Yet it's important to the position that the Boxster, the launch of which prompted the first year in the black and the first year of increased sales for Porsche that decade, was the car that turned Porsche's fortunes around. The Boxster directly lead the company out of its impending death (or takeover). You rejected this initially, claiming it was the 996 that did this, but the Boxster preceded the 996 by two years and, by prolonging Porsche's existence, made the 996 possible. Sharing parts to reduce build costs assisted that greatly.
The Boxster saved Porsche from becoming part of Volkswagen. I'd have thought this was a pretty well-known industry fact by now.
I agree that the Boxster contributed hugely to saving Porsche from a likely takeover by VW... but it looks like they merely delayed this.
What I don't agree with is that the MX5 had any influence on Porsche producing the Boxster.
Porsche did have a history of multiple models other than the 911, you know... 924, 944, 968, 928, some of which were available as convertibles, and they already had convertible versions of the 911.
You've been given a very logical progression as to why it's not tenuous at the slightest. If you're going to reject the notion out of hand, there's very little point in you actually taking part in this conversation because you'll just ignore anything you don't like - and that's the impression you're giving off right now.
You've provided an
opinion. I disagree with your opinion.
You've provided sales data for individual models... but all this demonstrates is the MX5 and Boxster were both successful (along with others). It doesn't prove the MX5
created the consumer desire, or that it influenced Boxter sales.
For that, you'd need to find/provide some shopper/consumer research.
Without the shopper/consumer research you are still presenting your opinion.
I give you credit though... you do a great job of presenting your opinion as fact
It absolutely does matter if you're going to claim, as you did, that the MX-5 didn't reawaken the market.
If the market was there all along, MX-5 buyers would have been buying one of the other available convertibles. So what were the 75,000 people who bought an MX-5 in 1990 buying in 1987? It wasn't Golf, Escort or 205 convertibles, so where were they?
The market was there for the right sort of car. None of the cars on the market met the consumers requirements. The MX5 came along and met those requirements. It sold well.
It's basic consumer behavior, not rocket science.... as you point out to yourself below.
If demand was there but there was no product, the MX-5 filled the niche and created - or reawoke - the market.
Only there were products available. The Z1 was available before the MX-5 and sold 8,000 in its entire production run. The Mk1 and Mk3 Golf preceded and ran alongside the MX-5. The Mk2-4 Escort preceded and ran alongside the MX-5. The 205 CTi preceded and ran alongside the MX-5. The Astra F had a Bertone-designed cabriolet (incidentally, this car is terrifyingly bad) that beat the MX-5 to market and was sold throughout its production run. There was the Mk1 MR2 too, probably the most successful predecessor in the same segment and Toyota also had the ST183 Celica convertible.
And the MX-5 turned up and outsold them all put together in its first full year... It didn't displace sales of other convertibles - it created 75,000 additional sales in the convertible sector.
The MX-5 popularised that sector. I'd have thought this was a pretty well-known industry fact by now.
The only car amongst those you have mentioned above that's relevant to the MX5 is the Z1... and IIRC, the Z1 was pretty much hand built, expensive, and produced in very small numbers.
As you point out, MX5 sales were incremental... which indicates that the other convertibles on the market were not meeting the needs of potential consumers.
People don't buy Boxsters instead of MX-5s - or vice versa (well... maybe used). The MX-5 existing has direct influence on Boxster sales as, without it generating the demand for the market back in 1989/1990, there'd have been no Boxster in 1996 and indeed no Porsche or, at best, not one you'd recognise. That is the point.
See, that's where we differ in opinion... I don't see the MX5 as influencing people to buy Boxsters.
There's nohing to indicate that the MX5 influenced Porsche product planning... Boxster/996 platform sharing was a sensible financial choice vs the previous 911/924/968/928 line up.
If the MX5 hadn't existed the Boxster would still have sold at the same level.
What is curious about it all is why the MX-5 was so much in demand? As we've established, there were other convertibles available at the time. They were at the same sort of price point, more practical with more seats and more bootspace, based on other popular cars from other popular marques (so as cheap to service as their donor cars), using the more popular front-wheel drive format... It doesn't make an on-paper hit does it?
I think
we dealt with the lack of true competition in the 2 points above.
I didn't know it was an existing financial term, but an earlier post by me explained what I meant by it.
It's a marketing term... I know what you meant, just wanted to make sure you don't happen to offend anyone by using it in the wrong context... you know how sensitive some people are
Anyhow, enough intellectual masturbation for one day... the sun is shining and arguing the toss on t'interweb is not making the most of a beautiful day
