For price. A Porsche Cayman S or Boxster S
For performance. A 991 Porsche 911 S or a used 997 GT3

 

Because
1) the financial crisis that started in the US affected worldwide markets, leading to the mess we see in Europe, austerity in Italy, Asia, China (once booming, now contracting), etc.,and
2) Porsche isn't so short-sighted as to have developed a car for only one market; they built a car that suits the driving habits, roads, and government regulations of various countries all over the world; and yes, many of these countries were affected by the crisis; you think the US economy is bad, check out Greece and the unemployment rate in Spain.

The short-sightedness of Old GM is the reason New GM wants to make the C7 appeal to a broader audience.

As for the profitability of the 911:
"Est. profits since 1995: $10 billion
You might think of popular vehicles such as the Cayenne SUV or the less expensive Cayman sports car as being Porsche's profit drivers. But the high-priced 911 more than carries its own weight, according to Bernstein Research.
Developed on a 'tiny budget' and virtually unchanged during the last two generations, "the 911 is outrageously profitable," Bernstein's Warburton writes. Some versions -- such as the 911 Turbo -- earn gross profits of over 75%, he estimates, in an industry where 5% is considered good."
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/...e_cars/11.html

I don't see Corvette anywhere on that list. The BMW 3-Series is, however.

It was no video. It was the R&T interview. Here it is, with link. See if you think it is taken out of context:
""It was in the interest of U.S. taxpayers to continue the [car]," Juechter affirms. Later, he adds, "if we can double where we are today [in sales], we'll be okay. We can pay back our investment, turn a profit, and then the Corvette can continue to exist.''" http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-news...?click=main_sr

You think Juechter would be so shortshighted as to look at only one month? Even if he were, in which month in recent history did the Corvette sell anwhere near 3k units as it had before?

I never said Ed said he designed the interior (did he really? Proof?), nor did I say anything about "worst ever." Nice red herring, strawman.

Is it a bad guess? Show me how. Bear in mind the following:
2012 Ferrari sales / net income record double high profit margin of 14%
Ferrari makes €46,000 profit per car
And you think the Corvette, which had the interior it did, the seats that it did due to budget concerns, and which depends on sales of ~25k/yr to be profitable (and which Juechter laments at the time of the R&T article that it was not), is on the same plane of profitability as Ferrari?

I never stipulated any end to any financial crisis. Some would argue, based on European economic performance and parts of Asia, that it is not yet really over. Wikipedia suggests the trigger date was in August of 2007. None of this even matters for our discussion, as I was taking the peaks which occurred right around this time (06/07 reporting year for 911 and 2006 for Corvette) until current (past year).
Ferrari overall. Why speak of Sonic? johnglenn made a specific remark about Ferrari vs Corvette. The Sonic wasn't even available before the start of the financial crisis, correct?

17607 would still be a 47% retention. Still higher than Corvette. Extra costs of sales can be cancelled out by labor costs. Even in its home market of Germany, the 911 is still more expensive than the Corvette (especially so if comparing products of objectively similar performance).
And did you realize the US government had a massive bailout of a bankrupt GM (which includes Corvette)?

When did I ever omit it? I think any rational, sane person examining market performances between Corvette, Porsche, and Ferrari would consider the prices of the products under comparsion. Forgive me if I mistakenly included you in that group.
How do you figure C smoked the hell out of F in terms of weathering the financial crisis? C lost everything, while F retains 80%? This suggests that in empirical terms, the relative performance of F in the crisis is better than what C experienced. If you are so stubborn as to look at this purely in magnitudes and not relative losses, look at the losses of C: It is 50 times greater than the loss of F, upon an initial volume advantage only 10 times greater. C has experienced more net loss in volume, period.


Wrong. I always keep the price of P/F/C-cars in mind when comparing market performance. Profit margins for these companies and in some cases cars have been provided. I don't see you supplying any information that suggests:
1) Corvette is more profitable than P/F, nor
2) Corvette's sales volume has better retention through the crisis than P/F.

Thanks for confirming that my point isn't so outrageous after all. But getting beyond that point, look at the holes in that theory: look at low-volume and one-time 'Ring darling Gumpert going bankrupt, and the entire Viper brand put up for sale. Maybach on its deathbed. From this, we can see that, at heart, it's the quality (combined with aesthetic appeal) of the product that can make or doom a product.
If your mom and pop kettle makes carefully crafted donuts that are far tastier than, say Winchell's mass-produced items, and you have that backlog during the crisis while, let's say, Winchell's goes bankrupt...how could you argue that Winchell's weathered the financial crisis better than you? They didn't. Tomorrow, you have previously existing customers lined up, along with those who before might have been Winchell's customers. You are poised for expansion. Meanwhile, Winchell's has to lay off its workers, sell off its assets to pay creditors, etc. I don't see why this seems so outrageous to you.

Again with the USA-only hogwash. BMW isn't so short-sighted as to have built the M3 only for the US market.
1) Your "guy" is extrapolating, whereas the C&D article didn't extrapolate.
2) Your "guy" is using only coupe figures. Meanwhile, the Corvette has convertible and variants that the M3 really doesn't: hi-po and wide-body variants in the Grand Sport (coupe and convertible), Z06, and ZR1. For a full view of M3 sales, he'd have to consider the convertible and sedan sales. BMW isn't so dumb as to have made the M3 a coupe only, just as it would be dumb for Corvette to not offer convertibles.
So, no, you haven't proven the case of 19k M3s. And factor in that we have something far more dangerous to M3 sales: decently optioned 335is, 3-series convertibles, 5-Series, even the Z4 (which easily encroaches into M3 territory with just the most popular packages). You think Corvette has as serious and direct an internal rival in the Camaro as the M3 has in the regular 3-Series? The M3 is more like the Z06 or ZR1, the pinnacle of its line. (And as I posted earlier, that's the reason many choose it; has squat to do with motorsport or objective performance.) Even a regular 3-Series starts at a price similar to your Corvette with typical rebates, incentives, and holdbacks. Now, why don't we start comparing that? I'll even give you the benefit of BMW's handicap in the US. How about I throw in sales volumes of the CTS (similar in scope and price to the 3-Series) to sweeten the deal?

 

That's not true. I came into this thread only when the issue of M3 interior quality was brought up. I've been in these cars long enough to know that the claim of the Corvette's interior being better don't hold up to scrutiny.

"Words of other people"...are the words of experienced journalists, some of whom test more cars in a year than you will in your entire lifetime (and, if it matters, in a manner you won't likely ever drive your own). Some of these "other people" are Corvette owners themselves, some of whom have posted in this very thread. Some of these "other people" are GM paid employees (Tadge Juechter, Johnny O'Connell), and engineers from BMW M, Lamborghini, Ferrari, and Jaguar. (I could post up examples of Toyota and Lexus doing the same too). Are these people, who are involved in the very engineering of the cars we're discussing, somehow unqualified to make such statements?

If you think my position is so outrageous, do you have anything from a reputable source to counter it? Give me the name of a reputable journalist or engineer who claims that objective lap times are so important, so important that they eclipse all other factors, so important that they wholly determine whether a car is "worth it."

 

But...but...you claim you don't own an M3, which supports my claim that you're nothing more than a plagiarist who has no real world experience with any of the cars you nuthug.
Like Notch, here's your chance to englighten us all regarding your own "automotive background".
Are you asking me to magazine-race against you? It sure sounds like it.

S.

 

So I have to own an M3 to see it has superior materials and fit and finish than a C6? To see that it doesn't have a giant slab of plastic running top to bottom on the central console? To realize its ***** and switches don't look like they belong on a $15k car? Tell me something, do you have to own a Veyron to know that it's a very fast car with an impeccably crafted interior? Do I have to own a convertible Ferrari to know what its interior smells like in the hot sun (hint: it's not glue or resins).
My automotive background isn't the least bit relevant in this discussion, other than to say that I've been in both cars (and Porsches and Mustangs) enough to know what I'm talking about.

The source doesn't have to be a magazine (and indeed, much of what I posted comes from engineers/racers themselves). Give it a shot.

 

And let's keep pretending that GM itself doesn't see the value in automotive journalists:
"When Bob Lutz ran General Motors' product development efforts, he did something that no other car company has done in the history of making cars. He hired four automotive journalists to assess all of GM's new vehicles before they were OK'd for production. And their word was law. Everything had to be developed to their satisfaction.
That didn't go down well with GM's traditional engineering staff, at least not at first. They didn't like the fact that four outsiders, four media critics with no product development experience, could force them to make changes on a new-car program. But because the journos reported to Lutz, they had all the protection they needed.
[Lutz] personally asked me not to write anything about them. That's how much of a competitive advantage he felt they brought to GM.
Lutz hired them as full-time employees because he wanted an independent, third party voice to evaluate GM's cars as they went through their development stages. "These are four guys who made a living out of critiquing cars," Lutz says, "and they made a pretty good living at it." Since the four didn't hold any allegiance to the design, engineering or manufacturing staffs at GM, they could feel free to critique any car just as they would when they were full-time journalists.
Lutz tells me they were his secret weapons. He credits them with the reason why GM's cars are now tuned to world-class standards."
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/01/25/h...et-weapons-at/

 

So you don't own any of these cars and base your own opinions on the opinions of those who test and write about said cars?
That makes you a magazine racer.

You wouldn't have the faintest clue why people make the decisions they make regarding what they buy because you don't know and haven't experienced it. You rely on your cut and paste skills to support your opinion. Your "automotive background" is entirely relevant because you pass yourself off as some sort of expert while you simply regurgitate what you find on a Google! search. How anybody takes you seriously is beyond me, lol.

When all you do is plagiarize opinions of those who actually drive, race and test the cars...you are nothing more than a parrot.


So again, as others in this thread have done, share with us your actual "automotive background", and perhaps people will give you more credit.
S.

 

I did not plagiarize anything. You've never heard of sitting in a car? Or renting one (where do you think I got the driving impression of the Mustang V6, which, lo and behold, mirrors some of what Randy Pobst was saying)? I've driven a fair amount of cars to know what feels good and what doesn't feel at all. My automotive background is no more relevant than yours (which, I would wager is not as impressive as that of Johnny O, Juechter, and those of all of those other companies, correct?).
Do you think Tadge was "magazine racing" when he said the 997's steering was the benchmark for the C7, and that it was better than the C6's? Do you think Tadge was "magazine racing" when he admitted that while the C6 seat is comfortable, it was also subpar for support by those who drive aggressively? Do you think it was by pure coincidence that these very same assessments have been handed down in comparison test after comparison test? Please do tell, Snorman, with all of your high and mighty automotive background, what would compel Tadge to admit these things, if these were not rooted in some truth? Perhaps, as true to form for the most die-hard when a Vette loses a comparo, you might next claim that the magazines are paying Tadge to say that. If you have any holes to pick in his theory, please feel free to start. You don't even have to cite a magazine. This would be magazine racing, only if both opponents start. Otherwise, we can count you as a DNS/DNF.

Snorman, please post up information proving that any significant (hell, any insignificant) portion of the public buys cars based on outright 10/10ths lap times.

 

Ahh...I see. So you rented a V6 Mustang (back around 2005, no less), and earlier in this thread passed yourself off as some sort of expert on Mustang/Boss/GT500 handling. All of this input was based on you renting a V6 Mustang back in 2005, right?

And while you won't have any luck finding where I stated that people make purchasing decisions "based on outright 10/10ths lap times", I don't find it surprising that you make that insinuation. There are, however, numerous instances in this thread alone where you completely discount the performance deficit of the M3 against various models of Mustang.
See...your experience in renting a V6 Mustang 8 years ago doesn't tell you why somebody would choose a 662 hp vehicle over a much slower vehicle even though it may not have parking assist, an engine-compartment located oil filter and swiveling headlights.

So again, aside from once renting a V6 Mustang back in 2005, please regale us with your "automotive background".

BTW...I know you used to troll NAGTROC too.
S.

 

Where did I say I was an expert on GT500 handling? I said my experience mirrors his (and at much lower speeds, I can assure you). And as it turns out, Pobst has driven plenty of Mustang GTs and GT500s to know how they perform, at least on track, relative to the M3.

Did you buy a 662 hp car based on its 10/10ths performance on a track in bone stock form? Would you have spent that kind of money on the same car if it looked like a 1980s Corolla, was built by Daewoo and badged as such, and sounded like a Prius at a stoplight? All you have told me is that you do not care for the extras in the M3. I get that. I'm not debating what you find valuable in a car. What I'm saying is that it would be equally ridiculous to criticize the M3 for its objective performance (it wasn't designed for that) as much as it would be ridiculous to expect a GT500 to offer all of the amenities and fit & finish of an M3 (it wasn't designed for that). I get that the M3 is not "worth it" to you, but you should also realize that in a free market system where people vote openly for a car's worth with their checkbooks, a product is only worth what people are willing to pay for it. The market is the ultimate decider of worth, whether a car is even built, and whether it will continue to be built.
When I post up good information about the GT-R, I'm a "member." When I post anything that dares reveal its shortcomings against perceived competitors, I'm a "troll." Same as on on CF, then. Attack the messenger because it's far easier than to actually debate the topic at hand.

 

You posted paragraph after paragraph in an effort to trash the Mustang's handling, then made assumptions based purely on what you read in a magazine.
The laughable thing is you acting like you had the same "experience" while driving a car in the first model year of the new generation, with a fraction of the power of the cars being discussed and with competely different suspension components and tuning. It would be like me saying I know how a ZR1 will handle because I drove an '05 Corvette..back in 2006...with an automatic.
Yes, I did buy my '13 GT500 for its absolute performance capabilities, and obviously an M3 would have been an option if they weren't so slow. I bought my GT-R's for the same reason...performance. Your Corolla/Daewoo/Prius comparison is completely invalid because you're clearly trying to insinuate that there is a sizable chasm between the M3 and the GT500 (or GT, or Boss). There isn't, not in the least. I've been in and driven M3's and I've obviously been in GT500's. And if you're commenting on "fit and finish" deltas, I would submit you haven't been up close to either car in a very long time. You act as if they are rattletrap ox carts that can't get out of their own way...which further supports my position.
The fact is, your claims don't mirror reality. I would bet that there are an awful lot of M3 owners who have jumped ship, and I've seen several of them on the SVT forum. This thread alone is an attestation to that...
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=722287
There's an obvious reason that Ford has sold 40,708 GT500's since 2007. The sales volumes support that it is a popular car, with Ford selling as many as they can build.
http://www.torquenews.com/1084/2013-...ng-dealer-lots
As with CF, we don't really need you on NAGTROC. There are plenty of people on there with real world experience with GT-R's and myriad other platforms.

So again, instead of continuously dodging the question regarding your "automotive background", how about filling in the blanks (and claiming that you rented more cars isn't really going to fly).
S.

 

Do you two guys realize that nether of you have any "Friends" listed in your Public Profiles?

Just sayin.......

 

Where did I "trash the Mustang's handling"? I simply said it doesn't handle as well. Would you think I'm claiming to trash Rafael Nadal as a tennis player simply because he might lose more often to Federer?

The sensation is eerily similar to what Pobst found. Do you think that is purely by coincidence? That doesn't mean I'm claiming to be an expert.
You say you've driven the M3. How did it handle. Was it better or worse than the Mustang GT/GT500?

It's not invalid and I'm not insinuating the chasm. I'm providing you with a theoretical question to which you could have provided a theoretical answer, yet your silence in doing so itself speaks volume.
Did you buy these cars because you know what a 7:20-or-whatever means on the Nordschleife, or did you buy them because after driving them, you said "Holy sh*t! This feels fast! And it looks like a bad m*therf*kr too?" Did you really need to know the absolute 10/10ths to have made your decision?

Not at all. I'm talking about the relative differences that might lead one person to choose an M3 and not the Mustang. I've been up close enough to see the stitching of the Mustang (GT500s at shows), the leatherwork, the materials, the attention to detail simply aren't there like they are in the M3. That's not meant to suggest the Mustang is a rattletrap at all, so you can quit with the hyperbole. I'm saying the differences can be observed, they can be felt. I don't expect it in a $60k Mustang, so why should we expect $60k Mustang performance in a BMW, a premium marque which by its nature does not necessarily dwell on objective bang/buck?

And that thread also supports my view: That BMWs offer intangibles that you can't quantify. And some of them were previously Mustang owners already themselves, meaning they had an emotional connection to the brand. Even on a forum naturally biased toward the Mustang, they can recognize the traits I'm talking about in the M3:
http://www.svtperformance.com/forums...w-2013-m3.html

But is a couple of forum threads all that is necessary to qualify as "an awful lot?"
They've sold 40k GT500s since 2007? BMW sold about that many in the short run from 2007-2010. And let's not forget the other 3- and 5-Series that compete at that price. I'm sure a case can be made that it is a popular car, but so is the M3, despite being a slower car.

Say what, now?

There are no blanks from me that are relevant to this discussion. All I needed to prove was that you don't even care to know what your own track lap times are. I've done that. You say you race your GT-R and GT500 a lot, but won't even assign a % to it. (Unless it's a dedicated track car, I'm going to laugh if you say you spend even 1% of your driving time racing against other cars on the street.) I'm asking for reputable sources than any significant portion of buyers choose their cars like that, and even you don't seem to qualify. Seems you can't even bring a contender to the start line.

 

"Porsche GT2"

NOT Wall Street and CEO Marketing!

"Z07 Ring VID"

Subtract 11.32s from GT2's time!

Trade traveling/groceries, $, and numb steering for pointiness and oversteer!

 

You're half right, the Corvette was created to compete against the Germans, Italians and British; however it completed and exceeded that goal. Actually Corvette went into production to go head to head with the Ford powered AC Cobra (British). It competed and eventually beat it out of production. Consequently Corvette overtook Jaguar, Triumph, Austin Healy, MG and take it any way you want but years before and until Ford bought them; Aston Martin and Jaguar were crap on rubber. So much for the British. The Germans are a different story, they make a quality product. Corvette, Porsche and BMW have been going head to head for years. And for years it was always the same, Porsches own the corners, Vettes ate them up on the straights. Corvette was never intended to be like a 911, although Chevy did produce a vehicle much like the 911; remember the Corvair? And, wasn’t it Porsche that tried to be like a Corvette? Did someone say 928? Finally the Italians, Fiat and Alfa Romeo; enough said. The fact is that Corvette does not try to be like Ferrari, Lambo or anything else. Corvette has been a long evolution, and the fact that it's competing with the super-cars on the track is a tribute to the Chevy guys that keep the concept alive.

The fact is that if Chevy turns Corvette into a Ferrari, I'll never afford another one. I prefer that Chevy invest in performance and handling rather than fit and finish.

 

This is consistent with my understanding!:

"It's refreshing to not have to work so hard," says our handling sensei Kim Reynolds as he climbs out of the Guards Red GTS. By "work so hard," he's referring to the GT3 RS and GT2 RS we tested a couple of months back. Both of those are little more than thinly veiled race cars. Yes, those manly machines deliver astonishingly astonishing levels of performance und grip, but you have to man up to wring the great and mighty numbers out of 'em. "A 911's supposed to be an everyday car," Kim muses. "Those other two, I'd never even dream about owning either. But this one..." he pauses, presumably for dramatic effect. "I could drive this one every day

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz2MW4YfoFZ

But, times are changing!:

To start, the dimensions have changed more in one fell swoop than ever in 911 history. The wheelbase has grown by almost four inches, while the overall length has only grown by 2. This may not seem significant, but the 911 has always been defined by long overhangs, especially in the rear. The shorter overhang in back is accomplished by using newly designed transaxles that move the axle line 3 inches back in relation to the engine.

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz2MW55X4DW

When will this make it to all the 911 models, and yes this is significant to the Vette camp!

Also, the first transaxle Vette came out in 1997! I owned a 1977 924. I think the Alfa Romero had it at some point, and maybe even earlier!

Anyway, things are going to be interesting!

 

Perhaps the 928’s best feature was a rear suspension that
automatically adjusted to keep the car straight in the corners. As an early form of four-wheel steering, it was a vast
improvement over the rear-engined 911’s tail-happy and unpredictable demeanor.

http://members.rennlist.org/jptl/928...%20Article.pdf

LOVE THE TRUTH!

 

Lambo Veneno.

 

OK, this is a complete fabrication and is exactly opposite of the truth. I quote Carroll Shelby...

 

Yeah the vette came first.
In 1961 he built the first AC Cobra,....
http://www.carbuzz.com/news/2012/4/6...Cobra-7708232/

The vette had long had a small block by that point
http://corvettes.about.com/od/histor...Horsepower.htm Hell it had had a fuelie for four years by that point.

As far as BMW vs corvette goes... there's no comparison between the two cars, except by deluded BMW fans that think they have a car that's special at that price point. (Which was the whole reason why the GT got brought up in the first place. the GT is a peer to the BMW in terms of performance, for a whole hell of alot less. A Boss 302 Laguna would bend a BMW over. To say nothing of an equally priced GT500)
The BMW isn't slow. But for 60 to 75 grand it sure as hell ain't a performance car, that rivals a Porsche, or Vette, or even a ZL1, or GT500.