Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Dealers Selling the GT-R at MSRP?
I'm looking to place an order for a GT-R. I've found dealers charging from $10k over to $30k over. Any leads on MSRP dealers?
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Good luck on getting that GT-R, man. I know I'm in line for one as soon as my fiancee and I get her deceased father's estate sorted out...so hopefully I'll be shopping around for one soon.
If you can find a NEW GT-R for under 90K good luck.
ebay has about 8 or so for sale.... many have not sold becasue the reserve of 98K was not met. goto ebay.com type in the search window 2009 Nissan GT-R, if you see a better deal...post it.
I work at Nissan store and we have 4 people waiting for delivery all with $5000 in house. They don't take delivery they loose their deposit. All prospects informed that it will be $20k over MSRP...
Once again there is only 1500 being sold in USA and there are 1100 dealerships in USA. The mark up is about $6000.
For a dealer to get certified they are investing any where from $30k to $70k depending on what they have at their location.
Good luck if your going to get one.
This car is incredible!
GP
And just what dealer do you work for? They may have to "invest" another $50k in legal fees and settlements once they run into customers that have any knowledge of their legal rights.
Unless you have a demo GTR in stock available for test drives AND unless the customer is ordering the car to specifications that will cause the dealership to lose money if he/she cancels the order, then you don't have a prayer of collecting a deposit in front of a judge. The law of the land in virtually all 50 states - certainly Massachusetts - is that for a two party contract to be valid, the buyer has to have "reasonable knowledge of and valid expectations regarding" the product they are buying. Without the ability to test drive a demo, you lose on that account alone. Plus, if you can't prove damages - i.e. reduced sales price resulting from cancellation - you couldn't collect even if you had a demo.
At Ferrari of Washington, they are more than happy to refund a customers deposit that has been sitting in escrow for 2+ years if they change their mind. At FOW, they sell new cars at MSRP, not a penny more. But in the case of a cancelled contract for a car that has gone into production, it goes to the open market and, bingo, they make a healthy premium. Same with my Porsche dealer on the GT2.
Apparantly Nissan and your dealership want to play in the big leagues with the GTR, but are employing sales tactics unbefitting for a Sentra. Another reason why the GTR is likely to be a short lived flash in the pants. McDonalds may be good at cheap burgers, but they aren't exactly the connoiseur's choice for prime rib. And if Nissan thinks that an "investment" of $35-$70k can turn the monkey wrenchs who bang away at the drum brakes on that Sentra into the same level of mechanic that works for the typical Ferrari or Porsche dealer, good friggin luck. Maybe I can buy new golf clubs and take on Tiger.
You seem to understand buyers' rights pretty well, and everything you said up to that last rediculous rant made sense.
The GT-R has been in production for 40 years. The AWD versions for 20 years. Your comment has already been disproven. There's nothing more to it.
And Nissan already went through this process with the R33/R34 in Europe.
The company 'Nissan' also includes Infiniti, which like it or not is a BMW competitor. 'Nissan' doesn't just work on Sentras any more than Porsche only works on Jettas.
Maybe I can buy new golf clubs and take on Tiger.
Seems that if Tiger is the undisputed number one in the world of golf, this analogy doesn't really work well for Porsche.
Oh sure, they are profitable. And they have a loyal following. But Tiger consistently comes in with the lowest number on his score card. Thats where Porsche falls short.
I honestly don't know how well, or not, the GT-R "Skyline" competes with Porsche, Ferrari and others for sales in Eurpope and Asia. Someone mentioned in another forum that it competes more with the EVO and WRX in brand marketing as it does with a 911 or 430, but I have no idea if that is accurate. What are the actual sales volumes - i.e. is it a halo car or a mainstream car?
My point is that in the U.S., I just don't see the GT-R having a long lifespan. Nissan has too many other fish to fry trying to stay competitive with Toyota and Honda to put anywhere near the effort of a Porsche, Ferrari or even BMW in keeping their cars on the forefront of performance engineering. Hell, the 1995 Maxima that I own and am a big fan of now only comes with a CVT transmission and Nissan dares to market it as a "4-door sports car". Nissan isn't a car company that exudes an image of performance engineering. Whether the GT-R lasts as long as the honda S2000, Acura NSX, or Toyota Supra TT, who knows. But in all of those cases, the big splash introduction was followed by ..... almost nothing (in evolution).
The other factor, unfortunately, is the "Nissan" image devolution. The Wall Street Journal had an interesting article a few months ago analyzing the customer demographic of Nissan. More than any other major car company, Nissan has "downscaled" into econoboxes. The average sales price has actually declined. The Maxima sells less than 20% of the volume it did 15 years ago and the bulk of Nissan sales are at the low end of the market. While Hyundai is going upscale with a V8 RWD vehicle, Nissan is going in the other direction. The owner of the Nissan dealership I bought my Maxima from also owns a BMW dealership. He acknowledged that while there was some limited cross shopping (Maxima vs. 3 series) 10+ years ago, there is NONE now. At least when you handed Acura $80k+ for an NSX, you had the potential of seeing familiar faces at the dealership. A $90k customer at a Nissan dealership will have absolutely nothing in common with the other folks sitting in the service lounge.
None of this takes away from the fact that the GTR is an impressive engieering feat. About 800 lbs overweight for my preferences, but impressive nonetheless. But from a business perspective, I wouldn't bet on it still being at your local Nissan showroom in 2015.
I think you are making habitat's point, more than your own. If the GT-R were labeled as an Infiniti and sold through Infiniti dealerships, it might help with respect to brand image and the purchase/service experience.
And your VW comparison also makes habitat's point. Look at the Volkswagen Phaeton V12 - a car that could easily compete with the 750i or S550 in performance, luxury, etc, but sat on dealers lots until the paint peeled off trying to get someone to pay $75k+ for a VW. The Audi R8 does spectacular by comparison.
Nissan may have more luck with the GT-R than VW did with the Phaeton, but after going through the expense and effort of establishing a "premium" division with Infiniti, it seems counterproductive to try to entice serious sports car enthusiasts into a Nissan dealership. I stopped in (by "private invitation") to have a look at the GTR a couple of weeks ago. When I pulled up in my 2 month old 911 GT2, the showroom practically emptied out to take a look at it. And about half of the gawkers didn't speak English. I finally got to the general manager, who was all of about 35, but I had to go through a few sales people who looked like they were 2 weeks out of a cheap used car lot. The entire atmosphere made a flea market seem upscale. And this is the dealership in my area (out of 8-10) that Nissan designated as their GTR showplace. Embarassing.
As an M5 owner, I'd have a hard time agreeing with you that Infiniti competes with BMW on anything other than the entry level G35 level. But one thing is certain, as a brand and from a sales/service perspective, Nissan has absolutely nothing in common with Porsche or Ferrari. Granted, Nissan's underachieving objective of 1,500 GT-R's is a tiny fraction of the number of $75k-$200k+ 911's sold in the US year in and year out, but I still think Nissan needs to re-evaluate their strategy. To take habitat's analogy a bit further, you wouldn't devote a few years to developing the best recipe for prime rib and then try to serve them through McDonalds.
While Hyundai is going upscale with a V8 RWD vehicle, Nissan is going in the other direction.
Incorrect. They are going in both directions. They are already saturated in the V8 market with the M45. They offer the exact same lineup as Hyundai. Where exactly are you expecting them to expand? By your logic, Porsche is going downscale by acquiring more of VW, and VW offering the Golf.
NiMoCo has a wide spread from Sentra to GT-R. Same as from Golf to 911. From Fit to NSX. From Cobalt to Z06. From FIAT to Ferrari.
The owner of the Nissan dealership I bought my Maxima from also owns a BMW dealership. He acknowledged that while there was some limited cross shopping (Maxima vs. 3 series) 10+ years ago, there is NONE now.
Because of what I already mentioned, this is just a nonsense comment. The 3-series competitor is the G37. They have NOT exited that market, they just changed the naming scheme on their cars.
A $90k customer at a Nissan dealership will have absolutely nothing in common with the other folks sitting in the service lounge.
Uhhh... yeah they will. Doctors, lawyers, bankers, and managers shouldn't feel too uncomfortable around their customers outside of a sterile environment. If they do, they live in a shallow, pretentious, egomaniacal world.
GM sells a Corvette for the same price. And they'll sell 10x as many as Nissan will make.
By 2015 they'll likely have released an Infiniti version. And then the R36. And it'll probably be the fastest production coupe in the world for a few months. And those that bought the R35 will want to upgrade to the R36. It'll have the same 'splash' as did the R32/R33/R34/R35.
Because unlike the NSX, Supra, S2000, each version of a GT-R has been a radical technological update to the one preceding it. No GT-R has been a boring continuation of the one preceding it.
Sorry, but it's going to be hard to ignore this car for many, many years to come.
What? Nissan doesn't have the capacity to build more than that yet. The demand exists, and they just are holding back supply.
Why do you all assume that just because this car beats more expensive cars in terms of performance that it needs to compete with Porsche and Ferrari from a brand perspective, or even in sales?
At this price point, its more in line with the Corvette Z06, a car that will sell 10x more than Nissan plans to build GT-Rs.
That shows there are plenty of $70K-90K buyers who don't mind going through a Chevy dealership.
That was a false assessment. Every single one will sell at 1500/year for 5 years, followed by an update.
When did I say Infiniti has the entire BMW lineup covered? BMW doesn't have the whole Audi lineup covered. They still compete. Though Infiniti is rumored to be getting an M3 competitor based on the GT-R.
They probably won't up production numbers that much, but that says nothing about its longevity. You will have to deal with the limited-production Nissan for years to come.
the rediculous metaphors need to stop. I don't know why anyone thinks these work for any situation involving cars.
I'm Tiger Woods and I eat GT-Rs and drive a Prime Rib from McDonalds
What does this accomplish? Tiger Woods doesn't sell at 1500 units/year, and Prime Rib doesn't go from 0-60.
Run this same argument through with the Corvette ZR1. They'll sell every single one of these limited-run McRib sandwiches with extra 'special' sauce. Yeah, thats right. Its the best Prime Rib in the world right now. Sold at the Taco Bell of automakers, Chevrolet for a buck-ten.
You dragged performance into the equation. GM has not only been chasing, but beating Porsche and Ferrari on and off for years now in terms of performance. Performance can be had for cheap, in the generic dealerships, year after year.
They don't need to change the strategy. Any more than Corvette needs to be a Cadillac. GM's financial situation regardless, GM will always have a market with Corvette fans. If Chevrolet discontinued the 'Vette, they would have about as many loyalists as Porsche would if they discontinued the 911. i.e. none.
And by my logic, yes, Porsche would be going downscale if it decided to acquire and absorb VW into it's line-up and start selling VW's at Porsche dealerships. But whether it's corporate parent owns 20% or 40% of VW's stock has nothing to do with with Porsche's brand image or, more importantly, management priorities.
You have said it yourself - the GTR is a limited production halo car. If every one sells for $90k, gross sales will equate to less than what the S2000 brought in annually for 8 years. But a $33k halo car in a dealership that sells $30k Accord EX's makes some sense. What in the hell is the GT-R "halo" benefit going to be to getting folks into the Nissan dealership when the next most expensive car in their line-up is an obese 350Z that is selling for under invoice at less than 1/3 the cost of the GT-R? Are the Nissan salespeople going to send a prospective customer accross town to test drive an Infiniti M50? I don't think so.
I suspect that when Nissan figures out that this halo effort isn't really adding to the bottom line, some MBA exec will turn down the funding request needed to keep it current with competition. And eventually it will die.
I'm sure you were. But thats not surprising.
I love when people use that line to try to make someone else sound dimwitted on a post-based forum where everything shows up at once. I feel it has the opposite affect.
The GT-R does not exude luxury. I think we can all agree to that. Sitting around in an Infiniti dealership won't help sell G's and M's. Its function over form. Doesnt fit in.
Especially when the GT-R crowd is closer to the Corvette crowd in terms of what 'class' of dealership they'll frequent. And they are also a larger percentage of the urban-youth gamer and AWD rally enthusiast.
You guys said it, GT-R would sell STIs and EVOs like crazy. If a dealer owned all 3, he'd make a killing, IMO.
Name the next most expensive car in the Chevy lineup. You are the one not getting this. You say they moved downscale as 'fact.' When really that sounds like the least like 'factual data' I've ever heard.
That would imply they were ever 'upscale'. And your Maxima regardless, I don't really think that was ever the case. We had a Datsun pickup. How non-luxury can you get? It makes the Hilux look like an Escalade SUT.
I've always viewed them as utilitarian. Its good that they separated their luxury brand. Infiniti's don't need to be sold next to Frontiers and Pathfinders, which have been in production for 20 years in the US.
More or less the same market segment they inhabit today. Pickup trucks, minivans, sedans, hatchbacks, coupes.
In Japan, the GT-R has always been the halo car sold alongside the Z-car. And the Z-car was the best selling sports car in history.
Nissan is taking great strides to lighten the 370Z, give it more power and benchmark it against the 911.
The GT-R is there to prove that a Nissan can beat a 911 again. The Z-car was never supposed to be pure luxury. Its a volume selling sport/GT car. The GT-R is a means to an end. And if the 370Z can deliver performance like the GT-R can (no reason why it can't), it'll sell like the old-school Z's.
They put a manual transmission on a V6 FWD sedan. Then they took it away. The transition to and from a 'sports car' never took place, IMO.
And I don't understand why you sidestepped the issue of Infiniti getting its own version. Yup, hopefully it won't be long before they actually create a GT-R that looks proper in an Infiniti dealership. That way Spirit can go for a test drive without having to learn a foreign language :P
If the GT-R doesn't work with Infiniti, come up with something that does.
I'm pretty sure they didn't have Dodge Vipers trying to sell the E-class.
Hey, we agree!!
Which is also why Nissan can "benchmark" the GTR or 370Z against a 911 or 430 and pat themselves on the back for a meaningless achievement when it comes to actually converting those prospective buyers into Datsun drivers.
And I can relate to both sides of this market equation. I still have a fond spot in my heart for my old 1978 Datsun B210GX. 0-60 in about a half hour, but at the beach, with the hatch up and a Fosgate amp, Nakamichi tape deck and JBL Studio speakers pumping out the music over an impromtu campfire, it was more fun than 0-60 in 4.4 seconds with the top down in my 911S.
That we still don't agree on. If Nissan can't make more than 1,500 GT-R's due to production constraints, it hardly makes sense to come up with another version and further dilute any profit potential. Honda had the S2000 and Acura got the NSX. Not a hard concept to follow, IMO.
However, I find it absurd that 1,500 is a "real" constraint for Nissan. BMW makes considerably more "M" cars annually, and all are hand built engines. I think Nissan is scared to death that if they built 5,000, about 3,500 would go unsold. At least at anything over about $60k. After all, they missed their original sales target on the 350Z by over 50% after only 1 year. The pent up demand got satisfied very quickly and below invoice deals became common.
And where are you getting that the 350Z had bad sales? This was written after it was only reintroduced for less than 3 years.
autochannel
The fifth generation Z(R), the 2003 - 2006 Nissan 350Z, has already chalked up nearly 150,000 sales. Two-thirds of those sales have been in the U.S., where the 350Z has consistently ranked as the first or second best selling sports car in the nation and enjoys a nearly 20 percent share of the sports car market.
They never produced more than 10,000 GT-Rs worldwide per year. And thats about what they are doing now. BMW only produces ~ 15,000 M-vehicles per year worldwide. And Chevy sells ~ 6,000 Z06s per year.
I think Nissan is scared to death that if they built 5,000 about 3,500 would go unsold.
Uhh... they already are producing more than that out of one factory. If you mean for the US, that would mean producing as many or more vehicles worldwide than all of ///M GmbH combined. And only for a single model. I think that would be absurd.
I don't see any threat of dilution of demand when the V-spec is confirmed, and the Infiniti version is planned. Those will be in much smaller numbers. Adding those other 2 versions might take it to a maximum of 2000 units/year for the US. Or about the same globally as ///M GmbH. This is not a small production effort.
And I'd be surprised if they did make an Infiniti version that looked anything like the GT-R. Platform yes, body and interior, no.
Not that its relevant in any way. Just pointing out that sales statistics don't always tell the whole picture.
Uhhh... yeah they will. Doctors, lawyers, bankers, and managers shouldn't feel too uncomfortable around their customers outside of a sterile environment. If they do, they live in a shallow, pretentious, egomaniacal world
That was my thought exactly. I was going to state that the demographics financialy speaking for the buyers of Nissan are not living in Section 8 homes :surprise: ...
As stated above they are also Doctors, Lawyers, Police officers, Union workers, Small business owners, VP of big corporate companies....
But than I thought well maybe Habitat makes $500,000 + per year.... and if he can't sit next to someone who makes $40,000/year I wonder who really has the problem?
GP
You are confusing the messanger with the message. I was essentially repeating what was stated in the Wall Street Journal article which singled out Nissan as having changed its focus and product mix to compete more on the lower end of the price range. The WSJ article pointed out that Maxima sales are a fraction of what they were 10 years ago and in place, Nissan sales of under $10-$13k vehicles has increased substantially. This "SHIFT" was much more pronounced in Nissan than Honda or Toyota.
Don't criticize me - I was every bit as content getting my S2000 serviced at a Honda dealership as I am my 911 at a Porsche dealership. Rather, perhaps you should ask NISSAN whay they felt compelled to create a socioeconomic distinction with the INFINITI brand? And please, tell us what Nissans all these Doctors, Lawyers and VP's are driving in your area? Ever since Nissan pissed away the Maxima as a near BMW competitor from the mid-1990's, virtually of the aforementioned professionals in my area have been forced into Infiniti dealerships. Not by me, mind you, but by NISSAN itself.
Sorry if my previous post was interpreted differently than I intended. Frankly, I'd much rather sit next to an honest landscaper that makes $25,000 a year beautifying our neighborhoods than an ambulance chasing trial lawyer that makes $25 million a year on extorsionist settlements that we all pay for in higher health care costs. So there.
THat's cool :shades:
The Maxima sales decreased mainly because the Altima was upgraded nicely and had plenty of power with a 6 cyl,.... Even Toyota's Avalon has been on a decline in sales.
What are Doctors, Lawyers, and VP's driving? ..... Only the best Nissan product available
Mostly driving Murano LE, Loaded up Maximas, and Loaded up Hybrids...
WSJ.... I can assure you of this. Nissan isn't selling vehicles any cheaper than $13k... Maybe $13,500.00
GP
Its the credit/fuel crisis has everyone buying smaller, more economical cars. ALL the brands that have their wits about them are bringing more small car models to the US.
Did the Wall Street Journal really criticise Nissan for offereing models that sell? Thats a funny way of putting negative spin on financial success. Sounds like Nissan made the right decision.
There would not have been any honor to not have offered small cars when small cars are sopping up most sales right now. They just would be stuck with more expensive cars sitting on dealer lots.
Ever since Nissan pissed away the Maxima as a near BMW competitor from the mid-1990's
It is most bizzarre that you keep repeating that you'd like the Maxima to continue competing with the 3-series, when clearly its is the Nissan Camry. They didn't piss it away in the sense you are imagining.
The Maxima continued to compete with Camry/Accord because it is a large FF car. If the Maxima isn't selling, its because its not as popular as Camry or Accord. Even if they put a manual in the Maxima, sales figures of manuals would not be large in that market.
They selected the G to compete with the 3 because it is a FMR platform, just like the 3. They couldn't call it the Maxima, because in Japan its more related to the Skyline.
Again, sounds like this divergence made a great deal of sense. Both of NiMoCo's two major brands are growing in sales.
Still curious how this relates to the uber-Datsun. The GT-R is not a luxury vehicle. It belongs in the shop next to the Z.
As far as Nissan "pissing" away the Maxima image and more importantly, customer base, I think we'll just need to agree to disagree. I don't have the exact figures at my fingertips, but in 1995-1997, Maxima sales were well above the combined sales of both the Maxima and G35 sedan sales today. So not only did the Maxima devolve from being a top contender in the ELLPS category, the G35 did not come close to making up for the lost Maxima sales.
Back to the GT-R. We can probably agree that it belongs next to the Z in the shop. What I still question is the propensity of someone paying $90k+ for it. 1,500 sales in the US annually - sure. But I doubt it could go far beyond that without running into resistence. According to someone I know who has driven one extensively, the performance advantages of the GTR at the extreme do not appear to make up for its other day to day shortcomings. This particular person ended up buying a 2008 M3 6-speed. Absolutely hated the GT-R paddle shifting DSG around town. And even though the M3 is no featherweight, it is lighter and more "nimble". But probably most of all, for $70k, the M3 looks and feels like a $70k car in fit and finish. The GTR, according to him, does not.
While true, many other Japanese and European makers don't always manufacture their small cars in their home country for that very reason. Maybe you should look at the small car offerings in other countries. Just because every maker from Ford to Renault don't send their small cars to the US, doesn't mean they don't have little, cheap buggers competing with Daewoo.
the G35 did not come close to making up for the lost Maxima sales.
Perhaps not, but the G35 + Altima certainly did. I think you're a bit too hung up on naming schemes.
As all cars in almost every brand started putting on the extra pounds in the early-mid '00s, the Maxima became a full-size (formerly mid-size), the Altima became the mid-size (formerly compact).
The Altima has the 6-speed mated to the VQ. The customer base stayed with Nissan's mid-size car. The name changed.
The name 'Maxima' was formerly on Nissan's largest sedan, and they decided to keep it that way. Though apparently I was mistaken in calling it the 'Nissan Camry'. The 'Nissan Avalon' would have been more appropriate.
http://www.edmunds.com/nissan/maxima/history.html
Unfortunately while large cars were all the rave 5 years ago, the demographic shifted to smaller vehicles.
That seems to be no-mans land now though. If someone isn't satisfied with the luxury and performance of the Altima, they'll give the Maxima amiss and go straight to the G.
Now I'm not a fan of the naming conventions either. I'd rather the name 'Skyline' made its way to the states for the G-series. And you would seem to rather that the name 'Maxima' stayed on the mid-size car we now know as 'Altima'. Or heck, maybe it would have made sense to call the 'G' the 'Maxima'.
But I shrug and get over it, because there's really not much in a name. The end result is that Nissan has a FF manual V6, and a much more stately and fast FMR competitor for the 3-series. They just happen to be 2 different cars.
But even still, no matter what they call it, could the FFmid-size really be a competitor for the 3-series? No. Its not bad for its class, but thats still a far cry from either the 3 or the G.
So I repeat, there was no chance for the vehicle formerly known as 'Maxima' to continue competing with the 3-series. They needed a new platform.
Names regardless, what exactly are they lacking?
I'm pretty sure supply/demand still applies in this instance. The only reason it was going for $90K+ is because of a markup. A markup can only be paid if you have more demand than supply. If nobody buys it at the markup, it goes back to MSRP.
By definition, if they are going for 15K over MSRP, they could sell more than 1500 in the US.
But probably most of all, for $70k, the M3 looks and feels like a $70k car in fit and finish. The GTR, according to him, does not.
Uhuh. I'm sure every Lamborghini owner can justify the 'fit and finish' of a 220K car. Oh yes, definitely 3x as well appointed as the M3. Because thats what its for, after all.
I'm sorry, but what did he expect? This is exclusive to the GT-R how?
While I'd typically say, "to each their own," your friend must have had ludicrous expectations.
Its fine to think the M3 is the car for you, but "the performance advantages of the GTR at the extreme do not appear to make up for its other day to day shortcomings?"
Right, because all track cars are well appointed. Good one. You really had me going there. :P
And as far as fit and finish goes, don't confuse that with do-dads or being "well appointed". From my own experience, the 350Z plenty of the latter, but was nowhere near the build quality and finish level of a "poorly appointed" but perfectly constructed and crafted S2000.
If you are suggesting that the 1,500 GT-Rs coming to the US will end up in the hands of dedicated track junkies, then maybe they will be getting their money's worth. But that is a very small market and one more reason why I think the GT-R, at least in its present form, has lifespan challenges.
6,000 Z06s leave Bowling Green Kentucky every year. Is that a well-appointed $70K car? And is the ride anything to write home about?
You seem to dodge the Z06 sales every time. Like that's a completely separate case, and shouldn't be counted in this argument. Please explain.
Many people are more than satisfied with them, because they like owning a fast car, not a well-rounded BMW.
And not every buyer tracks them. But when you buy a really fast car, you make sacrifices. It doesn't have to be a track-duty car for people to buy a 'track car'.
No, I wasn't referring to 'do-dads'. In fact, I don't think I even alluded to it in my post. I don't consider carpets and air conditioning 'do-dads.'
Speaking of which, some people would say the ride of the GT3 isn't good off of a track... but thats just their opinion. As is your friend's. As is yours.
In fact, I think its safe to say you're in the minority. Being in the minority of what car buyers like, perhaps a better way to imagine how cars will sell is to take what you think of cars, and then apply the opposite. Case-in-point, the S2000:
You actually completely contradicted yourself with your 'lifecycle challenges" comparison. You said the S2000 is the better crafted car than the 350Z. OK then.
And yet the S2000 has a far worse lifecycle challenge facing it right now. As in, nobody wants this perfectly engineered and crafted masterpiece. Its sales are down by 50%, its being discontinued, and its return will be questionable.
Kinda hard to justify 'perfect' if five times as many people preferred the Z to the S. So using 'better crafted' as an argument against the GT-R because its a Nissan is moot.
I readily admit I was in the minority when I picked an S2000 over the hordes of other roadsters available in 2002. Next to the Lotus Elise, it was the most "track car-ish" car out there. No automatic transmission option for the clutch challenged wannabe enthusaists, no heated power memory seats or 9 speaker kilowatt audio system for the do-dad crowd. Just a 9,000 rpm engine and go cart like handling that would outperform anything under $60,000 on a track and yet was a hoot to drive at legal speeds on public roads.
So why do you think the GT-R will fare better at 2.5 times the price? The difference in handling between the S2000 and obese 350Z could have been discerned by the average grandmother on her way to church. The difference between the GT-R and some of its competition can only be ascertained by the top 1% of drivers at a track. If the GT-R had exceptional fit and finish, weighed 750 lbs less and was more fun to drive at legal speeds (all according to my friend), it might have made him think twice.
I haven't intentionally ignored the Corvette comparisons. The Corvette is an American icon and, as best I can tell, a lot of Corvette buyers don't know how to spell Ferrari or Carrera and don't care to learn. They wouldn't even consider a Viper. But I don't see that as relevant for the GT-R.
Time will tell.
The Corvette is an American icon and, as best I can tell, a lot of Corvette buyers don't know how to spell Ferrari or Carrera and don't care to learn
If it were just plain 'iconic' people would not opt for the Z06, They opt for the 1.5x more expensive Corvette for 1 reason and 1 reason only, it beats the living hell out of cars that cost 3x as much.
And it seems there is no shortage of working class who according to you can't spell Ferrari yet can afford $70K cars. Actually in complete contrast to your point, they tend to know their competition very well:
If they're not interested in a Carrera, its because it doesn't deliver on what they are looking for. The 'fit and finish' is adequate to be a comfortable living space while going like a bat out of hell. Beyond that, what's really important about a performance car?
Just a 9,000 rpm engine and go cart like handling that would outperform anything under $60,000 on a track and yet was a hoot to drive at legal speeds on public roads.
Ever seen the Mini Clubman vs. go-cart race? Mini wins. GASP! But the Mini is heavier! Obese by comparison! Oh sure, being in a light, visceral go-cart is fun. Not arguing that. But its fun because all that connectivity to the road makes you feel like you're going faster than you actually are. In agreement with the fact that every day at the legal limit is a challenge and an adventure. But because of its simplicity, the go-cart can't outrun the heavier, yet more powerful, Mini.
The opposite of the go-cart, the powerful and heavily dampened car, that softens out all those bumps is going to feel slower than it actually is. Boring? Well at anything less than 100% of what you've got, probably so. But an overwhelming majority of performance car buyers seem to like their car to have 2 heads: lamb on the street and lion at the track. Seems Nissan has them covered.
Similarly, I have no problem finding tests where the 350Z proved faster around a track than the S2000. And since the topic of today is how ignorant Corvette buyers apparently are, it doesn't change the fact that the base C5, retailing for a hair over $40K in 2002, would have made short work of the S2000 as well.
The Z is a sportscar icon in the US. It sells like wildfire.
So why do you think the GT-R will fare better at 2.5 times the price?
Is that rhetorical? They sell a 911 for $80K, and another 911 for $180K. The difference that makes that $100K worthwhile to the buyer? Performance.
They'll sell every one built of a supercharged Corvette that looks exactly like the base one, but costs 2.5 times as much and beats every single car in the world. Simple.
What do you mean 'fare better'? The GT-R has to sell 5% as many at 2x the price as the 350Z. Plus we already know the following:
- working-class folk can afford 70K cars
- American car buyers will pay 70K for a car that is fast, even though they could get an icon from the same company for 40K.
- 'pure' sports cars are for a shrinking minority. Most buyers clearly think torque is more useful 300 days a year than high revs.
Seems like the GT-R fits right in. Primarily in Nissan's #1 market, the US, where they dominate the sports car market with the 350Z.
The difference between the GT-R and some of its competition can only be ascertained by the top 1% of drivers at a track.
All my sources say the opposite. The GT-R is said to behave unlike anything else at the track.
An old lady could tell the difference... on her way to McDonalds.... with Tiger Woods....
Is there a point to that, really? 5 out of her 6 grandsons would take the Z over the S2000.
I am in no way arguing that you shouldn't enjoy your car. Its certainly a car that makes enjoyment easy. I tend to shop for cars that are lesser known for what I feel are their blatantly superior qualities as well. The last thing I want is what everyone else has.
But I don't like the GT-R for what it is, I like it for what it represents. New technologies that if used correctly (i.e. on something lighter) will bring about automotive insanity. Aren't you even curious what could be done with the right combination of factors? Its not like lightness fails and AWD wins or vice-versa. They have not been combined properly yet. Much room for improvement remains.
I don't think Nissan will necessarily be the one to accomplish this. I'm expecting it will be the NSX (if and when). But whatever it is, I know this type of car has a following. And they are not ignorant, or poor, or fickle. I think you'd be surprised at how similar the people are transcending the numerous groups. The opinions are different, but the passion is the same.
I think every Zed / WRX / EVO guy who gets a few merit raises will be eying the GT-R. And they number in the hundreds of thousands. It'll sell because to the average buyer its the uber-Datsun, and they think Datsuns rule. If the Zed is good enough for most, the GT-R will be good enough for some.