C&D AP Article - More Good Stuff on the Way
03-14-2015, 12:51 PM
#91
I would bet on the RS having the lowest margin, GT3 being in the middle and GT4 being the highest. This is based on the number of bespoke parts that were put in each and relative difficulty with approvals.
For the RS the cost of approvals of new design features, like the front fenders can be astronomical. New Engine, more exotic materials, more bespoke parts with fewer units to amortize them over will all likely give it the lowest per unit margin, clearly on a percentage basis but also likely lower on a dollar basis vs the GT3.
Some of these will probably be amortized over future porsche models, but there are more technological and regulatory changes in the RS than what there were for the GT3. The GT4 is very much a parts-bin special.
For the RS the cost of approvals of new design features, like the front fenders can be astronomical. New Engine, more exotic materials, more bespoke parts with fewer units to amortize them over will all likely give it the lowest per unit margin, clearly on a percentage basis but also likely lower on a dollar basis vs the GT3.
Some of these will probably be amortized over future porsche models, but there are more technological and regulatory changes in the RS than what there were for the GT3. The GT4 is very much a parts-bin special.
Thank you.
Last edited by Petevb; 03-14-2015 at 01:14 PM.
03-14-2015, 01:56 PM
#92
My instinct is that the RS is much higher margin. You can build an entire Boxster or Macan for the 45k price hike over the GT3, and design and low volume tooling for composite panels can be relatively inexpensive. The engine is a tiny step over the GT3. I can imagine turning a GT3 into an RS, no way to take a Carrera and turn it into a GT3...
To me the cost to develop new panels in different materials, have parts suppliers develop and QC manufacturing lines, add fender vents etc is actually higher than the engine mods for Porsche. Then going through the certification process in every market for a lower volume car. Carbon Fiber material costs are about 10x to 12x higher than steel and aluminium, as well as increased processing times on manufacturing lines etc you end up with much slower throughput reducing overall plant profitability.
It's not anything we'll ever know the answer to, but I would be surprised if the RS has a higher margin % vs the GT3.
03-14-2015, 02:12 PM
#93
Agree. The GT Road and Motorsport cars were developed hand in hand. Things are currently in a holding pattern and have been for several years. This has been stated by the outgoing head of Porsche Motorsport. I believe Porsche Motorsport determines the direction of what AP can do or not do. The next series of GT cars will reflect the new technical regulations - and if turbo is favored in the rules, we will see a GT road cars with a turbo engine - the same as what will be raced.
03-14-2015, 02:17 PM
#94
I think you're right. I think that the GT3 makes less money than the normal 991 cars, but they are making more and more GT3s than ever before. So I'm inclined to think that the profit margins are getting closer to the regular 991 variants.
03-14-2015, 04:07 PM
#95
To me the cost to develop new panels in different materials, have parts suppliers develop and QC manufacturing lines, add fender vents etc is actually higher than the engine mods for Porsche. Then going through the certification process in every market for a lower volume car. Carbon Fiber material costs are about 10x to 12x higher than steel and aluminium, as well as increased processing times on manufacturing lines etc you end up with much slower throughput reducing overall plant profitability.
It's not anything we'll ever know the answer to, but I would be surprised if the RS has a higher margin % vs the GT3.
It's not anything we'll ever know the answer to, but I would be surprised if the RS has a higher margin % vs the GT3.
First, I've been involved in low volume composite manufacture both on the parts side and the tooling side, so I have a feel for the costs, and Porsche will only improve on the numbers I've seen. While carbon is much more expensive than steel, materials costs are small on this scale. You can convince yourself if you price quality carbon rolls, which will be much more expensive than Porsche is using, such as: http://carbonsales.com/Carbon-Fabric...00yd-Roll.html
You can also estimate based on aftermarket or factory part costs, like the i3's full carbon chassis, the M3's roof, etc.
The second way to estimate is to consider the weight saved and how else that savings might be achievable. In my experience as an OEM or aftermarket there are many opportunities in the $100 per pound range- ceramic brakes, lithium batteries, carbon doors, carbon chassis. A bespoke, top spec engine (like the 918's) could save 100-150 lbs over the 9A1 family the RS is based on. If you use this as a metric and apply 35k of the RS's increased price to weight savings you'd end up with a far lighter car for less money.
There are reasons the engineers might choose to deploy money in other ways, but any way I slice it I can't get to them spending nearly as much more money as they're charging. $.02
In a past life I was involved in the automotive industry as a tier 3 supplier, so I do have a little insight into their cost structures. Not claiming to be an expert however...
03-14-2015, 05:14 PM
#96
Here's an article on BMW and Audi investing as part of a German industry group to trying get down costs by 90% by 2020. Current raw material costs are $20k per kg vs $1 for steel, doesn't list aluminum but much higher than my 10x to 12x estimate I posted earlier.
http://blog.caranddriver.com/weave-c...rcent-cheaper/
I still think this material change is only a small part of the whole R&D picture, capital investment in tooling, ongoing cost increase from much slower part processing times, much much lower volumes vs the regular 911 fender which is the same across every existing model (including the GT3).
http://blog.caranddriver.com/weave-c...rcent-cheaper/
I still think this material change is only a small part of the whole R&D picture, capital investment in tooling, ongoing cost increase from much slower part processing times, much much lower volumes vs the regular 911 fender which is the same across every existing model (including the GT3).
03-14-2015, 05:23 PM
#97
B) There might be 44 lbs/ 20 kg of raw carbon fabric in the RS, given that nearly half or a carbon part's weight is in resin, gelcoat, paint, etc? That's $400 by your math above. Kinda makes the point...
03-14-2015, 05:42 PM
#98
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Mid-Atlantic (on land, not in the middle of the ocean)
Posts: 12,393
Received 3,739 Likes
on
2,172 Posts
Given the limited weight reduction achieved by the scattered 'exotic' materials in the RS, seems that the use of those materials is more about marketing than performance, to help justify the large price increase of the RS over the GT3.
IIRC, the weights savings of the Cayman R over the Cayman S was larger, and at comparatively minimal cost. And the Cayman R gained more than just weight savings for that cost.
IIRC, the weights savings of the Cayman R over the Cayman S was larger, and at comparatively minimal cost. And the Cayman R gained more than just weight savings for that cost.
03-14-2015, 05:50 PM
#99
A) You use less than half as much, so that suggests materials cost per part is actually less than 10x.
B) There might be 44 lbs/ 20 kg of raw carbon fabric in the RS, given that nearly half or a carbon part's weight is in resin, gelcoat, paint, etc? That's $400 by your math above. Kinda makes the point...
B) There might be 44 lbs/ 20 kg of raw carbon fabric in the RS, given that nearly half or a carbon part's weight is in resin, gelcoat, paint, etc? That's $400 by your math above. Kinda makes the point...
Smaller runs are much more expensive when you're at truly optimized mass manufacturing efficiency levels.
It's probably better to just agree to disagree
03-14-2015, 06:26 PM
#100
For background, in my day job we do large aluminum honeycomb core composite parts in higher volumes than these, ie 3k to 30k per year. I've also done high volume carbon parts previously, ie helmets, and on the hobby side I was involved with the custom and low volume parts on my own car (hand layup on low volume tooling):
All of that, and the limited amount I've seen in between, tells me you're significantly overestimating impact to the bottom line here. We'll agree to disagree, but I'll look for some public data points to put things in perspective.
