Well I haven't read this thread past the first post... But exactly what car are you talking about? I sure didn't see it. Ferrari had a great display, and there were several Bugattis (the new type) Hey, even Lexus had a concept car there. But where was this Lamborghini? I must have missed it. ;^D Fred
so could it be that the Murci LP640 we've seen pics of running around with black doors was in fact a test mule for this baby? or could we expect 2 new lambos in Frankfurt?
from what I have read on other forums - the spy pics of that lambo are the $1.5M Lambo we are hearing about and that there will not be a Murci SV
Whether lamborghini is being "prepped" for sale we wont know til it happens... But until then, my personal assessment is that since no more money is being invested and expectations are high from Audi brass for lamborghini to stand on its own... And if my analysis is right( from my previous post) , Lamborghini whether it likes to or not HAS to create a high profit vehicle to generate those funds needed for new chassis development. Because, if they boost production, exclusivity suffers and customers wont like it. If they raise prices, they would price themselves out of the market... So it seems to me the "special" 20 cars are the only solution.... Keep in mind, nowadays, 30-40 mil for development of a completely new car with new chassis is the norm. For a company that just turned a 20 mil euro profit, it would definitely overstretch them if they forge ahead with murcie replacement... So, if these 20 cars are sold, the profit would allow the company to start development and still have cash reserve to be utilized for other purposes. So while I hear all this talk about Lamborghini is wrong to make the car... lets look at the future and consider if the marque's survival is at stake, would it be so bad to make those 20 cars? Since we are on Ferrari chat, didnt Mr. Ferrari create special cars as well because of the need for funds to support racing and the company? So what is the difference? It is always easy for customers to complain about exclusivity, about price, about too many things. But as the old saying goes... you cant please everybody.... And frankly, if I had to choose between lamborghini losing some of its soul versus going out of business, I would choose losing some soul. Dont get me wrong, I really wish lamborghini could generate cars with much character like the ones from its past.. as would many who have indicated on this thread. But, I dont think it is possible at this time. lets hope that once lamborghini can really sustain long term profitability, it can search from within to once again create soulful masterpieces that we have such fondness for.
The "20 million" profit number is, in my estimation, is greatly enhanced by the receipts derived from Gallardo production. You do realize that Murcie production slowed and has been capped (somewhere under 400 units a year). Even if each Murcie had a profit of $25,000USD that's only half the "20 million" and I'm just guessing on that as I do not know what profit per vehicle is. I'm sure they are trying to raise the amount per Murcie by charging so much more for the LP640 over the previous edition. So, with that said, the worldwide market for Murcie's is hardly bigger than that for the Diablo....don't quibble here, point is, they tried to expand, even double, production of the Murcie only to have sales not follow - despite building up a much larger dealer network. They also cut the roof off and that didn't increase overall demand either (no engineering there, lousy roof the 'truss' over the motor, typical shortcut when you don't engineer the chassis to support the roof off). So, why invest 40M in a replacement for the Murcie when it would take many years (if ever) to recoup. They are between rock and a hard place. The Gallardo production is also maxing out, lots of unsold product and here in Austin there must be 20 of the running around - so the exclusivity cache is disappearing fast. What can they do? Well, being a Germany company they will not prop it up, they want to make a profit, of course, most companies would like to do so as well, but being Germany puts them into more of a pickle I think. They could try a truck/SUV but since 2005 gas prices on the increase (as demand outpaced refining capacity worldwide) so that seems to be "too late" to the party. Not to mention a major revision to the existing chassis would be required for truck fitment. They could try a lower end car, but they bang into the R8 they just started making. They could try marine motors again, but, that's not a large enough market. I do notice they are vastly expanding their 'peripheral' items for sale, shirts, keyrings, coats, etc, the catalog is much 'fatter' this year, lots of new items. Trying to dig revenue from anywhere they can it seems. Too bad they are cutting back/off spare parts production, that is a real nuisance. Or they could just get over making a large profit and settle for a slimmer profit and carry on, with a long term view that occasional infusions of capital with long payouts (due to lower profit margins) will be the norm. I definitely agree about the primping of the brass, not so nice, they acted very aloof, what's the point of that, even the Marketing guy (Manfred F.). As for this "fund raiser" car, it's a bit shortsighted isn't it, they are going about it in a very erractic manner, almost like they are rushing it through to help provide a solution now or "get out of the way" because something else is about to happen (i.e. selloff by VAG). -J
Domenic, Unfortunately, 30 million dollars does nothing these days in the effort to develop a new car. We are talking about an entirely new chassis, the Murcie's is totally out dated and they have no other in house version to rely on. Let alone the re-tooling, production lines, suppliers, crash testing etc, etc. In talking to people within Ferrari, they have told me the cost of a new chassis to come to market is around 800 million dollars. This is why manufactures keep their chassis active for so long. (360 and 430 have the same base chassis) This is just the chassis! What about the motor? Design? It is a huge undertaking. That is why I said Audi is at the cross roads. It will be very interesting to see what they do. Keith
Toyota is the best answer. I really hope that Toyota buys Lamborghini. Toyota is not going to put Corolla parts into L cars. Toyota is not going to borrow drivetrains, from other lines and rebadge them as a Lamborghini. Toyota has the funds and the past track record of producing quality cars. Toyota does not have a halo line. Let's hope that Toyota buys Lamborghini.
Keith, lets not forgot lamborghini can modify the gallardo chassis which tooling has ben amortized by Audi... In fact, when they were considering the miura concept, the gallardo chassis was considered... Thats where the 30-40 mil figure comes in. Because with a modified gallardo/audi chassis, existing but slight modified 12, the cost are definitely less.
Anyone just needs to take a look at the Toyota GT-One. Tell me that's an ugly car because it's not. Hopefully Toyota buys Lambo.
After reading about the current conditions of Lamborghini, I REALLY hope so, too. It's not like Toyota is going to kill the marque's image. Besides, I think it'd be a great mutual relationship. Toyota could provide funds (They've got what? Billions at their hands now?) to help Lamborghini, and in return, Lamborghini could at the most help Toyota's sports cars since the LF-A really isn't getting a lot of positive attention. So, +3.
I don't know Joe except for his posts. He does nothing but whine about any newer model car, trashing Lamborghini whenever he can and complaining about new cars he hasn't even driven or seen. Fact: Joe makes money selling older cars and that is why he does nothing but trash new cars. And another fact: The newer cars are safer, faster and more reliable than the older cars. Here's a sampling of his recent tiresome comments: "I fail to make any connection between the Miura SV's values (a genuine iconic classic built when Ferruccio Lamborghini was still at the helm of his company) and the current crop of tech-laden overweight grand tourers." "Agreed. Youd have to go back to the SE30 of thirteen years ago to find a Lamborghini with that raw Italian supercar spirit." "Lamborghini is in a very shameful place if this is how it does business." "Im not given to most contemporary (read: overweight with too many electronic bells & computer whistles) sports cars.." "Im afraid the modern-day Lamborghini is very different from the ideals that Ferruccio Lamborghini stood for and also treats its customers very differently. But thats another story..." "Dominic, let me tell you that Lamborghini rub their customers the wrong way more often than you think! LOL." "Trying to piggy-back off the success of the real classics and cash in off the theory that some have more money that grey matter?"
Boy must have taken a while to research all this.... I stand by each and every comment as posted above. They are my opinion. You have yours. Thats whats great about a forum. From what Im reading, a lot of people agree with me. If you think Lamborghni is going great places today, I respect you opinion. But I dont agree with it, neither do many astute long-term observers. Am I a critic of Lamborghini? You bet. But thats how things improve. If you like the newer heavier, tech-laden cars, great. Please enjoy them Joe www.joesackey.com
but joe you have to admit, to making lighter cars like the good ol days is nearly impossible now due to all the safety requirements and traction control etc...
Nope, not true. "safety requirements" that add weight (traction control is not a requirement and neither is ABS braking)...would be, what? airbags? what safety requirements are you thinking of that add weight (or any requirement that adds weight for that matter)? The Murcie is an overweight pig, but, not because of any governmental 'requirements', its because of Audi using the cheapest parts (for many things, not all). Take the seats for instance, their frame is pure steel (ever see pics of a Murcie after a fire, the seats are still there because the frame is pure ironworks), that alone has gotta weight quite a bit and there is no requirement the seats be made of that much steel. The catalyst system is heavy, it could be made a lot lighter. The wheels could be made of more lightweight material. I figure Audi doesn't care and has done precious little to reduce weight. Not to mention offering a RWD system would eliminate a few hundred pounds (vs the AWD system). -J
There has been speculation that Lamborghini needs to keep itself in the black and fund its own advancement. Too bad VAG can't pitch in a little more, after all, the 'mothership' loses money hand-over-fist but they still try to advance it. To whit: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aH0JHSCbGAm0&refer=europe excerpt: Volkswagen's North American loss in 2006 was 607 million euros, after a loss of 317 million euros in the first half. The company will no longer give profit figures by region when it reports first-half earnings on July 27. -J
I dont admit anything. Sorry but I disagree with your premise, but JTSE30 has put it best already as he stated above... BTW, I knew about the operational losses. Ergo my personal theory that Lamborghini is a dry cow (bull?) being prepped for the Sunday market. No doubt Five will add that one to his collection of 'Sackey Lambo-bashing' quotes. LOL. I prefer to think of myself as a Constructive Critic who wants Lamborghini to have better health & direction than it has today. We can dream cant we? Joe www.joesackey.com
Note that the Miura is around 2800 pounds, while an Exige S is 2077. Also, the F430 Scuderia 1250kg while the Miura P400 SV is 1245kg..
I find NOTHING that is mandating (for the USA) ABS and/or traction control for automobiles before 2012. Here's a link: http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.asp?section=571.135 You are probably thinking this was a mandate: http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070228/FREE/70226004&SearchID=73291064386714 it's not, it's merely recommended: (excerpt from link above National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recommended that electronic stability control become mandatory for all light vehicles sold in the United States starting with the 2009 model year. (end excerpt) Best I can find is something for 2012: (again in this article is says "proposed" for 2009) http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/09/nhtsa_stability.html More: http://injurylaw.reganfirm.com/2006/12/articles/consumer-safety/electronic-stability-control-nhtsa-and-auto-industry-disagree-on-timeline/ Looks like 2012: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/05/tech/main2652731.shtml?source=RSSattr=SciTech_2652731 Just the same, TC and ABS are not going to add any significant weight to an automobile (I would venture a guess less than 100 pounds including all wires, assemblies and the like). -J
Correct. I love those lightweight Lotuses! Minimalist bells & whistles. BTW, we used to admire Lotuses way back in the 70s especially after 007 used the Espirit as his mode of transportation and I knew some Lotus guys who had a moniker for the marque. To them LOTUS = Lots Of Trouble Usually Serious. LOL. Just had to share that.... Joe www.joesackey.com
