Flemke - Is this your McLaren?
Discussion
GuyR said:
The value of Supercars is very interesting, the one that I always look at is 959 vs F40. Both were the height of late 80's supercars and direct adversaries. Neither raced a great deal, with perhaps 959 having the edge with the LeMans entries (as 961) and Paris-Dakar success. The 959 was produced in about 5 times less quantity (272 vs 1300+), yet the 959 could have been bought for circa £100k or less in the last year in the UK, whereas the F40 now seems to trade about £175k. So for price vs rarity, the ratio is about 8:1 - thats got to be primarily due to the Ferrari factor.
Guy,
I think that there are a couple of other factors in the F40/959 comparison.
The 959 looks fairly similar to 40 years' worth of 911s and their derivatives. Its exterior details are more resolved than the 911s' in pretty much every way, but the overall impression is essentially the same apart from the rear wing and overhang. In contrast there is nothing else that looks like the F40.
The F40's interior is not special, but it is very purposeful. The 959's looks like most every other Porsche's, so it doesn't even look particularly purposeful.
The 959's engine is probably Porsche's all-time best (in the context of its time), the same one as in the 956/962. There is turbo lag, but with the sequentials it is not extreme. The F40's power delivery is more extreme, even though its engine is less special.
The same applies to the rest of the two cars. The 959 at the time was a technical tour-de-force, but all technology becomes dated. The F40 was more of an OTT fashion statement (in the broadest sense), but in a perhaps timeless fashion.
Then you have the driving dynamics. The 959 is really a very fast GT; even the "Sport" version is soft and comfy. The 959 would benefit greatly from a 150 kg weight reduction, but that's impossible unless you get rid of the front half of the drivetrain. The F40 is hard-edged, and such cars tend to be regarded as more special.
The 959 is beautifully made, and its systems are nicely integrated. Its brakes are the best that I've ever used in a P., and the gearbox equally is superb. But these things are subtleties which tend to be unimportant to the vast bulk of car buyers. The 959 is really a car for dedicated admirers of P., while the F40 is a car with a very broad (if not deep) appeal.
(If in time a car with a faster top speed than the Veyron's is produced, we could see the V.'s desirability take a similar path to the 959's. The two cars have a similar mentality.)
Put all that together with the phenomenon that almost everybody who sort of likes cars, has money and isn't particularly intelligent seems to be attracted to Ferrari, and it's unsurprising that the price ratio is contrary to the build numbers.
GavinPearson said:
Tom Walkinshaw is a very interesting fellow, and no matter what his success as a team owner and driver was I am sure that as a Salesman and deal maker he was 1000 times better than he was in the previous roles. I'd love to see the transcripts about Arrows, and what you elude to does not surpise me in the least.
Gavin,
I think the case was Morgan Grenfell v Arrow Autosports.
Excerpts of the judge's decision were published at the time ('02) in the motoring press. The judge's comments were absolutely withering.
It's probably on the Internet, although I can't find it in the time that I have available just now.
flemke said:
The value of Supercars is very interesting, the one that I always look at is 959 vs F40. Both were the height of late 80's supercars and direct adversaries. Neither raced a great deal, with perhaps 959 having the edge with the LeMans entries (as 961) and Paris-Dakar success. The 959 was produced in about 5 times less quantity (272 vs 1300+), yet the 959 could have been bought for circa £100k or less in the last year in the UK, whereas the F40 now seems to trade about £175k. So for price vs rarity, the ratio is about 8:1 - thats got to be primarily due to the Ferrari factor.
Guy,
I think that there are a couple of other factors in the F40/959 comparison.
The 959 looks fairly similar to 40 years' worth of 911s and their derivatives. Its exterior details are more resolved than the 911s' in pretty much every way, but the overall impression is essentially the same apart from the rear wing and overhang. In contrast there is nothing else that looks like the F40.
The F40's interior is not special, but it is very purposeful. The 959's looks like most every other Porsche's, so it doesn't even look particularly purposeful.
The 959's engine is probably Porsche's all-time best (in the context of its time), the same one as in the 956/962. There is turbo lag, but with the sequentials it is not extreme. The F40's power delivery is more extreme, even though its engine is less special.
The same applies to the rest of the two cars. The 959 at the time was a technical tour-de-force, but all technology becomes dated. The F40 was more of an OTT fashion statement (in the broadest sense), but in a perhaps timeless fashion.
Then you have the driving dynamics. The 959 is really a very fast GT; even the "Sport" version is soft and comfy. The 959 would benefit greatly from a 150 kg weight reduction, but that's impossible unless you get rid of the front half of the drivetrain. The F40 is hard-edged, and such cars tend to be regarded as more special.
The 959 is beautifully made, and its systems are nicely integrated. Its brakes are the best that I've ever used in a P., and the gearbox equally is superb. But these things are subtleties which tend to be unimportant to the vast bulk of car buyers. The 959 is really a car for dedicated admirers of P., while the F40 is a car with a very broad (if not deep) appeal.
(If in time a car with a faster top speed than the Veyron's is produced, we could see the V.'s desirability take a similar path to the 959's. The two cars have a similar mentality.)
Put all that together with the phenomenon that almost everybody who sort of likes cars, has money and isn't particularly intelligent seems to be attracted to Ferrari, and it's unsurprising that the price ratio is contrary to the build numbers.
Bit of a sweeping generalisation that last bit is it not? Derek Bell for instance bought a Ferrari 550 and has rated it as one of the best cars he has ever driven although not as good as his old....Ferrari 275 GTB/4.
From this it can be drawn, the idea that most Ferrari buyers are unintelligent? I highly doubt that. I do see the argument that someone with money who kind of likes cars would buy a Ferrari, but there are two other aspects to this statement:
1. They are often not unintelligent.
2. This idea that people who have money but don't know about cars, stands for Porsche much more than Ferrari. Many people's safe choice when buiying a 'I-have-money' kind of car is a 911 in that it is a wonderful car, but nobody can tell wheher you're an enthusiast or someone who wants people to think they are.
Combover
combover said:
Put all that together with the phenomenon that almost everybody who sort of likes cars, has money and isn't particularly intelligent seems to be attracted to Ferrari, and it's unsurprising that the price ratio is contrary to the build numbers.
Bit of a sweeping generalisation that last bit is it not? Derek Bell for instance bought a Ferrari 550 and has rated it as one of the best cars he has ever driven although not as good as his old....Ferrari 275 GTB/4.
From this it can be drawn, the idea that most Ferrari buyers are unintelligent? I highly doubt that. I do see the argument that someone with money who kind of likes cars would buy a Ferrari, but there are two other aspects to this statement:
1. They are often not unintelligent.
2. This idea that people who have money but don't know about cars, stands for Porsche much more than Ferrari. Many people's safe choice when buiying a 'I-have-money' kind of car is a 911 in that it is a wonderful car, but nobody can tell wheher you're an enthusiast or someone who wants people to think they are.
Combover
Combover,
What I said is that "almost everybody (of a certain type)...seems to be attracted to Ferrari." I did not say that everybody who is attracted to Ferrari is of that type. If I had said that criminals seem to be attracted to beautiful women, that is not the same as saying that anyone attracted to a beautiful woman is therefore a criminal.
I believe that D. Bell got that 550 in part because it had belonged to his best friend who had died prematurely, so there was a sentimental attachment. I've had a couple 550s and would agree that they are nice looking and have a great engine. At the same time, like all F.'s, the build quality is so-so and the car was roughly 100% overpriced in terms of value-for-money.
I don't want to get into a Porsche/Ferrari debate. I tried to say some complimentary things about the F40 in relation to the 959 despite the fact that I have the latter and not the former.
I'll accept your suggestion that Porsches are often poser's cars. It's just that Ferraris are even more so.
flemke said:
Put all that together with the phenomenon that almost everybody who sort of likes cars, has money and isn't particularly intelligent seems to be attracted to Ferrari, and it's unsurprising that the price ratio is contrary to the build numbers.
Bit of a sweeping generalisation that last bit is it not? Derek Bell for instance bought a Ferrari 550 and has rated it as one of the best cars he has ever driven although not as good as his old....Ferrari 275 GTB/4.
From this it can be drawn, the idea that most Ferrari buyers are unintelligent? I highly doubt that. I do see the argument that someone with money who kind of likes cars would buy a Ferrari, but there are two other aspects to this statement:
1. They are often not unintelligent.
2. This idea that people who have money but don't know about cars, stands for Porsche much more than Ferrari. Many people's safe choice when buiying a 'I-have-money' kind of car is a 911 in that it is a wonderful car, but nobody can tell wheher you're an enthusiast or someone who wants people to think they are.
Combover
Combover,
What I said is that "almost everybody (of a certain type)...seems to be attracted to Ferrari." I did not say that everybody who is attracted to Ferrari is of that type. If I had said that criminals seem to be attracted to beautiful women, that is not the same as saying that anyone attracted to a beautiful woman is therefore a criminal.
I believe that D. Bell got that 550 in part because it had belonged to his best friend who had died prematurely, so there was a sentimental attachment. I've had a couple 550s and would agree that they are nice looking and have a great engine. At the same time, like all F.'s, the build quality is so-so and the car was roughly 100% overpriced in terms of value-for-money.
I don't want to get into a Porsche/Ferrari debate. I tried to say some complimentary things about the F40 in relation to the 959 despite the fact that I have the latter and not the former.
I'll accept your suggestion that Porsches are often poser's cars. It's just that Ferraris are even more so.
I'm not saying that you intended to say that, it's just what it came out like.
That is correct about Derek Bell's 550, but he still loves the car for what it is rather than what is emotionally attached to that particular example.
However, I have to agree that the 550 is not value for money when new, market residulas are a testament to that. The F40 on the other hand is still pretty good value and is very desirable. The Porsche 959 has much more in common with the Ferrari 288 GTO in my opinion as they are both vastly different in character to the stripped out F40.
The problem that I have with the image of Ferrari as opposed to the image of Porsche, is that Ferrari has whored its own name for the sake of money chasing products. Despite this, I find the allure of the F40 is still much more than the allure of the 959 for reasons I could go into but don't have time.
Combover
What about the 288GTO? Looks like most other Ferrari V8s of the preceding decade and is not as capable as the F40, yet it often sells for more than an F40, there were only 273 produced though, so I guess it is rarer. It's probably a closer match to the 959 in some ways, same number produced, similar time frame (ok the Fez is slightly earlier), doesn't look as OTT as the F40, certainly more of a road car than an F40.
Ferrari just has a higher value brand name than Porsche when it comes to collecting cars, I think thats all.
What prices did each car sell for new though? Porsche are usually cheaper than Ferrari in that regard (much cheaper) might have some influence on perceived value I suppose, the people who collect such cars can be funny like that.
Ferrari just has a higher value brand name than Porsche when it comes to collecting cars, I think thats all.
What prices did each car sell for new though? Porsche are usually cheaper than Ferrari in that regard (much cheaper) might have some influence on perceived value I suppose, the people who collect such cars can be funny like that.
I don't think Ferrari have whored themselves or devalued their brand. Most of the merchandise is related to the racing team, not the car side.
"Everybody" knows what a Ferrari is. For road cars it's a two door sports or GT, fast and very expensive with decent handling and beautiful looks. Reliability shouldn't be an issue as Sir has 5 other cars, doesn't he?
What is consistent about Ferrari is delivery of 'good' products near or at the top of their class over the years. Any capable engineer who can look objectively at what they have produced can see the product for what it is - warts and all, and come to a similar conclusion.
There are plenty of car companies out there that devalue themselves by making extremely watered down versions of what they built their reputation on, then after they ditch the watered down models they wait 5 or so years then release an SUV.
IMHO car manufacturers should steer clear of perfume and aftershave, ladies scarves and cufflinks. Matching accessories to the car from leaders in the business such as a well designed pen, emergency kit, driving gloves, snow shovel, warm jacket for convertible owners are just about acceptable.
Would I want a Ferrari? Even a Mondial is a more interesting drive than a four door commutermobile so the answer is a fairly obvious yes, but with lottery winnings or Flemke's cash you face an interesting dilemma. You need a car that isn't just nice, but one that if you're really into cars that everybody who eats sleeps and breathes cars can respect, whilst not picking something a footballer's wife would want. So the F1 is a good start and for me a Ruf 911 would be a good second. Those of us who design cars for a living do however know this isn't ever going to happen so we just chat about it in our spare time.
"Everybody" knows what a Ferrari is. For road cars it's a two door sports or GT, fast and very expensive with decent handling and beautiful looks. Reliability shouldn't be an issue as Sir has 5 other cars, doesn't he?
What is consistent about Ferrari is delivery of 'good' products near or at the top of their class over the years. Any capable engineer who can look objectively at what they have produced can see the product for what it is - warts and all, and come to a similar conclusion.
There are plenty of car companies out there that devalue themselves by making extremely watered down versions of what they built their reputation on, then after they ditch the watered down models they wait 5 or so years then release an SUV.
IMHO car manufacturers should steer clear of perfume and aftershave, ladies scarves and cufflinks. Matching accessories to the car from leaders in the business such as a well designed pen, emergency kit, driving gloves, snow shovel, warm jacket for convertible owners are just about acceptable.
Would I want a Ferrari? Even a Mondial is a more interesting drive than a four door commutermobile so the answer is a fairly obvious yes, but with lottery winnings or Flemke's cash you face an interesting dilemma. You need a car that isn't just nice, but one that if you're really into cars that everybody who eats sleeps and breathes cars can respect, whilst not picking something a footballer's wife would want. So the F1 is a good start and for me a Ruf 911 would be a good second. Those of us who design cars for a living do however know this isn't ever going to happen so we just chat about it in our spare time.
Flemke,
Have you weighed your 959? I have read several articles that seem to suggest it was far heavier than the 1450kg or so weight that was claimed at the time.
I have considered at length a 959 purchase, since it is such an iconic classic for Porsche and it was a car I literally had on my bedroom wall as a teenager.
What has put me off is two thoughts. Firstly that whilst the 959 was amazing at the time, it's performance is matched almost exactly by a 996 Turbo and probably moreso by the upcoming 997 Turbo. Perhaps more importantly, it was the concern over the availablity and price of parts in the event of any mechanical failures or problems, since virtually everything is bespoke to the car.
As an aside, does your car have the stock 450bhp or the 550bhp Porsche powerkit (assuming I have the numbers right for the powerkit).
rgds
Guy
Have you weighed your 959? I have read several articles that seem to suggest it was far heavier than the 1450kg or so weight that was claimed at the time.
I have considered at length a 959 purchase, since it is such an iconic classic for Porsche and it was a car I literally had on my bedroom wall as a teenager.
What has put me off is two thoughts. Firstly that whilst the 959 was amazing at the time, it's performance is matched almost exactly by a 996 Turbo and probably moreso by the upcoming 997 Turbo. Perhaps more importantly, it was the concern over the availablity and price of parts in the event of any mechanical failures or problems, since virtually everything is bespoke to the car.
As an aside, does your car have the stock 450bhp or the 550bhp Porsche powerkit (assuming I have the numbers right for the powerkit).
rgds
Guy
Gavin,
I cannot disagree with much of what you say. With regard to two points:
GavinPearson said:Why would commercial over-exposure and dumbing-down be any less crass for a racing team than it would be for a road car manufacturer or a rock singer or a cartoon character?
I don't think Ferrari have whored themselves or devalued their brand. Most of the merchandise is related to the racing team, not the car side.
GavinPearson said:If we contemplate whether the recent cars (355, 456, 550, 360, 430) were good products near or at the top of their class, isn't there an issue of how to define the class? The class in which the F.'s are put is defined by the cars' purpose and the cars' cost, and usually if not always the F. in question is much more expensive than anything else in the same "class". This tends to undermine the objective of comparing like with like.
What is consistent about Ferrari is delivery of 'good' products near or at the top of their class over the years. Any capable engineer who can look objectively at what they have produced can see the product for what it is - warts and all, and come to a similar conclusion.
Cheers.
Hi
What a fasinating thread, I've read the threads relating to your F1 previously, flemke, and this one is just as good. You really do deserve all the plaudits for answering all these questions. Most of us only see such fabulous machinery from behind barriers.
I can whole heartedly recommend the "Driving Ambition" book. I bought my copy in Dublin in 1997 (I have the receipt) for less than £25 sterling, I dont think the shop paid any attention to what it was, I shoudl have bought 2. Its on my "Precious" shelf! Doug Nye is one of my favourite motoring authors, his connections go way back with Maclaren, I'd recommend people keep an eye out for other works from him (Cooper Cars and BRM in particular)
Somebody up above mentioned the Yamaha OX99, I've never seen one in the flesh, would you have any opinion on its dynamics? Does anybody?
A silly observation perhaps, but I understand from your previous comments, and what I've read, about how fantastic the central driving position is for placing the car... thing is even with the new RHD toll booths at the ring you're still gonna be stuffed, serves ya right for owning such a super supercar!!! (begrudgery not entirely authentic)
What a fasinating thread, I've read the threads relating to your F1 previously, flemke, and this one is just as good. You really do deserve all the plaudits for answering all these questions. Most of us only see such fabulous machinery from behind barriers.
I can whole heartedly recommend the "Driving Ambition" book. I bought my copy in Dublin in 1997 (I have the receipt) for less than £25 sterling, I dont think the shop paid any attention to what it was, I shoudl have bought 2. Its on my "Precious" shelf! Doug Nye is one of my favourite motoring authors, his connections go way back with Maclaren, I'd recommend people keep an eye out for other works from him (Cooper Cars and BRM in particular)
Somebody up above mentioned the Yamaha OX99, I've never seen one in the flesh, would you have any opinion on its dynamics? Does anybody?
A silly observation perhaps, but I understand from your previous comments, and what I've read, about how fantastic the central driving position is for placing the car... thing is even with the new RHD toll booths at the ring you're still gonna be stuffed, serves ya right for owning such a super supercar!!! (begrudgery not entirely authentic)
GuyR said:
Flemke,
Have you weighed your 959? I have read several articles that seem to suggest it was far heavier than the 1450kg or so weight that was claimed at the time.
I have considered at length a 959 purchase, since it is such an iconic classic for Porsche and it was a car I literally had on my bedroom wall as a teenager.
What has put me off is two thoughts. Firstly that whilst the 959 was amazing at the time, it's performance is matched almost exactly by a 996 Turbo and probably moreso by the upcoming 997 Turbo. Perhaps more importantly, it was the concern over the availablity and price of parts in the event of any mechanical failures or problems, since virtually everything is bespoke to the car.
As an aside, does your car have the stock 450bhp or the 550bhp Porsche powerkit (assuming I have the numbers right for the powerkit).
rgds
Guy
Guy,
I don't know what the weight is. The car was cornerweighted earlier this year but I didn't bother to ask; maybe I'll give them a call.
As you probably know, they intended to do two versions: Comfort and Sport. Out of the 250 or whatever built, only 6 clients ordered Sport!
However, Al Holbert (of 962 fame) thought that he might be able to import some to the States (where the car had not been type-approved) as "race cars" but sell them for the road. So they made another 29 Sports and added roll cages. The cage interfered with the manual window winders that the Sport model had, so the "US Sport" had electric windows like the Comfort did.
Once the first batch of US Sports got to the States, an insightful Dep't of Transportation inspector recognised at once that these were not true race cars. The first batch was sent back and Porsche were stuck with 28 of the 29, which they eventually sold mostly in Europe.
Supposedly the kerbweight of the Comfort was 1550 and of the standard Sport was 1350. If you added on to 1350 the cage and window motors, that's probably another 40 kgs, so maybe you're talking a kerbweight of 1400. As we know, KW and real-world weight are quite different.
All I can say is that the Sport feels like it weighs, I don't know, maybe 1600, and much of that weight feels like it's at the back.
As I have said on here before, the 993 Turbo S is a similar but "better" car than the 959 in most respects. The 959 is an acquired taste, in the same sense that a 2.7 RS might be. Performance-wise, the 2.7 is inferior to a Boxster S, but which would give you more driving pleasure and a more vivid sense of occasion?
Mine has 580 bhp. I've also changed to firmer dampers and put more modern tyres on it; the Bridgestone run-flats are too flexible laterally and yet too stiff vertically.
green-blood said:
A silly observation perhaps, but I understand from your previous comments, and what I've read, about how fantastic the central driving position is for placing the car... thing is even with the new RHD toll booths at the ring you're still gonna be stuffed, serves ya right for owning such a super supercar!!! (begrudgery not entirely authentic)
The toll machine at the 'ring can be a pain. Fortunately, on most occasions one of the considerate marshals will come over and lend a hand, sparing one the palaver of getting out of the car. I don't drive the car on the 'ring that much anyhow, except for a bit of testing.
The peage barriers on Continental toll roads are a different story altogether. Those lazy shites in the glass booths wouldn't climb out to lend a hand if you were lying on the ground in front of the barriers and bleeding to death.
Flemke,
Thanks for that. I'm familier with the issue of the DOT/Bill Gates/'Canepa Design' story for the US cars (where many 959s are now re-migrating to), but had not realised that the later Sports were effectively added for the US.
It is the 'sense of occasion' aspect of the 959 that particularly interests me. I only make occasional journeys in my sports cars as opposed to the more usable saloons/estates that accomodate my wife/children. Whilst my Ruf GT2 in particular is an incredibly accomplished car on track and for high speeds, it is not a car I really ever choose to drive other than to/from events (VMax, trackdays, the 'ring, european tours etc), nor is it a car with the same sense of history as a 959.
Since I have been gathering additional cars recently, I am finding obviously that individually each get used less. Clearly you have large number of cars, many of which are firmly supercars. How often do you find you are able to drive each car and is there a point you have felt you have aquired too many i.e. do they start becoming objects you look at more than drive?
rgds
Guy
Thanks for that. I'm familier with the issue of the DOT/Bill Gates/'Canepa Design' story for the US cars (where many 959s are now re-migrating to), but had not realised that the later Sports were effectively added for the US.
It is the 'sense of occasion' aspect of the 959 that particularly interests me. I only make occasional journeys in my sports cars as opposed to the more usable saloons/estates that accomodate my wife/children. Whilst my Ruf GT2 in particular is an incredibly accomplished car on track and for high speeds, it is not a car I really ever choose to drive other than to/from events (VMax, trackdays, the 'ring, european tours etc), nor is it a car with the same sense of history as a 959.
Since I have been gathering additional cars recently, I am finding obviously that individually each get used less. Clearly you have large number of cars, many of which are firmly supercars. How often do you find you are able to drive each car and is there a point you have felt you have aquired too many i.e. do they start becoming objects you look at more than drive?
rgds
Guy
Andy M said:
The peage barriers on Continental toll roads are a different story altogether. Those lazy shites in the glass booths wouldn't climb out to lend a hand if you were lying on the ground in front of the barriers and bleeding to death.
Priceless!
Too true. Next time that your coming into France organise yourself with the automatic toll payment system to avoid use of credit cards OR crossing the palms of the lazy shites with silver! The system below covers the whole country (at last - previously they were route specific).
www.sanef.com/telepeage/telepeage-sanef.htm
flemke said:
Put all that together with the phenomenon that almost everybody who sort of likes cars, has money and isn't particularly intelligent seems to be attracted to Ferrari, and it's unsurprising that the price ratio is contrary to the build numbers.
Bit of a sweeping generalisation that last bit is it not? Derek Bell for instance bought a Ferrari 550 and has rated it as one of the best cars he has ever driven although not as good as his old....Ferrari 275 GTB/4.
From this it can be drawn, the idea that most Ferrari buyers are unintelligent? I highly doubt that. I do see the argument that someone with money who kind of likes cars would buy a Ferrari, but there are two other aspects to this statement:
1. They are often not unintelligent.
2. This idea that people who have money but don't know about cars, stands for Porsche much more than Ferrari. Many people's safe choice when buiying a 'I-have-money' kind of car is a 911 in that it is a wonderful car, but nobody can tell wheher you're an enthusiast or someone who wants people to think they are.
Combover
Combover,
What I said is that "almost everybody (of a certain type)...seems to be attracted to Ferrari." I did not say that everybody who is attracted to Ferrari is of that type. If I had said that criminals seem to be attracted to beautiful women, that is not the same as saying that anyone attracted to a beautiful woman is therefore a criminal.
I believe that D. Bell got that 550 in part because it had belonged to his best friend who had died prematurely, so there was a sentimental attachment. I've had a couple 550s and would agree that they are nice looking and have a great engine. At the same time, like all F.'s, the build quality is so-so and the car was roughly 100% overpriced in terms of value-for-money.
I don't want to get into a Porsche/Ferrari debate. I tried to say some complimentary things about the F40 in relation to the 959 despite the fact that I have the latter and not the former.
I'll accept your suggestion that Porsches are often poser's cars. It's just that Ferraris are even more so.
Bloody hell Flemke. 959, F1, CGT, Turbo S. Any cars in the garage that aren't icons? Surely there's a Maestro, or something lurking around that we can take the piss out of?
On a slightly different one, your servicing costs must be sizeabele to say the least, I read of a certain Zymol 959 owner who shelled out over 10 grand to have the individual tyres changed along with the sensors!
Please tell me that you bought one with can-can red leather, just to make me feel better, and that in there somewhere lies some kind of distaste on cars, as it reads pretty impressively so far. Bastard........
tiga84 said:
Bloody hell Flemke. 959, F1, CGT, Turbo S. Any cars in the garage that aren't icons? Surely there's a Maestro, or something lurking around that we can take the piss out of?
On a slightly different one, your servicing costs must be sizeabele to say the least, I read of a certain Zymol 959 owner who shelled out over 10 grand to have the individual tyres changed along with the sensors!
Please tell me that you bought one with can-can red leather, just to make me feel better, and that in there somewhere lies some kind of distaste on cars, as it reads pretty impressively so far. Bastard........
You can change the tyres without affecting the wheel-sensors. The changeover only cost the price of the new tyres.
I couldn't bear the car with the can-can leather, which is a Comfort version anyhow and therefore unappealing.
The servicing costs aren't small, but if you use a car fairly regularly (once every three-four weeks, try for more often) it will stay in good shape.
GuyR said:If you are lucky enough to be able to afford more than one car, it's a good natural boundary: don't own more cars than you have time to use. If you've reached that boundary but are sorely tempted by something else, you can't buy it unless you also get rid of something.
...is there a point you have felt you have aquired too many i.e. do they start becoming objects you look at more than drive?
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff