Question Of The Day: WHY Is Everyone So Stupid And SURPRISED The Infiniti Q50 Eau Rouge Would Cost OVER $100k?

Question Of The Day: WHY Is Everyone So Stupid And SURPRISED The Infiniti Q50 Eau Rouge Would Cost OVER $100k?
If there's one thing I hate, it's stupid people. You know, the folks that cruise well BELOW the speed limit in the left lane, loud talkers and people that just don't "get it." Although I LOVE some of you Spies, some of you fall into that category.

That's because when I saw Agent 009 post about the Infiniti Q50 Eau Rouge CONCEPT car this past week and that it COULD cost upwards of $100,000 per unit, there was a lot of negative discussion.

Why?

The CONCEPT vehicle essentially is a Nissan GT-R that's be put into the Q50's body. Being that it's a Q50 though it will feature slightly better trimming — the GT-R is quite Infiniti-like as is — and room for four, while the GT-R is a two plus none. And, if you click "Read Article" below and see Johan de Nysscen's comments, it's VERY clear it will be a reskinned GT-R IF it becomes reality. Production of 250-500 units — GT-R sells about 1,000 units in the U.S. annually — "hand built," etc.

Of course the cherry on top is that, frankly, NOTHING will perform even close to this because as we've seen with the GT-R, it blows away most exotics. It's funny how MT brings up the M3 because in all honesty if this is what we're expecting, nothing will hold a candle to it except possibly the new Corvette Z06 and high-end supercars.

So, I have to ask: "WHY is everyone SO SURPRISED about the possibility the Q50 will cost upwards of $100,000?"

Read Article

skytopskytop - 6/8/2014 7:22:25 PM
+2 Boost
What give you the right to insult your readers by calling them all stupid?
Is decency and civility totally dead in this crumbling country?


Agent00RAgent00R - 6/8/2014 11:41:49 PM
+3 Boost
@skytop, give it a rest.

If you actually read all the comments on threads that come in here on AutoSpies, me calling out people for being stupid is, by comparison, kind.

In addition, it's tiresome to continually have to hand hold. Although de Nysschen answered MT's stupid question if it's an M3 competitor, the reality is it won't be. Not only based on price, but based on the fact it will be a reskinned GT-R that will produce numbers that will SHRED the M3 — and its peers — to pieces.

Once again, this is assuming this CONCEPT becomes reality.


MattDarringerMattDarringer - 6/8/2014 7:42:01 PM
+1 Boost
We're not "stupid and surprised" at the $100K price but annoyed that the car will look like a $40K Q50.


JDMUSMuscleJDMUSMuscle - 6/9/2014 12:09:26 AM
+4 Boost
The S class starts at around 100k or less.

The S65 AMG goes all the way up to 230k.

You drive an AMG model, but it still looks like a base S class, for those who have untrained eyes.

Conclusion: More like, why do you care so much? Can you afford a 100k car?


arrowmgarrowmg - 6/10/2014 10:33:50 AM
+2 Boost
But you're not upset that the M3 looks like a $35k 320something, or that the M5 Looks like a $50k 528????


cidflekkencidflekken - 6/8/2014 8:12:09 PM
0 Boost
So much to comment. So little time. Bottom line: as if selling the GT-R under the Nissan moniker at a close-to exotic-car price weren't bad enough, pricing this M3 competitor (as personally declared by Nissan themselves) at an M5/E63/RS7 price is just nonsense. That's called common sense, really. The least they could have done was put an Infiniti M body on the darn thing and maybe that might have made more sense.



Agent00RAgent00R - 6/8/2014 11:46:44 PM
+3 Boost
Infiniti M, surely you jest...

Here's the funny thing: although the Nissan GT-R originally retailed at $68k and now is over $100k, the reality is it's a performance bargain. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

So, why is it "bad enough" that Nissan is selling a six figure product that blows away vehicles priced 2x, 3x, etc.?


JDMUSMuscleJDMUSMuscle - 6/8/2014 11:56:38 PM
+1 Boost
Don't worry, agent. A moron can never understand.


cidflekkencidflekken - 6/9/2014 1:11:40 AM
+2 Boost
I stated it was a mistake for the GT-R to be sold as a Nissan because it should have been sold as an Infiniti. Infiniti needed a halo car to bolster its performance credentials. Today, it's relying on a car that starts in the mid $30's to practically carry the brand. At the very least, a true 4-door version of the GT-R should be the halo car, not a car wrapped in a $30k body. At least the M is recognized as a higher-level Infiniti model.




cidflekkencidflekken - 6/9/2014 2:08:27 AM
+2 Boost
Let me just add that this. Nissan's pricing strategy with the original US GT-R was pure brilliance, tbh. No, I still don't agree that it wasn't sold as an Infiniti, but pricing the GT-R originally below $75k while blowing the doors off almost anything else on the road was strategic genius. Look where they are now with a car that starts above $100k. Nissan needed to get the public's buy-in to the product first against the competition, then gradually build up the price. There was even a separate thread started on here by one of the Agents on that exact topic and that Agent even made the comment that they didn't know how Nissan made any money on the GT-R before.

IMO, if they did anything with this Eau Rouge, a similar pricing strategy might make more sense. With Infiniti's sales struggles these days and even identity struggles (remember that White HOuse incident where almost every news outlet called the G coupe a Lexus), maybe a bargain M5/E63 competitor would be more helpful to the brand.

Regarding the current car and its strategy, had Nissan stated that the C63 Black Series was its intended competition, that would create zero argument from me. Both are low-volume, ultra-high-performance cars, based on more modest cars, starting in six-figures.


JDMUSMuscleJDMUSMuscle - 6/9/2014 2:26:08 AM
+2 Boost
Oh, you want some cheapened out GT-R from Infiniti, then? I don't think so.

Go big, or go home. If it fails, then that is all. But I don't see how this can be a fail, when this will be a limited production model?


cidflekkencidflekken - 6/9/2014 2:36:07 AM
+2 Boost
One more additional comment. I'm more questioning the strategy than the product. Yes, knowing it's basically a 4-door GT-R justifies the price. But, the real question is, is this the right strategy for what Infiniti needs today? Will a low-volume car see enough street time for people to notice and be driven to Infiniti?

Look what Cadillac did with the second generation CTS-V. They priced it right inline with the M3 and C63, but outperformed both. Later comparisons made the CTS-V look like an absolute performance bargain against the M5 and E63 and the car was only compared to that level of car going forward. That bolstered Cadillac's reputation like crazy. And the fact was, the CTS-V used the Z06 engine. AND, I saw almost as many CTS-V sedans and coupes as I did regular CTSs on the road.


JDMUSMuscleJDMUSMuscle - 6/9/2014 3:08:19 AM
-2 Boost
That, only time will tell.

But one thing is clear. Infiniti needs something big. Real big.


Agent00RAgent00R - 6/9/2014 6:48:33 AM
+1 Boost
@cid

You bring up a lot of good points. BUT, I think it's pretty clear that the reason why Nissan gradually raised the price was to get more margin out of the GT-R.

What would be interesting to know is how much — if any — $$$ was made per unit of the GT-R since it started at $68k and wound up at $101k.

You mention the strategy being the problem. I don't think what's being said here in the MT interview is the real strategy. Let's be honest, the car companies never want to be straightforward w/ journos. It's happened to me and just about everyone out there.

It's clear that MT asked what I believe is a stupid question about it competing with the M3. de Nysschen provided more than enough hints if it's produced it will be a reskinned GT-R and said it would be an M3 competitor. But do you HONESTLY think the GT-R and M3/M4 go head-to-head? No, of course not.


JDMUSMuscleJDMUSMuscle - 6/8/2014 9:53:01 PM
-4 Boost
Don't be surprised too much, agent. Those Euro badgewhore morons somehow believe that Infiniti can never be priced over 100k.


cidflekkencidflekken - 6/8/2014 10:51:32 PM
+1 Boost
No, moron. We're saying an Infiniti dressed up in a shell that starts in the mid-$30k's that is intended to compete with cars starting at around $60-$70k shouldn't be priced over $100k. Don't try out for any rocket scientist position anytime soon.


JDMUSMuscleJDMUSMuscle - 6/8/2014 11:52:31 PM
+2 Boost
Don't call me a moron, highschool dropout kid.

When the GT-R itself costs more than 100k, even though the car still received the "Nissan" badge, it still did well in terms of sales number and there are even GT-Rs that cost well over 200k, which were called GT-R Egoist.

You are basically thinking that since Infiniti's reputation is not as great as other German competitors, it needs to lower the price to match.

And that is why you are a moron. Only a few of those will be built, and you don't just make a cheapened out GT-R for their own luxury brand, how stupid can you be, seriously?

And Mercedes S class starts out at around 100k, and yet, it goes all the way up to 250k, with their AMG variant. And now Mercedes wants to extend the S class all the way to as a Rolls-Royce rival. Don't you think that is quite a stretch, considering the fact that the S class is meant to compete with the cars like 7 series? A8?

Seriously, think before you post something...oh wait, you usually never do.


cidflekkencidflekken - 6/9/2014 1:40:34 AM
+1 Boost
Where did I mention anything about Infiniti's reputation vs its German competitors. Oh, that's right, nowhere. Learn to read.

Regarding the S-Class example, it's not a fair comparison. You can't just take what is considered to be the benchmark luxury flagship, with an already-proven record of performing at its respective price ranges over decades, and compare it to what Infiniti wants to do with its entry-level luxury offering. At the same time, Mercedes isn't making declarations that its intended target competition as the 5 Series, whose base price is approx 40% lower.

Had Infiniti stated that the M5 and E63 were the intended targets, then that might be a bit more reasonable and understandable. I'd still be confused as to why they would use the Q50 body, but at least from a pricing standpoint, it makes more sense. Stating that the M3 is its targeted bogey, gives me pause when it comes to Infiniti's strategy here.


JDMUSMuscleJDMUSMuscle - 6/9/2014 2:21:31 AM
0 Boost
So, who said Infiniti can not use the body of Q50? Just because that is how the Germans do does not mean the Japanese must follow the same strategy.

And once again, this is not the only model that will receive the GT-R engine as they say, and no one really knows how much it will really be in the end, so you should stop worrying about it so much. It's not like Infiniti needs you for that matter as well.

If they fail with it, then that is just that. But for now, the way I see it, Infiniti needs this.


infiniti_G35cinfiniti_G35c - 6/9/2014 1:06:45 AM
0 Boost
While I think $100k is expensive and may not appeal to everyone, knocking the Ea Rouge for being in a "$30k car shell" has no merit whatsoever. The M3 is an $80k performance version of a $35k car in itself and the M3 has managed to be a very well-respected car in its class.


cidflekkencidflekken - 6/9/2014 1:13:18 AM
+1 Boost
The M3 starts at $62k not $80k.


quizzquizz - 6/9/2014 5:43:20 AM
+1 Boost
What do you mean "everyone"? It was your very own Agent 009 who posted that Infinity was "Out of Their FREAKING Minds..." with the emphasis on FREAKING in all caps, I might add. So your own people start stirring the pot, and then you pile on with insults? Talk about a shameless setup... you guys are unbelievable.


Agent00RAgent00R - 6/9/2014 6:38:54 AM
+1 Boost
Firstly, he didn't state Infiniti was out of its minds. He was asking YOU to weigh in. Nothing wrong with asking a question to take user's temperature.

Secondly, even if 009 is saying they are out of their minds, doesn't mean I have to agree with him. This isn't a unified effort. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion. That's why it's an opinion.

Pile on the insults? Man, you guys are soft.


rumnycrumnyc - 6/9/2014 6:17:27 AM
+3 Boost
while everyone here argues about nissan's strategy, I think the car will be a sellout. its low production and a step up for the soft-core gt-r owners and enough of them will buy everyone last one on sale in the USA.

the german car snobs (myself included--on my 4 BMW) won't buy it but we are not the target audience and probably couldn't get on the dealers priority list anyways.

too many people here try to think every sales strategy somehow applies to them and then are eager to call it a failure when it doesn't match their plans.


JDMUSMuscleJDMUSMuscle - 6/9/2014 6:47:54 AM
0 Boost
Well said. I actually doubt this car is for the people who usually prefer the European automobiles. But around 500~1000 of them being made, I mean, how can it NOT sell, you know?


Agent00RAgent00R - 6/9/2014 6:50:51 AM
+1 Boost
Agree. Well said!

Welcome to the self-entitled, Facebook generation!


autobrokerautobroker - 6/9/2014 10:00:13 AM
0 Boost
I think it is crazy to pay that much for the same body Q50 even if they dress up the exterior and interior and add the typical suspension, wheel, brakes, etc. in addition to the great engine. First, let's compare not just the M3, but the new upcoming C63 and even the C63 Black Series. That upcoming model is a far nice base car than the Q50 technologically speaking, much better interior, prestige, etc. Exterior tastes is a matter of opinion, but I think the C Class looks better also, like a smaller S Class. So back to the comparison, the C63 will probably be well under $100,000 even well optioned. Which would you rather have? The C63 will have a very powerful engine also, and should at least keep pace with the $100K Q50. Unless you are a race car driver and make your living wanting to race this car, which you won't, then there's no comparison. You have a better looking, much better interior, superior quality M-B for similar or less money fully optioned. Nissan even acknowledged that the car would be in small numbers, so they are spreading that high cost among far fewer units, so that's the reason for the high cost, not that it's worth it.


rumnycrumnyc - 6/9/2014 9:51:39 PM
+3 Boost
again completely missing the point. this car would run circles around an m3/c63 just like the gt-r runs circles around porsche 911s. however, porsches and gt-rs continue to keeps selling in healthy numbers because some people want value (even on 100k cars). clearly you would chose m3/3/c63 because you value creature comforts/tech and the brand values more than per but there will be many who would consider this a 'steal' at 100k and rip apart all the m4/c63 owners at the stop light (or track).


iamdabest1iamdabest1 - 6/10/2014 9:03:19 AM
+2 Boost
i just think this car looks like a beefed up q50 and thats the problem with the 100k price, had they released the essence concept with gtr performance, the 100k price would just make more sense.


autobrokerautobroker - 6/10/2014 9:12:46 AM
+1 Boost
rumnyc, the upcoming C63 is rumored to have "well north" of the 450hp and the Black Series about 100hp more than that. Also, the C Class's weight was reduced from the predecessor by 250 lbs and the C63 will have a twin turbo V6 vs the old model V8 further reducing weight for the model. I believe the C63 will be within a few tenths of a second to 60 mph, and the Black Series will be on par with the Q50 GTR if not a little faster. There's no comparison in the cars. I'd love to have either if given to me, don't get me wrong, but if it's my money to spend, the Merc wins hands down in every measurement. The weight of the car with the big engine will suffer some and sure to affect handling with the weight bias towards the front. Infiniti should have designed a sleeker new 4 door body IMO if they want to create a 4 door GTR, then audiences may be more accepting, but not the same body with a body kit, upgrades, to moving parts, and the GTR engine.


arrowmgarrowmg - 6/10/2014 11:12:21 AM
+1 Boost
Im mot seeing the c-class over the G35/Q50 ever. In fact the c-class has always been the quality and performance laggard for the last 10 years now -almost like a lexus ES. And what's funny is afyer saying all of that you'd buy a C63 black edition based on a $32k c-class shell, but not the eau rouge for the same


arrowmgarrowmg - 6/10/2014 11:14:50 AM
+1 Boost
*not; *after; *eau rouge for the same reasons? Smartphone Keyboard typos.


autobrokerautobroker - 6/10/2014 3:35:38 PM
+1 Boost
arrowmg,you obviously haven't seen the new C Class. It is a all new car and it is a far superior quality product, even surpassing the E Class and last generation S Class in materials. Also, it isn't a $32K base car. They start at $38K and go up from there with options, pkgs., drivetrain, engine size, etc. Check out the new car online, then comment your thoughts if you feels the same way or otherwise.


arrowmgarrowmg - 6/10/2014 7:05:56 PM
+2 Boost
yeah I have seen the new C-class, and it's finally nice again for the 1st time since the very early 2000s auto-broker, but that's not the point. Even with the old body style, & performance you guys had no problem with a C63 or other super-performance oriented variant costing $75-$100k when the base car was selling for no more than the low $30s. I know the C class very well, and it's trading off of its Mercedes pedigree, it ain't built like that!
Copyright 2026 AutoSpies.com, LLC