Supra Forums banner

261 - 275 of 275 Posts

·
Hardcore Night Warrior
Joined
·
2,384 Posts
Discuss. Convertible looks like a lot of fun/would sound good going through tunnels and under bridges. :D

Would consider a white interior too. haha.
The DCT shift sounds great, plus it's not obnoxious farting DCT like BMW.

Right hand drive sounds interesting. I wonder how the C8 will be received in OZ and JP.

LT2 sounds gooooood on the down-shifts. Sounds so good with the top up. Sounds so cool with the "pop" on up-shifts. Sounds good on normal putzing around. Under a heavier load, meeeh. My car whisperer ears tell me exhaust leak somewhere. I still like the sound of the Coyote and Voodoo over this :D

Neat that Corvette competitors want to be given a car. haha.

I would need to change the turn signal to a different sound. Reminds me of a 90's Ford Taurus.

What could you see yourself driving, a fixed roof or the hardtop convertible as seen here?

 

·
iSPOOL
Joined
·
1,015 Posts
Hot Damn. Like we suspected electric motors up front, twin turbo flat plane crank v8. First all wheel drive Corvette putting out near 900hp from factory? Wow....don't think I'll be able to afford one but It looks like another supercar killer.

 

·
JetFire
Joined
·
5,286 Posts
I don't find this a surprise at all, kudos to Chevy taking the risk with losses on the base model. This is definitely something Toyota would not do. Everyone I know that's ordered one of these is close to and above $90K with options, I'm sure the actual $60K sales will be minimum and offset with the $80K plus ones.

The Chevrolet C8 Corvette Stingray Is a Loss Leader

Chevy loses money on every sub-$80K C8 sold, a source tells us
The all-new mid-engine C8 Corvette's impressive $59,995 starting price is only good for the first year, as we reported back in August, and unless it goes up by $20,000, Chevrolet will continue to lose money on low-trim cars, a senior GM source tells MotorTrend.

We had a feeling the $59,995 starting price was too good to be true, and a GM source confirmed as much to us explaining the price would rise for the 2021 model year. This isn't much of a surprise, as the base price of a C7 rose nearly $2,000 in its second year and by another $2,000 the following year. While we still don't know how much the C8's price will rise in 2021, a more senior GM official tells us it would have to go through the roof in order to cover GM's cost.

According to our source, the original budget for the C8 project assumed a starting price of $79,995. This is certainly reasonable considering the enormous amount of work needed to redesign the car into a mid-engine configuration, but it's a huge jump from the C7. In order to keep customers from revolting, Chevy is taking it on the chin and willingly losing money on every C8 it sells for less than $80,000. No doubt a factor in the C8's laundry list of options and dress-up parts is the hope buyers will load up their cars with extras and turn their $60,000 Stingrays into $80,000-plus Stingrays. The C8 Stingray Z71 3LT we tested rang up at $88,305.

More critical are the base prices of upcoming performance variants including Z06 and ZR1. According to our source, the sweet spot for profit and volume is between $80,000 and $100,000. Once the car crests six figures, our source says, sales volume drops off precipitously. This will be a trick for Chevrolet, because the C7 Z06 starts at $82,990, which doesn't leave the company much room for an increase without upsetting customers and breaking out of the sweet spot in price and volume. The C7 ZR1, meanwhile, already starts at $135,090, so Chevrolet has more discretion to price the C8 ZR1 knowing full well it will be a low-volume car.
Source: https://www.motortrend.com/news/source-chevrolet-corvette-c8-stingray-loss-leader/
 

·
iSPOOL
Joined
·
1,015 Posts
I don't find this a surprise at all, kudos to Chevy taking the risk with losses on the base model. This is definitely something Toyota would not do. Everyone I know that's ordered one of these is close to and above $90K with options, I'm sure the actual $60K sales will be minimum and offset with the $80K plus ones.



Source: https://www.motortrend.com/news/source-chevrolet-corvette-c8-stingray-loss-leader/
I read this earlier. While none of this is confirmed its not a surprise for a new product in its initial year. With that said I priced mine recently at $78,825 after destination charge.
Disney Plus is in the same boat. While we had over 10 million sign ups on the first day and millions more in the following days, it will still be years until we see a net profit from the service.
 

·
JetFire
Joined
·
5,286 Posts
I read this earlier. While none of this is confirmed its not a surprise for a new product in its initial year. With that said I priced mine recently at $78,825 after destination charge.
Disney Plus is in the same boat. While we had over 10 million sign ups on the first day and millions more in the following days, it will still be years until we see a net profit from the service.
Agreed, the fact that they took the risk with losses on the base model shows how much they care about the enthusiasts and fans versus just the bottom line and making profits on every single car sold. I wish Toyota used the same approach but they have different business models when it comes to product line, risk and profitability. Disney Plus definitely disrupted the streaming market in a good way, it will be interesting to see how all the streaming services evolve in the coming years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,239 Posts
Agreed, the fact that they took the risk with losses on the base model shows how much they care about the enthusiasts and fans versus just the bottom line and making profits on every single car sold. I wish Toyota used the same approach but they have different business models when it comes to product line, risk and profitability. Disney Plus definitely disrupted the streaming market in a good way, it will be interesting to see how all the streaming services evolve in the coming years.
disruptive implies bringing something new to the party... disney+ is just another streaming service, bringing streaming another step back closer to the $100 monthly cable bill, except now its more cause you have to pay for internet to get to the streaming services too. its only good for disney and your ISP. and torrenting. netflix was disruptive to the cable tv industry, disney+ is just a copycat. and definitely bad for the consumer.

unlike disney+ the corvette is disruptive, bringing a powerful mid engine car in at 60k...
 

·
iSPOOL
Joined
·
1,015 Posts
disruptive implies bringing something new to the party... disney+ is just another streaming service, bringing streaming another step back closer to the $100 monthly cable bill, except now its more cause you have to pay for internet to get to the streaming services too. its only good for disney and your ISP. and torrenting. netflix was disruptive to the cable tv industry, disney+ is just a copycat. and definitely bad for the consumer.

unlike disney+ the corvette is disruptive, bringing a powerful mid engine car in at 60k...
I can argue the price point of the service is disruptive. The best and largest library of content for only $6.99 per month ($5.99 deal right now) which is less than half my Netflix subscription.
Also the bundle which is $12.99 for Disney Plus, Hulu, and ESPN plus which is also less than the price of Netflix is the same as the mid engined Corvette being offered at $60k. Chevy didn't create the mid engine platform and Disney didn't create the direct to consumer streaming industry. But both offered it at a great price which challenged the industry leaders.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,239 Posts
I can argue the price point of the service is disruptive. The best and largest library of content for only $6.99 per month ($5.99 deal right now) which is less than half my Netflix subscription.
Also the bundle which is $12.99 for Disney Plus, Hulu, and ESPN plus which is also less than the price of Netflix is the same as the mid engined Corvette being offered at $60k. Chevy didn't create the mid engine platform and Disney didn't create the direct to consumer streaming industry. But both offered it at a great price which challenged the industry leaders.
netflix also started out cheaper... disney + price will grow pretty quick its not gonna stay at 6.99 for long. they had to make the price this low to get customers, par for the course when trying to break into an existing market/service/product. as for bundles, they were already available through amazon prime. all that points to just another run of the mill competitor, not disrupting anything.
the big number I kept seeing is 10mil subscribers, those are free trail account, a decent chunk of those got dumped once the free trail period was over. netflix has over 150mil subscribers.. they didn't even get 10% with the inflated free trial numbers. if it was disruptive a ton of people would be canceling netflix to get disney, thats what disruptive to the industry means.

actually now that I really think about it, the corvette isn't all that disruptive either... its not gonna make much of a dent in the existing mid engine supercar market... ferrari/lambo/mclaren aren't worried about their sales numbers. sure they might lose a few sales, but not enough to matter. at least not the 60k version. We'll have to wait and see what they come up with for the special models. its not all that disruptive in the performance category either other than 0-60... around a track its only marginally faster than a C7 Z51. but again, the special models could be different.
 

·
iSPOOL
Joined
·
1,015 Posts
netflix also started out cheaper... disney + price will grow pretty quick its not gonna stay at 6.99 for long. they had to make the price this low to get customers, par for the course when trying to break into an existing market/service/product. as for bundles, they were already available through amazon prime. all that points to just another run of the mill competitor, not disrupting anything.
the big number I kept seeing is 10mil subscribers, those are free trail account, a decent chunk of those got dumped once the free trail period was over. netflix has over 150mil subscribers.. they didn't even get 10% with the inflated free trial numbers. if it was disruptive a ton of people would be canceling netflix to get disney, thats what disruptive to the industry means.

actually now that I really think about it, the corvette isn't all that disruptive either... its not gonna make much of a dent in the existing mid engine supercar market... ferrari/lambo/mclaren aren't worried about their sales numbers. sure they might lose a few sales, but not enough to matter. at least not the 60k version. We'll have to wait and see what they come up with for the special models. its not all that disruptive in the performance category either other than 0-60... around a track its only marginally faster than a C7 Z51. but again, the special models could be different.
You're arguing different points now. At face value Disney Plus shook the market of the streaming wars, read any article, check the Disney stock price pop, and the Netflix stock price drop because their future looks uncertain since Disney Plus stepped into the ring. Even the CEO of Netflix has made comments on Disney Plus which effected its outlook to investors and analysts, that I would call disruptive.
The prices today matter. I've had Netflix since 2008 and I don't remember it ever being $6.99. I believe I paid $7.99 for the unlimited streaming service plus $2 or $3 more for DVDs and the best content was by mail. But the comparable price for what Disney Plus offers at $6.99 to Netflix today would be their premium service at over $17 after tax for 4K with 4 screens. Nearly triple the price of Disney Plus for less demanded content.
The price will of course chang, as does the world, but the initial price point wasn't to beg people to sign up. No other company in the history of film making is as successful as Disney and its properties. Check all the top movies of the past few decades and you'll see that people flock to see the content thats under the Disney umbrella. Plus the price increases we have seen at Netflix is due to their need to produce more original content since for the longest they've just been the middle man. That's not the case for Disney as this is just one page in the huge catalog it offers to the consumer, the main part being the Parks, Experiences and Products sector. The Fox acquisition further bolstered its position. I have literally only watched the Simpsons on Disney Plus since I've signed up and the amount of old and new content is well worth it.

Netflix's model isn't sustainable since all the major content providers are leaving to create their own applications. Its hemorrhaging money for original content but nothing they could ever make will generate the buzz or money like Star Wars, Marvel, Pixar, Disney Animation or NBC Universal. Some of the most watched content on Netflix is not their own even though they tried to skew their investors with their top 10 most watched list which was misleading.
Disney is no run of the mill competitor, it literally created entire industries since its inception and has been doing it for nearly an entire century.
The first day subscriber count (which was mainly US and Canada since other markets open further in the future) exceeded expectations which included free trials so that point is discarded. Mind you 10 million subscribers was the forecast for the first YEAR!

So it barely being 10% of Netflix's total worldwide subscriber count is discarded, that wasn't the goal. Netlfix inly has 60 million US subscribers and we can debate how many of current the 16 million Disney Plus subscribers are from the US.

Your point on Netflix subscribers needing to cancel is discarded as well since most people have already stated they don't plan to cancel Netflix for Disney plus, a point Disney knew which is another reason why it was priced competitively.
The next report on Disney Plus won't be until the spring so you have no evidence to say a "decent chunk dropped the service" after the trial. Here's evidence of the contrary which isn't giving a total number of paying customers either:
Disney originally estimated 60-90 million subscribers worldwide by 2024 and that number is forecasted to be met if not easily exceeded, it doesn't need to surpass Netflix. This is just a side game for Disney which has disrupted Netflix's primary service.

Lol Now you're backtracking on your own point when I gave you a fair comparison to Disney Plus? Define what "it's not going to make much of a dent in the existing mid engine a market" means?

The base model C8 won't challenge supercars on terms of quality but it does in regards to performance. The 0-60 is impressive. So impressive that you have to more than double the price of the C8 to find a car that comes close. People who can afford Lambos, Ferraris, Maseratis, McLaren etc will continue to buy those vehicles. You don't have to take away consumers from another product to be deemed a game changer. But I predict it will make a dent in the mid engine market in regards to number of units on the road. There will easily be more C8 Corvettes on the road than McLarens, Ferraris, and Lambos combined simply based on previous production numbers.
The entire car industry was talking about the new Corvette after its presentation so to say it didn't disrupt or challenge what we expect from a car design of that magnitude is quite absurd. We have yet to see the extremes of the higher level trim Corvettes which look even more menacing. Rumors of an all wheel drive 900hp twin turbo flat plane crank V8 with electric front engine for probably less than $200k is more than disruptive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,239 Posts
You're arguing different points now. At face value Disney Plus shook the market of the streaming wars, read any article, check the Disney stock price pop, and the Netflix stock price drop because their future looks uncertain since Disney Plus stepped into the ring. Even the CEO of Netflix has made comments on Disney Plus which effected its outlook to investors and analysts, that I would call disruptive.
The prices today matter. I've had Netflix since 2008 and I don't remember it ever being $6.99. I believe I paid $7.99 for the unlimited streaming service plus $2 or $3 more for DVDs and the best content was by mail. But the comparable price for what Disney Plus offers at $6.99 to Netflix today would be their premium service at over $17 after tax for 4K with 4 screens. Nearly triple the price of Disney Plus for less demanded content.
The price will of course chang, as does the world, but the initial price point wasn't to beg people to sign up. No other company in the history of film making is as successful as Disney and its properties. Check all the top movies of the past few decades and you'll see that people flock to see the content thats under the Disney umbrella. Plus the price increases we have seen at Netflix is due to their need to produce more original content since for the longest they've just been the middle man. That's not the case for Disney as this is just one page in the huge catalog it offers to the consumer, the main part being the Parks, Experiences and Products sector. The Fox acquisition further bolstered its position. I have literally only watched the Simpsons on Disney Plus since I've signed up and the amount of old and new content is well worth it.

Netflix's model isn't sustainable since all the major content providers are leaving to create their own applications. Its hemorrhaging money for original content but nothing they could ever make will generate the buzz or money like Star Wars, Marvel, Pixar, Disney Animation or NBC Universal. Some of the most watched content on Netflix is not their own even though they tried to skew their investors with their top 10 most watched list which was misleading.
Disney is no run of the mill competitor, it literally created entire industries since its inception and has been doing it for nearly an entire century.
The first day subscriber count (which was mainly US and Canada since other markets open further in the future) exceeded expectations which included free trials so that point is discarded. Mind you 10 million subscribers was the forecast for the first YEAR!

So it barely being 10% of Netflix's total worldwide subscriber count is discarded, that wasn't the goal. Netlfix inly has 60 million US subscribers and we can debate how many of current the 16 million Disney Plus subscribers are from the US.

Your point on Netflix subscribers needing to cancel is discarded as well since most people have already stated they don't plan to cancel Netflix for Disney plus, a point Disney knew which is another reason why it was priced competitively.
The next report on Disney Plus won't be until the spring so you have no evidence to say a "decent chunk dropped the service" after the trial. Here's evidence of the contrary which isn't giving a total number of paying customers either:
Disney originally estimated 60-90 million subscribers worldwide by 2024 and that number is forecasted to be met if not easily exceeded, it doesn't need to surpass Netflix. This is just a side game for Disney which has disrupted Netflix's primary service.


Lol Now you're backtracking on your own point when I gave you a fair comparison to Disney Plus? Define what "it's not going to make much of a dent in the existing mid engine a market" means?

The base model C8 won't challenge supercars on terms of quality but it does in regards to performance. The 0-60 is impressive. So impressive that you have to more than double the price of the C8 to find a car that comes close. People who can afford Lambos, Ferraris, Maseratis, McLaren etc will continue to buy those vehicles. You don't have to take away consumers from another product to be deemed a game changer. But I predict it will make a dent in the mid engine market in regards to number of units on the road. There will easily be more C8 Corvettes on the road than McLarens, Ferraris, and Lambos combined simply based on previous production numbers.
The entire car industry was talking about the new Corvette after its presentation so to say it didn't disrupt or challenge what we expect from a car design of that magnitude is quite absurd. We have yet to see the extremes of the higher level trim Corvettes which look even more menacing. Rumors of an all wheel drive 900hp twin turbo flat plane crank V8 with electric front engine for probably less than $200k is more than disruptive.
good job on the numbers. still not a disruptor. a disruptive product is when it makes you dump what you used to use. Like what netflix did to cable. a lot of people dumped cable for just internet and netflix. everything you said is just another competitor entering the market. of course netflix stock dipped and disney got a bump, thats now the stock market works... someone farts and shit changes. nobody is dumping netflix for disney, people are picking up disney in addition to netflix.

the reason your provided about why netflix isn't a sustainable business model has nothing to due with disney entering the market. if netflix fails because of this, it'll be because of their own unsusptainable business model, not because disney "disrupted" the streaming market.

I'm only back tracking on the fact that I said the mid engine vette is a disruptor in post 268. the only performance figure its a disruptor for is 0-60 in its ~60k price tag. every other performance metric isn't that far off other competition in its price tag. and its certainly not gonna steal many sales from Lambos, Ferraris, Maseratis, McLaren etc.
and to repeat myself, the special models of the vette can very much change that. Those have the potential to be disruptive. But the standard Z51, while mid engine, its actual performance numbers aren't anything special at its price tag. except 0-60. 1/4 mile time is pretty good, but the C6 Z06 was doing about the same at around that price 2 gen's ago.
 

·
iSPOOL
Joined
·
1,015 Posts
good job on the numbers. still not a disruptor. a disruptive product is when it makes you dump what you used to use. Like what netflix did to cable. a lot of people dumped cable for just internet and netflix. everything you said is just another competitor entering the market. of course netflix stock dipped and disney got a bump, thats now the stock market works... someone farts and shit changes. nobody is dumping netflix for disney, people are picking up disney in addition to netflix.

the reason your provided about why netflix isn't a sustainable business model has nothing to due with disney entering the market. if netflix fails because of this, it'll be because of their own unsusptainable business model, not because disney "disrupted" the streaming market.

I'm only back tracking on the fact that I said the mid engine vette is a disruptor in post 268. the only performance figure its a disruptor for is 0-60 in its ~60k price tag. every other performance metric isn't that far off other competition in its price tag. and its certainly not gonna steal many sales from Lambos, Ferraris, Maseratis, McLaren etc.
and to repeat myself, the special models of the vette can very much change that. Those have the potential to be disruptive. But the standard Z51, while mid engine, its actual performance numbers aren't anything special at its price tag. except 0-60. 1/4 mile time is pretty good, but the C6 Z06 was doing about the same at around that price 2 gen's ago.
Taking away is not the main requirement in most people's definition or usage of the word. And thinking about it now the Internet would be considered the disruptor to cable tv, not Netflix. Even cell phone providers with the emergence of smart phones giving direct access to content is a better example than Netflix which for the longest was just a middle man delivering DVDs. A better example would be Blockbuster to Netflix. But anyway I'll give you two examples of how we are using the word in this conversation. In football a defensive tackle can be a huge disruptor if he pressures the opposing quarterback's throw. The DT doesn't need to take away the ball, make a sack, or score a touchdown to be deemed disruptive. Simply causing QB pressure or for an offensive coordinator to rethink their gameplan is more than enough. Acknowledgment is sufficient.

Example #2- Universal's addition of Harry Potter to Islands of Adventure disrupted the theme park industry. It caught the attention of its direct competitor Disney and made them rethink its approach on next gen experiences, even though nothing Universal offered was new or an original idea for theme parks, since Disney literally created the concept of what we consider a Theme Park and full land immersion.

While Universal saw incredible gains in revenue driven by higher attendance and customer spending, Disney's theme park attendance numbers didn't decrease and still retained the most visited parks in the world. Yet the Harry Potter Land was the emerging place to visit and changed Disney's approach of rides due to fear of being dated. People who visited Universal Studios more than likely visited Walt Disney World, just like people who signed up for Disney+ probably have Netflix. And even though people are cutting cable tv, the content is still being watched online through cable internet. By your definition this wasn't disruptive which is where we disagree.

And yes Disney entering the market DOES have something to do with the netflix business model. Netflix and Disney have a contract where Disney would share its content on their platform. Same with other entertainment companies like NBC Universal. This is a direct benefit to Netflix since their need to produce their own original content to attract and/or sustain their subscribers is reduced. If all these contracts end with no renewal that would be disruptive to Netflix catalog it offers to the consumer. It's 100% reliant upon cable/internet providers to generate money for their company. Their approach is one dimensional and vulnerable since they have no merchandise to sell, no live TV offering, and no box office presence. All which Disney has an ability to give to the consumer through ESPN+, Hulu Live, Theme Parks, brick & mortar stores, and theatrical releases. The bundle severely challenges Netflix and time will tell if they can outlast Disney's triple headed approach.
I could take avenues to argue that even Netflix isn't disruptive since it didn't create the streaming industry, it was just the first to be successful worldwide. YouTube had full movies and tv shows back in 2005, years before Netflix even had a streaming service. I saw Netflix as a way to combat online piracy more than anything. And plenty websites had full content available for online viewing. So if Disney's bundle isn't disruptive then neither was Netflix since they didn't "bring anything new to the party." It didn't end television as we know it but just changed how and where we watch the SAME content (Choosing Internet subscription over a Cable subscription). Netflix is just a copy of YouTube in regards to streaming and its a copy of Amazon in regards to mailing products to the consumer via the Internet. But time will tell what survives since change is inevitable especially with each generation being the driver.

Edited: Even more proof other direct to consumer platforms could over time leave to the end of Netflix and its overpriced one dimensional model.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,210 Posts
Back to the C8, guys. While I may find these tangential discussions interesting, others "just here for the cars" may not. It's probably best to take discussions like this to PM should they crop up in the future. Thanks.


Ken.
 
261 - 275 of 275 Posts
Top