The new Prelude!
#21
Registered User
Originally Posted by slicksilver,Sep 11 2005, 06:31 PM
Have you ever thought that perhaps Toyota isn't good at making sports cars. Their sports cars have never garnered much respect, and most have been less than successful. It's one thing to make a boring but reliable Camry and quite another to make a 911.
Toyota is good at making appliances that transport people from A to B. They are bad at making cars that evoke passion.
Toyota is good at making appliances that transport people from A to B. They are bad at making cars that evoke passion.
#23
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Danbury/New Haven, CT
Posts: 2,007
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lice Locket,Sep 12 2005, 12:13 AM
You're logic makes no sense.
If Toyota came out w/ a Supra? They did make one, and it did not sell that well. It only got fame from The Fast and the Furious.
There's no S2000 commercials because commercials cost a lot of money, and Honda figures that it can't make enough money off of the car, so, they don't advertise it.
If Toyota is soon to take over the NUMBER ONE spot, what makes you think they need to make a sports car? In terms of a business decision, I think it was wise for Toyota to can the MR-S and the Celicas. They seem to enjoy good profits by getting rid of the last of their sports cars (2005 was the last year of the MR-S and Celica) and upping production in the economy cars. I think Toyota is doing fine not having any sports cars (unless you count the tC as a sports car).
The statement of being able to buy a $35k car and not worrying about gas prices: That's what the Lexus line of cars are for. You're right in that people won't stop buying sports cars because of gas prices, meaning that sports cars sales is gas-price independent. But, you forget that sports cars don't sell that well in the first place, so even when gas prices were under $2.00, sports cars never sold that well. I never implied that the getting rid of sports cars have anything to do with gas prices, I'm just saying that in general, sports cars don't sell well compared to the front-wheel-drive cars. If anything, FWD sports cars most likely sell better than RWD sports cars.
If Toyota came out w/ a Supra? They did make one, and it did not sell that well. It only got fame from The Fast and the Furious.
There's no S2000 commercials because commercials cost a lot of money, and Honda figures that it can't make enough money off of the car, so, they don't advertise it.
If Toyota is soon to take over the NUMBER ONE spot, what makes you think they need to make a sports car? In terms of a business decision, I think it was wise for Toyota to can the MR-S and the Celicas. They seem to enjoy good profits by getting rid of the last of their sports cars (2005 was the last year of the MR-S and Celica) and upping production in the economy cars. I think Toyota is doing fine not having any sports cars (unless you count the tC as a sports car).
The statement of being able to buy a $35k car and not worrying about gas prices: That's what the Lexus line of cars are for. You're right in that people won't stop buying sports cars because of gas prices, meaning that sports cars sales is gas-price independent. But, you forget that sports cars don't sell that well in the first place, so even when gas prices were under $2.00, sports cars never sold that well. I never implied that the getting rid of sports cars have anything to do with gas prices, I'm just saying that in general, sports cars don't sell well compared to the front-wheel-drive cars. If anything, FWD sports cars most likely sell better than RWD sports cars.
in saying they 'need' a sports car, i wasn't saying its essential for more profit, i was merely saying that it would make them seem less economical-oriented. if they actually dont care about their lack of sports cars, then let them keep making econo-cars. lastly, of course fwd cars will sell better than rwd performance cars, because as stated in my PREVIOUS POST, enthusiasts dont make up the majority, and thats what toyota's whole lineup is all about.
my logic doesnt make sense...to you
-Chris
#25
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Danbury/New Haven, CT
Posts: 2,007
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by VTEC_Junkie,Sep 13 2005, 04:02 AM
1. f&f, in general, appeals to the 16 to 24 age group, and a brand new supra priced at $35K will be unattainable for most of them. there are generally 2 groups who are in the market for sports cars: the young and single male (typically under 25), and the older affluent male whose kids are adults (typically 50+). now the former group typically cannot afford cars over $30K, and the latter would typically prefer prestigeous named brand cars that cost upwards of $50K. so there lies the problem with the $30-$40K japanese sports cars: there's just not a big enough of a market for them.
2. the reason for honda not making commercials for the s2k is not due to a lack of funds, but most likely due to the fact that the expense required for making and airing the commercials doesn't justify the projected increase in sales of the s2k.
3. fwd are generally more popular than rwd amongst consumers because fwds are generally less expensive than rwds due to less parts. furthermore, rwd vehicles has a greater need for traction control, which further ups the cost of the car. at the end of the day, cost and affordability will influence the majority's decision as to which cars to buy, not fwd vs. rwd.
2. the reason for honda not making commercials for the s2k is not due to a lack of funds, but most likely due to the fact that the expense required for making and airing the commercials doesn't justify the projected increase in sales of the s2k.
3. fwd are generally more popular than rwd amongst consumers because fwds are generally less expensive than rwds due to less parts. furthermore, rwd vehicles has a greater need for traction control, which further ups the cost of the car. at the end of the day, cost and affordability will influence the majority's decision as to which cars to buy, not fwd vs. rwd.
-Chris
#26
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Memphis
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But in the mid 90s, wasn't the Supra Turbo in the 60k range? Expecting a Supra to top out at 35k is a bit optimistic. I expect you'd be hard pushed to get a NA Supra for that, and you'll still be north of 50k for a Turbo.
#27
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Danbury/New Haven, CT
Posts: 2,007
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mbilderback,Sep 13 2005, 02:50 PM
But in the mid 90s, wasn't the Supra Turbo in the 60k range? Expecting a Supra to top out at 35k is a bit optimistic. I expect you'd be hard pushed to get a NA Supra for that, and you'll still be north of 50k for a Turbo.
-Chris
#28
Registered User
Originally Posted by nalVle,Sep 13 2005, 08:43 AM
ok, so bottom line i still think a supra replacement at $35k would clean up. with 350Z topping out at almost that much, and the s2000 with a hardtop in the same ballpark, i think it would have the edge in performance. we can speculate all we want, our opinions wont change.
-Chris
-Chris
#29
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Danbury/New Haven, CT
Posts: 2,007
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by VTEC_Junkie,Sep 14 2005, 03:00 AM
the other alternative is for these japanese car makers to produce a $35K-$40K sportscar that can outperform a c6 corvette, then maybe some of the older sportscar buyers who cannot afford a porsche may consider a japanese sportscar as an alternative to a corvette.
-Chris
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post