Bononomics 101: Monumental Financial Stupidity for Simpletons (Split from MZ4 thread)

[FC]

Faster =! better, and that applies to a lot of comparisons, including Cayman S vs. 911 :eeps:

Yeah that "debate" has been going on for a while at P-car sites.

lemming: If things go well for us, I could see me being temporarily insane enough to spend 65K ona car in a few years. I would have to brainwahs/annoy my wife endlessly for it, but it could happen. 80K? NO WAY. It varies from person to person as far as how much of one's money one is willing to devote to cars, but that is nearly a 20%+ premium we're talking about.

[dan]

Yeah that "debate" has been going on for a while at P-car sites.

lemming: If things go well for us, I could see me being temporarily insane enough to spend 65K ona car in a few years. I would have to brainwahs/annoy my wife endlessly for it, but it could happen. 80K? NO WAY. It varies from person to person as far as how much of one's money one is willing to devote to cars, but that is nearly a 20%+ premium we're talking about.


For anyone who would spend over $50,000 or so on a car, the initial sales price is meaningless. So what difference does it make whether the car is $65,000 or $80,000 when new?



Cost of ownership.

[John V]

For anyone who would spend over $50,000 or so on a car, the initial sales price is meaningless.

That statement is false.

[lemming]

For anyone who would spend over $50,000 or so on a car, the initial sales price is meaningless. So what difference does it make whether the car is $65,000 or $80,000 when new?



Cost of ownership.

that's precisely the logic i was talking about that would dissuade me from, at the dealership, pulling the trigger to sign the paperwork for a Cayman S so long as the 911 is dynamically superior. the price differential over the life of the car is not so great as the initial MSRP difference.

it is altogether a different thing, though, if the MZ4 coupe was the better car for much less money.

[TD]

For anyone who would spend over $50,000 or so on a car, the initial sales price is meaningless. So what difference does it make whether the car is $65,000 or $80,000 when new?



Cost of ownership.
:loco:

[FC]

For anyone who would spend over $50,000 or so on a car, the initial sales price is meaningless.

I disagree.

So what difference does it make whether the car is $65,000 or $80,000 when new?

A difference of $15,000.00?:?

EDIT: $15K is FAR, FAR more than the delta in ownership costs (excluding depreciation, 'cause after all if you don't care upfront, why would you care years down the road?) of a new car even if comparing a 50K vs a 100K car.

[Rob]

For anyone who would spend over $50,000 or so on a car, the initial sales price is meaningless. So what difference does it make whether the car is $65,000 or $80,000 when new?



Cost of ownership.

Wish I could afford that attitude.

[lemming]

Wish I could afford that attitude.

it depends if the higher priced car is sold in fewer numbers and if that plus its flagship status can account for lower cost of ownership: in terms of resale/residual value.

i don't quite think this applies to the Cayman $/911 relationship because they sell a lot of 911s and the residuals for both the boxster $ and the 911 have been quite good (am extrapolating that the Cayman $ will be as decent).

this would apply, however, in the case of the 911 v. the 911S. 993 values clearly demonstrate the much stronger residuals of the C2S and C4S variants in comparison to their non-wide body cousins.

[dan]

I disagree.



A difference of $15,000.00?:?

EDIT: $15K is FAR, FAR more than the delta in ownership costs (excluding depreciation, 'cause after all if you don't care upfront, why would you care years down the road?) of a new car even if comparing a 50K vs a 100K car.

ah, so you'd rather buy a $65,000 car and sell it in 5 years for $20,000 rather than buying an $80,000 car that you could sell for $40,000 in 5 years?

:loco:

[lemming]

ah, so you'd rather buy a $65,000 car and sell it in 5 years for $20,000 rather than buying an $80,000 car that you could sell for $40,000 in 5 years?

:loco:

FWIW, i was with you as soon as you posted that thought.

in the case of the MZ4 coupe, though, residual will be terrible (not at all unlike its brethren, huh? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:)

[dan]

That statement is false.
you're wrong

[rumatt]

I agree 99% with bonoboy.

Initial purchase price isn't 100% meaningless, because it dictates the amount of cash you need to have handy initially (or increases cost of ownership by forcing you to pay interest on a loan), and there are opportunity costs associated with having that money tied up in a car.

But the fact that people look more at initial purchase price than at total cost of ownership still baffles me.

[TD]

Another reason to lease. It locks in your cost of ownership up front.

[rumatt]

Another reason to lease. It locks in your cost of ownership up front.

Agreed (sort of.. leasing has many +'s and -'s, but I won't digress) but that's part of the irony. People will look at a car and say, "that lease price sucks, I'll buy it and pay cash instead". Then they may sell it 4 years later, and end having the cost of ownership be the same as if they leased.

Looking at the purchase price only is stupid. (unless you literally never sell the car).

[Plaz]

Another reason to lease. It locks in your cost of ownership up front.

I still don't see leasing as an attractive option for someone who keeps their cars 5+ years, and/or puts on an inordinate number of miles. (IOW, me. :eeps: )

[dan]

Another reason to lease. It locks in your cost of ownership up front.


so locking in a guaranteed $30,000 cost of ownership up front is preferable to having a possible $24,000-30,000 cost of ownership?

:? :speechle:

[JST]

so locking in a guaranteed $30,000 cost of ownership up front is preferable to having a possible $24,000-30,000 cost of ownership?

:? :speechle:

No, but it may be preferable depending on whether you are talking about a possible 24-36K cost of ownership, depending on your risk aversion, free capital, and the likelihood that your result will end up on the higher end rather than the latter.

[TD]

so locking in a guaranteed $30,000 cost of ownership up front is preferable to having a possible $24,000-30,000 cost of ownership?

:? :speechle:
Let's say that I was reasonably sure that my cost of ownership (buying) would be $30K, give or take $5K. Let's say that a lease would produce exactly $30K as the cost of ownership. And let's say that we're talking about a $70K car (which we'd have to be if we're looking at a $30K cost of ownership).

Rather than have $40K (the residual) tied up in a car for those years, I'd much rather risk that $5K swing, especially considering the potential downside (in the real world) would be much larger than $5K.

[lemming]

i don't think the Cayman $ has a limited slip differential (the 996turbo does not, either, for the record, only the GT2 and GT3 do).

it was a Cayman S with an LSD that bested the 997 laptime.....

[lemming]

Let's say that I was reasonably sure that my cost of ownership (buying) would be $30K, give or take $5K. Let's say that a lease would produce exactly $30K as the cost of ownership. And let's say that we're talking about a $70K car (which we'd have to be if we're looking at a $30K cost of ownership).

Rather than have $40K (the residual) tied up in a car for those years, I'd much rather risk that $5K swing, especially considering the potential downside (in the real world) would be much larger than $5K.

ergo lease the CTS-V.

thanks for backing up my gut feeling.

r'matt: it's just pure speculation. but a growing legion of people firmly believe that it is true and one major reason why the Cayman S does not come with an LSD. it is also cheaper for Porsche to rely on PSM or PASM and burn brake pads up than it is for them to warranty an LSD.

as JST alluded to already, it's yet another reason why the MZ4 coupe is a good buy, particularly at its price point.

[FC]

ah, so you'd rather buy a $65,000 car and sell it in 5 years for $20,000 rather than buying an $80,000 car that you could sell for $40,000 in 5 years?

:loco:

Absolutely not. I especifically excluded resale, so for you to call me out on it is ludicrous.

Still, I'll bite. So let's say a Cayman S that sells for 65 is worth only 20K after 5 years (:rolleyes: ), meanwhile the 997S that sold for 80K gets you 40K after those same 5 years (:rolleyes: ). It is utterly ridiculous to assume one P-car will net you 50% while the other one 30%, but whatever.

How does that (impressive as it may be) change the fact that I had to pay sales tax on the extra 15K, excise tax on the more expensive car every year, more fuel, more insurance, and invariably more in maintenance. Finally, 15K invested in anything other than a car would get you a higher return.

Nevermind that, whether you believe it or not, 15K over 65K is definitely a significant financial deterrent for most people whether real or psychological. Which of course, was my point.

[rumatt]

How does that (impressive as it may be) change the fact that I had to pay sales tax on the extra 15K, excise tax on the more expensive car every year, more fuel, more insurance, and invariably more in maintenance. Finally, 15K invested in anything other than a car would get you a higher return.


Well, he did say "cost of ownership", which, if calculated properly, would include all of those costs.

[dan]

Still, I'll bite. So let's say a Cayman S that sells for 65 is worth only 20K after 5 years (:rolleyes: ), meanwhile the 997S that sold for 80K gets you 40K after those same 5 years (:rolleyes: ). It is utterly ridiculous to assume one P-car will net you 50% while the other one 30%, but whatever.


who said I was comparing 2 porsches? :dunno:

[dan]

Absolutely not. I especifically excluded resale, so for you to call me out on it is ludicrous.


where? :dunno:


lemming: If things go well for us, I could see me being temporarily insane enough to spend 65K ona car in a few years. I would have to brainwahs/annoy my wife endlessly for it, but it could happen. 80K? NO WAY. It varies from person to person as far as how much of one's money one is willing to devote to cars, but that is nearly a 20%+ premium we're talking about.

[dan]

How does that (impressive as it may be) change the fact that I had to pay sales tax on the extra 15K, excise tax on the more expensive car every year, more fuel, more insurance, and invariably more in maintenance. Finally, 15K invested in anything other than a car would get you a higher return.

Nevermind that, whether you believe it or not, 15K over 65K is definitely a significant financial deterrent for most people whether real or psychological. Which of course, was my point.


I was using a simplified example for the simpletons :D


Trust me, when (if?) your understanding of financial matters matures a bit more, you'll fully understand what I'm saying.

[rumatt]

I was using a simplified example for the simpletons :D


Trust me, when (if?) your understanding of financial matters matures a bit more, you'll fully understand what I'm saying.

:speechle:

: outtaher

[TD]

Dude. If you don't have $80K to spend on a car, you don't have $80K to spend on a car. Smart or not.

[rumatt]

Dude. If you don't have $80K to spend on a car, you don't have $80K to spend on a car. Smart or not.

:?

If you don't have $20K to lose over 5 years on an 80K car, then you clearly don't have $25K to lose over 5 years on a 65K car.

Things like banks and car loans eliminate the need for having the entire purchase price in cash up front.

[FC]

who said I was comparing 2 porsches? :dunno:

That is what the example was about. Lemming brougth up a 65K Cayman and an 80K 997. Oh, I forgot, you like to twist things out of context.

[FC]

where? :dunno:

EDIT: $15K is FAR, FAR more than the delta in ownership costs (excluding depreciation, 'cause after all if you don't care upfront, why would you care years down the road?) of a new car even if comparing a 50K vs a 100K car.

[FC]

Trust me, when (if?) your understanding of financial matters matures a bit more, you'll fully understand what I'm saying.

You know, I really love all you guys (yes, even you aty), but sometimes these condescending/pratonizing comments become pretty intolerable. You may think I am insecure/immature/naive/whatever, but just because I solicit advice does not mean I am lost sheep in need of a shepard.

NOBODY here knows me nearly well enough to pretend to know me as a person, nevermind my "financial maturity."

[FC]

Dude. If you don't have $80K to spend on a car, you don't have $80K to spend on a car. Smart or not.

That's my point.

[BahnBaum]

sometimes these condescending/pratonizing comments become pretty intolerable

Just don't ask for employment advice.

Alex

[clyde]

NOBODY here knows me nearly well enough to pretend to know me as a person

Try not to make more of the following than what it is...

We all know your online persona well enough to know that you're pretty defensive and you've made it abundently clear what your online buttons are and that you're more than likely to react. If it at least looked like you didn't take things so personally, if it at least looked like you let things roll off your back more easily and if it at least looked like you didn't take yourself so goddamn seriously you probably wouldn't collect 1/4 of the shit that you currently get. Whatever you're like in real life, you have a pretty specific personality that comes across on these boards. If you feel like it doesn't reflect what you would like, you might want to change some things.

Look at some of the other characters around here before you go on about how it's all about you. Take ff...has a day gone by that he hasn't gotten lots and lots of flack (much more than you) and responded without digging himself in deeper? Is there a day when atyclb doesn't get slammed for his posts? Does rumatt ever get to have a day here where he isn't insulted for his taste in curved sausage? Does TD ever get any peace for expressing his unholy fringe lunatic political beliefs? Does Nick ever get to have a day where he isn't taunted for being the boytoy gigolo he is? Well, maybe that's a bad example.

There is a fair amount of banter and good natured mockery that happens around here. Most of the regular posters participate in it and many of your posts can easily be taken to be of the same type. The difference between you and the others mentioned above is that none of them take it personally (or at least they don't appear to). They all take it in stride or ignore it completely.

Just my opinion...

[dan]

Dude. If you don't have $80K to spend on a car, you don't have $80K to spend on a car. Smart or not.


And I'm gonna go out on a limb and say if you have $65,000 to spend on a car, you have $80,000 to spend on a car

[Doug]

but just because I solicit advice does not mean I am lost sheep in need of a shepard.

Mmmmm sheep...:lol:

[dan]

curved sausage!

:bustingup

[rumatt]

curved sausage!


mmmmmmmmm


http://www.jodymaroni.com/images/sausage-in-hand.jpg

[dan]

shepherd to lost sheep, shepherd to lost sheep...

https://www.transactionserver1.com/_images/UncleJesse.jpg

[rumatt]

OMG :lol:

[BahnBaum]

mmmmmmmmm


http://www.jodymaroni.com/images/sausage-in-hand.jpg


Nice grip Matt.

Alex

[John V]

And I'm gonna go out on a limb and say if you have $65,000 to spend on a car, you have $80,000 to spend on a car

And that is not always going to be a true statement. There are people that extend themselves to be able to afford a $50,000 car.

Those same people cannot necessarily afford to extend themselves further to afford a $65,000 car or an $80,000 car. That's why your original statement was false.

[dan]

I'm not talking about monumentally stupid people; that's a given.

[FC]

Nice grip Matt.

Alex

LOL

[FC]

Just my opinion...

At least, IMO, I've always made sure nothing I've ever said could be construed as a negative comment toward somebody. And if there is an instance of that, there was blatant provocation. There are some people here that seem to love to pass judgment on people they don't know, both overtly and tacitly. That, I find a bit troubling.

Just one comment. If I took everything said about me personally, or were hypersensitive as you make it sound, I would have never even joined this board, much less have thousands of posts. Sure, I react sometimes. And perhaps I shouldn't. But if this is not an environment where I can casually provide an unrehearsed and maybe somewhat emotional answer without it being dissected to death, then maybe I should not be here.

There are a lot of VERY smart, charismatic, and ultimately good people here. I often wish to leverage the knowledge and good will that is present. For some reason, to some, this has made me appear as someone else. Very well then. I will cease being so "personal" and/or "sensitive" and limit myself to generic car talk. God knows I'll still get hammered just because of those comments.

*Moderators, feel free to move this sequence of posts "elsewhere."

[John V]

I'm not talking about monumentally stupid people; that's a given.

So someone who has different priorities than you is monumentally stupid? :dunno:

[John V]

I will cease being so "personal" and/or "sensitive" and limit myself to generic car talk. God knows I'll still get hammered just because of those comments.

I'm with you. There are a lot of "holier than thou" posters out there (and in here). Then there's clyde, who defaults to the devil's advocate position just to get a person's goat. :mad2:

[zach]

I'm with you. There are a lot of "holier than thou" posters out there (and in here).

Whatever, you wet sump having, stability control using, non-track day going poseur. :rolleyes:


;)

[John V]

Whatever, you wet sump having, stability control using, non-track day going poseur. :rolleyes:


;)

:lol:

I don't have stability control. :mad:

[FC]

:lol:

I don't have stability control. :mad:

...but you have a VERY large sunroof.:slap:

:D

[rumatt]

Those same people cannot necessarily afford to extend themselves further to afford a $65,000 car or an $80,000 car.

It's possible that they may not be able to make the purchase, based on credit. But in terms of whether it's a wise thing to do....


If you don't have $20K to lose over 5 years on an 80K car, then you clearly don't have $25K to lose over 5 years on a 65K car.

Things like banks and car loans eliminate the need for having the entire purchase price in cash up front.

[lemming]

It's possible that they may not be able to make the purchase, based on credit. But in terms of whether it's a wise thing to do....

have not had the golden opportunity like some to be able to use the business to cover car costs.

but i would imagine a lot of people are able to write-off the car costs via their businesses (esp. small business owners).

that said, while i realize there will always be people stretching to own cars, if you're solidly in the middle 3/5s of the demographic, i don't see how there is a huge difference between 65k and 80k, as bonoboy wrote. at that point, it's purely preference.

i know a Z06 owner who has a fully paid off house who took a home equity/mortgage type thing just to pay for the car. odd, but true.

[dan]

So someone who has different priorities than you is monumentally stupid? :dunno:

no, someone that buys a $50,000 car but can't afford a $65,000 car is monumentally stupid.

[bren]

no, someone that buys a $50,000 car but can't afford a $65,000 car is monumentally stupid.
What exactly is the "affordability" guideline? How is one's qualification determined?

[John V]

What exactly is the "affordability" guideline? How is one's qualification determined?

At least someone gets it.

[Rob]

ah, so you'd rather buy a $65,000 car and sell it in 5 years for $20,000 rather than buying an $80,000 car that you could sell for $40,000 in 5 years?

:loco:

It's not about looking at the total cost of ownership. It's about having the extra $15k tied up in a car. My present car was just under $50k (and we are going to ignore that it was $44k with employee discount 6 months later, aren't we?). There is 0 possibility that I would have considered a $65k car, no matter what the resale is. On your model, it means that my cap was set too high for my financial situation b/c I bought it knowing the depreciation was going to hit hard. On my model, it was the car I wanted at the time for a price I was willing and could afford to pay. Hopefully, I will keep it long enough for that to make sense, but my track record hasn't been so good in that area lately.

Would I like the car to keep it's value like the last two cars did? Of course. Did I refuse to buy it b/c I was fairly certain it would not? Of course not.

Or, another way of looking at it is when the cars get that expensive, you are going to buy the car you want for the car, not b/c of its total cost. But I think that's what most people do anyway, regardless of price point. :dunno:

Edit: Hmm. I missed the last page of this thread when I wrote the response. I see from the thread now that I shouldn't have bothered b/c I am clearly monumentally stupid for buying what I wanted and could afford. How silly of me to think everybody's ability to hit a price point was the same and the sliding scale concept didn't apply. :rofl: Aty, you might have a sound financial theory buried in here somewhere, but you are making some pretty assinine statements.

[TD]

no, someone that buys a $50,000 car but can't afford a $65,000 car is monumentally stupid.
So, someone that buys a $65,000 car but can't afford an $80,000 car is also monumentally stupid?

There has to be a line where someone quits being able to afford higher and higher price levels.

Or are you (in typically cryptic bonoboy fashion) trying to say someone should always buy a car ~$15K below what they could afford were they to max themselves out? And if so, why don't you just effing say that.

[blee]

So, someone that buys a $65,000 car but can't afford an $80,000 car is also monumentally stupid?

There has to be a line where someone quits being able to afford higher and higher price levels.

Or are you (in typically cryptic bonoboy fashion) trying to say someone should always buy a car ~$15K below what they could afford were they to max themselves out? And if so, why don't you just effing say that.
He's being Socratic, it seems.

[John V]

Or are you (in typically cryptic bonoboy fashion) trying to say someone should always buy a car ~$15K below what they could afford were they to max themselves out? And if so, why don't you just effing say that.

Because then he might make a post that actually contributes something to a discussion and consequently all those years spent making asinine and obtuse postings would all be for naught.

[dan]

So, someone that buys a $65,000 car but can't afford an $80,000 car is also monumentally stupid?


yes


Or are you (in typically cryptic bonoboy fashion) trying to say someone should always buy a car ~$15K below what they could afford were they to max themselves out? And if so, why don't you just effing say that.

no

[ff]

What I think is monumentally stupid, even more monumentally stupid than spending $65K on a car when you can't afford $80K, is spending money to own 3 new cars at the same time, especially when husband and wife work from home.

[Plaz]

What I think is monumentally stupid, even more monumentally stupid than spending $65K on a car when you can't afford $80K, is spending money to own 3 new cars at the same time, especially when husband and wife work from home.

:lol:

Yeah, who would be THAT stupid?! :dunno: :scratch: :cool:

[John V]

What I think is monumentally stupid, even more monumentally stupid than spending $65K on a car when you can't afford $80K, is spending money to own 3 new cars at the same time, especially when husband and wife work from home.

:lol:

I think it's monumentally stupid to judge another person's financial decisions without knowledge of their priorities. Someone who owns a $100k car and lives in an apartment, doesn't contribute to any money towards retirement and doesn't have any savings may be stupid to you. But to that person, someone else who puts 50% of their income towards retirement while driving an '89 Geo Metro may seem stupid. :dunno:

[dan]

What I think is monumentally stupid, even more monumentally stupid than spending $65K on a car when you can't afford $80K, is spending money to own 3 new cars at the same time, especially when husband and wife work from home.

well that opinion certainly goes along with some of the other "interesting" opinions you've posted over the years

:speechle:

[ff]

well that opinion certainly goes along with some of the other "interesting" opinions you've posted over the years

:speechle:


Just admit it, you were ZINGED!!!

[clyde]

Just admit it, you were ZINGED!!!
You mean you weren't talking about yourself? Oh, I see...nothing about paying full retail and taking lowball trade offers in there. Drat. I guess there's a new graduate from that reading comprehension school you liked so much.

[rumatt]

Just admit it, you were ZINGED!!!

I don't get that at ALL. :? How is it stupid if you can buy those cars out of your petty cash fund?

Is it more stupid than repeatedly buying new luxury cars by trading in the old ones that are fully financed and still under water?

[FC]

I think it's time to split the thread.

[BahnBaum]

I think it's time to split the thread.

Yeah, I gotta go too.

Alex

[blee]

I think it's time to kill the thread.

+1

[ff]

You mean you weren't talking about yourself? Oh, I see...nothing about paying full retail and taking lowball trade offers in there. Drat. I guess there's a new graduate from that reading comprehension school you liked so much.

Everyone gets zinged today... :ack:

[Plaz]

cars are dumb

[ff]

I don't get that at ALL. :? How is it stupid if you can buy those cars out of your petty cash fund?

Is it more stupid than repeatedly buying new luxury cars by trading in the old ones that are fully financed and still under water?


Well, it would be yes. If you're referring to me, my 330i and MINI were completely paid for (i.e. no loan or lease). The S2000 would be free and clear, but I took some money out of the MINI trade-in to pay off a credit card.

[BahnBaum]

My ZHP rules.

Alex

[TD]

Okay guys... There have been a lot of (very) thinly veiled personal attacks in this thread and some blatant arrogance as well. Right now, it's kind of ugly.

I don't want to lock the thread, but I may end up locking it for a period of time (a few hours - maybe until morning) if everyone doesn't refrain from taking these shots.

[Plaz]

Okay guys... There have been a lot of (very) thinly veiled personal attacks in this thread and some blatant arrogance as well. Right now, it's kind of ugly.

I don't want to lock the thread, but I may end up locking it for a period of time (a few hours - maybe until morning) if everyone doesn't refrain from taking these shots.

Wow. Well, I suppose it was inevitable that moderator action would be required at some point on this board.

I apologize for any kerosene I threw in the direction of the fire. Nothing but good-natured ribbing intentions on my part. :eeps:

[TD]

Wow. Well, I suppose it was inevitable that moderator action would be required at some point on this board.

I apologize for any kerosene I threw in the direction of the fire. Nothing but good-natured ribbing intentions on my part. :eeps:
Nah.

I'm just trying to encourage a bit of self-policing.

And there have been a couple of times where threads were locked or deleted in the hsitory of the board and every time there is a big uproar over it. So we'd really rather not have to. Which is why, if I were to do anything, I wouldn't do it permanently.

[lemming]

all right you nutjobs. who narc'd and called the moderator?

should we just invite Shafer to the thread now?

our financial decisions and the logic that drives them are as different as our taste in cars. it's simple, isn't it?

if there were things written to were taken too personally, i apologize. my own preference and opinion is that when considering a $65,000 car, at some point, it does not hurt to also look at the next car up to see what it has at the $80,000 pricing point and whether or not it makes sense subjectively and objectively to get the more expensive one. it's the same for houses.

there is no question that one should always stay within the financial envelope of what is feasible, but there are cases in life when getting the pricier one has a huge upside. naturally, this point makes no sense because houses typically appreciate whilst cars simply depreciate.

:)

[BahnBaum]

I've found that stealing cars is the most fiscally sound method.

Alex

[TD]

(Taking the mod hat off and putting the regular schmo hat back on...)

I think we were doing fine in this thread until bonoboy pronounced (with no shades of grey) that certain decisions are "monumentally stupid". It sort of set a few folks off which then established the tone.

My opinion is that, invariably, some folks are smarter with their money than others. But buying any car besides a Civic, Camry, Corolla, etc is always going to involve putting some illogical characteristic of the car ahead of making the smartest financial decision. So, pretty much, buying any of the cars the folks on this board own is on some financial level "monumentally stupid".

I read bboy's point as you really ought not be thinking about a $50K car if you aren't in the range of wealth where it would be just as easy for you to buy a $65K car. In other words, you should be VERY wealthy if you're looking at $50K cars.

And, in general, I agree. Maxing yourself out for a $50K car is generally a bad decision. But depending on your circumstances in life and certainly your priorities, it doesn't automatically cross over into monumental stupidity.

[Rob]

Since it's my own basic position, I could refute that with sound logic and reasoning. Such as, who is to say it's maxed out? Maybe that's the position of comfort. THe same position someone who makes a little more money would be in for a $65k car. But I choose not to bother for a couple reasons.

1) I really don't care what people think of actions I have taken when they know absolutely nothing of the circumstances surrounding those actions; and

2) An absolute statement of "anyone who behaves in this way is monumentally stupid" when it's dealing with individual choices and invididual situations is so ridiculous on its face that it's not worth the time to disect. :dunno:

[rumatt]

I read bboy's point as you really ought not be thinking about a $50K car if you aren't in the range of wealth where it would be just as easy for you to buy a $65K car. In other words, you should be VERY wealthy if you're looking at $50K cars.

In case the horse isn't dead...

I didn't take it nearly to that extreme. My interpretation was: If you absolutely cannot come up with ANY way to make a $65K car work, then buying a $50K car is probably a really, really bad idea.

Remember, this was in the hypothetical context where someone can't afford an $80K car, so they buy a $65K car that is actually more expensive in the long run. That makes it an even worse long-term decision.

[JST]

In case the horse isn't dead...

I didn't take it nearly to that extreme. My interpretation was: If you absolutely cannot come up with ANY way to make a $65K car work, then buying a $50K car is probably a really, really bad idea.

Remember, this was in the hypothetical context where someone can't afford an $80K car, so they buy a $65K car that is actually more expensive in the long run. That makes it an even worse long-term decision.


I agree with bboy's argument, if that's what it is.

[lemming]

In case the horse isn't dead...

I didn't take it nearly to that extreme. My interpretation was: If you absolutely cannot come up with ANY way to make a $65K car work, then buying a $50K car is probably a really, really bad idea.

Remember, this was in the hypothetical context where someone can't afford an $80K car, so they buy a $65K car that is actually more expensive in the long run. That makes it an even worse long-term decision.

yeah.

actually, that's the way that i took it, also.

for example, in this case, it's almost a guarantee that the E46M3 or the E90M3 will be a far better value, even though it will cost MORE, than the MZ4 coupe. if the E90m3 is actually faster than the MZ4 coupe (such as is the case for the 911 v. boxster/cayman, then it would be weird again).

but in that case, the MZ4 has a lot of subjectivity going for it (to me).

[TD]

I agree with bboy's argument, if that's what it is.
So we've decided that he meant that one should have that degree of "pad" in terms of ability to afford.

[bren]

Remember, this was in the hypothetical context where someone can't afford an $80K car, so they buy a $65K car that is actually more expensive in the long run. That makes it an even worse long-term decision.
On a typical car loan the extra $15k would be ~$250/mo...that could be another car for your SO, or an investment in your child's future. And, what if you don't plan on selling the car?

[rumatt]

or an investment in your child's future.

The hypothetical scenario was that the cheaper car costs more to own over 5 years (ie, assume you sell after 5 years and compute the total money lost). It's an uphill battle to argue this is somehow investing in a child's future.

what if you don't plan on selling the car?

Agreed. The "unless you keep forever" disclaimer was stated a couple times I think.

[bren]

The hypothetical scenario was that the cheaper car costs more to own over 5 years (ie, assume you sell after 5 years and compute the total money lost). It's an uphill battle to argue this is somehow investing in a child's future.How can you really know what a car will be worth in 5 years?

[TD]

Wow, how many pages back was the most recent reference to the MZ4?

http://www.mkivsupra.net/vbb/images/smilies/threaddirection.gif

[bren]

Wow, how many pages back was the most recent reference to the MZ4?

Yeah, it's pretty obvious this needs to be split.

[rumatt]

How can you really know what a car will be worth in 5 years?

Yeah, of course you can't know for sure. The more expensive car puts more money at risk.

[Mr. The Edge]

Because then he might make a post that actually contributes something to a discussion and consequently all those years spent making asinine and obtuse postings would all be for naught.

:eek:

:atyclb: just got big time : owned:

:lol: