ford GT is an example of what I would consider a Halo/Loss Leader car, similar to the halo cars from Toyota/Nissan/etc.

It's my understanding terms being used here aren't as interchangeable as we'd like to think. Loss-leader =/= Halo car. Those concepts are different despite sharing similar attributes. the GT86 is a loss leader, the LFA is a Halo car (and a loss leader). A Halo car, like a loss-leader, exists for marketing and brand establishment and can draw people into the showroom but a loss-leader has the expectation of selling in a reasonable volume and selling at a reasonable price with the intent that as many will be produced as are demanded (not limited runs) and the owners will become more likely to purchase other products from said brand.

It's probably important to point out that "Loss Leader" is also an economic term given to a strategy, as opposed to a term given to a result. Loss-leaders can still be profitable in their own right. Some cars are intended to be profitable but instead are a loss, they are not loss-leaders, they are failures. Some loss-leaders actually end up selling in volume or at prices that make them profitable, however they are still "loss leaders" as per their economic strategy. The Corvette is definitely this. It's original economic strategy was most certainly a loss-leader strategy even though it eventually was profitable itself.

It's also my understanding that the Mustang came at a time when demand for something like it was very high and Ford used the pre-existing falcon chassis to make it cost effective to produce with the intention of it being profitable. I can't find any evidence that supports the Mustang as an economic strategy of loss-leader.

Looking a the market as a whole, it seems the idea of a loss-leader isn't nearly as palatable to an established brand (death of the S2000) and companies try to achieve the loss-leader-brand-building effect without actually taking a loss. An example of this is giving steroids to an existing platform or platform sharing: STI/EVO/Si/TypeR/ST/G35/370Z. It's why low price/high cost, one-off platforms like the S2000 die.

I think it's why we should all hope the GT86 platform gets shared, changed etc. It's why I think there should be a sedan option, and even a micro-suv based on the platform. It would be neat to see this platform gets utilized in such a way that it makes sense to the company(s) to keep selling the FRS for another 10 years.