Toyota Beat Porsche, Ferrari, and McLaren to the Modern Hypercar Format

"Money Hustard" (moneyhustard) 02/18/2015 at 09:45 • Filed to: Supercars, Hypercars, Hybrids, Concept Cars

0

19

With loads of carbon fiber, scissor doors, a hybrid drivetrain, and its mid-engine layout the 2004 Toyota Alessandro Volta Concept was years ahead of its time. It's like Toyota drew a map to hypercar perfection, and let everyone else run with it.

Some of today's baddest cars, the Porsche 918, The MacLaren P1, The La Ferrari all share this clever format, yet Toyota did nothing with its own idea.

I was very busy in 2004 and must have missed this car. That, or no one could comprehend why someone would want a Prius supercar and it just didn't earn much notoriety at the time. This concept may have completely slipped by if not for !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! this morning.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Regardless, I'm impressed that this refrigerator manufacturer was looking so far ahead in 2004. Even if they were too chicken to do anything with their vision.

How do you feel about batteries in a supercar?

PS9 > Money Hustard 02/18/2015 at 09:52

0

It's easy to call someone else chicken when it isn't millions of your dollars being set on fire.

itschrome > Money Hustard 02/18/2015 at 09:54

0

How do you feel about batteries in a supercar?

As long as it's fast, fun to drive, handles well and makes me smile I couldn't care less about whats under that hood.

Money Hustard > PS9 02/18/2015 at 09:58

0

Shoichiro Toyoda has seen more than half his wealth evaporate over the past decade, he might as well have.

Money Hustard > itschrome 02/18/2015 at 10:02

0

Typically my feelings on things.

PS9 > Money Hustard 02/18/2015 at 10:10

0

I'm sure the people in Japan reliant on Toyota for their livelyhoods are thankful for Toyoda's direction of the company, decisions which put it in position of global market leadership today.

Money Hustard > PS9 02/18/2015 at 10:11

0

I think your overestimating the impact of even a failed supercar project would have on the world's largest automaker. Also, who's to say it would have failed?

Wheelerguy > Money Hustard 02/18/2015 at 10:12

0

You know what's more disappointing? This would have been the new Supra.

Then again, the LFA should have been the new Supra, at least for me.

Money Hustard > Wheelerguy 02/18/2015 at 10:14

0

The LFA and this car would have likely been priced out of the tradition Supra range. The LFA is a work of art, it shouldn't even have a brand on it.

WillyJimmy > Money Hustard 02/18/2015 at 10:28

0

Considering they have had what, 1 or 2 quarters in the last decade in the red, how do you figure Toyoda has seen his wealth disappear? Have you not see their stock prices? Do you not realize they hold no debt? You haven't notice the suppliers and partnering companies they have either bought or bought into? Maybe you missed the part about Toyota becoming the worlds largest automaker.

Please give some facts to crazy claims like this.

Money Hustard > WillyJimmy 02/18/2015 at 10:37

0

Shoichiro Toyoda the individual, not Toyota the company.

Source: Forbes, Wikipedia

Japan's weakening currency has done most of the damage.

PS9 > Money Hustard 02/18/2015 at 10:51

0

And I think your underestimating how expensive it is to produce a supercar. Making something full of bespoke parts and production techniques not used anywhere else in your line up means you can't lean on the economies of scale to shrink the astronomical production costs. Volume disappears at extreme price points, so even if there's extreme demand for the product, you won't be making more than a few thousand at most.

Everyone in position to build one has to think about maybe not getting their money back even if it sells extremely well, and everyone who manages to build a profitable business out of it doesn't do that as their only business unless they are owned by someone else, or they are only willing to do it once and a while.

Question: All of that neat stuff the Volta had in a car costs $1M to buy today in 2014. How much would it have cost in 2004? Answer: More than anyone in position to would have been willing to pay for a Toyota, no matter how good it was. Couple that with the decades long japanese recession and the disappearance of one Japanese sports car after another off the global market due to poor sales at the time (Supra, Silvia, 3000GT, NSX, Prelude, 300zx, MR2, Celica just to name a few) and it's not hard to see why Toyota passed on making the Volta. Doing what is right for the company and protecting the livelyhoods of those dependent on it isn't an act of cowardice.

Money Hustard > PS9 02/18/2015 at 11:01

0

Yet, car companies the world over continue to make money-losing halo cars. In terms of automotive marketing, these programs are a drop in the bucket and highly effective most of the time. Toyota could have used something to market themselves in this context.

Also, I don't see where you get the $1M plus price tag. $300-$500K maybe. It's just the drivetrain from their LX hybrid, and they managed to make the LFA for $375K, not sure where you think they are going to spend another $700K there.

PS9 > Money Hustard 02/18/2015 at 11:26

0

Yet, car companies the world over continue to make money-losing halo cars. In terms of automotive marketing, these programs are a drop in the bucket and highly effective most of the time.

...and yet, the Volta did not get made. Is it because Toyota is just a bunch of cowards? Or is it because there was no business case for toyota to be making a halo sports car during a recession where Japanese halo sports cars were getting the axe the world over?

$300-$500K maybe. It's just the drivetrain from their LX hybrid

You aren't gonna get $300-500k for a lexus crossover powered supercar in 2004. Not happening. Not when the Mucielago could have been had for the same money. You can already buy a Toyota V6 powered supercar right now. How are they not charging $200k for it when a hybrid version would fetch north of $500k? (Hint: Because it can't. )

Money Hustard > PS9 02/18/2015 at 11:45

0

Since when is making a halo car a sound financial decision? It's a marketing expense.

PS9 > Money Hustard 02/18/2015 at 12:07

0

Since when is making a halo car a sound financial decision?

It's not. Which is why the Volta did not get made.

Money Hustard > PS9 02/18/2015 at 12:24

0

So then why are scads of automakers that aren't even the biggest automakers in the world able to sell halo cars without laying off their employees?

I've never seen that as a listed reason for automaker layoffs, ever.

WillyJimmy > PS9 02/18/2015 at 12:27

0

It's doubtful the Volta was ever considered as a production car anyway. A lot of these concept vehicles are just technology demonstrators and trial balloons to see what the market is ready for and if the design language is something people would be interested in. If the world had went gaga over it, maybe we would have had a hybrid supercar sooner, but it would definitely have not been the Volto. But since no one really gave it a second look, it went to the closet with the other hundreds of concepts.

PS9 > Money Hustard 02/18/2015 at 14:45

0

Your asking an extremely general question that requires specific answers and analysis. Region by region;

The Viper, C7 and new GT are able to exist because all three major U.S. autobrands are resurgent post 2k8 recession, and because none of these cars are or will be loss leaders. Not even the Viper.

The GT-R appeared for the same reason the U.S. halo cars appeared; Nissan was resurgent and was flush with cash. The GT-R is also not a loss leader; Carlos Ghosn famously said at the time that he would can it like a slow selling mini-van if the numbers started not making sense. Toyota has been a global market leader for some time, which is why they made the LFA now as opposed to the Volta way back when.

Ferrari has market leadership. They've been turning a profit for a very long time under Montezemolo, which is why they can make loss-leading cars like the Enzo, and now the F70.

Almost every other European supercar marque exists as a subsidiary of a much larger and much more successful organization. Bugatti can set fire to $2B of V.A.Gs money across 10 years because that's less than 20% of their yearly margin. Outside of Bugatti, every other marque is profitable. This is why most of the europe's supercars today are made by this one organization.

Daimler and BMW are in similar positions; positive margin, flush with cash, able to spend on R&D for supercars, which is why we get the i8 and the AMG GT.

McLaren! They're successful at making only halo supercars, right? Wrong. Aside from their F1 operations (publically traded as McLaren Honda), McL Automotive is part of McL Techology, a company that has it's hands in a laundry-list of other not-auto related businesses.

The only two left are Aston and Lotus. One of them is owned by a much larger organization. The other only does sporty halo cars and is in serious danger of closing their doors as a result. I think you know which one is which.

What have we learned from all this? 1) Supercars do not occur in a vacuum of infinite enthusiasm and 'let's do it just because it's awesome'. They have to make financial sense to exist or they don't happen. 2) Everyone - outside of one glaring exception - making a halo cars today is doing so out of a desire to profit, and can because they've met with success elsewhere in the auto business 3) That one glaring exception (Bugatti) gets to be non-profitable because it's standing on the shoulders of so many other global auto marques that are and have been for many years 4) Standalone super car makers basically don't exist anymore; all of them either have been acquired or are huge organizations with a global presence in the market already.

Therefore, if you can't afford to just set fire to your money, then the business case for your supercar has to be good. There was no business case for a $300-500k crossover powered supercar from toyota in 2004, which is why they declined to build the car.

Money Hustard > PS9 02/18/2015 at 16:33

0

That's a very specific answer to a question I didn't ask. My question was:

So then why are scads of automakers that aren't even the biggest automakers in the world able to sell halo cars without laying off their employees?

I've never seen that as a listed reason for automaker layoffs, ever.

One press release from a single automaker blaming a flagging halo car for layoffs would shut me right up.

And you basically lay out a case as to why supercar/halo cars are typically not money making ventures in themselves as evidenced by the lack of freestanding supercar shops. That they only work in larger conglomerations of automakers. All of which is what I thought is what I was saying.

Also, you say "crossover powered super car" like it's a bad thing. I don't think anyone who's driven or heard a Noble M600 drive by ever feels like the engine is somehow lacking. Proper tuning can do wonders.

Ford didn't make money on the last GT what makes you think this one is making any money?

I'd challenge, also, the assertion that Vipers are making Dodge money, when all costs are considered, especially with how they are selling right now (they didn't sell, they lowered their price now selling like crazy).

Not all halo cars are made at a loss, but history has shown that's very much an exception to the rule. I know that's not the rosie intentions of the automakers that make them, but it is what typically happens. The losses are also typically worth it from a marketing perspective, too.