GT-R: One and Done?

[Cookie Monster]

If you can still afford the $130k and you'd rather have an R8, then I see no issue.

That's not the argument. If you can afford it, then go ahead, but to say that it's "only" 30% more than another car you're looking at, so it's easy to afford, is what is just plain wrong.

[Cookie Monster]

Because only you can determine the standards that must be met to define "affordability".

If they can pay for them (in any way, cash, lease, credit, whatever), they can afford them. Everything else are personal preferences that have nothing to do with affordability and everything to do with your very personal "standards".

Just because you can buy something on credit doesn't mean you can afford it.

[MrH]

By definition it means you can afford it.  If you're able to pay for it, at an interest rate agreed upon with a lending institute, yes, you can afford it.

Whether you can afford something and whether it's a good idea is two completely different things.  We're discussing the former, not the latter.

[SVT666]

I don't mean to be a dick but you actually are not speaking about you, unless you happen to have multiple millions. What you are doing is taking one real scenario (the used G37), in which you are talking about you, and comparing it to a fantasy scenario where you have unlimited means. It doesn't work that way.

You are being a dick, and yes I am talking about me.  I don't have millions in the bank, but if I did, and I was in the situation to buy a $100,000+ car, the R8 is what I would buy.  Period.  End of fucking story.  Yes, 30% is 30%, but I would never buy a $100,000+ car unless I had millions in the bank and I could pay cash for it, so the 30% doesn't mean much to me if I had the money in my pocket.  So yes, I am talking about what I would do.  I'm not talking about anyone else, and that's what my initial post was referring to....me, not you or anyone else.  Just me.

[Rich]

for ~100K cars, where does it end?  You have some people saying a 30% difference shouldn't be taken into account if someone can afford to spend that much. 

So if a dude that can afford the car spend 120K on an R8, what's keeping him from going another 30% higher and going for a 180K car?  Another 30% on top of that for a 230K car?

[Lebowski]

You are being a dick, and yes I am talking about me.  I don't have millions in the bank, but if I did, and I was in the situation to buy a $100,000+ car, the R8 is what I would buy.  Period.  End of fucking story.  Yes, 30% is 30%, but I would never buy a $100,000+ car unless I had millions in the bank and I could pay cash for it, so the 30% doesn't mean much to me if I had the money in my pocket.  So yes, I am talking about what I would do.  I'm not talking about anyone else, and that's what my initial post was referring to....me, not you or anyone else.  Just me.

I know I'm being a dick, that's why I said I don't mean to be a dick. I'm not being a dick for the sake of being a dick, it was necessary to make my point.

Sorry but you're talking about an imaginary situation. I can say "if I won the $330 million powerball jackpot, I would have a 458 and a GT3 and I'd get a blowjob from a different pornstar every day of the week and tip them an extra grand just because", that doesn't have any bearing on how I actually make decisions in the real world.

And again, you're talking binary scenarios ... As your income/assets grow, at no point would you spend $100k on a car, until which point you'd gladly spend $130k.  That makes no sense.  You'd be lot less willing to part with that extra $30k had you actually scrimped and saved those millions over time.

[hotrodalex]

The people buying these cars probably are making $350k-$500k/year.  $30k difference is like telling me $5k doesn't make any difference when buying a car.

That's not the situation SVT was talking about.

[hotrodalex]

So if a dude that can afford the car spend 120K on an R8, what's keeping him from going another 30% higher and going for a 180K car?  Another 30% on top of that for a 230K car?

Because $180k is not 30% more, it's 80% higher than the original reference point.

And again, you're talking binary scenarios ... As your income/assets grow, at no point would you spend $100k on a car, until which point you'd gladly spend $130k.  That makes no sense.  You'd be lot less willing to part with that extra $30k had you actually scrimped and saved those millions over time.

Yeah, because he doesn't want that $100k car.

[SVT666]

I know I'm being a dick, that's why I said I don't mean to be a dick. I'm not being a dick for the sake of being a dick, it was necessary to make my point.

Sorry but you're talking about an imaginary situation. I can say "if I won the $330 million powerball jackpot, I would have a 458 and a GT3 and I'd get a blowjob from a different pornstar every day of the weak and top them an extra grand just because", that doesn't have any bearing on how I actually make decisions in the real world.

Well, I guess we should all stop talking about cars then, since 99% of what we talk about here is hypothetical.

And again, you're talking binary scenarios ... As your income/assets grow, at no point would you spend $100k on a car, until which point you'd gladly spend $130k.  That makes no sense.  You'd be lot less willing to part with that extra $30k had you actually scrimped and saved those millions over time.

If I'm scrimping and saving to put millions the bank, I'm not blowing $100,00 on any car.  The only way I'm blowing $100,000+ on any car is if I win the lottery or become some high powered CEO.  Neither is likely so this is all hypothetical.  But so is almost everything any of us talk about on here.  Fuck me for speaking in hypotheticals.

[Lebowski]

Yeah, because he doesn't want that $100k car.

Nah, he said they are in the same price range, and then said its "not much to jump from $100k to $130k". It's a 30% difference.

Fwiw, I wouldn't pay $100k for a GT-R either, still the 30% jump is material.

I would buy a 911 over either.

[Cookie Monster]

Because $180k is not 30% more, it's 80% higher than the original reference point.

No, the point is if you can easily jump from $100-130k by justifying that it's only a 30% increase more, then you could just as easily justify jumping for $130-170k by justifying that it's only 30% more, too.

[Rich]

Because $180k is not 30% more, it's 80% higher than the original reference point.

But someone that can afford a 96K (GTR) car should easily be able to afford a 114K (R8) car.... at what point is the breaking limit of affordability?  If someone can so easily afford a car that 20K shouldn't affect their decision at all, then what price difference should affect their decision?

[MexicoCityM3]

Just because you can buy something on credit doesn't mean you can afford it.

The moment you fail to make a payment - then you would be right.

But if payments are made and someone uses all his/her resources to buy a 911 while still living with mom & dad @ 40 years of age, well, he/she CAN afford a 911. Everything else is a judgement on how you would spend those resources differently. We can discuss whether it is wise to do something like that, but affordability is simply a matter of meeting your financial obligations. That's it.

[Cookie Monster]

The moment you fail to make a payment - then you would be right.

But if payments are made and someone uses all his/her resources to buy a 911 while still living with mom & dad @ 40 years of age, well, he/she CAN afford a 911. Everything else is a judgement on how you would spend those resources differently. We can discuss whether it is wise to do something like that, but affordability is simply a matter of meeting your financial obligations. That's it.

Ah ok, if you're looking at absolutes, then yes you are right.

I was thinking more in terms of should you buy it vs actually buying it.

[MexicoCityM3]

But someone that can afford a 96K (GTR) car should easily be able to afford a 114K (R8) car.... at what point is the breaking limit of affordability?  If someone can so easily afford a car that 20K shouldn't affect their decision at all, then what price difference should affect their decision?

It is crazy to say that price is not a factor in most of these decisions. I know I'd have never gotten either of my M3s unless I was able to get them with steep discounts (E46 cost 65K instead of list @79K and E90 was even better @65K vs list of 89K). I got both close to the arrival of their replacements (E92, E90 LCI respectively) and was able to extract huge discounts from the dealer. Then again maybe some here think I couldn't "afford" them even though I paid cash each time.

[MexicoCityM3]

Ah ok, if you're looking at absolutes, then yes you are right.

I was thinking more in terms of should you buy it vs actually buying it.

Agreed. The could vs. should discussion is valid but also very personal because people value different things in different ways.

[SVT666]

Nah, he said they are in the same price range, and then said its "not much to jump from $100k to $130k". It's a 30% difference.

You're right, but not in my hypothetical world it isn't.

[MexicoCityM3]

You're right, but not in my hypothetical world it isn't.

We all live in our hypothetical worlds. 

[hotrodalex]

But someone that can afford a 96K (GTR) car should easily be able to afford a 114K (R8) car.... at what point is the breaking limit of affordability?  If someone can so easily afford a car that 20K shouldn't affect their decision at all, then what price difference should affect their decision?

When they decide that they can't afford it.

No, the point is if you can easily jump from $100-130k by justifying that it's only a 30% increase more, then you could just as easily justify jumping for $130-170k by justifying that it's only 30% more, too.

That's flawed logic. I can go to Subway and upgrade to a foot-long sub over a 6" sub. It's twice as large, but I can still eat all of it. If I double it again, I can't eat all of it. But why not? It's the same % difference. But everyone has a limit and you can't just keep adding and adding. One "bump" is within reason, to keep going is just silly.

[sportyaccordy]

Whether you can afford something and whether it's a good idea is two completely different things.  We're discussing the former, not the latter.

I think this is where the confusion is. If buying something is a bad idea, to me that means you can't afford it.

You could have two people with the same income + bills, and one person could afford the car while one couldn't. One person might have 10x more assets & cash on hand than the other, etc. It def goes way beyond whether you can make a monthly payment.

If someone doesn't want to pay more for X Y Z that is one thing. Thats their choice. Being able to afford something is more objective than that.

[MexicoCityM3]

I think this is where the confusion is. If buying something is a bad idea, to me that means you can't afford it.

You could have two people with the same income + bills, and one person could afford the car while one couldn't. One person might have 10x more assets & cash on hand than the other, etc. It def goes way beyond whether you can make a monthly payment.

If someone doesn't want to pay more for X Y Z that is one thing. Thats their choice. Being able to afford something is more objective than that.

Nah, the confusion is in assuming that if it is a bad idea to you, then it should be a bad idea for somebody else. People can and will spend money in whatever they like. It?s an individual choice with consequences.

Almost any "pleasure" spending cannot be justified rationally once you dig into it.

[Lebowski]

Being physically able to swing the payments on something does not mean you can afford it, IMHO.

[GoCougs]

Most people driving $100K cars don't buy them at all.  They lease them.

Exactly my point.

[GoCougs]

Just because you can buy something on credit doesn't mean you can afford it.

Absolutely; enter the mortgage debacle. People were told they could "afford" those ginormous mortgages but many (most?) couldn't.

If it's a non-essential (a new car), if it's frivolous (a new $100k+ car), it depreciates like crazy (50% in the first 3-4 years), and you have to finance it, by every normal, practical and level-headed definition, you can't afford it.

[sportyaccordy]

Nah, the confusion is in assuming that if it is a bad idea to you, then it should be a bad idea for somebody else. People can and will spend money in whatever they like. It?s an individual choice with consequences.

Almost any "pleasure" spending cannot be justified rationally once you dig into it.

Some bad ideas are universally bad ideas... weakening your financial position to only lose more money on a depreciating asset is def a bad idea

[MrH]

Some bad ideas are universally bad ideas... weakening your financial position to only lose more money on a depreciating asset is def a bad idea

Therefore, all cars are a bad idea. 

I knew there was a reason you worked in a greenie weenie industry and live in NYC

[Lebowski]

Therefore, all cars are a bad idea.  

I knew there was a reason you worked in a greenie weenie industry and live in NYC

Nah, most of us need a car to go to work etc.

The thing with a $100k sports car is its basically just an expensive toy.  Nothing wrong with buying yourself a toy, but you can't look at it on the same metric as you would a Honda accord that you need in order to get to work, take the kids to school etc.

IMO if you need to finance or lease one of these, then you're an idiot for getting one.  Someone who makes $500k a year should not be allocating the same % of their income toward cars as someone who makes $50k, nor should they be thinking in terms of "how big of a car payment can I afford?".

However, none of the above changes that 30% is still a material step up.

[sportyaccordy]

Therefore, all cars are a bad idea.  

I knew there was a reason you worked in a greenie weenie industry and live in NYC

Owning a car is not a bad idea. For a lot of folks, if they dont have a car they dont eat. Or they spend all their free time getting to and from work. Thats a totally different thing from stretching yourself financially to drive an R8.

And my bike has no cat 

[Raza]

Owning a car is not a bad idea. For a lot of folks, if they dont have a car they dont eat. Or they spend all their free time getting to and from work. Thats a totally different thing from stretching yourself financially to drive an R8.

Or you buddy up with your boss so he can force me to drive him to and from work.

I don't understand people who think it's okay to live in a different state from their workplace and bum rides from people without ever reciprocating.  It makes me so angry.  I have a right to drive alone.   

[sportyaccordy]

Or you buddy up with your boss so he can force me to drive him to and from work.

I don't understand people who think it's okay to live in a different state from their workplace and bum rides from people without ever reciprocating.  It makes me so angry.  I have a right to drive alone.   

All you have to do is say no