Quote:
DrPhil said:
I think you need to recognize, that most of these cars (be it SLR og CGT) are not being bought by people who actually race them on a track, let alone race them on a regular basis.
If you want true handling, I believe you get a car more or less dedicated to the track - indifferent to looks, design etc and just focused on handling and power.
The SLR is a rolling sculpture, a symbol of power, wealth and everything Mercedes buyers like...PLUS the magic of the racing circuits - courtesy McLaren.
The SLR is for millionaires who like to drive a comfortable, powerful car which looks unique and sets them apart from the crowd. And I believe they like to casually mention to friends and business associates that McLaren has delivered some of the hardware, as an unambiguous hint towards the cars "theoretical" superior handling.
This car has got "DONT MESS WITH ME" written all over it - and because of it's straight-line acceleration, noone will really get to test this statement in real life.
My point is this: This car wasnt made to ACTUALLY handle better than any other car. On of off the track. It was made for MB-biased buyers who want to invest $$$ to be able to FEEL that they own the best car on the planet.
MB buyers want luxury, a comfortable GT-sporty ride and extravagant design IMO. Porsche buyers are looking for something else.
It's like comparing Led Zeppelin to Mozart and accusing Mozart of not playing a great guitar. It's just off the mark IMHO.
For what it's worth I think the SLR looks absolutely stunning, but I wouldn't buy it even if I could afford it. It might handle just well enough for my needs, but the whole aura of the car ("plus on luxury, minus on handling") is not for me. The car might handle just fine, but the brand, the message I would send with this car just isn't for me...and I believe this is where the real battle for the clients takes place.
Between the ears of potential buyers, and NOT on the racetrack.
Quote:
DrPhil said:
I think you need to recognize, that most of these cars (be it SLR og CGT) are not being bought by people who actually race them on a track, let alone race them on a regular basis.
If you want true handling, I believe you get a car more or less dedicated to the track - indifferent to looks, design etc and just focused on handling and power.
The SLR is a rolling sculpture, a symbol of power, wealth and everything Mercedes buyers like...PLUS the magic of the racing circuits - courtesy McLaren.
The SLR is for millionaires who like to drive a comfortable, powerful car which looks unique and sets them apart from the crowd. And I believe they like to casually mention to friends and business associates that McLaren has delivered some of the hardware, as an unambiguous hint towards the cars "theoretical" superior handling.
This car has got "DONT MESS WITH ME" written all over it - and because of it's straight-line acceleration, noone will really get to test this statement in real life.
My point is this: This car wasnt made to ACTUALLY handle better than any other car. On of off the track. It was made for MB-biased buyers who want to invest $$$ to be able to FEEL that they own the best car on the planet.
MB buyers want luxury, a comfortable GT-sporty ride and extravagant design IMO. Porsche buyers are looking for something else.
It's like comparing Led Zeppelin to Mozart and accusing Mozart of not playing a great guitar. It's just off the mark IMHO.
For what it's worth I think the SLR looks absolutely stunning, but I wouldn't buy it even if I could afford it. It might handle just well enough for my needs, but the whole aura of the car ("plus on luxury, minus on handling") is not for me. The car might handle just fine, but the brand, the message I would send with this car just isn't for me...and I believe this is where the real battle for the clients takes place.
Between the ears of potential buyers, and NOT on the racetrack.
Quote:
///AMG Mercedes said:
Ben, have you driven the latest top of the line AMG's by any chance? Like SL65/55?
If you have, then drive an SLR, just for my sake....I really want your opinion...good or bad
Quote:
///AMG Mercedes said:
Ben, have you driven the latest top of the line AMG's by any chance? Like SL65/55?
If you have, then drive an SLR, just for my sake....I really want your opinion...good or bad
Quote:
DrPhil said:
Im not questioning the fact that you get your money's worth in the CGT. And I should hope so at $500K.
Neither am I questioning the fact that you think any person who picks a car for other reasons than you do is either retarded or pathetic.
"what do i want with a canvas doored, no top, kit car that probably isn't even US street legal. "
Like I said, the Donkervoort (which to my knowledge IS streetlegal in the US) just kicked the CGT's ass on Nurnburgring by 15 secs, so if it's performance alone and nothing else (like you claimed) being the reason for buying the CGT, you made a very expensive choice.
(the Donkervoort is just an example. I'm sure you can purchase other cars with better performance than the CGT besides the Donkervoort at a much lower price.)
If, however, you want the full sportscar package incl. handling, power, looks, legacy, design etc etc, the CGT is a great choice.
But if you just want performance - and just that, you seriously have to be a moron to pay 500,000 K USD to get it.
Get a Toyota Supra Biturbo and crank it up, or any number of other jap cars.
There is absolutely no need to pay for the Porsche brand to get a 600bhp car.
Any number of cheap cars with a NOS system will get you there.
Im pretty sure you know this. And Im pretty sure you know that cars are so much more than technology...and that branding is a very essential part of selling and buying a car.
Hence we're back to where I started out: People buy cars based on emotions, not numbers.
You like the handling and thrill of the ride, others like the luxury feeling.
You buy a car that you can ACTUALLY TAKE to the tracks, others buy the same car because they like the IDEA OF TAKING IT TO THE TRACK.
Im just saying: If you tell me you ONLY bought the CGT because of performance, youre either insulting my intelligence or have no clue how to spend money wisely.
Quote:
DrPhil said:
Im not questioning the fact that you get your money's worth in the CGT. And I should hope so at $500K.
Neither am I questioning the fact that you think any person who picks a car for other reasons than you do is either retarded or pathetic.
"what do i want with a canvas doored, no top, kit car that probably isn't even US street legal. "
Like I said, the Donkervoort (which to my knowledge IS streetlegal in the US) just kicked the CGT's ass on Nurnburgring by 15 secs, so if it's performance alone and nothing else (like you claimed) being the reason for buying the CGT, you made a very expensive choice.
(the Donkervoort is just an example. I'm sure you can purchase other cars with better performance than the CGT besides the Donkervoort at a much lower price.)
If, however, you want the full sportscar package incl. handling, power, looks, legacy, design etc etc, the CGT is a great choice.
But if you just want performance - and just that, you seriously have to be a moron to pay 500,000 K USD to get it.
Get a Toyota Supra Biturbo and crank it up, or any number of other jap cars.
There is absolutely no need to pay for the Porsche brand to get a 600bhp car.
Any number of cheap cars with a NOS system will get you there.
Im pretty sure you know this. And Im pretty sure you know that cars are so much more than technology...and that branding is a very essential part of selling and buying a car.
Hence we're back to where I started out: People buy cars based on emotions, not numbers.
You like the handling and thrill of the ride, others like the luxury feeling.
You buy a car that you can ACTUALLY TAKE to the tracks, others buy the same car because they like the IDEA OF TAKING IT TO THE TRACK.
Im just saying: If you tell me you ONLY bought the CGT because of performance, youre either insulting my intelligence or have no clue how to spend money wisely.
Quote:
ben, lj said:
did i say "performance alone" or did i instead say one of the two "primary" factors was performance?
Dr. Phil: "...If you tell me you ONLY bought the CGT because of performance..."
i never told you that. rather, performance is a primary factor in my decision to buy almost any of the cars we own or have owned.
Quote:
ben, lj said:
did i say "performance alone" or did i instead say one of the two "primary" factors was performance?
Dr. Phil: "...If you tell me you ONLY bought the CGT because of performance..."
i never told you that. rather, performance is a primary factor in my decision to buy almost any of the cars we own or have owned.
Quote:
DrPhil said:
Well, well, well... suddenly it's not about the performance anymore.
It's fine you change your mind or didnt express yourself clearly enough - but then its pretty sad we've been having this debate on the wrong premise.
Quote:
ben, lj said:
did i say "performance alone" or did i instead say one of the two "primary" factors was performance?
Dr. Phil: "...If you tell me you ONLY bought the CGT because of performance..."
i never told you that. rather, performance is a primary factor in my decision to buy almost any of the cars we own or have owned.
And heres what you said before:
Dr. Phil: "And of course you bought your CGT just for the handling, right?"
Ben: of course i did!
:::
Sorry, I oversaw the "primary factors" part buried later in the long explanation. That didnt come out very clearly.
If you TRULY want an alternative to the CGT at a fraction of the cost, wwhy not check out our old discussion thread about the record at Nurnburgring being beaten?
People in here listed all kinds of cars that could beat the CGT around the Ring...they just thought it didnt count because they weren't real supercars.
I know Koenig used to build fast cars, RUF makes awesome rides and even Alpina. I had a colleague who had a 620bhp Audi A4 3.0 Quattro with turbo anti-lag. I doubt the CGT would be able to keep up with that...and even if the engine should blow, u can afford changing it around 40 times before you spend the amount of $ the CGT costs.
A chipped + optimized Audi RS4 is also a serious car and I believe a Nissan Skyline can be modded extensively without getting FUBARed.
The "what other US legal, topless, lightweight, RWD, 1.3g+ lateral G pulling, manual shift, 600 hp, high revving NA car is there?" line you keep referring too is a bit convenient.
If it's all about PERFORMANCE, why would you care how you get it, how many HPs it has, if its high revving or what the car looks like?
topgear just had a test where they compared the Murcielago to the Mitsu EVO VIII. Apparently the Lambo couldnt shake the Mitsu around the track.
Kinda sucks to have paid that kinda money on a Lambo, when you cant even shake a Mitsu, eh?
Sorry, the point (again, for the umpteenth time) is of course: Who the hell would prefer driving a Mitsu if they could have a Lambo?
And Ben, my guess is you'd NEVER pick a faster modded jap car over your CGT. Do the math. You can afford blowing up the engine on what...TEN? Supras and still have money left compared to what youve paid for the CGT, so thats not really an argument.
Quote:
DrPhil said:
Well, well, well... suddenly it's not about the performance anymore.
It's fine you change your mind or didnt express yourself clearly enough - but then its pretty sad we've been having this debate on the wrong premise.
Quote:
ben, lj said:
did i say "performance alone" or did i instead say one of the two "primary" factors was performance?
Dr. Phil: "...If you tell me you ONLY bought the CGT because of performance..."
i never told you that. rather, performance is a primary factor in my decision to buy almost any of the cars we own or have owned.
And heres what you said before:
Dr. Phil: "And of course you bought your CGT just for the handling, right?"
Ben: of course i did!
:::
Sorry, I oversaw the "primary factors" part buried later in the long explanation. That didnt come out very clearly.
If you TRULY want an alternative to the CGT at a fraction of the cost, wwhy not check out our old discussion thread about the record at Nurnburgring being beaten?
People in here listed all kinds of cars that could beat the CGT around the Ring...they just thought it didnt count because they weren't real supercars.
I know Koenig used to build fast cars, RUF makes awesome rides and even Alpina. I had a colleague who had a 620bhp Audi A4 3.0 Quattro with turbo anti-lag. I doubt the CGT would be able to keep up with that...and even if the engine should blow, u can afford changing it around 40 times before you spend the amount of $ the CGT costs.
A chipped + optimized Audi RS4 is also a serious car and I believe a Nissan Skyline can be modded extensively without getting FUBARed.
The "what other US legal, topless, lightweight, RWD, 1.3g+ lateral G pulling, manual shift, 600 hp, high revving NA car is there?" line you keep referring too is a bit convenient.
If it's all about PERFORMANCE, why would you care how you get it, how many HPs it has, if its high revving or what the car looks like?
topgear just had a test where they compared the Murcielago to the Mitsu EVO VIII. Apparently the Lambo couldnt shake the Mitsu around the track.
Kinda sucks to have paid that kinda money on a Lambo, when you cant even shake a Mitsu, eh?
Sorry, the point (again, for the umpteenth time) is of course: Who the hell would prefer driving a Mitsu if they could have a Lambo?
And Ben, my guess is you'd NEVER pick a faster modded jap car over your CGT. Do the math. You can afford blowing up the engine on what...TEN? Supras and still have money left compared to what youve paid for the CGT, so thats not really an argument.