[Sledgehammer70]

Even if you say all the sales are the low end model, that is roughly $125M for the quarter. Not bad business.

[DenverTaco07]

damn germ, just take your medisin and move on!

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by DenverTaco07

damn germ, just take your medisin and move on!

[MEDISIN]

Originally Posted by shaffe

It might be their choice, but sitting on unsold inventory can kill your profits, real quick. It's better to sell it at some profit than sit on it with no profit.

To answer that question we must know what it costs GM to maintain that inventory vs giving it away at little to no profit. If it costs me $500 for a Camaro to sit unsold for 9 months but I make $2,000 when it sells I'm up $1,500. If I sell it immediately for $200 profit to Avis then I've missed out on $1,200 profit by fleet dumping. I'm making up numbers of course but we have to assume GM is taking the route that nets them the most money in the end.

Originally Posted by shaffe

Why would Camaro need to pick up the slack of ATS/CTS? To keep the plant moving. Idle plant = lost money. Yes ATS/CTS aren't immune to the growing demand for CUV's, IMO that puts pressure on Camaro to pick up some Alpha volume.

Again, we are assuming GM is making the best financial choice for the situation. We must also keep in mind Alpha platform is just entering its 5th year. Sigma platform ran 13 years. Zeta platform ran 12 years. GM developed Omega platform which has only sold 16k vehicles TOTAL. We all know Cadillac has more to come with CUV's. It's still early in these platform life-cycles to claim "Camaro must pick up volume or else".

Originally Posted by shaffe

BUT Like I agreed with you, GM is in better shape than FoMoCo or Fiat Chrysler so whatever they are doing is working.

Don't ever agree with me shaffe, it upsets the natural order of the universe

Originally Posted by ChefBorOzzy

Takes two to complete a transaction. If GM doesn't want to offload a larger percentage to fleet, then the price of Mustang going up is irrelevant.

MSRP will go up...yet people don't pay MSRP. FoMoCo must convince buyers to fork over an additional $4k on average to achieve parity with Camaro. That's a big ask.

[germanicus]

Originally Posted by MEDISIN

Their performance metrics are to make money. Just like every other business.

You keep repeating this, as if that is in question. The issue is that you fail to realize that making money is determined by more than simply the initial procurement cost. I could not care less about your appeals to authority. They are poorly ensconced within your implied assertion that because you have rented cars, you therefore know that these companies simply choose based on one, and only one metric, price. It flies in the face of your "Business 101". I can imagine it now. Their procurement process involves a single spreadsheet that simply lists the model and price of the vehicles. Head of procurement (why need a department actually, just one person) signs the Program contract, and bam, they just bought next years allotment. It borders on comedic.

When they ask for feedback its around timing of rental pickup process, availability of cars upon arrival, return service efficiency, cleanliness of vehicles, customer service feedback when problems arise. NOTHING about specific car models vs others. In 22 years of frequent rentals I've never once been surveyed about a specific brand or model of car.

You still are missing the point. This is not something they ask the customer, its implicit in the transaction. Why was the vehicle brought back? Lets try this another way:

If a particular model is returned by customers early for a replacement, do you not agree that it is in the businesses interest to (in the very least) track such occurrences? Yes or No.

If this happens frequently enough, at a certain point, do you not agree that it is likely such a performance history be contemplated before they commit to buying MORE of the offending widget? Yes or No.

If you answered Yes to both question, you have destroyed your own argument regarding initial purchase Price being everything.

Brought back early returns are the exact type of occurrence which absolutely impacts their profits. It means that they have purchased a widget that fails to serve its purpose, and not only do they need another vehicle to satisfy the customer, but they have now expended resources on maintaining, storing, fueling, and wasted worker hours alleviating the complaint. This is not Six Sigma level stuff here. Its common sense.

You can argue that your 900 plus rentals gives you clairvoyant insight into the fact that they do not track this. I call baloney.

[MEDISIN]

Originally Posted by germanicus

You keep repeating this, as if that is in question. The issue is that you fail to realize that making money is determined by more than simply the initial procurement cost.

You continue to distract from the topic. This is a thread about pony car sales by FoMoCo, GM and FCA. I posted the facts regarding retail and rental sales. You continue to quibble about the perspective of the rental car agency which you have little to no experience with. If you want to have a conversation about factors determining rental car purchase decisions by US rental companies then start a new thread and we can continue to discuss the topic there.

Originally Posted by germanicus

I could not care less about your appeals to authority. They are poorly ensconced within your implied assertion that because you have rented cars, you therefore know that these companies simply choose based on one, and only one metric, price.

As an investor, I know how business works. As a frequent renter I know what rental car companies don't ask renters about. You still can't post facts or statistics to support your position. Until then I have my experience and you have no experience.

Originally Posted by germanicus

It flies in the face of your "Business 101". I can imagine it now. Their procurement process involves a single spreadsheet that simply lists the model and price of the vehicles. Head of procurement (why need a department actually, just one person) signs the Program contract, and bam, they just bought next years allotment. It borders on comedic.

You continue to distract from the topic. Of course there is more that goes into purchase decisions, I never said there wasn't. What I said was price is king. Until you can provide some evidence that the cost of operating a Camaro vs Challenger vs Mustang are different, your complaints are moot.

Originally Posted by germanicus

You still are missing the point. This is not something they ask the customer, its implicit in the transaction. Why was the vehicle brought back?

What data do you have that vehicles are "brought back"? I have only my 900+ rental experience. I've never brought a vehicle back because I disliked it. But that's just me. Show me data to the contrary.

Originally Posted by germanicus

If a particular model is returned by customers early for a replacement, do you not agree that it is in the businesses interest to (in the very least) track such occurrences? Yes or No.

Yes. How many thousands of reasons might a vehicle be returned early? What if a renter has a history of returning early despite what car they are given. Some people are constant complainers, not the cars fault.

Originally Posted by germanicus

If this happens frequently enough, at a certain point, do you not agree that it is likely such a performance history be contemplated before they commit to buying MORE of the offending widget? Yes or No.

Contemplated? Yes. Does it affect purchase decisions? Depends on the price. What if the price is low enough to offset the 1 in 10,000 rental returns?

Originally Posted by germanicus

If you answered Yes to both question, you have destroyed your own argument regarding initial purchase Price being everything.

FALSE. You have no data to suggests this happens. I propose more renters return Mustangs because of mechanical failures. Of course I have no data to suggest otherwise but given Mustang's poor reliability vs Camaro it's just as plausible as your "visibility issues" scenario.

Originally Posted by germanicus

Brought back early returns are the exact type of occurrence which absolutely impacts their profits. It means that they have purchased a widget that fails to serve its purpose, and not only do they need another vehicle to satisfy the customer, but they have now expended resources on maintaining, storing, fueling, and wasted worker hours alleviating the complaint. This is not Six Sigma level stuff here. Its common sense.

How often does this occur? What is the financial impact? Until you prove that Camaro costs more to operate (in addition to higher up-front cost to purchase) you have no case. I suggest you stick to the thread topic.

Originally Posted by germanicus

You can argue that your 900 plus rentals gives you clairvoyant insight into the fact that they do not track this. I call baloney.

You can call "baloney" when your experience matches or exceeds mine. I never said they don't track this, only that they don't ask renters what make/models they prefer.

[germanicus]

I will attempt to keep the tone civil. It's too easy to let things roll out of control.

Originally Posted by MEDISIN

You continue to distract from the topic. This is a thread about pony car sales by FoMoCo, GM and FCA. I posted the facts regarding retail and rental sales. You continue to quibble about the perspective of the rental car agency which you have little to no experience with.

Argument from Authority is a logical fallacy. The argument must stand on its own merits. However, if you are really concerned with my experience, I am a corporate attorney with nearly 15 years in practice. A number of which were spent in house drafting/negotiating agreements with third party vendors to meet the needs of a large global financial institution. I have no experience working for a car rental company, although I have been a customer of them on numerous occasions. I am fairly knowledgeable, in general, when it comes to business practices and operations, especially in relations to procurement. Drawing from this, I found your claims dubious at best.

If you want to have a conversation about factors determining rental car purchase decisions by US rental companies then start a new thread and we can continue to discuss the topic there.

Im afraid it was you who broached this, by claiming:

No, they select the cheapest car they buy. If they can buy 100 Mustangs at $17,999 vs 100 Challengers at $17,998, they will buy the Challengers every time and twice on Sunday.

My issue is with that statement.
Are you now denying saying that? (I should add you have said the same thing in past sales threads).

As an investor, I know how business works.

Do you? Your claims about procurement fly in the face of my experiences.
How does being an investor make you knowledgeable about these specific purchasing practices? Do you have access to their procurement policies and protocols? If so, would love to see them!

FWIW anyone, with any level of experience, can say "I'm an Investor".
I'm also an investor, but that in and of itself doesn't give me any authority to speak about those investments with any degree of credibility. It just means I gave them my money.

As a frequent renter I know what rental car companies don't ask renters about. You still can't post facts or statistics to support your position. Until then I have my experience and you have no experience.

See above. How do you know what other customers have been asked, when you just admitted to never having returned a vehicle because you disliked it?
Do you realize how silly that sounds?
You have made several silly claims without any supporting evidence in this thread. For instance:

They are actually. Deliberately.

Can you provide supporting evidence that GM has turned down purchase requests from rental fleets? Not a statement about intended market focus.

You continue to distract from the topic. Of course there is more that goes into purchase decisions, I never said there wasn't.

Well, you did:

No, they select the cheapest car they buy. If they can buy 100 Mustangs at $17,999 vs 100 Challengers at $17,998, they will buy the Challengers every time and twice on Sunday.

"every time and twice on Sunday."
Got it.

What I said was price is king. Until you can provide some evidence that the cost of operating a Camaro vs Challenger vs Mustang are different, your complaints are moot.

Now its 'cost of operating'. You are walking your position back.

What data do you have that vehicles are "brought back"?

We have anecdotal evidence in this very thread. If you want to claim Jeb114 and/or his brother are lying, so be it. Maybe they are. I find the claim fairly plausible. But maybe i'm the only person who shared their experience and found the 6th gen visbility as lacking.

Yes. How many thousands of reasons might a vehicle be returned early? What if a renter has a history of returning early despite what car they are given. Some people are constant complainers, not the cars fault.


Contemplated? Yes. Does it affect purchase decisions? Depends on the price. What if the price is low enough to offset the 1 in 10,000 rental returns?

But i thought "No, they select the cheapest car they buy. If they can buy 100 Mustangs at $17,999 vs 100 Challengers at $17,998, they will buy the Challengers every time and twice on Sunday."

So now it is a factor. See how ridiculous your prior statement was?

FALSE. You have no data to suggests this happens. I propose more renters return Mustangs because of mechanical failures. Of course I have no data to suggest otherwise but given Mustang's poor reliability vs Camaro it's just as plausible as your "visibility issues" scenario.

When did this become about mustang reliability? You made an obviously false/ignorant claim about how an industry makes decisions, with zero supporting data or evidence. Your main argument is that you have authority because you are a frequent customer of that industry. I buy a lot of gasoline every week for my car. Does this make me qualified to make declarative statements regarding which refinery transport service they employ?

How often does this occur? What is the financial impact? Until you prove that Camaro costs more to operate (in addition to higher up-front cost to purchase) you have no case. I suggest you stick to the thread topic.

Case for what? That you just admitted the fallacy of your prior statements?

You can call "baloney" when you experience matches or exceeds mine. I never said they don't track this, only that they don't ask renters what make/models they prefer.

My experience (or yours) is mostly irrelevant. They either do or they do not. I am extrapolating my experience in negotiating large purchase and service agreements in a corporate environment to what I suppose are similar practices in large car rental companies.

Its really just basic business practices. Determine your needs. Determine your budget. Assess current operational inefficiencies/deficiencies where appropriate. Survey the vendors. Assess numerous metrics provided by the available vendors (performance parameters, initial/ongoing maintenance/service costs). Do your due diligence. In my experience, any business that ignores other factors, wont be in business very long.

I would prefer sales for the segment to be better across the board. On a micro level, I don't think any of the Pony cars are in a strong position. I think Camaro is probably the weakest. They are only 2 years into a new generation, and their sales are incredibly low, nearing the levels experienced right before they cancelled the brand. Mustang has a larger global market, and have a refresh. Their bump in pricing may hurt them however.

I'm not religiously devoted to any brand. I have Ford, GM, and german vehicles. I want more competition, as that usually drives innovation, and better options for the consumer.

[Spanky1]

Yada, Yada, Yada!!

[maraging]

This thread turned into medisin destroying germanicus..

[MEDISIN]

Originally Posted by germanicus

Argument from Authority is a logical fallacy. The argument must stand on its own merits.

I suppose when you can't dispute the facts you try and discredit the source. Nice try, and not at all surprising from an "attorney".

Originally Posted by germanicus

I have no experience working for a car rental company, although I have been a customer of them on numerous occasions.

We've already established you have little knowledge or experience in this area.

Originally Posted by germanicus

I am fairly knowledgeable, in general, when it comes to business practices and operations, especially in relations to procurement. Drawing from this, I found your claims dubious at best.

Really? Perhaps at some point you will demonstrate this.

Originally Posted by germanicus

Im afraid it was you who broached this, by claiming:

No, they select the cheapest car they buy. If they can buy 100 Mustangs at $17,999 vs 100 Challengers at $17,998, they will buy the Challengers every time and twice on Sunday.

FALSE. It was you you broached the subject to which I replied:

Originally Posted by germanicus View Post
The notion that fleet sales should be ignored is delusional.
For one it assumes a mindset that rental companies randomly pick which cars to purchase out of a hat.

Originally Posted by germanicus

My issue is with that statement.
Are you now denying saying that? (I should add you have said the same thing in past sales threads).

Not denying it all. Pay attention. Price is king and no one sells pony cars for less than Ford.

Originally Posted by germanicus

Do you? Your claims about procurement fly in the face of my experiences.
How does being an investor make you knowledgeable about these specific purchasing practices? Do you have access to their procurement policies and protocols? If so, would love to see them!

We've already established you have no experience. You're only trying to distract from the facts. I asked you to provide facts that contradict my experience. You failed. My experience is price is the largest factor in rental purchases. This experience comes from critically following the automotive industry and conversations with fleet managers including a Fortune 500 company with over 8,000 automobiles.

Originally Posted by germanicus

FWIW anyone, with any level of experience, can say "I'm an Investor".
I'm also an investor, but that in and of itself doesn't give me any authority to speak about those investments with any degree of credibility. It just means I gave them my money.

Does your 401k make you "an investor"? I suspect our situations are drastically different as is our experience. Ford is fleet king (although FCA is gaining ground) and it's crippling them. No amount of justification from you will change that.

Originally Posted by germanicus

See above. How do you know what other customers have been asked, when you just admitted to never having returned a vehicle because you disliked it?
Do you realize how silly that sounds?

The facts sound "silly" to you? I see you have no substance from which to speak.

Originally Posted by germanicus

Can you provide supporting evidence that GM has turned down purchase requests from rental fleets? Not a statement about intended market focus.

Can you provide evidence that GM is not turning down rental fleet requests? Of course not. Funny the rental market happily gobbled up GM cars to the tune of 15% prior to GM's corporate decision to cut that in half. But sure Avis, Hertz et al decided to only buy 8% of GM's production forcing GM to reduce rental sales and not vice versa Hhahahhahahhahaa

Originally Posted by germanicus

Now its 'cost of operating'. You are walking your position back.

Not once did I say operating costs were not part of the purchase decision. Only that price was king. Try and keep up, you're embarrassing yourself.

Originally Posted by germanicus

We have anecdotal evidence in this very thread. If you want to claim Jeb114 and/or his brother are lying, so be it. Maybe they are. I find the claim fairly plausible. But maybe i'm the only person who shared their experience and found the 6th gen visbility as lacking.

Did Jeb and his brother that mops floors at Enterprise mention that 15% of Camaro sales in 2015 (and every year prior) went to rental? There goes your "visibility" argument.

Originally Posted by germanicus

When did this become about mustang reliability? You made an obviously false/ignorant claim about how an industry makes decisions, with zero supporting data or evidence.

You just described your "visibility" claim. Thank you for discrediting your own position.

Originally Posted by germanicus

Your main argument is that you have authority because you are a frequent customer of that industry. I buy a lot of gasoline every week for my car. Does this make me qualified to make declarative statements regarding which refinery transport service they employ?

Feeble attempt at an analogy but I can't say I'm surprised given the source. You claimed, based on Jeb's story, that renters are returning Camaro's based on poor visibility which impacts the bottom line for Enterprise. If there are statistics available to support this notion then please present them. I'll wait patiently.

Originally Posted by germanicus

My experience (or yours) is mostly irrelevant. They either do or they do not. I am extrapolating my experience in negotiating large purchase and service agreements in a corporate environment to what I suppose are similar practices in large car rental companies.

Far to many assumptions to be credible. You have ZERO evidence to support your claims. You continue to distract from the facts. I posted retail sales figures for all three pony cars alongside transaction prices. You don't have to like them but the notion that rental agencies suddenly went from 15% Camaro purchases year after year to 5% because of "visibility" is ludicrous and you know it.

Originally Posted by germanicus

I would prefer sales for the segment to be better across the board. On a micro level, I don't think any of the Pony cars are in a strong position.

The next generation of pony cars may resemble CUV's if trends continue.

Originally Posted by germanicus

I think Camaro is probably the weakest. They are only 2 years into a new generation, and their sales are incredibly low, nearing the levels experienced right before they cancelled the brand. Mustang has a larger global market, and have a refresh. Their bump in pricing may hurt them however.

I know you know this, but I'm going to repeat it. The goal is not to sell the most cars. The goal is to make the most money. Unless FMC found a way to sell Hertz V6 Mustangs at retail prices I don't see the Mustang as any safer than Camaro. Sure global sales help but how much is FMC making on those sales? Across the board their financials are dismal.

[DenverTaco07]

Med,

Not sure it's worth arguing with a Mustang owning member who's spent, according to his post stats, 90+% of his time here poo pooing the Camaro in every month's "sales reports" threads, and yes I put that in quotes cuz again I think the numbers from OP are dumb numbers (yours are much more useful). Oh and OP is a Mustang guy too, and is only here once a month to post the "sales numbers". I just find it all very interesting...the mustang guys in here trying to prove a point based on sales, but when we get more meaningful numbers, such as the ones you posted showing how a much larger % of the "other guys" sell to fleet, then all the sudden...oh a sale is a sale is a sale, retail #'s dont help us prove our point that GM is failing (even though their own stated position on strategy is that they are purposefully REDUCING fleet sales).

I don't know why any of us should really care all that much which of the three models listed in this thread (and why just the three? Camaro clearly competes with other performance cars) are the "better seller", yet alone why a Mustang owner comes here to what...rub it in our faces? IDK...it's been pretty interesting though I suppose.

I barely have enough time on my hands to be a member of one car forum, let alone enough time on my hands to troll the competition's sites...

[Marty McFlew]

Like I said before, Chevy needs some aggressive Kick azz TV commercials and they will sell like Hot cakes. Remember the cool azz Dodge Bros. commercials from last year?? And people wonder why Dodge Challenger is outselling Camaro. Dis is what sells cars!!....


Lissen and lurn...Chevy! Use dis video to get edumacated!

[DenverTaco07]

^^ but dodge is in LAST place, so.....

Retail Sales YTD 2017
Camaro: 43,130
Mustang: 38,754
Challenger: 31,427

Maybe GM doesn't seem to see the need when they are in first place??? I mean, that is if they see the same credence of comparing sales numbers to the same two other guys as the benchmark. They certainly may consider doing so to gain more sales outside of this little competition here on Camaro6 forums.

or wait...maybe Hertz, National, and Enterprise needed to see these commercials so they know what to buy?

[Marty McFlew]

Originally Posted by DenverTaco07

^^ but dodge is in LAST place, so.....

Retail Sales YTD 2017
Camaro: 43,130
Mustang: 38,754
Challenger: 31,427

Maybe GM doesn't seem to see the need when they are in first place??? I mean, that is if they see the same credence of comparing sales numbers to the same two other guys as the benchmark. They certainly may consider doing so to gain more sales outside of this little competition here on Camaro6 forums.

or wait...maybe Hertz, National, and Enterprise needed to see these commercials so they know what to buy?

Didn't you get the memo? Challenger outsold Camaro in Aug.