Evora vs. Cayman S

[RichS]

Originally Posted by dickedup

Don't believe in throwing hard cash into a depreciating asset.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the very definition of leasing? Rather than buying something of value, you are financing the depreciation of a vehicle...

One would think that buying a 2 or 3 year old car would be the definition of 'not throwing hard cash into a depreciating asset'.

[Simba]

I would say comparing it to a Cayman S is somewhat disingenuous-- it sets the bar very high for Lotus, and I don't know that they'll be quite there with a composite body and relatively uninspiring Toyota lump.

The Cayman is a superb car, and while I've no doubt Lotus will do better at turn-in and steering feel, as well as probably brake feel and overall chassis dynamics, they've got a rather high hurdle to clear so far as fit and finish, interior quality and reliability are concerned. Also, of particular interest to me will be how the Evora suspension manages to cope with vastly different loading characteristics. (e.g. with three pax in it)

I'll reserve judgement until I've had a chance to drive one, but, I don't see the Evora in its launch trim eating many Cayman sales. They really should have harked it as what it is, a car that currently doesn't exist in the marketplace.

Now, if they'd come out with a 350+++ horse S/C or turbo version out of the gate, and kept the price point in the same ballpark, that would likely turn a few of the more enthusiastical people away from the entry level P-cars.

[Bavarian Motorist]

Simba, you should buy one as part of your fleet

[dickedup]

Originally Posted by RichS

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the very definition of leasing? Rather than buying something of value, you are financing the depreciation of a vehicle...

One would think that buying a 2 or 3 year old car would be the definition of 'not throwing hard cash into a depreciating asset'.

Leasing lessens the sting of depreciation no?

Purchasing a two or three year old vehicle is a great idea. However... when one wants or requires the latest power increases and suspension tweaks then that is rather moot.

[Bavarian Motorist]

On another hand, if you buy a slightly used car, you might only lose several thousands dollars upon trade-in, whereas with a lease, you're guaranteed to lose all of the money you put in, like renting an apartment.


So is it worth it to pay $25,000 for a lease, or pay $50k for a used car and effectively only spend $10k? Of course you could lose more on trade-in which makes leasing more attractive.


Just a thought...

[catapult]

Originally Posted by Bavarian Motorist

On another hand, if you buy a slightly used car, you might only lose several thousands dollars upon trade-in, whereas with a lease, you're guaranteed to lose all of the money you put in, like renting an apartment.

I think I know what you are getting it but I wouldn't characterize leasing as losing all your money. Very few cars are an investment. One way or the other you are paying money for the use of a car. I'm leasing my car but I'm obligated to purchase it at the end of the term. Both the interest rate and the residual at the end of the term are good. In fact I'm guessing the car will be worth substantially more that the residual.

[dickedup]

Originally Posted by Bavarian Motorist

On another hand, if you buy a slightly used car, you might only lose several thousands dollars upon trade-in, whereas with a lease, you're guaranteed to lose all of the money you put in, like renting an apartment.


So is it worth it to pay $25,000 for a lease, or pay $50k for a used car and effectively only spend $10k? Of course you could lose more on trade-in which makes leasing more attractive.


Just a thought...

You can always purchase the vehicle at the end of the lease for usually a very good price. If you want a brand new upgraded model of a car you're either paying cash or leasing it.

Knew a gal that bought a brand new Boxster S three years ago for $68,000... cash on the barrel head. After just 14 months she tired of it but her highest offer was only $50K when attempting to sell.

[bueno]

Originally Posted by Simba

I would say comparing it to a Cayman S is somewhat disingenuous-- it sets the bar very high for Lotus, and I don't know that they'll be quite there with a composite body and 1. relatively uninspiring Toyota lump.

The Cayman is a superb car, and while I've no doubt Lotus will do better at turn-in and steering feel, as well as probably brake feel and overall chassis dynamics, they've got a rather high hurdle to clear so far as fit and finish, interior quality and 2. reliability are concerned. Also, of particular interest to me will be how the Evora suspension manages to cope with vastly different loading characteristics. (e.g. with three pax in it)

I'll reserve judgement until I've had a chance to drive one, but, 3. I don't see the Evora in its launch trim eating many Cayman sales. They really should have harked it as what it is, a car that currently doesn't exist in the marketplace.

4. Now, if they'd come out with a 350+++ horse S/C or turbo version out of the gate, and kept the price point in the same ballpark, that would likely turn a few of the more enthusiastical people away from the entry level P-cars.

If I may,

1. The relatively low cost maintenance of the Toyota lump is inspiring enough.
2. Porsche engines are "somewhat" reliable but Toyota's are much more.
3. Of course not, with only 600-800 cars planned for the US, there's no way Lotus would make a dent to Porsche's market but then again, Lotus does not want to and with so few coming, there's no doubt all will sell.
4. A few enthusiastical people will still gravitate to the Evora because of looks and exclusivity without starting off the gate with a 350+ hp version but marketing wise, you are always better off to come out with your lower hp version first as is the practice with every manufacturer including Porsche.

[dickedup]

Originally Posted by catapult

I think I know what you are getting it but I wouldn't characterize leasing as losing all your money. Very few cars are an investment. One way or the other you are paying money for the use of a car. I'm leasing my car but I'm obligated to purchase it at the end of the term. Both the interest rate and the residual at the end of the term are good. In fact I'm guessing the car will be worth substantially more that the residual.

In the wacky world of sports cars these last 5 years or so leasing works like a hose.

[bueno]

Originally Posted by dickedup

In the wacky world of sports cars these last 5 years or so leasing works like a hose.

"For me" personally, I prefer leasing rather than buying (financing or cash) because I never keep a car more than 3-4 years (4 is actually stretching it) and unless you're putting a big chunk of money down, you are almost always upside if you financed the vehicle with a typical loan of 5 years, regardless of the type of deal you get. On top of that, the most I'd put down on any vehicle would be about $3500 and anything above that is simply throwing away my money. Lets face it, cars are NEVER a good investment and forget the last 5 years but sports cars in general should be leased...imo but one thing I've learned is that some people are adamant that financing makes sense to them which is fine but you also have people like myself that believe leasing makes better sense especially when speaking about toys.

[Bavarian Motorist]

Originally Posted by catapult

I think I know what you are getting it but I wouldn't characterize leasing as losing all your money. Very few cars are an investment. One way or the other you are paying money for the use of a car. I'm leasing my car but I'm obligated to purchase it at the end of the term. Both the interest rate and the residual at the end of the term are good. In fact I'm guessing the car will be worth substantially more that the residual.

Sorry if I'm not clear...

If you lease a car for 36 months and you agree to pay 60% of the value which is... $30,000, you pay $30,000 and return the car. That money's obviously gone.


If you buy a used car for $50,000 and keep it for 3 years, you might be able to sell it for $35,000 and lose $15,000... In both situations, you get a car for 3 years, so isn't that better than the lease example effectively? Unless you just NEED a brand new car...


I'm just thinking aloud here... Don't mind me.

[Allan Gibbs]

I'd agree. If you're looking for a daily driver, grocery getter, family hauler, leasing isn't very attractive since the excess miles, wear and tear, etc. Better to purchase and keep for years.

But if you're the type that likes the latest and greatest, then leasing is a good way to go for the simple fact that you don't need to worry about depreciation and resale so getting out of the car is never a problem. And I'd assume the sport cars is "your baby" so it would get better care than the beater car.

A leasing option was one reason I when with my Audi TT rather than go with an Exige S last year. I could lease the TT for 3 years and by that time the Evora would be out. With the Exige S, I'd have to worry about resale (especially considering the Exige 240 and 260 and then the other Lotus owners selling their cars for the Evora).

I'd like to lease an Evora for may two or three years at which time the Evora S or updated Elise would be out. If I purchased an Evora, then I'd have to worry about resale/trade-in when the Evora S comes out. So, I'm hoping Lotus does have a decent leasing program with the Evora comes out.

[Allan Gibbs]

Originally Posted by Bavarian Motorist

Sorry if I'm not clear...

If you lease a car for 36 months and you agree to pay 60% of the value which is... $30,000, you pay $30,000 and return the car. That money's obviously gone.

You should only lease if the deal is attractive enough and it varies based on brand and even specific model types.

In your scenario, you're paying 60% of the vehicle over a 3 year period which isn't a good deal. 40% over three years is a good deal but I think most cars now are somewhere in the 50% range. Lease was a better option 5-10 years ago when banks were pretty optimistic on residuals (like 40%).

[RichS]

Leasing - "Not only am I just buying the depreciation on this car instead of the car, I'm financing the depreciation on this car!"

[Simba]

Originally Posted by Bavarian Motorist

Simba, you should buy one as part of your fleet

Considering it, but I'll likely wait for the new Esprit if Lotus' intent is to save all the big power awesomeness for that thing. Which I hope it is.

[Simba]

Originally Posted by bueno

1. The relatively low cost maintenance of the Toyota lump is inspiring enough.

If reliability and cost of maintenance are your chief priorities, might I suggest something other than a sports car? While it's certainly a not insignificant aspect, it's pretty far from the primary one for most enthusiasts.

The 2ZZ is boring. The Toyota V6 in the Evora will be boring. The V8 in the Esprit is not boring. A rev to mars BMW turbo engine would not be boring. And so on, and so forth. The engine should reflect the purpose of the car to some degree.

2. Porsche engines are "somewhat" reliable but Toyota's are much more.

Having built, raced and exploded with extreme prejudice several Porsche and Toyota engines, I would say that you're quite mistaken. On the whole, Porsche's current engine are just as reliable, and probably more refined than Toyota's current offerings. This was not the case 10+ years ago when Toyota was still in their over-engineer and over-build to the point of silly mentality, however it is these days.

3. Of course not, with only 600-800 cars planned for the US, there's no way Lotus would make a dent to Porsche's market but then again, Lotus does not want to and with so few coming, there's no doubt all will sell.

You mistook my point. I was not attempting to suggest that Porsche would be at all concerned about Lotus sales nibbling at one of their cars. I was attempting to suggest that Lotus should be trying to attract people who would otherwise buy a Porsche than an Evora. I'm most decidedly in that market, and I'd buy (another) Cayman S before an Evora any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

4. A few enthusiastical people will still gravitate to the Evora because of looks and exclusivity without starting off the gate with a 350+ hp version but marketing wise, you are always better off to come out with your lower hp version first as is the practice with every manufacturer including Porsche.

Enthusiasts, at least as I meant the term, will probably not do so. They care more about how it works than how it looks. The car is simply not fast enough in base trim to come in at the price point Lotus wants. While it's true they'll probably "fix" that in later years as they did with the Elise/Exige, it'd peak my interest a lot more if they came out of the gate with something fast, and then went faster in the coming years.

[Redback]

Simba,

While I don't own a Cayman, I do own a Porsche and I can't help but think your arguments against the Evora are a little brand-bigoted and self contradictory.

Yes, real enthusiasts care about how a car works and as you stated previously, that includes turn-in and steering feel, as well as brake feel and chassis dynamics. All of which you've conceded, the Evora may have over the Cayman.

Current road test performance figures put the Cayman and the Evora about line-ball (yet to be confirmed) so are you saying the Cayman is too slow for its price point too?

The starting price of the two cars is different, but I suspect when optioned to a similar equipment/trim spec they will be very close.

The Evora can also carry young children in the back too. Can't do that with a Cayman - which is why I have a Carrera...

The interior finish quality of Porsches is very good and I don't expect the Evora to match that quality, but if they get close, I'd be happy.

I'd also be happy with the better chassis rigidity and ride-quality of the Evora.

More power would be nice, but I don't see the Evora's current performance as a deal breaker for many buyers, - those who prefer corners to straights anyway...

[dickedup]

Originally Posted by Simba

Considering it, but I'll likely wait for the new Esprit if Lotus' intent is to save all the big power awesomeness for that thing. Which I hope it is.

Maybe a highly warmed over BMW V-8 to propel her along.

Still holding on to my '98 Esprit for all it's goodness.

[dickedup]

Originally Posted by Redback

While I don't own a Cayman, I do own a Porsche and I can't help but think your arguments...

However lets face reality. The Krauts screw things together like no one else in the world. Just look at the Porsches being offered these days.

The Cayman S will sell everyday similarly equipped to the Evora for at least $5000 less. They are dealing and dealing and dealing.

Will take a spell before someone figures out the lease numbers on the Evora. That's $75,000 large in cash for your 50% more rigidity.

Like the new Lotus. If you want one however you'll have to pay out the wazoo at least for the first year or so.

Personally I'm all about the Esprit down the road.

[Bavarian Motorist]

There have been no Evora acceleration tests as far as I'm aware. Everything stated so far is speculation or Lotus released the info.

A Cayman S tops out at 170 mph and an Evora tops out at 160 mph. That, to me, indicates a decent power and aerodynamic difference. Maybe the Evora is tuned for more low-end grunt, but the Cayman S is tuned for more output and is ultimately a better performance engine, as opposed to a better daily driver engine...


Just my thoughts!