QOTD: What's the Optimal Manufacturing Mix for Profitability?

qotd whats the optimal manufacturing mix for profitability

In last Wednesday’s Question of the Day post, we asked you to build the perfect manufacturer lineup. As you responded and built your hodgepodge lists of desirable present day cars from various manufacturers, capitalist and commenter Dal20402 had something else on his mind: profitability.

Propulsion, platforms, and product planning are on the agenda today. What combination is the most profitable?

The basis of all vehicles is, of course, the platform residing underneath all the pretty (or ugly, if it’s a Toyota) metal. Companies like Volkswagen have perfected the art of the modular platform, which is easily scalable up or down depending on the required usage. How many platforms does a full-line manufacturer need these days?

With platforms established, thoughts turn to the metal rectangle under the hood; whether that means battery or engine is up to you. In this age of EVs, small displacements and turbocharging, how many different types of propulsion do you need? Or perhaps, what are the fewest number of engines a company can attach to the widest number of vehicles?

The final concern in today’s discussion is how the power established above gets to the road. Are CVTs worth the trouble, or should manufacturers stick to the established conventional automatic? For profit’s sake, is it necessary to offer a manual at all? Is all-wheel drive (or 4×4 real-quad-track whatever) the best way to add a couple grand to each and every vehicle on the lot?

Before we turn you loose in the comments, remember that today we’re talking maximum profits, which is very different to Internet Car Enthusiast appeal or reliability.

Thanks to Dal20402 for suggesting today’s question. If you’ve got your own QOTD to send me, forward it via electronic telegram to editors@ttac.com.

[Image: Shutterstock]

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 13 comments
  • Bill Bill on May 10, 2018

    Corey asked: "How many platforms does a full-line manufacturer need these days?" I understand how he arrived at this question, as a follow-up to yesterday's discussion; but it's the wrong question. Of course it's smart for manufacturers to use each platform for as many models as possible. The extent to which this can be done is a matter of the technology of building cars, which I know nothing about. The real way to make money is to use each platform for as many brands as possible. This is the key to VW's success. Everyone knows that a SEAT is built from VW's parts bin. Everyone knows that a Skoda copies last year's Audi technology. No doubt buyer see this as a good thing. If last year's technology was good enough for Audi, it's certainly good enough for a medium-priced Skoda. And VW doesn't cheap out on sheet metal. They maintain a distinctive brand identity for each by making the cars look different. I assume that PSA intends to follow the same pattern. They will use the same platforms for all their brands, but they will not build Peugeots in England and Germany. They will make a model that appears different to sell as a Vauxhall in England. They will build something *German* to sell as an Opel in Germany. As I understand it, even Toyota does the same thing, at least in Japan. We tend to think of Toyota as equivalent to Chevy, but we should think of it as equivalent to GM. The different Toyota stores in Japan are like different brands. I don't know how it works, but Toyota must feel they can sell more cars by appealing to different buyers in different ways. The Chinese certainly understand this. An article just above this one explains that Lotus will build a CUV using the Volvo platform (that Geely paid for.) Will it be the same as the Volvo, but with different grill and tail lights? Of course not. They will use it to build the Lotus brand identity. And Geely will use the platform for one, or several, brands in China. American manufacturers have had very few successes with this strategy. A rare example is the 1983 Ford Thunderbird/ Mercury Cougar. Using the same chassis and mostly the same body, they built two cars that did not cannibalize each other. People who liked the Thunderbird hated the Cougar; people who liked the Cougar didn't like the Thunderbird. But for the most part, American manufacturers have failed badly, trying to make a quick buck by skimping on the development of distinctive brands. One need only mention the Cadillac Cimarron for proof of this.

  • Erikstrawn Erikstrawn on May 10, 2018

    Like it or not, I think Ford's decision to cut most of its car lineup and their insistence on Ecoboosting everything fits this question.

  • Art Vandelay Report: TTAC Dead in 2022
  • Art Vandelay I bet more Ferraris get driven than people comment on this site post-update lol
  • Jim Holmgren Absolutely love my TR8. It's a thoroughly modern car by Triumph standards. Comfortable to drive and ride in. AC and power steering - plus power brakes. The Rover V8 is the perfect engine for the car. It pulls strong without being ridiculous and it makes "a proper noise". In convertible form, I see nothing controversial about the styling for the 1980s.
  • CaddyDaddy Most TR8s have a pair of side-draft Stromberg carbs. HUH? I do believe those are SU or British made Skinners Union Carbs. May want to fix the article before some British Car loyalist has a heart attack in his garage while reading the article in the Midlands.
  • Arthur Dailey The only TR-8 that I knew was a 'project' car that sat in the same driveway for many, many years. Did however have a friend with a TR-7. Can confirm that the instrument panel, interior materials such as fabric/upholstery, ergonomics and in particular the seats were superior to my Corvette of the same vintage. However in the first week that my friend had his TR-7 while pulling out of a shopping centre, his driver's side door 'fell off' the car. Quality control was to put it mildly, primarily just a 'rumour' at B.L. during that period.
Next