Mazda 6 Forums banner
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
375 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

"Despite the fact that its hot-selling CX-5 crossover was up 2.6 percent, Mazda declined 7 percent to 278,552 units in 2019. That's because Mazda's car lineup, the 3, 6, and MX-5, was down by double digits—24 percent, to be exact. In fact, the CX-5 alone outsold the rest of Mazda's entire lineup, as it did in 2018."
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,127 Posts
I really have to question how a firm can sustain a 24% loss, from far-from-stellar results to begin with, and continue in business. Is the writing on the wall? Amalgamation with Toyota 'real soon, at bargain basement costs? :(
 

· Registered
Joined
·
426 Posts
I think it said they sustained a 7% loss, didn’t it?

i don’t understand people’s aversion to cars these days, but it’s real and it’s strong.

I guess we’ll see how Mazda’s attempt to push up-market goes? I don’t happen to think that will work, but maybe that’s a good indicator that it will. LOL
 

· Registered
Joined
·
795 Posts
I remember the days when Mazda was all about zoom zoom = affordable, reliable, great looking cars that were more fun to drive than their competition. If you wanted a Japanese car that was as reliable as Toyota and as fun as a Honda, but for cheaper, Mazda was the easy pick. Now the public doesn't want cars, don't care about driving dynamics, don't want an affordable vehicle, and don't keep one long enough to care about reliability. When the economy tanks people might go back to caring about these things, but in the meantime Mazda is really struggling to find their niche. IMO of course.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,810 Posts
The financialization of basically everything has made it very tough to actually sell things.

What you can buy is very different than what you can finance. The latter is stupid to engage in most of the time; even Real Estate is dumb other than by the necessity of the fact that you need somewhere to live. Those who argue otherwise -- give me your personal example, and unless you managed to buy something out of foreclosure during the latest crash, you're almost certainly wrong in terms of your "believed" appreciation. In point of fact you lost money in almost every case in purchasing power, and in many cases you lost it outright in nominal terms.

When it comes to vehicles this is especially stupid because they have a life-cycle that is much shorter. Yes, many people need transportation but feasting on other's stupidity down-stream is a MUCH better option fiscally. But that stupidity is why you see all those $50,000 trucks running around. They have a much higher margin for the manufacturer and this makes their stock price go up, so as long as they can find some hinky way to get people into them and to take the financing, part of which is stoked by our interest rate environment on a global basis, it continues.

The other thing this has done is destroyed the "basic" model. Does anyone actually believe there's more than $15,000 worth of hardware between a 6 Sport and a 6 GT (prior to the turbo, of course)? Same sheet metal, same drivetrain end-to-end. The differences are cosmetic. People say "oh but there's more capability with radar cruise, blind-spot monitors, etc" and my riposte is that for under a grand I can buy more computer power than there is in 10 cars and a monitor big enough to fill my living room wall. Anyone who thinks that "higher trim" model differential isn't 80%+ profit is out of their mind and once again, if you can manage to find a way for people to be able to "finance" that then you can kill the models without it -- and they have.

The CX-5 is in the "niche" where people are being shoved. The Miata is an enthusiast product but so long as it sells enough to be worth the cost of running the line Mazda will probably keep it. I sure hope they do. But the rest are another matter, and what's worse is that getting rid of the stick in other than the "enthusiast" trim level for the "3" and completely on the "6" has rendered the cars vehicles I will never buy in the future. Explodo-transmissions are one of the ways manufacturers force you back into either the service department at a ridiculous price or, even better for them, back into the showroom. Nope.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,127 Posts
Totally agree with you, Ticker, re the basic goodness and comparative value of the baseline model. Of course, the market in general does not see it that way - and that generates needed profit, haha.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,810 Posts
@idrive -- Yes, it's what people want to buy. Now where's the 2.5L MTX Sport model with trim similar to the "6" sport? Oh, never made one, did they; the only MTX CX-5 produced was with the 2L engine (grossly underpowered) and stripped to the point that it had a rubber steering wheel. I know because I drove one before I bought my "6"; if they had a 2.5L/MTX CX-5 I would have bought it instead.

The problem with the "model/option push" game is that it indeed does lead to what people want, but they're not buying it. Almost everyone is actually leasing, even if they claim they're not and have a note. It's one of the many (very bad) distortions that below-GDP interest rates anywhere on the curve cause. The product mix shift that comes with it is financially destructive for ordinary people in a major way, but the manufacturers love it -- right up until the layering of leverage blows up in everyone's face. Exactly when that happens is not possible to know in advance but basic mathematics tell us that exponential expansion on an indefinite forward basis is impossible.

But for today you, I and everyone else are stuck with what it does to the model mix offered for sale.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
796 Posts
@idrive -- Yes, it's what people want to buy. Now where's the 2.5L MTX Sport model with trim similar to the "6" sport?
Why are you asking me? Doesn't matter what you or I think, the manufacturers are going to make what is going to hopefully sell and make them money. I don't believe you or I are privy to what goes on behind the closed door.

The rest of the copy and paste is just another opinion that has been forecast for several years now. With interest rates so cheap ATM it just doesn't hold water.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
375 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Some criticism from C&D forum and agree with some of them.

"Mazda really miscalculated with the new 3. It should be their volume leader, but they priced it too high, added weight, made no improvements in the engine bay and dumbed down the handling - all in the name of some faux leather dash coverings and additional gadgeteria."

"I agree. I just looked up the Mazda 3 prices and was surprised that the 3 can cost up to $27,500 with the Premium package. While a Subaru WRX starts at $27,495.
For me to consider a Mazda 3 at these prices it would have to be comparable to the old Mazdaspeed3 for around the price of a WRX."

"The 2.5 is way too unrefined for modern vehicles, especially if they want to try and pitch the 3 as a premium compact.
I felt they should have tried to introduce this model with the SkyActiveX to try and give it an edge."

"I'll speak to the 3 at least which ditched it's rear suspension for a cheap & worse handling torsion beam, they are less spacious then the competition, expensive, and weak/outdated non-turbo engines, noisy, plus the hatch looks like the hunchback of notre dame. The 6 is mostly just the lack of competitive engine."
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,810 Posts
Yep.

The newer "3" is uninspiring. The previous one wasn't bad, AND you could go lower-dollar for less-feature and not get stupid-decontented. The MTX was available in same, and it made a decent amount of sense if you wanted something smaller than the "6".

But -- when I bought my '15 6 the same basic config in a "3" was MORE MONEY! In fact the de-contented CX-5 with the 2.0L -- seriously de-contented -- was more money by a fair bit.

Huh? Bigger engine, nicer interior (leather wheel for starters .vs. rubber), still MTX, and cheaper? Uh, yeah, the "6" sedan it is; you guys trying to force me into the ATX and higher-trim CX-5 can bite me, and pricing the "3" above the "6" was just IMHO flat-out stupid.

I've driven a couple of the 3g 3s as loaners, so have put a couple of days on them. They're not bad. I don't like ATXs generally but if I have to have one, ok, this one I could live with, provided it doesn't explode and hit me with a $5k+ bill. However, I hate the "burnt toast" infotainment thing. Always have hated that sort of design and always will, but no matter what you buy that's pretty much where they've all gone these days -- from everyone. Meh.

I thought the '19 "redesign" version of the "3" was just... odd. Now if they put the Sky-X engine in it..... that might be truly interesting, provided they don't try to screw you out of another $3,000 for it -- which they might.

But so far there's no indication of when the X engine will hit the US -- or at what price.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,127 Posts
Ticker, I RESEMBLE those comments about plastic (vinyl?) steering wheels, lol. You have a thing for leather-wrapped steering wheels :) . "Sport" trim in Canada (aka GX) had (in '17) a non-leather-wrapped steering wheel and shifter knob.... but had four heated seats, heated pwr mirrors, reversing camera, rain-sensing wipers... and of course mouse-fur fabric seats.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,810 Posts
Dang..... none of that was in the '15 Sport -- except the wheel. Well, and the mouse-fur seats, but those got Wet Okole covers immediately, which I absolutely love (and being an outdoors type of dude, thus often getting into the car after a run or some other activity where I'm sweaty and NASTY, they're about the only thing that won't be trashed inside of six months.)

The Wet Okole's in my car look nearly as good as new, even now. Not bad given ~200k miles....
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,810 Posts
I don't think you'll be disappointed with them. They're not the cheapest option by far, but in terms of both visual appeal (the seats look like they came from the factory this way) and durability it's hard to argue with them.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
I think there are too many enthusiasts looking at these cars from an enthusiast point of view. There are also too many people (including that C&D comment section and this forum) trying to be armchair engineers and marketing people as if Mazda doesn't know that their cars are typically not the most spacious nor the cheapest.

The WRX has more performance, but you spend 99% of the time in your automobile just getting from point A to point B. The new Mazda 3 would be a way more pleasant car to daily drive in or go on a road trip for the average person.

I see a lot of complaints about price, but don't know why Mazda went for the premium route versus trying to race to the bottom with a stripped cheap base model. Mazda executives on multiple interview-articles have said that they aren't trying to be a volume leader. Also, for Mazda the higher trims are what sell. One article mentioned the success of the Signature trim that and how almost 50% of CX-5s are loaded Grand Touring models. More than likely, the new 3 is calculated decision by Mazda. Although they may lose some lower-income customers, they may actually be coming out ahead because as @tickerguy pointed out, the margins are obviously higher on higher trim levels. I'm speculating as well, but there is more to the equation than what people on these enthusiast message-boards are complaining about.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,810 Posts
Yep.

I drove a WRX (and a just-plain Imprezza) before I bought the "6". Would I love it more in the twisties? Yes. Would I love it more using it as ordinary transportation? Uh uh. That wasn't even a close comparison; the Subie lost bigly in that regard. Never mind that while those vehicles do have a claimed durability record the basic engine design has maintenance cost issues as it ages and always has. Oh, and the insurance costs are higher too; all those ricers buying 'em doesn't help that. Incidentally the not-WRX had a transmission that I just flat-out HATED.

Everyone seems to think winning is all about volume. Nearly none of said people have ever run a business. It's about sunk cost + (per-unit cost * units sold) must be LESS THAN per-unit-profit * units sold. And the financial side of it, which people poo-poo and say "well, but that doesn't matter" -- well, yes it does, bigly, in that it shifts the demand curve between models such that the higher-margin one can be sold in higher volume. Given that fact that's what's going to be produced and, eventually, the lower-margin one won't be offered anymore as the associated costs of stocking back parts and such, which is never zero, will drown the operating margin contribution that offering would otherwise make.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top