Guibo

Not sure what that comment means.
So you're saying it's bad for her to want luxury, to enjoy the style and feel of her Mercedes? If she doesn't care about outright performance or bang/buck or reliability, and she can easily afford reliability issues, then what's the problem?
Sellers are free to look elsewhere for a better deal.

Dave68

Well, how about this (similar) scenario: Let's say your neighbor buys a 2008 VW bug and every month complains about how many times she's had to take it in for non-maintenance issues. After a few years roll by, you walk out of your house to see a brand new (redesigned) bug sitting in her driveway. When you ask her why she would by another VW after all the issues she had with her first one, she says, "I just love the looks!" What would you think of her thought process?

Guibo

I would say her thought process and how she spends her money is her business. I'd say bravo to her for finding a car that she likes (not what I or you like), and good for VW that they can satisfy her needs. The free market is a good thing and should be celebrated for the variety it brings. If everyone drove Corvettes, the world would be a pretty boring place, wouldn't you agree? People spend far more money for looks and service on a car than that Bug.
Conversely, would you pay $70k for a Corvette if it looked like a Yugo? Maybe you would, but I reckon Corvette's sales would plummet.

Depends on the Seiko. Some watches built by Seiko can cost more than a Rolex. This one, for example, retails for the equivalent of $400k in Japan:
http://www.seikospringdrive.com/sonnerie/

Performing as well in carefully controlled track conditions doesn't mean it performs as well overall. Value for dollar is subjective. For a person who wants the quality, customization, dealer service, and convenience and safety features of the Porsche, the objective bang/buck factor can count for less than someone who's looking for a fast track car.

musclecar6

As you I both said, the C7 addresses most of the issues you just brought up. Only thing left to go, is a PDK or equivalent type tranny. As to why I spent on a ton on my new 996TT in 2003,I wanted to experience the supposed superiority of the Porsche " experience". Experienced it for 5 years, including modifying the power from 415 HP to 470 and concluded Porsche's are no better than vettes( at twice the price).

PeterK

It certainly is no timex!

Dave68

Okay, but I think it's safe to say that most people would view her reasoning as "severely flawed", in a lack of rationality sort of way. You've heard the saying, I'm sure: "Burn me once, shame on you, but burn me twice, shame on me!" That's all I'm sayin......

I recall back in 01 when C&D compared the 01 Corvette vert to the Boxster, AMG SLK, and BMW Z. The Corvette won by besting Porsche in all performance categories, but what was impressive is that the writer commented that "Only Ferrari has as good an active handling as the Corvette." My 68 had a fiber optic lamp monitoring system. I don't know of any other car on the road, short of other Corvettes that had this. I bring this up because GM has often innovated in more ways than Porsche and at prices that allowed a middle-class person to enjoy high-performance without dishing out the farm when something broke.
While this is not quite the case, today, the gap between high fashion differences is getting narrower.

Guibo

You didn't test drive it first? You could have bought an already depreciated 993 Turbo, or used '01 996 Turbo which would have been on the market for 3 years already.

Guibo

It's only a shame if she can't take the burn. It seems that she can, and the appeal of the car offsets her concerns about reliability. Nothing new or unusual there. People make that kind of decision all the time. It's one reason why everybody doesn't drive a Corolla. The question is: Can you agree that variety is a good thing? I also noticed you didn't answer the question about the $70k Corvette that looks like a Yugo. It's a legitimate question.
It sounds to me like you do have a fundamental problem with people who have different needs and priorities than you do, and the companies that manufacture things in accordance with their needs. Is this so?

And what of your opinion about C&D tests since, in which the Corvette loses?
That may have been then, but it's not like Porsche hasn't progressed since then. They have more safety and convenience features than are available on the Vette at any price.
"Middle class"...with today's median income of around $50k, and a Corvette costing that entire annual amount, it's only slightly more middle-class than a Cayman S. It is faster, yes, but that doesn't relegate a Cayman S to the non high-performance class. It's still faster than the vast majority of cars you're likely to encounter on any given day.

Dave68

Now, if she were your sister or daughter, would your impartial acceptance be such? Variety is good, but only if its selection does not produce detrimental results. When it comes to vehicle selection, cosmetic appearance is very important to many buyers. However, would you not be a morally responsible person by reminding/warning someone of the likely consequences of purchasing a vehicle made by a manufacturer known to care little about the owner's time and money?

Guibo

I think almost by its definition, variety produces what you consider to be "detrimental results." If you don't have the "bad," would you really know what "good" is? That is a tough one to figure out.
I don't pretend to be a "moral authority" on what people should buy with their own money. That is for the free market to decide and so far, nobody has found a better system. If she were my sister, that's her business. If she were my 17-year-old daughter, living under my roof, with me making car payments, of course I would not allow it. If she were my 30-year-old daughter, free on her own, making her way through life and finds the VW is the right car for her, then that's her business. I'm not going to interject my own value system into her decision making process. As you said, she's already had experience with the first Bug. It's obviously not a deal breaker for her. Not to be a sexist pig, but my experience is that women will complain just about anything.
Seriously, dude. When you park your car next to a Ferrari at the local meet & greet, do you lecture the owner on what a waste of money his unreliable car is? A ZR1 is not twice the car that a base Vette is, so wouldn't you be morally negligent not to lecture the next ZR1 owner you see? There are people spending over $25 million dollars on a single car at auction, and something tells me a 50-year-old Ferrari isn't exactly reliable. To you, this should be a moral outrage. What are you doing about it?

Just to keep some perspective, this year's JD Power dependability survey has Volkswagen down the list near the bottom at 174 problems per 100. Dead last was Land Rover at 220. 10 years ago, Porsche topped the list at 193 PP100, followed by Toyota at 196. GM was at 264. Were people complaining about how miserably poor in reliability Porsche, Toyota, and GM were? Today's Land Rover reports 50 fewer problems per 100 than the industry average from 10 years ago (273).

CasperDog

I personally buy my cars (I assumed most folks did), as I find them for one reason or another, more appealing than another. Money is not part of the equation. I own several brands with no regards to cost, if it makes me happy then what does it matter. Magazine or "trade expert" reviews are a great start but certainly arent the no-go gage as to what I may or may not buy. The fact of the matter is Porsche offers cars that are recognized across the world as the bench mark for most sports cars; they are very high quality, very well built/designed, very reliable, and are rarely used to their full potential (just like the Corvette). I am not so ignorent to beleive that any one car is the very best in every category. I will keep my C6 ZR1 until the day I die just as I will my GT2 and Turbo S because I like them (alot). Each of my vehicles put a smile on my face for one reason or another. If it was all about (simplified) "point A to point B" we would all drive the bicycles, same color, same height, same seat. etc. Car reviews (mostly OPINIONS) are for publishers and alike allowing the opportunity to sell advertising and make $$ and as such IMO do not qualify as testimate.

Lavender

Good taste

CasperDog

Update: changed!...................it was conveying the wrong message.

E in Phila

Did that make you feel warm and fuzzy inside?

Since you are apparently very much caught up in magazine opinions, check this one out: The newest Porsche 911 has won every comparison test we've entered it in. The 991 is as dominant as sports cars get. More than a few of us left BDC wondering if there is any car that can beat it.


I've driven a 991 4S on a track (NJ Motorsports Park), and all I can say is "wow". I'm sure the C7 is impressive as well, but to be in any way dismissive of the 911 is crazy. It's a spectacular car.

Dave68

Actually, while I was waiting for my wife to finish her half of grocery shopping (yesterday), I found a Motor Trend magazine on the rack. In it was a comparison of the C7 and 911. The 911 was $148K and the C7, about $68K with lots of options.
According to the tester, the C7 annihilated the 911. Even its (C7's) steering was rated as better, which is very surprising and a first for Corvettes, I believe.

So, yes, the 911 may be spectacular, but at half the cost, the C7 does prove that there IS a substitute.

E in Phila

I would certainly agree with that.

The C7 provides better bang for the buck by a longshot.

Dave68

It ended up being Car & Driver magazine, not Motor Trend. The thing that irritated the writer was the cost of options for the 911. The base price is about $100k, but with 6 items costing more than $3K apiece and another 6 costing over $1000 each, the options cost almost as much as a base C7. One of the amazing things mentioned in the comparison article was the highway mileage of the C7 (35.8 mpg), which is astounding, given it's weight and power.

Guibo

It's not astounding, when you consider the AFM. Which the Porsche didn't have, yet it still got better gas mileage overall.
What could be irritating is that the options on the Porsche aren't just performance-related. Things factored into the price simply aren't considered in the final scoring, yet they add cost (and value) to the 911. As for being a substitute, while the C7 is greatly improved over the C6, it doesn't offer everything that the 911 does.

Dave68

With AFM, normal driving mileage will almost definitely favor the C7. Back in the 80s, Corvettes were trouncing 911s on the track, and here we are in 2013, experiencing the same kind of beat down at half the cost.

Guibo

"Almost definitely"...for many people, normal driving takes place in cities, where the 911's EPA rating is 2 mpg higher than the Corvette's.
And what is the significance of that beatdown today? Check out how despite the Corvette is faster for the buck, it has lost marketshare whereas the 911 has gained marketshare. And this despite its cheaper Boxster/Cayman siblings being introduced to the market. This, despite direct price competitors from Audi (R8), Jaguar (XK/F-Type), BMW (6-Series), Dodge (Viper) and Aston (V8 Vantage) being introduced to the market.



Remember, the 911 being twice the price doesn't mean it has half the number of customers who can realistically afford it. It has exponentially fewer customers who can afford it.