Ever wonder what car sells fast? really fast?

[alkalinetaupehat]

Perhaps the correct plural is Prii?

Yeah it is, some months ago it was decided by a Toyota-sponsored poll.

It's interesting to backtrack the image to the article it's in and see that these numbers are used as a signal of sales strength and overall market health rather than anything specific. When you correlate it with sales is where you get a better idea of the real demand for a vehicle.

The article:
http://blog.truecar.com/2012/02/22/...ortest-and-longest-days-in-vehicle-inventory/

Vehicle sales and trends in sales:
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-autosales.html

 

[SparkyJJO]

people actually buy the iQ? ick.

Maybe it speaks of the IQ of people buying them trying to boost their own, but demonstrating how retarded they are by doing it

 

[HybridSquirrel]

When I worked for Toyota we never even had a Prius on the lot unless it was used. In summer 2008 we had pre-sold Prius' till early 2010

 

[foghorn67]

This. Supply chain and inventory management is a complex thing.

This. I think half the posters in this thread aren't realizing what the article is about.

 

[HybridSquirrel]

Prius TRD Coupe!

TRD Prius is a real thing. The Prius V (or was it the C?) will have an optional TRD styling package, side skirts, 17" wheels, and I think sway bars? Lol

 

[jagec]

The nice thing about statistics with no context is..... nothing!

You can make all the conclusions you want, but without detailed info about the supply chain for them, you are just reinforcing your own preconceived notions.


If I make 100 of widget y, and ship all 100 to a store and they sell one per day, the average time on shelf is 50 days, and at the end of 100 days, I have sold 100 widget ys. If I then make 1 widget z per day for 100 days and ship that one to a store each day and it sells that day, the average time on shelf is 0 days! At the end of 100 days though, I have sold 100 of each widget. Or, I can make 100 of widget x on day one, and then just trickle them out to the store because I want to keep stock low and make it appear that one should buy their widget x when they see it because it may be gone tomorrow.

In other words, with no context, these numbers mean little to nothing.

In the first case, you have to have a factory that is capable of making 100 Y widgets a day*, and the stores have to have storage for 100 widgets.

In the second case, you only have to have a factory that makes 1 Z widget per day, and the stores only have to have storage for 1 widget. Of course, if demand increases, you have to start a waitlist, since you can't scale up production.

In the last case, you have to have a factory that makes 100 X widgets a day, AND storage for 100 widgets. But the stores can be smaller, and if demand increases you can satisfy it without a waitlist.

JIT is deliberately intended to be closer to the second scenario, plus a bit of surplus capacity to nudge it in the direction of the third scenario.

*unless you don't ship until you've made all of your widgets, but then you're late to market and the competition eats your lunch.

 

[Ferzerp]

In the first case, you have to have a factory that is capable of making 100 Y widgets a day*, and the stores have to have storage for 100 widgets.

In the second case, you only have to have a factory that makes 1 Z widget per day, and the stores only have to have storage for 1 widget. Of course, if demand increases, you have to start a waitlist, since you can't scale up production.

In the last case, you have to have a factory that makes 100 X widgets a day, AND storage for 100 widgets. But the stores can be smaller, and if demand increases you can satisfy it without a waitlist.

JIT is deliberately intended to be closer to the second scenario, plus a bit of surplus capacity to nudge it in the direction of the third scenario.

*unless you don't ship until you've made all of your widgets, but then you're late to market and the competition eats your lunch.

I'm well aware of that, but the massive slant of the interpretation here was "wow, the cars with shorter lot times must be selling so well!" I purposefully stretched the various ways that the same exact sales figures could produce widely varying average on lot days in order to show that the two values are, at best, loosely correlated in the absence of additional info.

I didn't intend my 100 widgets, day 1 scenario to be treated as realistic. However, there are cases where that could be true. Let's assume extremely high energy costs and extremely low capacity costs (for production and storage). Couple that with extremely volatile raw materials and the opportunity to purchase a huge quantity of those materials at an extremely low price which happens to coincide with an extremely low day for energy costs.

Again, I make up an outlandish scenario, but it serves to illustrate that just as we can't assume any sales figures from these numbers, we also can't assume that lower numbers necessarily mean more efficient production either. There are benefits to being able to produce in bulk during part of the year (though it would be hard to keep a satisfied staff).

Things are rarely as cut and dry as poeple assume. Sometimes it helps to stretch the differences out to outlandish levels to show that they do exist though.

(I haven't even begun to address potential lack of manufacturing capacity and why being able to make enough to have some available at all times might be a good thing here).

 

[jagec]

I'm well aware of that, but the massive slant of the interpretation here was "wow, the cars with shorter lot times must be selling so well!" I purposefully stretched the various ways that the same exact sales figures could produce widely varying average on lot days in order to show that the two values are, at best, loosely correlated in the absence of additional info.

I wasn't intending to counter your point, merely to extend it.

I agree that the "days on lot" statistic, absent other metrics, is essentially worthless.

 

[Bignate603]

I wasn't intending to counter your point, merely to extend it.

I agree that the "days on lot" statistic, absent other metrics, is essentially worthless.

Additionally, a very low number of "days on lot" means that you're losing sales. If supply is so tight that you're constantly operating at essentially 0 inventory it means that customers that want to buy your car cannot find one when they want to make a purchase. Many people can't or won't wait so if there is nothing available they'll just go buy something from your competitor.

Extremely low and extremely high inventory is bad, it's much healthier to carry a moderate amount.

 

[momeNt]

The nice thing about statistics with no context is..... nothing!

You can make all the conclusions you want, but without detailed info about the supply chain for them, you are just reinforcing your own preconceived notions.


If I make 100 of widget y, and ship all 100 to a store and they sell one per day, the average time on shelf is 50 days, and at the end of 100 days, I have sold 100 widget ys. If I then make 1 widget z per day for 100 days and ship that one to a store each day and it sells that day, the average time on shelf is 0 days! At the end of 100 days though, I have sold 100 of each widget. Or, I can make 100 of widget x on day one, and then just trickle them out to the store because I want to keep stock low and make it appear that one should buy their widget x when they see it because it may be gone tomorrow.

In other words, with no context, these numbers mean little to nothing.

This is a good point for those wanting to make assumptions based on popularity and sales of these cars. But it's possible to still glean valuable information as a consumer from the information posted, and that would be the time value of money to the dealerships selling these cars. Dealers with vehicles that spend a long time in inventory may be willing to lower the price in order to move inventory, in many cases $X at day 10 is worth more than $Y on day 100 even if $X<$Y.

Aside from that one point, I can't think of any valuable conclusions we can gather from the information posted.

 

[exar333]

This is a good point for those wanting to make assumptions based on popularity and sales of these cars. But it's possible to still glean valuable information as a consumer from the information posted, and that would be the time value of money to the dealerships selling these cars. Dealers with vehicles that spend a long time in inventory may be willing to lower the price in order to move inventory, in many cases $X at day 10 is worth more than $Y on day 100 even if $X<$Y.

Aside from that one point, I can't think of any valuable conclusions we can gather from the information posted.

I would tend to agree here. My opinion is that the 'life on the lot' metric will mostly translate to bargaining power. Plain and simple. You will be able to negotiate more on a car that sits longer vs. one that is snatched-up immediately. The volume of sales is really immaterial, for the most part. If the average life AND volume are extremely low (e.g. 'rare') then you will have an even tougher time negotiating.

You saw this with popular cars last year following the tsunami. Whether it be a GT-R or a Camry, they were hard to find. I had to really shop around to get a deal on my Subaru because they were actually selling 60%+ of their cars BEFORE they even hit the lot. When this is the case, selling price goes up and negotiating ability goes down.

I don't believe average time on the lot tells you much about either volume or desirability directly. You need other information to get that data and make those conclusions.

 

[nerp]

The Golf R is on there because they don't make a lot, people tend to order those cars if they really want them and it's not like they sit around on the lot for weeks since they're generally delivered straight up. Now and then some schmoe backs out or can't pay or something so it will sit. The person in this thread saying these numbers are useless without context is correct. The true number would factor in actual sales numbers and manufacturing numbers.

 

[rsutoratosu]

Isnt the altima like the #2 best selling mid sized sedan right now? how did it make the longest list?

it could be but it still might sit on the lot longer..

we'll see how the 2013 4 banger do.. 38mpg it claims

 

[rh71]

Last summer when I was looking at the Q5, only one dealership in eastern MA had one in stock and it was for show only as it was in the showroom. I believe the wait time was like 5 months for one.

Surprised that the 4-Runner was on the list, I'm guessing they make so few of them nowadays.

Well the Q7 surprises me more than the Q5. I did the Audi event and thought the Q5 was a good car, though pricey for what it was. The Q7 wagon... I don't even see that many on the road.

 

[PricklyPete]

I definitely wanted to check out the Prius C, 2012 Impreza, and the 2012 CR-V. All have significant updates.

Which part was a significant update for the CR-V...the fact that it has 6 gears now (does it even have that)? Honda is behind the times on updates.

 

[CraigRT]

I am surprised by some of the "long time" list.

Altima? Journey? EX35? They are all popular around here.

 

[manimal]

TRD Prius is a real thing. The Prius V (or was it the C?) will have an optional TRD styling package, side skirts, 17" wheels, and I think sway bars? Lol

If only it had 200+ horses with Kers and AWD

 

[Childs]

Went to Toyota dealership last night to look at the Prius C, and there was only 1 there, and it was already sold. Next batch is coming in a couple of weeks, and the one I want (color and options) is a month+ wait.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

this is really only one part of the equation. the demand of a car could be high, but if the supply is much higher, you may have individual vehicles sit on a lot for a while since there are many to choose from.

on the other hand, demand could be low, but if the supply is even lower, the cars won't sit on the lot for long.

im sure other people have pointed this out. if anything these stats are useful to dealers to figure out what stock to keep, and not some overarching statement on cars popularity.