Well, profitable in automotive means whatever a manufacturer wants it to mean, using levers including transfer pricing and cost assignment. But by any definition, I don't think it's possible to make a viable business out of one car model.
The large investment for a platform is recovered across many models, over many years, which allows them to be used in economic winners and losers alike. The efficiency that allows for low-profit lines also makes winners quite profitable. A one-model company might be able to invest in a good platform, but then it won't be very profitable. High profit could be had by forgoing platform investment, but then it's not a very viable business.
The Cayenne that made Porsche exceptionally successful, and the Macan and others that continue to fill the coffers, are possible only because they returned to their roots and leveraged the E36 M3 out of VW's platforms. I'm sure they had to cover their incremental part of the investment return, but that's a much smaller nut and IMO is probably what enables the investment in the sports cars.
The thing that is missing here is regulators. Most car companies have a broad array of products not just to appeal to different market segments, but also because various government regulators like to impose requirements across the entire fleet of vehicles that an automaker sells. CAFE is the most obvious of these -- if you sell 10 trucks which make 10 mpg and 10 compacts that make 50 mpg, you can average those together and meet a 30 mpg fleet average regulation (yeah, I know, it's more complicated than that, but this is the basic idea). In some cases those compacts are sold at a lower profit margin than might otherwise be required because selling them enables selling the SUV, and that one supports enough profit to make up for it. So you can't eliminate either of those lines, because the compacts won't make enough profit by themselves, and the government won't let you sell the SUVs by themselves.
Javelin said:
RyanGreener (Forum Supporter) said:
Porsche - Macan
Toyota - RAV4
Ford - F150
I think these explain themselves. #1 selling crossover, #1 selling pickup truck, and hugely popular sports car that the brand is known for.
Fixed that for you. Porsche sells more Macans than everything else combined.
Same story with Audi, they only need the Q5.
Come to think of it, I guess Porsche is more of an SUV brand now so I'd give that one to you, haha.
wake74
Reader
1/2/24 7:19 p.m.
I was shocked when I walked into my first Porsche dealership when we bought my wife's Macan and talked to a sales guy about how many "real" Porsche he sells verses "fake" Porsches. The simple truth is that Porsche would be in financial trouble wtihout the Cayenne and Macan. They sold roughly 10,000 911s in 2022 in the USA. They sold 45,000 Macan's and Cayenne's (24k and 21k) during that time period. I couldn't quickly find any data on margin per model, but it's probably decent given that they didn't have to build an engine plant.. I now own two Porsches, neither has a Porsche engine, so I know I'm not welcome at a PCA event :-)
The F150 is probably the correct answer to the question.
If you're looking for a very low volume "car" brand, peal, the tiny micro car guys could work, Theyve only got the p50, just with convertible and hardtop trims.
Porsche 911? No. Look up how many models of the 911 Porsche currently offer.
20+?
Profitable? Not really. They Cayenne, Boxter, and Panamera saved Porsche.
MINI only sold one model for the first few years until the Countryman was introduced. Previous models were essentially the same as the base hardtop R50 and R56 platforms. Granted, it was rumored that despite decent sales, MINI was never really profitable until the Countryman entered the lineup and the bean-counters have been streamlining the cars ever since in an effort to increase profit numbers. The main reason a la cart options are no longer a thing.
Jeep with the Wrangler and Ford with the F-150 are the most likely answers.
It's an interesting thought experiment because it requires rethinking the terms of what it means to be an automotive manufacturer and, ultimately, the point of commerce in a capitalist society. Could Porsche survive with only the 911? Sure, but at the expense of profitability requiring a restructuring of the corporation as a whole. Could ford survive with only the f150? Likely, but at the expense of global market shares and international influence. If companies dedicated themselves to a single model, they would have different influence and profitability in different demographics and consumer spheres. Similarly, if companies streamlined their products, they'd be more efficient. My personal opinion is that this would be good thing. Streamlining manufacturing would lead to greater efficiency and, thus, cheaper products without sacrificing quality. But the current climate suggests that doing so would eliminate corporate bloat, greed, and waste resulting in the elimination of entire departments and c-suite executives. I think this is a good thing and prioritizes both the worker and the consumer while deemphasizing the influence of the super wealthy that contribute little. It changes the focus from "how do we make money" to "how do we make good products"? Sorry, I didn't mean for this to turn into an entire thesis on labor, but here we are...
Every car company today has massive overhead that needs to be leveraged across multiple product lines. None of them could scale down effectively to one product line and remain profitable.
Now if you're talking about starting from scratch with a "blank sheet of paper" exercise, it seems like there's lots of opportunity. There are also a lot of people trying this, many of whom will fail for various reasons.
ShinnyGroove (Forum Supporter) said:
Every car company today has massive overhead that needs to be leveraged across multiple product lines. None of them could scale down effectively to one product line and remain profitable.
Now if you're talking about starting from scratch with a "blank sheet of paper" exercise, it seems like there's lots of opportunity. There are also a lot of people trying this, many of whom will fail for various reasons.
As someone else said, Tesla pretty much does this with their cars. Some of them just have different shapes. But I think you're also right in that some botique manufacturers like Lamborghini simply couldn't survive today without being propped up by bigger parent companies.
If I could federalize the Suzuki Jimni, I could make a comfortable living on one model. They just introduced a 4-door model, and they release special editions all the time. Add in upgrades, upfitting, accessories, and service, and I would happily be the US Jimni importer until I die or retire at 85 years old.
The local Midwest small town Ford dealer has on it's new car lot, 17 F150/250s, 6 Explores, 3 Broncos, 2 MustangEs and an Edge. Looks like they could make it with Pickups and Explorers.
