That rebuttal " Ferrari is Ferrari" is as valid as stating " it is what it is." This statement justifies ignoring the competition no matter how advanced it may be.
His car was used and they have always sold at MSRP and dealers probably have demos in the same spec that he bought. Why would anyone pay more than sticker for it? He said he lost thousands, but said if he had kept the car another 3 months he might have lost 20-30K. So in reality, he lost probably 10K, which really isn't bad or unexpected. These cars don't sell over sticker and never have, so why would anyone pay sticker on a used car? I don't think there is any reason why these cars should ever fetch over sticker. The vast majority of exotics never sell over sticker, even day 1.
Losing 10k in 8 weeks is crazy and he's got several cars so I doubt he put a bunch of miles on that car. A lot of people paid bumps on Ferrari's over the years who would argue you with you on that. I expected 720's to stick around MSRP for awhile, even slightly used, hell maybe even a bump on those since its a available car vs a car you'd have to order and wait 2 years to get as some dealers are saying.
Spoke to McLaren Toronto on Friday and was told that the 720S was sold out till 2018 and they still have not received their allocation number for 2018 so he was not in a position to indicate delivery times. Will be test driving it on Thursday.
Not pointed at anyone specifically; but people should stick to what they know rather then what they think is going on; Facts: 2 launch cars delivered to intended customers from my dealer. Both at MSRP. Four demo/floor models sold to first time customers and all four sold at $25K above MSRP. Besides these six examples; my dealer has 37 deposits for 720s (this is as of last saturday). The youtuber in question; why does he have any more credibility than the people posting in this thread? Should I make a youtube video or the others who are participating in this thread with our thoughts/opinions and then people will link to it in this thread? Dealers aren't going to buy a car from you unless you are going to trade it in for another car. Even then; it might not be possible. Most dealers want you to consign it so they don't have any financial risk. When the new car comes in and your old cars still not sold then dealer makes a decision whether they will accept the trade (if they're desperate enough to sell the new car) or make you take the new car and still have you consign the old car.
How it it crazy? That's only like 3-4%. How could you sell it for MSRP when you can buy demos at MSRP? There are not 2 year waits for a 720S. They are more like 1 year. My dealer told me I could get it next fall if I ordered one a few weeks ago. He drove his car for 2 months, probably put 1K miles on it, and it's probably got some small blemishes already. Paying premiums on Ferraris in the US is unique to the US. That's not the reality for the rest of the world. You can walk into a Ferrari dealer in Europe and order a car at sticker, having zero history with the dealer, and get it in a reasonable amount of time. In China you could get it even quicker, never having bought one. Also, the idea that Ferraris would have such a better residual early on is misleading. It ignores the huge loss due to sales tax in many instances. If I buy a 488 at MSRP and sell it the next day at MSRP, I still lose roughly 20K in sales tax. It's very rare to move into and out of exotics quickly at anything other than a decent loss. California is probably one of the biggest markets on the planet for exotics, and they pay a 7.5% sales tax that can't even be offset on a trade-in, plus cities can charge additional tax on top. That means $20-30K losses immediately on just about every purchase.
In most jurisdictions, when a car is traded in for another, the sales tax applies to the net difference in price. Sales conducted privately lose out on the tax advantage. Consequently , purchase a 488 for $300K, pay $25K in taxes. Sell your car privately the next day for $300K and you have just suffered a $25K loss. Buy another $300K car and you will pay $25K in taxes again. Total -$50K in taxes. Trade in the same $300K car towards another $300K car. Total -$25K in taxes.
Worth noting that dealers won't give you private sales prices anyway, so that potentially offsets trade-in savings as well. If you can sell it privately at MSRP, that means the dealer is offering you probably at least $10K less. In short, there is rarely a "cheap" way to move in and out of exotics, even Ferraris. Buying and selling cars every few months will cost you a lot of money.
Selling exotics privately is very difficult since in order to sell your car at a higher price to compensate for the tax benefit loss puts you very close to a dealer's selling price. Buyers feel more confident buying from a dealer, especially an authorized one than a private party. If one's goal is to minimize depreciation, purchase a desirable 5 year old car and keep it for 3-5 years. Your car will be worth almost the amount you paid for it.
Yup. If you actually care about residuals and intend to actually drive a car and keep it a reasonable amount of time, this is the only intelligent way to do it. Anything else is just a matter of losing a little bit less than a boat load.
question that is serious and not intended argue- why does Car and Driver have the 720 listed as the 4th best car?
Yeah- let me pick up the phone and call them right now. I'm on a first name basis with their editors.
Who knows? It could be ordered by anything. Could just be user traffic or views even. Surely an Aventador or Speciale would be above some random AM or an FF/Lusso... Most likely their order is meaningless and just based on some database values like page views * searches / likes * price for dates from X to Y...
Come on SC to Az you can do better than a weak lob like that... umm maybe due to the fact that they're clearly out of touch with reality? You're wondering why the same magazine that praises the Audi TTS as a clear winner, the Chevy Bolt, The Camaro, all got included in the 10 best cars in their class and you are somehow giving them some credence or respect questioning why they ranked the 720S 4th best??? Let me just venture a simple guess and state for the record that they have always favored advertising over integrity for their reviews. They've always given GM/Chevy high ratings despite their propensity for putting out garbage as long as they paid huge sums for full page ads. Ferrari pays huge amounts for ads there whereas McLaren does not. I'll put C&D right there with "The View" in terms of how much respect I give their opinions. If they put the 488 at 2oth position instead of #1 I'd give them just as much consideration - C&D, R&T both cater to whomever pays them the most with absolutely zero credibility, always have always will. If their final conclusion matches yours good for you I've never been one who cares what any "paid" mag or YouTuber says about any cars on my radar. Posting that is like quoting Rev Al Sharpton or Joel Olsteen as being a worthy and respectable authority on God.
no. Im not kidding. As I stated it was a serious and sincere question. 70000+ posts by you. How many are more than one sentence?
Agree! Just an observation from SoCal to az. Nothing to troll about! It's probably just who gave C&D a better hospitality at their press invite! Maybe C&D felt compelled to put 488 at #1. Again it's only an opinion from C&D - nothing set in stone or if there is any universal formula to measure the rankings based on endless variables. Just take it with a grain of salt . We are all happy with our Ferraris and we have opinionated in our minds they're #1 for us!
Not many. Did you read the article attached to the photo you posted? That might have given you some insight into your question, and then you could have enlightened us instead of keeping us guessing.
It's not correct to say that you can get a Ferrari in a short time in Europe, at least not the European country I live in. Long wait for a 488, especially Spider. The price to sell back to the dealer takes VAT into account and there would be no loss for a well enough specified Spider, maybe a small loss for a GTB which is a 2-3 year old car now. At the 720's age, the car would have sold at a net premium for an early return vehicle. Does the market not take sales tax into account in the US? And if not, the YouTubers experience must have been after deducting the sales tax surely? As for Road and Track, it's all too easy to dismiss a magazine's view. But they make a living from writing about what they think. You may say it's biased, influenced by advertising, lazy, ill-advised, whatever. But they support themselves from their opinions and we don't. There is absolutely nothing for them to defend by putting Ferrari as a preference ahead of McLaren. So does the market. As for the rest of us, you have a right to disagree with them, it's only their view. But to simply dismiss them mockingly because they don't share your view seems to me childish. No doubt had 720 been at the top, we would have heard about it sooner.
In every assessment many factors are considered and weighted - and unless there is a blatant superiority of one contender the result will depend on what is valued most. That's why I understand some may prefer a 720S to anything else, but I do not agree when they claim there is no other sensible decision. An interesting point in the listing is the pricing - there is actually more price difference between the 488 GTB and 720S than between the 720S and 812S. To me the 488 is a better value for money than the 720S (note that it is not denying the 720S is faster in a straight line) and should I consider spending significantly more money I'd rather go for a 812S.
