Outrageously priced products...

[Klasse Act]

Ummm, last time I checked Porsche has other cars besides the 911, your welcome, LOL! HD and Porsche in the same sentence, damn this thread is getting nutz! Last time I checked you don't see Porsche owners getting dressed up in their costumes to show everyone they own/ride a Harley, a better comparison would be HD and Ferrari owners, LOL!

Sent from my SPH-M930 using AG Online

 

[slimnib]

Not really a fan of Porsches at all. They all have that same boring design year after year with those ugly headlights. The only thing evolutionary to come from Porsche is the Carrera GT.

Then you never drove a Porsche???????? Nothing like it Including a Ferrari,. How many Ferrari and Corvette from the 70 and 80 are used as everyday cars? Check the Porsche club.

 

[af90]

Ummm, last time I checked Porsche has other cars besides the 911, your welcome, LOL! HD and Porsche in the same sentence, damn this thread is getting nutz! Last time I checked you don't see Porsche owners getting dressed up in their costumes to show everyone they own/ride a Harley, a better comparison would be HD and Ferrari owners, LOL!

Sent from my SPH-M930 using AG Online

I think what they're getting out is that the 911 has never had a truly revolutionary change that was radical, it has evolved over time. You can definitely see the homage to the original in any generation, is it a bad thing? Not at all.

Plus I think it's idiotic to have prejudices about vehicles and their owners, because a true car person would cross shop numerous sports cars in their segments regardless of brand loyalty. Which would bring the Corvette and new Jaguar F-Type, and GT-R and maybe stretch to RS5. Corvettes in my opinion have absolutely hands down the best engines ever built, small block V8's that are simple 2 valve pushrods that put out consistent power, fuel efficient, and now have the only displacement on demand direct-injected manual transmission drivetrain out on the market. Also the C7 Interior is absolutely top notch, and in comparable price range optioned out has a very close comparison in quality, this coming from being in both, not giving it a shot based on the interior of the C5 and C6 is selling yourself short. As for the Jag well I think it's overpriced for the performance it gives and the market it was reaching for, it has a great design, but doesn't deliver enough value in my opinion. The GT-R is an technologic marvel, but has increased it's price so much sine inception (from 70K to 100K) but still delivers some of the greatest performance bar none, but in my opinion it's just too controlled, it's not raw enough, the computer aides in it just make it feel too safe, plus it's a BIG car. But one has to respect it still, just wish it still came with a manual.

Now the 911 is the absolute bread and butter, flagship vehicle, for Porsche, yes the Boxster and Cayman are there as well but how alike are they? The Boxster has nowhere near the same performance as a 911 (although can you sure option one up to the price now!), and the Cayman is a very different driving machine with a mid-engine layout and has never had an engine in it with anywhere near as much power as the 911.

Then you never drove a Porsche???????? Nothing like it Including a Ferrari,. How many Ferrari and Corvette from the 70 and 80 are used as everyday cars? Check the Porsche club.

I think there are plenty of Corvettes stuck around since the 70's and 80's, it's quite often if not more often that I'll see a C4 rather than a 928. Ferraris? Not so much, usually the Testarossa's I see appear to be second-hand vehicles, but maintenance on a Ferrari is much, much more than on a Porsche so it's easy to understand why they're less common.

 

[hamlyn]

Some would argue that paying over $20 to get your car washed is absurd. Ultimately it boils down to perception of value. Who are you to tell me what I should pay for a product or service, as long as I am willing to do so?
I like my $6K DVD player, my $30K speakers, my $1500 wax, my $100K car. As long as I can afford it, and I perceive a benefit, then so be it.
However, if you are simply bashing it without at least having tried it, or researched it, then it becomes a case of "sour grapes."

 

[Dombey]

The 981 Boxster/Cayman S performs very similarly to the base 991 Carrera. You're talking hundreds of pounds less and a 30-35 HP deficit. Depending on the track and the configurations of each vehicle, you might even run a faster time in the 981.
Now that said, the base 991 is the bottom end 911 model. You can option a 981 up into the 90k range pretty easily if you check a lot of boxes, the 991 starts around 85-90 as I recall, and in reality is almost always configured at $100k+.
The 991s also reach up into the stratosphere if you with with an S, gt3, turbo, carrera 4, or any of the 20 other models they have nowadays.
My point is, for equal money, the cars are actually pretty close in raw performance. It's just that the 981 tops out quickly and all of the upside is with the 991.

Second comment: the comment about tires in a Porsche being expensive to replace is absurd.
If you put equivalent tires on an American car, they would cost the same. You're getting exactly what you pay for. If you wanted to put Chinese tires on your 911 GT3, do it. Likewise, no one is stopping you from putting pilot sport cups on your Kia.

I will also note that *part* of the reason oil changes are $250 on a typical Porsche is because the car is engineered to race reliably. In order to do that, they have oil capacity of around 10 quarts. You're comparing apples to oranges with most American/Japanese and most German cars that have a 5 QT capacity.
I used to own a Lexus with 10 QT capacity and guess what...$200+ oil changes at the dealer.
Of course they rape you on the price, but there IS a volume difference that partially explains the difference.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Klasse Act]

Lots of good info here, many great points about cars and less about ones opinions. Many points made here are strong but true, that is key!

It was said about "rawness", not a lot of that around anymore but if you want that you'll need a Lotus Exige or Elise, other than that, everything else is a luxury car, relatively speaking.

Sent from my SPH-M930 using AG Online

 

[KillaCam]

I think what they're getting out is that the 911 has never had a truly revolutionary change that was radical, it has evolved over time. You can definitely see the homage to the original in any generation, is it a bad thing? Not at all.

Plus I think it's idiotic to have prejudices about vehicles and their owners, because a true car person would cross shop numerous sports cars in their segments regardless of brand loyalty. Which would bring the Corvette and new Jaguar F-Type, and GT-R and maybe stretch to RS5. Corvettes in my opinion have absolutely hands down the best engines ever built, small block V8's that are simple 2 valve pushrods that put out consistent power, fuel efficient, and now have the only displacement on demand direct-injected manual transmission drivetrain out on the market. Also the C7 Interior is absolutely top notch, and in comparable price range optioned out has a very close comparison in quality, this coming from being in both, not giving it a shot based on the interior of the C5 and C6 is selling yourself short. As for the Jag well I think it's overpriced for the performance it gives and the market it was reaching for, it has a great design, but doesn't deliver enough value in my opinion. The GT-R is an technologic marvel, but has increased it's price so much sine inception (from 70K to 100K) but still delivers some of the greatest performance bar none, but in my opinion it's just too controlled, it's not raw enough, the computer aides in it just make it feel too safe, plus it's a BIG car. But one has to respect it still, just wish it still came with a manual.

Now the 911 is the absolute bread and butter, flagship vehicle, for Porsche, yes the Boxster and Cayman are there as well but how alike are they? The Boxster has nowhere near the same performance as a 911 (although can you sure option one up to the price now!), and the Cayman is a very different driving machine with a mid-engine layout and has never had an engine in it with anywhere near as much power as the 911.



I think there are plenty of Corvettes stuck around since the 70's and 80's, it's quite often if not more often that I'll see a C4 rather than a 928. Ferraris? Not so much, usually the Testarossa's I see appear to be second-hand vehicles, but maintenance on a Ferrari is much, much more than on a Porsche so it's easy to understand why they're less common.

Great post. I couldn't agree more about the comment about the LS motors in the vette. I happen to own one and love it.

 

[Romans5.8]

Then you never drove a Porsche???????? Nothing like it Including a Ferrari,. How many Ferrari and Corvette from the 70 and 80 are used as everyday cars? Check the Porsche club.

Not necessarily an Apples-to-Apples comparison.

1) ANY manufacturer having cars from yesteryear on the road is only a testamant to the brand at that time period. Even companies like Porsche, Ferrari, and BMW have had slumps. A car from 1979 has little to do with the reliability of a car in 2013. It's not likely that very many of the people who designed and built the 70's and 80's Porsches are still working for Porsche. Many of them have since retired or have even passed away.

2) Porsches from the 1970's and 1980's, with the exception of particular rarities, are pretty cheap. I mean REALLY cheap. As in, you can routinely find a 1980's 924 or 944 for less than $10k in great shape with low miles. Shop around and you can even find 911's in that price range. Heck, there's a 1999 Porsche 911 Carrera on Craigslist near me right now for $13,000. Corvettes from that era were less desirable (remember the 'slump' times I was talking about?). They lacked the power of the previous generation but didn't have near the handling or otherwise performance of future generations. So they, too, are fairly inexpensive. (And you do see a LOT of those on the road; check the Corvette forums!). You don't see the Ferraris because, well, they are still pretty expensive! Often going $30~$40k or more for less rare, non-flagship models! Wanna do a little work? I saw a 1984 Porsche 944 in RUNNING CONDITION with a lot of wear and tear from storage, some faded paint, a few scratches and some interior tears for $2,500. That's less than the sales tax on a late model. $2,500 for an old beater 4-door, or $2500 for an old beater PORSCHE? It's no wonder there are a lot on the road, and it has a lot more to do with the brands reputation and performance than their quality or reliability.

So, despite them being low cost; they are STILL well maintained. A 1984 Toyota is likely to have a lot of miles and be really beat up. An '84 Porsche 911 or an '84 Corvette is likely to have been, for every aspect of it's life, a car that someone really cherished and took care of, AND probably won't have near as many miles. So you combine a low price point for a 'desirable' make, AND a well maintained older car, and yeah; you'll see a lot of them on the road! It really has nothing to do with the quality of the car itself, just it's overall value. Notwithstanding the fact that, again, even if a 1980something Porsche is a fantastic machine, it doesn't automatically mean a 2013 Porsche is. (Not saying it isn't either, just saying it's a flawed argument).

Ford is a prime example. They have had periods where they built bulletproof cars that rivaled Japanese competitors. And they had cars like the Pinto and even a recent period where reliability was sub-par. Gotta look at the car you want to buy, not the car that someone else bought 30 years ago.

 

[af90]

The 981 Boxster/Cayman S performs very similarly to the base 991 Carrera. You're talking hundreds of pounds less and a 30-35 HP deficit. Depending on the track and the configurations of each vehicle, you might even run a faster time in the 981.
Now that said, the base 991 is the bottom end 911 model. You can option a 981 up into the 90k range pretty easily if you check a lot of boxes, the 991 starts around 85-90 as I recall, and in reality is almost always configured at $100k+.
The 991s also reach up into the stratosphere if you with with an S, gt3, turbo, carrera 4, or any of the 20 other models they have nowadays.
My point is, for equal money, the cars are actually pretty close in raw performance. It's just that the 981 tops out quickly and all of the upside is with the 991.

Second comment: the comment about tires in a Porsche being expensive to replace is absurd.
If you put equivalent tires on an American car, they would cost the same. You're getting exactly what you pay for. If you wanted to put Chinese tires on your 911 GT3, do it. Likewise, no one is stopping you from putting pilot sport cups on your Kia.

I will also note that *part* of the reason oil changes are $250 on a typical Porsche is because the car is engineered to race reliably. In order to do that, they have oil capacity of around 10 quarts. You're comparing apples to oranges with most American/Japanese and most German cars that have a 5 QT capacity.
I used to own a Lexus with 10 QT capacity and guess what...$200+ oil changes at the dealer.
Of course they rape you on the price, but there IS a volume difference that partially explains the difference.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oil changes on Porsches aren't even bad over time since with most full synthetic you can easily run 10,000 miles, shoot even my Jetta is every 10,000 miles. So for $150 every 10k is not bad at all, or just do it yourself. Most regular cars require a $20-40 oil change every 5k or so anyways.

Lots of good info here, many great points about cars and less about ones opinions. Many points made here are strong but true, that is key!

It was said about "rawness", not a lot of that around anymore but if you want that you'll need a Lotus Exige or Elise, other than that, everything else is a luxury car, relatively speaking.

Sent from my SPH-M930 using AG Online

Too bad the Viper lost it's rawness in my eyes, the engine is still there but it's nothing like the first generation. I love Lotus but the brand to me may die any year now, and there is just something about a V8 that even if the car weighs 500-750lbs less the inline 4 just isn't the same.

 

[Romans5.8]

Ummm, last time I checked Porsche has other cars besides the 911, your welcome, LOL! HD and Porsche in the same sentence, damn this thread is getting nutz! Last time I checked you don't see Porsche owners getting dressed up in their costumes to show everyone they own/ride a Harley, a better comparison would be HD and Ferrari owners, LOL!

Sent from my SPH-M930 using AG Online

I was addressing the "They all look the same" comment. My point was, there's a heritage there, and their customer base demands (or at least, the company perceives that they do) that the cars stay 'true' to their heritage. Something both Porsche and HD (and other brands) seem to find important.

Harley also makes more than the Big Twin cruisers that are so famously stereotyped. As a matter of fact, Harley even has a machine with a Porsche-made engine in it! IN FACT, when the company launched it, they mentioned Porsche in their marketing materials as another company that, LIKE THEM, values heritage! So they were the 'perfect company' to help them develop the engine.

Too bad the Viper lost it's rawness in my eyes, the engine is still there but it's nothing like the first generation. I love Lotus but the brand to me may die any year now, and there is just something about a V8 that even if the car weighs 500-750lbs less the inline 4 just isn't the same.

+1. I don't care if it actually IS faster, or it beats everything in all the numbers. I'm not a pro racer on a track, I just want something fun. And there's just nothing like a big torquey V8. The sound, the feel, it's just a great, visceral experience; even if other cars are faster.

 

[af90]

I was addressing the "They all look the same" comment. My point was, there's a heritage there, and their customer base demands (or at least, the company perceives that they do) that the cars stay 'true' to their heritage. Something both Porsche and HD (and other brands) seem to find important.

Harley also makes more than the Big Twin cruisers that are so famously stereotyped. As a matter of fact, Harley even has a machine with a Porsche-made engine in it! IN FACT, when the company launched it, they mentioned Porsche in their marketing materials as another company that, LIKE THEM, values heritage! So they were the 'perfect company' to help them develop the engine.

One thing they do have to watch out for is getting comfortable. Something Jaguar did for years in the 90's and early 2000's and it almost drove them into the ground. The same thing can be said for the Corvette, losing pop-up headlights with the C6 and dropping the round 4 tail lights on the rear. Also with Buick, to break out of their stereotype they radically re-designed their vehicles, pulling much more from Opel in Germany, now look at what they put out now, companies have to take risks to succeed.

 

[ScottB]

My parents (now in retirement) bought their first home for less than 25k and never needed a mortgage. Their washer and dryer combo from Kenmore cost less than 500.00 and lasted for 17 years. My father (at one time a Ford salesman) often discusses the 1969 Shelby Mustang that sat on the floor for over a year without one bite, because you could buy a wagon and car for its window sticker and addendum. Gave it away with a healthy discount the following year to make room for something called the Pinto.

Nothing today seems to be worth what it originally sold for years ago. The real issue is that salaries and income has not kept pace with the price of goods and inflation. An average home is over 250k and a 30 year mortgage comes with it. My last Washer/Dryer combo from Maytag lasted 19 months at a cost of 2g's (luckily extended warranty). And the last auction suggested six figures + for a pristine Shelby from 1969. Heck one of my associates just took an 84 month loan to buy a small foreign car.

 

[af90]

An 84 month loan is just poor financial decision making, if you really need that buy something cheaper or used. Now on the other side I think paying cash is also a poor decision, not when you can finance for rates under 1-2% easily, paying cash is just foregoing investing your money that can easily in today's market make back 8-15%. If you can spend someone else's money do it.

 

[allenk4]

I thought this was an interesting breakdown from another site that sums it up for me.

"Consumer v. Professional v. Enthusiast v. Boutique"

I consider myself an "Enthusiast", but I have purchased 3oz samples of what I would consider very expensive wax (Boutique)

I also think that Meguiar's Wheel Brightener is great too (Professional)

I buy my microfibers for dirty work at Pep Boys (Consumer)


I had a Chevy Tahoe, but upgraded to a Yukon Denali...what does that make me?

Now what if I told you both were purchased used?

 

[Romans5.8]

An 84 month loan is just poor financial decision making, if you really need that buy something cheaper or used. Now on the other side I think paying cash is also a poor decision, not when you can finance for rates under 1-2% easily, paying cash is just foregoing investing your money that can easily in today's market make back 8-15%. If you can spend someone else's money do it.

You hit two big common financial issues in one blow there.

One is these ridiculous loans. 84 months? Had to be brand new, most lenders will only offer those terms on new cars (and usually only on higher ticket items like big pickup trucks and sports cars). Yeah, there's something cheaper out there you can get in a reasonable loan. I can't imagine making payments on a car I bought new that's out of warranty. The average driver will have 84k miles on their car at that point. Crazy!

The second, is the polar opposite. And that's the fear of credit. When used smartly, it's a sound financial decision. I've gotten loans on things I could pay cash for, because the interest rates are low! Aside from the potential to invest the money, HAVING the cash in the bank is worth the cost of interest over the life of a REASONABLE loan. And you know why I can get those interest rates? Because I use my credit to get financing! It's a cycle!

One of my wifes tenants went into her office to enquire about buying a home. (They do both property management and real estate in that office). Only she had a hard time getting a loan and the best offers she could get were way above the low interest rates most people are getting. Why? No credit. Not bad credit, or outstanding loans, or collections, or anything like that. Just plain old no credit. They were complaining because "We told the bank we've always paid cash for everything, you'd think they'd see that as someone who is good with money!". But, no, no the banks don't! They see it as someone who doesn't have experience managing debt and who has no on-paper record of paying anyone back! It's great that they paid cash for their cars, but not having ANY forms of credit is going to cost them tens of thousands of dollars (or more) in interest.

I thought this was an interesting breakdown from another site that sums it up for me.

"Consumer v. Professional v. Enthusiast v. Boutique"

I consider myself an "Enthusiast", but I have purchased 3oz samples of what I would consider very expensive wax (Boutique)

I also think that Meguiar's Wheel Brightener is great too (Professional)

I buy my microfibers for dirty work at Pep Boys (Consumer)


I had a Chevy Tahoe, but upgraded to a Yukon Denali...what does that make me?

Now what if I told you both were purchased used?

I feel ya man! I sometimes look at some of this stuff, and even the reviews here on AutoGeek or people talking about superior products; and think- but, I just want my daily driver to be clean and not have any scratches!

My wife's "company truck" is a Yukon Denali. Not sure what year, it's a few years old, over 100k on the clock now. Sure seems like a good machine! It's been good to them. It sometimes sits for days or weeks, last year when one of their trailer parks they own/manage was hit with a tornado it was bogging in the mud and pulling up trees and moving furniture and things trying to get these tenants belongings (and the tenants themselves) out of the weather. Other times it's used every day but for short jaunts to the courthouse or on property showings. Then there are even times it pulls a boat or a camper hundreds of miles!

 

[Rsurfer]

One of my wifes tenants went into her office to enquire about buying a home. (They do both property management and real estate in that office). Only she had a hard time getting a loan and the best offers she could get were way above the low interest rates most people are getting. Why? No credit. Not bad credit, or outstanding loans, or collections, or anything like that. Just plain old no credit. They were complaining because "We told the bank we've always paid cash for everything, you'd think they'd see that as someone who is good with money!". But, no, no the banks don't! They see it as someone who doesn't have experience managing debt and who has no on-paper record of paying anyone back! It's great that they paid cash for their cars, but not having ANY forms of credit is going to cost them tens of thousands of dollars (or more) in interest.

Having no credit might be worse than having bad credit. You can fix bad credit, but you can't fix no credit cause you don't have a score to begin with.

 

[af90]

Having no credit might be worse than having bad credit. You can fix bad credit, but you can't fix no credit cause you don't have a score to begin with.

It's absolutely worse. Paying cash leaves no proof. Even having only credit cards is only a slight bump in the right direction although I put everything on credit cards, it's giving up free money not doing it, I make 25-75 a month on items I have to pay back anyways. AmEx gives 6% on groceries. Just pay it off each month and it's no harm.

 

[Dombey]

Uh oh, someone just opened Pandora's box with the finance v cash discussion...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Romans5.8]

It's absolutely worse. Paying cash leaves no proof. Even having only credit cards is only a slight bump in the right direction although I put everything on credit cards, it's giving up free money not doing it, I make 25-75 a month on items I have to pay back anyways. AmEx gives 6% on groceries. Just pay it off each month and it's no harm.

We do the same thing. Use our 'cash rewards' credit cards on EVERYTHING, then pay the balance each month. At the end of the day, we pay no interest, but get free money!

Uh oh, someone just opened Pandora's box with the finance v cash discussion...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, ultimately you have to make the best decision for you. At times, it's not a great option. But right now, with some of the financing deals out there? It's a good choice. A lot of manufacturers are offering 0% (but you have to watch, as there are sometimes fees included in there). Even 2% is not uncommon from credit unions. For me and many others, it seems like a pretty good deal to keep the money in the bank and pay a few hundred it interest.

 

[stilltipping3]

I do the credit card thing for the cash back but one time I got crazy and ran that mother up to $7000 and it took a while to pay it off. Thus, the Credit Card Dracula sunk its teeth in me and took all my profits from the card away and then some. It is a thin line between love and hate with me.