The Case For the Mid-Range V8.....
12-13-2002, 12:33 PM
#16
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Speaking of a 3rd engine choice....
I can remember persistant rumors, even through the mid nineties, that Firebird would get the supercharged 3800, and Camaro would get the 4.3 version of the LT1 (L99 ?).
It's too bad neither of those came to fruition...especially a Firebird with a S/C 3800 under it's beak would have been very cool!
I can remember persistant rumors, even through the mid nineties, that Firebird would get the supercharged 3800, and Camaro would get the 4.3 version of the LT1 (L99 ?).
It's too bad neither of those came to fruition...especially a Firebird with a S/C 3800 under it's beak would have been very cool!
12-13-2002, 12:46 PM
#17
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 581
About the 3rd engine choice, I just coughed up some numbers right now. I'm gonna be a GM bean counter for a second.
I pulled all of these numbers out of my ***. So don't tell me one is too big or too small because I don't know what the actual numbers are.
Assume that we create a 3rd engine choice. We put in $100 million into advertising and tooling costs in the plant to put in the 3rd engine. Through the extra engine choice and advertising, say we pull an extra 20,000 people into the show rooms. But due to bad interior quality and other factors, we only have a 49% chance of selling the car to the customer. But we make $10,000 in profit from each car. What is the probability that this 3rd engine will increase profits?
Well with only 49% chance and 20,000 potential buyers, we can expect 9,800 people to buy. But that's an average. But we need 10,000 Camaros to be sold to break even. Assume this to be Binomalially distributed about the mean with p=0.49. So what's the probability of 10,000 being sold regardless? Use a binomial distribution and it becomes: 1-Phi(2.842) which is about 0.0023 or 0.23% of that happening! And its only a difference of 1% of what we need! Raise the probability of a sale to 50% and then the probability of selling 10000 Camaros to break even is 50%! So if GM was faced with these probabilities, they'd need some greater assurance. So GM would need a greater probability of a sale or a larger group of potential buyers to ensure 10,000 would be sold.
BTW, this is an over simplification of how it works, but this is just to get an idea across about how the beancoutners probably work under certain given facts.
I pulled all of these numbers out of my ***. So don't tell me one is too big or too small because I don't know what the actual numbers are.
Assume that we create a 3rd engine choice. We put in $100 million into advertising and tooling costs in the plant to put in the 3rd engine. Through the extra engine choice and advertising, say we pull an extra 20,000 people into the show rooms. But due to bad interior quality and other factors, we only have a 49% chance of selling the car to the customer. But we make $10,000 in profit from each car. What is the probability that this 3rd engine will increase profits?
Well with only 49% chance and 20,000 potential buyers, we can expect 9,800 people to buy. But that's an average. But we need 10,000 Camaros to be sold to break even. Assume this to be Binomalially distributed about the mean with p=0.49. So what's the probability of 10,000 being sold regardless? Use a binomial distribution and it becomes: 1-Phi(2.842) which is about 0.0023 or 0.23% of that happening! And its only a difference of 1% of what we need! Raise the probability of a sale to 50% and then the probability of selling 10000 Camaros to break even is 50%! So if GM was faced with these probabilities, they'd need some greater assurance. So GM would need a greater probability of a sale or a larger group of potential buyers to ensure 10,000 would be sold.
BTW, this is an over simplification of how it works, but this is just to get an idea across about how the beancoutners probably work under certain given facts.
12-13-2002, 01:53 PM
#18
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Ok...I must admit almost reaching for the bottle again. But what if it didn't cost $100m...what if it only cost $30m?
And what about intangibles like, improving the image of a car to the consumer?
What about lower per unit costs if you added those 10K units?
...and what is the statistical probability that too much analysis= paralysis?
And what about intangibles like, improving the image of a car to the consumer?
What about lower per unit costs if you added those 10K units?
...and what is the statistical probability that too much analysis= paralysis?
Last edited by Z284ever; 12-13-2002 at 02:08 PM.
12-13-2002, 03:54 PM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 581
Sorry to make you like that Z28Forever, but there are MANY variables that go into this. It's not as simple as "probability of someone buying." I just used it since I had a final in 40 min and I wanted to get an example across of how this system works. I'm no expect, I'm only a sophomore in school and haven't taken much as in probability and stats. Only the course introductions. So this was an oversimplified case. But this simple case proves how GM has to work to make the 5th gen, let alone a 3rd engine option possible. For those that want to crunch the numbers themselves, here is the formula I used. It's called the normal approximation for the binomial. Since the number of cars to be sold is large, I'm going to neglect the continuity correction.
Table:
Phi= capital letter phi, a greek letter used for the normal approximation.
mu= lowercase sigma, this is equal to n*p. N is the number of total things that have a probability of occuring, in my example, 20000 cars that could be sold to 20000 people, times the probability of being sold (p), in my example, .49.
sigma= sqrt(n*p*q). see above for n and p. Q is the probability of the event not ocurring, which will be 1-p. In my example, .51.
a,b= the range of event we want to occur. B is always greater than or equal to a. For the sales to be justified, we need 10000 (a) to 20000 (b) cars to be sold to make a profit.
Formula:
Phi( [b-mu]/sigma) - Phi( [a-mu]/sigma)
Here is the table for what Phi equals. You need a table since Phi is the integral of the binomial function that can't be directly integrated. Therefore a computer table is needed to approximate it.
Phi table:
http://www.stat.psu.edu/~herbison/st...rmalTable.html
Z=Phi in this table.
But you can see that you need to decrease the costs to allow for less Camaros to be needed to recoup the cost. Then with less Camaros needed you can start to fiddle with the formula and the probability of these sales occurring. So to make the probability greater, you will need a higher percent chance of buying! That means you need to make the car more appealing in person. Better looks, better interior, better whatever the general customer wants since you will need to appeal to a larger group of buyers to have a greater pool of people that will buy to recoup the costs.
But anyways, math aside. If someone wants to see where I got my numbers from, there it is. GM needs to make a 5th gen more appealing so that a 3rd engine will be possible in a small sports car market. So that of the say 20000-30000 extra buyers brought in, that the chance of a sale will be greater, say 60-70%.
Keep in mind this is a WAY over simplified case!
Table:
Phi= capital letter phi, a greek letter used for the normal approximation.
mu= lowercase sigma, this is equal to n*p. N is the number of total things that have a probability of occuring, in my example, 20000 cars that could be sold to 20000 people, times the probability of being sold (p), in my example, .49.
sigma= sqrt(n*p*q). see above for n and p. Q is the probability of the event not ocurring, which will be 1-p. In my example, .51.
a,b= the range of event we want to occur. B is always greater than or equal to a. For the sales to be justified, we need 10000 (a) to 20000 (b) cars to be sold to make a profit.
Formula:
Phi( [b-mu]/sigma) - Phi( [a-mu]/sigma)
Here is the table for what Phi equals. You need a table since Phi is the integral of the binomial function that can't be directly integrated. Therefore a computer table is needed to approximate it.
Phi table:
http://www.stat.psu.edu/~herbison/st...rmalTable.html
Z=Phi in this table.
But you can see that you need to decrease the costs to allow for less Camaros to be needed to recoup the cost. Then with less Camaros needed you can start to fiddle with the formula and the probability of these sales occurring. So to make the probability greater, you will need a higher percent chance of buying! That means you need to make the car more appealing in person. Better looks, better interior, better whatever the general customer wants since you will need to appeal to a larger group of buyers to have a greater pool of people that will buy to recoup the costs.
But anyways, math aside. If someone wants to see where I got my numbers from, there it is. GM needs to make a 5th gen more appealing so that a 3rd engine will be possible in a small sports car market. So that of the say 20000-30000 extra buyers brought in, that the chance of a sale will be greater, say 60-70%.
Keep in mind this is a WAY over simplified case!
12-13-2002, 04:50 PM
#20
Prominent Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 2,282
While I too.......
.....think / thought that more engine choices are a good thing...I also wonder if, in today's world, if a Camaro should try and provide so many choices and trim levels.
By that, I mean, with the large range of choices that GM has to offer the coupe buyer (albiet a dwindling number in the near term, but I think that's turning around).....why does a Camaro need to be everything from a "Secretary Special" all the way up to a fully loaded SS?
I remember the early Novas....you could buy everything from a 4 cyl. base model, a straight 6 4 door, a V8 coupe, a station wagon & a convertible! Almost like a whole brand inside a single model.
I see other manufacturer's allowing each specific model become more focused and the economy and volume sales coming from platform sharing.
I think it makes perfect sense to offer a base engine and a performance engine for each model......I'm just not convinced that the Camaro, a sports car, needs to offer a small, economy engine. Why not be more like the Corvette? LS1 & LS6...convertible & coupe, with a limited production Z06....Camaro LT, Camaro SS and a limited production Z/28! Perfect!!
I've had debates with Scott about how I believe that offering a cheap Camaro (V6 base model) allows younger buyers to own a Camaro, but it's this group that also has wrecks more often and drives the insurance costs up for everyone...hurting overall sales....of course he disagrees and argues quantity of sales keeps costs down......and then I argue that expanded platform sharing will more than offset the volume of the current two car platform.......and then he smacks me up side my head......LOL!
I guess I like the model of the new 350Z....that shares much with the G35....and only offering a regular model and a Track model..and in the next year or so two (TT!) engine choices.
By that, I mean, with the large range of choices that GM has to offer the coupe buyer (albiet a dwindling number in the near term, but I think that's turning around).....why does a Camaro need to be everything from a "Secretary Special" all the way up to a fully loaded SS?
I remember the early Novas....you could buy everything from a 4 cyl. base model, a straight 6 4 door, a V8 coupe, a station wagon & a convertible! Almost like a whole brand inside a single model.
I see other manufacturer's allowing each specific model become more focused and the economy and volume sales coming from platform sharing.
I think it makes perfect sense to offer a base engine and a performance engine for each model......I'm just not convinced that the Camaro, a sports car, needs to offer a small, economy engine. Why not be more like the Corvette? LS1 & LS6...convertible & coupe, with a limited production Z06....Camaro LT, Camaro SS and a limited production Z/28! Perfect!!
I've had debates with Scott about how I believe that offering a cheap Camaro (V6 base model) allows younger buyers to own a Camaro, but it's this group that also has wrecks more often and drives the insurance costs up for everyone...hurting overall sales....of course he disagrees and argues quantity of sales keeps costs down......and then I argue that expanded platform sharing will more than offset the volume of the current two car platform.......and then he smacks me up side my head......LOL!
I guess I like the model of the new 350Z....that shares much with the G35....and only offering a regular model and a Track model..and in the next year or so two (TT!) engine choices.
Last edited by Doug Harden; 12-13-2002 at 04:58 PM.
12-13-2002, 05:08 PM
#21
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Re: While I too.......
Originally posted by Doug Harden, Pres CICC
.....Camaro LT, Camaro SS and a limited production Z/28! Perfect!!
.....Camaro LT, Camaro SS and a limited production Z/28! Perfect!!
12-13-2002, 06:14 PM
#23
Super Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Japan
Posts: 2,026
Why not use that straight six from the trailblazer. That has all the potential for modding, and fuel efficiency too. Slap a turbo on that sucker...
It's 270 horsepower right now, isn't it?
Why not: V6 (base model)
I6 (RS type model)
V8 (SS)
V8 (Z/28) <--(basically has the Vette motor that's detuned a bit, and other vette bits, (brakes?) with a substantiably higher price jump, but it's justified because the performance is actally there) ie. a Cobra destroyer.
Also I would like to add, GM needs to encourage people to order more of their vehicles from the factory with options that they pick out, instead of just buying what is available at the time. When people are more involved with their car like that they will have more pride and satisfaction from it and will gain some of what has been lost in the past with performance vehicles.
It was before my time, but back in the good old days you could go to the dealer and just check off boxes at will. Now that's my idea of fun. They say that there were so many options available for the '69 Camaro that there aren't any two that are exactly alike.
People might be more apt to shell out the extra bucks for the inevitable increased cost of the "cheap performance car" (Camaro/Firebird), if they were more closely attached to the purcase of it, or if there were a slew of options available as new or dealer installed so that they could stand out from the crowd. Kind of like what the ricers are trying to do these days.
It's 270 horsepower right now, isn't it?
Why not: V6 (base model)
I6 (RS type model)
V8 (SS)
V8 (Z/28) <--(basically has the Vette motor that's detuned a bit, and other vette bits, (brakes?) with a substantiably higher price jump, but it's justified because the performance is actally there) ie. a Cobra destroyer.
Also I would like to add, GM needs to encourage people to order more of their vehicles from the factory with options that they pick out, instead of just buying what is available at the time. When people are more involved with their car like that they will have more pride and satisfaction from it and will gain some of what has been lost in the past with performance vehicles.
It was before my time, but back in the good old days you could go to the dealer and just check off boxes at will. Now that's my idea of fun.
They say that there were so many options available for the '69 Camaro that there aren't any two that are exactly alike.People might be more apt to shell out the extra bucks for the inevitable increased cost of the "cheap performance car" (Camaro/Firebird), if they were more closely attached to the purcase of it, or if there were a slew of options available as new or dealer installed so that they could stand out from the crowd. Kind of like what the ricers are trying to do these days.
Last edited by 95 Z/28 LT1; 12-13-2002 at 06:20 PM.
12-13-2002, 06:43 PM
#24
Prominent Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 2,282
GM will need to.........
...fix a "broken" ordering system first.......I've heard horror stories of multiple month waiting for orders to be filled......
That and it's expensive to custom order every car.....GM can spread the cost of an option much further by tacking it onto as many cars as possible.....
I like your concept, but in real life it's a lot harder to achieve successfully.
That and it's expensive to custom order every car.....GM can spread the cost of an option much further by tacking it onto as many cars as possible.....
I like your concept, but in real life it's a lot harder to achieve successfully.
12-13-2002, 09:01 PM
#26
Super Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Japan
Posts: 2,026
Well, they do need to fix it.(the ordering system)
It was pretty damn sucessful back in the day when they did it with everything else, I don't see why it can't be sucessful now.
And I am not saying that ALL of the cars need to be ordered special, just that the option is out there for the dedicated buyers who are willing to wait a bit longer for exactly what they want, and that they don't get screwed into waiting 6 months for it.
Another point about spreading out the cost to make it cheaper for GM, is that IF the future Camaro comes from a line of cars like the Solstice, Bengal 2+2, or the future Saturn Sky 2+2 car, then there will be enough spreading out the cost of the options because they would be available on all of the before mentioned cars.
Things like Xenon headlamps, or a bad *** set of brakes would be a lot more feasable if they could put it on 4 or more different cars instad of just one or two. Also, a lot of the options that would/could be offered on the future Camaro could be from the GM parts bin off of other models, so if the Camaro was ordered or built with them it would only help move more parts, and wouldn't nesecarily have to have them on it.
It was pretty damn sucessful back in the day when they did it with everything else, I don't see why it can't be sucessful now.
And I am not saying that ALL of the cars need to be ordered special, just that the option is out there for the dedicated buyers who are willing to wait a bit longer for exactly what they want, and that they don't get screwed into waiting 6 months for it.
Another point about spreading out the cost to make it cheaper for GM, is that IF the future Camaro comes from a line of cars like the Solstice, Bengal 2+2, or the future Saturn Sky 2+2 car, then there will be enough spreading out the cost of the options because they would be available on all of the before mentioned cars.
Things like Xenon headlamps, or a bad *** set of brakes would be a lot more feasable if they could put it on 4 or more different cars instad of just one or two. Also, a lot of the options that would/could be offered on the future Camaro could be from the GM parts bin off of other models, so if the Camaro was ordered or built with them it would only help move more parts, and wouldn't nesecarily have to have them on it.
12-13-2002, 10:25 PM
#27
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Re: Re: Re: While I too.......
Originally posted by Doug Harden, Pres CICC
LT = LS1
SS & Z/28 = LS6 (variations in hp due to free flowing exhaust, etc....)
LT = LS1
SS & Z/28 = LS6 (variations in hp due to free flowing exhaust, etc....)
But the LS6's characteristics do fit one certain car to a T.
Quick quiz question:
Which Camaro model did the LT take the place of when it appeared?
12-14-2002, 11:22 PM
#30
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Fletcher, NC, US
Posts: 564
Re: Re: Re: Re: While I too.......
Originally posted by Z284ever
Quick quiz question:
Which Camaro model did the LT take the place of when it appeared?
Quick quiz question:
Which Camaro model did the LT take the place of when it appeared?
82-86 Berlinetta,
87 LT (one year model)
or something close to it.
GT