Denver the Last Dinosaur
Well-Known Member
^ Serves the morons right.
Play stupid games, get stupid prizes
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.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.
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)?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.
At the end of the C8's lifecycle.Are they, though? At what point will the base C8 become 30% more expensive than the equivalent C7?
Thoughtful response!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%.
What did you guess the performance was gonna cost ? 47k ? that was my guessThoughtful 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.
Something like that, yeah; full-tilt cars for the first model year, I figured $47k on the top end.What did you guess the performance was gonna cost ? 47k ? that was my guess
So we are about 4 k overpriced. I feel the 3.0 Supra is also slightly overpriced. I think it comes down to preference.Something like that, yeah; full-tilt cars for the first model year, I figured $47k on the top end.
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.So we are about 4 k overpriced. I feel the 3.0 Supra is also slightly overpriced. I think it comes down to preference.