I have some questions: Does making a car model specifically aimed at the car enthusiast sell more cars? And the second question is whether racing sells cars? I am very sure that the answer to question one is yes and I'm not sure about the answer to the second question. Let me cite some examples of both questions.
The first example of making enthusiast cars and selling to a much broader market is obvious. It's BMW. That company was in real trouble in the early sixties. They escaped being absorbed into then Daimler-Benz and introduced their "neue classe" models. Nothing much happened immediately in the U.S. with those 4-door cars. But in 1966, they introduced the 1600 in the U.S. to very enthusiastic reviews in the enthusiast press. This was followed by the 2002 in 1968 to even better reviews. Does anyone remember David E. Davis' review in Car and Driver that started with "Open your hymnals to 2002..."?
That car was a revelation in the market. Suddenly huge power with no handling or braking didn't make much sense to enthusiasts. The marketing mantra of "bigger is better" didn't work with the 2002 either. Here was a car that was quick. It wasn't really fast compared to a GTO, for example, but given the right road, it was much quicker.
BMW never forgot that their market was enthusiasts at that time, as they modernized their models with the 5-series, then the 3-series. Momentum picked up with little marketing, but very vocal support from enthusiasts all over the world. Today BMW has built a reputation on being "the ultimate driving machine" which may be an exaggeration but not much. Those enthusiast cars are now being bought by far more "wannabe" enthusiasts than enthusiasts themselves. After all, "us enthusiasts" are a small minority in the car market; loud, but small. Also to BMW's credit is the fact that they have educated some consumers about what it is to be able to have a really good driving car, something which other manufacturers (with few exceptions) seem to think is unnecessary.
What other manufacturers have learned from this experience? Surprisingly with a case study this obvious, not many. There are two that I can think of though and one that really doesn't apply.
For a very long time now, both Subaru and Mitsubishi have said that their rally specials, the WRX and Evo didn't make sense for the U.S. market. The policy of the executives of those companies changed with the popularity of video games in the U.S. featuring those cars. Kids started asking why the cars weren't here. Why indeed! Yes, they were primarily designed for the right-hand-drive market in Japan, and therefore England as well, but since rallying wasn't even a blip on the sports market here, they felt that nobody would understand the cars. This is a classic example of ignoring the enthusiast.
Subaru was languishing in the market with boring looking and boring driving all-wheel-drive cars that sold a little in the snow market, but almost none elsewhere. Then in 2001, the WRX was shown at the LA Auto Show. Wowsers! Here was a car that would sell for about $25,000 and had 230 horsepower with all-wheel-drive to get it to the road. Yes, it still was an Impreza with its rather cheap interior and economy-car exterior. The WRX did get a huge hood scoop and optional rear spoiler though. Subaru was worried that nobody would be interested in the car, but the enthusiast market proved otherwise. In the first year, 1/3 of the Subarus sold were WRXes. If you look at Subarus on the road in LA, what do you see? Half of them (or more) are WRXes. One would assume that Subaru makes a profit on each one they sell. One also would assume that the buyer of the WRX wouldn't have bought another Subaru model. That's the kind of car a manufacturer wants to introduce.
It didn't take too long for Mitsubishi to look at the Subaru success and realize that their Evo could do nearly the same thing for them. The Lancer Evolution came to market with 270 horsepower, all-wheel-drive, and edgier handling than the WRX, and the mandatory big front and rear spoilers. It has a price tag of $29,000. It hasn't quite proved to be the success that the WRX was for Subaru, but still has brought lots of buyers into Mitsubishi showrooms who wouldn't have been there otherwise. I'd say it is good news for Mitsubishi. I'd also wonder why it took so long. The Evo marketed here is the seventh generation Evo.
With the higher horsepower Evo coming to Mitsubishi showrooms, Subaru responded with the WRX STi with 300 horsepower and a price tag of $31,000. The normal WRX is still there, so the enthusiast has a choice.
Are other people likely to buy these two Japanese models? Not likely as they are rather focused on their mission. But I'd say that the owners of them will be vocal about how good the cars are, which definitely means that their friends will hear that Subarus and Mitsubishis are good cars.
The one that really doesn't apply is the Lexus IS. This is an enthusiast model, but Toyota's philosophy about its introduction is very clear. They brought it to market as a niche product, not as an enthusiast product per se. It's for the enthusiast and the other Lexus models are for non-enthusiasts.
I think the case for bringing cars for enthusiasts to market makes sense for a manufacturer, but some don't understand that, or are unwilling to do so.
What about racing? Does being in racing attract customers? I don't think it does today. Yes, it does keep the enthusiasts happy, but it seems pretty expensive to do just that. Some manufacturers, like Honda explain that racing is more than marketing. Their explanation does make sense, but no other manufacturer uses the "Honda process". That process is for all their engineers to spend time on the racing teams. This trains them to realize that with finite budgets and strict schedules (there will be a race next Sunday whether you are ready or not), great things can be still be done. The pressures of working on a race team are directly translated into production schedules at Honda.
In Europe, manufactures say that participating in Formula 1 racing really does sell cars, and even if it doesn't, the TV coverage with huge audiences is good advertising. I wonder about that for a manufacturer like Ford. Their Jaguar team is always mid-pack. Does that say something about the production cars? These days Ferrari is at the top with Williams-BMW and McLaren Mercedes nipping at their heels. I can understand that if you are a winner, it is good for marketing. But if you're in last place, what does that say?
Would GM or Volkswagen sell more cars if they were in Formula 1? I don't think so.
Here in the U.S., car racing means NASCAR. In recent years, NASCAR seems to have gone from heavy manufacturer emphasis to more driver emphasis. You usually hear about which place a driver is rather than what manufacturer the car is. The bottom line here as I see it is that the Taurus is Ford's NASCAR racer, and the Monte Carlo is Chevrolet's. How well are they selling? Would they be selling any worse if they weren't in NASCAR.
Dodge recently rejoined NASCAR because supposedly it sold more cars. I really think that it was the egos of the executives that needed to compete with the other two Detroit products. But... there's another manufacturer entering the fray now. That's Toyota who now has a NASCAR truck. Can the premier series be next? Undoubtedly! I'd guess, however, that Toyota's rationale for going NASCAR racing isn't so much as selling cars as it is the necessity of being in a place where the other manufacturers are.
