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

[Dave Garber]

>From what I got out of Ron's comments and the article he posted, the idea or 
'theory' here is that if the SHO had been priced at something closer to the 
SLO, regardless of what it cost them to make it, it would have sold much 
better. In other words, Ford would take a hit initially and then ramp up the 
price in subsequent MY's while establishing the SHO as a real 'steal' in the 
minds of consumers early on.

Actually, in reading Ron's comments, he pretty much spells that out. What 
part of this are you not comprehending? Or are you just used to arguing with 
Ron to the point that you argue for the sake of argument?

FWIW, I think the question has merit and I also wonder what would have 
happened had Ford priced the SHO more competetively with it's crosstown 
rivals.


Dave Garber
Pittsburgh, PA
99 White, 93k




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Donald Mallinson" <dmall@mwonline.net>
To: "'Shotimes'" <shotimes@autox.team.net>; "'SHO Tech'" 
<techsho@topica.com>; "'V8List SHO'" <v8sho@v8sho.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: (OT) How to avoid the pitfalls of pricing Former Porsche boss: 
There's no 'right price' for a car


> Ron,
>
> Whether you call it "cost Plus" or something else, the manufacturer still 
> has to total what the car will cost and add a profit margin.  OR they set 
> a price and build it down to that price including a margin.  They still 
> have to have a cost and a selling price.  I don't see where it makes any 
> real difference in this discussion.  For purposes of getting you off that 
> point and onto what we really are discussing I will say that yea, cost 
> plus sucks.  Can we move to the more important stuff now?
>
> If they had set the price $4000 less and then built the car, what would 
> have happened is just what I mentioned long ago....they would have had a 
> warmed over duratech of about 160 hp (20 more than stock in 1989) and 
> probably an interior not much different.  I doubt that car would have been 
> as successful as the SHO.  Many feel the SHO was at least a little 
> comparable to the 3 series BMW, and that car was priced many thousands 
> more than the SHO for similar performance.
> And lest we forget, the SHO wasn't a dismal failure.  The SHO had an 
> Eleven year production run, longer than many highly thought of cars, 
> longer than many early car manufacturers in general and the SAME as the 
> GTO, considered one of the most successful and well thought of muscle cars 
> of the 60's.  Yea, they stuffed a big engine in the same body and priced 
> it nice, and they sold a lot more of the GTO than the SHO eventually sold. 
> Total SHO sales about 120,000, total GTO sales right at 500,000.  But at 
> the end, the GTO was down to 5000 or less for the last few years, and the 
> car had deteriorated to a hollow shell of its original self (the entire 
> industry was putting out awful stuff anyway, the GTO was just doing the 
> best it could basically).  Pretty much what happened to the SHO, but at 
> least the SHO remained a decent car and didn't have the emissions and 
> other safety crap to go through.
>
> Point is, the SHO wasn't a failure, and if some ford execs are not proud 
> of it, virtually everyone here is, and many Ford people and dealers still 
> think highly of the car (OK, maybe just a few Ford dealers!).
>
> As I have stated before, yes it would have sold better if cheaper, but if 
> they had to reduce the quality of the car, or put in a "normal" engine, 
> that would have killed it off much sooner.  I doubt if someone in Ford 
> just said "heck we built this really awesome car and can just tack on 4 
> grand for the heck of it!"  There were plenty of other cars more expensive 
> and the SHO wasn't in the stratosphere as far as pricing was concerned for 
> a premium American car.  All I ask is you not try to re-write history in 
> your quest to keep putting down the SHO.
>
> Don Mallinson