[OldButSmooth]

Originally Posted by JMcLellan

If I drive my M2 for 5 years, put about 20k miles on it and am still able to get $45 grand when I sell it I would be ok with that. I think that future resale price is completely reasonable and who knows maybe $50 to $55 grand wouldn't be out of the question. There are many worse car depreciation situations to be in but this is not an investment, only pay for play.

Totally agree, driving pleasure generally costs money, as do most other pleasures in life. Even rock solid investments are currently sliding a little, I started collecting watches during Covid and saw a few in my collection double in value, currently those watches are worth 50% over list...market will always dictate future value(s). I note a number of Porsche motorcars are now coming down in value (look no further than the UK marketplace), hence, G87 will depreciate accordingly.

[DSTR]

Originally Posted by OldButSmooth

Totally agree, driving pleasure generally costs money, as do most other pleasures in life. Even rock solid investments are currently sliding a little, I started collecting watches during Covid and saw a few in my collection double in value, currently those watches are worth 50% over list...market will always dictate future value(s). I note a number of Porsche motorcars are now coming down in value (look no further than the UK marketplace), hence, G87 will depreciate accordingly.

Used 911's sit much longer now. Why spend more than 90 or 100k on 5 year used when new are available for marginally more.

[JABCAT]

Originally Posted by Tag

If he decides to sell at some point and they test all panels with a paint thickness meter they will see that the hood has been repainted. If they have one that can also test paint thickness on plastic, they will also see the front bumper repainted. That is what could diminish the value of the car. I never said he was 'entitled', what I meant was he should ask for something to compensate him for the damage they did. It could cost him on resale, and he's lost time driving his new car. A good dealership that wants to maintain customer relations would do something other than just fixing the car that they damaged. This of course is at their discretion, but you lose nothing by simply asking. If anything it will reveal if you want to continue to do business with them and/or bring your car in for them to service.

Nobody is testing paint thickness with a meter when they buy a used car. These aren't Ferraris. The bumper is a cheap piece of plastic, they get damaged & get replaced. A replaced/repainted bumper isn't diminishing the value. And as long as the hood is oem, installed correctly, and paint matched, it's not decreasing the value either. It's no different than replacing the stock hood with an aftermarket that was painted. Has zero effect on value.

Now if there were mechanical or structural damage, that would potentially decrease the value at resale. But body panels that are easily replaced, no.

[Bret]

Originally Posted by JABCAT

Nobody is testing paint thickness with a meter when they buy a used car. These aren't Ferraris. The bumper is a cheap piece of plastic, they get damaged & get replaced. A replaced/repainted bumper isn't diminishing the value. And as long as the hood is oem, installed correctly, and paint matched, it's not decreasing the value either. It's no different than replacing the stock hood with an aftermarket that was painted. Has zero effect on value.

This isn't correct, but I'll happily sell my previously repaired cars to you.

[MineralGreyMetallic]

Originally Posted by JABCAT

Nobody is testing paint thickness with a meter when they buy a used car. These aren't Ferraris. The bumper is a cheap piece of plastic, they get damaged & get replaced. A replaced/repainted bumper isn't diminishing the value. And as long as the hood is oem, installed correctly, and paint matched, it's not decreasing the value either. It's no different than replacing the stock hood with an aftermarket that was painted. Has zero effect on value.

Now if there were mechanical or structural damage, that would potentially decrease the value at resale. But body panels that are easily replaced, no.

I have definitely experienced dealers using a paint meter on some of my (not Ferrari) cars in the past when doing appraisals.

Not every place does it, but some do.

[robopp]

Originally Posted by DSTR

Used 911's sit much longer now. Why spend more than 90 or 100k on 5 year used when new are available for marginally more.

A new 992.2 base starts at 130k. Add a couple of basic options and you’re now at 150k. I wouldn’t call that marginally more. Additionally, if you think M allocations are hard to get, Porsche will make you sell your first born even for a non GT allocation.

[JABCAT]

Originally Posted by MineralGreyMetallic

I have definitely experienced dealers using a paint meter on some of my (not Ferrari) cars in the past when doing appraisals.

Not every place does it, but some do.

I've sold or traded in over 40 vehicles and not once was I asked about the paint, nor was paint tested with a meter to my knowledge. I've had vehicles that had paint work, whether custom (like painting the top & mirrors to match) or due to repairs. Not once was it mentioned or did it affect the price I received for the vehicle. Others' experience may be different.

[Bret]

There's a reason that insurance companies have to pay for diminished value when a vehicle is repaired. It's because repaired vehicles are simply worth less when they're resold. My mothers Porsche SUV was recently repaired after being hit by a car thief during a police chase. The repairs themselves were over $50,000 and she received a check for over $17,000 for diminished value. When she goes to trade it in, I feel pretty confident that the experts at the Porche dealership will offer her less for it versus if hadn't been damaged.

[RockCrusher]

Originally Posted by MineralGreyMetallic

I have definitely experienced dealers using a paint meter on some of my (not Ferrari) cars in the past when doing appraisals.

Not every place does it, but some do.

There's a risk that the paint from the factory is not of a uniform thickness and this could be used to claim paint work.

A body shop owner -- where I had several of my Porsche cars fixed -- told me it is common with some cars -- in my specific case Porsche cars -- that the various panels will have varying paint thickness. It comes from how the panel is positioned during the painting process. Some surfaces can receive a bit more paint thus have a thicker layer of paint.

He said he characterized the paint thickness say on the front fenders of factory fresh cars and then would sand/finish the painted fender to duplicate the factory paint thickness.

But an experienced car appraiser or just someone who's been around cars in a professional manner can spot paint work without a paint thickness check.

(After I had my 996 Turbo repaired: new bumper cover, new passenger fender, new front trunk lid, blended paint (arctic silver) I pulled into to the Walnut Creek Porsche dealer for some reason. Salesman walked out and was admiring the car. Asked if I was interested in selling it/trading it in? I said it had been in an accident and challenged him to tell me the new panels. In nearly no time he correctly identified the new body panels. These were factory new parts and had been prepped, painted by a shop that was quite well known for quality repairs. I asked him how I identified the panels so quickly. Said they lacked the factory paint orange peel finish. He added while he was now a car salesman for years he had worked for a collision repair shop...)

[RockCrusher]

Originally Posted by Montaver

These threads are hillarious and the advice is genuinely terrible.. seek ‘legal counsel’ 😂😂

Good luck with that.

Over the years I've reached several different times to a lawyer (different lawyers) regarding car issues. I made it clear I was willing to pay for the the lawyer's time, that I was not seeking free legal advice.

I had a couple of lawyers respond. (In one case I had a problem with a consignment seller and the lawyer gave me some guidance and I used it and things worked out very well.)

But most law offices/lawyers I contacted didn't even bother to return my calls. I even visited some and was (politely) told not interested in even a paid for consultation.

In one notable case -- a long time ago (circa 1973) -- out of a $15,000 settlement I received only about 50% after the lawyer's fee/expenses were deducted.

[RockCrusher]

Originally Posted by Carefree

In reality past performance IS an indicator of future performance.

Since October 1929 (the infamous crash) the return on investment is 700,575.86%, or 9.72% per year.

Not my opinion, just a fact.

I’ve been in the market since 1977 and it’s almost (emphasis) embarrassing where I was then and where I am today.

If past performance is an indicator of future performance then the market would have stayed down after 1929...

[Carefree]

Originally Posted by RockCrusher

If past performance is an indicator of future performance then the market would have stayed down after 1929...

That’s incredibly stupid convoluted logic.
Every investor since then knows better.
Look at the numbers from October 1929 and today. It averaged 10% per year.
Duh……