oc997

Will be very interesting to see whether the resale values on 675 follow the 12C and 650 depreciation curve or it goes upwards like the P1.

I am disappointed they made their halo 675 in a spider format as it should be coupe only as a pure bred track performance car and it's also a giant slap on the face to their coupe buyers.

I guess the one cool thing about having a coupe is you can order that beautiful roof scoop that can potentially hold the long term value of the coupe models.

McLaren needs to do a much better job preserving the long term resale value of their cars as so many friends I know got hurt so badly owning these cars.

Btw drove a 570S the other day and was extremely disappointed with the power and car felt very sluggish.

fxz

^+1

Nowadays thee car magazines are sponsor abused by manufacters

How can we trust 'em?

fxz

The commercial implications unbalance
behind a Giant like VW Porsche
and McLaren are making me laughing 2 days
everytime i read comparisons like this one

Hey I love my GT3!!! But comparing a monster in HP and Torque
and lower weight and better chassis
with my slightly tuned GT3 (the RS)
make me laughing loudly for days

Thanks for posting

916Bob

Then he should have his brakes checked...

I have both cars and the 650's are a bit better. I can brake a bit later, even though my speeds are a bit higher. Don't get me wrong... the GT3 brakes are extremely effective. It's just that the McLaren's are better.

ScottKelly911

I disagree, when you start making cars to preserve their resale value, then your priorities are wrong and you get the collectors and speculators ruining the second hand market and eventually it leads to the type of BS that we're seeing with the 991 RS and allocation debacle. A manufacturer should make the best car they can and sell as many of them as possible. It's not the manufacturers responsibility to protect the secondary market. The market itself will dictate and regulate what the secondary market does. Look at Mercedes, the S-class has no problem selling a ton of cars. They also have a horrific depreciation rate. Yet the still manage to sell huge amount of them every year. The point is buy the car that you want and will enjoy for yourself, not for thr next guy. Look how many RS's will rarely if ever be tracked and will for sure become garage queens in order to keep the mileage low for resale/collectabiliy purposes. Fompare that to the 964 RSA which most of hem are well over 50k and many many of them are over 100k, yet their prices are saoring! Artificially keeping numbers low for exclusivity reeks of snobbery and placating narcissistic personalities. Historically low production numbers were due to 1 of 3 reasons. Either they are homologation specials needed for a class of racing, or they are halo cars that actually lose money or barely break even or lastly and every company's worst fear is that the sales performance was low and the car didnt sell well. I hate artificially low production numbers on cars that dont necessitate them.

Macca

I 100% support this view. Let all of them depreciate then all of us at different buying levels can have a wonderful and varied car ownership experience. I can't afford a 675LT but it's the first McLaren to go on my "must have one day list". I cannot afford to buy one new, in my market they are over 400k usd. However with depreciation I will be able own and enjoy one in 3-4 years time. If they went up in value like some cars immediately they were produced the chance would be snatched from my hands probably forever....

SHAG

I'm with you Scott. Make cars for all of everyone. Lots of other investment opportunities out there for those with enough money to buy a $200k car.

Tre

I honestly wish everyone was rational and understood that these are cars, which are inherently built as depreciating assets. I for one can truly appreciate the engineering and technical marvels that manufactures are able to compose with the overall artistic design of their cars, but it always bothers me when cars are penalized for being driven. It is a car right? Um, the basic premise of a car is to transport occupants right? And before someone pokes holes in my sentiment, yes, I completely understand that certain cars like the RS are not daily drivers and are often 2nd, 3rd, etc cars for people and therefore don't accumulate miles. I have no problem with that. But that should NOT be held as the standard for everyone

oc997

I can agree with some of your points but I never suggested low production numbers as a recommended tactic.

As an exotic sports car manufacturer it only helps the longevity and desirability of the brand to consider the resale value of their cars. Ferrari does a great job of this hence why there is always a multi year wait list for their cars due to how closely they monitor the used car markets.

I think your example of comparing a Mercedes to an exotic sports car like McLaren may be slightly off base as the expectations of a buyer of a DD like Mercedes is quite different from day one.

Yes cars are a depreciating asset and everyone understands that but most buyers of exotic sports cars still highly consider resale values when making new car purchasing decisions even the ones that are excessively wealthy. That is just the reality of it although in theory a person should not care if their cars excessively depreciates because it's classified as a depreciating asset unlike real estate or stocks.

Your argument is theoretically correct but most buyers of exotic sports cars still highly consider resale values when making purchasing decisions and this will inherently affect long term demand.

z3lai

Who is more important to car manufacturers?
New car buyers or used car buyers?

tims16m

BOTH! I'll never buying a new car that will depreciate like a rock. I can accept that a car is a depreciating asset but not an excessive loss greater than 10-15% a year. So if no buyers for preowned within those parameters, I'm not touching that car no matter how much I like it. Example - Huracan, really like that car but huge depreciation after one year.

consolidated

Very much agree. Manufacturers walk this tightrope to keep values up for new and used cars by carefully metering limiting supply. However, Porsche, and BMW have gotten good at the "not enough to go around" message only to produce more when no one is looking.

Ronan

Excellent!...thanks for posting.

oc997

I agree car manufacturers must cater to both to have a solid long term sales strategy.

If resale is bad on a brand and consumers get burned badly and they will obviously be hesitant to buy another car from the same manufacturer again. This logic does not necessarily apply to cars that are daily drivers that people absolutely need to get from point A to point B.

I know very few friends or colleagues who buys an exotics sports car and can honestly say they don't care at all about the depreciation and resale value.

signes

Agree with your comment for Porsche, but where do you see BMW doing this?