Curmudgeon wrote:
'Cheap sports cars don't sell.' Huh. Coulda fooled me. Going up to 1980:
Over 18 years, MG sold over half a million B's, Triumph over 300,000 Spitfires. Austin sold almost 305,000 Sprites. Fiat sold 200,000 124 Spiders and 160,000 X 1/9's. That's ~1.5 million cars, or an average of nearly 84,000 yearly. Sure, that's a drop in the bucket compared to regular old passenger car production but it's nothing to sniff at.
We haven't added in the Z car numbers yet. Or the TR6/7. Or the 79-80 RX7 (I wouldn't include the 3rd gen, which was a helluva car but couldn't be considered cheap).
The Jensen Healey was on the pricey side of inexpensive in the 1970s ($8k in the US) and still sold over 10k in 4 years, which given their sales growth each year could have surpassed the Spitfire's numbers had production continued (Jensen had orders backed up like crazy but ran out of money).
Sports cars got bigger and heavier in the '80's (280ZX, Supra, etc) and that certainly had something to do wth the drop in sales. In 1989, Mazda tapped into that pent up demand for a true sports car and the result is automotive history. The Miata still sells well, otherwise Mazda would have quit with it. FWIW, I don't consider the FWD Celicas to be sports cars, just gussied up transport (ducks bullets, rocks & bottles from Celica faithful).
I agree for the most part, so don't worry about dodging. Up until the last gen, they were merely sportier better-looking Camrys. (For the most part. Notable exceptions in the US include the Alltracs and the 4th gen GTS. Different story overseas with the ST183 chassis, the GT-R, the SSII/SSIII variants.)
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:
Javelin wrote:
Gearheadotaku wrote:
If it won't sell 500,000+ units a year, most manufactures won't build it. With crash laws and emissions requirements becoming more and more ridiculous, cars take longer to develop and cost more to build. There are exceptions of course, but volume is the key.
Oh really? Just on unique platforms alone there's let's see... Corvette, Camaro, Mustang, FR-S/BRZ, MX-5, every Porsche ever built...
Even the shared ones don't hit those numbers (370Z / Infiniti G, etc). 
Highlighted key phrase.
Actually he just listed most of the cars we are referring to. Those aren't exceptions, those are the norm in this category.
Another thing as well; Americans like big cars, with tons of power. No two ways about it. Fireflies/Sprint/Swifts sold incredibly well up north here, and it's the same reason Canadians got the MK2 turbo variants of those cars, because we were (and are) much more open to smaller cars. Same with hatchbacks, the only reason sedans below midsize are available in the world is because of the US. Who the hell actually BUYS a sedan Fiesta? What a useless vehicle!
I personally think we are doing pretty well sportscar/GT wise. You have the Genesis, BRZ/FRS, 370Z, Miata, until recently the RX8, me being argumentative the Mustang with a V6 is more sports car than not, etc.
And they are under $30k US or CDN. Not bad. Not GREAT, but not bad.
Toyota Sports cars don't sell well.
It's the turth, The 2000GT didn't sell enough to matter. The first Gen MR2 sold I seem to recall reading 150k world wide over the 5 years of production. and I'm pretty sure the SW20 sold even less, and the MRS not a big seller. The supra never sold well. grantes some of that was a yen to $ issue
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:
Javelin wrote:
Gearheadotaku wrote:
sell 500,000+ units a year. There are exceptions of course, but volume is the key.
Oh really?
Highlighted key phrase.
The number of cars that sell less than 500,000 units a year far outnumbers the few that do. Change the number to 50,000 and it's still true. Volume is not key. Profit is key. Ask Ferrari.
Osterkraut wrote:
Oh so those are considered a success already, are they? In 2004 there were two all new (actual sports cars, the FR-S has a back seat) sports cars launched, too. They uh, sold like gangbusters, right?
Just pointing out that the biggest car company in the world is releasing an all-new, unique platform 2+2 sportscar when you said nobody would. It doesn't matter how they sell, just the fact that it was done in 2012 proves your theory wrong. I do think they'll sell well though, FWIW.
I only drove sports cars until I hit 30 and had a kid. That was in 2000. By then the options had become pretty slim anyway. And when the Z car made its return, I was pretty excited. I thought I'd get one. Then I realized I could get about 95% of the performance of a 350Z in a G35 Sedan. And I could comfortably put a huge baby seat in the back of the G and a stroller in the trunk, wife in the passenger seat, etc.
The sports car used to be a thing of beauty that offered a completely different experience than other kinds of cars. That isn't the case any more. For anything relatively inexpensive in recent years, the Miata is the only car that has offered a different experience. And apparently, a Miata's meager sales represents just about all the market wants in an inexpensive sports car.
Javelin wrote:
alfadriver wrote:
Not sure how you do the math where 40k units makes much money at $30k, unless it shares a LOT of stuff with cars you make in 500k-1M a year.
Well Datsun/Nissan and Mazda certainly were able to make money at it.
I kind of doubt that. Lose little enough to profit in different areas, maybe.
But recall that Mazda did such a bang up job with the 7/Miata that they were mostly bought up by Ford.
And Nissan took profits to the bank only to be take by the French.
Javelin wrote:
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:
Javelin wrote:
Gearheadotaku wrote:
sell 500,000+ units a year. There are exceptions of course, but volume is the key.
Oh really?
Highlighted key phrase.
The number of cars that sell less than 500,000 units a year *far* outnumbers the few that do. Change the number to 50,000 and it's still true. Volume is *not* key. Profit is key. Ask Ferrari.
Did you really just bring up Ferrari in a discussion about cheap sports cars?
Obviously, having the cachet and/or performance to charge big dollars makes the low volume part of the equation somewhat moot.
Fact: development costs for new vehicles are incredibly high.
Fact: those costs need to be carried by the sales of the new cars, or the automaker needs to decide to sell at a loss in the interest of brand image or for some other strategic reason
Fact: most on this forum who want cheap small sports cars would rather buy a used when it really comes time for the rubber to hit the road.
I believe North American's are less interested in cars (over-all) than they were 20 or more years ago: certainly the sub-35ish year old group. I also believe you need to relax a bit, this is supposed to be fun.
In reply to alfadriver:
Well once again of course you are right. Every company in history that has ever made a single sports car must have totally lost their asses at it and gone into bankruptcy. There's no profit to be had at all, despite the 100's of thousands produced, so why bother. Better write Toyota and tell them to go ahead and shut the new line down or they'll be bought out by the Chinese.
Curmudgeon wrote:
'Cheap sports cars don't sell.' Huh. Coulda fooled me. Going up to 1980:
Over 18 years, MG sold over half a million B's, Triumph over 300,000 Spitfires. Austin sold almost 305,000 Sprites. Fiat sold 200,000 124 Spiders and 160,000 X 1/9's. That's ~1.5 million cars, or an average of nearly 84,000 yearly. Sure, that's a drop in the bucket compared to regular old passenger car production but it's nothing to sniff at.
We haven't added in the Z car numbers yet. Or the TR6/7. Or the 79-80 RX7 (I wouldn't include the 3rd gen, which was a helluva car but couldn't be considered cheap).
The Jensen Healey was on the pricey side of inexpensive in the 1970s ($8k in the US) and still sold over 10k in 4 years, which given their sales growth each year could have surpassed the Spitfire's numbers had production continued (Jensen had orders backed up like crazy but ran out of money).
Sports cars got bigger and heavier in the '80's (280ZX, Supra, etc) and that certainly had something to do wth the drop in sales. In 1989, Mazda tapped into that pent up demand for a true sports car and the result is automotive history. The Miata still sells well, otherwise Mazda would have quit with it. FWIW, I don't consider the FWD Celicas to be sports cars, just gussied up transport (ducks bullets, rocks & bottles from Celica faithful).
They may sell, but if you want to actually make money, which is the entire point of capitalism, you need to make money- enough for your investors.
of the car makers you listed, how many are still around?
Fiat doesn't do much in terms of sports cars anymore, Nissan got bought out by Renault, Mazda was bought and sold by Ford.
This isn't a charity, it's business.
In reply to alfadriver:
After reading through all this, I've just about decided an old sports car or a motorcycle is the only way to go. And I've already been through most of the old sports cars I like.
Javelin wrote:
In reply to alfadriver:
Well once again of course you are right. Every company in history that has ever made a single sports car must have totally lost their asses at it and gone into bankruptcy. There's no profit to be had at all, despite the 100's of thousands produced, so why bother. Better write Toyota and tell them to go ahead and shut the new line down or they'll be bought out by the Chinese.
Wow, you make such a good ass. jezzus. If you don't think money matters, you are in the wrong country.
Updated the first post with 2007-2008 MX-5 #'s (can anybody else find the 09-11?), 93-95 RX-7 (can anybody find the RX-8 numbers at all? That's a glaring hole 
), Toyota MR2 and MR-S, Pontiac Fiero, and Porsche Boxster/Cayman 2003-2010 (can anybody get the 97-02 numbers?
Javelin wrote:
Updated the first post with 2007-2008 MX-5 #'s (can anybody else find the 09-11?), 93-95 RX-7 (can anybody find the RX-8 numbers at all? That's a glaring hole ), Toyota MR2 and MR-S, Pontiac Fiero, and Porsche Boxster/Cayman 2003-2010 (can anybody get the 97-02 numbers?
After reading through the first post again, I can't figure out why any mainstream manufacturer would make a sports car other than intangible reasons, you know, like for their image.
In reply to alfadriver:
I do think money matters, but you are making some totally bizarre generalizations. You do realize that your employer hocked all of their assets to avoid bankruptcy, too, right? There probably isn't a single automaker left that hasn't been bankrupt, partnered, bought-up, sold, or otherwise restructured so you are making no point at all.
In reply to Otto Maddox:
The numbers past the early 90's do fall off rather dramatically, don't they? That's probably where the stigma of they won't sell comes from. Hotcakes from the 40's-80's then ought of a sudden it just starts to flatline. Even the Miata's little burst was a minor notation compared to the sales numbers of old. Maybe there's our answer? They used to sell, but the world has changed and now they won't? Interesting for sure.
Otto Maddox wrote:
In reply to alfadriver:
After reading through all this, I've just about decided an old sports car or a motorcycle is the only way to go. And I've already been through most of the old sports cars I like.
Older also has the added benefit of having less rules, less insurance, less complexity and usually, less cost.
Someday the sheer novelty of a window crank will delight modern car owners enough to make it a $500 "Green" option. We can have such luxury right now for practically nothing.
Ian F
UberDork
5/15/12 1:52 p.m.
Snrub wrote:
RWD is another factor. People don't understand it, but are frightened of it in colder climates and can't understand how it could work effectively.. Last year we had a freak event with almost 4' of snow in 24 hours. The office was closed for 3 days. I went in all 3 days. I had people telling me how bad my car must be in the snow, yet they knew I was one of 3-4 that made it in, never mind that to do so I literally drove around CUV/SUVs stuck in the snow.
This train of thought may be more prevalent than we would think. My g/f is more of a car-person than most, but due to a bad experience trying to drive her M3 (on Summer tires) in the snow many years ago, she is steadfastly convinced she needs FWD to get around. FWD was the primary reason she got a Volvo 850 vs. a less expensive RWD car. My cube neighbor has a '96 Mustang but it stays in the garage at the first hint of snow.
I would say one reason for the popularity of LBC's during the 70's was the gas crunch. While a MGB and a Spitfire lack a certain level of practicality, they were more fuel effiecient than many of their domestic competitors. Many were bought to be secondary commuter cars while the gas-guzzling family car stayed at home.
In reply to Ian F:
Very interesting points on the FWD vs RWD. Which FWD "sports" cars would be worth researching? Maybe the MINI Cooper? Scion tC (not sure if that's a unique platform)?
It seems like there is some pent up demand for sports cars that gets satisfied pretty quickly when new models come out.
Javelin wrote:
In reply to Ian F:
Very interesting points on the FWD vs RWD. Which FWD "sports" cars would be worth researching? Maybe the MINI Cooper? Scion tC (not sure if that's a unique platform)?
I like MINIs. The Scion TC is a little car built on a big platform.
In reply to turboswede:
Egads. Those are some dismal failures.
I haven't driven my friend's tC yet but it has really nice seats with the sports package.
