Guibo

Not really. If you define a "reasonable person" in a similarly self-serving and circular fashion, then we are not going to get anywhere.
For the second time, RocketGuy: What part of "I personally would be inclined to go with the cheaper car" doesn't sound like an answer to you? All that's left is to resolve your poorly defined "just as good" mantra, in addition to the now circularly defined "reasonable person."

All of that is coming from your assertion that
a) Cars that are 100% apart in price are in the same segment, and
b) The Turbo should be compared against the 458, a car that fulfills the visceral sports car experience that Porsche has already decided the GT3 should fulfill

Both the Turbo and FF will do just about what you want from a car "on paper" (act as a long-distance tourer with seating for 4 and AWD stability), and while a Turbo is half the price, that doesn't mean a Ferrari customer is "foolish" to not its price advantage. He might not consider buying it for a variety of reasons:

• It's too ugly for him
• It's too common for him
• It's fast but past experience with Porsche turbos suggest the soundtrack isn't nearly as thrilling as a N/A V12
• Buying the Turbo won't put him in a prime spot for buying Ferrari's future special editions
• He already has a Porsche 911 Turbo and wants something different
• He's going to buy the Turbo anyway as an addition to his collection

Thus your theory fails. A person is not necessarily foolish to not consider the price of the Porsche even if ",on paper" and on balance overall, it is "just as good" as the Ferrari but at half the price.

Ok, bye.

RocketGuy3

I'm not talking about just you. For every person on the planet, price should at least be a factor in any purchasing decision where there is more than one option... That's the statement that you don't seem to agree with, and that means we're not going to get anywhere.

Everything else you've said about Porsche or Ferrari or "on paper" or "objective" have been flagrant strawmen, and not worth talking about, especially when we can't come to the simple agreement above.

Guibo

I'm not talking about me either. I'm talking about people who are in the position of "choosing between" a Turbo and a Ferrari FF. Price could be a consideration between someone choosing between an S8, S63, or 6/7-Series, but this highlights the importance of being in the same segment, for which you have provided no real definition. And I never said price is never a consideration. I said price is definitely a consideration when you have a particular amount of disposable income and want a particular type of car (eg, 4-door premium sports sedan near the S8's price level of around $100k).
In any case, you have no counterargument to the FF vs Turbo considerations above. Why should an FF buyer consider the Turbo if he thinks its ugly, or if he already has one? "Because it's half the price"? Great. Spend $300k (which you can easily afford) and be totally content and happy, or spend $180k and have a car that lacks the sound you want, the throttle response you want, and that makes you throw up inside everytime you look at it. The Porsche is the car that he should consider, that should "win his favor"? Really?

You were the one who brought up "on paper" in a failed attempt to qualify your statement of "just as good." Not me.



Actually, you did state that one kind of car should "win your favor" over another. If you did not say that to mean that is the car a person should buy, then what did you mean? It can't be construed to mean "should be considered," as that doesn't make sense. If you consider a car, but do not consider it, it has not "won your favor."

Thank god for that. Thank god people don't follow your advice about what people should do. If they did, there would be no alternatives but to shop only at Wal-Mart, and only Corvettes to buy.

RocketGuy3

I was saying I was done addressing your strawmen about Porsches, Corvettes, Ferraris, and now Wal-Mart.

It's amazing how personal all of this has become for you. All because you refuse to ever concede even the most innocuous, axiomatic point.

Guibo

Porsches, Corvettes, Ferraris and Wal-Mart are not strawmen. They are part and parcel into this discussion about value, which you concede is subjective. If a guy wants a Ferrari and can easily afford it, and a Porsche does absolutely nothing for him, why should he consider the Porsche? Why is a Veyron buyer foolish for not considering a Porsche in his purchasing decision if A) he knows the Porsche doesn't offer what he's looking for in a car, or B) he already has the Porsche?

I haven't made this personal. We're just talking here. Aren't we? The problem with your "most innocuous, axiomatic point" is that you cannot even define your own terms within that point. And your defined terms elsewhere are either self-serving and circular, or your premises (1), 2)) contradictory with the examples you have given. Nor have you answered the question: Why should a person buy a car (or any product) that will ultimately make him less happy than another car that he can easily afford?

RocketGuy3

"Should consider price" does not mean that someone should definitely consider this car or that car when they're looking at that car. Let alone that they must buy this car or that car. It just means that price should play some role in their decision... unless, I suppose, there is literally only one car they want, and not a *type* of car they want.

Guibo

So now you've gone from "that car should win your favor" and a "reasonable person would be foolish to not consider it" to it "does not mean that someone should definitely consider this car"...that doesn't make much sense. I didn't say anything about "must." I'm talking about it from the perspective of should. Ie, a Veyron buyer should consider a Porsche Turbo even if he already has one and if he doesn't (according to your theory), he's being foolish.
And I have already said price does play a consideration (eg, establishing an upper limit near $100k, when talking about cars like the S8 vs Jag, BMW, or Merc).
But believe it or not, there are some people who know exactly what they want and they just buy what they want. The first customer in Germany for the Lexus LFA, for example, owns a software company and runs a Viper racing team. He saw the LFA while it was testing on the Nordschleife (and no doubt heard the wail of its V10) and decided he just had to have it. This was long before any LFA was performance tested. It didn't matter to him if a Viper or Porsche GT2 was faster and cheaper. He already had two Vipers and he has no interest in German cars (so that rules out the GT2 and the SLS). According to your standard, he's being foolish.

RocketGuy3

No, I haven't changed anything. I'm just using increasingly broad examples to see if there is even the most elemental baseline point that we can agree on. It doesn't seem there is.

The car that should win your favor should still win your favor in the example that I originally gave.

Guibo

I don't see how there is any correlation between "increasingly broad examples" to how you're essentially saying different things. Even with your elemental baseline point being poorly defined, I've already said that price can be a consideration. What more do you want? For me to agree with you on everything, even though some of your definitions are self-serving and circular?
In the example you gave, you couldn't even define what "just as good" means without clarifying it further to include "on paper." You still haven't answered the questions:

• [Specific sense] Why is a Veyron buyer foolish for not considering a Porsche in his purchasing decision if A) he knows the Porsche doesn't offer what he's looking for in a car, or B) he already has the Porsche?
• [Broad sense] Why should a person buy a car (or any product) that will ultimately make him less happy than another car that he can easily afford?

Do you, RocketGuy, believe that LFA buyer to be foolish? Is it foolish for a shoe buyer with a $400 budget to not even consider Chinese-made shoes at any price due to political and socioeconomic objections?

RocketGuy3

Price "can be" a consideration is not the same thing as price "should be" a consideration. And price "should be" a consideration is not necessarily the same thing as saying you "should buy X or Y".

Guibo

If you could define what "just as good" means, then perhaps "should be" a consideration could apply. You've not done that at all. I say "can be" because I'm open to the possibility that there are other important factors that influence a decision, none of which necessarily show up "on paper" (your term). See? I've conceded that price is a factor. Your position is that price must always be a factor regardless of income, and that I have to agree exactly with that (even though your premise is flawed, and shown to be so with the specific examples you cited). You can't even accept the possibility that for some people, price is not a consideration and that they can have very good reasons for buying what they want.
The mere fact that you are unable to answer my questions, let alone formulate a logical offense against them, suggests your theory has been flawed from inception.

If "should buy X or Y" is different from "should win your favor," please tell me how. In any event, you haven't addressed why a person who is politically and socioeconomically opposed to China "should" consider their products, if they disgust him regardless of the price. 2nd time, RocketGuy: Is such a person being foolish? You probably think that people who buy products out of the artisan-craftsman revival trying to kick-start Detroit, in the face of obviously cheaper Chinese-made products available at any Wal-Mart are being foolish, am I right? Tell me I'm wrong.

RocketGuy3

The "just as good" example was distinct from the "price should be a consideration" point. Even if there isn't a car that's JUST as good as another car you can afford, maybe the price difference is enough to make the other car worthwhile. If not, fine, get the more expensive car. If you don't even think about whether the "lesser" car might give you all/most of what you want, you are being foolhardy. At the same time, maybe you could consider a more expensive car that could give you more of what you want, and try to decide if the extra cost is worth it.

That is all that "price should be a consideration" means. It means it should enter into the equation. Again, unless you are dead set on getting a very specific car for some reason, I suppose, and you are not on the market for a "fun, fast sports car" or a "luxury sedan that can haul *** and haul kids", etc. Rather, you are on the market for an F430 only. Or a ZR1 only. Etc. (Not to say that you shouldn't try to be a smart shopper, if possible, even in that case.)

c7luvr

I cannot believe that this entire page is filled with garbage from only two people posting.

RocketGuy3

Now it's filled with garbage from three people.

Guibo

You may say they're distinct, but you've also inextricably linked them. You essentially incorporated them both into a single sentence:
In that sentence, you stated in no uncertain terms that you should get (ie, favor) the car that costs less. Otherwise, you're being "silly."
Those two concepts are clearly not distinct from one another. You link them together in your subsequent sentences.

So what you're saying is that the serial Corvette collector, who already has a C6, or can easily buy a modded C6 that's just as fast, good, or whatever at a much lower price than that of the new ZR1, is being foolish and silly for knowing that he wants a ZR1, knowing that he can easily afford it, and in so doing buys exactly what he wants.
What makes you think the S8 buyer, who is cross-shopping Jaguar, BMW or Mercedes is "not on the market for a 'luxury sedan that can haul *** and haul kids'?" Just because he knows damn well he can't get the customization options, or he doesn't like the design language of, say a CTS-V, he's being foolish? By your theory, he must be.

Here's another place where your blanket statement fails: The used collector car market. Good luck trying to apply your standards to that group of people.

RocketGuy3

No. That is not what I'm saying. I don't know how I can make that any clearer.