Last post on Jan 28, 2013 at 6:55 PM
You are in the Sedans
What is this discussion about?
Audi A8, BMW 7 Series, Jaguar XJ-Series, Lexus LS 460, Mercedes-Benz S-Class, Volkswagen Phaeton, Maserati Quattroporte, Mercedes-Benz CL-Class, Sedan
Let's try to define this forum as being limited to luxury performance vehicles where the mainstream version in a typical configuration has an MSRP of at least $60k.
A luxury vehicle with a base price of $59k qualifies because it would typically be bought with some additional equipment, bringing the MSRP over $60k.
Vehicles like the E, 5, A6, M, or GS, even if available in certain versions over $60k, don't qualify because they are cars from companies that have higher end cars in their lineups.
#12517 of 24723 Truck/car sales [syswei]
Jan 05, 2006 (9:59 am)
The blend of trucks sold vs. cars seems to vary from year to year.
Cayenne really boosted Porsche sales when it first came out. It is still a big seller by Porsche standards but the Boxster is very hot right now.
The Escalade line was big for several years. The new Cadillac cars are selling very well, overshadowing the trucks.
I expect the new cars from Mercedes will put MB trucks in the shade in 2006.
But remember - my predictions aren't always right!
#12519 of 24723 Re: 2005 sales [syswei]
Jan 05, 2006 (10:12 am)
Certain german car fans tend to dismiss Lexus because it is so dependent on truck sales.
Only when certain Lexus fans harp about Lexus sales and how it implies superior cars, overlooking the fact that up until now two out of four of Lexus' cars (GS IS) didn't do squat for Lexus' overall sales picture. The implication was that the Lexus sales machine was built on the back of an all-star lineup of bestsellers and nothing could have been further from the truth.
Never said that they didn't count only that they didn't always fit in with all the Lexus sales rhetoric.
That about MB having benefited primarily from a totally rejuvenated truck line isn't correct either. The M-Class is the only new "truck" for 2005 that really did anything. The R went on sale late in the year and barely did anything until Dec, and even then it only added 4959 units for the year! Hardly much to base that rejuvenated truck line statement on. Secondly the CLS and SLK did a lot to boost that final number also, especially the CLS which is an all-new model that didn't replace an existing model. The CLS alone added 14K units to the sales total for 2005, more than the SLK and more than M-Class' increase in units vs 2004. It goes CLS,ML,SLK and then R in that order as to what model did the most for MB in 2005. The only reason the press release is touting a big jump in "truck" sales is because MB didn't sell many "trucks" in 2004 to begin with.
#12520 of 24723 Re: 2005 sales [merc1]
Jan 05, 2006 (11:15 am)
I think the CLS is a big winner. I hope it continues in the MB line for more than just the current model cycle. Sales of the new SLK are a pleasant surprise.
A CLS in Alabaster/Sunset Red, Bordeaux/Cashmere or Silver/Sunset Red is stunning. IMO the kind of car that invites you to walk around observing it from all points of the compass.
If you buy me a CLS you can choose the color for me as long as it isn't black. Summers are way too hot in the badlands for black cars or black interiors.
#12521 of 24723 Re: 2005 sales [merc1]
Jan 05, 2006 (12:02 pm)
That about MB having benefited primarily from a totally rejuvenated truck line isn't correct either.
You can spin it however you want, but according to scott's data MB car sales were down -5.8% for the year, and it is only the increase in truck sales that kept them from showing an overall sales decline for the year.
I'm not saying it was a terrible performance overall, as I have always liked to look at total vehicle sales, including trucks. But if one frames the analysis the way some german car fans sometimes do (e.g., ignoring the trucks) then MB didn't do so hot.
It wasn't you but maybe dewey or someone who not long ago was touting BMW as being the leading US seller of luxury CARS, to the exclusion of SUVs. All too often we see german car fans want to exclude SUVs, basically because Lexus does so well in that area. Now the shoe is on the other foot...with SUVs having saved MB from a down sales year.
#12523 of 24723 Re: 2005 sales [syswei]
Jan 05, 2006 (1:04 pm)
It wasn't you but maybe dewey or someone who not long ago was touting BMW as being the leading US seller of luxury CARS, to the exclusion of SUVs.
True and BMW is the number one luxury car seller in USA! And according to the latest statistics BMW cars have more momentum than BMW SUVs. Up to now nothing has changed.
Spin-Free Analysis of Undistorted Data
Annual sales of BMW's two SAV models are off 2 percent. The company reported sales of 68,367 vehicles compared to 69,829 in the same period of 2004. SAV sales were down 11 percent for the month to 5,954 vehicles, compared to 6,720 vehicles sold in December 2004.
Monthly sales of BMW automobiles were up 9.3 percent, to 20,510 cars compared to 18,762 sold in December 2004. Yearly automobile sales were up 4 percent, with 197,833 automobiles sold compared to 190,250 in the same period a year ago.
#12524 of 24723 My apologies: BMW for 2005
Jan 05, 2006 (1:29 pm)
The BMW sales numbers in my post #12515 are wrong!
I rechecked all the other brands and they are all correct.
Here is the right BMW sales data for 2005:
BMW cars +4.0%
BMW trucks -2.1%
Thanks for helping me notice my mistake, Dewey.
#12525 of 24723 Re: My apologies: BMW for 2005 [scott1256]
Jan 05, 2006 (2:08 pm)
LOL, I did not even notice your numbers were wrong.
But I am grateful to be of assistance even though my assistance was accidental.
#12526 of 24723 so in summary...
Jan 05, 2006 (2:13 pm)
When looking at BMW's performance, look only at CARS, because it makes BMW look better.
When looking at MB's 2005 performance, look at VEHICLES (cars + SUVs), because it makes MB look better.
When looking at Lexus' performance, look at whatever makes Lexus look worse.
That's the "new math", I guess. Or should I say "German math"?