Cheap 718

[Araf]

1 hour ago, topradio said:

I believe that every 911 cab came with a hard top

Now that you mention it, I'm sure I heard or read that, in the dim and distant past.  It would have been for the 996 model, and I don't know if that was continued on newer models...

[Jon61]

1 hour ago, Araf said:

Now that you mention it, I'm sure I heard or read that, in the dim and distant past.  It would have been for the 996 model, and I don't know if that was continued on newer models...

I'm fairly sure it was included as standard with the 996, but a charged-for option for the 997.

[Patt]

just get a Targa - built in hard top

[Happy Days]

I can't see Porsche reintroducing a six banger into the Boxster or Cayman range - at least not below GTS level. I think that the 718 platform will remain totally 4 pot whereas the 911 will be the six platform going forward. Given the 9 month waiting list (is is still as long as that now?) that I had for a 718, I don't think they have to worry too much about a lack of sales.

[Jamieh909]

I test drove a 2L 718 box, absolutely loved it, thought it was great, felt quick enough, sounded good to me, the interior was beautiful, I liked everything about it.

I was going to order a 2L Cayman but the wait list was over a year, In the end I opted to spend my 718 deposit on a 986

 

[MIkeyv60]

Funny the same was said about the new focus rs doesnt sound the same and the new ones a 5 door a worldwide car etc etc it won't sell? 12 month waiting list and paying top price for 1 now and that's a Ford. 

Not everyone likes change and a few people would like to see the new model fail? So much negativity has been made about the sound from the journalists that everyone just talks about this even though they say it's a better car all round!

When I was looking for cars a lot of the dealers leave the car up even though it's sold just to get punters to make that call.

Have a chat with your local dealer and you will find that the demos are sold already as no one wants to wait 10 months for the car.The demand for the 981 has increased partly due to the waiting list of the 718 It increase's the value of you car and could even match the residuals that the Macan enjoyed in its first year.

I have already been offered money to take my build date, by the way the dealer didn't give my details as this is against their policy this was through a guy at work.

I love the sound just annoys me when you get someone says it sounds rubbish when they are driving a diesel slk , but it is an AMG!

 

[Whaleblue]

It's been interesting following the 718 reviews over the last three months. As far as I can see there's a softening to the charms of the F4T in more recent articles, where many of the first that came out all jumped on the bandwagon of "OMG it's not an F6" - almost as though you had to say that to have credibility.

The waiting lists tell a story too.

As I've said before, I think the 718 is a stunning evolution of the best car on the planet. I hope to enjoy mine for many years as more and more electirc/hybrid beasts hit our streets, and eventually the responsibility of actually driving is devolved to an automated mech.

If we're still here in twenty years we may only be discussing which race track is the best to store you car at for the weekend thrash!

[mikefocke]

I'm from the US and don't have a dealer in my little town.  Happened to be in a medium sized town yesterday and took my first look at the 718.  Lovely cars. 

But I was surprised at how many were on the dealer's (OPC's) lot. I could have had my choice of a half dozen with no wait except for the wait to see my check clear. Granted that means I don't get my choice of options.

I was also amazed at the price of a lightly optioned base model. I had online-configured a S model with all the goodies I wanted and it was triple digits dollars. The price creep between the 1990s base and one now is significant.

[Araf]

We are talking 20 years though Mike.  The rule of thumb is that values double within every 10 years, so if the cars are less than 4 x the 1997 price, they have probably reduced in price, relative to the cost of living.

[Boxob]

8 minutes ago, Araf said:

We are talking 20 years though Mike.  The rule of thumb is that values double within every 10 years, so if the cars are less than 4 x the 1997 price, they have probably reduced in price, relative to the cost of living.

Wow hadn't considered it like that. My 1998 model cost just under £40,000. Today that would be nearly £160,000 or put another way more expensive than a new 911 Turbo S cabriolet! 

[Araf]

2 minutes ago, Boxob said:

Wow hadn't considered it like that. My 1998 model cost just under £40,000. Today that would be nearly £160,000 or put another way more expensive than a new 911 Turbo S cabriolet! 

Yup.  Even our parents used to pay a lot more for the finer things in life, and made do without that which they couldn't afford.  Not like the young upstarts now, who want everything yesterday!

 

[Boxob]

3 minutes ago, Araf said:

Yup.  Even our parents used to pay a lot more for the finer things in life, and made do without that which they couldn't afford.  Not like the young upstarts now, who want everything yesterday!

 

However measuring inflation based on change to the RPI shows a different result. £40,000 in 1998 is worth a little under £50,000 at today's values. May be the car index is different?

[Araf]

9 minutes ago, Boxob said:

However measuring inflation based on change to the RPI shows a different result. £40,000 in 1998 is worth a little under £50,000 at today's values. May be the car index is different?

The RPI is fixed by the government to keep peasants from revolting.  My house has increased 5 fold in the same time - and guess what is now excluded from RPI.  It's still what most want, and house sales to first time buyers last year was the highest since 2007, so people are earning the wedge to pay for them - therefore wages are increasing in line.

I know cars aren't investments, but if you look at an index for things like antiques, you'll find the doubling per decade about right.

[topradio]

14 minutes ago, Araf said:

The RPI is fixed by the government to keep peasants from revolting.  My house has increased 5 fold in the same time - and guess what is now excluded from RPI.  It's still what most want, and house sales to first time buyers last year was the highest since 2007, so people are earning the wedge to pay for them - therefore wages are increasing in line.

I know cars aren't investments, but if you look at an index for things like antiques, you'll find the doubling per decade about right.

This is just not true. You say that your house has increased in value 5 times in that period, well average earnings certainly haven't. What has changed is the inventive ways that have been found to get people into houses and the fact that money is now just in effect 'printed' to keep the credit rolling.

I bought my first house at age 25 and it cost 3 times my salary. A similar house would now cost over 200K making and annual salary of about 65K based on the same calculation. Whereas somebody doing a similar job today would be earning more like 30K.

Its an absolute scandal that house prices are taken out when calculating the rate of inflation. Everybody has to live somewhere and therefor the cost of doing so should be the most important thing when working out the official increase in the cost of living.  

[Araf]

6 minutes ago, topradio said:

This is just not true. You say that your house has increased in value 5 times in that period, well average earnings certainly haven't. What has changed is the inventive ways that have been found to get people into houses and the fact that money is now just in effect 'printed' to keep the credit rolling.

I'll agree that you can now borrow 5 x salary if you can prove ability to pay, but interest rates are much lower, which helps with the higher prices.  We went 'all in' when we bought our first property, just as people are now.  

6 minutes ago, topradio said:

Its an absolute scandal that house prices are taken out when calculating the rate of inflation. Everybody has to live somewhere and therefor the cost of doing so should be the most important thing when working out the official increase in the cost of living.  

I agree wholeheartedly, though as I have said above, interest rates would also have to be taken into account.  The current crop of first time buyers just wouldn't believe interest rates in double digits.

[Kevin G]

1 hour ago, Araf said:

I'll agree that you can now borrow 5 x salary if you can prove ability to pay, but interest rates are much lower, which helps with the higher prices.  We went 'all in' when we bought our first property, just as people are now.  

I agree wholeheartedly, though as I have said above, interest rates would also have to be taken into account.  The current crop of first time buyers just wouldn't believe interest rates in double digits.

Without getting involved in the argument, in 1981 I was paying 16% on my "low cost" Insurance linked mortgage. I worked my ar*e off to pay it off as the endowment mortgage market went down the drain? When I see today's mortgage rates and the complaints of buyers I weep?

[RBD914 v2]

Yep, I paid 16% on my mortgage when I had very little money, so borrowed to buy a house. But now I'm retired and have some funds to invest, I struggle to get more then 1% unless I'm prepared to take some risk!

Must have lived through the wrong era!

[topradio]

Actually rediculously low intrest rates are a relatively recent thing and may or may not be with us to stay whereas house prices have been rising exponentially for ever. 

I actually believe that my generation and the one above (baby boomers) have had the best of it. My father has been retired for longer than he worked for the oil company he gets his pension from and has received more in pension and health treatment than he ever paid for. 

The system is one great Ponzi and the only reason it doesn't completely collapse is because, unlike a normal pyramid scheme, its compulsory to join it. 

[Araf]

1 hour ago, topradio said:

The system is one great Ponzi and the only reason it doesn't completely collapse is because, unlike a normal pyramid scheme, its compulsory to join it. 

Next you'll be saying that taxes are just a legalised protection racket  

I'd agree with you.   The government tell you about some problem coming your way that you were completely oblivious to or not really worried about, then spend some of your money to make the problem disappear, tell you how great they are for doing it, and trouser the rest of your money.  No wonder they didn't want the Krays muscling in on their business.  

[Greenman]

21 hours ago, Boxob said:

Wow hadn't considered it like that. My 1998 model cost just under £40,000. Today that would be nearly £160,000 or put another way more expensive than a new 911 Turbo S cabriolet! 

Yeh the doubling every 10 years hasn't really applied in the past 10 years or so with a worldwide recession for much of the decade.  A better way to gauge affordability is to look at average wages anyway.

in Feb 2000 average weekly wage was £305,  now is £509.  An increase of 66%.  So for the same level of affordability a 40k Boxster in 2000 would be 66k now.   So if anything they are slightly more affordable than in 2000.

[topradio]

Cars have got massively cheaper in relation to wages over the past 30 years. In1984 I bought one of the very last Ford Cortinas, it cost me a years wage. Now you can buy an equivalent Ford car for about half the wage that the same job would pay today. And the quality has increased immeasurably as well. My Cortina started to rot within 2 years and it was dead after about 10.