Thank you. I can understand about the lack of use. When my kids were smaller and I couldn't put them in the car, it seemed crazy to keep a car I only drove maybe 3,000 miles/year. For some Porsche owners that would be ideal mileage, but not me! I'd rather be at 20k/year! Do you own the car, or is it financed (if so do you have a good rate)? Just wondering how much it's costing you right now (loan, insurance, maintenance, registration, and last but not least depreciation) on a monthly basis to not use it much.

What are the chances you'll end up using it significantly more within the next 2 years?

 

Own it, insurance + reg is not that much. Depreciation, who knows? I have no idea what it is worth. There seems to be a big discrepancy from one car to another. I'm sure it is condition driven. Thankfully my car is perfect if I were to sell it. Pretty unlikely I'll be using it much more than 1000-1500k miles a year from now on, if I keep it.

 

I don't understand this whole 'depreciation thing'. You're starting with a car that has its newest offering being 10 yrs old. In the lawsuit involving the non-turbo cars, Porsche admitted to their cars having a 'useable life' of ten years. So, you are effectively starting with a car that is already past it's 'useable life'. Therefore, it's proper value is zero.

Therefore, you have a car whose value based on mileage is effectively a 'non-issue'. So, don't worry about putting miles on your car - DRIVE IT!!!

 

You're probably in the $45k range on price, which are very stable these days and highly unlikely to change much. Depreciation per year (given limited driving / mileage) isn't going to be much any more, so you should be able to sell it for about the same amount today as in 2-3 years. So to me that's really the key question since your costs are pretty low to own right now: Is it worth it to you to hold onto it for another 2-3 years and drive it every chance you get, or do you want to just get out of it now?

Can you please provide a link to the source for this info? I've never heard it, and I can't imagine any car maker, in particular a collector vehicle maker whose cars are not only kept alive, but modded significantly well after 10 years, admitting to anything like this.

 

here you go:

Since this intermediate shaft-bearing-failure class-action suit is on behalf of owners whose cars were sold between Jan. 1, 2001 and Dec. 31, 2005, Porsche's lawyers said a car could only be in service for 10 years (see: imsporschesettlement.com). Like a terrier with a dead rat in its mouth, Porsche's lawyers could hold this concession up to management as a “win.”

 

Also,

Porsche does not make cars 'for collection purposes'. They are manufactured for the purpose of being sold as useable transportation for a profit. What the owner chooses to do with it is up to them.

 

Usable life of 10 years; that's pretty funny. That must be way 993 turbos go for $80k+ these days

 

Here you go:

Since this intermediate shaft-bearing-failure class-action suit is on behalf of owners whose cars were sold between Jan. 1, 2001 and Dec. 31, 2005, Porsche's lawyers said a car could only be in service for 10 years (see: imsporschesettlement.com). Like a terrier with a dead rat in its mouth, Porsche's lawyers could hold this concession up to management as a “win.”[/QUOTE]

Did you read the article yourself? The only time 10 years come into play was for the in-service for cars to be covered under the IMS settlement. Nowhere does Porsche state that the useful life of its cars is 10 years - nowhere. They only used that timeframe to limit the liability for the settlement.

Maybe you should apologize to Teflon for your misinterpretation of the very article you cited.

 

that and possibly removing the suggestion from his sig line that posits he relies upon "Just the facts, ma'am" when asserting his "NEVER" humble opinions

 

This.

Lawsuit and liability...

 

No. I give grief to three types of people: 1) The Lazy, 2) The Whiney, and 3) Defenders of Lazy, Whiney people.

Teflon was lazy in his unwillingness to look it up for himself.
Secondly, he whined about it by claiming he had never heard about the case.
In spite of his ignorance that he was too lazy to alleve. I said what I said on purpose with a purpose. Therefore, no apology will be forthcoming.

Yes, I read the article. I also read the entire lawsuit. That ten year statement from Porsche's attorneys sets an important legal precedent. (Go look it up for yourself - I won't do it for you.) That sets Porsche up for protection against future liabilities for both manufacturing defects as well as parts supply. Which also protects Porsche from future liability of parts manufactured by aftermarket suppliers for cars older than ten years. This nullifies your statement as to any 'insignificance' of their words. In fact, it will provide important legal precedent for ALL automotive manufacurers selling cars in the U.S. for some time to come!

As to 'mis-interpreting'; hardly. That 'ten year service life' statement will have both a direct and immediate effect on the re-sale price of all Porsches tens years or older. Dealers will immediately discount Porsches of that age to an even lower trade-in value. Go ask a Carmax rep the impact a legal statement like that will have on the value they place on ten-yr-old Porsches! Or better yet, go ask a Porsche dealer what impact that statement will have on your trade-in value on a new Porsche. I guarantee you will NOT like his answer!

You are actually the one who is mis-interpreting the statement. You short-sightedness on this issue leaves you wanting . . .

 

none of what you just said supports the misguided notion that the limitation of porsche's liabilities to ten years stemming from case you just cited suggests that porsche believes their cars should only be in service for ten years and no longer? or that after that date they somehow no longer exist as operable vehicles. man, what kind of twisted sh*t are you on about? then slagging people here who did nothing other than ask for your source? then on top, calling them lazy whiny, and wtf man. you just ain''t right.

and no, i won't look it up either.

 

'02 -- you know what they say about arguing with a fool...

 

ya, was something about that sig line first clued me in..lol

 

Very typical of the lazy, whiney 'left coast' mentality.

Hey, you might get a govt program to help you with that. Or better yet, sue someone for it!