current 993 turbo s values
04-07-2011, 10:57 AM
#31
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pa.
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I could not agree more, I read this thread every day and was starting to wonder if the enthusiasts on this site were thinking the only rare car Porsche ever built was a 73 RS. Not saying this just because I have two turbo S cars, one with 82 miles and the other with 183 miles, I was just surprised how few appreciate the rarity of the turbo S.
04-07-2011, 11:22 AM
#32
Burning Brakes
There are plenty of examples in the car world where two cars that have essentially the same performance and are, in reality, 99.9% the same, yet have values that are vastly different. That is true even in cases where the less expensive car can easily be made better than the more expensive car. I don't think I need to give a lot of examples to prove the point, but an RS America is a good one. What does it have that is not in a C2? Or could not be recreated in a C2 for a lot less money? Yet look at the prices. And those RSAs that are 50% more than a C2 are not garage queens. It is just that an RSA is much rarer and slightly better than a C2. Same with a 73RS vs a 73 S. Or even a 89 speedster vs an 89 cab; 57 speedster vs 57 cab (why pay 3x as much for a car with a chopped windshield that makes the car less useful and does not enhance performance?); the list goes on and on.
I paid probably a 40% premium to get my S, and think it has depreciated less in dollars than a non-S while owning it, so all I am really paying is the carrying cost on the extra 40% i put into it; in fact, I believe that it will end up being cheaper to own than a non-S becuase I think that the differential will widen over time. Not that the S will actually go up, but it will go down less. So I have an extra 30k tied up while I own it. Big deal; that is like $300 a year in foregone interest. I think I can sport $25/month extra for a TTS vs a TT. I have a BMW 335 than probably costs $100 a month more than a 328. And the all-in cost of owning a TT is probably already several thousand a year even if you don't drive it. Add in the fact that most people have a limited amount of garage space, and that car storage is a huge fixed cost that is laregly invariant to the price of the car, and I think it is easy to see why some people don't think that paying an extra 50k to get something that most people will never see on the roads in their lives, that represents the end of the air-cooled 911, and that was the most desireable 911 made in its era, is such a crazy idea.
P.S., I've probably lost money on my car since buyiung it 5+ years ago, but would still not sell it for what I paid. I think that more TTS owners feel that way than TT owners. It'd be impossible to get the data, but I bet the average holding period of of a TTS is a lot longer than a TT. A lot of people buy the TTS to keep it, so its supply on the market will probably fall in relation to the TT over time as the cars continue to move into more stable holders' hands. If that happens, then the differential in price should widen.
I paid probably a 40% premium to get my S, and think it has depreciated less in dollars than a non-S while owning it, so all I am really paying is the carrying cost on the extra 40% i put into it; in fact, I believe that it will end up being cheaper to own than a non-S becuase I think that the differential will widen over time. Not that the S will actually go up, but it will go down less. So I have an extra 30k tied up while I own it. Big deal; that is like $300 a year in foregone interest. I think I can sport $25/month extra for a TTS vs a TT. I have a BMW 335 than probably costs $100 a month more than a 328. And the all-in cost of owning a TT is probably already several thousand a year even if you don't drive it. Add in the fact that most people have a limited amount of garage space, and that car storage is a huge fixed cost that is laregly invariant to the price of the car, and I think it is easy to see why some people don't think that paying an extra 50k to get something that most people will never see on the roads in their lives, that represents the end of the air-cooled 911, and that was the most desireable 911 made in its era, is such a crazy idea.
P.S., I've probably lost money on my car since buyiung it 5+ years ago, but would still not sell it for what I paid. I think that more TTS owners feel that way than TT owners. It'd be impossible to get the data, but I bet the average holding period of of a TTS is a lot longer than a TT. A lot of people buy the TTS to keep it, so its supply on the market will probably fall in relation to the TT over time as the cars continue to move into more stable holders' hands. If that happens, then the differential in price should widen.
04-07-2011, 12:35 PM
#33
Race Director
I paid probably a 40% premium to get my S, and think it has depreciated less in dollars than a non-S while owning it, so all I am really paying is the carrying cost on the extra 40% i put into it; in fact, I believe that it will end up being cheaper to own than a non-S becuase I think that the differential will widen over time. Not that the S will actually go up, but it will go down less. So I have an extra 30k tied up while I own it. Big deal; that is like $300 a year in foregone interest. I think I can sport $25/month extra for a TTS vs a TT. I have a BMW 335 than probably costs $100 a month more than a 328. And the all-in cost of owning a TT is probably already several thousand a year even if you don't drive it. Add in the fact that most people have a limited amount of garage space, and that car storage is a huge fixed cost that is laregly invariant to the price of the car, and I think it is easy to see why some people don't think that paying an extra 50k to get something that most people will never see on the roads in their lives, that represents the end of the air-cooled 911, and that was the most desireable 911 made in its era, is such a crazy idea.
P.S., I've probably lost money on my car since buyiung it 5+ years ago, but would still not sell it for what I paid. I think that more TTS owners feel that way than TT owners. It'd be impossible to get the data, but I bet the average holding period of of a TTS is a lot longer than a TT. A lot of people buy the TTS to keep it, so its supply on the market will probably fall in relation to the TT over time as the cars continue to move into more stable holders' hands. If that happens, then the differential in price should widen.
04-07-2011, 12:49 PM
#34
There are plenty of examples in the car world where two cars that have essentially the same performance and are, in reality, 99.9% the same, yet have values that are vastly different. That is true even in cases where the less expensive car can easily be made better than the more expensive car. I don't think I need to give a lot of examples to prove the point, but an RS America is a good one. What does it have that is not in a C2? Or could not be recreated in a C2 for a lot less money? Yet look at the prices. And those RSAs that are 50% more than a C2 are not garage queens. It is just that an RSA is much rarer and slightly better than a C2. Same with a 73RS vs a 73 S. Or even a 89 speedster vs an 89 cab; 57 speedster vs 57 cab (why pay 3x as much for a car with a chopped windshield that makes the car less useful and does not enhance performance?); the list goes on and on.
I paid probably a 40% premium to get my S, and think it has depreciated less in dollars than a non-S while owning it, so all I am really paying is the carrying cost on the extra 40% i put into it; in fact, I believe that it will end up being cheaper to own than a non-S becuase I think that the differential will widen over time. Not that the S will actually go up, but it will go down less. So I have an extra 30k tied up while I own it. Big deal; that is like $300 a year in foregone interest. I think I can sport $25/month extra for a TTS vs a TT. I have a BMW 335 than probably costs $100 a month more than a 328. And the all-in cost of owning a TT is probably already several thousand a year even if you don't drive it. Add in the fact that most people have a limited amount of garage space, and that car storage is a huge fixed cost that is laregly invariant to the price of the car, and I think it is easy to see why some people don't think that paying an extra 50k to get something that most people will never see on the roads in their lives, that represents the end of the air-cooled 911, and that was the most desireable 911 made in its era, is such a crazy idea.
P.S., I've probably lost money on my car since buyiung it 5+ years ago, but would still not sell it for what I paid. I think that more TTS owners feel that way than TT owners. It'd be impossible to get the data, but I bet the average holding period of of a TTS is a lot longer than a TT. A lot of people buy the TTS to keep it, so its supply on the market will probably fall in relation to the TT over time as the cars continue to move into more stable holders' hands. If that happens, then the differential in price should widen.
I paid probably a 40% premium to get my S, and think it has depreciated less in dollars than a non-S while owning it, so all I am really paying is the carrying cost on the extra 40% i put into it; in fact, I believe that it will end up being cheaper to own than a non-S becuase I think that the differential will widen over time. Not that the S will actually go up, but it will go down less. So I have an extra 30k tied up while I own it. Big deal; that is like $300 a year in foregone interest. I think I can sport $25/month extra for a TTS vs a TT. I have a BMW 335 than probably costs $100 a month more than a 328. And the all-in cost of owning a TT is probably already several thousand a year even if you don't drive it. Add in the fact that most people have a limited amount of garage space, and that car storage is a huge fixed cost that is laregly invariant to the price of the car, and I think it is easy to see why some people don't think that paying an extra 50k to get something that most people will never see on the roads in their lives, that represents the end of the air-cooled 911, and that was the most desireable 911 made in its era, is such a crazy idea.
P.S., I've probably lost money on my car since buyiung it 5+ years ago, but would still not sell it for what I paid. I think that more TTS owners feel that way than TT owners. It'd be impossible to get the data, but I bet the average holding period of of a TTS is a lot longer than a TT. A lot of people buy the TTS to keep it, so its supply on the market will probably fall in relation to the TT over time as the cars continue to move into more stable holders' hands. If that happens, then the differential in price should widen.
I've been in the 993 world for as long as the car existed. I've had my nose pressed up against my fair share of dealership windows in the middle of the night looking at every model of 911 since the mid 80's never seriously believing I'd ever have one. I know real Porsche enthusiasts when I meet them. From a humble '95 Carrera daily driver over 100K and different tires on each corner to pristine "pride and joy" examples, I don't think I've ever encountered a 993 owner (new or fifth-hand) who wasn't appreciative of having the car or regretting having sold it and looking forward to getting another one. Of the really devoted Porschephiles, I've met and known, the 993 Turbo owner is amongst the most earnest and just plain obsessed; and with good cause. The sincere Turbo S owner is not to be underestimated, but by no means do they carry the flag any higher than the humble '95 Carrera driver nosing through a swap meet looking for used brake rotors.
ps. If you think the actual cost of owning a $80K car versus a $160K car is $25/month, I've got two bridges for sale that you might be interesting in acquiring and if you do the math, it's only about $25/month more to buy both.
04-07-2011, 01:07 PM
#35
Burning Brakes
I don't know for sure what the premium has done, but I'd bet it has not compressed. No one is claiming that the premium is 100%. I said 40% and have previously said 50%. You said 100%. I paid 112k for my car. with high 20s in miles. I'm in the 30s now, and think I might be able to get 10k more than I paid. It is 100% original, I am the third owner, no accidents, shows like it has 3k miles. I looked at non Ss at the time and thought that I was paying 30k extra for the S. That is a bit less than 40%. A 30k miles TT is now something in the 70. I think my car is definitely over 100. So my 25/mo seems high to me. And that ascribes no value to the fact that I owned an S instead of a non-S for 5 years.
04-07-2011, 02:19 PM
#36
I think it might be less than 25. I was being generous when I made the assumption that I lost about the same as I would had I bought a non-S TT. I think the non-S TT probably lost a good 5-10 more than I have. So if I paid 30 extra, and that premium is now 40, I saved 10k vs the non-S buyer. On the other hand, I tied up 30k at the same time. Given my marginal cost of funds is about zero, I'll call it 1%, that is $25 a month or about 300 a year; even at 2005 rates, it is probably only averaging $50 a month; take that for five years against the 10$ I think I did better on depreciation, and I have been paid $100 a month to own an S vs a non S.
I don't know for sure what the premium has done, but I'd bet it has not compressed. No one is claiming that the premium is 100%. I said 40% and have previously said 50%. You said 100%. I paid 112k for my car. with high 20s in miles. I'm in the 30s now, and think I might be able to get 10k more than I paid. It is 100% original, I am the third owner, no accidents, shows like it has 3k miles. I looked at non Ss at the time and thought that I was paying 30k extra for the S. That is a bit less than 40%. A 30k miles TT is now something in the 70. I think my car is definitely over 100. So my 25/mo seems high to me. And that ascribes no value to the fact that I owned an S instead of a non-S for 5 years.
I don't know for sure what the premium has done, but I'd bet it has not compressed. No one is claiming that the premium is 100%. I said 40% and have previously said 50%. You said 100%. I paid 112k for my car. with high 20s in miles. I'm in the 30s now, and think I might be able to get 10k more than I paid. It is 100% original, I am the third owner, no accidents, shows like it has 3k miles. I looked at non Ss at the time and thought that I was paying 30k extra for the S. That is a bit less than 40%. A 30k miles TT is now something in the 70. I think my car is definitely over 100. So my 25/mo seems high to me. And that ascribes no value to the fact that I owned an S instead of a non-S for 5 years.
Those bridges are still there if you're interested ... : )
Anyway, I thought that was a pretty good joke and I don't mean to turn this into yet another polarized left-and-right with both being certain of absolutes.
If you're happy with those numbers, run them by your tax accountant and see if he can keep a straight face for a full minute. : ) At best, you can borrow money for 5%. And the USD has plummeted in value in the last five years, by any measure you choose, the purchasing power of the dollar has been castrated. If you've got more cash tied up in something and it's tied to the USD, you've lost more. Some would say it's the relative numerical performance of the price tag and that's fine. It's "head in the clouds" rationalization of owning a car (I don't count myself immune to that behavior ... every second 911 I buy, I seem to take a bath on resale value) but it's just a rationalization, it's not a financially sound calculation.
There is no monetary expression of the perceived value of owning the car you want to own. We would none of us be here if this was the "fiscally responsible Porsche owners forum." : )
But if we can agree that a very nice Turbo is under $80K today and dealers are advertising at $160K for a Turbo S, I see that as a 100% premium today. The topic is, after all, current 993 Turbo S values and I think it's impossible to compare a Turbo with Turbo S -- that's just never going to be an apples to apples comparison. By that I mean, for example, that if you took two identical cars, one Turbo, one Turbo S and made a comparison, anything that made the car more valuable in real terms (lower mileage, fewer owners, better mechanical or cosmetic condition) would tend to accentuate the value of the Turbo S, and vice versa. Conversely, anything that favored the value of the Turbo S relies upon the buyer maintaining that value -- so it has to be treated more as a collectible and less as a car, while anything that favors the price advantage of the Turbo (higher mileage, lower points score on mechanical or cosmetic condition) allows it to be driven with less impact on value -- so it is treated more as a Porsche 993 Turbo and less as a collectible objet d'art or for the concours crowd. No walk of life is more or less than the other, just not apples to apples.
04-07-2011, 02:52 PM
#37
Just be very careful about assumptions on the Turbo S market -- there's been years of "hoarding" (nicest word that comes to mind right now) by a few dealers thinking they can stifle supply and then have the only cars on the market on offer at insanely inflated prices (ie. $160K -- $200K.)
Check with credible references on real selling prices, real auction results and real market value. SCM or PMletter.com come to mind. Or sales on ebay. Not the advertised nonsense by a few parasite traders. These sky high prices are out of step with the market and the car has not achieved any kind of investor/collector status beyond a handful of examples with zero miles or unique provenance. At 5K miles and up, it's a driven car, not a collector example. At 18K miles, it's a low mileage Turbo with the appeal of the S body, but the 424hp engine upgrades are nothing to write home about -- and 15 year old K24's are in need of a rebuild anyway.
Just to be clear, I'm not at all arguing against the Turbo S per se -- it's a very low unit volume production run, it's a rare car by averages and it's well worth a 50% premium over a normal Turbo, but there's no way to make an apples to apples comparison. As mentioned, it's hard to find too many of them to start defining rules or generalizations. Equally well, as mentioned, it's damn hard to find a buyer with the folding stuff, so it's still, even for this rare case, a buyer's market.
At $120K, you're paying the premium and you'll get it back on resale. At $160K, the retail buyer is getting gouged and suckered by the dealer and wouldn't get $90K in wholesale to turn the car around to the same dealer the same day.
As ever, the buyer criteria should be around the right options and condition, not around perceived market dynamics or any fanciful notion of a collector value. Unless you're a collector as a buyer and know your oats, then don't seriously expect to see any Porsche turn out to be an investment or a shrewd collectible acquisition. I think you could argue the history is in favor of the 993 Turbo and the 993 Turbo S becoming respected collector and even investment grade Porsche, but it will be some considerable time before that unfolds.
If $120K or $160K is neither here nor there for the buyer, then by all means find the right car -- options and condition, history and documentation -- but otherwise, price has to govern the purchase. A stout 993 Turbo should be $60-80K +/- (market, location, etc. will raise or lower that spread.)
If I had my heart set on a Turbo S as something to keep to the grave, I'd be looking to buy a one-owner original condition car from the owner and pay that person a fair price for both parties -- if that number was too rich for my blood, I'd just have to put the Turbo S on the wall alongside a photo of an F40 and a 962 and 935 and 73 RS and RS60 and ...
Check with credible references on real selling prices, real auction results and real market value. SCM or PMletter.com come to mind. Or sales on ebay. Not the advertised nonsense by a few parasite traders. These sky high prices are out of step with the market and the car has not achieved any kind of investor/collector status beyond a handful of examples with zero miles or unique provenance. At 5K miles and up, it's a driven car, not a collector example. At 18K miles, it's a low mileage Turbo with the appeal of the S body, but the 424hp engine upgrades are nothing to write home about -- and 15 year old K24's are in need of a rebuild anyway.
Just to be clear, I'm not at all arguing against the Turbo S per se -- it's a very low unit volume production run, it's a rare car by averages and it's well worth a 50% premium over a normal Turbo, but there's no way to make an apples to apples comparison. As mentioned, it's hard to find too many of them to start defining rules or generalizations. Equally well, as mentioned, it's damn hard to find a buyer with the folding stuff, so it's still, even for this rare case, a buyer's market.
At $120K, you're paying the premium and you'll get it back on resale. At $160K, the retail buyer is getting gouged and suckered by the dealer and wouldn't get $90K in wholesale to turn the car around to the same dealer the same day.
As ever, the buyer criteria should be around the right options and condition, not around perceived market dynamics or any fanciful notion of a collector value. Unless you're a collector as a buyer and know your oats, then don't seriously expect to see any Porsche turn out to be an investment or a shrewd collectible acquisition. I think you could argue the history is in favor of the 993 Turbo and the 993 Turbo S becoming respected collector and even investment grade Porsche, but it will be some considerable time before that unfolds.
If $120K or $160K is neither here nor there for the buyer, then by all means find the right car -- options and condition, history and documentation -- but otherwise, price has to govern the purchase. A stout 993 Turbo should be $60-80K +/- (market, location, etc. will raise or lower that spread.)
If I had my heart set on a Turbo S as something to keep to the grave, I'd be looking to buy a one-owner original condition car from the owner and pay that person a fair price for both parties -- if that number was too rich for my blood, I'd just have to put the Turbo S on the wall alongside a photo of an F40 and a 962 and 935 and 73 RS and RS60 and ...
04-07-2011, 03:03 PM
#38
Burning Brakes
And I didn't hear what part of my math you disagreed with, aisde from the fact that someone in debt may have a marginal cost of funds that is different from mine.
As for the dollar dropping, it has nothing to do with it. That is like saying that everyone who lives in america made a bad choice over the past 5 years. So?
5 years ago I could either have spent 30k less and I would have had 30k more cash, or I could have bought the turbo S instead of the non-S. Perhaps you decide between "should I buy a car or buy the Australian Dollar", but to me, that is conflating two investment decisions into one. The reality is that I would have held 30k extra cash had I not bought the S. What if I had bought a subprime CDO instead with that 30k? Gee, now all of the sudden I got paid a ton to buy the S! To me, those are irrelevant to the basic question, which is which car depreciated more, and which car is expected to depreciate more.
04-07-2011, 05:35 PM
#40
I guess if I had debt, I'd use a marginal cost of 5%.
And I didn't hear what part of my math you disagreed with, aisde from the fact that someone in debt may have a marginal cost of funds that is different from mine.
As for the dollar dropping, it has nothing to do with it. That is like saying that everyone who lives in america made a bad choice over the past 5 years. So?
5 years ago I could either have spent 30k less and I would have had 30k more cash, or I could have bought the turbo S instead of the non-S. Perhaps you decide between "should I buy a car or buy the Australian Dollar", but to me, that is conflating two investment decisions into one. The reality is that I would have held 30k extra cash had I not bought the S. What if I had bought a subprime CDO instead with that 30k? Gee, now all of the sudden I got paid a ton to buy the S! To me, those are irrelevant to the basic question, which is which car depreciated more, and which car is expected to depreciate more.
And I didn't hear what part of my math you disagreed with, aisde from the fact that someone in debt may have a marginal cost of funds that is different from mine.
As for the dollar dropping, it has nothing to do with it. That is like saying that everyone who lives in america made a bad choice over the past 5 years. So?
5 years ago I could either have spent 30k less and I would have had 30k more cash, or I could have bought the turbo S instead of the non-S. Perhaps you decide between "should I buy a car or buy the Australian Dollar", but to me, that is conflating two investment decisions into one. The reality is that I would have held 30k extra cash had I not bought the S. What if I had bought a subprime CDO instead with that 30k? Gee, now all of the sudden I got paid a ton to buy the S! To me, those are irrelevant to the basic question, which is which car depreciated more, and which car is expected to depreciate more.
It sounds like I'd have make a foray into economics where I do not purport to be any expert in order to grind through this debate over the cost of money. All I can say is that all money is debt, not wealth. Cash or capital held in assets which can only be realized in dollars are losing value in an inflationary market. The increase in prices reflects both appreciation and inflation to some extent. So long as the central bank is increasing the money supply, cash is losing value. The value of the Turbo and the Turbo S are on a negative curve, the greater value of the Turbo S sends it further downwards along the curve.
Consumers find ways to rationalize discretionary expenditures towards "consumption" -- houses, cars, travel or Tango dancing lessons. But that's not cost accounting and we'd drive ourselves mad if we went into the garage and saw cars as sources of liquidity or risk capital to be rotated into the market, then used as purchasing power for discretionary consumption and round and round. I wouldn't argue in favor of being 100% invested and sitting on a cardboard box reading by the light of a neon sign outside the window, but by the same token, I certainly wouldn't say that the Turbo S buyer is making a sound investment compared to the Turbo buyer -- there's the dichotomy of buyer interests that I described in the previous post (one, the collector, the other being a car driver) and the speculation on appreciation that's not realistic for a one-off Turbo S purchase, especially if contradicted by the intent to drive the thing. The Turbo buyer can keep the 100% premium as risk capital at work in (hopefully) a growing portfolio, while driving a car with lower taxes and insurance costs, lower depreciation per mile and less net depreciation by incrementing the owner count by their purchase and so on. There's just no comparison for the buyer today.
I'm bored with talking about money -- it's like work to me and if I have to work, I want it to translate into no small amount of that money coming to me! : )
I am curious to know if there's any Turbo / Turbo S buyers out there with recent fact finding on prices and cars for sale. I'd love to find a white Turbo or C4S. Hard to find the good ones before they end up at one of the flipper dealers.
04-07-2011, 05:46 PM
#41
Burning Brakes
04-07-2011, 06:32 PM
#42
As said, its all matter of how much u are driven by emotions (obsession with an object....of desire) ....
04-07-2011, 06:53 PM
#43
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yes sir, and if any one of you have enough money to through logic out the window...I am open for adoption...please. 
04-07-2011, 09:08 PM
#44
This is getting interesting. Jamie, thank you for the info on the unique cars.
Back to the original question. Vwong, I would say the asking price is very high for that car. The car I purchased late last spring was a clean, no accident, one-owner TTS (low options and boring colors) with 2500mi. It leaked (sat for some time) and needed a new battery. Fine. I paid within earshot of the asking on this particular 18k mi car. Nuff said.
I don't think anybody here can say that they bought their cars as investments or expect a return greater than the markets can offer. There are plenty of places to put $ that can get you a real return. Even if the opportunity cost happens to be lower today (rates), I personally don't see the logic in investing in cars, especially relatively new production cars. The days of flipping Ferraris over sticker went away quicker than the housing market. I bought my car because I wanted it, don't intend on selling it anytime soon and would rather go long a TTS over a regular TT if I am not putting 5-10k mi per year on it. Having this car puts a much larger smile on my face than paying a manager 2 and 20 to try to make some returns.
993TurboS, Nice shout out to the other unique low production model variants that command a premium. Same goes for a lot of other cars (HGTC Ferrari 575s, 89 and 94 Speedsters, the list goes on).
Good news is my car is being driven (unlike in its prev. life) and turned 3000mi the other month. I know, flame me for destroying the premium I paid for the car (or call me out for not driving it enough), but I'd rather be the one to finally break-in a car vs. somebody else. If it makes you happy, go with it
Back to the original question. Vwong, I would say the asking price is very high for that car. The car I purchased late last spring was a clean, no accident, one-owner TTS (low options and boring colors) with 2500mi. It leaked (sat for some time) and needed a new battery. Fine. I paid within earshot of the asking on this particular 18k mi car. Nuff said.
I don't think anybody here can say that they bought their cars as investments or expect a return greater than the markets can offer. There are plenty of places to put $ that can get you a real return. Even if the opportunity cost happens to be lower today (rates), I personally don't see the logic in investing in cars, especially relatively new production cars. The days of flipping Ferraris over sticker went away quicker than the housing market. I bought my car because I wanted it, don't intend on selling it anytime soon and would rather go long a TTS over a regular TT if I am not putting 5-10k mi per year on it. Having this car puts a much larger smile on my face than paying a manager 2 and 20 to try to make some returns.
993TurboS, Nice shout out to the other unique low production model variants that command a premium. Same goes for a lot of other cars (HGTC Ferrari 575s, 89 and 94 Speedsters, the list goes on).
Good news is my car is being driven (unlike in its prev. life) and turned 3000mi the other month. I know, flame me for destroying the premium I paid for the car (or call me out for not driving it enough), but I'd rather be the one to finally break-in a car vs. somebody else. If it makes you happy, go with it
04-07-2011, 11:19 PM
#45
This is getting interesting. Jamie, thank you for the info on the unique cars.
Back to the original question. Vwong, I would say the asking price is very high for that car. The car I purchased late last spring was a clean, no accident, one-owner TTS (low options and boring colors) with 2500mi. It leaked (sat for some time) and needed a new battery. Fine. I paid within earshot of the asking on this particular 18k mi car. Nuff said.
I don't think anybody here can say that they bought their cars as investments or expect a return greater than the markets can offer. There are plenty of places to put $ that can get you a real return. Even if the opportunity cost happens to be lower today (rates), I personally don't see the logic in investing in cars, especially relatively new production cars. The days of flipping Ferraris over sticker went away quicker than the housing market. I bought my car because I wanted it, don't intend on selling it anytime soon and would rather go long a TTS over a regular TT if I am not putting 5-10k mi per year on it. Having this car puts a much larger smile on my face than paying a manager 2 and 20 to try to make some returns.
993TurboS, Nice shout out to the other unique low production model variants that command a premium. Same goes for a lot of other cars (HGTC Ferrari 575s, 89 and 94 Speedsters, the list goes on).
Good news is my car is being driven (unlike in its prev. life) and turned 3000mi the other month. I know, flame me for destroying the premium I paid for the car (or call me out for not driving it enough), but I'd rather be the one to finally break-in a car vs. somebody else. If it makes you happy, go with it
Back to the original question. Vwong, I would say the asking price is very high for that car. The car I purchased late last spring was a clean, no accident, one-owner TTS (low options and boring colors) with 2500mi. It leaked (sat for some time) and needed a new battery. Fine. I paid within earshot of the asking on this particular 18k mi car. Nuff said.
I don't think anybody here can say that they bought their cars as investments or expect a return greater than the markets can offer. There are plenty of places to put $ that can get you a real return. Even if the opportunity cost happens to be lower today (rates), I personally don't see the logic in investing in cars, especially relatively new production cars. The days of flipping Ferraris over sticker went away quicker than the housing market. I bought my car because I wanted it, don't intend on selling it anytime soon and would rather go long a TTS over a regular TT if I am not putting 5-10k mi per year on it. Having this car puts a much larger smile on my face than paying a manager 2 and 20 to try to make some returns.
993TurboS, Nice shout out to the other unique low production model variants that command a premium. Same goes for a lot of other cars (HGTC Ferrari 575s, 89 and 94 Speedsters, the list goes on).
Good news is my car is being driven (unlike in its prev. life) and turned 3000mi the other month. I know, flame me for destroying the premium I paid for the car (or call me out for not driving it enough), but I'd rather be the one to finally break-in a car vs. somebody else. If it makes you happy, go with it