Gumpert Apollo S or Bugatti Veyron?

[TheCracker]

If you can afford a Veyron, do you think you will consider how much it gonna cost to maintain it?

For starters rich people don't get rich by throwing money away. Why do you think there are so many low milage Veyrons on the market?

Secondly, i was pointing out to JJ72 that he was wrong to assume that Veyron ownership was an investment.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

For starters rich people don't get rich by throwing money away. Why do you think there are so many low milage Veyrons on the market?

Secondly, i was pointing out to JJ72 that he was wrong to assume that Veyron ownership was an investment.

Though like you I don't agree with him, he does have a point about the Veyron...it can be an investment...long term, short term you'll never get your money back. However with each new reincarnation of the car we will see the value go down on one and the value of the other be sought out and go up. I can see the SS being a long term investment, but not the 16.4 and for obvious reasons, one is the former record holder and the other is the new record holder. It's like saying why would I want the Z06 vette when I can have the faster ZR1 vette.

Like you said rich people aren't going to throw their money away that easily if they see no gain in spending the extra 500K to 1Mil then they wont buy. If a car can do everything the Veyron does for say anywhere from 100K to 1mil, they'll probably buy that before the Veyron. If they're looking for an investment then they'll probably get a F40 Ferrari or a Mclaren F1. Better yet they'll go out and buy a real Bugatti or old Bently or Rolls Royce that are well documented money makers.

 

[TheCracker]

Though like you I don't agree with him, he does have a point about the Veyron...it can be an investment...long term, short term you'll never get your money back. However with each new reincarnation of the car we will see the value go down on one and the value of the other be sought out and go up. I can see the SS being a long term investment, but not the 16.4 and for obvious reasons, one is the former record holder and the other is the new record holder.

I don't think there's any reason to expect either 16.4 or SS Veyron to ever be an investment. Used Enzos have always increased in value over the RRP, and are now worth more than a similar used Veyron even though they cost half the price of one when new.

The Veyron's USP is it's top speed. In years to come that figure will have been beaten many times over. All that leaves you with is a plush VW with extortionate running costs. It's a wealthy persons status symbol, not an enthusiasts car. Once the novelty of owning one has worn off and something else has caught their interests, they'll just off-load them.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I don't think there's any reason to expect either 16.4 or SS Veyron to ever be an investment. Used Enzos have always increased in value over the RRP, and are now worth more than a similar used Veyron even though they cost half the price of one when new.

The Veyron's USP is it's top speed. In years to come that figure will have been beaten many times over. All that leaves you with is a plush VW with extortionate running costs. It's a wealthy persons status symbol, not an enthusiasts car. Once the novelty of owning one has worn off and something else has caught their interests, they'll just off-load them.

True. I think a real car collector would be out scanning for vintage Bugatti's that are worth the money or vintage ferrari, porsche and Lambos as well as looking for oddities worth money like the CLK-GTR and 911 GT1 or an original GT40.

 

[Exorcet]

As people get richer, the gap between what they can afford and another rich person shrinks. I'm sure a guy with $1 billion can afford 99.99% of the things a guy worth $100 billion can. You can't compare $400k car vs $2.5 million car to a $5 sandwich vs $10 sandwich.

Yeah, a guy with $10000000000000000000000000000000 dollars could afford both cars easily (but, he would still not be infinitely wealthy, and things could be priced beyond his means). What about rich people who are less rich?

If one cars costs twice as much as the other, then it will takes twice as long to raise the money to buy the expensive one, approximately.

If a guys works for 30 years and makes enough to buy a Gumpert, how could he possibly make enough to afford to a Veyron?

Wealth is a spectrum.

You are telling me there are people who will throw away his life's fortune to get a car, then proceed to live under a tent? haha.

I'm telling you that wealth is a spectrum. The statement above came from your imagination.

You have completely no understanding of the supercar buying demographic.

Do you understand the concept of pricing at all? If after a certain point, people magically became able to afford anything, why wouldn't every supercar cost $100,000,000? Or at least all cost the same? You price something to maximize profit. The Gumpert is priced lower than the Bugatti because its target customer can't pay Bugatti money.

and by your logic the gumpert outright sucks because you can get a radical for $135k, so your customer profile is someone who is very rich, but has no concept of holdng power and value?

???????????

 

[Danoff]

Before you rebuttle to my rebuttle...no really that is ^ an opinion. There are many odd people out there Jay isn't the only one.

If you re-characterize my quote, it's easy to argue against. I don't remember saying Jay Leno is the only odd person in the world.

Let's try this again and see if it follows:

"[Jay Leno] is one of a kind."

Therefore: Jay Leno is the only odd person in the world.

...nope still doesn't follow.

No one is arguing the enjoyment factor, not sure where I said they weren't buying it for that purpose.

...or right... never did

You said something about it being used for what it's intended for.... rather than being used in the way some people use it. It's intent is to be enjoyed, and perhaps some people enjoy things by shrink wrapping them and storing them. (This has nothing to do with the Veyron at this point, so I'll stop)

Let's try this again and see if it follows.

These are people that see the car as art, but still use it for the intended purpose.

Therefore: A car is not intended to be used as art.

Yes that follows.

Therefore: Someone who enjoys using a car as art is not using it for its intended purpose.

Yes that follows.

Therefore: Enjoyment is not the purpose of a car.

Yes that follows.

What you and others said is they buy these cars and simply cruise them or put them away...

If you re-characterize my quote, it's easy to argue against. I don't remember saying people just want to cruise in them and put them away. I said the Veyron is built for only the richest people in the world who value a no compromises car that won't beat them up as they drive it. I said they want a car that will amaze them, but that their wife won't refuse to sit in in on the way to dinner. How does that mean what you wrote above?

Let's try this again to see if it follows:

A Veyron is a car designed for a no compromises experience that will deliver unbelievable performance while not sacrificing creature comforts.

Therefore: People who buy them will only cruise in them and put them away.

...nope, still doesn't follow.

How is saying that only a young rich person would buy the Gumpert, but a 50 year old donald trump type would only buy a Veyron, supposedly never tried or intended?

...that the person would never take it to the track? I just don't see how that follows from any of the above.

Let's see try it again...

A Gumpert is a car designed for a young rich person.
A Veyron is a car designed for an older uber-rich person.

Therefore: Nobody would ever take a Veyron to a track.

...nope, still doesn't follow.

I actually remember saying quite a bit about how you and anyone in this thread (and most purchasers of these cars) won't notice the tiny performance margin the Gumpert has going around a track. That statement would actually suggest that I expect people to take a Veyron to the track... not the other way around.

Or saying one is built for a certain demographic. I didn't know hypercars/speed knew a demographic? Also judging by the sheer following the Veyron has you give anyone the money and they'll go out and buy it regardless of age.

Wow, what does the 2nd sentence have to do with the first? What does the 3rd sentence have to do with the first?

 

[deadcat777]

Actually, lots of people can afford to own a Veyron. I'm in Singapore now, I have seen lots of Murcie SV, 599 and 599 GTO around. It cost US$1.25mil to buy a SV in Singapore. Same goes for America, lots of people can afford a Veyron, just that most of the millionaire or billionaire are not interested in cars.

I think its up to a person interest.

 

[TheCracker]

I think it's a little nieve to think that anyone actually buys cars like this outright. Millionaires don't just have 6 zero figures laying around in their Current Accounts. The bulk of their worth will be tied up in various investments. If they decide to purchase an expensive car like a Veyron, it will likely be on finance not outright. They'll pay a sizable deposit then pay a monthly amount over 3 or 4 years when the agreement ends. At this point they'll have the option to make a final payment to actually own the vehicle or hand the keys back. It's no different to financing any car, it makes swallowing the cost much more palatable.

Of course they'll always be the mega-wealthy Sheikhs who can drop the $1m without flinching, but i suspect a majority of the 300 odd Veyrons sold will be on finance.

 

[noisiaturismo]

Veyron, what do you need with a Gumpert Moon Express

 

[disinfected]

I am still going with the people who say it's a ridiculous, unnecessary comparison. Whereas the Gumpert is basically a street legal race car and the Veyron is a timeless piece that isn't going to see the track and is way more expensive.

To me it's like weighing a Radical SR3 with a Ferrari 458 or something.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

You said something about it being used for what it's intended for.... rather than being used in the way some people use it. It's intent is to be enjoyed, and perhaps some people enjoy things by shrink wrapping them and storing them. (This has nothing to do with the Veyron at this point, so I'll stop)

Let's try this again and see if it follows.



Therefore: A car is not intended to be used as art.

Yes that follows.

Therefore: Someone who enjoys using a car as art is not using it for its intended purpose.

Yes that follows.

Therefore: Enjoyment is not the purpose of a car.

Yes that follows.

How do you get that all out of "but still use it for it's intended purpose"? Meaning they see the car as an art but still enjoy and at times use it for driving fast or racing. How do you get the above from what I said...did you just see the first half and that's it? If I had said "but that's not it's intended purpose", then I could see a point but that's not the case. You tell me I rearranged your words, yet you've done the same to me...I'm sure that wasn't what you intended and I hope I'm right.

If you re-characterize my quote, it's easy to argue against. I don't remember saying people just want to cruise in them and put them away. I said the Veyron is built for only the richest people in the world who value a no compromises car that won't beat them up as they drive it. I said they want a car that will amaze them, but that their wife won't refuse to sit in in on the way to dinner. How does that mean what you wrote above?

If you understood like I wrote I don't just point you out, I point that out to all the people on your side me and others are arguing against. I'm glad that you feel the only one targeted by my argument, but hate to inform you that you're not the only one.

Let's try this again to see if it follows:

A Veyron is a car designed for a no compromises experience that will deliver unbelievable performance while not sacrificing creature comforts.

Therefore: People who buy them will only cruise in them and put them away.

...nope, still doesn't follow.




...that the person would never take it to the track? I just don't see how that follows from any of the above.

Let's see try it again...

A Gumpert is a car designed for a young rich person.
A Veyron is a car designed for an older uber-rich person.

Therefore: Nobody would ever take a Veyron to a track.

...nope, still doesn't follow.

I never talked about a track in the part you quoted; I’m only talking about demographics at that point so why are you finding what you want in my post? Do you always try to be condescending when you debate people; I mean does the ego complex help you get your point across? Also once again I'm not just arguing you but others as well that are saying the Veyron is clearly worth the price gap when I don't see it that way. Do you have a personal problem with me not seeing why the Veyron is worth it, if that is your personal choice of car that's cool.

Wow, what does the 2nd sentence have to do with the first? What does the 3rd sentence have to do with the first?

Wow, how hard is that to follow...there is no Demographic for who are going to buy the Veyron it's that simple. Any rich person will go out and buy a Veyron if they have the money and see it as the ultimate car, young or older, how hard is that to understand?

 

[counter345]

If I HAD to choose one, it would be the Veyron due to the comfort and easiness... but I'd rather spend less on a semi sports car and keep the rest of the money, to be perfectly honest.