Last post on Jan 28, 2013 at 5:55 PM
You are in the Sedans
What is this discussion about?
Audi A8, BMW 7 Series, Jaguar XJ-Series, Lexus LS 460, Mercedes-Benz S-Class, Volkswagen Phaeton, Maserati Quattroporte, Mercedes-Benz CL-Class, Sedan
Let's try to define this forum as being limited to luxury performance vehicles where the mainstream version in a typical configuration has an MSRP of at least $60k.
A luxury vehicle with a base price of $59k qualifies because it would typically be bought with some additional equipment, bringing the MSRP over $60k.
Vehicles like the E, 5, A6, M, or GS, even if available in certain versions over $60k, don't qualify because they are cars from companies that have higher end cars in their lineups.
#22206 of 24726 Re: LS460 Debacle..... [tagman]
Dec 12, 2006 (2:38 pm)
Of course they are both worth only $98k. The original MSRP is quite irrelevent. Do you think my Saab 9-5 MSRP $40k is better than the BMW 335i MSRP at $38.7k?? Thanks for the compliment, but I don't think so. Do you think 2006 R500 with MSRP of $55.5k is better than 2007 R500 MSRP at $50k? even if both are offered to you at $45k? Obviously not. Most people would pay more for the 2007. That's indicative of real sale prices rule, MSRP's be damned.
#22207 of 24726 Re: LS460 Debacle..... [brightness04]
Dec 12, 2006 (2:45 pm)
...my Saab 9-5...
I figured you for a Saab... or a Volvo.
Of course they are both worth only $98k.
Oh really? Dealer's cost on the vehicles are not even close. The "other" vehicle would be purchased at a premium, as compared to the Porsche, in this example, which would be purchased closer to dealer cost, and therefore its "ACV" or actual cash value. See, we do not agree. But we do on the '06 vs. '07. Reason?... the ACV!
Now, I've got to go and drive somewhere in that bad deal of a Porsche.
#22208 of 24726 Re: LS460 Debacle..... [tagman]
Dec 12, 2006 (2:58 pm)
The 98k's are market clearing prices, right? If it's not market clearing, it's a different topic altogether. Delaer cost and for that matter manufacturer's cost do not matter. It's what car you are getting that matters when comparing different brands. If both cars can fetch $98k in a competitive market place, they are about head to head, shoulder to shoulder. Have you ever thought that the $110k MSRP car that get discounted to $98 may not have warranted the high MSRP to begin with? How do you know the dealer is not getting a huge mfr incentive because nobody wants the car?
Besides, if you really want to argument your point, shouldn't you be paying $110k instead of $98k? It's MSRP'd at $110k, you know. If one MSRP $110k translates to $98k real market clearing price, and another $99k MSRP translates to the same $98k market clearing price, you just proved to us that MSRP does not dictate real price. Thank you.
I figured you for a Saab... or a Volvo.
Guilty as charged. Having run off the road in my 5 series a decade ago in snow, I have been wary about snow performance. Audi reliability just didn't cut it. I'm glad more AWD option are becoming available when my next three-year appointment with the dealers comes up in a few months.
#22209 of 24726 Re: LS460 Debacle..... [brightness04]
Dec 12, 2006 (3:09 pm)
Dealer cost is irrelevent; nor is manufacturer cost.
One more round with ya'... but I've got to go, OK?
Actually, my wife purchased that first SLK, but sold it after just a month. Because the market was hot, she didn't lose a thing. BUT... shortly the market changed its mind, and those that paid UP for the car, lost out in the long run! So, the real dealer's cost and the real MSRP are important considerations afterall.
Obviously we do not agree. The problem here is this: While I am not trying to make you agree with me, I think you are trying to "convince" me somehow that your point is "right" or something to that effect, or perhaps you are trying to change my mind.
Let's just leave this where we do not agree. It will be easier.
I believe that the MSRP is a legitimate point of reference. You do not. I believe that the dealer's cost is a legitimate point of reference. You do not. You seem to believe that the "selling" price is the only basis for comparison, and I while I understand the importance of "selling" price and "market value", I do not agree that it should be used in the way you are interpretting the Mercedes lease.
THAT'S IT for now. Please respect the end of this particular exchange. Thank you.
#22210 of 24726 Re: LS460 Debacle..... [tagman]
Dec 12, 2006 (3:15 pm)
Let's get this straight: you put forward the point that LS was able to outsell S only because it was substantially less expensive. Your proof for LS being substantially less expensive? MSRP.
My point is MSRP does not necessarily correspond to real market clearing price.
And your $110k example selling for $98k vs. another car that MSRP $99k selling for $98k is supposed to prove your point??
Which of the two is better value subjectively to you is quite irrelevent. You just proved my point that difference in MSRP's may not translate into real life market clearing prices at all.
Not sure how dealer cost even come into this picture. MB is providing lease subsidies, which obviously means lower dealer cost (in lease). dah. That's another argument for taking lease subsidy into consideration whether you personally lease or not. Once again. Thank you for making my point.
#22211 of 24726 Re: LS460 Debacle..... [brightness04]
Dec 12, 2006 (3:19 pm)
Let's get this straight: you put forward the point that LS was able to outsell S only because it was substantially less expensive.
Which post did I put forward that point? And I'll check back with ya' later when I return.
#22212 of 24726 Re: LS460 Debacle..... [tagman]
Dec 12, 2006 (3:22 pm)
My bad. Merc was actually the one argued that point. You only argue that MSRP is what decides market clearing price, or is it that higher MSRP is always better?
Neither is true, for obvious reasons.
#22213 of 24726 Re: LS460 Debacle..... [brightness04]
Dec 12, 2006 (4:51 pm)
My bad. Merc was actually the one argued that point.
OK, I forgive you. Just don't let it happen again.
BTW, be aware that I understand and acknowledge "market value" and "market forces". I don't want to be boxed into some disagreement with you that infers that I don't understand them. I just don't agree with you that they are always the best bet to adhere to. It would be too much like "market timing" which has been proved to never work in the long run. Buy low and sell high is the old saying. Nothing wrong with that. If that is what you mean then we agree.
#22214 of 24726 Re: LS460 Debacle..... [tagman]
Dec 12, 2006 (5:10 pm)
I can't believe you went round and round about that. You can call it MSRP or whatever the heck you want, but when people don't lease and they pay cash of finance then this leasing mumbo jumbo is irrelevent. Period. All the time we have to hear about what if scenarios when all you have to do is look back through this thread and you'll see that some of the actual buyers here have stated that price does make a difference to them because they aren't leasing. Why in the world this is so hard to grasp is beyond me.
This whole line of reasoning about leases equalling things out for cars that used be anywhere from 10-25K apart is just plain BS when the buyer in question isn't looking to lease.
No one here has ever said that a leasing doesn't open up the luxury car buying experience to more people all the while making more expensive cars attainable. Problem is this tired rhetoric about the LS and its sales being "best in class" has never, ever taken into account that not everyone leases. Who the hell cares what the "MSRP" is beyond a car's natural hot selling period, it does indeed become irrelevant after that hot selling period is over, but the fact remains that those who purchase with cash or finance did have to contend with a huge price difference between the LS and S in their previous generations. There is no amount of fancy schmancy leasing doublespeak around this fact.
The popular assumption is that anywhere from 50 to 80 percent of the cars in this class are leased. Who knows if that is true because no one has ever presented any proof one way or another, but what about the possible 20-50 percent that don't lease. They just say "oh this car costs 20K more than this one, no big deal"? To even suggest that is absurd. Some can do this and some can't, but until we get the full breakout then..........
#22215 of 24726 Re: LS460 Debacle..... [merc1]
Dec 12, 2006 (5:26 pm)
I can't believe you went round and round about that.
Happens every so often. To alleviate the pain I fantasize about having a root canal. Actually I think Brightness made some good points, however I agree with the Tagmeister about MSRP as a reference point.