When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I tried to make this point awhile back. The S/T is essentially a wingless RS with black PCCB, WP/Mags and leather included. The price of the RS with the same options as an S/T is a ~$300 delta. That is essentially the same price.
All these journalists are either financially obtuse or just like the clicks when they say that the S/T is a touring but costs $100K more. Wrong & wrong.
Even if you want to call it a Super Touring, make sure you add the following options. If these were options on the Touring, it would be close to the current MSRP of the S/T.
WP
SMFW
Lightweight stuff
Different gearing
Mag wheels
Full leather
Black PCCB
RS engine
Finally, the reason the R was so inexpensive is because it was 8 years ago. Build a 2016 R with SMFW, full leather, somehow add mag wheels and you are over $200K. So ~40% price increase in 8 years...seems right on par with everything else in life. Math hurts when it's accurate.
I'll keep saying this, the S/T is a bargain, comparatively speaking.
The bold color on the wheels works perfectly, as it looks great and has the weird effect of toning down the car's extroversion (hood, rear wing, etc.).
While you make a valid point, the number one tell tell sign that Porsche got greedy and wanted more money left on the table is the price delta between the 2016 911R and the 2019 911 Speedster. Both cars are essentially the same, prior to the inflation hitting the economy. There was a 90k increase in the base price between the two model, with the 911R being build in almost half the numbers compared to the Speedster. Talk about economy of scales huh?
While inflation is real and the manufacturing cost have gone up, there is no denying from where I'm sitting, that Porsche is getting greedy and is testing the water of increasing the overall price of its products to capture more profit left on the table. Paint to sample used to cost 6950 in 2016, and now it's 20,960 in 2023. Inflation? Sure....
Originally Posted by mass27
I tried to make this point awhile back. The S/T is essentially a wingless RS with black PCCB, WP/Mags and leather included. The price of the RS with the same options as an S/T is a ~$300 delta. That is essentially the same price.
All these journalists are either financially obtuse or just like the clicks when they say that the S/T is a touring but costs $100K more. Wrong & wrong.
Even if you want to call it a Super Touring, make sure you add the following options. If these were options on the Touring, it would be close to the current MSRP of the S/T.
WP
SMFW
Lightweight stuff
Different gearing
Mag wheels
Full leather
Black PCCB
RS engine
Finally, the reason the R was so inexpensive is because it was 8 years ago. Build a 2016 R with SMFW, full leather, somehow add mag wheels and you are over $200K. So ~40% price increase in 8 years...seems right on par with everything else in life. Math hurts when it's accurate.
I'll keep saying this, the S/T is a bargain, comparatively speaking.
I was shocked that CXX doubled in price, yes doubled from my 992 RS to the ST for the same request.
Not that surprising if there is more demand for CXX than capacity and I'm sure it'll keep increasing with the .2 variants just like the PTS cost. I'll splurge on PTS but never had any interest in any of the CXX options given their cost, including the center stripe on the hood and wing for the 4RS.
While you make a valid point, the number one tell tell sign that Porsche got greedy and wanted more money left on the table is the price delta between the 2016 911R and the 2019 911 Speedster.
I think using the term greedy is a slippery slope. I'm not sure I have seen any company completely devoid of greed, which is sometimes a euphemism for profit. I would not call Porsche pricing greedy...it's a luxury product anyway so they can price it whatever the market will bear.
I do agree with you that Porsche is done with leaving profits on the table and good on them. And, they do some pricing that on its face seems arbitrary and capricious, e.g., GT silver is $4K? PTS is cheaper on a Panamera than a GT3RS? Then again, I am not on the board of Porsche so I have no idea how or why they price things, nor is it really my business.
I can't wait to see the pricing on the 992.2 and future models coupled with a new VIP program. The term "rage quit" comes to mind.
I think using the term greedy is a slippery slope. I'm not sure I have seen any company completely devoid of greed, which is sometimes a euphemism for profit.
Maximizing profit in all legal ways is an obligation of the executives and the board to the shareholders. So we can't really fault Porsche for that. But maximizing short-term profit at the expense of the company's long-term future is greedy. Happens all too often when executive comp is tied to some gameable metrics. But I'm not sure that's what's happening here. Porsche is clearly trying to capture the surplus value of its brand, and if they believe that this value is here to stay, that's the right call. I suspect that some of the current Porsche's brand value is temporary, driven by the success of its halo cars. So many people buying GT3s do it because it's cool rather than because they actually like the car. I mean, even this forum is full of posts along the lines of "GT3 needs more low-end torque because downshifting is too noisy and draws too much attention and is just inappropriate for my use case" even though that's the whole point of the car. Reminds me of the beers that advertise "drinkability" - which is basically a taste designed for people who don't like the taste of beer but feel the need to drink it. That vogue is usually temporary, so pricing it in fully could be dangerous, but getting some of it captured is just a fiduciary duty and smart business. Too bad we have to pay for it.
Maximizing profit in all legal ways is an obligation of the executives and the board to the shareholders. So we can't really fault Porsche for that. But maximizing short-term profit at the expense of the company's long-term future is greedy. Happens all too often when executive comp is tied to some gameable metrics. But I'm not sure that's what's happening here. Porsche is clearly trying to capture the surplus value of its brand, and if they believe that this value is here to stay, that's the right call. I suspect that some of the current Porsche's brand value is temporary, driven by the success of its halo cars. So many people buying GT3s do it because it's cool rather than because they actually like the car. I mean, even this forum is full of posts along the lines of "GT3 needs more low-end torque because downshifting is too noisy and draws too much attention and is just inappropriate for my use case" even though that's the whole point of the car. Reminds me of the beers that advertise "drinkability" - which is basically a taste designed for people who don't like the taste of beer but feel the need to drink it. That vogue is usually temporary, so pricing it in fully could be dangerous, but getting some of it captured is just a fiduciary duty and smart business. Too bad we have to pay for it.
Porsche has brought in a different crowd of buyers since the 911 and the social media culture doesn't help either but it is what it is. I much rather pay a higher MSRP than paying an ADM because then I know it goes back to Porsche to spend on future R&D on fun cars instead of lining the pockets of stealers and flippers. I think Porsche will keep pushing MSRP higher with the .2 variants while seeing how the market absorbs it to determine future price increases, same will go for PTS and CXX.
Brandon directly responsible! Along with the 6+ million new welfare participants to bankrupt the country. Time to raise taxes?
Of course it is, especially all the "rich" working stiffs and same will go for slick ***** in CA since the state went from a $100B surplus to a $68B deficit (yeah those refunds checks were a great idea to buy votes).
12-23-2023, 09:27 PM
