Challenger falling behind in road courses?

[1bad65]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

We can discuss the nitty-gritty details underlining it all, but they built 30k, and they sold 29k. End of story.

How is it the end of the story? Can you say for certain if they built 35k Challengers they would not have sold 34k of them?

I just think considering the pickle Chrysler is in, it's worth the risk to have a few left over compared to the reward of selling a few thousand more cars. If they increase supply and demand does not follow, scale production back. But they should at least take that chance, considering their business plans right now are resulting in record fail.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by 1bad65

How is it the end of the story? Can you say for certain if they built 35k Challengers they would not have sold 34k of them?

...Yes. Because they only sold 29k. I don't really understand where this is going...

Originally Posted by 1bad65

But they should at least take that chance, considering their business plans right now are resulting in record fail.

Take a chance on losing money by over-producing a car and then having to use incentives to sell them? This has been done before to utter failure, ask GM all about it...

There is a paradigm in place in Industry today called "Just In Time". You build a part, as demanded and ONLY to that level of demand. There is no surplus, there is no warehouse, and components built today will usually be used in production within a week or two.

This is the same concept applied to building cars, albeit I'm simplifing this because I'm far from an expert.

Say Chrysler builds...2000 Challengers In January. Lots are sold out...and back-orders are placed. So they raise output in February to 2300 to meet that demand. Back orders are still placed, but a cars lot life begins to grow. So now it becomes a balancing act...you can't go gung-ho and throw 3000 cars out in March because #1, the plant has a certain production limit they cannot exceed, and #2, those cars stand a darn good chance of sitting on the lots. So what do you do if #2 happens...scale back to 1700 cars in April to compensate? That means layoffs at the plant and back-orders increase substantially, pissing off customers.

[kevin2323]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

...Yes. Because they only sold 29k. I don't really understand where this is going...


Take a chance on losing money by over-producing a car and then having to use incentives to sell them? This has been done before to utter failure, ask GM all about it...

There is a paradigm in place in Industry today called "Just In Time". You build a part, as demanded and ONLY to that level of demand. There is no surplus, there is no warehouse, and components built today will usually be used in production within a week or two.

This is the same concept applied to building cars, albeit I'm simplifing this because I'm far from an expert.

Say Chrysler builds...2000 Challengers In January. Lots are sold out...and back-orders are placed. So they raise output in February to 2300 to meet that demand. Back orders are still placed, but a cars lot life begins to grow. So now it becomes a balancing act...you can't go gung-ho and throw 3000 cars out in March because #1, the plant has a certain production limit they cannot exceed, and #2, those cars stand a darn good chance of sitting on the lots. So what do you do if #2 happens...scale back to 1700 cars in April to compensate? That means layoffs at the plant and back-orders increase substantially, pissing off customers.

this is why i like this forum....people who understand!

[1bad65]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

...Yes. Because they only sold 29k. I don't really understand where this is going...

Which is over 96%. It doesn't have to be 100%. For example, if a city has a 95% apartment occupancy rate, that's considered full occupancy.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by 1bad65

Which is over 96%. It doesn't have to be 100%. For example, if a city has a 95% apartment occupancy rate, that's considered full occupancy.

Its about the absolute number, not the percentage.

[1bad65]

I just think if they built more (within reason of course) they would sell. Also, with more Challengers on the road, more people would see them. They are nice cars, and I honestly think Dodge could use people seeing a nice car on the road and going "Is that nice car a Dodge?" It's a car that I feel can improve Chryslers image. The Mustang introduced millions of people to Ford, I just think when you have a winner, you should show it off. And building more will show it off to more people.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

I would like to take this opportunity to give the GT500 a very rare nod of the head. See...the way I see it -- you're right...at first.

The GT500, when put in the ring, will have two other cars attempt to take it down. The first is the Corvette. This car fights the uber-Mustang involuntarily, because it knows it's going to win. Every time, in every comparison. ALWAYS. Magazines like to compare these two all the time, yet it's as silly as comparing a 370z to a Camaro SS. They are completely different vehicles. Two seats vs 4, race-car design vs GT design, the list goes on and on and on. Ford never directly fights the Vette, and Chevy's too smug about the Corvette to even acknowledge the Mustang's existance. This rivalry was manufactured by the media.

Then there's the SRT8 Challenger. And this one is pitted against the GT500 because it costs nearly the same, and Chrysler is silly enough to put it in the same market when it can only keep up with a Camaro SS. BUT...this was Chrysler's choice when they priced the thing, and goes back to your general beef about the Challenger and Chrysler.

So, my head-nod to the GT500 is for being a kick ass car that I would be proud to own, and really being unrivaled...if not technically, then realistically.

...now you'll never hear those words out of my mouth again...so take a screenshot.

The only things that the GT500 has in common with the Corvette is the "manufactured rivalry" and price. An educated person would always try to find the better car for his money, and almost any vehicle in the $50,000 price range would be considered by this educated owner. However, sometimes there are deal breakers like a backseat involved. But being one of these people that compared vehicles that "aren't in the same class" before I bought the SS (370z, Evo X, GT, SRT8, etc.), the GT500 is not unrivaled. Even if you want to pull the Corvette is a different class car, then there is always the SRT8 line. It may not rival it in the performance sense of the word, however price and top-of-the-line offering it sure does fit the bill.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by MrIcky

I think it's an interesting point that the manual is an extra cost option (which is the reverse of everything else). I think the first year for the SRT they didn't even offer a manual? Makes me think that from the beginning they may have been appealing to a different portion of the market than who is posting here.

Which since most if not all of us posters on this thread are the minority, I would figure that the Challenger would sell very well given these production limits would be lifted. I side with 1bad65 in saying that if a car can sell 96% of its production limit, then it needs more production. Of course he also made a good point with the mustang argument, which leads me to say without risk there is no reward.