Is the automatic C7 the fastest production auto ever made?
#221
Now you want me to define a "reasonable person". Then when I do that, it'll spin off a million other silly debates that we will never be able to come to even the most simple agreement on.
If we can't even agree on a statement as basic as "price should be a consideration", we are not going to get anywhere.
I don't know where any of this is coming from.
Yeah, I think I'm done here.
If we can't even agree on a statement as basic as "price should be a consideration", we are not going to get anywhere.
I don't know where any of this is coming from.
Yeah, I think I'm done here.
For the second time, RocketGuy: What part of "I personally would be inclined to go with the cheaper car" doesn't sound like an answer to you? All that's left is to resolve your poorly defined "just as good" mantra, in addition to the now circularly defined "reasonable person."
All of that is coming from your assertion that
a) Cars that are 100% apart in price are in the same segment, and
b) The Turbo should be compared against the 458, a car that fulfills the visceral sports car experience that Porsche has already decided the GT3 should fulfill
Both the Turbo and FF will do just about what you want from a car "on paper" (act as a long-distance tourer with seating for 4 and AWD stability), and while a Turbo is half the price, that doesn't mean a Ferrari customer is "foolish" to not its price advantage. He might not consider buying it for a variety of reasons:
- It's too ugly for him
- It's too common for him
- It's fast but past experience with Porsche turbos suggest the soundtrack isn't nearly as thrilling as a N/A V12
- Buying the Turbo won't put him in a prime spot for buying Ferrari's future special editions
- He already has a Porsche 911 Turbo and wants something different
- He's going to buy the Turbo anyway as an addition to his collection
Thus your theory fails. A person is not necessarily foolish to not consider the price of the Porsche even if ",on paper" and on balance overall, it is "just as good" as the Ferrari but at half the price.
Ok, bye.
#222
Burning Brakes
I'm not talking about just you. For every person on the planet, price should at least be a factor in any purchasing decision where there is more than one option... That's the statement that you don't seem to agree with, and that means we're not going to get anywhere.
Everything else you've said about Porsche or Ferrari or "on paper" or "objective" have been flagrant strawmen, and not worth talking about, especially when we can't come to the simple agreement above.
Everything else you've said about Porsche or Ferrari or "on paper" or "objective" have been flagrant strawmen, and not worth talking about, especially when we can't come to the simple agreement above.
Last edited by RocketGuy3; 08-26-2013 at 07:31 PM.
#223
I'm not talking about just you. For every person on the planet, price should at least be a factor in any purchasing decision where there is more than one option... That's the statement that you don't seem to agree with, and that means we're not going to get anywhere.
Everything else you've said about Porsche or Ferrari or "on paper" or "objective" have been flagrant strawmen, and not worth talking about, especially when we can't come to the simple agreement above.
Everything else you've said about Porsche or Ferrari or "on paper" or "objective" have been flagrant strawmen, and not worth talking about, especially when we can't come to the simple agreement above.
In any case, you have no counterargument to the FF vs Turbo considerations above. Why should an FF buyer consider the Turbo if he thinks its ugly, or if he already has one? "Because it's half the price"? Great. Spend $300k (which you can easily afford) and be totally content and happy, or spend $180k and have a car that lacks the sound you want, the throttle response you want, and that makes you throw up inside everytime you look at it. The Porsche is the car that he should consider, that should "win his favor"? Really?
You were the one who brought up "on paper" in a failed attempt to qualify your statement of "just as good." Not me.
Actually, you did state that one kind of car should "win your favor" over another. If you did not say that to mean that is the car a person should buy, then what did you mean? It can't be construed to mean "should be considered," as that doesn't make sense. If you consider a car, but do not consider it, it has not "won your favor."
Thank god for that. Thank god people don't follow your advice about what people should do. If they did, there would be no alternatives but to shop only at Wal-Mart, and only Corvettes to buy.
#224
Burning Brakes
I'm not talking about me either. I'm talking about people who are in the position of "choosing between" a Turbo and a Ferrari FF. Price could be a consideration between someone choosing between an S8, S63, or 6/7-Series, but this highlights the importance of being in the same segment, for which you have provided no real definition. And I never said price is never a consideration. I said price is definitely a consideration when you have a particular amount of disposable income and want a particular type of car (eg, 4-door premium sports sedan near the S8's price level of around $100k).
In any case, you have no counterargument to the FF vs Turbo considerations above. Why should an FF buyer consider the Turbo if he thinks its ugly, or if he already has one? "Because it's half the price"? Great. Spend $300k (which you can easily afford) and be totally content and happy, or spend $180k and have a car that lacks the sound you want, the throttle response you want, and that makes you throw up inside everytime you look at it. The Porsche is the car that he should consider, that should "win his favor"? Really?
You were the one who brought up "on paper" in a failed attempt to qualify your statement of "just as good." Not me.
Actually, you did state that one kind of car should "win your favor" over another. If you did not say that to mean that is the car a person should buy, then what did you mean? It can't be construed to mean "should be considered," as that doesn't make sense. If you consider a car, but do not consider it, it has not "won your favor."
Thank god for that. Thank god people don't follow your advice about what people should do. If they did, there would be no alternatives but to shop only at Wal-Mart, and only Corvettes to buy.
In any case, you have no counterargument to the FF vs Turbo considerations above. Why should an FF buyer consider the Turbo if he thinks its ugly, or if he already has one? "Because it's half the price"? Great. Spend $300k (which you can easily afford) and be totally content and happy, or spend $180k and have a car that lacks the sound you want, the throttle response you want, and that makes you throw up inside everytime you look at it. The Porsche is the car that he should consider, that should "win his favor"? Really?
You were the one who brought up "on paper" in a failed attempt to qualify your statement of "just as good." Not me.
Actually, you did state that one kind of car should "win your favor" over another. If you did not say that to mean that is the car a person should buy, then what did you mean? It can't be construed to mean "should be considered," as that doesn't make sense. If you consider a car, but do not consider it, it has not "won your favor."
Thank god for that. Thank god people don't follow your advice about what people should do. If they did, there would be no alternatives but to shop only at Wal-Mart, and only Corvettes to buy.
It's amazing how personal all of this has become for you. All because you refuse to ever concede even the most innocuous, axiomatic point.
Last edited by RocketGuy3; 08-26-2013 at 09:54 PM.
#225
I haven't made this personal. We're just talking here. Aren't we? The problem with your "most innocuous, axiomatic point" is that you cannot even define your own terms within that point. And your defined terms elsewhere are either self-serving and circular, or your premises (1), 2)) contradictory with the examples you have given. Nor have you answered the question: Why should a person buy a car (or any product) that will ultimately make him less happy than another car that he can easily afford?
#226
Burning Brakes
Porsches, Corvettes, Ferraris and Wal-Mart are not strawmen. They are part and parcel into this discussion about value, which you concede is subjective. If a guy wants a Ferrari and can easily afford it, and a Porsche does absolutely nothing for him, why should he consider the Porsche? Why is a Veyron buyer foolish for not considering a Porsche in his purchasing decision if A) he knows the Porsche doesn't offer what he's looking for in a car, or B) he already has the Porsche?
I haven't made this personal. We're just talking here. Aren't we? The problem with your "most innocuous, axiomatic point" is that you cannot even define your own terms within that point. And your defined terms elsewhere are either self-serving and circular, or your premises (1), 2)) contradictory with the examples you have given. Nor have you answered the question: Why should a person buy a car (or any product) that will ultimately make him less happy than another car that he can easily afford?
I haven't made this personal. We're just talking here. Aren't we? The problem with your "most innocuous, axiomatic point" is that you cannot even define your own terms within that point. And your defined terms elsewhere are either self-serving and circular, or your premises (1), 2)) contradictory with the examples you have given. Nor have you answered the question: Why should a person buy a car (or any product) that will ultimately make him less happy than another car that he can easily afford?
Last edited by RocketGuy3; 08-27-2013 at 11:42 AM.
#227
"Should consider price" does not mean that someone should definitely consider this car or that car when they're looking at that car. Let alone that they must buy this car or that car. It just means that price should play some role in their decision... unless, I suppose, there is literally only one car they want, and not a *type* of car they want.
And I have already said price does play a consideration (eg, establishing an upper limit near $100k, when talking about cars like the S8 vs Jag, BMW, or Merc).
But believe it or not, there are some people who know exactly what they want and they just buy what they want. The first customer in Germany for the Lexus LFA, for example, owns a software company and runs a Viper racing team. He saw the LFA while it was testing on the Nordschleife (and no doubt heard the wail of its V10) and decided he just had to have it. This was long before any LFA was performance tested. It didn't matter to him if a Viper or Porsche GT2 was faster and cheaper. He already had two Vipers and he has no interest in German cars (so that rules out the GT2 and the SLS). According to your standard, he's being foolish.
#228
Burning Brakes
So now you've gone from "that car should win your favor" and a "reasonable person would be foolish to not consider it" to it "does not mean that someone should definitely consider this car"...that doesn't make much sense. I didn't say anything about "must." I'm talking about it from the perspective of should. Ie, a Veyron buyer should consider a Porsche Turbo even if he already has one and if he doesn't (according to your theory), he's being foolish.
And I have already said price does play a consideration (eg, establishing an upper limit near $100k, when talking about cars like the S8 vs Jag, BMW, or Merc).
But believe it or not, there are some people who know exactly what they want and they just buy what they want. The first customer in Germany for the Lexus LFA, for example, owns a software company and runs a Viper racing team. He saw the LFA while it was testing on the Nordschleife (and no doubt heard the wail of its V10) and decided he just had to have it. This was long before any LFA was performance tested. It didn't matter to him if a Viper or Porsche GT2 was faster and cheaper. He already had two Vipers and he has no interest in German cars (so that rules out the GT2 and the SLS). According to your standard, he's being foolish.
And I have already said price does play a consideration (eg, establishing an upper limit near $100k, when talking about cars like the S8 vs Jag, BMW, or Merc).
But believe it or not, there are some people who know exactly what they want and they just buy what they want. The first customer in Germany for the Lexus LFA, for example, owns a software company and runs a Viper racing team. He saw the LFA while it was testing on the Nordschleife (and no doubt heard the wail of its V10) and decided he just had to have it. This was long before any LFA was performance tested. It didn't matter to him if a Viper or Porsche GT2 was faster and cheaper. He already had two Vipers and he has no interest in German cars (so that rules out the GT2 and the SLS). According to your standard, he's being foolish.
The car that should win your favor should still win your favor in the example that I originally gave.
#229
No, I haven't changed anything. I'm just using increasingly broad examples to see if there is even the most elemental baseline point that we can agree on. It doesn't seem there is.
The car that should win your favor should still win your favor in the example that I originally gave.
The car that should win your favor should still win your favor in the example that I originally gave.
In the example you gave, you couldn't even define what "just as good" means without clarifying it further to include "on paper." You still haven't answered the questions:
- [Specific sense] Why is a Veyron buyer foolish for not considering a Porsche in his purchasing decision if A) he knows the Porsche doesn't offer what he's looking for in a car, or B) he already has the Porsche?
- [Broad sense] Why should a person buy a car (or any product) that will ultimately make him less happy than another car that he can easily afford?
Do you, RocketGuy, believe that LFA buyer to be foolish? Is it foolish for a shoe buyer with a $400 budget to not even consider Chinese-made shoes at any price due to political and socioeconomic objections?
#230
Burning Brakes
Price "can be" a consideration is not the same thing as price "should be" a consideration. And price "should be" a consideration is not necessarily the same thing as saying you "should buy X or Y".
#231
The mere fact that you are unable to answer my questions, let alone formulate a logical offense against them, suggests your theory has been flawed from inception.
If "should buy X or Y" is different from "should win your favor," please tell me how. In any event, you haven't addressed why a person who is politically and socioeconomically opposed to China "should" consider their products, if they disgust him regardless of the price. 2nd time, RocketGuy: Is such a person being foolish? You probably think that people who buy products out of the artisan-craftsman revival trying to kick-start Detroit, in the face of obviously cheaper Chinese-made products available at any Wal-Mart are being foolish, am I right? Tell me I'm wrong.
Last edited by Guibo; 08-27-2013 at 04:09 PM.
#232
Burning Brakes
The "just as good" example was distinct from the "price should be a consideration" point. Even if there isn't a car that's JUST as good as another car you can afford, maybe the price difference is enough to make the other car worthwhile. If not, fine, get the more expensive car. If you don't even think about whether the "lesser" car might give you all/most of what you want, you are being foolhardy. At the same time, maybe you could consider a more expensive car that could give you more of what you want, and try to decide if the extra cost is worth it.
That is all that "price should be a consideration" means. It means it should enter into the equation. Again, unless you are dead set on getting a very specific car for some reason, I suppose, and you are not on the market for a "fun, fast sports car" or a "luxury sedan that can haul *** and haul kids", etc. Rather, you are on the market for an F430 only. Or a ZR1 only. Etc. (Not to say that you shouldn't try to be a smart shopper, if possible, even in that case.)
That is all that "price should be a consideration" means. It means it should enter into the equation. Again, unless you are dead set on getting a very specific car for some reason, I suppose, and you are not on the market for a "fun, fast sports car" or a "luxury sedan that can haul *** and haul kids", etc. Rather, you are on the market for an F430 only. Or a ZR1 only. Etc. (Not to say that you shouldn't try to be a smart shopper, if possible, even in that case.)
#234
Burning Brakes
#235
The "just as good" example was distinct from the "price should be a consideration" point. Even if there isn't a car that's JUST as good as another car you can afford, maybe the price difference is enough to make the other car worthwhile. If not, fine, get the more expensive car. If you don't even think about whether the "lesser" car might give you all/most of what you want, you are being foolhardy. At the same time, maybe you could consider a more expensive car that could give you more of what you want, and try to decide if the extra cost is worth it.
Those two concepts are clearly not distinct from one another. You link them together in your subsequent sentences.
That is all that "price should be a consideration" means. It means it should enter into the equation. Again, unless you are dead set on getting a very specific car for some reason, I suppose, and you are not on the market for a "fun, fast sports car" or a "luxury sedan that can haul *** and haul kids", etc. Rather, you are on the market for an F430 only. Or a ZR1 only. Etc. (Not to say that you shouldn't try to be a smart shopper, if possible, even in that case.)
What makes you think the S8 buyer, who is cross-shopping Jaguar, BMW or Mercedes is "not on the market for a 'luxury sedan that can haul *** and haul kids'?" Just because he knows damn well he can't get the customization options, or he doesn't like the design language of, say a CTS-V, he's being foolish? By your theory, he must be.
Here's another place where your blanket statement fails: The used collector car market. Good luck trying to apply your standards to that group of people.