[Shotimes] Re: (OT) How to avoid the pitfalls of pricing Former Porsche boss: There's no 'r

[Mark Nunnally]

Until they came with the auto (93) they didn't sell a bunch.  So I don't think folks would have bought them at any price, as most folks just don't want to drive sticks.  A car enthusiasts (in the grand scheme of things) is really a minority.  While most of us wouldn't have it any other way, the vast majority of folks just don't want a stick.  IIRC I thought a saw recently were even on the corvette, over 75% of them are sold with auto's.  

The majority of folks buy a car for the "show" not the "go".

mark

-----Original Message-----
>From: Dave Garber <dave.garber@comcast.net>
>Sent: Dec 22, 2005 9:18 AM
>To: TechSHO@topica.com
>Cc: shotimes@autox.team.net
>Subject: [Shotimes] Re: (OT) How to avoid the pitfalls of pricing Former Porsche boss: There's no 'r
>
>Well obviously you weren't the only one who felt that way. What was the 
>number that Don threw out there - 110k SHO's over the 10 year run? But, had 
>it been priced differently, at least early on, perhaps that number could 
>have been closer to 200k SHO's? Or 300k? Maybe it'd still be in production?
>
>Again, it was just an excercise in theory. There is no way to know for sure 
>what impact that kind of pricing strategy would have had on the SHO. We do 
>know that it has worked VERY well for other brands though..
>
>What's funny is, back in those days my Dad was interested in the SHO. Dad is 
>your basic car nut - he wasn't looking for a particular kind of car relative 
>to sedan, coupe, RWD, FWD, etc. He looked at an '89 SHO and felt it was a 
>bit on the high-side price-wise as he'd just bought an 87 GN for about 7k 
>less a few years back (the GN stickered for ~17k, the SHO was somewhere in 
>the ~25k range IIRC). Yes, the GN was yestertech with it's pushrod/turbo 
>engine. Yes, they are technically aimed at different target groups. Yes, the 
>SHO would put a hurt on the GN on a road course/track. But dad wasn't 
>looking at it that way. To my dad, they were both performance cars so they 
>were both equally on his radar. It was primarily a daily driver and dad 
>wasn't planning on being on a road course - ever. But had the SHO been 
>somewhere closer to the 19k mark Ron mentioned, he very well might have had 
>himself a SHO back then (dad did eventually get a 96 SHO in 98)!
>
>
>Dave Garber
>Pittsburgh, PA
>99 White, 93k
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: <greensho@crown.net>
>To: <TechSHO@topica.com>
>Cc: <shotimes@autox.team.net>
>Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 11:56 PM
>Subject: Re: (OT) How to avoid the pitfalls of pricing Former Porsche boss: 
>There's no 'r
>
>
>Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>Save up to $1,500 on your phone bill with Packet8
>Free Activation, Free Equipment & First Month Free!
>30-day money back guarantee. 1-877-868-1135
>http://click.topica.com/caaegt4b1dhxAbOckiCa/ TMONE
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>In '93 when I bought my first SHO (new) I looked at many, many new cars.
>
>From Buick to Volvo.
>
>First would have been a Suburu Turbo Wagon.  Several thou more than
>the SHO.  No good, because no MTX.
>
>Second was the Mitsu. Diamante (Sport, GT, whatever), it had more
>power than the regular and looked really good, but 2 strikes against
>it.  No MTX and it was of questionable quality, coming from Australia.
>
>
>The SHO was priced right there with no MTX Nissan Maxima and the
>low power Volvo.
>
>Thought about a VW Passit, but after calling an aftermarket warranty
>company that would not give any warranty on any VW, that cancelled
>VW off of my list.  Besides, VW in '93 had air bags, but kept the
>really stupid automatic mouse shoulder belts.
>
>Yes, my '93MTX SHO was a good buy at the time.
>
>regards, Jim White - greensho@crown.net 
>_______________________________________________
>Shotimes mailing list
>Shotimes@autox.team.net
>http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo/shotimes