2020 Mid-Engine Chevrolet Corvette Stingray Starts at $59,995

Ziggy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2020
Threads
3
Messages
247
Reaction score
723
Location
Bay Area
Car(s)
Abarth 124
Z06 pricing came in hot. Starting at $106k before dealer games!
 

trackratZ

Well-Known Member
First Name
August
Joined
Mar 23, 2021
Threads
62
Messages
1,861
Reaction score
4,166
Location
So CA
Car(s)
240Z RB26DETT,Glady Rubi, Model Y LR, 987 Cayman S
Occupation
Software security
Z06 pricing:

1657917805010.jpeg

1657917816767.jpeg
 

Denver the Last Dinosaur

Well-Known Member
First Name
Denver
Joined
Jan 28, 2022
Threads
5
Messages
690
Reaction score
743
Location
Gone
Car(s)
cardboard box
Jalopnik's news article:

2023 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 Starts at $106,395
For roughly $42,000 more than a base Corvette, you get a flat-crank 5.5-liter V8 making 670 hp — the most powerful N/A production engine ever.​
 

RicerX

Well-Known Member
First Name
Z
Joined
Sep 14, 2020
Threads
3
Messages
314
Reaction score
810
Location
Limbo
Car(s)
2020 Titan Pro4X
Where are the pricing guys at that say the Corvette is evading inflation? The C8 Z06 is over $25k more than its C7 Z06 predecessor.
 

bboypuertoroc

Well-Known Member
First Name
Tony
Joined
Aug 19, 2021
Threads
2
Messages
1,080
Reaction score
2,863
Location
Get out my way pimpin, Tampa
Car(s)
2006 Evo IX, 2008 RHD Wrangler
Occupation
Mail Carrier
Where are the pricing guys at that say the Corvette is evading inflation? The C8 Z06 is over $25k more than its C7 Z06 predecessor.
Yeah, and it deserves it's price increase. Everything about it is new car. I'm still fucking flabbergasted that the regular C8 barely increased in price over the regular C7.
 

RicerX

Well-Known Member
First Name
Z
Joined
Sep 14, 2020
Threads
3
Messages
314
Reaction score
810
Location
Limbo
Car(s)
2020 Titan Pro4X
What's interesting to me is - it's completely ok that it's a brand new car, but the C8 Z06 has achieved extremely similar net performance gains over its predecessor that the Z has gained over the 370Z.

Roughly a touch over a half a second 0-60 time gained from C7Z to C8Z. Roughly a touch over a half a second (to almost a full second 0-60 depending on transmission selection) with the 370Z to Z. C8Z hits 10.5 quarter over the C7Z's 10.9, while the Z has hit high 12s in the 1/4 mile to the 370Z's low to mid 13s. There's also notable roadholding increases for each platform that are in a similar range of each other.

Yes, the Corvette is fantastic. Yes it's a completely fresh take (that is arguably bringing new people to the nameplate - myself included). But GM has long utilized the practice of introducing the new generation of Corvette and artificially deflating the entry price during its debut year and slowly increasing it year over year to bring it closer to reality. If you look, the Stringray's starting MSRP is already up $4k since its debut. It has had approximately zero significant updates to merit such an increase but it's there and everyone brushes it off.

All I'm saying is they're doing the same thing Nissan is doing, but they can afford to spread it out over time while Nissan cannot afford such. GM also has a much more reliable customer base for the Corvette. But breaking it down, they're doing the same thing for what is a similar increase in the result of the changes. One could argue the performance increase they eeked out of the Z was much more cost effective than what went into the Corvette to eek a similar delta. However - the Vette gets a pass because of its pedigree. It's marketed extremely well. It's always sold well. It almost carries this "invincible" aura to it - Chevy can almost do no wrong with it.
 

Kbl911

Well-Known Member
First Name
K
Joined
Mar 24, 2022
Threads
3
Messages
336
Reaction score
726
Location
FL
Car(s)
2017 370Z
Occupation
Wealth Management
All I'm saying is they're doing the same thing Nissan is doing, but they can afford to spread it out over time while Nissan cannot afford such.
Are they, though? At what point will the base C8 become 30% more expensive than the equivalent C7? Also, why can Nissan *not* afford to avoid price-gouging its customers all at once? Is the logic that they're so far behind in their pricing they simply *must* rapidly increase the MSRP of the Z so that they can make money on the units they do sell while, what, ignoring all potential sales they will not be making because of the dramatic increase (versus, say, a more reasonable approach, a la Chevrolet)?

I get what you mean about Chevy being far more confident in the long term pricing structure, but why would Nissan not be worried about driving customers away, here? It makes sense right up until it doesn’t.
 

RicerX

Well-Known Member
First Name
Z
Joined
Sep 14, 2020
Threads
3
Messages
314
Reaction score
810
Location
Limbo
Car(s)
2020 Titan Pro4X
Are they, though? At what point will the base C8 become 30% more expensive than the equivalent C7?
At the end of the C8's lifecycle.

Debut year for C6 Corvette - 2005, MSRP $44,245
Ending year for C6 - 2013, MSRP $51,000, Lifecycle increase of 15%
Debut year for C7 Stingray - 2014, MSRP $51,995
Ending year for C7 Stingray - 2019, MSRP $56,590, Lifecycle increase of 8%

Debut year for C8 Stingray - 2020, MSRP $59,995. C7 Debut to C8 Debut increase of 15%.

The overall spread from C6 debut to C7 sunset is $12,345, or roughly 28%.

Currently, the 2023 C8 Corvette base MSRP is $64,200, or a 7% increase within the first three years of its lifecycle.


We'll look at the 350Z numbers and compare to the 370Z.

Debut year for 350Z - 2003, MSRP $26,370
Ending year for 350Z - 2008, MSRP $27,980, Lifecycle increase of 6%

Debut year for 370Z - 2009, MSRP $29,930
Ending year for 370Z - 2020, MSRP $30,090, Lifecycle increase of < 1%

Debut year for Z - 2023, MSRP $39,990, a 33% increase from 370Z debut.

*Not adjusted for inflation, using base model coupe prices excluding destination in USD.


The 2020 370Z was priced where it was priced for several reasons, but the key reason was the platform/R&D long paid off between the Infiniti family and 370Z sales. The 370Z was never a profit machine from the start - it launched in an economic downturn (funny how history repeats itself) and never saw the sales levels of the 350Z. Luckily, for most of its life, it had several platform cousins to share its costs with - the Infiniti G cars, the Infiniti M, Infiniti FX, and the Infiniti EX cars all shared the same platform and a variant of the powertrain (VQ37VHR + 7AT). All of those cars aided to absorb any losses incurred by the 370Zs lower volume of sales, but definitely allowed for Nissan to have a desirable pricing structure for the Z while leveraging the premium model pricing for its platform cousins at Infiniti.

Fast forward to today - the Infiniti M and FX are gone, and the Infiniti EX has moved on to a completely different architecture and powertrain. The only platform cousins the new Z has now are the Infiniti Q50 and Q60, which are languishing and rumored to be near end of life (heavy rumors the Q60 coupe is cancelled after 2023). There is now little to nothing left to share costs with - the sales numbers for the models remaining aren't high enough to aid the Z's pricing structure. The Q50 has been around since 2015 while the Q60 has been largely untouched since its debut in 2017. Nissan no longer had the luxury to padding pricing on Infiniti siblings to keep the Z pricing down, but the market also softened that blow with most of its closest competitors residing in the price range the Z settled into.

I emphasize the platform-sharing facet of this because this is how Nissan must do business to bring a sports car to the market. You might ask why this matters when the Corvette doesn't currently share a platform with anything else. It doesn't need to.

For one, historically, Chevy can sell a year's worth of Z car volume with a month of Corvettes. Often a higher rate than that. But GM has used the Corvette as an R&D type vehicle for the past couple of decades, and can rely on the massive profit margins from their truck and SUV sales to fund that R&D. (The GT-R serves as this type of function for Nissan, but the Z does not and has not for a long time. The GT-R also has a massive price tag to match that has gone up significantly from year to year with updates) Nissan does not have that luxury. All of Nissan's volume cars do not carry the margin that a half-ton truck does, and the Silverado is the sales king for Chevrolet (and GM as a whole). This is significant contributor to why GM can afford to gradually extend the price increases along the lifecycle of the Corvette line, and it has resulted in fairly consistent year over year sales numbers. That, and GM amortizes the costs over the lifecycle of the car.

When you put all of that into perspective, it's extremely surprising the Z isn't just dead. However, I'd wager that without a drastic turnaround, we won't see another one.
 

Kbl911

Well-Known Member
First Name
K
Joined
Mar 24, 2022
Threads
3
Messages
336
Reaction score
726
Location
FL
Car(s)
2017 370Z
Occupation
Wealth Management
Debut year for C6 Corvette - 2005, MSRP $44,245
Ending year for C6 - 2013, MSRP $51,000, Lifecycle increase of 15%
Debut year for C7 Stingray - 2014, MSRP $51,995
Ending year for C7 Stingray - 2019, MSRP $56,590, Lifecycle increase of 8%

Debut year for C8 Stingray - 2020, MSRP $59,995. C7 Debut to C8 Debut increase of 15%.

The overall spread from C6 debut to C7 sunset is $12,345, or roughly 28%.
Thoughtful response!

Though, I think this math is kind of illogical - you are comparing the start of one cycle to the absolute end of the next cycle, effectively taking into account two entire generational runs. We should be looking at where the previous generation's price ended, not where it began, because in doing it your way you are removing years of market changes just to arrive at a particular figure (~30%), and spanning nearly 1.5 decades to do it.

I'm not arguing that Nissan is in the financial situation that GM is in or that the Z is to Nissan what the Corvette is to Chevrolet in the scope of their respective overall portfolios, we don't need to delve into that any more deeply (unless you just find it fascinating to contrast, in which case we totally can). The FM platform has been in service since 2001, continually massaged for new applications without being fundamentally changed, so it's not as though there is some new-platform level of R&D to account for, here.

It's been stated elsewhere, but the Performance variant that is currently on offer feels like what they intended this Z to be (at least to start) and that Nissan then set about de-contenting the Sport so that they could use it as a (somewhat) cynical marketing ploy knowing that this base model appeals to far fewer people for a multitude of extremely valid reasons. Truly, that's where my disappointment lies - Nissan didn't have to do this, even if the realities of a launch in the current climate necessitated a pared down initial lineup, the baseline pricing is just way out of whack. You can't charge near-Supra prices for an inferior car, by most/all objective measures, even if it is infinitely more aesthetically pleasing (ask Jaguar how that's going with the absolutely gorgeous but lackluster-selling F-Type). Even with all the arguments that the Z will cost less to own over time or that it is a perfectly fine GT/daily driving sports car - and that may all be valid - to enter this market with a vehicle that compares unfavorably to its competition is...I'll be charitable and say "ballsy." To then price it comparably to said competition (Supra being the most direct, obviously) is foolhardy.

I don't buy the idea that Nissan had to price the Z this way, nor that it's even a particularly good idea to have done so. Seems to me that making the Z either a) better than its competition in an empirical sense, or b) markedly less expensive than said competition would have been the surest ways to secure the future of the car. I think they have potentially accelerated the ultimate fate that you have very accurately alluded to.
 

Mardoc01

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2021
Threads
18
Messages
222
Reaction score
216
Location
South fla
Car(s)
Nissan max plat.
Thoughtful response!

Though, I think this math is kind of illogical - you are comparing the start of one cycle to the absolute end of the next cycle, effectively taking into account two entire generational runs. We should be looking at where the previous generation's price ended, not where it began, because in doing it your way you are removing years of market changes just to arrive at a particular figure (~30%), and spanning nearly 1.5 decades to do it.

I'm not arguing that Nissan is in the financial situation that GM is in or that the Z is to Nissan what the Corvette is to Chevrolet in the scope of their respective overall portfolios, we don't need to delve into that any more deeply (unless you just find it fascinating to contrast, in which case we totally can). The FM platform has been in service since 2001, continually massaged for new applications without being fundamentally changed, so it's not as though there is some new-platform level of R&D to account for, here.

It's been stated elsewhere, but the Performance variant that is currently on offer feels like what they intended this Z to be (at least to start) and that Nissan then set about de-contenting the Sport so that they could use it as a (somewhat) cynical marketing ploy knowing that this base model appeals to far fewer people for a multitude of extremely valid reasons. Truly, that's where my disappointment lies - Nissan didn't have to do this, even if the realities of a launch in the current climate necessitated a pared down initial lineup, the baseline pricing is just way out of whack. You can't charge near-Supra prices for an inferior car, by most/all objective measures, even if it is infinitely more aesthetically pleasing (ask Jaguar how that's going with the absolutely gorgeous but lackluster-selling F-Type). Even with all the arguments that the Z will cost less to own over time or that it is a perfectly fine GT/daily driving sports car - and that may all be valid - to enter this market with a vehicle that compares unfavorably to its competition is...I'll be charitable and say "ballsy." To then price it comparably to said competition (Supra being the most direct, obviously) is foolhardy.

I don't buy the idea that Nissan had to price the Z this way, nor that it's even a particularly good idea to have done so. Seems to me that making the Z either a) better than its competition in an empirical sense, or b) markedly less expensive than said competition would have been the surest ways to secure the future of the car. I think they have potentially accelerated the ultimate fate that you have very accurately alluded to.
What did you guess the performance was gonna cost ? 47k ? that was my guess
 

Kbl911

Well-Known Member
First Name
K
Joined
Mar 24, 2022
Threads
3
Messages
336
Reaction score
726
Location
FL
Car(s)
2017 370Z
Occupation
Wealth Management
What did you guess the performance was gonna cost ? 47k ? that was my guess
Something like that, yeah; full-tilt cars for the first model year, I figured $47k on the top end.
 

Mardoc01

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2021
Threads
18
Messages
222
Reaction score
216
Location
South fla
Car(s)
Nissan max plat.
Something like that, yeah; full-tilt cars for the first model year, I figured $47k on the top end.
So we are about 4 k overpriced. I feel the 3.0 Supra is also slightly overpriced. I think it comes down to preference.
 

Kbl911

Well-Known Member
First Name
K
Joined
Mar 24, 2022
Threads
3
Messages
336
Reaction score
726
Location
FL
Car(s)
2017 370Z
Occupation
Wealth Management
So we are about 4 k overpriced. I feel the 3.0 Supra is also slightly overpriced. I think it comes down to preference.
Well, it's a little more than $4k, if we're talking fully loaded. Factor in the silly paint prices, and it gets slightly worse, even if you omit the truly superfluous little options that are offered. 🙄
 
 





Top