Sep 16, 2005 11:54:55 PM
Sep 17, 2005 3:49:38 AM
Sep 17, 2005 4:01:09 AM
Quote:
SoCalHoosier said:
The mark-up is no where near as high as you pay for a 911.
Each 911 amounts to nearly 40K in profit for Porsche.
Sometimes I wonder if being owned by a larger entity such as VW would be such a bad thing for the consumer. It's not like Fiat is actually doing any design work for Ferrari. Porsche then could pass along a better product without ripping off the consumer. Their "options" are such a rip off at this point they should just start a std. 911 at 85K and cut out the formalities.
Sep 17, 2005 4:30:19 AM
Quote:
mish said:Quote:
SoCalHoosier said:
The mark-up is no where near as high as you pay for a 911.
Each 911 amounts to nearly 40K in profit for Porsche.
Sometimes I wonder if being owned by a larger entity such as VW would be such a bad thing for the consumer. It's not like Fiat is actually doing any design work for Ferrari. Porsche then could pass along a better product without ripping off the consumer. Their "options" are such a rip off at this point they should just start a std. 911 at 85K and cut out the formalities.
SoCal, if a 911 became as popular a sight as say a 3 series BMW - would as many people lust after it?
Sep 17, 2005 4:36:25 AM
Quote:
GM Austin said:
Quote:
Each 911 amounts to nearly 40K in profit for Porsche.
Base price on a 911 is 70k USD. Are you saying there is over 50% profit on a base 911?
Sep 17, 2005 7:51:43 AM
Sep 17, 2005 5:07:57 PM
Sep 17, 2005 6:18:20 PM
Quote:
GM Austin said:
Quote:
Each 911 amounts to nearly 40K in profit for Porsche.
Base price on a 911 is 70k USD. Are you saying there is over 50% profit on a base 911?
Sep 18, 2005 2:45:50 PM
Quote:
SoCalHoosier said:
How would that be any different if they were owned by another company???
Sep 19, 2005 10:50:12 PM
Quote:
ISUK said:Quote:
SoCalHoosier said:
How would that be any different if they were owned by another company???
Socal,
I think you missed my point. I wasn't arguing either way whether or not Porsche should remain independent but was merely expressing some respect for a business that manages to compete in a world market place, to some of the most demanding customers, in a heavily regulated sector, whilst managing to remain financially independent AND profitable. Most other huge car producing companies are in financial trouble at present even after buying up the prestige brands - Ford, GM, FIAT, Daimler Chrysler to name but a few. The problem with big automotive groups buying up luxury brands is that they often don't understand the heritage the brand has been built upon and expect quick $$s by producing under par cars fitted with the prestige brand. In an age where volume cars are now of such good quality and so well equipped, this approach just doesn't cut it.
It has taken Aston Martin years under Ford ownership before it has turned the corner under the stewardship of Ulrich Betz (he of Porsche fame). FIAT let Ferrari slide into the mire of poor quality control, under investment and mediocre development in the late 80's resulting in the 348 which is not exactly the finest car ever to wear the prancing horse badge. It took the appointment of Luca di Montezemolo as head of Ferrari in the early 90's to rescue the brand by focusing on re-establishing the F1 team then making the road cars manners more acceptable and more reliable to appeal to a wider audience. The F355 was the first fruit of his efforts if memory serves me correctly.
I'm not bashing anyone's views on this thread as we are all entitled to our opinion. I'm just trying to be more objective when looking back at the history of these brands and leave off the rose tinted spectacles.
Quote:
OCEAN said:
Did not know you could get a Cayenne for 42k , I know that is with nothing on it but in the year 2005 to own a new Porsche for under 50K is something .