Dude, you are awesome, no doubt about it!
I have just a couple points to make with you...

What WAS the last MSRP of a Z06? link
What WAS the last price of an SVT Cobra?link
What WAS the last price of a Mustang GT?link

NOW, if you are going to pit a Z06 in the mid-$50's against a base GT in the mid $20s, or even a Cobra in the Mid $30s - (maybe not TWICE the price, but $35k ain't exaclty close to $53k in my book), then I feel perfectly justified in comparing the Z06 to the GT. And like I said clearly in my post - these are both HALO CARS for each company, so what is essentially on the table is "best-to-offer v best-to-offer" from the OEMs, not tuners, not mod-shops, but OEMs. As I said, dole out the @$$packing with some discretion.

Another thing... I'm comparing cars that are actually being produced... yup, on the street, with stone chips and bugs on the windshield. You are still grabbing at promises and spec sheets that are yet to make production. If we're gonna race ideas... well, we're all gonna win, aren't we?

Truth hurts. I should know, GM has held top spot for a looong time (in Ford v GM battle, otherwise Dodge has had it), and I was always the one to admit it. Ford had nothing to run with LS1 cars or the Vette from the showroom. But you know what - things change. I have no doubt GM will be on top again sometime soon. The tides must flow, but they can't flow one way forever. If you don't grasp that, then I can't help you by typing anything more in this post.

As for the accounting lesson... man, how long did you sit and type all that stuff anyways?!?! Even making it all up, that had to take time!

Here's the deal... I NEVER said Ford made more vehicles than GM. That's NOT what the debate here is about. You can claim 5-million trucks if you want to, but that doesn't necessarily mean your cost for a water pump is 1/5th the cost of Ford's water pump. Linear extrapolation is not a dead-nuts science.

My point was (and still IS) that "economy of scale" is just that - SCALE. It is dependent on many things, most of which are non-linear in nature and subscribe to laws of diminishing returns or excessive demand. Simply put, 2:1 production does NOT mean one unit costs 1/2 of the other. I'm not an econ professor, but I DO make a living doing machine design and justifications of those designs based on anticipated production, volumes, and amortization/depreciation of the asset over it's production life.

Here's a quick test... You get a paper cup for .01 - your company makes them by the zillions. Your paper cup gets you 10 trips to the water fountain before the seams start to get weak, leak a tad, and you need another cup. My cup is a plastic cup that costs me .02 . I get 20 trips to the water cooler before my cup starts to fail. Tooling costs were identical for the two cups (yeah, I know it's a stretch but just go with me here), and production rates are the same. Which cup is the BETTER value? (One of them is clearly better than the other!)

And as a parting salvo...
Though GM may make 2-million trucks, they still won't enjoy a 2:1 favor in cost or even production.
Through June 2004...
F-series - 432,969
Expedition - 77,484
Excursion - 10,281
Econoline - 92,118
Navigator - 16,268
-------------------
Total full-size units = 629,120 so far on 2004.
(All of these are capable of having 5.4 or 4.6 modular engines)

That does not include the cars and mid-sized units capable of carrying the 4.6 modular, or any off-shore production. We all know Australia is using Ford's same 4.6/5.4 platform down there, as is Europe.

So NO Ford will not sell more units than GM. I think Guy did a nice job of showing how Ford (and DCM and several others in fact) are not looking so much at market share by volume as they are looking to capitalize on PROFITABILITY (by fewer units no less). But then again, I'm sitting here trying to explain to you why a 2:1 unit gain doesn't directly equate to a 1/2-cost part...

NEVERMIND. Enjoy the bliss!

 

Nice post.