Wasn't sure where to post this, but it's pretty much related to the (possible) end of the breed.

Been thinking about this recently and I have a sneaking suspicion that after the homologation models, Mitsu actually considered the Evo itself as an investment like rally racing. Porsche and the like are profitable 'cause their cars are expensive, but I'm guessing with all the kit in cars like to Evo, Sti and GTR, they're not money-makers in and of themselves.

On the pre X-models, I can think of hardly any parts that are shared with the base lancer (or Ceedia), just some interior bits, trim and body parts spring to mind. (Because they did things backwards with the X, and based the lancer off the evo design, I think there may be more)

Being a road car, I also seriously doubt that even the VI and earlier had any shared components with the WRC machines (software maybe?)

So, that leads me to think that it costs a hell of a lot to develop each evo and considering all the special parts that are in the car and the (admittedly rising) selling price + low volume, I'm thinking Mitsu hardly make any profit on every car sold if any.

Can anybody confirm this?or am I talking complete nonsense

 

If mitsubishi wasnt at least breaking even, they would have had no incentive to make an evo model past the II imo. The cost/unit is significantly higher for an evo compared to other models mitsu makes, but they wouldn't have made 10 different generations if the evo wasn't at least profitable in some way or another.

 

offcourse they make profit especially with the older evos. It prolly costed a little more in the beginning with the R&D stuff, but once the ball kept rolling then it was profit. The ct9a platform has been around since 2001 and lasted till 2006. So for those 5 yrs they had plenty of chassis/engines/tcases and everything else laying around, because the production keeps going. Plus Evo is part of Mitsubishi which is part of MHI ( Mitsubishi Heavy Industries), and MHI is huuuge, they have tons of money and built everything themselves from the turbos, engines, tcases, transmission and more.

 

They make decent coin off them. The problem isn't profitability... the problem is low volume, which becomes a bigger problem when the rest of their line up is low volume.

 

I can say that peeking into Evo Xs gets a "whoa, this looks familiar...but with nicer seats" out of me.

I'm not sure what all else is shared, but having bits like that shared with the mass-produced Lancers should help drive the cost of production down. The interior is definitely some deja vu.

 

This.


I also laughed that captobvious provided this response.

 

That's not always the case. There has been a few companies to take a loss on their highest performance car to really have it out as an icon. VW: Veyron, Lexus: LFA.

Im not sure what the profit per evo is, but just trying to show you that is possible for a company to produce low quantities of a car just to have it out their to define their image, though I doubt this is the case here.

 

Low volume means higher total costs which makes the evo less profitable, lol ultimately the same principle...

(Fixed Costs + Profit)/(Sales Price - Variable Costs) = break/even

Jookies, I completely agree that it is possible, but I think Mitsubishi would have strayed away from the Evo line long ago if they were losing money, given their history over the past decade. Somehow, life found a way and we were graced with the VIII-X for a few good years

 

^ Agreed, especially @ the last paragraph.

I'm sure they make some sort of profit.

 

Sorry, but I see this as the likely option. Low volume, is because they can.. Its a top of the line car-- shared large parts components like chassis and a 10 year old engine design..etc...gets you to the high profit part easily. They didnt build this thing for 10 years on not make a good buck- Problem was the rest of the line didnt take off and they have lost market share--now the High-end cars can't support the low end high volume cars--as there is no volume on the low end for mitsu either. No volume= no market gains, no sales= no margin. Supply and demand 101.

 

I seem to recall MMA (Mitsubishi Motors Australia) were said to be paying around $18,000 / unit when the Evo 8's first landed in Australia.

 

Low volume = LOWER total costs.

The fewer you produce the less your total costs are. Did you mean low volume means higher average cost or higher marginal cost? And i wouldn't call that the "same" principle: volume will dictate costs and costs will dictate break even, but those are two different equations. i.e. that equation doesn't show costs being affected by volume.


Just some food for thought : http://www.pcworld.com/article/12790..._hardware.html It's hard to say how "profitable" the Evo may be without quantifying it's value to Mitsubishi's marketing efforts, it's helpfulness/relationship in R&D for other projects, it's cost's over time, etc etc etc etc etc etc. How much "profit" does a big pharma company many on a $100 bottle of pills? bla bla bla.