Honda CR-Z Moving Well At Dealers, Defying Expectations

[MikeCR-Z]

Honda CR-Z Moving Well At Dealers, Defying Expectations

A large majority of the automotive community decried the Honda CR-Z as neither fish nor fowl, a sporty hybrid that didn’t do anything well. Some even predicted this car to be Honda’s downfall, after having finally lost their way, two decades after producing the sporty and efficient Honda CRX.

In any case, it turns out that the haters were wrong – for now at least. Honda’s CR-Z is actually one of the quickest moving cars on dealer lots, taking an average of 5 days to sell. The 2011 Jetta Sportwagen, a car that was supposedly waitlisted this time last year, took almost double that, with an average of 9 days.

The biggest loser was, not surprisingly, the Mitsubishi Lancer Sportback, with an average sale time of 207 days! If you want to drive a hard bargain, get to your nearest Mitsubishi showroom.

Article Found At: Honda CR-Z Moving Well At Dealers, Defying Expectations | AutoGuide.com News

[David_PA]

Thanks for the article, Mike! Good to know and glad the auto press is so far wrong. Not sure what their problem is, except that maybe they're slow to recognize a good new thing.

The strong early sales trend is confirmed at my local Honda dealership, which had 3 CR-Zs in stock that have now all sold - in 3 weeks. The silver CVT I looked at on Thursday, but wasn't going to buy because I want a manual, sold either Sunday or Monday. Waiting for more stock to come in, I'm hoping including manuals.

[crzsuzuka]

That is just too funny! They all tried to hurt Honda's image and yet the CR-Z is on top!

[TCroly]

This was an absurd conclusion based on faulty information. They concluded that since during the last week of August the CRZs that sold, had, only been on the dealer's lots for an average of 5 days and that this was an indication that the CRZ was selling well.

As we all know, the CRZ only went on sale on August 24, therefore there was only the possibility that a car could have been on the dealers lot for a maximum of 7 days by months end. So the 684 CRZs that sold during the month of August, had on average, only been on their dealers lots for 5 days. Duh! Obviously, comparing the CRZs sales in August on this basis with any other car on the market is not a fair comparison.

This was truly an example of sensationalized journalism to the max.

[David_PA]

Originally Posted by TCroly

This was an absurd conclusion based on faulty information. They concluded that since during the last week of August the CRZs that sold, had, only been on the dealer's lots for an average of 5 days and that this was an indication that the CRZ was selling well.

As we all know, the CRZ only went on sale on August 24, therefore there was only the possibility that a car could have been on the dealers lot for a maximum of 7 days by months end. So the 684 CRZs that sold during the month of August, had on average, only been on their dealers lots for 5 days. Duh! Obviously, comparing the CRZs sales in August on this basis with any other car on the market is not a fair comparison.

This was truly an example of sensationalized journalism to the max.

Not sure why this is sensational journalism. It's not ironclad proof of strong sales, but the report does indicate some degree of sales strength.

If CR-Z sales on average took more than 7 days, it's not clear that the CR-Z would have shown up at all in this report, because on average it wouldn't have sold in August. So, the fact that it's in the report at all is one sales strength indicator. To show up the CR-Z had to move quickly, in 7 days or less. It did - in five days or less.

The article also says that overall sales had to meet a certain threshold, which the CR-Z did. So, even if the overall sales requirement was adjusted for the CR-Z because it was only on lots 7 days, it sold a relatively high number.

It can be argued that it may not have sold as fast if it had been there 31 days. But, for all we know, if it had been on lots for longer than 7 days in August, it could have still sold on average in 5 days - or faster. There's no way to conclude either is more likely.

All we have to go on is that it DID sell on average in 5 days in August. That looks pretty strong ... but, it's only 1 month and not very conclusive. September sales will tell a lot more.

[TCroly]

Originally Posted by David_PA

Not sure why this is sensational journalism. It's not ironclad proof of strong sales, but the report does indicate some degree of sales strength.

If CR-Z sales on average took more than 7 days, it's not clear that the CR-Z would have shown up at all in this report, because on average it wouldn't have sold in August. So, the fact that it's in the report at all is one sales strength indicator. To show up the CR-Z had to move quickly, in 7 days or less. It did - in five days or less.

The article also says that overall sales had to meet a certain threshold, which the CR-Z did. So, even if the overall sales requirement was adjusted for the CR-Z because it was only on lots 7 days, it sold a relatively high number.

It can be argued that it may not have sold as fast if it had been there 31 days. But, for all we know, if it had been on lots for longer than 7 days in August, it could have still sold on average in 5 days - or faster. There's no way to conclude either is more likely.

All we have to go on is that it DID sell on average in 5 days in August. That looks pretty strong ... but, it's only 1 month and not very conclusive. September sales will tell a lot more.

I think you missed the entire point. It would have been impossible for the CRZ's average days on the lot to be greater than 7. No matter how many were sold.

There are many other cars that are basically on eternal backorder. Many past Hondas like the S2000 in it's first few years, were like that. As soon as a car arrived it went out the door. The CRZs arrived en mass on Lots for an August 24 introduction. The vast majority of those cars are still sitting on the dealers lots today. This is not an indication of a fast selling car.

Using the first week of a new model's sales as a guide of how quickly then cars are selling is just plain stupid. There really is no other way to put it. Now, whether 687 cars sold in the first week is good or bad is a matter of perspective. But to say that the cars that sold in the first week, sold in an average of 5 days on the lot, make this the fastest selling car on the market is purely sensationalism or is just someone who doesn't understand the statistic they are referencing. In which case it is just ignorance.

The CRZ media blitz began yesterday, There are at least 2000 CRZs on lots today, we will see if Honda can meet it's modest sales goal of 15,000 CRZs a year by months end.

[David_PA]

Originally Posted by TCroly

I think you missed the entire point. It would have been impossible for the CRZ's average days on the lot to be greater than 7. No matter how many were sold.

If the average number of days on the lot in August for the CR-Z was 7, that would mean none sold, since it couldn"t have been more than 7. But, with the average at 5, and those that didn't sell at 7, many sold in less than five days. Maybe they were back orders selling, maybe not.

Using the first week of a new model's sales as a guide of how quickly then cars are selling is just plain stupid. There really is no other way to put it. Now, whether 687 cars sold in the first week is good or bad is a matter of perspective. But to say that the cars that sold in the first week, sold in an average of 5 days on the lot, make this the fastest selling car on the market is purely sensationalism or is just someone who doesn't understand the statistic they are referencing. In which case it is just ignorance.

It's early data, but still data. We've both said it may not hold up. But, we don't know either way.

The CRZ media blitz began yesterday, There are at least 2000 CRZs on lots today, we will see if Honda can meet it's modest sales goal of 15,000 CRZs a year by months end.

687 * 52 = 35,724. So, sales of 687 a week would be more than welcome. We don't know how many CR-Zs sold in September, but if it's anywhere close to 687 per week, and 2000 are unsold, that means about half of those that have shown up since 8/24 have sold. That would be good.

My main point was that the August sales rate report is on balance more of a strong indicator than not. But, I was careful not to read too much into and said

... but, it's only 1 month and not very conclusive. September sales will tell a lot more.

[TCroly]

Originally Posted by David_PA

If the average number of days on the lot in August for the CR-Z was 7, that would mean none sold, since it couldn"t have been more than 7. But, with the average at 5, and those that didn't sell at 7, many sold in less than five days. Maybe they were back orders selling,

I am honestly not trying to pick a fight with you over this, but I don't think you are interpreting the statistic correctly.

Kicking tires says, " The Movers and Losers list reports the average number of days it takes to sell models from the day they arrive on the lot until the final paperwork is signed by a buyer. This is not a days-of-inventory list like you may find on other sites."

I interpret this to mean that they are only including the time it took to sell the cars that actually sold. Not an average of the time the all cars have been on the lot.

Again with a maximum on the lot time of 7 days for all cars, to say that the average of the cars that sold was 5 days means more cars took 6 or 7 days to sell than sold in the first 2 days. And the ones that sold in the first week had generally been ordered months before, like my car was.

We both agree that it too soon to draw conclusions, but the article that this thread is based on is just plain wrong and very misleading.

[David_PA]

Originally Posted by TCroly

I am honestly not trying to pick a fight with you over this, but I don't think you are interpreting the statistic correctly.

Kicking tires says, " The Movers and Losers list reports the average number of days it takes to sell models from the day they arrive on the lot until the final paperwork is signed by a buyer. This is not a days-of-inventory list like you may find on other sites."

I interpret this to mean that they are only including the time it took to sell the cars that actually sold. Not an average of the time the all cars have been on the lot.

Again with a maximum on the lot time of 7 days for all cars, to say that the average of the cars that sold was 5 days means more cars took 6 or 7 days to sell than sold in the first 2 days. And the ones that sold in the first week had generally been ordered months before, like my car was.

We both agree that it too soon to draw conclusions, but the article that this thread is based on is just plain wrong and very misleading.

Thanks for bringing the temperature down ...

I don't think we know enough to know how to interpret it.

If a large portion of the first week's sales are back orders, then you would be correct in saying the article read too much into the weekly sales report. But, I don't know how you would know that. If you have that information, please say how you got it.

If a major portion sold not as back orders, that of course would mean a lot more about the sales rate being strong. Cars selling in five days is good.

I agree that the article title could wind up being incorrect. But, it could wind up correct.

If I'd written the title, it would have been, "August sales for the newly-introduced CR-Z may indicate it will be more popular than it's early press predicted", with a caveat in the article body that September sales numbers and rate would provide much more clarity.

I'll admit a bias in liking the article title - that I think is at least amusing even if it doesn't turn out to be warranted - because the auto press I think (we think on this forum, yes?) got it wrong about the CR-Z.

to say that the average of the cars that sold was 5 days means more cars took 6 or 7 days to sell than sold in the first 2 days

I don't understand where you are going with this. It's correct, but taking 6 or 7 days to sell is still quick (and high on the chart) ... and the average wasn't 6 or 7, it was 5.

[TCroly]

Originally Posted by David_PA

Thanks for bringing the temperature down ...

I don't think we know enough to know how to interpret it.

If a large portion of the first week's sales are back orders, then you would be correct in saying the article read too much into the weekly sales report. But, I don't know how you would know that. If you have that information, please say how you got it.

If a major portion sold not as back orders, that of course would mean a lot more about the sales rate being strong.

I can base this on my 9 months on this message board. There are many of us who placed our CRZ orders many months ago.

The coming of the CRZ has been well publicized by the automotive press for 3years, since the concept made it's debut at the Tokyo Auto show in 2007.

There definitely was some pent up demand for the car by car nuts like many of us. But having said that, I have bought a number cars at their debut and they have always been in great demand at debut and it has usually been impossible to get one without a long wait after debut. The CRZ is available all over the place and dealers have generally not sold the cars they got 3 weeks ago. This is based on checking the online inventories of a couple dozen or so dealers I typically check, and those listed on autotrader and cars.com.

I don't understand the defensiveness on this message board about the popularity of the CRZ. For me, I am not bothered in anyway if the CRZ fails in the market. Many of the all time great cars failed in the marketplace. Back in 1966, Shelby was trying to give away cobras, today their are worth $500,000 to $1,000,000. The often market doesn't know great cars until their gone.