Godzilla has officially been placed on the endangered species list. The Nissan GT-R, which rightfully earned the nickname of Japan?s most powerful figure, has not yet been approved for a second-generation, with signs pointing to a one-and-done situation.
The GT-R?s combination of speed, handling and price took the world by storm when it launched in late 2008, but a shifting focus at Nissan means the modern version of the car might not get a crack at a second generation. According to Inside Line, Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn, who was a driving force behind the current car, has not approved the next-generation GT-R ? internally known as the R36 ? for production.
The R36 was originally scheduled to arrive in 2014, but that date was reportedly pushed back to 2018. However, Inside Line claims Nissan hasn?t even begun development of the R36, indicating the entire project might be canned.
Since launching the GT-R Nissan?s focus has largely shifted to electric vehicles, which could be a reason for Ghosn?s decision to hold off on the R36′s approval. Rumors have suggested that Nissan was considering a hybrid drivetrain for the next GT-R, but it remains doubtful that the company would approve development of a low-volume, high-powered gas-electric drivetrain during such difficult financial times. Nissan has sold 5,914 units of the current car.
Adding more uncertainty to the program, Kazutoshi Mizuno, head engineer of the GT-R, recently retired.
Nissan is sticking to the corporate line of ?no comment? when it comes to the future of the GT-R, so we might just have to wait this one out.
So... just Juke GT-R?
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on July 27, 2012, 10:27:17 AM
So... just Juke GT-R?
if we're "lucky", we'll also get a Leaf GT-R
Leaf GT-R...now with more batteries!
:facepalm:
Quote from: Raza link=topic=27820.msg1755192#msg1755192 date=1343407000
Leaf GT-R...now with more batteries!
Hey, at least it will weigh as much as the GT-R then. That would be a good sign.
Shame - electric cars are such epic risk (er, fail) - they'll only see the light of day with ginormous government intervention (lol, even more than we have now).
GT-R development yen would've probably been better spent on the 3rd generation G to market quicker + revising the Q.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 27, 2012, 11:34:06 AM
Shame - electric cars are such epic risk (er, fail) - they'll only see the light of day with ginormous government intervention (lol, even more than we have now).
GT-R development yen would've probably been better spent on the 3rd generation G to market quicker + revising the Q.
3rd gen G is coming to market for 2013. That's a 5 year model run with continual improvements.
Quote from: SVT666 on July 27, 2012, 11:38:35 AM
3rd gen G is coming to market for 2013. That's a 5 year model run with continual improvements.
Actually, the 3rd gen G will debut as a MY2014, making the 2nd gen G a seven year run model (MY2007 - MY2013).
Quote from: GoCougs on July 27, 2012, 12:00:12 PM
Actually, the 3rd gen G will debut as a MY2014, making the 2nd gen G a seven year run model (MY2007 - MY2013).
I thought the 2nd gen G debuted in 2008, but I just looked and it was 2007. The 2014 G37 comes out in the Spring of 2013, so it's not really a 7 year run, but it is about a year too long. Not bad though.
Everyone goes by model years when considering life cycle. Any idea on what part of the year the 2nd gen came out?
IIRC, the 2nd gen G debuted in ~June 2006; so, a legit 7 years on the market. Not bad, other cars have had much longer cycles. Even in its age it's still a class contender. I'm hoping for 350 - 375 hp and DSG for the 3rd gen G (unfortunately indicators are pointing to the 3rd gen G being Accord/Camry/Civic "new" (i.e., effectively a refresh).
Quote from: GoCougs on July 27, 2012, 01:04:10 PM
IIRC, the 2nd gen G debuted in ~June 2006; so, a legit 7 years on the market. Not bad, other cars have had much longer cycles. Even in its age it's still a class contender. I'm hoping for 350 - 375 hp and DSG for the 3rd gen G (unfortunately indicators are pointing to the 3rd gen G being Accord/Camry/Civic "new" (i.e., effectively a refresh).
If they don't ruin the styling and they put a good DSG in it, then in a few years I would definitely replace mine with the new one, if not just for the transmission.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 27, 2012, 01:04:10 PM
IIRC, the 2nd gen G debuted in ~June 2006; so, a legit 7 years on the market. Not bad, other cars have had much longer cycles. Even in its age it's still a class contender. I'm hoping for 350 - 375 hp and DSG for the 3rd gen G (unfortunately indicators are pointing to the 3rd gen G being Accord/Camry/Civic "new" (i.e., effectively a refresh).
350-375 hp out of a V6?
I remember when V8s came with 300 hp....
Quote from: hotrodalex on July 27, 2012, 06:03:38 PM
350-375 hp out of a V6?
I remember when V8s came with 300 hp....
I remember when V8's came with 180 HP (in the "High Output" version)....
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on July 27, 2012, 06:09:41 PM
I remember when V8's came with 180 HP (in the "High Output" version)....
I try to forget those. :lol:
I think the 305 boat anchor that was in my El Camino had like 145 HP. Pitiful little POS.
Quote from: hotrodalex on July 27, 2012, 06:29:19 PM
I try to forget those. :lol:
I think the 305 boat anchor that was in my El Camino had like 145 HP. Pitiful little POS.
That wasn't even the weakest year. In '79, the 305 was only rated at 130 hp (125 if it had California emissions tuning).
Quote from: MX793 on July 27, 2012, 06:35:00 PM
That wasn't even the weakest year. In '79, the 305 was only rated at 130 hp (125 if it had California emissions tuning).
LOL! We laugh at the BRZ for only having 200hp but I remember when My '89 5.0 was the king of the hill with 225hp! (actually 215)
I don't see very many GT-Rs around here
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on July 27, 2012, 07:29:52 PM
LOL! We laugh at the BRZ for only having 200hp but I remember when My '89 5.0 was the king of the hill with 225hp! (actually 215)
Well the Camry has been pushing almost 270hp since the mid-late 2000's...
this was always a niche car and designed to stimulate interest in the brand, i doubt anyone saw them bringing out new GT-R models every 6 years
Quote from: GoCougs on July 27, 2012, 12:00:12 PM
Actually, the 3rd gen G will debut as a MY2014, making the 2nd gen G a seven year run model (MY2007 - MY2013).
Quote from: SVT666 on July 27, 2012, 12:03:47 PM
I thought the 2nd gen G debuted in 2008, but I just looked and it was 2007. The 2014 G37 comes out in the Spring of 2013, so it's not really a 7 year run, but it is about a year too long. Not bad though.
Not to be pedantic but the 2014 Infiniti G will be the FIFTH generation G model.
First generation. 1991-96
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/1st-Infiniti-G20.jpg/800px-1st-Infiniti-G20.jpg)
Second generation. 1999-2002
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/2002G20%287%29.JPG/800px-2002G20%287%29.JPG)
Third generation. 2003-06
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/04-05_Infiniti_G35_sedan.jpg/800px-04-05_Infiniti_G35_sedan.jpg)
Fourth generation. 2007-Present
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/Infiniti_G_sedan.jpg/800px-Infiniti_G_sedan.jpg)
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on July 28, 2012, 05:25:19 PM
this was always a niche car and designed to stimulate interest in the brand, i doubt anyone saw them bringing out new GT-R models every 6 years
Whomever wrote this piece is apparently completely unaware of the GT-R's history (I'm guessing a member of the North American press with little knowledge of automobiledom outside of the US). The GT-R has been in production on and off since the late 60s. It's longest continuous run covered 3 generations produced from '89-'02 (which translates in a new GT-R every 4-5 years). To say that the GT-R is a "one and done" is plainly false in that the current GT-R is actually the 6th iteration of Nissan performance car to wear that moniker. For that matter, the "Godzilla" nickname was not earned by this car, it was a nickname earned by the R32 generation in the late 80s that has followed the car through each subsequent iteration.
Nissan may not immediately follow up this GT-R with a new generation car, but I wouldn't say that the marque is dead. They killed it once in the 70s, only to revive it again roughly 15 years later. Then they killed it in the early noughties only to revive it yet again. It may take some years, but we may see another GT-R yet.
Quote from: Madman on July 28, 2012, 06:30:50 PM
Not to be pedantic but the 2014 Infiniti G will be the FIFTH generation G model.
First generation. 1991-96
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/1st-Infiniti-G20.jpg/800px-1st-Infiniti-G20.jpg)
Second generation. 1999-2002
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/2002G20%287%29.JPG/800px-2002G20%287%29.JPG)
Third generation. 2003-06
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/04-05_Infiniti_G35_sedan.jpg/800px-04-05_Infiniti_G35_sedan.jpg)
Fourth generation. 2007-Present
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/Infiniti_G_sedan.jpg/800px-Infiniti_G_sedan.jpg)
Technically, the current G is not at all an evolution of the early G20. Bearing in mind that Infiniti is an American market construct and that all Infinitis to date are actually rebadged, premium market segment Nissans elsewhere, the first two generations of Infiniti G were actually Nissan Primeras, which had originally been developed for the European market. The two generations of G20 were the first two generations of the Primera. The most recent Infiniti Gs are actually rebadged Nissan Skylines, a completely different family of car now in its 12th generation.
Quote from: MX793 on July 28, 2012, 06:41:35 PM
Technically, the current G is not at all an evolution of the early G20. Bearing in mind that Infiniti is an American market construct and that all Infinitis to date are actually rebadged, premium market segment Nissans elsewhere, the first two generations of Infiniti G were actually Nissan Primeras, which had originally been developed for the European market. The two generations of G20 were the first two generations of the Primera. The most recent Infiniti Gs are actually rebadged Nissan Skylines, a completely different family of car now in its 12th generation.
Sure, the current Skyline-based G may have nothing to do with the older Primera-based G model, but they were all still marketed as Gs in North America. Using your argument, you'd have to call the 1994 Honda Accord a first generation model since it was the first Accord designed exclusively for North America and ignore the four generations of Accord which preceded it.
In a way, you could say today's G series is really the spiritual successor to the mostly forgotten Nissan Leopard J Ferie-based 1992-97 Infiniti J30. Like the current G, the J30 was also V6 powered and rear driven. It makes me wonder why Nissan chose to stick with G (especially since the G20 was a sales dud) and not go with J when they started rebadging Skylines for North America in 2003?
Quote from: Madman on July 28, 2012, 07:07:28 PM
Sure, the current Skyline-based G may have nothing to do with the older Primera-based G model, but they were all still marketed as Gs in North America. Using your argument, you'd have to call the 1994 Honda Accord a first generation model since it was the first Accord designed exclusively for North America and ignore the four generations of Accord which preceded it.
In a way, you could say today's G series is really the spiritual successor to the mostly forgotten Nissan Leopard-based 1992-97 Infiniti J30. Like the current G, the J30 was also V6 powered and rear driven. It makes me wonder why Nissan chose to stick with G (especially since the G20 was a sales dud) and not go with J when they started rebadging Skylines for North America in 2003?
I've seen a lot more G20s than I ever saw J30s. The J was also discontinued in '97, while the G20 remained in production up until '02. In the interest of brand recognition as the entry level Infiniti model, it made more sense to continue the G. In truth, based on position in the model range, the M might have been a more fitting bearer of the "J" nomenclature, as the original M (discontinued in the early 90s) was a coupe/convertible. And like the J, first M45 was a derivative of the Cedric/Gloria (with the current M being a rebadge of the Fuga which replaced the Cedric/Gloria line).
Quote from: MX793 on July 28, 2012, 06:31:38 PM
Whomever wrote this piece is apparently completely unaware of the GT-R's history (I'm guessing a member of the North American press with little knowledge of automobiledom outside of the US). The GT-R has been in production on and off since the late 60s. It's longest continuous run covered 3 generations produced from '89-'02 (which translates in a new GT-R every 4-5 years). To say that the GT-R is a "one and done" is plainly false in that the current GT-R is actually the 6th iteration of Nissan performance car to wear that moniker. For that matter, the "Godzilla" nickname was not earned by this car, it was a nickname earned by the R32 generation in the late 80s that has followed the car through each subsequent iteration.
Nissan may not immediately follow up this GT-R with a new generation car, but I wouldn't say that the marque is dead. They killed it once in the 70s, only to revive it again roughly 15 years later. Then they killed it in the early noughties only to revive it yet again. It may take some years, but we may see another GT-R yet.
Agreed
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on July 27, 2012, 10:27:17 AM
So... just Juke GT-R?
Which is more profitable? The GT-R or Juke? Not talking sales figures but the dollars generated by each model. Never heard of an accounting of the GT-R in regards to sales meeting expectations, how its sales stick up against the competition and whether or not is it a big enough draw?
I know that the Dodge Viper (SRT branded for 2013 and beyond) attracted many admirers to Dodge dealerships -- many alledgedly to the point these younger and hipper (and poorer, I assume) customers driving off in other Chrysler products. Cars that lure such people into showroom doors have dual, if not multi purposes.
I think for Nissan, the Z has been what some call a rain getter -- yet another way of terming vehicles that help establish an image for a company that produce sales of other products better suited to each customer's need.
Besides the GT-R, Nissan hasn't built anything I wanted for years, including the G and the Z. Too heavy and too expensive relative to other cars that offer better performance.
Quote from: Char on August 12, 2012, 06:03:35 PM
Besides the GT-R, Nissan hasn't built anything I wanted for years, including the G and the Z. Too heavy and too expensive relative to other cars that offer better performance.
:rolleyes:
Lol this char guy, I am getting to like him
And if the GT-R goes, good riddance. Just another "lap times and magazine test #s over pretty much everything else" car w/performance you can't even begin to tap into outside of a track.
MX793,
Awesome pics and reminder of the evolution of the Infiniti G sedan/I30. I had forgotten about the first two "quick to market" Nissan knockoffs (especially the Maxi based model). Other luxury truck and car offerings often start off that way, like the first generation Caddy Escalade (far more Chevy/GMC truck like in appearance at first and I think the first generation Ford Expedition derived Lincoln Navi, too).
I was smitten with the idea of buying an Infiniti (G20, I30) opposed to another new Nissan Maxima until I test drove each back that and felt the Maxi was a far better value, especially compared with the not-so-different and less attractive (IMO) that its Nissan counterpart. The customer service of Infiniti vs. Nissan was a consideration, but how often do you need customer service -- hopefully, only at time of purchase.
What I was absolutely insane over was the Infiniti J30. Remember that sleek offering of its day? At least I loved it. Lol :mrcool: One cool car for a Nissan Maxima SE enthusiast thinking of moving up within the corporation.
I think I have my "letters" paired with the appropriate "numbers for those G's, I's, G's... If not, let me know...
Great thread, BTW!
Quote from: sportyaccordy on August 13, 2012, 07:18:21 AM
Lol this char guy, I am getting to like him
And if the GT-R goes, good riddance. Just another "lap times and magazine test #s over pretty much everything else" car w/performance you can't even begin to tap into outside of a track.
Like every Ferrari, Lamborghini, the M3, M5, M6, all AMGs, all _35i BMWs, and many, many others.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 12, 2012, 10:50:08 PM
:rolleyes:
SVT666, Two models that I absolutely love are the Infiniti EX AWD and FX AWD crossover/SUV models. Some chaim the EX could benefit from more cargo space. That might be the case, but I would rather have its sleek design than having it offer more room in the "way back" at the cost of its styling for my needs. The FX is fantastic.
My neighbor had this hot burnt orange FX that he just traded in on Saturday for a 2012 silver Honda Crosstour. Why I asked? He reply, "the cost of tire..." Plus his wife "scraped the hell out of all massive and costly four wheels..." She obviously is a lousy parker. He also purchased a new vehicle for her at the same time, a MY12 Honda Pilot. He had an older Honda CR-V.
I like the X-Tour, but it is certainly no Infiniti FX. So glad I am single, and mighty happily single at that :lol:
Quote from: SVT666 on August 12, 2012, 10:50:08 PM
:rolleyes:
You're welcome to like subpar products like the Sentra and Versa, but nothing the brand builds really excites me anymore.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=27820.msg1763195#msg1763195 date=1344865841
Like every Ferrari, Lamborghini, the M3, M5, M6, all AMGs, all _35i BMWs, and many, many others.
Nobody says "why would I get this, when I could get a Ferrari/Lambo that outperforms this for less $$$"
M3 and M5 give 90-95% of GT-R performance, but can actually carry 4 people and some of their stuff
Old M6 had soul, current one I kind of agree.
AMGs dont sound like vacuum cleaners, and again combine blistering performance with luxury and practicality for the same/LESS money than the GT-R.
_35i performance is a little much for the street, but nowhere near as useless as the GT-R's breadth, and in any case you don't sacrifice anything for said performance like you do with the GT-R. _35 cars are still completely practical, economical to run, and low maintenance in comparison with the GT-R.
GT-R was a good exercise but I think you can do much better for an engaging driving experience for the money. I would take a "slow" 911 Carrera over the GT-R 10 times out of 10.
Quote from: Char on August 13, 2012, 10:20:57 AM
You're welcome to like subpar products like the Sentra and Versa, but nothing the brand builds really excites me anymore.
No, I'm rolling my eyes at your assertion that the G is too heavy and too expensive. You've obviously never driven one. I own a G37xS and it is by no means too heavy or even close to being overpriced. In fact, it's priced much better than it's German competition and is just as good in most categories, better in some, and nearly as good in others. To me it's the better car and it cost less to boot.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on August 13, 2012, 10:27:54 AM
Nobody says "why would I get this, when I could get a Ferrari/Lambo that outperforms this for less $$$"
M3 and M5 give 90-95% of GT-R performance, but can actually carry 4 people and some of their stuff
Old M6 had soul, current one I kind of agree.
AMGs dont sound like vacuum cleaners, and again combine blistering performance with luxury and practicality for the same/LESS money than the GT-R.
_35i performance is a little much for the street, but nowhere near as useless as the GT-R's breadth, and in any case you don't sacrifice anything for said performance like you do with the GT-R. _35 cars are still completely practical, economical to run, and low maintenance in comparison with the GT-R.
GT-R was a good exercise but I think you can do much better for an engaging driving experience for the money. I would take a "slow" 911 Carrera over the GT-R 10 times out of 10.
Lol, no M3 or M5 is giving you 90% of the GTR's performance. That said, I am a big BMW fan, but I'm an even bigger GT-R fan. There is no comparison.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 13, 2012, 10:46:13 AM
No, I'm rolling my eyes at your assertion that the G is too heavy and too expensive. You've obviously never driven one. I own a G37xS and it is by no means too heavy or even close to being overpriced. In fact, it's priced much better than it's German competition and is just as good in most categories, better in some, and nearly as good in others. To me it's the better car and it cost less to boot.
And that's your opinion and you're welcome to have it.
I feel that the G37s at 3700lb is too heavy, so heavy that it's barely any quicker than the previous G35 coupe with a 30hp advantage. And yes I drove one, and yes it's nice. It may be the right choice for you, but obviously not everyone.
Quote from: Char on August 12, 2012, 06:03:35 PM
Besides the GT-R, Nissan hasn't built anything I wanted for years, including the G and the Z. Too heavy and too expensive relative to other cars that offer better performance.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 12, 2012, 10:50:08 PM
:rolleyes:
I agree with him. Not sure why you're rolling your eyes :huh:
Quote from: MrH on August 13, 2012, 11:03:29 AM
I agree with him. Not sure why you're rolling your eyes :huh:
Obviously I'm rolling my eyes because I disagree with him. I disagree with him enough that I spoke with my pocketbook and bought a G37.
Quote from: Char on August 13, 2012, 10:46:36 AM
Lol, no M3 or M5 is giving you 90% of the GTR's performance. That said, I am a big BMW fan, but I'm an even bigger GT-R fan. There is no comparison.
Quote from: Char on August 13, 2012, 10:51:59 AM
And that's your opinion and you're welcome to have it. I feel that the G37s at 3700lb is too heavy, so heavy that it's barely any quicker than the previous G35 coupe with a 30hp advantage. And yes I drove one, and yes it's nice. It may be the right choice for you, but obviously not everyone.
+juan
Eh, all Japanese cars suck (except some Subarus and Hondas), but Nissans do seem to suck the hardest.
Quote from: Raza on August 13, 2012, 11:33:14 AM
Eh, all Japanese cars suck (except some Subarus and Hondas), but Nissans do seem to suck the hardest.
Quote from: Raza on July 06, 2012, 01:41:48 PM
A 2006 Grand Touring 350ZR would be pretty sweet.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: sportyaccordy on August 13, 2012, 11:40:57 AM
:rolleyes:
And did I buy the 350ZR? No, I drove it and realized the best Japanese car in the last 10 years actually sucked. Great on paper, terrible on road.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=27820.msg1763371#msg1763371 date=1344883422
And did I buy the 350ZR? No, I drove it and realized the best Japanese car in the last 10 years actually sucked. Great on paper, terrible on road.
What?
Quote from: Char on August 13, 2012, 10:46:36 AM
Lol, no M3 or M5 is giving you 90% of the GTR's performance. That said, I am a big BMW fan, but I'm an even bigger GT-R fan. There is no comparison.
:hesaid:
Quote from: Char on August 12, 2012, 06:03:35 PM
Besides the GT-R, Nissan hasn't built anything I wanted for years, including the G and the Z. Too heavy and too expensive relative to other cars that offer better performance.
I'm not interested in much of what Nissan builds either. The only cars are the GT-R, the G sedan, maybe the Z. I don't agree on the G sedan; it's second in the class in overall performance (and barely so) only to the 335i (but with much better reliability); it's also the cheapest (esp. against the competition's performance models/packages - 335i, TL-SH AWD, IS350). True it's really only a Nissan (first developed and sold as the SkylineXXXGT in Japan) but it's the best car Nissan builds and an overall fantastic car. (I'm biased of course, having bought a G37x sedan in March after an exhaustive search.)
Quote from: SVT666 on August 13, 2012, 10:46:13 AM
No, I'm rolling my eyes at your assertion that the G is too heavy and too expensive. You've obviously never driven one. I own a G37xS and it is by no means too heavy or even close to being overpriced. In fact, it's priced much better than it's German competition and is just as good in most categories, better in some, and nearly as good in others. To me it's the better car and it cost less to boot.
The G37x is heavy though, weighing in at 3,850 lbs. IIRC, heaviest in class by 100 lbs. The G37 sedan ain't too bad though, and class average, at 3,625. However, in context, the whole "too heavy" battle cry is abjectly rejectible simply owing to the absence of a yet-to-be-seen cogent premise.
I'd make exception for the G but yeah no Nissan products but that and the GT-R interests me. And I wouldn't buy a GT-R, even though I find it interesting.
Quote from: Lebowski on August 13, 2012, 01:53:45 PM
I'd make exception for the G but yeah no Nissan products but that and the GT-R interests me. And I wouldn't buy a GT-R, even though I find it interesting.
The G is the only Nissan product I'm even remotely interested in, and I love it so much I bought it.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=27820.msg1763371#msg1763371 date=1344883422
And did I buy the 350ZR? No, I drove it and realized the best Japanese car in the last 10 years actually sucked. Great on paper, terrible on road.
So now the Z is a better car than the S2K? RX-8? STi? EVO? GT-R? LF-A? Lol.
Quote from: Char on August 13, 2012, 01:09:49 PM
What?
About a month ago I had convinced myself that I was going to buy a Nissan 350Z roadster. Then I drove it and realized it was actually quite poor to drive, due to unnecessarily high effort steering with little feel, a terrible clutch and poor shifter, and an extremely light, touchy, and oversensitive throttle. And a distinct lack of excitement.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on August 13, 2012, 02:16:00 PM
So now the Z is a better car than the S2K? RX-8? STi? EVO? GT-R? LF-A? Lol.
So I see my plan to rile you up worked.
I'd have to drive all of them. I recall the RX-8 being pretty good and the Evo being very good, but the STi was kind of dull in normal driving. And two seconds ago you were talking about cars that were so fast you can never use them and good riddance if they go away, and then you mention the GT-R and LFA and Evo and STi, all of which are way too fast for normal roads.
I should amend my statement, though.
In general, Japanese cars suck, with a few exceptions.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=27820.msg1763417#msg1763417 date=1344889879
So I see my plan to rile you up worked.
I'd have to drive all of them. I recall the RX-8 being pretty good and the Evo being very good, but the STi was kind of dull in normal driving. And two seconds ago you were talking about cars that were so fast you can never use them and good riddance if they go away, and then you mention the GT-R and LFA and Evo and STi, all of which are way too fast for normal roads.
I should amend my statement, though. In general, Japanese cars suck, with a few exceptions.
You won't win me over with that type of talk. I abhor VW, but even I believe they have their place.
Quote from: Char on August 13, 2012, 02:43:55 PM
You won't win me over with that type of talk. I abhor VW, but even I believe they have their place.
Who said I was trying to win you over?
Quote from: Raza on August 13, 2012, 07:50:41 AM
Like every Ferrari, Lamborghini, the M3, M5, M6, all AMGs, all _35i BMWs, and many, many others.
I'm not really interested in those cars either.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 13, 2012, 01:56:52 PM
The G is the only Nissan product I'm even remotely interested in, and I love it so much I bought it.
If I were shopping in that category, I would seriously consider the G. Would be a tough choice between that and the 3er. But the G is literally the only Nissan product I can say that about. Even the GT-R, I like it but wouldn't buy it over the alternatives even though it's awesome on paper.
Quote from: Lebowski on August 13, 2012, 04:26:58 PM
If I were shopping in that category, I would seriously consider the G. Would be a tough choice between that and the 3er. But the G is literally the only Nissan product I can say that about. Even the GT-R, I like it but wouldn't buy it over the alternatives even though it's awesome on paper.
I agree. In the GT-R price range I would honestly get an Audi R8.
Doesn't Nissan lose money on each GT-R? I remember reading somewhere that they did it more as a statement about their capability (they certainly succeeded IMO)
The bleeding has to stop at some point.
Quote from: Lebowski on August 13, 2012, 04:26:58 PM
If I were shopping in that category, I would seriously consider the G. Would be a tough choice between that and the 3er. But the G is literally the only Nissan product I can say that about. Even the GT-R, I like it but wouldn't buy it over the alternatives even though it's awesome on paper.
Yeah, I'd rather buy a base model 911 myself. But I can't deny the physics-defying properties of the GT-R. And the fact that it can run with Ferraris that cost three times as much means it deserves respect.
Quote from: Raza on August 13, 2012, 02:31:19 PM
So I see my plan to rile you up worked.
I'd have to drive all of them. I recall the RX-8 being pretty good and the Evo being very good, but the STi was kind of dull in normal driving. And two seconds ago you were talking about cars that were so fast you can never use them and good riddance if they go away, and then you mention the GT-R and LFA and Evo and STi, all of which are way too fast for normal roads.
I should amend my statement, though. In general, Japanese cars suck, with a few exceptions.
Just cause a car sucks for public roads doesn't mean it sucks. Who's riled up? And non-premium cars in general "suck", from the POV of enthusiasts, including VWs.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on August 13, 2012, 07:22:24 PM
Just cause a car sucks for public roads doesn't mean it sucks. Who's riled up? And non-premium cars in general "suck", from the POV of enthusiasts, including VWs.
And now you're coming after my car. Ask again who is riled up...just make sure you're looking in a mirror.
And you're still taking my "Japanese cars suck" comment seriously. Man, it's too easy with you.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 13, 2012, 05:06:18 PM
I agree. In the GT-R price range I would honestly get an Audi R8.
Damn, didn't realize that the GT-R got that expensive. I remember they used to be priced closer to the CTS-V.
But to be fair, for the price of an R8, you could still get a GT-R plus a Honda Fit or something.
Quote from: Vinsanity on August 13, 2012, 11:11:37 PM
Damn, didn't realize that the GT-R got that expensive. I remember they used to be priced closer to the CTS-V.
But to be fair, for the price of an R8, you could still get a GT-R plus a Honda Fit or something.
I think the GT-R would make sense at like 60K. Its a super WRX STi, not an alternative to a V8 Vantage or 911 C2S.
Quote from: Vinsanity on August 13, 2012, 11:11:37 PM
Damn, didn't realize that the GT-R got that expensive. I remember they used to be priced closer to the CTS-V.
But to be fair, for the price of an R8, you could still get a GT-R plus a Honda Fit or something.
If I could afford a $100,000 car, then it's not much of a jump to $130,000. I would take the R8 every day of the week.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 14, 2012, 09:38:59 AM
If I could afford a $100,000 car, then it's not much of a jump to $130,000. I would take the R8 every day of the week.
So would I, but that's like saying there's not much of a jump from a $20k car to a $26k car.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 14, 2012, 09:38:59 AM
If I could afford a $100,000 car, then it's not much of a jump to $130,000. I would take the R8 every day of the week.
That's a 30% jump. That's like saying if you can afford 15K for a car, you can afford 20. That's just not the case.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=27820.msg1763856#msg1763856 date=1344960112
That's a 30% jump. That's like saying if you can afford 15K for a car, you can afford 20. That's just not the case.
It's not the same at all. If you spending $100,000 on a car, then you aren't strapped for cash. Personally, if I was in the market for a $100,000 car, then I have a buttload of money burning a hole in my bank account, and I would spring for the Audi R8.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 14, 2012, 09:38:59 AM
If I could afford a $100,000 car, then it's not much of a jump to $130,000.
It's not the same at all. If you spending $100,000 on a car, then you aren't strapped for cash. Personally, if I was in the market for a $100,000 car, then I have a buttload of money burning a hole in my bank account, and I would spring for the Audi R8.
This is all entirely wrong.
Math doesn't somehow change once you reach a certain level of income or assets.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 14, 2012, 10:34:11 AM
It's not the same at all. If you spending $100,000 on a car, then you aren't strapped for cash. Personally, if I was in the market for a $100,000 car, then I have a buttload of money burning a hole in my bank account, and I would spring for the Audi R8.
So if you could afford a $1 million house would you just spring for a $1.3 million house too?
IDK... if 130K is a stretch... how wouldn't 100K be? I guess it depends on how you are paying for it, but if there are any questions/trepidations at all you prob shouldn't be buying something this expensive period
Quote from: Lebowski on August 14, 2012, 10:45:05 AM
This is all entirely wrong.
Math doesn't somehow change once you reach a certain level of income or assets.
It is not entirely wrong. I'm talking about my own personal financial decisions here. I said that if I was looking at a $100,000 car that I would spring for the Audi R8 because if I was looking at a $100,000 car then I would have a shit load of money burning a hole in my bank account. Between my wife and I we make $190,000 a year, and we could easily afford a brand new G37, but we bought a used G37 because we have other financial obligations (savings, retirement, kid's education funds, etc.) so if I am looking to buy a $100,000 car then I am going to have several million in the bank and it would not be much to jump to $130,000.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on August 14, 2012, 11:22:07 AM
IDK... if 130K is a stretch... how wouldn't 100K be? I guess it depends on how you are paying for it, but if there are any questions/trepidations at all you prob shouldn't be buying something this expensive period
Exactly my point.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on August 14, 2012, 11:22:07 AM
IDK... if 130K is a stretch... how wouldn't 100K be? I guess it depends on how you are paying for it, but if there are any questions/trepidations at all you prob shouldn't be buying something this expensive period
A 30% difference is a 30% difference. People don't get to the point where they can afford $100k cars by ignoring $30k price differences.
People have this assumption where everyone buying a $100k is a billionaire. You see it in reviews all the time ... i.e. one a better performer, one a better value, and the reviewers (none of whom are actually paying for either car) will come up with some "well, to the people buying these cars the 30% price difference just doesn't matter" BS. It doesn't work like that.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 14, 2012, 11:24:46 AM
It is not entirely wrong. I'm talking about my own personal financial decisions here. I said that if I was looking at a $100,000 car that I would spring for the Audi R8 because if I was looking at a $100,000 car then I would have a shit load of money burning a hole in my bank account. Between my wife and I we make $190,000 a year, and we could easily afford a brand new G37, but we bought a used G37 because we have other financial obligations (savings, retirement, kid's education funds, etc.) so if I am looking to buy a $100,000 car then I am going to have several million in the bank and it would not be much to jump to $130,000.
It is entirely wrong, and your own example supports this.
Quote from: thecarnut on August 14, 2012, 11:19:23 AM
So if you could afford a $1 million house would you just spring for a $1.3 million house too?
Yep. And since you can now afford that $1.3m house, then you might as well start looking at $1.6m houses. And after you look at a couple $1.6m houses, I mean what the heck if that's not a stretch then neither is a $2m house. We can play this game all day long.
Quote from: Lebowski on August 14, 2012, 11:36:12 AM
It is entirely wrong, and your own example supports this.
How do you figure?
Quote from: Lebowski on August 14, 2012, 11:33:40 AM
A 30% difference is a 30% difference. People don't get to the point where they can afford $100k cars by ignoring $30k price differences.
People have this assumption where everyone buying a $100k is a billionaire. You see it in reviews all the time ... i.e. one a better performer, one a better value, and the reviewers (none of whom are actually paying for either car) will come up with some "well, to the people buying these cars the 30% price difference just doesn't matter" BS. It doesn't work like that.
Like I said it depends on how you are paying for it. Youre doing a lease, its gonna be like 400-600 more dollars a month. If youre buying cash, it might be less than 30K difference, given how much funny money stuff people do to look rich and buy cars like this.... but in any case, it shouldnt hurt at all. If you blow your life savings on a 100K car youre an idiot. So if 30K hurts, a 100K car doesnt make sense. Esp when you throw in the costs of upkeep and insurance
I mean you can prob afford something on this level, but you made a more prudent choice...
thats what moderately wealthy people (who stay that way) do.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on August 14, 2012, 12:05:10 PM
Like I said it depends on how you are paying for it. Youre doing a lease, its gonna be like 400-600 more dollars a month. If youre buying cash, it might be less than 30K difference, given how much funny money stuff people do to look rich and buy cars like this.... but in any case, it shouldnt hurt at all. If you blow your life savings on a 100K car youre an idiot. So if 30K hurts, a 100K car doesnt make sense. Esp when you throw in the costs of upkeep and insurance
I mean you can prob afford something on this level, but you made a more prudent choice... thats what moderately wealthy people (who stay that way) do.
:confused:
SVT666 is correct. If you can't afford or feel $130k is too much for a car, you sure as hell better not be buying a $100k car.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 14, 2012, 12:10:48 PM
SVT666 is correct. If you can't afford or feel $130k is too much for a car, you sure as hell better not be buying a $100k car.
:confused:
Quote from: sportyaccordy on August 14, 2012, 12:05:10 PM
Like I said it depends on how you are paying for it. Youre doing a lease, its gonna be like 400-600 more dollars a month. If youre buying cash, it might be less than 30K difference, given how much funny money stuff people do to look rich and buy cars like this.... but in any case, it shouldnt hurt at all. If you blow your life savings on a 100K car youre an idiot. So if 30K hurts, a 100K car doesnt make sense. Esp when you throw in the costs of upkeep and insurance
I mean you can prob afford something on this level, but you made a more prudent choice... thats what moderately wealthy people (who stay that way) do.
Lease take rate on ultra expensive cars is higher than even the already sky-high lease take rates on lesser luxury/near-luxury cars.
Also PROTIP: moderately wealthy people by and large don't buy $100k cars; like most all "luxury" they're for people who want to feel rich and make other people think they're rich.
Between the GT-R and the R8, I find both fairly ugly, but the GT-R a better car overall. It's quicker, faster, more capable and cheaper. You can't really make an argument to buy an R8 over any other ca in it's class to me.
Now a 911 (esp. the 991) I would make me think. I've always had a soft spot for them.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 14, 2012, 12:10:48 PM
SVT666 is correct. If you can't afford or feel $130k is too much for a car, you sure as hell better not be buying a $100k car.
No. It's not so much about whether one can afford it, it's this assumption that once you can afford $100k all of a sudden the value of a dollar means nothing.
Yes, the buyers of either can probably afford both (or shouldn't be buying it), that doesn't mean they don't appreciate the $30k difference.
Quote from: Lebowski on August 14, 2012, 12:20:35 PM
No. It's not so much about one can afford it, it's thus assumption that once you can afford $100k all of a sudden the value of a dollar means nothing.
Yes, the buyers of either can probably afford both (or shouldn't be buying it), that doesn't mean they don't appreciate the $30k difference.
No one ever opted for a GT-R because they couldn't afford or didn't want to pay the $30k premium for an R8.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 14, 2012, 11:52:57 AM
How do you figure?
Because as you said, you could afford the new G37 but figured the used was a better option. What makes you think people who buy $100k cars don't think the same way?
Again, you're stuck in this binary world where you're either an ordinary working stiff making $190k/yr, or you're a multimillionaire with unlimited means. Uh, what about the 20 years or so of income growth and savings growth in between? What if you made $500k/yr? $750k/yr? $1mm/yr? What if you had just $1m in the bank? $2m? You don't jump from working stiff to an 8 figure net worth overnight. And at some point in the interim, you might choose to buy a nice car but still balance that towards your other savings goals and spending priorities.
Not everyone who buys these cars is a billionaire or a pro athlete. For every one of those there are dozens of doctors, professionals, small business owners, etc. that can afford either car but can (or should) still appreciate the $30k difference. Buying a $100k car is a big decision for most people.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 14, 2012, 12:28:33 PM
No one ever opted for a GT-R because they couldn't afford or didn't want to pay the $30k premium for an R8.
Of course they do.
Why do people opt for the Carrera over the Carrera S? Why doesn't every 911 buyer drive a fully optioned turbo or a GT3? It's not necessarily that they can't afford the more expensive options, but you can't tell me they aren't aware of the price difference or that it doesn't impact the decision.
Quote from: Lebowski on August 14, 2012, 12:35:54 PM
Of course they do.
Why do people opt for the Carrera over the Carrera S? Why doesn't every 911 buyer drive a fully optioned turbo or a GT3? It's not necessarily that they can't afford the more expensive options, but you can't tell me they aren't aware of the price difference or that it doesn't impact the decision.
Sensitivity to the price differential on such a frivolous non essential is more than just "awareness." IMO, it's because they can't afford either.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 14, 2012, 12:43:23 PM
Sensitivity to the price differential on such a frivolous non essential is more than just "awareness." IMO, it's because they can't afford either.
To the contrary, because it's such a frivolous/nonessential, price sensitivity is all the more rational.
We're not talking about a $500 option, $30k is 30% of the price of the car. That's meaningful.
Quote from: Lebowski on August 14, 2012, 12:33:01 PM
Because as you said, you could afford the new G37 but figured the used was a better option. What makes you think people who buy $100k cars don't think the same way?
Again, you're stuck in this binary world where you're either an ordinary working stiff making $190k/yr, or you're a multimillionaire with unlimited means. Uh, what about the 20 years or so of income growth and savings growth in between? What if you made $500k/yr? $750k/yr? $1mm/yr? What if you had just $1m in the bank? $2m? You don't jump from working stiff to an 8 figure net worth overnight. And at some point in the interim, you might choose to buy a nice car but still balance that towards your other savings goals and spending priorities.
Not everyone who buys these cars is a billionaire or a pro athlete. For every one of those there are dozens of doctors, professionals, small business owners, etc. that can afford either car but can (or should) still appreciate the $30k difference. Buying a $100k car is a big decision for most people.
I'm not speaking for other people. I was speaking about me and the only time I will ever spend GT-R money on a car is if I have several million in the bank...and I will buy an R8 instead.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 14, 2012, 12:10:48 PM
SVT666 is correct. If you can't afford or feel $130k is too much for a car, you sure as hell better not be buying a $100k car.
You....agreed....with.....me? Somebody just fucking shoot me the head right now.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 14, 2012, 12:43:23 PM
Sensitivity to the price differential on such a frivolous non essential is more than just "awareness." IMO, it's because they can't afford either.
:confused:
You're completely ignoring the number one drive of action in life.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 14, 2012, 01:00:35 PM
You....agreed....with.....me? Somebody just fucking shoot me the head right now.
It's okay, because you're both wrong. Lebowski is right. 30% is 30%.
...and you are still ignoring the fact that I was speaking of myself and what I would do.
Quote from: Lebowski on August 14, 2012, 11:33:40 AM
A 30% difference is a 30% difference. People don't get to the point where they can afford $100k cars by ignoring $30k price differences.
People have this assumption where everyone buying a $100k is a billionaire. You see it in reviews all the time ... i.e. one a better performer, one a better value, and the reviewers (none of whom are actually paying for either car) will come up with some "well, to the people buying these cars the 30% price difference just doesn't matter" BS. It doesn't work like that.
SVT currently makes financially prudent choices, which is why he bought a used G37 instead of a new one. Buying a $100k GT-R is not financially prudent, so it would take a lot of money for him actually think about buying one. But at the level of money necessary for him to think about it, he would have enough money to also buy a $130k R8.
30% of $100k is not as big of a deal when you have a couple million in the bank compared to only having a couple hundred grand.
The people who buy base 911s and can't afford a Carrera S are not in the same situation as SVT is talking about. They are stretching their budget, whereas SVT would be in a position where $100k would not be stretching his budget whatsoever. The $100k would still be rather prudent, and $130k would still be considered affordable.
Thank you.
Quote from: hotrodalex on August 14, 2012, 01:22:38 PM
The people who buy base 911s and can't afford a Carrera S are not in the same situation as SVT is talking about. They are stretching their budget, whereas SVT would be in a position where $100k would not be stretching his budget whatsoever. The $100k would still be rather prudent, and $130k would still be considered affordable.
What about the guy who can afford either a Carerra or a CS but decides the extra features of the S just aren't worth the price differential, to him.
Again, most people in the position to buy $100k cars didn't get that way by not understanding the value of a dollar.
Quote from: Lebowski on August 14, 2012, 01:31:10 PM
What about the guy who can afford either a Carerra or a CS but decides the extra features of the S just aren't worth the price differential, to him.
Again, most people in the position to buy $100k cars didn't get that way by not understanding the value of a dollar.
That's why I worded my post to only include those who
can't afford the CS. There's nothing wrong with buying a base model even if you can afford the more costly version.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 14, 2012, 12:59:31 PM
I'm not speaking for other people. I was speaking about me and the only time I will ever spend GT-R money on a car is if I have several million in the bank...and I will buy an R8 instead.
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.
Quote from: Lebowski on August 14, 2012, 11:37:38 AM
Yep. And since you can now afford that $1.3m house, then you might as well start looking at $1.6m houses. And after you look at a couple $1.6m houses, I mean what the heck if that's not a stretch then neither is a $2m house. We can play this game all day long.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. If you could keep adding 30% to the base price, when would it stop? There has to be a limit somewhere which is why I think just making a blanket statement saying "Well if I could afford this car, I could easily afford another car for 30% more money" is pretty short-sighted.
Quote from: Lebowski on August 14, 2012, 01:31:10 PM
What about the guy who can afford either a Carerra or a CS but decides the extra features of the S just aren't worth the price differential, to him.
Again, most people in the position to buy $100k cars didn't get that way by not understanding the value of a dollar.
Most people who actually buy $100k cars can't afford them.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 14, 2012, 12:43:23 PM
Sensitivity to the price differential on such a frivolous non essential is more than just "awareness." IMO, it's because they can't afford either.
So you're saying if you drive a 911 Turbo S or GT3 RS, you had the means to afford it, but if you drive anything less you are stretching yourself and in reality can't afford to drive a Carrera? :wtf:
Quote from: SVT666 on August 14, 2012, 01:00:35 PM
You....agreed....with.....me? Somebody just fucking shoot me the head right now.
I didn't agree with you per se; we both agreed with a particular position.
30% increase is significant.
Not everyone buying a 911 or GT-R has hundreds of millions of dollars to just blow however they please. The vast majority are the opposite. Think of your situation.
You make X dollars per year. You buy a car worth Y dollars. Most people buying these cars are in the same position. I'm sure their X:Y ratio is probably pretty similar to us normal folks, they just make a ton more money.
It's like if I was buying a new tablet. One is 30% more expensive than the other. It's not like that difference in value is a null point because I make a lot more money than that. I could easily afford either one, but that's not the point. This concept that value is thrown completely out the window when someone becomes a millionaire is absurd. In fact, the idea of "value" is even more prevalent in the rich than the poor. That's why they're rich in the first place.
Quote from: hotrodalex on August 14, 2012, 01:22:38 PM
SVT currently makes financially prudent choices, which is why he bought a used G37 instead of a new one. Buying a $100k GT-R is not financially prudent, so it would take a lot of money for him actually think about buying one. But at the level of money necessary for him to think about it, he would have enough money to also buy a $130k R8.
30% of $100k is not as big of a deal when you have a couple million in the bank compared to only having a couple hundred grand.
The people who buy base 911s and can't afford a Carrera S are not in the same situation as SVT is talking about. They are stretching their budget, whereas SVT would be in a position where $100k would not be stretching his budget whatsoever. The $100k would still be rather prudent, and $130k would still be considered affordable.
No.
30% is 30% whether it's 100K to 130K or $1.00 to $1.30.
FWIW, I would probably just get a Carrera S if I were to get a 911. Still quite fun, but I wouldn't feel so bad if it got beat up and it's a bit more DD-friendly.
Quote from: hotrodalex on August 14, 2012, 01:55:22 PM
FWIW, I would probably just get a Carrera S if I were to get a 911. Still quite fun, but I wouldn't feel so bad if it got beat up and it's a bit more DD-friendly.
You wouldn't feel bad if an $80k car got beat up? :confused:
I got so pissed when I saw a dent in the Miata's door. Ruined my day completely.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 14, 2012, 01:41:15 PM
Most people who actually buy $100k cars can't afford them.
Most people driving $100K cars don't buy them at all. They lease them.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=27820.msg1764019#msg1764019 date=1344974094
No.
30% is 30% whether it's 100K to 130K or $1.00 to $1.30.
And what's a bigger deal, spending $1.30 instead of $1.00, or $130k instead of $100k?
It's always $30%, but no one cares if they spend an extra $0.30. If someone had millions in the bank, they wouldn't care about that extra $30k as much. It's still a decent increase, but in the situation that SVT described, it's not a huge deal.
Quote from: thecarnut on August 14, 2012, 01:39:44 PM
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. If you could keep adding 30% to the base price, when would it stop? There has to be a limit somewhere which is why I think just making a blanket statement saying "Well if I could afford this car, I could easily afford another car for 30% more money" is pretty short-sighted.
Well....130 is basically the same as 100K, right? And 170K is basically the same thing as 130K. And then that's basically 220K, which is essentially 290K. So, you started looking at a Hyundai Accent, and now you're getting a Ferrari 458.
Quote from: thecarnut on August 14, 2012, 01:56:10 PM
You wouldn't feel bad if an $80k car got beat up? :confused:
I got so pissed when I saw a dent in the Miata's door. Ruined my day completely.
No, but I'd feel less bad about a $90k CS than a $140k 911 Turbo.
Quote from: thecarnut on August 14, 2012, 01:39:44 PM
"Well if I could afford this car, I could easily afford another car for 30% more money"
This is how people who don't understand money tend to think, and it's an extremely pervasive mindset.
Quote from: hotrodalex on August 14, 2012, 01:57:24 PM
And what's a bigger deal, spending $1.30 instead of $1.00 or $130k instead of $100k? It's always $30%, but no one cares if they spend an extra $0.30. If someone had millions in the bank, they wouldn't care about that extra $30k as much. It's still a decent increase, but in the situation that SVT described, it's not a huge deal.
Except that $30k is still a significant amount even on its own, no matter how rich you are. If the rich just threw around $30k like it was $.30, do you still think they'd be rich? How do you think lottery winners end up being so poor again?
Quote from: thecarnut on August 14, 2012, 01:59:51 PM
Except that $30k is still a significant amount even on its own, no matter how rich you are. If the rich just threw around $30k like it was $.30, do you still think they'd be rich? How do you think lottery winners end up being so poor again?
If you can still afford the $130k and you'd rather have an R8, then I see no issue.
I can understand SVT's very personal position but otherwise, 30% is 30%. Always and in every price range.
Quote from: hotrodalex on August 14, 2012, 01:57:24 PM
And what's a bigger deal, spending $1.30 instead of $1.00 or $130k instead of $100k? It's always $30%, but no one cares if they spend an extra $0.30. If someone had millions in the bank, they wouldn't care about that extra $30k as much. It's still a decent increase, but in the situation that SVT described, it's not a huge deal.
30% is 30%. It is as simple as that. Every decision made in the history of decisions is governed by cost/benefit analysis and percentage is the proper way to quantify cost increases against perceived value added. 30% is 30% regardless of the dollar value. That is inarguable. Rationalizing it by saying "it's only 30 cents" is deeply flawed.
Quote from: hotrodalex on August 14, 2012, 01:57:24 PM
And what's a bigger deal, spending $1.30 instead of $1.00, or $130k instead of $100k?
It's always $30%, but no one cares if they spend an extra $0.30. If someone had millions in the bank, they wouldn't care about that extra $30k as much. It's still a decent increase, but in the situation that SVT described, it's not a huge deal.
:facepalm:
You're just making an argument against yourself. What percentage of a millionaire's worth or income is spent on a car like this? Probably the same percentage us non-millionaires spend.
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.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 14, 2012, 01:41:15 PM
Most people who actually buy $100k cars can't afford them.
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".
Quote from: hotrodalex on August 14, 2012, 02:00:55 PM
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.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on August 14, 2012, 02:03:30 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Lebowski on August 14, 2012, 01:35:31 PM
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.
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?
Quote from: SVT666 on August 14, 2012, 02:13:39 PM
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.
Quote from: MrH on August 14, 2012, 02:03:15 PM
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.
Quote from: HotRodPilot on August 14, 2012, 02:20:04 PM
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.
Quote from: Lebowski on August 14, 2012, 02:21:25 PM
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.
Quote from: Lebowski on August 14, 2012, 02:21:25 PM
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.
QuoteAnd 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.
Quote from: hotrodalex on August 14, 2012, 02:29:02 PM
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.
Quote from: hotrodalex on August 14, 2012, 02:29:02 PM
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.
Quote from: hotrodalex on August 14, 2012, 02:29:02 PM
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?
Quote from: thecarnut on August 14, 2012, 02:04:49 PM
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.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on August 14, 2012, 02:37:45 PM
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.
Quote from: HotRodPilot on August 14, 2012, 02:37:24 PM
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.
Quote from: thecarnut on August 14, 2012, 02:40:28 PM
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.
Quote from: Lebowski on August 14, 2012, 02:35:02 PM
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.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 14, 2012, 02:43:41 PM
You're right, but not in my hypothetical world it isn't.
We all live in our hypothetical worlds. :cheers:
Quote from: HotRodPilot on August 14, 2012, 02:37:24 PM
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.
Quote from: thecarnut on August 14, 2012, 02:37:22 PM
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.
Quote from: MrH on August 14, 2012, 02:07:05 PM
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.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on August 14, 2012, 02:55:36 PM
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.
Being physically able to swing the payments on something does not mean you can afford it, IMHO.
Quote from: Madman on August 14, 2012, 01:57:07 PM
Most people driving $100K cars don't buy them at all. They lease them.
Exactly my point.
Quote from: thecarnut on August 14, 2012, 02:04:49 PM
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.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on August 14, 2012, 03:03:32 PM
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
Quote from: sportyaccordy on August 14, 2012, 07:24:36 PM
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 :lol:
Quote from: MrH on August 15, 2012, 07:01:55 AM
Therefore, all cars are a bad idea.
I knew there was a reason you worked in a greenie weenie industry and live in NYC :lol:
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.
Quote from: MrH on August 15, 2012, 07:01:55 AM
Therefore, all cars are a bad idea.
I knew there was a reason you worked in a greenie weenie industry and live in NYC :lol:
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 :evildude:
Quote from: sportyaccordy on August 15, 2012, 09:36:33 AM
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.
Quote from: Raza on August 15, 2012, 09:40:14 AM
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
Quote from: sportyaccordy on August 15, 2012, 02:55:14 PM
All you have to do is say no
New boss, "promotion" year. I didn't want to ruffle feathers. I should have. But I didn't. Now I say no.
Quote from: Raza on August 17, 2012, 11:12:54 AM
New boss, "promotion" year. I didn't want to ruffle feathers. I should have. But I didn't. Now I say no.
Fuck protocol.
Okay back on topic,
http://www.insideline.com/nissan/gt-r/next-generation-nissan-gt-r-on-track-for-2018.html
Seems like he was just sick, and there will be a new GT-R.
The new one will have the option of letting you take a nap in the paddock while your car runs the FTD at the local track day.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on September 02, 2012, 02:21:30 PM
The new one will have the option of letting you take a nap in the paddock while your car runs the FTD at the local track day.
To be fair, you will probably push the buttons impressively
Quote from: sportyaccordy on September 02, 2012, 08:42:47 PM
To be fair, you will probably push the buttons impressively
:lol: