MP4 12C Deprecation and Brand Value
Discussion
APOLO1 said:
I have done over 14k miles, on road and track, in 991S, and driven the 991 GT3, for 30 mins. In none sport mode IMHO the GT3, is more comfortable than the 991s
I guess the unknown variable is what roads we each drove in the 991 GT3. But I think we both agree the new 991GT3 is a very big move on from its predecessor. When following Dickie Meaden in my 4.0, which had the new car's legs in a straight line (just), Dickie drove away thanks to the new car's compliance. Where he was clearly staying in the throttle, I had to back off whilst the very stiff rear of the 4.0 took time to settle back into contact with the tarmac!
Carl_Docklands said:
fbrs said:
Carl_Docklands said:
...McClaren...McClaren...McClaren...McClaren...McClaren...McClaren...
Sorry to be pedantic but it's McLaren
As for the 12c I was lucky enough to be thrown the keys to a friends last year and was stunned by its ability to change from being a teddy bear to a fvcking angry grizzly bear in a split second. If I could only have one car for the rest of my life it would be a 12c and to hell with the depreciation.
APOLO1 said:
it was LHD I was asked not to push it. I get my RHD the back end of next month 1st one in UK. With regard to the 4.0, it is well known that the 997 is flawed ie front end track. For me i can drive the 991S much faster then the 4.0
Yes, I'm the same - the 991S is astonishingly capable at dissecting a road. But the 4.0 is more challenging and fun! With apologies to others for this mini thread hi-jack, what's the "flaw" you refer to re "front end track" on 997s?
Under steer due to the restricted width of the front end track, of which was designed out on the 991 chassis. Whilst the 4.0 is fun for 20 mins, in my hands I find it hard work,
The best car I have ever owned to date on both road and track has to be the 12C, I did over 12 full on track days in my coupe, never at any time missed a beat, About to buy my 3rd at my price......just waiting to see if they announce a GT3 version for next months show.
The best car I have ever owned to date on both road and track has to be the 12C, I did over 12 full on track days in my coupe, never at any time missed a beat, About to buy my 3rd at my price......just waiting to see if they announce a GT3 version for next months show.
APOLO1 said:
The best car I have ever owned to date on both road and track has to be the 12C, I did over 12 full on track days in my coupe, never at any time missed a beat, About to buy my 3rd at my price......just waiting to see if they announce a GT3 version for next months show.
Apolo are you buying another 12C then? Even after all the trouble you had selling the last one which hadn't even done 700 miles?R11ysf said:
APOLO1 said:
The best car I have ever owned to date on both road and track has to be the 12C, I did over 12 full on track days in my coupe, never at any time missed a beat, About to buy my 3rd at my price......just waiting to see if they announce a GT3 version for next months show.
Apolo are you buying another 12C then? Even after all the trouble you had selling the last one which hadn't even done 700 miles?Any 12C owners interested in a trip to Spa this weekend? http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
isaldiri said:
And you do realise excluding the luxury car tax and GST in Australia, the amount that Mclaren are collecting for the 12c (~400k AUD minus 33% luxury tax and whatever other taxes) is still going to be significantly above the ex VAT price of the 12c in the UK? That is a quirk of that particular market where high performance cars are awfully expensive and not exactly reflective of the rest of the world.
I repeat, I fail to see how you can realistically expect Mclaren can offer a carbon tub car with that degree of engineering at the price of something like the cross platform R8 V10 (very nice car but the 12c is dynamically on a different planet IMO) in the Europe/US where prices are much more competitive.
Prices in Australian dollars including taxes:I repeat, I fail to see how you can realistically expect Mclaren can offer a carbon tub car with that degree of engineering at the price of something like the cross platform R8 V10 (very nice car but the 12c is dynamically on a different planet IMO) in the Europe/US where prices are much more competitive.
McLaren 12C $398,000
Mclaren 12 Spider $441,780
Ferrari 458 Italia $526,950
Audi R8 V10 Plus $408,200
It's relative. I can't make it any clearer than that.
Sierra Mike said:
Prices in Australian dollars including taxes:
McLaren 12C $398,000
Mclaren 12 Spider $441,780
Ferrari 458 Italia $526,950
Audi R8 V10 Plus $408,200
It's relative. I can't make it any clearer than that.
And i am saying there is an absolute minimum Mclaren need to get for the 12c irrespective of the relative prices in Australia where 400k Aud all in prices still allow Mclaren to take in more than the UK price 180k Gbp of the car. Can't be clearer than that either.McLaren 12C $398,000
Mclaren 12 Spider $441,780
Ferrari 458 Italia $526,950
Audi R8 V10 Plus $408,200
It's relative. I can't make it any clearer than that.
isaldiri said:
Sierra Mike said:
Prices in Australian dollars including taxes:
McLaren 12C $398,000
Mclaren 12 Spider $441,780
Ferrari 458 Italia $526,950
Audi R8 V10 Plus $408,200
It's relative. I can't make it any clearer than that.
And i am saying there is an absolute minimum McLaren need to get for the 12c irrespective of the relative prices in Australia where 400k Aud all in prices still allow McLaren to take in more than the UK price 180k Gbp of the car. Can't be clearer than that either.McLaren 12C $398,000
Mclaren 12 Spider $441,780
Ferrari 458 Italia $526,950
Audi R8 V10 Plus $408,200
It's relative. I can't make it any clearer than that.
They have got this so wrong, in every way If they had F management at the helm they could not have done a worse Job, IMHO. Although the current MD I have to say is doing his best under the circumstances.
The ironic thing is, the car is brilliant and could just go down as the car of the decade.
The biggest mistake in my view is arrogance.
The ironic thing is, the car is brilliant and could just go down as the car of the decade.
The biggest mistake in my view is arrogance.
Going back on track, I personally think that the mistake McLaren made was to assume that, with little history of producing and selling raod cars, they could instantly price match (in the wrong sense) Ferrari with its amazing road car history. If McLaren had priced the MP12 25% below the 458 everyone would be commenting on what a bargain it was and I think prices would have held very firm. Then, over the years, as new models were introduced and a history established, Mclaren could have slowly raised prices in line with Ferrari.
I just don't think it works like that. I work in the motor industry and see how things work behind the scenes.
The McLaren pricing change in Australia is one of two things - a test to see how much pricing below Ferrari affects demand, which it will not do very much IMO, or the distributor, who will have bought stock via a L/C, needing to liquidate unsold stock.
If the distrubutor 'unilaterally' reduced price to get rid of stock he will issue a press release to put a positive spin on it but the fact is he needs to convert the stock into cash, which forces you to do things against the best interests of the brand like announce a price reduction. He may also be in the process of falling out with McLaren in the UK who might not support his stance. This happens all the time with national car distributors and manufacturers, big and small.
If McLaren, whose only reason to price below Ferrari is because they have a shorter car producing history, make the mistake of pricing below in other markets, they will spend an eternity trying to get their brand back on terms with Ferrari and will probably not succeed.
Ferrari's ace is that it can manage the residual demand better because buyers have more confidence that they understand the full depreciation curve (new price to lowest point and then when it upturns at about 10 years old). McLaren buyers cannot possibly understand that because the car is too new. That issue is not about pricing it is about confidence. A new manufacturer has to 'do the time'.
By the way, when I say buyers, I include the trade.
There is no real reason the McLaren needs to be priced lower - it has the same basic design, more power, similarly appealing appearance, higher tech materials and from an equally successful F1 racing team. Why should they price lower? It will damage the brand.
What they have to do is carefully find ways of installing confidence into the used market and should manipulate new car supply to assist with that. Even Ferrari have had to do that - a seven year maintenance package for example, is solely designed to enhance residual values and keep maintenance out of the hands of independents for longer. It builds confidence in customers and gives Ferrari more clout with the dealer because they retain more service business (which is absolutely key to dealer profitability).
It is clever. You use original parts, Ferrari labour and the official dealer gets the pick of the best stock come resale time because he is seeing the car and customer regularly. On top of this the customer benefits from better residuals. Even cleverer, it is the customer who has paid for all this up front in the price which Ferrari figure is money better in their pocket.
This is how McLaren need to compete - with their brains rather than their wallet. They will have less margin in a 12C than Ferrari do in a 458 because of the production volume so if they get into a price war, they lose. That fact is 100% accurate I can assure you.
The McLaren pricing change in Australia is one of two things - a test to see how much pricing below Ferrari affects demand, which it will not do very much IMO, or the distributor, who will have bought stock via a L/C, needing to liquidate unsold stock.
If the distrubutor 'unilaterally' reduced price to get rid of stock he will issue a press release to put a positive spin on it but the fact is he needs to convert the stock into cash, which forces you to do things against the best interests of the brand like announce a price reduction. He may also be in the process of falling out with McLaren in the UK who might not support his stance. This happens all the time with national car distributors and manufacturers, big and small.
If McLaren, whose only reason to price below Ferrari is because they have a shorter car producing history, make the mistake of pricing below in other markets, they will spend an eternity trying to get their brand back on terms with Ferrari and will probably not succeed.
Ferrari's ace is that it can manage the residual demand better because buyers have more confidence that they understand the full depreciation curve (new price to lowest point and then when it upturns at about 10 years old). McLaren buyers cannot possibly understand that because the car is too new. That issue is not about pricing it is about confidence. A new manufacturer has to 'do the time'.
By the way, when I say buyers, I include the trade.
There is no real reason the McLaren needs to be priced lower - it has the same basic design, more power, similarly appealing appearance, higher tech materials and from an equally successful F1 racing team. Why should they price lower? It will damage the brand.
What they have to do is carefully find ways of installing confidence into the used market and should manipulate new car supply to assist with that. Even Ferrari have had to do that - a seven year maintenance package for example, is solely designed to enhance residual values and keep maintenance out of the hands of independents for longer. It builds confidence in customers and gives Ferrari more clout with the dealer because they retain more service business (which is absolutely key to dealer profitability).
It is clever. You use original parts, Ferrari labour and the official dealer gets the pick of the best stock come resale time because he is seeing the car and customer regularly. On top of this the customer benefits from better residuals. Even cleverer, it is the customer who has paid for all this up front in the price which Ferrari figure is money better in their pocket.
This is how McLaren need to compete - with their brains rather than their wallet. They will have less margin in a 12C than Ferrari do in a 458 because of the production volume so if they get into a price war, they lose. That fact is 100% accurate I can assure you.
respectfully, I disagree with the above post on all points.
They have no brand value to start with that's the problem. This two tier pricing system is just damaging the residual values. You tell me of another car manufacturer that offers 40-50k off list on low mile cars. Why not stop kidding one self and reduce the price, so every one knows were they are. That way they will go some way into protecting residuals, which is the real problem here that is affecting sales of new cars.
There is no demand for this car at the current price level. I do not see how reducing the price in order to sell cars is going to affect Brand value, when the Brand has no or very ltd value to start with. It will however bring some profit which is all that matters here for now
IMHO
Please don't tell me the SLR was a success.
They have no brand value to start with that's the problem. This two tier pricing system is just damaging the residual values. You tell me of another car manufacturer that offers 40-50k off list on low mile cars. Why not stop kidding one self and reduce the price, so every one knows were they are. That way they will go some way into protecting residuals, which is the real problem here that is affecting sales of new cars.
There is no demand for this car at the current price level. I do not see how reducing the price in order to sell cars is going to affect Brand value, when the Brand has no or very ltd value to start with. It will however bring some profit which is all that matters here for now
IMHO
Please don't tell me the SLR was a success.
APOLO1 said:
respectfully, I disagree with the above post on all points.
They have no brand value to start with that's the problem. This two tier pricing system is just damaging the residual values. You tell me of another car manufacturer that offers 40-50k off list on low mile cars. Why not stop kidding one self and reduce the price, so every one knows were they are. That way they will go some way into protecting residuals, which is the real problem here that is affecting sales of new cars.
There is no demand for this car at the current price level. I do not see how reducing the price in order to sell cars is going to affect Brand value, when the Brand has no or very ltd value to start with. It will however bring some profit which is all that matters here for now
IMHO
Please don't tell me the SLR was a success.
All fair points Apolo. But just to clarify when you say you are buying another one at "your price" are you getting another? And if so new or second hand?They have no brand value to start with that's the problem. This two tier pricing system is just damaging the residual values. You tell me of another car manufacturer that offers 40-50k off list on low mile cars. Why not stop kidding one self and reduce the price, so every one knows were they are. That way they will go some way into protecting residuals, which is the real problem here that is affecting sales of new cars.
There is no demand for this car at the current price level. I do not see how reducing the price in order to sell cars is going to affect Brand value, when the Brand has no or very ltd value to start with. It will however bring some profit which is all that matters here for now
IMHO
Please don't tell me the SLR was a success.
thanks
Gassing Station | McLaren | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff