I was noticing an advert in VW's "Incredible, but true" series which told me that the price of the cheapest Golf Plus was less than that of the cheapest Ford C-Max.
I checked and discovered that this was indeed true - but that the cheapest Golf Plus had a 0-60 time of 16.0 seconds - slower than any model that Ford sells in this country. In other words, the answer to the question "How do they sell them so cheap?" is "They put a pretty powerless engine in them." The conclusion I drew was that the more powerful an engine is, the more it costs to manufacture it.
Hence my question: Is this invariably true? And if so, why does it cost more (apparently significantly more) to manufacture a more powerful engine? The difference in cost of materials between, say a 1.4 engine and a 1.6 engine, must surely be negligible. Or is it that more powerful engines are inevitably so much more complex?
|
I'm sure, years ago, I saw a comment that the Ford Escort 1.3 engine was cheaper to make than the 1.1, as it was essentially the same but with different crank, con-rods and pistons. It was marginally cheaper as the con-rods were shorter, I think.
On car like BMW and Merc, many engines are the same size, but badged differently - ie BMW 318 and 320 are both 2 litre.
Merc's C200 and C220 diesels are both 2.2.
I also can't believe there's mcuh difference in the cost on a BMW 2.5L and 3.0L engine, yet there's a significant price difference.
I think it's interesting to look at European cars (like the BMW and Merc) in the US. They don't offer anything like the engine range we get - there's often only one or two engines sizes in each model range.
|
|
|
Hence my question: Is this invariably true? And if so, why does it cost more (apparently significantly more) to manufacture a more powerful engine? The difference in cost of materials between, say a 1.4 engine and a 1.6 engine, must surely be negligible. Or is it that more powerful engines are inevitably so much more complex?
It probably doesn't cost more to make a 1.8 engine than a 1.4 engine. It's the market: people are prepared to pay more for more power. And of course, the bigger the engine, the more desirable the car. Also, invariably the bigger the engine, the more toys you get. Hence you don't get a 2.0 base model or a 1.4 top of the range (although Vauxhall used to offer a 2.0L Cavalier)
The engines that i imagine would cost more (and somebody who knows what they're talking about may like to confirm or otherwise this) are turbo diesels which must cost more to produce slightly down to the increased number of bits and the return of the investment in the recent advances. Whether they're a £1,000 more is another thing.
|
It is a matter of marketing, in the 70's a 2.0 ltr Cortina had the same running gear as the 1.6, the engine had the same block with bigger holes in it and bigger pistons etc but the same number of components, it would have been cheaper to make only one engine option however the economy buyer is psychologically reassured that their choice is preferable (in this case the 1.6) by the existence of the more powerful engine (2.0), likewise the performance buyer is similarly reassured by the existance of the less powerful option.
It is the same mental process one goes though when chosing Heinz or Tesco beans or Shell or Tesco fuel.
|
|
Of course it was partly the down fall of BL, just think how many different engines they made between 1750 and 2300 cc in the late 70's.
|
|
|
You may well be right, cheddar, but it doesn't make sense to me.
When I buy beans, or even fuel, it may well work that way. I can only guess, based on hearsay or experience, whether the more expensive item is higher quality. If I didn't know, I might well opt to buy the more expensive item on the basis that "you get what you pay for."
But when it comes to car buying, I look at the numbers - cost, mpg, 0-60, whatever. If I was an economy buyer and two cars had the same cost and mpg but one went faster than the other, I certainly wouldn't opt for the less powerful engine - and I doubt that many other people would either.
Hence, to use my original example, surely, if it cost VW the same amount to put in a more powerful engine in its cheapest Golf Plus, then they could do so and advertise along the lines of "Incredible but true: Our cheapest Golf Plus is both cheaper and faster than the cheapest Ford C-Max."
Or am I wrong?
|
Or am I wrong?
Reckon so, cos there will be a significant % of Golf Plus buyers who will pay £1000, £2000 or whatever extra for the more powerfull engine.
|
With a 0-60 time of 16 seconds I would pay 1000's extra too!
|
|
|
|
|
The engines that i imagine would cost more (and somebody who knows what they're talking about may like to confirm or otherwise this) are turbo diesels which must cost more to produce slightly down to the increased number of bits and the return of the investment in the recent advances. Whether they're a £1,000 more is another thing.
I have been told by someone who would know that diesel engines do indeed cost more to produce than petrols. The manufacturers pass some of this additional cost on to the customer in higher prices but not all - the difference in cost to produce is greater than £1,000.
|
|
|
|
I would guess (not just at random but because of experiencing the snowballing expenses of tuning in the past) that while the basic block may be the same and probably contain more than enough meat, higher power may require beefed up items - valves, pistons, con-rods, crankshafts even - whether in terms of the amount of material or the quality, or both, and look much the same outside.
Which costs.
|
These days it dont cost. Manufacturers can vary horsepower by 60bhp just by changing the chip.
|
"Manufacturers can vary horsepower by 60bhp just by changing the chip".
Very true, more especially with turbo charged engines. But stresses go up however the power goes up
|
6 cylinders will cost more than four
DOHC will cost more than SOHC
V engines cost (much!) more than straight engines
Turbo engines cost more than naturally aspirated
Intercoolers cost more
But, if you are comparing two engines which share the same block, and sufficient engineering effort was expended to drive out needless cost at the design stage, the cost diference between the two will be negligible.
Engine size is a very sucessful marketing tool!
Number_Cruncher
|
But, if you are comparing two engines which share the same block, and sufficient engineering effort was expended to drive out needless cost at the design stage, the cost diference between the two will be negligible. Engine size is a very sucessful marketing tool! Number_Cruncher
I think your right there NC
That?s why I sometimes think that those people who buy one of the smaller engined cars in a range, often get the best value (even if performance is limited)
As a quick example, in 1991, VW charged £500 for an extra 232cc in their Polos. The only difference between the 1.05 and 1.3 was the crank, conrods and valves. No difference in technology, just different specifications. There's probably worse examples than that, but its the only one I have to hand.
|
Ford on the other hand offered a range of engines in their Escorts for the same price about 5 or 6 years ago.
IIRC you could buy the 1.3, 1.4 or 1.6 for the same price. I would guess most peoples' inclination would have been to go for the bigger engine, provided they could afford the insurance.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't forget that less power and speed may mean less robust thus cheaper transmission systems, less powerful braking systems and cheaper wheels and tyres.
|
Don't forget that less power and speed may mean less robust thus cheaper transmission systems, less powerful braking systems and cheaper wheels and tyres.
I suspect the cost of making each gearbox across say, the Focus range will be fairly close.
Castings will almost certainly cost much the same regerdless of model.
Components will all be produced to the same specifications, tolerances etc by the subcontractors, so the only cost variation between certain types of components (machined gears for example) will depend on possibly size and number of teeth, neither of which would be expected to incurr increased costs as you go up the model range.
Indeed the gears are probably the best gearbox components to base my point, as they will undoubtedly be the most expensive components in the box. Having worked for a hoist manufacturer producing hoist gearboxes, I know what goes into them in terms of machine time.
Manufacturers will use the same range of bearings within the boxes, and will most likely use fewer part numbers than simple engineering justification would determin. This keeps inventory down thus saving more money. For example, a thrust bearing specified in a gearbox to be fitted to the most powerful model may be fitted throughout the range at a slightly higher unit cost than say a cheaper alternative that would provide a satisfactory solution to the base model. Why? because keeping stocks of one part number reduces logistics costs and inventory.
Hence, as with the engine manufacture, I don't see gearboxes varying in cost by that much, if at all.
Braking systems - replacing one size of disk with another - no real cost difference. Ditto with pads, calipers etc of similar designs. Indeed you sometimes find with some makes that the higher spec brakes have been fitted to lower spec cars, just to keep production up in the face of components shortages. The only cost difference here is where there is a fundemental difference in the specs - such as between drum and disc brakes. Even then the cost per unit is probably in 2 figures.
Cheaper wheels and tyres - Hmmm. The cost of the tyres will depend on what prices they have agreed with the tyre manufacturers. Due to purchasing power and other commercial factors the "more expensive" tyre may be available to the manufacturer for less money than the cheaper units.
The wheels themselves will not vary in cost by a great deal provided you stick to the same manufacturing process. Hence a set of 13 inch steels will probably cost the same as a set of 14 inch steels. However alloys would represent a cost difference compared to steels.
Oddly enough though, you may find that the cost of producing the alloys does not always reflect in their respective retail prices.
A car is and has for many years been excellent value for money in engineering terms. However MRPs are market driven and NOT cost driven. A 1.4 will sell for more than a 1.3 but the chances are they've similar gearboxes, braking systems, wheels and tyres. The difference is justified by market forces.
Only when you go to the V6 varient will you actually be getting an engine that costs a serious amount of extra to produce. They'll be more casting, machining, assembly and components. In addition you'll get disks all round, leather upholstry, alloy wheels etc. All accessories that will cost extra to bring to sale but at a fraction (and I mean a fraction) of the extra you are charged.
Market forces at work
|
|
|
|
