Sellers Regret?
#31
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.
and no, i won't look it up either.
#32
aww, i get it. it's a troll thing. ya almost had me for a sec lol. carry on
#33
#34
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!!!
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 obviously didn't read the first post. This about NOT DRIVING IT ENOUGH. Nothing more. It's not a money thing.
#35
When I bought my business partner out part of the buy out was my RS4 which I bought new. I had the best of both worlds with these two cars in my opinion. I kept telling myself, I have the Porsche which I drive more than the RS4 so I don't think I will miss it. What a mistake. I look at Autotrader every week hoping it will be for sale. As with yourself it was not a money issue. You have a bond with this car. Keep it.
Tim941NYC, thank god I didn't have a mouthful of coffee when I read your post.
frankster, please don't give Texas a black eye.
#36
Since you obviously live under a rock and find the use of Google too cumbersome to manage, 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.”
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.”
2) I could search for the information, but that would be pointless since I was asking YOU for YOUR source for this information, and I am not a mind reader.
3) I live on top of many, many rocks, but not under any.
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.
Maybe you should apologize to Teflon for your misinterpretation of the very article you cited.
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.
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.
1) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS ARE ALLOWED ON THE FORUM.
2) I asked for YOUR source. How am I supposed to know what you're basing your "facts" on? A simple link to the article would have been enough, though this is only one source, and I've never heard of iron-clad facts coming from only one source (especially one that only includes limited snippets of information which could easily be taken out of context).
3) How is saying you aren't familiar with something whining? Please explain to me to me the full facts of the Ford vs International legal case regarding diesel engines without looking anything up. (don't bother, I know you can't - nobody knows everything, and asking about it isn't whining, it's called asking a question... )
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!
2) What law school did you attend? Please cite this as well as any other legal experience and education you have that makes this anything other than entirely unsupported opinion.
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!
2) "Ask a Carmax rep the impact a legal statement <yada yada>" - Are you serious? Ask a car salesman, notoriously the people with the LEAST knowledge about the car industry, about not only a highly complex economics/supply & demand issue, but also about the legal aspects of things like this?
Keep in mind I have an economics degree from a top 25 school and am a highly successful professional who regularly analyzes things like this for Fortune 500 companies who trust MY opinion as FACT and make multi-billion dollar decisions on it... If you've ever heard of a little company called IHS who happens to have the leading automotive industry experts in the entire world (and is THE source for info like this for so many small, unknown, and untrusted organizations like NPR, CNN, CNBC, and basically every single other US and many international news outlets, never mind every single major and most minor auto makers in the world), well that's where I worked for 6 years including analysis of the auto industry.
Given every single other person on this forum full of educated, smart and intuitive people disagrees with you, maybe you want to consider which of these things is bigger: your knowledge or ego.
#37
While you are correct that we don't permit personal attacks we certainly allow a difference of opinion...we would just like it expressed with respect....none of this has anything to do with the original topic...thread closed
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
FUTURESTAR
Automobiles For Sale
7
09-23-2015 05:42 PM