[CamaroBody]

Where are the US only numbers?

[raptor5244]

Originally Posted by CamaroBody

Where are the US only numbers?

http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2011/01...s-figures.html

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Razzaa

You think the handling, suspension and chassis are similar between the two?

Alpha is a premium as is GMs chassis tuning. However most buyers aren't Randy Probst and couldn't tell the difference.

But I missed that in the list.

So 20s, rev matching manual and a chassis that on a test drive the average buyer couldn't tell isn't going to be worth 4K to a lot of people.

Also we keep talking about the GT vs the SS. That isn't where the sales battle is made. In the base car the premium Alpha architecture is almost a waste. But it is awesome if you are looking for a budget ATS coupe.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Razzaa

You think the handling, suspension and chassis are similar between the two?

Alpha is a premium as is GMs chassis tuning. However most buyers aren't Randy Probst and couldn't tell the difference.

But I missed that in the list.

So 20s, rev matching manual and a chassis that on a test drive the average buyer couldn't tell isn't going to be worth 4K to a lot of people.

Also we keep talking about the GT vs the SS. That isn't where the sales battle is made. In the base car the premium Alpha architecture is almost a waste. But it is awesome if you are looking for a budget ATS coupe.

[Posaune]

Originally Posted by CamaroBody

Where are the US only numbers?

On the first page.

[Posaune]

Originally Posted by aestil

I looked at this earlier and assumed only $1k more profit over the 5th Gen. Obviously I made a bunch of numbers up, but thats all we can do since we don't what the real numbers are. Revenue will be down but profit will be nearly the same with those numbers.

http://www.camaro6.com/forums/showpo...&postcount=183

Lets do a thought experiment. If the profit per car sold is $4k on the 6th Gen [just as a round number, I have no evidence that this is correct], and the profit on the 5th gen [on average] was $3k, then if they sell 6900 5th gens a month [this number is actually the average number of 5th gens that were sold monthly over the production run of that car] they make $20,763,000 profit. Now, real numbers for '6th Gen' Camaro sales are hard to figure out because we can assume some percentage of the start of the year was 5th gen cars still left on a lot. Lets just say 5000/mo as a projected average, but with a profit of $4k a per vehicle instead, that gets us $20,000,000.

Obviously all those numbers are just made up, but seeing as how the cost of the Camaro went up, we can reasonably assume that GM makes more money per car sold, so there is some calculus that would indicate maybe they DON'T need to sell as many vehicles to make as much money.

This isn't to say they don't want to sell more. I mean, I bet they were selling as many 2SS Camaros as Honda sells Civics, but the idea is that it's better for the brand, and for GM as a whole to have more upmarket products which retain value better and are more profitable per unit sold rather than trying to compete only on volume.

How can we assume anything at this point about the 6th gen being more profitable than the 5th gen? We can guesstimate on revenue based on what GM stated about ATPs being up $3700 but that is about it for solid numbers. Other thing we know which could affect the profitability by itself and vs. The 5th gen:

The 6th gen is on a shared platform however, 70% of the chassis components are unique to the Camaro (IIRC).

It is sharing an assembly line with two other cars and running three shifts of which, the total sales volume is sufficient for two shifts.

5th gen sold very well and had six years and more than 500,000 units to amortize its development costs, 6th gen is still less than a year old and selling at much lower volume, albeit at an average of $3700 than the 5th gen.

6th gen sales are very SS heavy (based on what GM has said) which helps generate the higher ATP. As GM adds cash back to try to get the LT trim to sell, that ATP delta will come down.

Inventory building to the levels they are does not help add revenue and potential profits. Either you add incentives to get the excess product to sell (like we are seeing now with the cash back offer) or you idle the plant. Both options cut into revenue and profits.

[merlin803]

Originally Posted by Posaune

How can we assume anything at this point about the 6th gen being more profitable than the 5th gen? We can guesstimate on revenue based on what GM stated about ATPs being up $3700 but that is about it for solid numbers. Other thing we know which could affect the profitability by itself and vs. The 5th gen:

The 6th gen is on a shared platform however, 70% of the chassis components are unique to the Camaro (IIRC).

It is sharing an assembly line with two other cars and running three shifts of which, the total sales volume is sufficient for two shifts.

5th gen sold very well and had six years and more than 500,000 units to amortize its development costs, 6th gen is still less than a year old and selling at much lower volume, albeit at an average of $3700 than the 5th gen.

6th gen sales are very SS heavy (based on what GM has said) which helps generate the higher ATP. As GM adds cash back to try to get the LT trim to sell, that ATP delta will come down.

Inventory building to the levels they are does not help add revenue and potential profits. Either you add incentives to get the excess product to sell (like we are seeing now with the cash back offer) or you idle the plant. Both options cut into revenue and profits.

The "more profitability" per car is what has been said by GM and various reports/articles. How much more? Who knows.

I think one of the things that points to this direction is the decision to offer less variations/options and building more "standard" features into the cars than normal.

[Number 3]

You have to quit using more profit per vehicle. That is only part of a much bigger equation.

What they mean is that overall, the profitability for the model is higher at a lower volume. And if they happen to hit a homerun and can't make enough of them, the bonus, even more profit.

xx% more profit per car is based on a projected volume. That xx% doesn't hold if you are selling half the volume your plan was based on.

GM said in the bankruptcy they were going to set themselves up for a 10,000,000 unit NA volume and be profitable. That is why at a 16 to 17,000,000 unit market they are doing quite well. They are positioning themselves to be sustainable at very low volumes. But that should NOT be interpreted as settling for lower volumes. It just means setting programs up to be viable at lower volumes and that GM isn't going to go battle for market share like they used to.

But look at the numbers? It's not a car based plan anymore.

Cruze, Malibu and Impala = 31,000 July of 16. 45,000 in July of 15

Travers, Equinox and Traxx = 47,000 July of 16. 40,000 in July of 15

One month view but clearly a move away from cars into SUVs.

Camaro is just a drop in the bucket compared to either of those two groupings.

[merlin803]

Originally Posted by Number 3

You have to quit using more profit per vehicle. That is only part of a much bigger equation.

What they mean is that overall, the profitability for the model is higher at a lower volume. And if they happen to hit a homerun and can't make enough of them, the bonus, even more profit.

xx% more profit per car is based on a projected volume. That xx% doesn't hold if you are selling half the volume your plan was based on.

GM said in the bankruptcy they were going to set themselves up for a 10,000,000 unit NA volume and be profitable. That is why at a 16 to 17,000,000 unit market they are doing quite well. They are positioning themselves to be sustainable at very low volumes. But that should NOT be interpreted as settling for lower volumes. It just means setting programs up to be viable at lower volumes and that GM isn't going to go battle for market share like they used to.

But look at the numbers? It's not a car based plan anymore.

Cruze, Malibu and Impala = 31,000 July of 16. 45,000 in July of 15

Travers, Equinox and Traxx = 47,000 July of 16. 40,000 in July of 15

One month view but clearly a move away from cars into SUVs.

Camaro is just a drop in the bucket compared to either of those two groupings.

I have to quit using it?

Ok, you just let me know what I can use.

"I" am not using it. When you read Camaro sales related articles that specifically say that GM has lower sales numbers but to some extent made a decision to build in more profit per sale......that's not "me" saying it. I am just discussing what "they" have written.

[Memphis43]

Who is a forum admin here? I need to send a pm to one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DenverTaco07]

Originally Posted by Memphis43

Who is a forum admin here? I need to send a pm to one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

http://www.camaro6.com/forums/showgroups.php

[Memphis43]

Originally Posted by DenverTaco07

http://www.camaro6.com/forums/showgroups.php

Got it thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by merlin803

I have to quit using it?

Ok, you just let me know what I can use.

"I" am not using it. When you read Camaro sales related articles that specifically say that GM has lower sales numbers but to some extent made a decision to build in more profit per sale......that's not "me" saying it. I am just discussing what "they" have written.

Sorry about that was just using your post to further the discussion.

[merlin803]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Sorry about that was just using your post to further the discussion.

Understood. Water under the bridge.

I just try to find any official articles that I can find related to Camaro sales and GM sales in general.

Like I have said before, I have no idea if GM is ok with the sales numbers but it seems like this topic brings out a lot of people that never really had any interest in getting a Camaro, but use this topic to justify whatever other direction they went in by putting down the Camaro (not talking about anyone specifically).