From the NEW YORK TIMES,

http://nyti.ms/1nHtGjF

Choosing options was once a normal part of buying a car. But today it's a luxury experience reserved almost exclusively for high-end machines. And those options have grown ever more indulgent.

 

Read it over the weekend.
Porsche was rightly raked over the coals for its absurd price for a paint job.

Silly season is apparently upon us..

 

Silly article. As opposed to the taxes we pay, these are OPTIONS! If you do not like them or find them overpriced, well, you just do not buy them! If Porsche prices the options the way they did, it's because customers are ready to pay the said price. This is called the free market.

The article leaves an aftertaste of 'occupy Wall Street' vinegar. Sure, as the article says, "High-end cars are about something other than transportation", but it can be a matter of personal taste, the enjoyment of something you had precisely designed for you, like a nice tailor made suit, without necessarily pursuing the goal of "displaying your wealth".

The article is more a reflection of the frustration and jealousy of a certain part of the population. The guy will certainly not win the Pulitzer with it...

 

To each his own. However the more options you pay for when you purchase a high end the less return you will get 2-3 years down the road. People expect to get their money back but most realize too late that thats not the way the resale market works. Just try convincing the Porsche Dealer, you know the one that you enjoyed that marginal glass of champagne at, when you trade it for another glass of champagne. Another reason to simply lease cars and change them every 2-3 years. Too many temptations coming out to put real money in such a highly depreciating piece of metal, leather and of course that very expensive PTM option you so needed to be different.

 

Agreed. I will likely never purchase a new Porsche for this exact reason. If only they offered at least packages that included most of the standard stuff, it would greatly improve resale value.

 

Why would anyone care what the NY TIMES says or writes about
ANYTHING ?

 

So true, I agree 100% Whenever someone makes negative comments about why I buy such expensive cars, I always say, I don't own a boat (and probably never will), don't golf or have country club memberships, mountain/road bike, Starbucks coffee every morning, etc. I just enjoy fast cars and tracking them as much as possible (unfortunately my life allows little track time ) People waste money on lots of different things and non-car people just don't get it because their Camry or Accord seems to work just fine. I go tired of feeling like I have to justify why I buy expensive cars, it's my money damn it, let me spend it accordingly
My .02 and it will never change.

 

+1^^^^^^ screw golf, do deals on the track. I'm not into clothes. I do like a nice watch from time to time but my only vice is cars. Reading, washing, writing, buying, selling, and researching. Not just P-cars, anything with a motor. Cost is not relative to the desires of a true gear head.

 

Oddly enough I have not heard a negative about my Porsche since it was acquired
In June 2012. As for the Times article, I saw it. I smiled and reflected about my ordering process. I got exactly what I wanted and I paid for it. I'm happy.

 

Perhaps the writer was upset about the cost of clear side markers for his 918.

 

I find it odd that people here defend the option pricing of Porsche, when most Porsches have an embarrassingly low level of equipment for a $120,000 car. There are people who don't get Bose to keep price down, when Bose should be free at this price point.

Personally I agree with the author. The only reason we put up with this is because there aren't many mid/rear-engined sports cars at the $100-150k price point. The option pricing is absurd, but it is a sign of lack of competition. I'm looking forward to the launch of the AMG-GT, the BMW sports car, and would also welcome more serious competition from the Japanese.

BTW Porsche doesn't think their own option pricing makes sense from a buyer perspective. If they believed in it, there would be no Maximum Residualized MSRP (MRM). The MRM at Porsche basically means that Porsche Financial thinks it is foolish to load up on Porsche's options. BTW Many luxury car brands don't have an MRM.

 

It's a bit like Patek Philippe, they take a 1960's case they have sitting around, slap a nice movement in it, and sell it for $120K. Then people trip over their tongues to buy it. They don't even need to conform to any standard anymore. They are the "it".

So long as people pay for it, and they sell every one they make, the prices will stay high and the content will stay low!

I just hate the ribbing I get from Kia owners....."what, no back-up camera??"...."no leather on the door panel?"
Uhhh, those are $5,000 options.
"Bwahhhahahaha!"
Do you want to walk home?
...Silence...

 

Duh! (Sound of head slap). I shoulda bought a KIA

 

Be careful, if you're not used to all that luxury (at no charge), you'll have a psychotic break!

 

Yeah, it's a money grab and that is why I'm only interested in the GT3. The rest of the cars I'm interested in is with other brands.