Okay, the panorama roof pros and cons have been dealt with enough here, yada, yada. But this is a different question: I noticed on the MBUSA "build your own" section of their website, that the panorama option has the following caveat: 'limited availability.'

Are they stopping production soon? Reducing production for some reason? Using up inventory until all are gone? Has the vendor has quit making them? Maybe a new style/design is coming? Is the option just not profitable for MB?

 

Last year and every year this option is listed as limited availability. I have one on my 2010 E350 Sport and it operates well, it does not rattle. The vehicle is black so it is not as noticeable as on lighter colored vehicles. I liked the concept and chose it for that reason. Time will tell if it behaves.

 

As I said, this isn't about the pros and cons or what the pano is about. That's been discussed ad nausea here for a long time.

Every year? Interesting. When I bought an E Class in 2008, there was no 'limited availability' note. Plus just about every dealer's allocation here comes with the pano. And later when I bought my AMG, I couldn't even find an E63 without one.

I'm curious why they say that? What makes it 'limited' when in fact, it's ubiquitous.

 

Last year the pano roof was standard in Canada but this year it is optional and is part of the Premium Package. Also while golfing in Hilton Head NC last Spring I asked the dealer there why they didn't have any cars with pano roofs and he told me they could not get allocations for them. I would think the popularity of the option has created a supplier problem.
I for one would never own a car without the pano roof now that I have had one with it.

 

When I reviewed the internet inventories for E350s in the Chicago area not that many vehicles had panoramic roofs including those that had Premium 2 and other expensive options. MBUSA listed it as limited availability. It could relate to their supplier's ability to produce them. Virtually all E class sedans sold here are ordered by the dealers with 4-Matic. In this area it may be a climate issue also. I'm sure the panoramic roof is more sought after and sale able in Southern California than the Midwest

 

Yeah, I'm thinking maybe a supplier issue. Or the cost margin has become an issue and they're re-configuring things (as Petee says it's no longer standard up in frozen tundra poutine-land.)

You'd think it would be more popular in SoCal, but from the posts here on MBWorld the people who tend to like them best are from colder climates and with less sunshine. If it's drab out, the pano does brighten up the interior. We have too much sun too often as it is. A convertible certainly makes sense here, but the pano glass can become just a big giant heat sink.

 

Simply a supplier issue due to more demand than supply. A similar situation existed on the S-Class at one point until the supplier adjusted their capacity.

 

Interesting.

I gotta say, I bought Pano 99.9% for the looks (would have just been cheaper to get the roof Poser-Pano'd by Vinyl wrap then, huh ).

In Cali (considering as well I've only owned the Car so far during Summer time), I find myself keeping the Pano open almost all of the time, mainly to get my "money's worth". In reality though, many time thus far, last thing I want or need is the extra rays making it into the cabin. At night is when I always like it open.

In reality, it benefits those in the back more than anything (which makes it pointless for me even more-so), as I never look up anyway.

I'm actually happy that the 212's "mesh" allows some sunlight in, as even when the cover is closed, I can still get some very subtle benefits of the Pano roof.

Oh, and sorry for the O/T.

Curious to know why it's "Limited" as well. I'm sure it's a supplier thing, and they put that there just in case/as a protective measure, were they unable to meet customer demand, i.e so they don't get lynched by the consumers.

 

I think it is to avoid a backlog. When people know in advance there will be a delay, they pass on the option. This would also apply to dealers for inventory cars. Besides if you have never had a pano roof, you won't miss it.

 

You're theory makes no sense.

You claim that pano is readily available when at the same time you say that producing more units with the option is causing a margin problem...

Increasing production of a certain item creates volume-based cost efficiencies, thereby reducing the cost per unit.

If anything, pano is much cheaper to include nowadays (which is why it is more readily available than when it was first introduced to the market).

 

if anything, they have intentionally reduced their total production capacity in order to control the price they charge for the option (since everyone likes it so much).

This sounds like a game of equilibrium theory.

 

Um, you should read the thread carefully. It's NOT more readily available. That's the whole point. It's now listed as 'limited availability.'

It seems readily available here, as dealers in SoCal tend to fill their allocations with them. But clearly not elsewhere as others have commented.
It's now an option instead of standard in the Canadian market.

Anyway, this thread is not about a "theory" but simply an inquiry.

Um. Yes. And now you are repeating what I said in my last post.

 

really, please quote the post in which you described the above...



and i understood what the thread was discussing - just challenging what you said, no one else.

 

I started this thread asking why the pano is listed as "limited availability" now. It was not that way before.

Then I commented that the majority of cars I shopped for in SoCal had the pano roof. I never said or implied that they were "increasing production." Nor did I say or imply that's why most of the allocated cars on the dealers floors have panos. I simply said that they were ubiquitous here. You said: "Increasing production of a certain item creates volume-based cost efficiencies, thereby reducing the cost per unit." We all know that but it has no bearing on what I said.

I inquired as to what might be the reason it's now "limited availability." I never said "producing more units with the option is causing a margin problem."

After Petee said that they are no longer standard fare in Canada and also that dealers in SC couldn't get them, I said this: "Or the cost margin has become an issue and they're re-configuring things." https://mbworld.org/forums/4194775-post6.html

Meaning, maybe now they are either cutting back to maintain profit margins or re-configuring profit margins and now have "limited production." Which is basically what you say below.

And who knows if it is, in fact, that popular. I don't have sales records. But if it's very popular and also very profitable, then why make it a "limited availability" option? There's no reason to cut back production if it's selling and profitable. Unless the option is currently unprofitable and needs to be manipulated by reducing production. But why, if "everybody wants one?" They'll still pay for the option nonetheless, right? Is it a supply issue, then? Profit issue? It's no longer standard in Canada, apparently. You can't just crank the MSRP of the car up, so you eliminate the pano and charge for it.

If a car coming off the production line is selling like hotcakes, you don't pull production unless you want to raise the price and hope the demand will still be there. Sure, you can control pricing through limited distribution. But the pano was either profitable or not. And if it wasn't profitable and yet everybody wants one, then why not cut back so you can control (raise) prices?

Anyway, the point is, why is it now a "limited availability" option? And that was the question. Do you know?

 

This is a hard one to figure. In Canada MB kept the retail price the same as last year while moving the pano roof to premium package and increasing the prem pack by 1,000.00. I have never seen a W212 without the prem pack therefore this will not affect supply only the margin.
My original statement that it was a supply problem is a little weaker now,at least in Canada.
Going back to your original question, maybe it's both margin and supply. The obvious solution to supply and margin is to increase the price and reduce demand.
Is this starting to sound like WHO's on first?