![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
Im trying to find it.... it was an Autocar article interviewing Martin Winterkorn circa 2011/12bdr529 wrote:I'm only able to find an overall average of 18% , but nothing that brakes down profit by individual model,
It's not that I don't believe you, I can't imagine 60%, I just got to see where you read that.
bdr529 wrote:FoxHound please don't waste any time trying to find it, It's a Holiday weekend, we can look later
Explain this to the £100k buying public. Mclarens nomenclature systemology makes even worse sense, buy a 12C with 100bhp less for 50k less.Just_a_fan wrote:Of course, Porsche hasn't made a 911 in years. The 911 was last produced in 1989 which is when the 964 was started. Ever since then, "911" has been a marketing name.
No the 911 is the official name of the car. The 991 (latest version) is the internal designation, not external.Just_a_fan wrote:Of course, Porsche hasn't made a 911 in years. The 911 was last produced in 1989 which is when the 964 was started. Ever since then, "911" has been a marketing name.
And there is also a story that I cannot unfortunately link, from racer.com regarding the Porsche Boxster having a higher cost in bringing to market than a base 911....by $10K.According to Bernstein Research....
Developed on a "tiny budget" and virtually unchanged during the last two generations, "the 911 is outrageously profitable," Bernstein's Warburton writes. Some versions -- such as the 911 Turbo -- earn gross profits of over 75%, he estimates, in an industry where 5% is considered good.