I found very interesting that anytime NA B-class prices are questioned, folks come up with standardized NA prices defending talking points. Bringing by Westfalia/Roadtrek an EU specced camper van based on Promaster for $50K with all missing “talking points” would open the door for camping folks such as 4-5 young families not necessarily present in volume on this forum.
Doing my own conversion, I can say with certainty that I wouldn’t be able to match Westfalia’s manufacturing capability in cost and fit and finish quality, a 21st century factory is necessary. I could however exceed Roadtrek electrical system quality by using system components with marine level quality, marine wiring or even a trivial updated schematic. Idiot lights for battery monitoring is a prime example of subpar quality by either cost cutting, ineptness or a “why change” attitude.
I have always found the discussions on costs and theoretical costs very interesting, mainly because it was a major part of all my jobs over more than 40 years of working.
I think an interesting claim often made by consultants, that I found to be somewhat true, kind of summed up the whole thing. "The average manufacturing facility can trim costs by 1/3 by just implementing ......****----. With the symbols being the particular improvement program they were trying to sell you on. I was never a big fan of the improvement programs because they tried to put the same solution on every problem instead of evaluating the issue and creating a unique solution, but the 1/3 reduction is something that I saw on a regular basis as we worked to improve efficiencies.
This is not going to make a $100K class b a $66K one as manufacturing efficiencies don't apply to all costs, and design improvements may only be applicable because the allow more efficient manufacturing. You also need to calculate in the real costs of the improvements due to investments in people, training, equipment, etc. Of course just because you improve your efficiency, doesn't make the microwave you have to but any cheaper. IMO, a 25% improvement in selling price is very reasonable to expect unless management gets greedy and wants all the savings for the owners or shareholders.
I am looking at this as "clean up" of an existing product line and manufacturing facility, not as a clean sheet design and facility. Clean sheet final cost reductions would likely be lower, but I don't know if the market is big enough and stable enough to be able to fund the upfront costs of a clean sheet startup as the paybacks would be way too long for any investors.
The well run manufacturers of stuff are always looking at what a clean sheet setup could give them, and will often dedicate a lot of funding back into lab setups to test designs and methods that can then be phased in as new products or models are brought into the product lines. From what seems to be happening lately, I worry that companies are not doing that very well right now, as they taking all their new found tax relief and good economy benefits and putting them into stock buy backs and big investor dividends, while they are also carrying debt, which makes little sense.
I am waiting to see a 3D robotic arm printer that will reach in through the van doors and print all the basic interior cabinets seats floor, etc, right into place going right around anchor points to retain them!
I will add a subnote, comment, also. Bad quality can destroy any and all of the above in a heartbeat. I think we saw that very plainly in the Roadtrek implosion. They had pricepoints that would have allowed them to be successful, I think, even with poor methods and weak designs, but the quality issues interfered with making it work. Rework and warranty costs and production stoppages and delays to fix things will bleed the life out of a company both from a money point of view and a degradation of pride of the workforce. The reaction to bad quality is also often to point fingers within the organization and beat on the workers harder, which is also counterproductive.