HAHAHA! Too funny!

Autoblog editing = fail.

↓↑report

I was trying to figure that out! I couldn't place the cars from the distant shot, I knew they weren't of the big 3.

Thank you!
Randy

P.S. FAIL on the Editor! ;)

↓↑report

And.. So will GM.

↓↑report

That won't work well with America's "I want it now" mentality. They want to drive it home that day, not wait for an order.

Now I 100% agree. I ordered my Suburban (took about 2 weeks to get it) because I wanted some very specific options that weren't in any of the dealer's standard order vehicles.

↓↑report

Ya, I figured the instant gratification bug would screw it up for most people.

↓↑report

+1...

I like the on-demand model for cars. Alot. BMW is an on-demand company actually. The reason why you see any Bimmers on lots is because the dealer bought them. BMW doesn't make a single car without an order. I'm pretty sure Porsche operates this way, as does Mini and the luxury marques.

Where I question the model is in lower-end purchases that cannot be marked up with options. For BMW et al the process is successful because people invariably want to option/customize their cars. Each custom feature can be marked up way over cost, so depending on its desirability can ensure profits. Nevertheless the wait on a custom BMW is usually 6-8 weeks, since there are only a few factories globally producing each model, and they have to be shipped to your local dealer.

For something like a 10k Versa, or a 15K Fit there isn't too much room for profitable options, since most buyers are looking to save on the overall cost. For these vehicles the only way to make on-demand work would be to de-centralize their manufacture, as to reduce shipping and wait times.

If a volume car like a Fit or Camry could be made profitably at multiple locations globally, with no loss in quality or profit then you would likely see the on-demand model spread like wildfire.

Remember the movie Minority Report? One good scene has Tom Cruise in a Lexus factory, right outside of DC. While it seemed like fantasy, that is the ideal most manufacturers are pursuing. Once a car can be made without the need for expensive tooling or a massive supply chain then the on-demand car becomes the norm, not the ideal.

↓↑report

I used to think that what we know in my homecountry is pretty normal around the world. I purchased my car with the exact specifications I wanted it to have and waited 3 months for it to be ready at the dealership. I didn't mind, as I said it is normal here.
When I started working for a International car import and export company I was very surprised to see the options in the US of A to be always in packages and not individual. This way the customer is kind of forced to choose one of maybe 4 or 5 different specifications and the dealer is able to have some stock of these.

An idea I would have is...

Why are Japanese, Chinese and Korean manufacturers so successful? (Don’t know about other countries but these jumps into my mind) Because the government promotes the local market by implying high import taxes on foreign cars, the locals would rather spend less and buy a local car in their country. And because other countries don’t do this so the cars can be sold around the world for a very low price. If for example the US and Europe would start with similar taxes, suddenly more people would be interested in purchasing a local produced vehicle, since the price issue would be evened out by this.

I didn’t think this out but in my head it would work, let me know what I didn’t consider.

↓↑report

Duh. You should be running America, CH.

↓↑report

@ CH:

Asian auto manufacturers are successful for a myriad of reasons, but high import duties aren't one of them. In Japan, new car purchases are down 33% since 1991, and thats with stiff tariffs.

Where Japan's profits have come is from creating localized bases for production, such as Honda's plant in Marysville Ohio, or another such plant in Swindon, England.

Tariffs lead to the exclusion of competition, which at the risk of sounding Keyesian, leads to lower standards of quality and increases monopolies. The Soviet Union has long been used as an example where exclusion failed. Who wants an AvtoVAZ Lada? Its a terrible car in comparison to even an Aveo.

Where tariffs have worked is where they are used in conjunction with policies that encourage foreign makers to build plants and spend on infrastructure. China has only recently dropped its legal requirement that all foreign brands need to partner with Chinese domestic brands. SAIC and GM are a good example. By working with SAIC, GM gained access to its distribution network which in turn allowed Buick to become a major player.

In Brazil, tariffs of over 35% on imported cars has forced anyone interested in that market to produce locally. As a result there is a healthy auto industry there, which actually produces cars adequate to Brazilian needs, instead of importing cars that would be irrelevant to Brazilian drivers. That means small cars with sturdy suspensions - entire model lines that wouldn't sell elsewhere, but are very profitable in Brazil.

Becoming exclusionist is a very negative policy, and does not benefit the consumer at all. However, using threat of exclusion through tariffs, while encouraging localized production actually improves both product and the consumer experience, while bringing in capital infrastructure improvements.

↓↑report

This is not an advantage over The Big J3 at all. Honda builds every car but the S2000 (low volume) and the Fit here. Once Toyota's Mississippi plant comes on line, all Toyota brand vehicles except the Yaris (simple) and the Land Cruiser (very low volume) will be built here in the US. Much the same with Nissan. US car companies used to, and still do in the truck segment, let you order a la carte. The Japanese pioneered bundeling everything into 2-4 option groups. Saves a lot of money when all cars on a given day can be built the same.

↓↑report

What would happen to all the high pressure car sales tactics? "What can we do to get you to drive it home today?"

The dealerships would NEVER accept this kind of plan. Most of them make a lot of money by pressuring people to take the car home with them and use the lure of the "new shiny car with that new car smell" to entice people to buy it today.

If the consumer knew it would take 2-4 weeks for the car to come in, there's plenty of time for buyer's regret to set in and for them to both shop around and to change thier minds.

I would be in favor of such a plan, but the scumbag dealerships will never accept it.

↓↑report

Who says the options have to be attached at the factory? A far better model would be one where the car is modular to the point that as long as it has power accessories and A/C everything else can be installed by the dealer. Want the fancy stereo? Simple. A sunroof? No problem. Fancy wheels? Gimme 20 minutes.

That way the manufacturer doesn't have to deal with making 100 different variations of the same car, the dealer gets additional work, and the customer gets what they want within 24-48 hours at the most.

This idea that options have to be installed by the factory is an antiquated one that has probably run it's course.

↓↑report

The concept of "on demand" manufacturing may not work for various reasons, some of which have been expressed here, but it's a damn fine idea, Seminole.

↓↑report

That is the "pull" method behind lean manufacturing concept and that is where the THREE have to go. Everyone says that the public was "demanding" large SUVs. I don't really think that is totally true. The companies were building so many of these things and pushing them onto the lots that the SUVs were the nicest of the vehicles and gas wasn't so expensive then so everyone said what the heck I'll buy an SUV. (I know -I did it)There never was a really nice midsize car to choose from. ( a Tarus was not a nice midsize- It's what I got at the rental counter) Also these companies could not survive if they sold more midsize cars- they have to sell the SUVs to meet the bills. Not much money in cars with their business model.

↓↑report

There are rumors that Pininfarina will sell its new electric vehicle B0 through the Internet because it doesn't have any dealerships.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/car_shopping/green_machines/2010_pininfarina_b0_electric_car_auto_shows

↓↑report

@Seminole

It typically takes 25-35 days to build a car start to finish, then another week to deliver it, if its domestic.

↓↑report

G Meister:

"Honda builds every car but the S2000 (low volume) and the Fit here. Once Toyota's Mississippi plant comes on line, all Toyota brand vehicles except the Yaris (simple) and the Land Cruiser (very low volume) will be built here in the US. "

You have no clue what you are talking about. Honda cannot even build enough Accords in the US to fulfill demand. In the recent past some have been imported from Japan and some from Mexico. Same goes for Corollas and Camry's. The Tacoma is partially built in Mexico, the 4 Runner and Highlander are built in Japan and are all hybrids. Over half of all Japanese-branded cars are made in Japan

↓↑report