991.2 Pre-owned: 4SALE & SEALED DEAL$
#138
Burning Brakes
It's not lack of interest, it's lack of deals. Glancing at autotrader, I see things like:
Base C2, 20,000 miles: 20% off.
C4S cab, 8,000 miles: 21% off
Targa 4S, 2,000 miles: 13% off.
Base C2, 13 miles: 10% off.
C2S, 13 miles: 10% off.
C4S cab, 13 miles: 10% off.
Targa 4S, 147 miles: 3% off.
Not that 10% off actually-new is terrible, but I got the impression HFS usually meant 30% off or more.
Base C2, 20,000 miles: 20% off.
C4S cab, 8,000 miles: 21% off
Targa 4S, 2,000 miles: 13% off.
Base C2, 13 miles: 10% off.
C2S, 13 miles: 10% off.
C4S cab, 13 miles: 10% off.
Targa 4S, 147 miles: 3% off.
Not that 10% off actually-new is terrible, but I got the impression HFS usually meant 30% off or more.
#140
Wow.
https://porschegreensboro.com/invent...ds+Red+1040042
$144k new
500 miles
Porsche Approved
$127k
Guards Red, Black leather, 7MT C2S Cab
Tasty!
https://porschegreensboro.com/invent...ds+Red+1040042
$144k new
500 miles
Porsche Approved
$127k
Guards Red, Black leather, 7MT C2S Cab
Tasty!
Last edited by flickroll; 07-25-2017 at 11:50 PM.
#142
Burning Brakes
Also, look at the warranty start date. 13 months ago. If it was sold just now (and it has been sold, Greensboro doesn't have it), that presumably meant it was sitting on the lot for a long time. Maybe because no one was interested in paying a premium for the cosmetic stuff locally? Or maybe no local market for a manual, heretical as that might seem.
#143
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: S Carolina coast & N Carolina mountains
Posts: 1,785
Received 158 Likes
on
113 Posts
There's retail prices and there's the trade-in value. If Flickroll's dealer was selling it for 19% off - which is definitely low - you can bet that the trade-in value was 25% off or more.
Also, look at the warranty start date. 13 months ago. If it was sold just now (and it has been sold, Greensboro doesn't have it), that presumably meant it was sitting on the lot for a long time. Maybe because no one was interested in paying a premium for the cosmetic stuff locally? Or maybe no local market for a manual, heretical as that might seem.
Also, look at the warranty start date. 13 months ago. If it was sold just now (and it has been sold, Greensboro doesn't have it), that presumably meant it was sitting on the lot for a long time. Maybe because no one was interested in paying a premium for the cosmetic stuff locally? Or maybe no local market for a manual, heretical as that might seem.
#144
There's retail prices and there's the trade-in value. If Flickroll's dealer was selling it for 19% off - which is definitely low - you can bet that the trade-in value was 25% off or more.
Also, look at the warranty start date. 13 months ago. If it was sold just now (and it has been sold, Greensboro doesn't have it), that presumably meant it was sitting on the lot for a long time. Maybe because no one was interested in paying a premium for the cosmetic stuff locally? Or maybe no local market for a manual, heretical as that might seem.
Also, look at the warranty start date. 13 months ago. If it was sold just now (and it has been sold, Greensboro doesn't have it), that presumably meant it was sitting on the lot for a long time. Maybe because no one was interested in paying a premium for the cosmetic stuff locally? Or maybe no local market for a manual, heretical as that might seem.
Last edited by flickroll; 07-26-2017 at 10:44 AM.
#145
Burning Brakes
Do you have a point? Because near as I can tell, you don't.
First, what I was saying: it's hard to say exactly what the immediate depreciation is without some hard numbers on trade in values. Which we don't have. We have the asking prices at dealerships, but that's not the same as the trade in value.
Second, I was pointing out that it sounded like this particular car was not just "driven off the lot," so it's actually not an argument for mile 1 depreciation. In effect, I was saying "this car depreciating by 30% doesn't mean the rest depreciate that much when you buy them." Because I don't actually have a dog in the fight about whether the 30% figure is true or false, I'm fine with pointing out the case against "30% off immediately" if the facts support that.
From what Flickroll said, it was depreciation on being driven off the lot after all. Sold in the first week, returned almost immediately, and offered at a large discount. But it's also an atypical case because, from what he says, the dealership decided to wholesale it immediately, and of course they'll entertain a customer offer that's better than wholesale. They weren't offering it to the general public at that price, that was a price on a car that was just about to go to another dealer at a lower price.
Finally, the rhetoric: counting "if's, maybes and presumablies" and expecting that to demonstrate anything is poor reasoning. "If" doesn't always mean uncertainty, that's not the only meaning of the word. The first one, for example, is a logical construction: if <precondition given as a fact by flickroll> then <obvious conclusion>. You can only treat that as an uncertainty if you're asserting that flickroll was lying about the $118k offering.
The "maybes" had zero to do with depreciation. They were speculation as to why a particular car didn't sell. That sort of thing is cannot be certain unless you interview every person who considered buying it.
Turns out it was irrelevant, because the car did not, in fact, sit unsold at the original dealership.
First, what I was saying: it's hard to say exactly what the immediate depreciation is without some hard numbers on trade in values. Which we don't have. We have the asking prices at dealerships, but that's not the same as the trade in value.
Second, I was pointing out that it sounded like this particular car was not just "driven off the lot," so it's actually not an argument for mile 1 depreciation. In effect, I was saying "this car depreciating by 30% doesn't mean the rest depreciate that much when you buy them." Because I don't actually have a dog in the fight about whether the 30% figure is true or false, I'm fine with pointing out the case against "30% off immediately" if the facts support that.
From what Flickroll said, it was depreciation on being driven off the lot after all. Sold in the first week, returned almost immediately, and offered at a large discount. But it's also an atypical case because, from what he says, the dealership decided to wholesale it immediately, and of course they'll entertain a customer offer that's better than wholesale. They weren't offering it to the general public at that price, that was a price on a car that was just about to go to another dealer at a lower price.
Finally, the rhetoric: counting "if's, maybes and presumablies" and expecting that to demonstrate anything is poor reasoning. "If" doesn't always mean uncertainty, that's not the only meaning of the word. The first one, for example, is a logical construction: if <precondition given as a fact by flickroll> then <obvious conclusion>. You can only treat that as an uncertainty if you're asserting that flickroll was lying about the $118k offering.
The "maybes" had zero to do with depreciation. They were speculation as to why a particular car didn't sell. That sort of thing is cannot be certain unless you interview every person who considered buying it.
Turns out it was irrelevant, because the car did not, in fact, sit unsold at the original dealership.
#146
I can assure you I am not lying about the deal I was working. First, that is not who I am, never have been, never will be. Second, why would I want to do that anyway? I will say I am a high volume customer at this dealer, they sell VW, Audi, Porsche. Look at my signature. All of the cars except the white 911 came from them, and the black one is about to be traded there on another deal. Not to mention I have bought 2 VW’s there for my children. The dealership treats me right, although I am sure anyone who happened into the door would have received a similar deal on the red 911.
#147
Burning Brakes
I didn't mean to seriously imply that you were. I was pointing out that "if" doesn't mean what he thought he meant, that he'd have to be asserting something unreasonable and insulting if he wanted to connect "if" and uncertainty.
And yeah, I the word "if" again! Horrors!
And yeah, I the word "if" again! Horrors!
#149
Rennlist Member