Lots of 675LTs for sale..

[breadvan]

flemke said:

andrew said:

flemke said:

Having spent my career assessing and dealing with risk, I can assure you that it's rather more complicated than "risk is risk".

Regardless of that, my overarching point is that, if there is an organisation to whom I have been very loyal and supportive and to whom I have paid a great deal of money over many years, I do not expect to be lied to by them.

then you'll know that the first rule of risk is not to expect

You prove my point that risk is not risk.

Are you in some sort of competition with RamboLambo?

Edited by breadvan on Saturday 25th June 01:33

[MDL111]

The more I read about the 675, the more I want one. It souunds like it is great to drive and somehow the changes make the design coherent, while I always thought the 650 looked like 2 different cars cut up and stuck together.

Unfortunately I dont have anywhere near enough money to buy one, so would not mind values dropping ....

I also think a spyder seems somehow wrong, just as a GT3RS spyder seems wrong. Having said that, if I wanted a spyder I woukd rather buy a 675 than a 650 because as somebody above said, it is still mostly a road car with occasional track use

I can fully understand the point that some coupe buyers are not happy about the spyder not having been announced as a possibility from the get go. i seem to remember there were similar grumblings when porsche built the GT2RS and said that would be the last one (I think referring to 997 RS in general) only to then announce the 4.0 RS a little while later


For now academic for me anyway

[RamboLambo]

Would love a 675 LT Spider or coupe for that matter but at the price premium I think the standard 650S is a better overall proposition.

Its a bit like footballers wages really with diminishing returns and massive premiums to get the best of the best.
Premiership Strikers command a premium over premiership defenders and the gap say between a League 2 defender and a top premiership striker can be x 200 £ per week but he wont be 200 (10,000% )x the player.

Its fantastic the car is getting the recognition and accolades it is and can only be good for the rest of the brand and in particular the 650S its based on

[isaldiri]

MDL111 said:

i seem to remember there were similar grumblings when porsche built the GT2RS and said that would be the last one (I think referring to 997 RS in general) only to then announce the 4.0 RS a little while later

Was it really Porsche who stated the gt2rs was 'the last one' or was it mainly suggested by the media..? Porsche seem to have upset plenty re allocations recently but they have been pretty good at keeping their word as far as i can tell.

[MDL111]

isaldiri said:

MDL111 said:

i seem to remember there were similar grumblings when porsche built the GT2RS and said that would be the last one (I think referring to 997 RS in general) only to then announce the 4.0 RS a little while later

Was it really Porsche who stated the gt2rs was 'the last one' or was it mainly suggested by the media..? Porsche seem to have upset plenty re allocations recently but they have been pretty good at keeping their word as far as i can tell.

Actually good point - cant remeber if it was P or media, too long ago. Just remember people were upset.

[Gandahar]

I agree with flemke here.

This is supposed to to be the track oriented version of the 650S. Therefore it should have been the ultimate in the 650 line before the next generation came along. Which means paired down like you would expect Lotus to do etc. Doesn't matter if you are not a good enough driver to exploit that on track, that's a different subject.

So instead they do the hairdressers car which adds 40kg and raises the c of g also. That is not the Mclaren I know.

Actually it is. It is the Mclaren bean counters and marketing folk. Hopefully in the long run the coupe 675LT will keep prices up just for being more in the Mclaren spirit.

So disappointed with Mclaren to be honest. Just $$$$$$$$$

[koorby]

Geezers, first world problems eh?

This McLaren forum seems to be dominated by discussions about:

- depreciation (ad nauseum), seriously if you are worried about depreciation go buy a Skoda
- bad/greedy/evil McLaren releasing unannounced new models (how tf is that a negative?)
- a whole lot of penis size competitions about 'my Macca is better than yours, don't buy any other model because I am just reaffirming my choice'
- dubious claims of McLaren ownership from fanboys/wannabees

It's tedious trying to do fact finding about the marque in the midst of all the BS here.

/rant over

[NickOrangeCars]

koorby said:

Geezers, first world problems eh?

This McLaren forum seems to be dominated by discussions about:

- depreciation (ad nauseum), seriously if you are worried about depreciation go buy a Skoda
- bad/greedy/evil McLaren releasing unannounced new models (how tf is that a negative?)
- a whole lot of penis size competitions about 'my Macca is better than yours, don't buy any other model because I am just reaffirming my choice'
- dubious claims of McLaren ownership from fanboys/wannabees

It's tedious trying to do fact finding about the marque in the midst of all the BS here.

/rant over

thats why we have a secret Facebook group for owners

[RamboLambo]

NickOrangeCars said:

thats why we have a secret Facebook group for owners

Only the great and learned need apply

[flemke]

koorby said:

Geezers, first world problems eh?

This McLaren forum seems to be dominated by discussions about:

- depreciation (ad nauseum), seriously if you are worried about depreciation go buy a Skoda
- bad/greedy/evil McLaren releasing unannounced new models (how tf is that a negative?)
- a whole lot of penis size competitions about 'my Macca is better than yours, don't buy any other model because I am just reaffirming my choice'
- dubious claims of McLaren ownership from fanboys/wannabees

It's tedious trying to do fact finding about the marque in the midst of all the BS here.

/rant over

Start a thread, bro! Ask for a fact!

[twoblacklines]

NickOrangeCars said:

thats why we have a secret Facebook group for owners

So secret you go on about it in every McLaren thread.

[NRS]

Slickhillsy said:

flemke said:

Breaking a promise is intentional, dishonest and lacking in integrity.

Christ you are at risk of sending yourself to a very bitter early grave with this non-stop narrative! Can you not contribute in a more positive way, let it go man - we get it already...

Both sides are "right". It's a company that exists to make money, so they will try and maximise that. Some people may not mind the company changing its mind. Others will. Those people who feel they have been let down by the company may well choose to avoid it in future, which is their right. The company made a business decision that the money from the extra cars sold will be more than the money they will lose not selling them. It's a risk for McLaren too - ps off too many people and they will have issues in the future, versus maximising cash now.

[Anjum]

I've got a lot of love for McLaren Automotive right now. They're making exciting cars that people desire.

I get that longstanding customers maybe not happy with the direction they are going and of course can refuse to buy any new cars - and may even offload their cars - as has been commented previously - it's their right. But they are a business and do need to hit their revenue targets and continue to grow as a business (as to what point is too many is a different conversation).

I hope to be in one of their cars real soon - and not evan RamboLambo can put me off (sorry RamboLambo no offence intended - but couldn't resist). I respect flemke's view of the 675LT/LTS/HS/CF, not sure that I agree regarding P1/P1 GTR/P1 GTR LM (and I would guess a P1 Spider will be a long soon a la Ferrari LeFerrari). What's wrong with using a business model that has proven to work? And to gather valuable insight and data as to how typical owners drive their super sports cars and hyper cars, which enables software updates for active car management for road cars that have been derived from their GTR program? This is better for all of us - as we are not Bruno Senna or Colin Goodwin (as much as we may like to think so!!! )

The world is a different place to where it was when the F1 was launched and I believe we should applaud McLaren for being British, making cars that us PetrolHeads want and that are exciting to drive. I think that the CEO is doing a great job - and has built a great team around him to produce cars that will be desirable for a long time! Well done Mike Flewitt!

If you don't want one - then don't buy one - but I'm sure I speak for most of us - if you do - then just get one!

[flemke]

NRS said:

Slickhillsy said:

flemke said:

Breaking a promise is intentional, dishonest and lacking in integrity.

Christ you are at risk of sending yourself to a very bitter early grave with this non-stop narrative! Can you not contribute in a more positive way, let it go man - we get it already...

Both sides are "right". It's a company that exists to make money, so they will try and maximise that. Some people may not mind the company changing its mind. Others will. Those people who feel they have been let down by the company may well choose to avoid it in future, which is their right. The company made a business decision that the money from the extra cars sold will be more than the money they will lose not selling them. It's a risk for McLaren too - ps off too many people and they will have issues in the future, versus maximising cash now.

With respect, I have to disagree that both sides are "right".

It is true that both sides have their reasons and motives for their actions, but that is not the same thing as necessarily being right. A criminal has a reason for committing a crime - there is a logic to it - but that is not a defence for doing it.

The risk that people in future will be misled by McLaren is now reduced, in the sense that any informed buyer will be less inclined to trust the company in the first place. That is bound to affect future sales and future prices. One cannot predict the size of the effect, but it is inescapable that it will be there.

It doesn't matter how much money or how many cars a person might have, people do not like being misled or commitments to them being broken. Yes, companies exist to make money, but they do not, and should not, exist to make money at all costs.

It is ironic that we are talking about McLaren, the CEO of which has over the years so often spoken of the importance of sporting ethics and the correct treatment of ones business "partners".

[flemke]

Anjum said:

The world is a different place to where it was when the F1 was launched and I believe we should applaud McLaren for being British, making cars that us PetrolHeads want and that are exciting to drive.

Yep.

Anjum said:

I think that the CEO is doing a great job - and has built a great team around him to produce cars that will be desirable for a long time! Well done Mike Flewitt!

Hmmm....I don' think you will find unanimous agreement amongst McLaren owners on that one!

Anjum said:

If you don't want one - then don't buy one - but I'm sure I speak for most of us - if you do - then just get one!

Makes sense going forward, but doesn't change things for the folks who have already been let down.

[The RealStormBringer]

MarkNC said:

Yes it does however people still could have gotten out of their cars at a profit once the announcement was made. If they chose not to then they chose so knowing full well what to expect. But as the world finds out more and more what an amazing car the 675LT is, and as McLaren opens more dealerships to expose their cars to more markets & consumers, then I think those values will start going up again. Being on the top of Top Gears lap time leaderboard, and getting rave reviews, isn't going to hurt either.

McLaren's biggest problem is there aren't enough dealers in close proximity to enough buyers so that enough people can discover how amazing their cars are and start to build up higher levels of demand. I think the sports series (i.e. 570S, 570GT) are going to really help them over time but it will take time. In the USA the dealers are spaced way too far apart and many large markets are unserved. I buy, and service, my McLarens from a dealer over 400 miles away but most car buyers won't do that.

I was reading this thread last week and can not believe this topic was dragged out again. Not responding to this post but to some of the past posts in this thread.

I can not comment on how you do business or your approach because I do not know you and if I state anything it would be a guess and ignorance of not knowing you. You seem to be a successful good spirited person. I can only really comment on my approach or beliefs. You asked did Flemke ever change his mind....well I have but not when it comes to something as McLaren did or is doing. You can slice and dice the whole matter but the end result is McLaren lied. And it was the whole route in which they took that made matters worse. You can state McLaren listened to those that wanted a spider and made one or that a spider was a greater positive than not building one. They lied. Look at it this way what would you rather hear the good news first or the bad news first. If you start at a zero level and hear good news first it brings you into the positive and the bad news brings the numbers down. However if you listen to the bad news first you drop down into the negative right off the bat and the good news will bring you back up but never to the level of having heard the good news first.

This is what I stated some time ago about McLaren's behavior. They didn't know what to do and decided the greedy way. Flemke made a good point some time ago that if money was an issue and they were in a desperate need that they have a good amount of supporters with very deep pockets to approach. When I visited MTC in April? of last year I mentioned my conversation with Dodge SRT about chopping off the top of cars and for the LT the answer was NO. In early summer I can trace (maybe earlier) the decision to make a spider LT but did anyone inform the LT coupe owners? On the boards anyone that mentioned the topic of LT spider was laughed at. So late summer various people asked Flewitt if there was going to be a spider and he tried to explain the reasons of why they decided to go forward with an LT spider. However no official response by McLaren was made. At the same time in the fall rumors persisted and a handful of complainers were quieted by receiving some free MSO options to their coupes by Flewitt directly. Non disclosure agreements were signed and that was McLaren's way of keeping clients happy I guess-a peace offering.

What they failed to do was offer this to all coupe owners/order holders. So to keep it short they announced the spider a few days before the winter ball when conveniently all the spec deposits were in for the coupe. Not a coincidence I might add but a calculated move. Some say good business decision to give into demand and more cars on the road. They lied. What about the original coupe owners/orders they could have been offered a free service or warranty extension but received nothing but the shaft. They know what they did was wrong but still went forward with their route. You tell me was this a good decision? I cut all the BS out a long time ago and said it comes down to what's right and what's wrong. What McLaren did was wrong and no amount of commentary is going to change that. Issues can get very complicated in business & life but I do try to use that simple approach of right and wrong on most things. Very hard when you have worked in clandestine organizations within the US government but I do try in the long run.

I do know that many people did complain about the LT spider decision and for myself I'm surprised about all those that could care less. I view it as those going swimming with the current in order to survive. One point I do not understand was how could the manufacture of the spider bring the cost of the coupe down when those prices of the coupes were already set before a spider was decided on? Just more profit for McLaren is the way I view it.

[NRS]

flemke said:

With respect, I have to disagree that both sides are "right".

It is true that both sides have their reasons and motives for their actions, but that is not the same thing as necessarily being right. A criminal has a reason for committing a crime - there is a logic to it - but that is not a defence for doing it.

The risk that people in future will be misled by McLaren is now reduced, in the sense that any informed buyer will be less inclined to trust the company in the first place. That is bound to affect future sales and future prices. One cannot predict the size of the effect, but it is inescapable that it will be there.

It doesn't matter how much money or how many cars a person might have, people do not like being misled or commitments to them being broken. Yes, companies exist to make money, but they do not, and should not, exist to make money at all costs.

It is ironic that we are talking about McLaren, the CEO of which has over the years so often spoken of the importance of sporting ethics and the correct treatment of ones business "partners".

Perhaps right is not the correct word as you said, although it's why I put it in inverted commas. In my personal opinion I would be much more inclined to agree with you - if a company or person has promised something they shouldn't change it even if it benefits them. I know another McLaren owner who wasn't 100% happy with what has been communicated either. But some don't really care. In terms of the company maximising profits for shareholders then as long as they don't annoy enough customers then it may well benefit them, even if it is unethical to some.

[subirg]

What bizarre logic. Yes, mclaren let some owners down by making a spider, but they also offered those buyers to chance to have one. That's essentially giving all coupe owners a massive discount off the spider by cashing in on their coupes at a significant profit and then promptly walking straight into a spider that will no doubt generate a huge investment return, and far more than the coupe ever would. How is that treating customers badly?

[nutbehinddawheel]

subirg said:

What bizarre logic. Yes, mclaren let some owners down by making a spider, but they also offered those buyers to chance to have one. That's essentially giving all coupe owners a massive discount off the spider by cashing in on their coupes at a significant profit and then promptly walking straight into a spider that will no doubt generate a huge investment return, and far more than the coupe ever would. How is that treating customers badly?

Agreed .
Far from feeling conned misled ,675customers already clambering for the P14 ,due next year I believe

[flemke]

subirg said:

What bizarre logic. Yes, mclaren let some owners down by making a spider, but they also offered those buyers to chance to have one. That's essentially giving all coupe owners a massive discount off the spider by cashing in on their coupes at a significant profit and then promptly walking straight into a spider that will no doubt generate a huge investment return, and far more than the coupe ever would. How is that treating customers badly?

Simple.

Not all coupe buyers would have preferred a spider. Indeed I think you will find that the majority of coupe buyers would not have rather had a spider, for the simple reason that the ethos of the 675LT coupe is as a lightweight, purposeful driver's car, which is not the same thing as a cabriolet designed for a wind-in-your-hair frolic to the country club or hours spent circling Harrods.

Because of the promise to make no more than 500 cars, McLaren were able to charge coupe buyers a premium over what they could have charged if the promise had been to make no more than 1040 cars, which is what it turned out to be.

A coupe buyer paid over the odds for his/her car, and now the company has substantially reduced (my own estimate has been by approx £75k, and I still think that is the right order of magnitude) the value of each car by breaking its commitment to that coupe buyer.

People defend McLaren's decision on the basis that it was good for McLaren (in other words, a defence of selfishness at the expense of honesty), and good for the spider buyers.

Yes, it was good for the spider buyers, but there was no obligation to the spider buyers - no promise had been made to them.

The coupe buyers took the risk that this would be a great car, and paid extra for a relatively small build-run. McLaren's obligation was to only the coupe buyers, yet it screwed the coupe buyers whilst helping itself and the spider people.