[Shotimes] Re: (OT) How to avoid the pitfalls of pricing Former Porsche boss: There's no 'right price' for a car

[Donald Mallinson]

Ron,

Yea, I doubt there was a total of $4000 in the engine alone, but they 
had to ramp up for parts for the MTX again, and the SHO has some better 
interior bits, the V6 expecially being different from the SLO's at first.

Also, the body had more work on it, additional bracing in several spots, 
so a major change to several areas of the car, extra parts (gas tank , 
suspension bits etc) that need to be created/inventoried. 

When Porsche creates a different version of their cars, they don't just 
tack on $1000 do they?  Of course not, if they significantly change the 
car they get many thousands for the "improved" version.  How about the 
SVT cars?  they were more than just a few bucks more.

The SRT versions of the 300/Magnaum/Charger are about $10,000 more, and 
they have many of the same basic bits, not even a totally new engine.  
Of course you do get 85 more HP, the SHO gave people what?  Oh, 
Yes.....EIGHTY (80) extra HP over the standard engine in 1989.  Just 5 
shy of what the SRT engines give you for $10k large.  Add in inflation 
and the SHO still comes out a bit of a bargain.

Yes, a lower price probably would have sold more, but based on what 
other manufacturers are doing with similar "special" cars, the SHO was 
priced about the same as most of them.

Don Mallinson

Ron Porter wrote:

>In reading Schutz comments on the 944 pricing, though, I believe the SHO
>pricing issue was much the same situation. I don't truly believe that the
>Yamaha engine cost Ford $4K more than a std SLO engine. From all indications
>they were making a good $$$ on SLOs, and cutting the margin thinner on the
>SHO could have sold more cars.
>
>I felt the car was on the expensive side in '89, and got worse. A $19,995
>sticker would've helped a lot, I believe. If you recall there were comments
>in reviews that complained about the pricing WRT a loaded SLO.
>
>One thing is that, unlike Porsche back in those years (and I understand that
>they are no longer this way), US mfrs do not price cars on a "cost plus"
>basis. They have been unable to do that for years......which is why Ford
>lost money on every US Escort they ever built.
>
>Ron Porter
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: shotimes-admin@autox.team.net [mailto:shotimes-admin@autox.team.net]
>On Behalf Of Donald Mallinson
>Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 12:42 PM
>To: Shotimes; SHO Tech; V8List SHO
>Subject: [Shotimes] Re: (OT) How to avoid the pitfalls of pricing Former
>Porsche boss: There's no 'right price' for a car
>
>Ron Porter wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I wonder how well the
>>SHO would have done if it was priced no more than $1K more than a loaded
>>SLO??
>>
>>    
>>
>Ron,
>
>Obviously it would have sold better, but the cost of the SHO was mainly 
>in the engine.  A much more costly design than the 5.0L Mustang engine 
>or the Chevy engine.  If Ford had sold the SHO for just 1k more, then 
>they either would have lost more money and stopped production even 
>sooner, or they would have put in a slightly modded 3.0 Duratech, and I 
>don't think any of us would be on the SHO lists talking about how good 
>the car is.  We would be over with the TCCA folks.  :)
>
>I certainly would never have considered the SHO without the engine it 
>had.  Anything less and I would have been somewhere else.  I suspect 
>that would be the way for most people here.
>
>Don Mallinson
>_______________________________________________
>Shotimes mailing list
>Shotimes@autox.team.net
>http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes
>_______________________________________________
>Shotimes mailing list
>Shotimes@autox.team.net
>http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes