"Cheap sportscars don't sell"

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to turboswede: Egads. Those are some dismal failures.

Why? I mean ignoring the Capri. The Elan is by all accounts a very fun to drive car and the del Sol is just a Civic which is a decent handling car.

In reply to 93EXCivic:

I should have been more specific. I meant in the marketplace. I've always had a soft spot for the Elan.

Otto Maddox wrote: It seems like there is some pent up demand for sports cars that gets satisfied pretty quickly when new models come out.

There is no "pent up demand." People buy the new model when it is new and novel and cool, but a couple years on they become old hat and sales fall. Marketers, advertisers, and designers create the demand. That's their job.

Anyway, the 350Z got redesigned into the 370Z and there is a (sort-of) redesigned Genesis coupe. Are these CUV's and I just need new glasses?

In reply to ShadowSix:

Well, the 370Z is built on the same platform as an SUV and the Genesis is built on a luxury car platform.

Also, that couple that walks in to look at a Mustang, but ends up opting for a Focus instead? Ford marketing types understand that happens and that effect is part of the value of the Mustang to Ford.

He didn't specify "good" Sports Cars.

Javelin wrote:

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.

Dude, the title of your thread has "sell" in it, of course it matters if they sell well! Now, the fact they built it at all does mean that somebody thinks it will sell, or generate enough buzz to sell other cars. They're certainly taking a risk though, because for 30 years sports cars and sporty coupes haven't exactly brought home the bacon

My theory still stands, there are very few cheap small sports cars on the market (remember how the G-coupe was hyped as the return of the cheap sports car? The 350z?) and the FR-S venture isenough that Toyota felt the need to share said risks with another company. I hope I'm wromg, of course but I don't see the FR-S succeding, it will flop or have to move upmarket.

Two things that I think are critical that haven't been mentioned much. Look at those numbers and you will see most of them have the staying power of a 16 year old virgin with the homecoming queen.

Secondly the question isn't "can you make a profit building a sports car" but can you make as much as you could making something else. Even the biggest companies in he world have limited resources, and if they devote engineers, factories and money to develop a new sports car, ut would mean they only have 6 suv/crossover things instead of 7. ROI is king.

Also I imagine many are gun shy because they have been burned in the past. The safe route is not sports cars. Look at ford, since the 50's how many "sports cars " have they sold?

Javelin wrote: 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.

Dude, you are not making massive generalizations? That just because they make something that it's going to make money.

Yes, we put up the farm to try to stay above water- big deal. We are talking about unique cars that do not sell that many. It roughly costs a fixed amount per ft^2 to run a plant, regardless if you make 100, 1,000, 10,000, or 100,000 a year to run the plant. And it cost a lot of money to have a unique engine, since it also requires a unique line in a plant to produce.

Just because Toyota is coming out with a new car proves nothing, except that they have enough money to deveop and produce a car that will not sell very many, relative to what they already make. And what they already make is very cost effective to make.

BTW, one thing that does effect sporty car sales- most normal cars are more than capable of keeping up with sports cars. When a base line V6 Camry out accelerates a Miata, well, you get the picture.

I'll leave it at this:

If you want a car company to make something, you have two choices- either you join them as an employee to alter their future products OR you buy stock and go to the shareholders meeting to provide the profit making data you have that sports cars are the way to go in a $30k market.

Because if you don't the current maket sure doesn't buy a heck of a lot of sports cars.

How about Corvette sales?

1953   300

1954  3,640

1955   700

1956  3,467

1957  6,339

1958  9,168

1959  9,670

1960  10,261

1961 10,939

1962 14,531

1963  21,513

1964  22,229

1965  23,562

1966  27,720

1967  22,940

1968 28,566

1969 38,462

1970 17,316

1971 21,801

1972 27,004

1973 30,464

1974 37,502

1975 38,645

1976 46,558

1977 49,213

1978 46,776

1979 53,807

1980 40,614

1981 40,606

1982 25,407

1984 51,547

1985 39,729

1986 35,109

1987 36,632

1988 22,789

1989 26,412

1990 23,646

1991 20,639

1992 20,479

1993 21,590

1994 23,330

1995 20,742

1996 21,536

1997 9,752

1998 31,084

1999 33,270

2000 33,682

2001 35,627

2002 35,767

2003 35,469

2004 34,064

2005 37,372

2006 34,021

2007 40,561

2008 35,310

2009 26,956

2010 22,194

I think another problem for the sports car is the hot hatch because they offer a lot of the performance of a traditional sports car while being cheaper for the car maker to build and offering more practicality then a sports car.

93EXCivic wrote: I think another problem for the sports car is the hot hatch because they offer a lot of the performance of a traditional sports car while being cheaper for the car maker to build and offering more practicality then a sports car.

Factor insurance into that and you can see why most young people don't buy cheap sports cars.

At least in Canada, the Corvette isn't what I'd call low cost...unless well used.

njansenv wrote: At least in Canada, the Corvette isn't what I'd call low cost...unless well used.

A lot of the cars in this thread aren't.

For instance, if a 944 cost you 20k in 1984 it would cost about 42000 of today's dollars.

MG Bryan wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: I think another problem for the sports car is the hot hatch because they offer a lot of the performance of a traditional sports car while being cheaper for the car maker to build and offering more practicality then a sports car.

Factor insurance into that and you can see why most young people don't buy cheap sports cars.

Well and the fact that a new cheap sports car starts at around ~$23k and not a lot of young people have that money. And let's fact the people who are most likely to buy sports cars are young guys and middle age guys (who's kids have left home) and the middle age guys have more money to buy nicer cars.

alfadriver wrote: BTW, one thing that does effect sporty car sales- most normal cars are more than capable of keeping up with sports cars. When a base line V6 Camry out accelerates a Miata, well, you get the picture. I'll leave it at this: If you want a car company to make something, you have two choices- either you join them as an employee to alter their future products OR you buy stock and go to the shareholders meeting to provide the profit making data you have that sports cars are the way to go in a $30k market. Because if you don't the current maket sure doesn't buy a heck of a lot of sports cars.

"Normal" cars have always been able to keep up with sports cars in straight line acceleration. Back in 1990, Miatas were being outaccelerated just like they are today. Back in the 60's, MGBs were being outaccelerated too. Heck, my giant 1966 Cadillac is faster to 60 mph than the "hot" MGC was. So you can't point at this being a factor in current sports car sales.

It would be interesting to find a discussion like this from 1988 or so. You know, when there was no market for two-seat convertible sports cars.

Otto Maddox wrote: US Sales of 300s - 300ZX (Z32) 1990 39,290 1991 17,653 1992 6,704 1993 9,801 1994 4,836 1995 4,176 1996 unknown

the total world wide figure for Z32 sales is around 150k over the entire production run, it too was a victim of Yen vs $

and Z32 guys hate that the Z31 sold more cars in the first 2 years of production than the Z32 did all years combined

In reply to Otto Maddox:

The numbers for the Corvette are a lot better for a lot longer than I thought they would be. Of course then we can start debating what "affordable" means because it is a halo model.

Keith wrote:

alfadriver wrote: The current market sure doesn't buy a heck of a lot of sports cars.

It would be interesting to find a discussion like this from 1988 or so. You know, when there was no market for two-seat convertible sports cars.

Bingo-bango. The manufacturers have to build it before people can buy it. The argument of "nobody buys them!" is false. For example, nobody buys manuals anymore, right? http://www.autoblog.com/2012/05/01/car-buyers-falling-back-in-love-with-manual-transmissions/ But look at that, despite having 10% drop in the number of manual trans models offered, demand is up 6.5%. Individual models, such as the new Focus, are actually selling at double what the suits thought would sell.

Must be no market there, either.

I'm proud to point out that, in my only new vehicle purchase this millennium, I walked past the lot full of automatics and drove out in the only manual transmission truck they had. I did my part

93EXCivic wrote: I don't understand why sports cars don't sell. I mean no one wakes up in the morning dreaming of owning a Camry.

The job of the cheap sportscar is to attract the moth to the flame. Sports cars do not really have to sell anything other than the Brand and the Fantasy.Mazda figured this out and build an entire "Zoom Zoom" brand awarness around the Miata.

Yes, in order to work, the sportscar must sell in sufficent numbers to make a splash. Think of all the buzz Toyobaru is getting for FREE by saying NOTHING about the new car! That kind of buzz is worth a lot of $$$.

How long will the Toyobaru be with us? That should be interesting to watch. I think of the Toyobaru as a 240Z niched vehicle.

If you look at the list of vehicles and sales, it would seem that the original cars were aimed at the 20ish crowd. If you follow the vehicledevelopment, I bet that the original buyers and the vehicles gained weight and sophistication at about the same pace, until neither one was sporty anymore.

The typical new buyer for the early Miatas in the US was mid-50's. In Europe, it was mid-40's. In Japan, mid-30's. I don't think the buyers of current Miatas are much different in the US, although that car certainly is hitting a different market. We saw different owners for the 2004-05 Mazdaspeeds, too.

It's all about emotions and rationalizations. If you put two unusable seats into a sports car it becomes more "usefull" If you spend $40,000 on a truck and never put anything in the back, it isn't seen as frivolous because it's "usefull" All three vehicles are functionally two-seaters, but only the sports-car driver's a narcicist

The other question to ask is if a manufacturer can afford to not make an affordable sportscar?

I was on my way to Mazda to buy a car when the FRS was anounced. Would have been the 4th Mazda in the family since the original Miata in 1990. I was a died in the wool Zom Zoomer!

Enter the FRS and I forgot immediately that Toyota makes the most boring cars on the planet. It should be telling in a few years to see where I end up next? Camry?