Vs Car Magazine: M3 GTS vs Porsche GT2 RS

[footie]

The Nissan GTR makes everything else on the market looks hyper expensive, yes even if you include the running costs.

Wouldn't say I totally buy into that opinion because according to a locally fellow who owns one, he puts it's running costs at over than a 997tt, so if true this would mean that while it might be the cheapest to own at purchase compared to the competition, as time progresses the GTR would becomes less like the bargain it first appeared to be.

But I do get your point.

 

[Monster]

Wouldn't say I totally buy into that opinion because according to a locally fellow who owns one, he puts it's running costs at over than a 997tt, so if true this would mean that while it might be the cheapest to own at purchase compared to the competition, as time progresses the GTR would becomes less like the bargain it first appeared to be.

But I do get your point.

We have one at our work for a year, it was our test car and the car was fine, what did your friend have to do?

 

[footie]

We have one at our work for a year, it was our test car and the car was fine, what did your friend have to do?

Don't quote me on this because he's not a mate and he might have bummed his chat, but he claimed to have had two services in the first year (he covered 14000miles) at a cost of £650 each. He needed his discs and pads replaced as he had cooked them at the ring, cost he claimed was a mind blowing £3800.

Grand total in one year of admittedly hard driving was £5100, he said he dealt this down to £4500 but seriously that is plain crazy in any one's book.

 

[Mr Robert]

Grand total in one year of admittedly hard driving was £5100, he said he dealt this down to £4500 but seriously that is plain crazy in any one's book.

I have heard horror stories of runnig costs close to those of Ferraris, and not the new, cheap-to-run, ones...

 

[330CIZHP]

I have heard horror stories of runnig costs close to those of Ferraris, and not the new, cheap-to-run, ones...

x 2

Heard stories about Nissan charging premium money for the maintenance and service of GTR yet giving Nissan Leaf as a loaner car. They don't let the owner use any other parts whatsoever down to the tires.

 

[Guibo]

I am very much for a free market, I openly state this and have done on several occasions. But just because there are people willing to pay over inflated prices just because they have the means to do so does not make it right.

With the case of the GTS I simply look and compare it to a GT3RS and I can't see any logical reason for choosing the BMW. It's slower in every single way, it's got none of the racing heritage or status that comes with owning a Porsche and it doesn't even look special sat next to one. So in my opinion BMW chose such a limited run because they knew full well that trying to sell 5000 units would have been impossible, the whole desire of owning something exclusive would have gone and the sole reason for wanting one a long with it. Now we may be debating the GTS here but there are several cars which represent piss poor value for money and the only reason they are asking and getting top dollar is because they are extremely rare, but is that really justification for asking so much.

May I ask the question, if you had $130K to spend on this type of car would you honestly say that the GTS would top of your list?

Does it make it wrong? I get the feeling that you feel morally entitled to an M3 GTS at a price that you would approve.
The fact that you can't argue that point means you agree: The GTS is only worth what the market will bear. And since the market has shown it will bear that volume at that price, then the GTS is worth the money. Period.

None of the racing heritage? It might not be as successful as the Porsche, but it's a stretch to say an M3 has none of the racing heritage.
Even if the GTS doesn't measure up to the performance of the GT3, that doesn't make its price ridiculous, anymore than a C63 is ridiculously priced simply because it's slower on track and doesn't rate as high overall as an M3. People in this price range buy what makes them feel good, and based on drive reports so far, the GTS does that. They want something unique, something rare. The GTS is that. It may be slower by some seconds on a track they may never drive on, but that is hugely irrelevant. How many Enzo owners go pitch their cars on ebay after being passed on track by a modified 'Vette?

5000 units...now let's talk about this for a moment. BMW are given a choice:
1) make 5000 units which will bring them less profit, perhaps leave considerable volume languishing & unsold on dealer lots, bring their customers poorer residuals and less feeling of having something rare and unique, or
2) make 150 units, bringing much more profit (which could go toward subsidizing green technology in very price-sensitive markets), bringing their customers stronger residuals.
Put yourself in BMW's position for a moment. Why would you ever choose the second option? The "true enthusiast" argument is out the window because we can't even define it and if we could, we'd probably see that a huge portion of people with the means to buy a regular M3 aren't even "true enthusiasts" to begin with. And BMW have no moral obligation to provide cars out of the goodness of its heart.
Is there something about the M3 Competition Package that doesn't satisfy a true driving enthusiast?

If I had that money, no. I probably wouldn't buy a GT3 or RS either. Hell, I probably wouldn't buy any new car. If I had my way, BMW would be selling the M3 GTS at $30k. Clearly, you can see the problem with that business proposition...

 

[martinbo]

^ Solidly constructed argument there Guibo... kudos.

 

[footie]

Does it make it wrong? I get the feeling that you feel morally entitled to an M3 GTS at a price that you would approve.
The fact that you can't argue that point means you agree: The GTS is only worth what the market will bear. And since the market has shown it will bear that volume at that price, then the GTS is worth the money. Period.

I am only voicing the opinion that I dislike excessive profiteering, doesn't matter the brand or the product. Now I don't mind making a decent profit as I am in the business of making money too but I don't go out of my way to screw the public, I know what you will say to that, stating if people are willing to pay it and all that but I just don't feel it's morally right.

An example to explain my point would be two watches, both identical but the only difference is the one was made in it's thousands and the other only five. One would only sell for market value for this type of watch, maybe £150 but the other could possibly go for £500. Now the limited numbers dictate that this watch can command a considerable price hike because people will except it because of it's rarity but does this actually make this joe-basic watch any better? I don't think so.

None of the racing heritage? It might not be as successful as the Porsche, but it's a stretch to say an M3 has none of the racing heritage.
Even if the GTS doesn't measure up to the performance of the GT3, that doesn't make its price ridiculous, anymore than a C63 is ridiculously priced simply because it's slower on track and doesn't rate as high overall as an M3. People in this price range buy what makes them feel good, and based on drive reports so far, the GTS does that. They want something unique, something rare. The GTS is that. It may be slower by some seconds on a track they may never drive on, but that is hugely irrelevant. How many Enzo owners go pitch their cars on ebay after being passed on track by a modified 'Vette?

Sorry but BMW and the M3 car doesn't have anything like the racing heritage of the GT3 or Porsche for that matter. Yes it's had spells in competition and done very well at times but that wasn't my point. Also choosing the examples you have doesn't quite match, the C63 is a different type of product to the M3, yes they share the same market sector but go about things very differently. The GT3RS and GTS are two products design for the sole purpose of going as quickly as possible of the track, end of story. So the only real difference is how each of these cars feel and behave on the track that separates them, how you value that is up to the individual but usually this is only the deciding factor when everything else is roughly the same, which in the case of these two isn't.

5000 units...now let's talk about this for a moment. BMW are given a choice:
1) make 5000 units which will bring them less profit, perhaps leave considerable volume languishing & unsold on dealer lots, bring their customers poorer residuals and less feeling of having something rare and unique, or
2) make 150 units, bringing much more profit (which could go toward subsidizing green technology in very price-sensitive markets), bringing their customers stronger residuals.

Did I not say roughly the same thing is fewer words.

So in my opinion BMW chose such a limited run because they knew full well that trying to sell 5000 units would have been impossible, the whole desire of owning something exclusive would have gone and the sole reason for wanting one a long with it.

If I had that money, no. I probably wouldn't buy a GT3 or RS either. Hell, I probably wouldn't buy any new car. If I had my way, BMW would be selling the M3 GTS at $30k. Clearly, you can see the problem with that business proposition...

I happen to agree with you here, I wouldn't buy the Porsche either but for different reasons as I am no longer into that kind of thing. But if I were it would probably be the GT3 before I would ever consider the GTS and I must say that unlike yourself I wouldn't expect BMW or any other brand to sell it's products at wholesale, I believe in a fair market were each party gets value for money.

 

[Sunny]

I am only voicing the opinion that I dislike excessive profiteering, doesn't matter the brand or the product. Now I don't mind making a decent profit as I am in the business of making money too

lol, so why don't you give us a number on what is a "decent profit" that you approve off? And while at it why not also instruct us how much we should give to church and charity so we and the businesses can all lead their otherwise evil existences in conformity with your high moral standards.

And in case my sarcasm was lost on you, my point is, you are a non-entity, like rest of us. Yes, besides your claims to having owned half the cars under the sun, you are still just another dude on the internet like rest of us and still don't get to decide what is "decent profit" and what is "excessive profiteering". The market decides that. So cast away your self-importance and the notion that you get to set what is "decent profit" and what is not. You do not, the market decides that.

Oh, you might also want to spend some your "decent profit" on a decent economy 101 class.

 

[Guibo]

I am only voicing the opinion that I dislike excessive profiteering, doesn't matter the brand or the product. Now I don't mind making a decent profit as I am in the business of making money too but I don't go out of my way to screw the public, I know what you will say to that, stating if people are willing to pay it and all that but I just don't feel it's morally right.

You can't even define "true enthusiast." Nor can you objectify how much faster a GTS must be to finally be "worth the money." Good luck on trying to define "excessive profiteering." If the profits were going to be spent on helping to fund motorsport operations, or to help subsidize the CF frame in the Megacity vehicle, would you be invoking your moral entitlement to an M3 at your price?

An example to explain my point would be two watches, both identical but the only difference is the one was made in it's thousands and the other only five. One would only sell for market value for this type of watch, maybe £150 but the other could possibly go for £500. Now the limited numbers dictate that this watch can command a considerable price hike because people will except it because of it's rarity but does this actually make this joe-basic watch any better? I don't think so.

You don't think so, but to someone who can afford it, they'll buy it if it makes them feel better.
£150 for a watch?? What a rip-off. You can get a Timex for a fraction of that price and it'll be "just as good."
There are watches selling for £100,000. Are you seriously telling me these people are worried about being "ripped off"?

Sorry but BMW and the M3 car doesn't have anything like the racing heritage of the GT3 or Porsche for that matter.

Wait, examine your previous post:

...it's got none of the racing heritage or status that comes with owning a Porsche...

I'm not here to argue that the M3/BMW has as prolific a racing history as the 911/Porsche. But victories in ALMS, 24 Hours of Nurburgring, DTM, Monaco Rally, etc indicate that your first comment is factually wrong. The M3 does have some of the racing heritage of the 911.

Also choosing the examples you have doesn't quite match, the C63 is a different type of product to the M3, yes they share the same market sector but go about things very differently. The GT3RS and GTS are two products design for the sole purpose of going as quickly as possible of the track, end of story.

Except AMG's chief is on record as saying his car would meet or exceed the M3 on every level. So my example does match. Even though it falls short, does that mean its price and existence aren't justified? Not at all. The marketplace decides that.
Sorry, but I don't see the GT3 RS and GTS in that classification. Ariel Atom, Radical SR3, etc, yes, but not the BMW and Porsche. And this raises another point: even though some trackday-oriented cars are slower than others, that doesn't make them "rip-offs," worthless, or otherwise absurd.
Are you so incensed at Audi's pricing of the R8 GT?

Did I not say roughly the same thing is fewer words.

Actually, no. You did not. Nor did you answer the question: Why would BMW ever knowingly choose the second option, unless they were dumb?

I must say that unlike yourself I wouldn't expect BMW or any other brand to sell it's products at wholesale, I believe in a fair market were each party gets value for money.

The GTS, at only 150 units, is fair market. Each party gets the value that they perceive it to be. Not you, footie.
For a "true driving enthusiast", BMW offers the base 1-Series which can be tuned and tweak to the driver's wishes.
Want something faster with more snob appeal? Step into an M3 Coupe.
Want something similar but for the family? Step into an M3 sedan.
Want something similar but with an open top for nice days? M3 cabriolet.
Want something a bit more focused? M3 Competition Package.
Want something that looks quite different from other M3s, something more rare than GT3s, even more sharply focused than the Comp Pack, with perhaps stronger residuals than either, and which might be a valuable collector car someday? GTS.

I'm not seeing where the "true enthusiast's" needs are not being met. If, as we've been saying, the GTS is not all that different from the normal M3, then a true enthusiast shouldn't give a flying crap about the GTS. I ask you again: How is the true enthusiast not being satisfied with the M3 Competition Package?

 

[footie]

Wait, examine your previous post:

...it's got none of the racing heritage or status that comes with owning a Porsche...

I'm not here to argue that the M3/BMW has as prolific a racing history as the 911/Porsche. But victories in ALMS, 24 Hours of Nurburgring, DTM, Monaco Rally, etc indicate that your first comment is factually wrong. The M3 does have some of the racing heritage of the 911.

You misunderstood, if I meant what you thought then I would have used the word no racing heritage, but I chose the word none of I which meant it had no where near the lengthy racing heritage of the GT3 or Porsche which was factually correct.

Call it bad use of english if you will but hopefully you now understand what I meant to say at the time.

The GTS, at only 150 units, is fair market. Each party gets the value that they perceive it to be. Not you, footie.
For a "true driving enthusiast", BMW offers the base 1-Series which can be tuned and tweak to the driver's wishes.
Want something faster with more snob appeal? Step into an M3 Coupe.
Want something similar but for the family? Step into an M3 sedan.
Want something similar but with an open top for nice days? M3 cabriolet.
Want something a bit more focused? M3 Competition Package.
Want something that looks quite different from other M3s, something more rare than GT3s, even more sharply focused than the Comp Pack, with perhaps stronger residuals than either, and which might be a valuable collector car someday? GTS.

You yourself admitted you would want BMW to sell it at £30K so 'pot calling the kettle black' springs to mind, only I would prefer to pay a reasonable figure for the performance on offer.

I'm not seeing where the "true enthusiast's" needs are not being met. If, as we've been saying, the GTS is not all that different from the normal M3, then a true enthusiast shouldn't give a flying crap about the GTS. I ask you again: How is the true enthusiast not being satisfied with the M3 Competition Package?

You are quite right in saying the true entusiast's needs are being met, I don't think I ever claimed they weren't, but I continue to believe that the GTS doesn't represent good value for money and the introduction of the competition package has proven this point.

P.S.
You mentioned the R8GT in a way that you felt I would feel different because it's an Audi, why would you believe this to be the case? Compared the R8v10 it too is excessively priced but unlike the GTS it's not asking anything like the increase in percentage difference compared to the normal R8v10 R-Tronic.

Just to highlight this I will show you the difference between each model

Audi R8 R-Tronic vs R8 GT
£111K vs £142K (increase of roughly 28%)
M3 DCT vs M3 GTS
£55K vs £115K (increase of roughly 108%)

No matter which way you look at it the R8GT appears to exceedingly good value for money compared to the M3GTS and when you read into the amount of modifications made compared to the GTS it becomes more clear cut.

 

[Guibo]

You misunderstood, if I meant what you thought then I would have used the word no racing heritage, but I chose the word none of I which meant it had no where near the lengthy racing heritage of the GT3 or Porsche which was factually correct.

Call it bad use of english if you will but hopefully you now understand what I meant to say at the time.

Yeah, it sounds like bad english. The simple fact is, the M3 does have some of the racing heritage of the GT3.

You yourself admitted you would want BMW to sell it at £30K so 'pot calling the kettle black' springs to mind, only I would prefer to pay a reasonable figure for the performance on offer.

No pot, no kettle. I'm not the one whinging on and on about BMW's morally reprehensible business practices.

You are quite right in saying the true entusiast's needs are being met, I don't think I ever claimed they weren't, but I continue to believe that the GTS doesn't represent good value for money and the introduction of the competition package has proven this point.

How are you defining value for money? Performance/$?

You mentioned the R8GT in a way that you felt I would feel different because it's an Audi, why would you believe this to be the case?

Because I haven't seen you berate Audi with the same high holy moral ground with which you are criticizing BMW. Granted, I'm not here all that regularly or often, so perhaps you could point me to such a discussion...?

Audi R8 R-Tronic vs R8 GT
£111K vs £142K (increase of roughly 28%)
M3 DCT vs M3 GTS
£55K vs £115K (increase of roughly 108%)

You are forgetting that volume also helps determine a car's price. It's not just the level of modifications.
GTS production: 150
R8 GT production: 333 (+122%)

Regular M3 production vs GTS production: 39000 vs 150 (0.38%)
Regular R8 production vs R8 GT: 14000 vs 333 (2.4%)

And are you quite sure the R8 has the racing heritage of the M3?

So far, in this thread, we have established:
Definition of a "true enthusiast" - undefined
Definition of "acceptable profits" - undefined
A product is only worth what people are willing to pay for it - agreed
BMW offers 150 GTS's at its set price, to which (at a minimum) 150 people have already agreed to pay - fact based on current available data
BMW have a moral obligation to provide cars to (undefined) "true enthusiasts" - unsubstantiated conjecture

Based on this, how can you objectively claim (as you've been trying to do here) that the GTS is not worth the money? At most, all you can say is that it's not worth it to you (as it is not to me).

 

[footie]

So what you are saying we agree on is that there are clearly people out there which are quite willing to pay the asking price (probably more in fact) and we as a pair wouldn't be willing to pay it.

+1000%.

P.S. One small point about the R8GT, yes there are 333 being made but the thing is they are all accounted for, in fact over subscribed is the word. My guess is that they could have easily doubled or even tripled the quota and still had to turn people away. That's the difference between appearing to be giving value for money and not.

But would I buy one? Would I hack. There's a difference between having the money to be one and thinking such a thing isn't a wise use of your money, frankly I am of the latter.