raidersfan

You are correct about a few examples: more generally speaking, I had about 10 manual "base" models and 10 manual or PDK "S" models saved, bookmarked for the past 3 months. Talking 3-4 year old low mileage CPO examples here. I also looked at the Edmunds TCO tables (which was why I was thinking a base as the cheaper options) but once I worked backwards (what is a 2009 base w/35k miles going for vs a 2009 C2S w/35k; compared to what a 2013 example of each with 10k miles is selling for); that's where I saw both the S values holding steady, and much more in demand. Perhaps the 991's won't be along those lines, but it's not worth discounting. I don't include tax, as we don't pay sales tax in this state.

If I were listing a base manual, fairly lean options here in the classified, vs an S with all performance options for $12k more, I bet the S sells faster and gets a lot more attention.

Ultimately, best to get what you want to drive, but I don't think the S (used) can really be said to be more expensive to own.

petee1997

This does not necessarily prove your argument. I called the dealer where I buy my Porsches for lease residual values. A three year lease on a base 911 has a residual value of 61% of the manufacturer's retail price and the S model has a residual of 59%.

Porsche bases their depreciation on market values. The sales manager also told me base cars sell well because fewer are sold new and the price is attractive for a used car . For example a three year old base for 83K at 61% residual is only 50K.

These residuals were based on three year leases with 12K kms per year in Canada. Leases for 25K kms per year were 4% lower residuals on each model or 57% and 55%. Residuals may be more or less in the US but the spread will remain the same. Edmund's also appear to agree with Porsche.

oalvarez

lol....poor STG, it's ok to be wrong, we know how hard you try to be right all the time....hopefully your "S" will make you feel better.

oalvarez

we're (well at least i am) talking about depreciation on said automobiles, new cars (to determine which are more expensive to own), not what they're offered for (which means very little to me). where cars are trading or where the financial companies (PFS being one of the most important) have said car's residual values set at means a lot more (again, at least to me it does).

does an S car sell faster? i don't know, i don't have factual statistics to prove such, but i would imagine that it would.

STG

My car makes me feel great. I talk about subjects I know about, and ask questions and learn about those I don't.

Maybe you need to learn more rather than being a jack of no trades and master of none.

You have lots of comments without offering any substance.

I'll leave well enough alone Obie "why won't anyone buy my car" Jr. You're not worth my time anymore.

oalvarez

Poor Stg....always resorting to sticks and stones. Even what you think you know about seems questionable (copy and pasting for sale ads and determining their worth). What I offered seems to be substantiated, and possibly validated. The numbers are not made up (unless you want to challenge Porsche dealers, Porsche Financial, or Edmunds, please feel free to do so). Not sure why it's so hard for you to comprehend or grasp, but the more I think about it.....

Not so hot

raidersfan

As far as I know, residuals have nothing to do with actual values of cars, and more of what cars PFS is trying to make attractive to a potential lessee.

oalvarez

Are you seven?

I think you did this in some other thread....salesperson/service person related....disclosing the person's name and work address....then removing it all....wasn't that you?

oalvarez

Whoa.

How is it that residual values dont help shape market values of used cars?

JonDUnning

I believe there is some truth in that statement. When I was looking at BMW 750Li leases a few years ago I was blown away by the residuals. They were obviously heavily subsidized by BMW. Looking at the Audi A8 as a comparably-priced car the difference in payments (with the same drive-offs) were 30% apart.

I told my wife that in three years there were going to be a ton of 750's coming off lease that BMW was going to take a bath on.

petee1997

I agree that certain makes of cars are subsidized like the slow selling i750. That is highly unlikely regarding the 991.2 where PAG can't fill the demand. Check Porsche dealer's 911 inventories. My dealer is now selling factory orders for Nov. delivery.

Either way it makes no difference. My point was that the depreciation on a base car and an S is the same, percentage wise. Edmund's and Porsche appear to confirm this. Buying a lighly equipped base 911 is the most economical way to drive a Porsche 911. Besides, unless you put in all the performance options on the S, both cars have similar performance.

KenTO

Wouldn't the benefits of the S (and GTS) for that matter, benefit more for those with track use?

And if you don't track your car, and use it as a daily driver, and with LE on speeding, would the standard car not be enough?

And if not, why does Porsche make a standard Carrera in the first place?

oalvarez

in my opinion, absolutely (GT3 included as well)....spot on, KenTO.....and think about how long they've been making base 911 cars....a very, very long time. the thing is, some folks out there have to own the S because, you know, they just have to. of course there are others who want to own a little more (S) and can rightfully afford to, so why not.

NoGaBiker

To be accurate, they've only been making modern "base" cars for 11 model years. "Base" cars can't exist without other models above them to make them base cars.

T, E, and L cars were various models of base and mid-level 911s slotted beneath the S and RS models in the sixties and seventies. In the US, though, those different power levels disappeared with the 73 911S until the 2005 Carrera S.

997s07

Haven't had an 'S' pass me on the track yet... And I'm not the only base 991 track driver to say this.