I think Mike is right, why would they do it on purpose, simple economics
tells you they could've made a lot more money off selling thousands of
RT's at a small profit than selling 2000 at a large profit, I think they
were just caught with their pants down, demand for 5.9 vehicles was larger
than they anticipated, and they felt it was better to give the engines
they had to the established lines rather than to the new RT which might
flop and not sell anything so they would've been stuck with a shortage of
5.9's for their other lines which people were waiting for, and they
would've had a buch of RT's they couldn't unload... In other words
instead of gambling by sending the limited materials to an untried
product, they took the safe way out and allocated the materials to the
products they new would sell.....Just my opinion....
Bruce
>
> At 06:30 PM 3/19/98 , you wrote:
>
> >I just can't figure out why they are doing this. I've taken both AP
> >Economics and now microeconomic theory, and I know of no justifiable reason
> >to do this.
>
> I know that this is a frustrating experience for those of you who were/are
> wanting to get a R/T, but to be fair, I doubt that this is something that
> CC either planned or wanted to happen. Something like this can only cause
> anger and bitterness, so why would they intentionally do that? To make a
> few extra bucks on 2000 trucks? I doubt it. It's probably just the way
> things worked out and they are trying to make the best of the situation.
> I'm sure there must be more to this than has been kicked around in the
> list. Also, if you look back in the history of _any_ car company, you
> will find this same kind of snafu, especially with specialty vehicles like
> the R/T.
> Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
>
> --
> Mike Crumley mcrumley@airmail.net
> 97 Dakota Regular Cab Short Bed
> 3.9L V6 3.55 Auto
> DDBC Bug Shield Mud Flaps
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:08:27 EDT