kinggremlin :
[citation][nom]tuanies[/nom]When compared to vehicles that cost $300k+, yes its quite the bargain![/citation]
There are many important aspects to a car that can't be measured with a stopwatch. At $85k when first released, it was a bargain for sure. It was also being sold for a loss. Which made it a bogus comparison to other cars that were sold for a profit. Now that the price has jumped to $110k, it isn't really the same "bargain" it was before. At that price the downsides of the car, most notably the Walmart interior become real negatives.
If you can afford a $110,000 car, you can very likely afford $150,000, which would get you a much nicer 911 Turbo or V10 Audi R8. Both would be a tick slower on a track, which is meaningless on the road where both the Audi and Porsche would be superior.
There are many important aspects to a car that can't be measured with a stopwatch. At $85k when first released, it was a bargain for sure. It was also being sold for a loss. Which made it a bogus comparison to other cars that were sold for a profit. Now that the price has jumped to $110k, it isn't really the same "bargain" it was before. At that price the downsides of the car, most notably the Walmart interior become real negatives.
If you can afford a $110,000 car, you can very likely afford $150,000, which would get you a much nicer 911 Turbo or V10 Audi R8. Both would be a tick slower on a track, which is meaningless on the road where both the Audi and Porsche would be superior.
Some people want different things. I could never spend that much money on a car. I'd rather save some cash and get a Cadillac CTS-V Wagon or F10 BMW M5, or even an Audi RS6 Avant if they made it stateside. I think too practical, so performance wagons will always be my love . And as fun as the power and performance was, rush hour traffic is always a reality check that says the car isn't very practical.