Crown

Hahaha... another good one Boss.


And oh yeah... 5k Miles no friggin way Im buying the M5.


Sorry buddy... I hope you have better luck with your replacement car.


All Smiles

---

Not sure if the perfect car would be made by Lexus or Honda. I had issues with my Lexus and I know a guy who had issues with his Honda (Lemon Law). Again as long as cars are made by man there will be issues. I don't care who makes it.

Quote:
86BBUB said:

Quote:
STRADALE said:

Quote:
69bossnine said:

Quote:
86BBUB said:
What is so unfortunate is that so much of the market accepts the you-can-have-performance-or-you-can-have-quality bromide that the hi-po car establishment has dished out over the years. Its the old "perhaps monsieur does not realize that this is a Ferrari and Ferraris ....." nonsense that oldtime enthusiats are willing to accept. Porsche knows exactly what it is building and exactly what people will put up with. It successfully pushes that envelope all the time. Untill the market produces real competition things are unlikely to change.

Nonsense.... I don't think anybody gives manufacturers a "pass" on quality if they can get performance. We're not willing to look the other way just to own a 911.

In the BIG picture, quality of cars today is utterly amazing, from mechanical precision, to fit and finish, and everything in-between. I should know, I've got 150 examples of cars from 1911 to the present-day parked 50 feet away from me, and the progress isn't hard to see.

There are several posts relating to the quality of prior Porsches. Back in the "good old days" when these supposed "quality" cars were being built, lemons still made it out the door, in higher percentages, and people back then were bitching about how the cars that came before those cars were so much better, and on and on.... Absence makes the heart grow fonder. 20 or 30 years from now, there will be a post on Rennteam about how the 999.5 and a half is so poorly built, and how things were so much better back in the 997 days...

To demand quality and desire quality is obvious. To believe that every mass-produced vehicle can be perfect is an infinite goal, and one that can never be entirely achieved. There is nothing wrong in expecting quality, but having reasonable expectations is part of the game. Especially if you're familiar with the ungodly amount of work, man hours, thought, testing, engineering, and details, that goes into the development and production of any machine, from your Porsche, to your refridgerator, to your telephone...

I'm not making excuses for Porsche, I'm just saying that armchair quarterbacking is not terribly productive....

I've never read anything from manufactueres that have said "you-can-have-performance-or-you-can-have-quality"

It's just a statistical fact that the more gizmos and complicated high performance features you have the greater the possibility that something goes wrong. If the poster didn't have a cabriolet and owned a automatic coupe maybe he wouldn't have had a single problem ?? I've never owned a more technical goodies laden automobile as the 997. It takes weeks just to read the manual & figure out all the electronic and other possibilities and even then you still won't use them all. It's like any other product manufactured with an almost endless amount of variables. Or product that is manufactured that pushes the envelope of stress on parts. Show me a race car engine that never needs to be re-built and I'll show you a last place race-car.


"Untill the market produces real competition things are unlikely to change."
Exactly. That's how good Ferrari's & Porsche's are.

Of course you haven't! Why would they??? Yes; cars are far more complicated than they used to be. Ideally manufacturers would spend more time developing new features hand in hand with durability and reliability. Much of the massive depreciation you see today is a function of today's conventional wisdom: cars are not as durable and replacement parts/labor is too expensive.

"Of course you haven't! Why would they???"
You were the one that said the "car establishment has dished out over the years" ...........so that's why I said I've never heard that.

"Much of the massive depreciation you see today is a function of today's conventional wisdom: cars are not as durable"
Actually it's the opposite. I was reading a poll last week that said the reasons for people buying new cars have changed. 20 & 30 years ago 75% (I have the article somewhere the % could be off) of people replacing cars did so because they felt they had to because their car was old and needed replacement.

Now 75% of people replacing their cars said they did so because they wanted the latest model.

I bet for cars like a Porsche the % of people lusing after the newest model would be even higher.

The "depreciation" you see has more to do with that. With people wanting the latest model and not willing to spend for an outdated one.

Of course it's possible that you're in the minority.

Quote:
edz61 said:
Nonesense, cars last longer than ever before. There might be issues with the electronis and the bells and whistles but the engines with proper care and maintenance last by far longer. The old cars without the computer driven engine and suspension were made simple, when they died, they died. The new cars are so advanced and so complicated and so many things can go wrong with them no matter what. However the new engines are built to last. Porsche claims the new 997's will go over 400,000 miles. I think we are unreasonable to expect nothing ever go wrong with our cars. Afterall it is designed by a human. There is nothing as magnificant and as well engineered as a human body, do we feel gr8 everyday? Don't we get sick?

Quote:
tooner said:
Hahaha... another good one Boss.


And oh yeah... 5k Miles no friggin way Im buying the M5.


Sorry buddy... I hope you have better luck with your replacement car.


All Smiles

Exactly. The M5 is a big heavy family car.

997S vs. SL55 vs. V8 Vantage in October's CAR. 997 S - 1ST PLACE.

Regarding the SL - "Even in pumped up AMG guise there's a whiff of Beverly Hills dentist to the Benz." " The SL55 is another feast of abbreviated technolgy but it's active suspension doesn't manage weight transfer all that keenly" "The Merc doesn't quite know what to do with itself"


When comparing the Aston V8 Vantage to ther 997 :

"Only when you step out of the Aston and into the Porsche does the sheer chunk and heft of the Vantage really come into focus. My GOD, but the 911 is good. You don't so much drive it as wear it. The driving position is perfect, the relationship between your hands, feet and all the major controls clinically correct. This is a driving tool, with a wider transport remit thrown in for good measure."

"Does it beat the Porsche ? Not quite. The Aston lacks the 911's lightness of touch, can't match it's astounding precise responses. As desirable as the Vantage is , the Porsche just eclipses it "

"Special arrives when you drive it. The 350bhp Carrera S is one of the life's great transforming experiences, like eating in a seriously good restaurant or throwing yourself out of an aeroplane. From its vivid sonic palette to the incredibale elasticity of it's power delivery, the 911 is startlingly capable, easy to read, easy to drive quickly, forgiving, linear.



Weird what they said - "You don't so much drive it as wear it" The first month I got my car I posted that when I'm weaving in and out of trffic it feels like the car shrinks around me like I'm wearing it instead of driving it.

Quote:
STRADALE said:
I'm weaving in and out of trffic it feels like the car shrinks around me like I'm wearing it instead of driving it.

I stated this not so long ago and I dont even own one , its just that on my demo the car and driver felt as one which then went on to create confidence..

Nice..

throt..

Quote:
STRADALE said:
Weird what they said - "You don't so much drive it as wear it" The first month I got my car I posted that when I'm weaving in and out of trffic it feels like the car shrinks around me like I'm wearing it instead of driving it.

Beautifully said

Quote:
STRADALE said:

Quote:
86BBUB said:

Quote:
STRADALE said:

Quote:
69bossnine said:

Quote:
86BBUB said:
What is so unfortunate is that so much of the market accepts the you-can-have-performance-or-you-can-have-quality bromide that the hi-po car establishment has dished out over the years. Its the old "perhaps monsieur does not realize that this is a Ferrari and Ferraris ....." nonsense that oldtime enthusiats are willing to accept. Porsche knows exactly what it is building and exactly what people will put up with. It successfully pushes that envelope all the time. Untill the market produces real competition things are unlikely to change.

Nonsense.... I don't think anybody gives manufacturers a "pass" on quality if they can get performance. We're not willing to look the other way just to own a 911.

In the BIG picture, quality of cars today is utterly amazing, from mechanical precision, to fit and finish, and everything in-between. I should know, I've got 150 examples of cars from 1911 to the present-day parked 50 feet away from me, and the progress isn't hard to see.

There are several posts relating to the quality of prior Porsches. Back in the "good old days" when these supposed "quality" cars were being built, lemons still made it out the door, in higher percentages, and people back then were bitching about how the cars that came before those cars were so much better, and on and on.... Absence makes the heart grow fonder. 20 or 30 years from now, there will be a post on Rennteam about how the 999.5 and a half is so poorly built, and how things were so much better back in the 997 days...

To demand quality and desire quality is obvious. To believe that every mass-produced vehicle can be perfect is an infinite goal, and one that can never be entirely achieved. There is nothing wrong in expecting quality, but having reasonable expectations is part of the game. Especially if you're familiar with the ungodly amount of work, man hours, thought, testing, engineering, and details, that goes into the development and production of any machine, from your Porsche, to your refridgerator, to your telephone...

I'm not making excuses for Porsche, I'm just saying that armchair quarterbacking is not terribly productive....

I've never read anything from manufactueres that have said "you-can-have-performance-or-you-can-have-quality"

It's just a statistical fact that the more gizmos and complicated high performance features you have the greater the possibility that something goes wrong. If the poster didn't have a cabriolet and owned a automatic coupe maybe he wouldn't have had a single problem ?? I've never owned a more technical goodies laden automobile as the 997. It takes weeks just to read the manual & figure out all the electronic and other possibilities and even then you still won't use them all. It's like any other product manufactured with an almost endless amount of variables. Or product that is manufactured that pushes the envelope of stress on parts. Show me a race car engine that never needs to be re-built and I'll show you a last place race-car.


"Untill the market produces real competition things are unlikely to change."
Exactly. That's how good Ferrari's & Porsche's are.

Of course you haven't! Why would they??? Yes; cars are far more complicated than they used to be. Ideally manufacturers would spend more time developing new features hand in hand with durability and reliability. Much of the massive depreciation you see today is a function of today's conventional wisdom: cars are not as durable and replacement parts/labor is too expensive.

"Of course you haven't! Why would they???"
You were the one that said the "car establishment has dished out over the years" ...........so that's why I said I've never heard that.

"Much of the massive depreciation you see today is a function of today's conventional wisdom: cars are not as durable"
Actually it's the opposite. I was reading a poll last week that said the reasons for people buying new cars have changed. 20 & 30 years ago 75% (I have the article somewhere the % could be off) of people replacing cars did so because they felt they had to because their car was old and needed replacement.

Now 75% of people replacing their cars said they did so because they wanted the latest model.

I bet for cars like a Porsche the % of people lusing after the newest model would be even higher.

The "depreciation" you see has more to do with that. With people wanting the latest model and not willing to spend for an outdated one.

Of course it's possible that you're in the minority.

Maybe but I doubt it. I may be misreading your posts but it seem that you are more interested in posting clever rejoinders than reading and reflecting on my posts. I was not refering to "cars" or the typical joe-bagga-donuts buyer. We are talking about megabuck high-end cars such as Porsches and Lambo. These cars and the market for them is very different from that which you are refering to. There are obviously many factors to consider when discussing the increased rates of depreciation but if you don't think that a reduction in build quality is among them you are sadly mistaken. Instead of jumping on and trying to refute each of my points for the pleasure of your sycophants maybe you should reread them and perhaps think carefully about what I am trying to express. Not that I feel they need to impress you but I am probably one of the few people on this board whose family actually manufactured automobiles. Not only did we produce one of the finest prewar performance cars but at one point we owned almost 20% of one of the big 3. My posts are based on first hand knowledge, not something I picked up in Motor Trend. Our car collection was one of the finest in world. It's gone unfortunately. lost to the realities of a growing family, estate taxes etc, etc.
Please note that I am sure that, in proper context, your comments have some validity to them. I am simply suggesting that, in context, mine do too. Peace out as they say!

Quote:
To demand quality and desire quality is obvious. To believe that every mass-produced vehicle can be perfect is an infinite goal, and one that can never be entirely achieved.

I agree, which is why my recommendation is to keep the car. But if your car has a fault, you can expect that to be fixed, definitely. Faulttolerance isn't any higher because it's a sportscar .

Quote:
harlandoc said:
'06 997 S Cab.-4000 miles-roof still leaks, multiple squeaks despite multiple service visits, still have a grinding sound upon releasing clutch (of course, dealer says I'm not clutching properly despite my twenty years of manual transmission experience), DON'T DO IT! Save $20,000; go for BMW M5.

Good Luck harlandoc anyway , and dont let the dealer give you any BS talk because all of them are good at it through plenty of practice , its part of there job..

throt..

M5 has much more problems.. plus, M5 does not have the stylish look of the 911.. the 911 is not even a car dude!!

There's nothing worse than getting a new car and spending all your time listening for where rattles are comming from rather than enjoying it. It seem rather hard to find a rattle free car, whatever it is.

Quote:
86BBUB said:

Maybe but I doubt it. I may be misreading your posts but it seem that you are more interested in posting clever rejoinders than reading and reflecting on my posts. I was not refering to "cars" or the typical joe-bagga-donuts buyer. We are talking about megabuck high-end cars such as Porsches and Lambo. These cars and the market for them is very different from that which you are refering to. There are obviously many factors to consider when discussing the increased rates of depreciation but if you don't think that a reduction in build quality is among them you are sadly mistaken. Instead of jumping on and trying to refute each of my points for the pleasure of your sycophants maybe you should reread them and perhaps think carefully about what I am trying to express. Not that I feel they need to impress you but I am probably one of the few people on this board whose family actually manufactured automobiles. Not only did we produce one of the finest prewar performance cars but at one point we owned almost 20% of one of the big 3. My posts are based on first hand knowledge, not something I picked up in Motor Trend. Our car collection was one of the finest in world. It's gone unfortunately. lost to the realities of a growing family, estate taxes etc, etc.
Please note that I am sure that, in proper context, your comments have some validity to them. I am simply suggesting that, in context, mine do too. Peace out as they say!

I'll toss in my 2 and a half cents on the depreciation thing.....

I believe that it's NOT due to "poorer quality", or "poorer durability". Today's cars are so much more durable from a chassis, driveline and structural standpoint, i.e. the skeleton and vital organs of the car. This is due to developent in engineering and materials technology. I'm especially impressed with how well modern chassis wear. In a 40 year old car, your bushings were shot, and the chassis fatigued, after 60,000 miles, tops.. Doors sagging from hinge fatigue and wear. Structural points rusting and cracking from exposure to the elements, and the use of materials that weren't up to living through winters. Etc, etc... Today's plastics, composites, and treated metals, along with better engineering and having learned from past mistakes, make for cars that just don't go away unless you wreck 'em or stop servicing them for the most part.

I'm not so sure about those statistics regarding people decades ago selling cars only because they were worn out, versus today selling to have the "newer" thing. Remember, back in the 50's and 60's, practically EVERY YEAR the models were improved and changed drastically, exterior and interior. And the relative cost of a car (percentage of household annual income) was much lower then. Alot of families I know used to trade in for a new car EVERY YEAR, because they could afford to back then, and because every year brought out an upgraded style. I think it's all a WASH, regardless of some study..

No, I associate the sharp depreciation curve on premium vehicles as a factor of RISK.... It's like playing high-stakes poker. You might have a great hand, but, are you willing to risk the stakes of the game?

Premium vehicles (Mercedes, Rolls, Porsche, Ferrari, AM, etc.etc...) BY NATURE are always at the cutting edge when it comes to technology, complexity, content, etc.... They are not the kinds of vehicles that you work on at home with a Craftsman tool kit and a creeper. It's not that these cars just fall-apart over time due to poor quality, because the quality is actually quite good. It's the RISK that something MIGHT fail that drives resale prices for aging exotics/premium-luxuries down to earth. All it takes is for one complex component to take a crap, and BOOM, the part and the repair will cost more than a new Honda Civic. And, it is true, the more complex systems that you pack into a vehicle, the higher the odds are that one of them will bite you in the a$$ eventually.

But, you know, I maintain that it's ALWAYS been this way. Just as you can buy a used 90's S-class Mercedes for chump change today, you could have bought a used fill-in-the-blank 60's luxury or exotic for $500 bucks in the seventies.. Back then these cars were packed with technologies and systems that you wouldn't find in a Ford Falcon, and therefore the resales on them stunk back then as well. For instance, late 50's Bonneville's and Cadillacs with air suspension, you couldn't GIVE them away on a used car lot.

In any case, it's all relative. But I attribute the sharp depreciation curve on gadget-laden, and mechanically complex/premium stuff, on RISK and EVENTUALITY of things going sideways, not bad quality of the vehicles themselves. Everything wears out over time. Today's cars wear out slower. But then, once that eventuality sets in, the complexity of the technologies, and the expense of the replacement hardware, and the skills and tools needed to effect a proper repair, kick in EXPONENTIALLY compared to more primitive cars, creating a chicken-egg dilemma where it's cheaper to crush a used Rolls Royce for it's recyclables, then it is to repair or restore it.

It's not really bad quality, it's higher complexity, cost of componentry, precision, and difficulty to repair.

Example: Today's professional cameras are far better quality than cameras 100 years ago. But 100 years ago, you could fix a camera in the middle of a field with a satchel of basic tools and materials. The difference in value between a new camera and a used one was probably minor. Today, when/if it breaks, you're better off thowing it away and buying a new one, it's too technologically advanced and too precision-built to be able to dig into.

There's a difference between quality, and complexity.

Clear thinking as always boss.

mcdelaug

Quote:
86BBUB said:

Quote:
STRADALE said:

Quote:
86BBUB said:

Quote:
STRADALE said:

Quote:
69bossnine said:

Quote:
86BBUB said:
What is so unfortunate is that so much of the market accepts the you-can-have-performance-or-you-can-have-quality bromide that the hi-po car establishment has dished out over the years. Its the old "perhaps monsieur does not realize that this is a Ferrari and Ferraris ....." nonsense that oldtime enthusiats are willing to accept. Porsche knows exactly what it is building and exactly what people will put up with. It successfully pushes that envelope all the time. Untill the market produces real competition things are unlikely to change.

Nonsense.... I don't think anybody gives manufacturers a "pass" on quality if they can get performance. We're not willing to look the other way just to own a 911.

In the BIG picture, quality of cars today is utterly amazing, from mechanical precision, to fit and finish, and everything in-between. I should know, I've got 150 examples of cars from 1911 to the present-day parked 50 feet away from me, and the progress isn't hard to see.

There are several posts relating to the quality of prior Porsches. Back in the "good old days" when these supposed "quality" cars were being built, lemons still made it out the door, in higher percentages, and people back then were bitching about how the cars that came before those cars were so much better, and on and on.... Absence makes the heart grow fonder. 20 or 30 years from now, there will be a post on Rennteam about how the 999.5 and a half is so poorly built, and how things were so much better back in the 997 days...

To demand quality and desire quality is obvious. To believe that every mass-produced vehicle can be perfect is an infinite goal, and one that can never be entirely achieved. There is nothing wrong in expecting quality, but having reasonable expectations is part of the game. Especially if you're familiar with the ungodly amount of work, man hours, thought, testing, engineering, and details, that goes into the development and production of any machine, from your Porsche, to your refridgerator, to your telephone...

I'm not making excuses for Porsche, I'm just saying that armchair quarterbacking is not terribly productive....

I've never read anything from manufactueres that have said "you-can-have-performance-or-you-can-have-quality"

It's just a statistical fact that the more gizmos and complicated high performance features you have the greater the possibility that something goes wrong. If the poster didn't have a cabriolet and owned a automatic coupe maybe he wouldn't have had a single problem ?? I've never owned a more technical goodies laden automobile as the 997. It takes weeks just to read the manual & figure out all the electronic and other possibilities and even then you still won't use them all. It's like any other product manufactured with an almost endless amount of variables. Or product that is manufactured that pushes the envelope of stress on parts. Show me a race car engine that never needs to be re-built and I'll show you a last place race-car.


"Untill the market produces real competition things are unlikely to change."
Exactly. That's how good Ferrari's & Porsche's are.

Of course you haven't! Why would they??? Yes; cars are far more complicated than they used to be. Ideally manufacturers would spend more time developing new features hand in hand with durability and reliability. Much of the massive depreciation you see today is a function of today's conventional wisdom: cars are not as durable and replacement parts/labor is too expensive.

"Of course you haven't! Why would they???"
You were the one that said the "car establishment has dished out over the years" ...........so that's why I said I've never heard that.

"Much of the massive depreciation you see today is a function of today's conventional wisdom: cars are not as durable"
Actually it's the opposite. I was reading a poll last week that said the reasons for people buying new cars have changed. 20 & 30 years ago 75% (I have the article somewhere the % could be off) of people replacing cars did so because they felt they had to because their car was old and needed replacement.

Now 75% of people replacing their cars said they did so because they wanted the latest model.

I bet for cars like a Porsche the % of people lusing after the newest model would be even higher.

The "depreciation" you see has more to do with that. With people wanting the latest model and not willing to spend for an outdated one.

Of course it's possible that you're in the minority.

Maybe but I doubt it. I may be misreading your posts but it seem that you are more interested in posting clever rejoinders than reading and reflecting on my posts. I was not refering to "cars" or the typical joe-bagga-donuts buyer. We are talking about megabuck high-end cars such as Porsches and Lambo. These cars and the market for them is very different from that which you are refering to. There are obviously many factors to consider when discussing the increased rates of depreciation but if you don't think that a reduction in build quality is among them you are sadly mistaken. Instead of jumping on and trying to refute each of my points for the pleasure of your sycophants maybe you should reread them and perhaps think carefully about what I am trying to express. Not that I feel they need to impress you but I am probably one of the few people on this board whose family actually manufactured automobiles. Not only did we produce one of the finest prewar performance cars but at one point we owned almost 20% of one of the big 3. My posts are based on first hand knowledge, not something I picked up in Motor Trend. Our car collection was one of the finest in world. It's gone unfortunately. lost to the realities of a growing family, estate taxes etc, etc.
Please note that I am sure that, in proper context, your comments have some validity to them. I am simply suggesting that, in context, mine do too. Peace out as they say!

The problem with your theory is that if a "reduction in build quality" with newest cars was the main factor in depreciation then there wouldn't be depreciation because people wouldn't want to sell their cars to buy the newer, less reliable ones.

As for the other stuff you said I rather it remain a friendly discussion about cars (that's what I thought we were doing) then get personal so I'm not going to address it. Instead lets share common ground and the love of cars and see some pics of the collection you had. Have you seen Boss's collection ? It's incredible.

This is my fourth Porsche (964 and thre 986s) The only cracks and rathles I had were with the hardtop (on my second 986) and when the seat is to far back and touches the rollbar. My current Boxster S is completely rattle free and it's almost 3 years old. Verry happy with the car.

You can declare the car a lemon, if its relly truly a bogus ride and breaks down etc....I had a Boxster that the seals broke constantly for years. I researched and couldnt of declared it a lemon after 3 visits for the oil, Yes , it happened with the xar was new.. My 06 997 is awesome , no problems at all, and I dont expect it..Ok,Ok,

I could of declared it a lemon after 3 visits for the seal problems, constant oil leaks, sorry I put couldnt....ooppsey