991/997 in the Rearview
01-16-2014 | 12:27 PM
#31
Burning Brakes
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 1
From: Fanny Bay, BC, Canada
01-17-2014 | 11:40 AM
#32
Burning Brakes
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,108
Likes: 47
From: Midwest
The new Vette is better than the previous Vette, but at the end of the day its just a Camaro with a half awesome half asinine fiberglass shell on it. Its the first Vette that doesn't look like crap, and they almost got it right but the back end looks like something you'd see at a Boy Scouts Pinewood Derby and the exhaust pipes are literally laughable. And I'm not buying those rear brake venty things one bit. They just put holes there because they could. Probably front loaded aesthetics for the next Transformers movie or something, I don't know. At least its possible to get one without chrome wheels, for now, so they got that going for them I guess.
01-17-2014 | 01:42 PM
#33
Drifting
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,605
Likes: 65
From: North Carolina
01-17-2014 | 02:48 PM
#37
Thread Starter
Instructor
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 241
Likes: 1
PCC, your post (maybe not necessarily your actual thoughts) is to compare the porsche to the corvette on terms of value based on performance. is that your point? then yes, there is more value to the corvette. you'd have to be stupid to think otherwise. also, since you are making your observation public, you are requesting input...my answer is who cares about your point? i don't mean that in the disrespectful fashion but rather that you are trying to make a point that is consistent with someone who is trying to justify buying a corvette over a porsche. you're on a porsche forum. i am going to be paying north of $135,000 for a vehicle i can really only drive 4-5 months out of the year. they may be great cars but value they certainly are not. thanks for the obvious observation. you sound like my wife 
. ultimately, to each their own but frankly i don't care if you think they're poor value because cars in general are $hit investments. its what you attach to it that counts.
. ultimately, to each their own but frankly i don't care if you think they're poor value because cars in general are $hit investments. its what you attach to it that counts.Yes, my point was value/performance. When I see what GM has engineered for half the cost, it makes me feel Porsche is resting on its laurels.
01-17-2014 | 03:03 PM
#39
Rennlist Member
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
From: canada
i don't think its porsche's intent to deliver value though. thats what i was trying to say in response to you. yes, your observation is true but nobody is trying to prove otherwise. you are trying to make a point to people interested in porsche about a subject that they don't care about. in essence, you are trolling! maybe your time will be better spent trying to get porsche to hire you as value consultant?? maybe you can convince gm to let porsche repurpose the plastic saturn body panels?? the possibilities are endless! kidding aside, have a great day. we get it. porsche is pricey. gm not so much. both cars have greater performance capacity than we can ever possibly utilize on a day to day basis.
01-17-2014 | 03:24 PM
#40
Rennlist Member
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 820
Likes: 411
From: NW Chicagoland Suburbs
'67 convertible with big block, side pipes, and knock-off wheels. One of the best looking cars of all time. Having owned 3 'Vettes, I can say that the C5 and C6 were both a hoot to drive, but the interior quality (especially the seats) made it instantly and painfully obvious that the 'Vette is, at the end of the day, a Chevy.
01-17-2014 | 04:22 PM
#42
Racer
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 419
Likes: 2
From: MI
So, for the cost, my car should do 0-60 1.8 seconds, and have a top speed of 370?
01-17-2014 | 05:07 PM
#43
Burning Brakes
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 843
Likes: 17
From: Northern VA