Singer or 2.7RS?
Author
Discussion

slodge

Original Poster:

513 posts

191 months

Sunday 28th July 2013
quotequote all
Just watching Top Gear and their review of the Singer which is amazing, if rather expensive.

£280k RRP so would you have that or a 2.7RS???

graemel

7,225 posts

246 months

Sunday 28th July 2013
quotequote all
2.7 RS

Fluffsri

3,411 posts

225 months

Sunday 28th July 2013
quotequote all
For the amount of money the Singer cost I would have hoped for airbrushed graphics and not stickers that were starting to peel off.

mohitos

1,313 posts

228 months

Sunday 28th July 2013
quotequote all
One of each wink

BertBert

21,262 posts

240 months

Sunday 28th July 2013
quotequote all
graemel said:
2.7 RS
ditto

slodge

Original Poster:

513 posts

191 months

Sunday 28th July 2013
quotequote all
mohitos said:
One of each wink
Nice.

Love the Singer and whilst it would be exclusive and bespoke, I can imagine the secondary market would be very limited compared to 2.7RS! That said I met a guy at Spa that had dropped some serious cash on a Tuthill ST recreation, not quite the same price point as Singer, but same idea. Built for him, combined best of old with new.


V8KSN

4,713 posts

213 months

Sunday 28th July 2013
quotequote all
Singer or 2.7RS?

Singer - all day long!

First thing I would buy if my numbers came up (after a few months spent deciding on the spec) cloud9

Geneve

4,018 posts

248 months

Sunday 28th July 2013
quotequote all
Singer may well be very nice, but the 2.7RS has to be a safer place to put that much money, and has all the history and purity of an original factory homologation.

Schnellmann

1,893 posts

233 months

Sunday 28th July 2013
quotequote all
Rather have a 2.7 RS rep based on an early 911. Friend has one. I can't tell it
apart from a real one. Drives amazing and costs a fraction of a real one.

Koln-RS

4,122 posts

241 months

Sunday 28th July 2013
quotequote all
For me it would have to be the real deal - the 2.7RS

Singer is fascinating, but didn't like the stickers down the side - bit cheap and nasty.

pistolp

1,719 posts

251 months

Sunday 28th July 2013
quotequote all
Singer much more useable and more reliable but much less secure financially obviously. Likelihood is it'll drop like a stone should you want to sell it. That's what put me off, its also a bit caricature looking. Drove it recently when I was out in LA. Drives well and is beautifully made.
I had a 2.7 before. Lovely thing but they are investments now. To me it just doesn't live up to its price tag in terms of driving experience. Everyone is different but 250-400k is alot of money for a road going 70s 911. The singer is alot more exciting to drive.
To all those who can't decide, even if its hypothetical, I'd say try both and then decide.

SportClassic228

37 posts

186 months

Tuesday 6th August 2013
quotequote all
Singer. Easy. Surely not bought with resale value a concern to buyer? Very expensive but beautifully executed. It's all in the detail. You pay for the privilege - I would if I could.

mollytherocker

14,464 posts

238 months

Tuesday 6th August 2013
quotequote all
I would love a singer, they look fabulous and are obviously superbly made and executed.

But, over a 2.7RS?

Norfolk & Chance.

graemel

7,225 posts

246 months

Tuesday 6th August 2013
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Agreed it is the one thing that ruins the proportion of the car. I'd sacrifice the big calipers to get smaller diameter wheels.
The bizarre thing when I think about it. The Singer is actually a more usuable propostion. If you sink £300K into a Singer you know you are going to take a hit on resale. With 2.7 RS tourings at £300K and Lightweights at £500K and rising you may feel like you want to protect your investment and therefore it becomes less usuable.
A conundrum that I would like to have the money to fathom out.


Shurv

1,024 posts

189 months

Tuesday 6th August 2013
quotequote all
Singer. If you had a genuine 2.7 RS you'd never dare to drive it due to it's value,as every drive potentially reduces it. A singer has been designed to drive with the modern electronics and brakes etc. I have toys to use, not to look at, and have always had a rule, if I don't use them, they get sold. I'd never use a genuine RS, but I'd use a Singer all the time. Agree ref the stickers, a cheap finish to a well executed car. Also, I'd rather have a Singer than an Eagle E type.

BertBert

21,262 posts

240 months

Tuesday 6th August 2013
quotequote all
I'm not convinced that driving a real RS will devalue it. Yes if it's a pristine, super low miles collector's car, but most are not l.ike that.
BErt

Technomad

753 posts

192 months

Tuesday 6th August 2013
quotequote all
Both, preferably, for different reasons. But for the ultimate usable ANALOGUE sports car, the Singer, every time. It does more for me than any of the the £250k digital dreams that are out there at the moment.

mrdemon

21,146 posts

294 months

Tuesday 6th August 2013
quotequote all
slodge said:
Just watching Top Gear and their review of the Singer which is amazing, if rather expensive.

£280k RRP so would you have that or a 2.7RS???
f430 scud and 140k change

jackal

11,251 posts

311 months

Tuesday 6th August 2013
quotequote all
993 c2, 996 gt3, 599 GTB, 991 GT3, Elise S160

thegreenhell

23,902 posts

248 months

Wednesday 7th August 2013
quotequote all
It wouldn't surprise me if the sort of person spending that amount on a Singer already owned an original 2.7 RS.