WenigerAberBeser

I don’t get it… why would RL selectively target 1 dude to give a warning when it’s obvious that another dude started the rabbit hole. Not to mention all the personal attacks in this thread and elsewhere. Seems pretty hypocritical

DodoBrd

if a business sells a product at market value… why has this suddenly become ‘bad’.

Rolex can do what they want and Porsche what they want. But when a SS Panda comes in, who’s going to get it? Someone willing to pay market value or someone who has bought many watches beforehand. At the end of the day, the dealer should have the discretion to choose what is best for its business.

Carlo_Carrera

I have not targeted one dude.

I, and others, have asked to to keep things civil a few times.

And just because it happens other places at other times doesn't mean it has to happen everywhere all the time.

DodoBrd

Sometimes it feels like a TSA line in here haha

kkabba

You from Toronto? Have you been to Mosport track in last 5 years?

it’s littered everywhere with latest GT Porsche cars and super cars. Come join us

I like my PTS and deviated stitching - doesn’t mean I C&C. Nothing wrong with a pretty GT or a pretty super car on track - also fun to drive them with winter tires driving in this tundra

ipse dixit

A person who gets a sought after Rolex (like the Hulk) has usually paid an ADM to the dealer in other ways.

Rolex AD (at least in the US) sell more than just one brand of watches; Rolex is just one of them. If that Rolex AD is willing to give their one allocation for, for example, a Steel Daytona, to a buyer it just means that person has bought other watches from them at MSRP (as opposed to a discount) like say a Zenith, or an Omega, or a Bvlgari (yuck). No one in their right mind is paying full fat MSRP for Zenith or a Bulgari unless there's a carrot at the end of that stick.

chronon

This is why PCNA should get involved to provide a better way to manage allocations to end customers (vs flippers). As you state Porsche can use carrots (extra allocations, incentives) or sticks (lower allocation) to drive the right behaviors. It is not in Porsche's best interest to have many loyal customers pissed which is currently the case.

I don't claim to have the answer but that is the work that PCNA could develop a better allocation model. For example, should they only include 911 owners in the lottery? Should the hold period be min. 1 year? Also, if GT cars supply is so constrained, I do believe it is right to give long term Porsche owners first dibs.

IF PCNA was involved, it could also reward customers that do not flip cars right away with future allocations. If you are a good customer (whatever that means) but you flip the car, you may be sent to the back of the list for future allocations.

1-Agree. PCNA can take action but it is turning a blind eye on the situation.
2-Yes. That would be a smarter move for Porsche
3-For some of us it is difficult to have a long term relationship with the local dealer. For example, I have moved to different cities/countries in last 2 decades due to work. Does that mean I am a bad, unworthy customer? In the eyes of Porsche, I have a great 911 ownership history. In the eyes of my local dealer, I have only bought a TTS. This is where PCNA could help.

+1. I test drove a 600LT and was very impressed. Quality is not the same as Porsche which "can be fixed" with an extended warranty.

There are many GT3s with delivery miles at dealers and $300k asking prices. Is PCNA really doing anything? I guess technically they are used cars but we all know that that is crap.

ipse dixit

Instead of coming to RL and preaching to PCNA or PAG what to do (or not to do) with respect to prices and dealer tactics, the only way that PCNA or PAG will change their current practices is if people stop buying Porsche's, not just GT cars, but all Porsche's.

This thread right here is Exhibit 1 as to why PCNA or PAG has absolutely no incentive to change the current model.

So until people stop buying cars from Stuttgart, Porsche will continue to enjoy its stellar profits. And nothing will change.

chronon

+1. I love Porsche but given PCNA/Porsche doesn't care about the issues with the allocation system, I am considering other brands. Has anyone had a GT3 AND a MB GTR or a 600LT? Interested in the ownership experience for these other great cars.

darylbowden

There's a recent thread on the GT3 vs MB GTR on here if you search.

600LT I haven't owned but a good friend of mine had one for a while. Good car, not great. If I was going to buy a McLaren, it wouldn't be the one I would buy (I'd probably go 720S, I loved driving that), but I've heard so many horror stories about owning them longer term, I'd personally stay away. I'm sure there's lots of happy folks, but of the relatively few people I know who have owned them, too high a percentage have had issues for me to feel good about dropping that kind of money on one.

Manifold

So the options for distributing GT car allocations are:

- Guys who buy one very expensive Porsche (VIPs) are always at the front of the line to get GT cars at MSRP, and they can flip after holding them for a little while

- They go to the highest bidders (and the dealers keep the extra profit)

- They go to repeat customers at MSRP (so you can't have one if you're not a repeat customer)

- They're distributed at MSRP according to a lottery system (so it's a matter of luck, and your chances go down as more people join the lottery); could modify this with a rule like 'no one gets a GT car allocation more often than every X years', and you never get an allocation again if you flip the car within X years

I think that each of these options would make a lot of people unhappy, but I think the last option would be perceived by most people as the 'fairest'.

DodoBrd

I would add…

Dealer allocates to those on a ‘list’ at MSRP (after taking care of their VIPs/good customers). I’ve been able to secure 2 GT3s at MSRP at 2 different dealers by being on a list. No strings attached / no trades / no buying regular cars. Once you take delivery of the GT3, it’s a perfect opportunity to keep doing business with them.

This is a dying way though, a few years ago 3 of the 4 dealers in my area did things this way, now only 1. The others go to repeat customers at MSRP or folks willing to buy regular cars at MSRP.

Targa32

Buying other brands?

you must not have heard “ there is no substitute”.

usctrojanGT3

Comparing selling homes to selling watches and cars is comparing apples to oranges. There's no "manufacturer" and "dealers" in the real estate market that control a material supply (yes you have home builders but they have to compete against resale inventory) like there is with watches and cars. Also, a home is primarily considered to be a necessity that is a commodity (you have to live somewhere unless you want to live in the woods or in a box under the freeway) where luxury cars and watches are luxury goods that are discretionary purchases.

av12345

But luxury homes are by no means a necessity - it’s the same concept. I’m guessing you didn’t answer my question because (rightfully) you would say the price should increase because demand has increased.

Also (more importantly) I think it’s funny to say we should set fixed prices for luxury goods but for goods that are necessities they shouldn’t be regulated (so it’s cool for a real estate agent to screw over a poor family looking to buy a home but don’t the dealerships dare screw over a rich guy looking for a rare Porsche)? That doesn’t make sense - even though I disagree, I could see arguments for setting fixed prices for necessities (standard housing, certain food, etc - people need those things to live) but not Porsches. It’s just that IMHO the free market should apply to pretty much all things (and yes I get there are plenty of downsides to that).