Base Model is better choice than S

[Brucelee]

In real terms, I will pay an extra $10K to buy an new S vs a standard Box.

Say three years later, I go to buy a used Box. I will likely pay about $5 more for the S vs the standars Box.

So, the S has depreciated at a faster rate, ie, it has not maintained that edge of $10G but that edge has declined some 50% or $5G.

So, in relative terms, the S "incremental cost" has degraded faster than the base car's depreciation, which is less than 50%.

This is not surprising. The cost of options follows this path generally speaking. For example, you may pay $2G for the full leather interior or similar option. 3 yrs later, it is worth $425 as an add-on value in your car.

Now, as to WHY this is, well, I never try to figure this out. The market is the market!

Make sense?

[ho2go]

Would it not be better to compare the price diff between the base and S in percentage? I don't think a cold-hard $10k figure is an appropriate basis of comparison as time progresses (you have to leave room for that price difference to depreciate as well, no?).

For easy figuring let's say a new new base model is $40k and a new S is $50k. So you'd have to pay 25% above the cost of the regular Box to get into an S. This translates to a $10k difference.

Now let's say the avg used Box (regular model) after several years is $32k. In this case the basis of comparison to see which model has depreciated faster is 25% above $32k = $40k for the S. The original $10k difference is now $8k (but more "fair" I'd think).

According to Lux's MSRP figures earlier in this thread (KBB used 2002 MY w/ 25000 miles):

Box msrp: $42600 Private sale: $27950
Box S msrp: $51600 Private sale: $34950

we see that in 2002 one paid 21% more than a new base model to get a new S. And according to the private sale figures, today you'd pay 25% above a used regular Box to get a used S. Meaning the base model is depreciating faster than the S *assuming* the KBB prices are indicative of what consumers actually pay (big assumption).

Please correct/update the calculations if you have more accurate prices. I tried to get real-world asking values from autotrader.com but couldn't separate regular model vs. S model pricing.

Sorry to math-out like that, hope it was clear (-ish). ;b

Originally Posted by Brucelee

In real terms, I will pay an extra $10K to buy an new S vs a standard Box.

Say three years later, I go to buy a used Box. I will likely pay about $5 more for the S vs the standars Box.

So, the S has depreciated at a faster rate, ie, it has not maintained that edge of $10G but that edge has declined some 50% or $5G.

So, in relative terms, the S "incremental cost" has degraded faster than the base car's depreciation, which is less than 50%...

[Brucelee]

I absolute terms, the amount one takes on depreciation for an S is larger than one takes for a standard boxster, over say a three year period. To me, this means that from a financial perspective, the S is going to cost me more in pure depreciation than the standard car will over that same time. If this were not true, to me the S as a new car would be an no-brainer.

Moreover, the KBB data is faulty here. In reality, a 2002 S will likely net you about $5K more than a standard Box, not $7 as they say. This is not the only place where KBB falls down BTW.

Of course, it all depends on how you look at it. To me, the used Box S is the car to buy, as much of the cost diff has been wrung out of it by the marketplace.

Make sense?

[tqtran]

Originally Posted by Brucelee

the KBB data is faulty here. ...This is not the only place where KBB falls down BTW.

I second that. One of many things designed for a false sense of confidence in.

[Brucelee]

Not to be too harsh on KBB but ALL value guides are not the bible that they are touted to be.

Think about it; where do they get all these data from and how do they insure it is accurate? As a dealer I can tell you that it is next to impossible to get a very precise picture of what a car really was sold or traded for, if you are data collection agency.

Having said that, I use KBB as a guide. However, I rely on auction data much more so, as it actually shows me the individual transactions AND the averages.

[Pilot2519j]

I bought an S but have nothing against the base model. As others have mentioned this argument is totally subjective. In my case I opted for the S since it was my first Porsche so I went for the more powerful engine, in short the more bang for my dollars. I drive it to work every day even in the winter. I would assume the base unit would be as enjoyable as the S as a daily driver. The upgrade will cost you about 5 to 10 thousand so if you have the disposable income you can buy it and if not you can still get the base model. Good luck in your choice but for sure you will be happy with either.

[Lux]

[Brucelee]I absolute terms, the amount one takes on depreciation for an S is larger than one takes for a standard boxster, over say a three year period.
Agreed. This is the "cost to own". But you must also agree that it is much less less than the initial $9K difference to buy.


[Brucelee]Moreover, the KBB data is faulty here. In reality, a 2002 S will likely net you about $5K more than a standard Box, not $7 as they say.
OK, so using the original KBB formula and adjusting the S price to [base+$5K] you still only pay $4K more out of pocket instead of the $2K per KBB. Yes, it's still $4K more than the base. But you get a whole lot of goodies for that $4K.

People can throw the "it's not worth an extra $9K" BS all they want. That's subjective and everyone's entitled to their opinion. But the fact is that it only costs about $4K extra in the end to own an S.

-

[SoCal]

Originally Posted by Lux

But the fact is that it only costs about $4K extra in the end to own an S.

That's not a fact. That's just another BS opinion, based on assumptions that the car will be resold in three years for the assumed depreciated price, and it does not take into account higher insurance, potentially higher gasoline costs, potentially replacing your 19-inch tires more frequently, or the costs of financing (or lost investment opportunity costs if you paid all cash).

I could have fun with statistics and show you that if one person bought a base Boxster and another bought an S for $10K more, and both paid let's say $5,000 down and financed the balance, and both kept their cars for 10 years, the S owner could spend an $20K or more to own the S compared with the base Boxster owner.

And that's just another reason why I'm getting an S.

[Lux]

[SoCal]That's not a fact. That's just another BS opinion, based on assumptions that the car will be resold in three years for the assumed depreciated price.

Reading comprehension. You should try it. The numbers can be backed up because they are based on a 2002 car. These are not projected numbers. I even adjusted for Brucelee's numbers and they still support my argument. If you don't want KBB's numbers, feel free to use NADA, Edmunds, or any other used car price book. Also feel free to look up lease residuals. The only time your argument would hold water is when an S sells for the same price as a base, comparably equipped and same year/mileage. I doubt that'll happen anytime soon.

I'm done here. You're trolling and you're not even good at it.

-

[SoCal]

Originally Posted by Lux

Reading comprehension. You should try it.

Logical reasoning. You should try it.

You cherry pick the date you want about the timing of a relatively near-term resale, and you ignore other variables -- financing costs, insurance, gas, tires, etc. -- and from that you leap to the so-called "fact" of a $4K difference in cost of ownership.

I didn't say your relative depreciation assumptions were invalid for a resale after only a few years.

Rather, I said you make the assumption about the timing of a resale being in a few years, as if everyone would do that, and then you ignore other cost variables to reach an inaccurate blanket conclusion about the cost of ownership differences.