exitr

Really nice paint! To be fair though, 500 CAD is 380 USD. That's around the average asking price for most 17 SV coupes in the US. Still, gorgeous color!

I agree, that "kettle" spring contraption is quite nifty. It is likely unnecessary and an over-engineered solution, but I'll gladly file that under 'Cool'. One thing I liked hearing is that they want to move away from large fixed aerodynamic components. I think this is very important going forward because there really is very little indication that you need such components on a road car that is well engineered. The Senna is simply goofy in my eyes. Yes it's functional, but it's too much. There are a lot of extremely high performant cars that are beyond Lamborghini while still being sleek, refined, and at times understated. The 720S and 488 Pista are both near the peak of modern exotic performance in series production and still rather reserved. I'd like to see Lamborghini get models like the standard Aventador and Huracan to perform like the Performante and SV. This should be possible. I really do like the Huracan Evo's refesh and I'd love to find out it's a Performante in a tux.

Those weight claims are dubious, in my opinion. An SF90 is lighter than a ThethetheFerrari? Sure, a V12 isn't exactly light and battery technology has improved, but the ThethetheFerrari is complete composite construction with fixed seats and in general a very sparse interior. The ThethetheFerrari battery capacity is more than 3x less than the SF90 with 2.3 kWh to 7.9 kWh. Batteries have improved, but have they improved so much as to negate the additional capacity? I could imagine that other power electronics have improved as well and have less weight in wiring. I don't know the weights of the V12 vs the V8, but I find it unlikely that the SF90 could weigh anything near the ThethetheFerrari, and especially not 30 lbs less with 3x the kWh. I do not know what an SVJ weighs, but the Aventador is notoriously heavy and a standard Aventador is already a carbon monocoque and carbon body panels, I believe. So if the weight savings cannot come from the body or chassis, it would have to come from less amenities like leather, stereo, glass, maybe some lighter wheels. It's difficult to imagine an SVJ is much less than 3800 lbs. I cannot imagine it being anywhere near 3500 pounds when you consider what other cars are probably around that weight. It's unfortunate that so few magazines actually weigh the cars. The weights provided by manufacturers rarely can be relied upon due to no formal standard of measurement and the lengths they go to in order to appear light. Even McLaren, a company who has nothing to be ashamed of with regards to weight, has done things like including the removal of air conditioning. And to be frank, a car without air conditioning is not a complete car.

Rolls is owned by BMW, but yes, you are correct about the Urus in my opinion. Bugatti did not lose $6 million on every Veyron. That is purely headlines for the media based on what is very likely not indicative of GAAP. Veyron margins were very healthy and the Chiron even more so. I'm sure they were technically in the red initially due to capex and R&D, but that red started getting blacker and blacker with each one sold. Add in intangible assets like IP and it looked blacker yet. The Chiron and it's various high-dollar variants are very far from the clean sheet design and investment required to make the Veyron. That initial investment is now paying dividends just like any business does after start-up costs with long-term business plans. The margins in overall dollar terms are probably mouthwatering. We generally know how expensive it is to actually manufacture cars. The manufacturing cost of a Veyron was not $5 million dollars.

Lamborghini seems to be becoming a caricature of itself. These designs are so over the top that it's as if they come from a futuristic Ridge Racer-like video game who couldn't get the license to Lamborghini and had to make a knock-off. Thankfully this style hasn't found it's way into the series production models, but it doesn't give me high hopes for them either. It's closer to a really high-end tuner than it is bespoke coach building. It's what Mansory might produce if they knew they had the sales power of OEM. $3 million for another excessive bodykit and likely the cheapest and least developed hybrid solution that they could come up with in time to milk the model late-cycle. AM is offering the Valkyrie and Mercedes the One for this price. Ferrari is offering 1000 hp, less weight, and likely much better performance for $500,000. It seems like Winklemann's old antics are still paying dividends even though he has left and taken the multi-million dollar bodykit business model to Bugatti. And if this is the hybrid route Lamborghini is actually taking, then I fear they will be dead in the water when it finally becomes series production. The Aventador needs a complete clean sheet design if it is to be even remotely competitive. Too heavy, outdated gearbox, weak electric augmentation. 800 hp is what you should get out of the petrol engine alone, not the combined system and not with the weight of the Aventador to push.

These cars look like a mess. Is there any evidence even 25% of those vanes, inlets, and diffusers are functional? It has more "aero" attachments than a GTE Pro car yet is likely much lower performance than a Pista that doesn't even have a real spoiler... At probably $600,000+, I just see no value at all. I'd take a clean, original Aventador coupe over these any day, and twice on Sunday. 2012 Aventador is still one of the best exotic designs of the last few decades and it's about $400,000 less than this.

No idea how you lost $70,000 in 18 months on a 12C or 650S unless you significantly overpaid. Poor residuals is not the reality anymore. That happened with the 12C and 650S, but nothing since. The 720S is 2 years old now in the US and they are still $260,000+ for most. I've been browsing for a while now and the prices have been consistently firm relative to the segment. You only lose excessive on a new McLaren nowadays if you go overboard on spec. There is no difference in residual between a $380,000 car and a $330,000 car, but there is also no real difference between the cars either. Comes down purely to personal taste. Launch car 570S are $80-100,000 under sticker 4 years later. Launch car 720S are $70-80,000 under sticker 2 years later. This is no different than any exotic in their respective price range. Performantes and Aventadors are not really any better. Barely used Performantes are $50,000-60,000 under MSRP. Aventadors can be $100,000 under MSRP for even the "limited" SV models.

What a terrible deal... A 4 year lease with mileage restriction that locks you into a car for 4 years that offers no real savings over purchasing the car outright as far as I can tell. Leased exotics are for people with A) more money than sense, and B) idiots. I have never seen a lease deal on an exotic car that was better than just buying outright, especially if you're buying used (and you should buy used because you can't spec a leased car anyway). A used 600LT is $250,000 already. I assure you that car won't be $130,000 in 4 years given that 4 year old, much cheaper used 570S are still more than $130,000...

I don't see too much of an issue with them looking so similar. They have significantly different price points, significantly different performance, and none will be available at the same time. Valkyrie is long since sold out. 003 will sell out next, and then a year or two later Vanquish will be available for all. They are very different in compromise too. Valkyrie is borderline not a road car, definitely not an everyday affair. 003 is a bit more usable, though still very much only a weekender that the wife will likely not enjoy and seems to have barely any storage. Vanquish is the daily just like a Huracan or 720S. Similar appearances don't matter so long as they are all good looking. I believe every 488 owner would be more than happy to have a 700 hp TT v8, aluminum ThethetheFerrari for $300,000. Likewise, I believe every 911 Turbo buyer wouldn't mind having TT flat 6, aluminum 918 car for $300,000. The thing about halo car design is that, generally speaking, there is nothing that expensive about most of the designs. The designs reflect the selling price, not necessarily the cost of building. You could build a ThethetheFerrari or P1 or 918 out of aluminum. They'd look identical and just weigh more. This is what Aston is doing. They are taking million dollar designs and just adjusting the cost of the components underneath the paint. I think it's going to be a smashing success and change the way exotics are designed and sold. You aren't going to be able to sell a Huracan or 488 if Aston Martin is selling hypercar designs for the same price.

I really like what I see. These designs seem very far ahead of the competition. Compare the "aero" on the SVJ to these. White one is called RB-003 (a toned down Valkyrie) and the green one is the new Vanquish, which will be a normal exotic similar to Ferrari/McLaren/Lamborghini. The Valkyrie was much out of my price range, and RB-003 will probably be too, but Vanquish should be around $300K. Vanquish looks incredible and is probably the most usable for a road car of the three anyway.

Love the color, but in general I hate the car. I don't understand the need for all the over-the-top vents, diffusers, wings, etc. It has more stuff tacked on that a real GT3 car. 800 cars is a lot, especially at these prices. Too much competition. Big premium to pay just for an NA engine.

IANAL, but what exactly would his case be here? His car burned down and he was made financially whole by his insurance, and maybe more so if he had insured the premium. He has no claims that I'm aware of. You must show damages in court and anxiety from a car catching on fire won't pass the sniff test as far as I know. He safely got out of the fire and even started to record a video of it for the Internet. It would be like suing Boeing because a plane had a malfunction and now you're scare to fly. The reality is, in my opinion, that his channel is a financial failure. It really doesn't get that many views and he definitely loses a lot of money on his cars. His viewership is one that requires him to spend a lot of money on cars and he no doubt loses a fortune on many of them. I'm guessing he no longer wants to pay his friends to do it anymore either. Or he's just doing it for some sensational views. Unless we see someone else driving around in his cars, then he probably didn't even sell them. I highly doubt he has any standing to sue McLaren for anything. He also bought the car used, thus he isn't the first owner and cannot Lemon Law it. In fact, I believe this would almost certainly ruin any claims he could make against McLaren. For all they know, the previous owner screwed with it.

I don't believe Aperta's are anywhere near $450,000. They are over $600,000 still in the US. That said, he seems to drive his cars a lot so he will be in for a rude awakening regarding depreciation on Ferraris. They do hold their value very well as LE cars, but most also barely have any mileage. His car will likely be worth a lot less if he puts 10-15K miles on it.

I do agree the site is harder to read. Everything is too closely sized and spaced. New topics don't really standout. Everything is just too homogeneous. The post-looks-like-a-quote thing is odd too. That's not why it's less active though. It's pretty simple to explain: It was down for too long, people stopped checking after a few weeks and no updates, and now they don't really care anymore. It's a very common occurrence with websites. Significant downtime can destroy a community. Ferrari Chat and other forums seem just as active as usual. McLaren Life and Rennlist seem normal too. It didn't help that the site was essentially 404 for weeks either, with no messages or updates. It was weeks before the site even said it was upgrading and coming back. One day it was up, the next it was gone. Then it said to visit the Facebook page, which didn't exist as far as I could tell. The old forum should not have been taken down until the new one was ready. I'm not sure why that happened. It's very easy to duplicate a database and build the new version without disabling the old one. Unless there is a really compelling reason for people to come back, I wouldn't count on it happening. This is just my opinion though.

Also, you can't "short" your house or buy puts on it, per se, but you can do that with RE-oriented stocks (home builders maybe?) or maybe even REITs. This would be just as risky probably, but less of a hassle and you could undo your decision at a moments notice if you change your mind. You can't undo a house sale. The best way to sell at the top and avoid a downturn is to do it via securities. You don't need to protect your own house value if you can short someone else's... Just my two cents.

It's unrealistic for anyone in a "normal" price range to sell their home at the top to avoid a downturn. Unlike stocks, you still need a place to live so you'd either have to buy something cheap (not nice) or rent something really cheap (also not nice). If you're in the high-end market of $5M homes or something, sure, you could probably come out a head and still live someplace nice since it's not like $1M homes are so unbearable. Also keep in mind that if you sell at the top, you may have a capital gain. This can often be put into a special account used to buy another home, but there will surely be time limits on this and the downturn might not happen soon enough. After it's all said and done, you'll have to pay commissions, fees, taxes, rent, capital gains, lose tax savings, have to deal with the hassle of moving, and potentially live someplace not very nice for an undetermined amount of time that may or may not ever come. You could be wrong and the market is fine.

Like I said, the credit risk is much lower because underwriting standards have improved significantly and interest rates make stuff significantly more affordable. $500,000 @ 4.5% for 30 years = $2500/month $500,000 @ 7.5% for 30 years = $3500/month $350,000 @ 7.5% for 30 years = $2500/month So people today can get a $500,000 house at the same expense as a $350,000 house 10 years ago. What happened in 2007 was people were getting $500,000 houses that ended up at 7.5%, became unaffordable, and some even took equity out of that quickly became even more negative equity on top of the now lower priced asset. The deals are long gone for RE and it needs to go sideways for quite a while in my opinion. The plus side is that we don't have a decade of home owners at high interest rates and high prices. We hav e a decade of home buyers who got amazing deals and low interest rates. They've already built a reasonable amount of equity not only through appreciation but also 5-10 years of payments, and they had to pass stringent underwriting and had down payments. Only those buying at the top now are "risky", and it only really becomes a problem if interest rates go up and prices keep going up for quite a few more years. One year of splurging and excess isn't going to tank the economy.

Not sure, but more important than home prices themselves are interest rates and underwriting quality. Underwriting has improved massively and interest rates are still low. Credit quality has been pretty good in recent years. No more NINJA loans etc. Imagine buying a house for $300K that's $100K overvalued. If interest rates were 0% (which they aren't), then you'd have a $1000/month payment after it's all said and done on a 30 year mortgage. That's very, very affordable and it doesn't really matter if it's overvalued because you'll be renting for $1000/month in something much worse anyway. Interest rates are more like 4.5% right now, but that's still pretty low and were in the 3s not that long ago. House prices have gone up because interest rates have been so low and has allowed people to spend more (ask more). With interest rates climbing, you're going to see housing cooling off, but not necessarily crashing. Also keep in mind that everyone who bought in 2010 is already 8 years into their loan. People who bought in 2014 are 4 years into their loan. Everyone in the last 7-8 years got good deals and locked in low rates, ensuring they are probably nicely into equity by now. The risk of defaults is very low for this enormous pool of loans. In 2007 and 2008, interest rates were 6.5-7.5%. That's significantly higher than they have been the last 10 years. I'm not a buyer of real estate at these prices, but I'm not predicting a crash/recession either. One year of overpriced loans will not tank the 10 years of good deals and low rates before it, in my opinion.

Yes, these are far too expensive for what they are in my opinion. Of course they're nice, but at the end of the day you aren't getting anything that high-end or cutting edge. For $600,000 you get a composite body and monocage from Lamborghini. For $90,000 you can get a 300 mile range electric powertrain with some form or another of self-driving. For $40,000 you can even get a semi-composite construction BMW i3 (which coincidentally owns Rolls Royce). You would think that for $600,000 and what is essentially unrestricted in size that you would get the most cutting edge car possible. Sadly, you don't, and it's a shame because everything that it should buy would help the car tremendously and fit the persona perfectly. 1. Composite construction would drastically lower weight and remove the need for excessive reinforcement of the Drophead. 2. Going to an electric drivetrain would increase the weight, but drastically lower the center of gravity and provide insane amounts of torque, which is exactly what heavy cars need most. Real torque vectoring. 3. Given the size, they could fit and afford to put a massive battery pack allowing for huge range. Never visit a gas station again. 4. Given the price, the cost of batteries would be irrelevant to the buyer. 5. Electric cars are "silent", which is exactly what RR goes for. 6. The frunk would be enormous. 7. All the awesome stuff that comes with electric, connected cars like turning the AC on ahead of time remotely, and so forth. Rolls Royce are nice but they're really falling behind in what luxury mobility should mean today. Well, at least that's my opinion. I'm not really impressed with the strange glass "Gallery" thing. Really bizarre thing to spend so much time/money on.

Well, it certainly lives up to it's name. The Aventador. The Aventador line has been getting a bit over the top. Too many vents. Less is sometimes more. The 918 didn't need all these channels for air...

Hi Kinsella, Am I sure? Hehe, not at all. I have no idea what happens to the battery power in any of those cars on the Nordschleife. It's a bit of a how long is a piece of string kind of question. The Nordschliefe is really long, so given a long enough lap or long enough race, all cars will run out of fuel, be it gasoline or electricity. All cars will run out of tire too. When each car runs out of what is anyone's guess. Based on absolutely no experience of my own and being a complete armchair racer, I think that those 3 cars will be quicker on any reasonable length circuit. Might they run out of juice on the Nordschliefe? Sure, but maybe the Jota runs out of fuel quicker on multiple laps or wears the tires too quickly with it's weight. Hot laps is a great way to sell cars, but there's a reason that real motorsport has rules Disclaimer: I only like rally racing and don't pay too much attention to traditional motorsport.

It's a very fast time indeed, super impressive given the weight of the Aventador platform in general. I'd keep in mind though that the "Holy Trinity" as they are called are on tires from a long time ago, relatively speaking. ThethetheFerrari used PZero Corsas, P1 used Corsas (occasionally off-the-shelf Trofeos), and the 918 used the rather old Michelin Cup 2 tires. I'd be surprised if these 3 cars weren't still a the top of the food chain if you gave them the latest tires. Heck, the Maserati MC12 did 7:24s back in 2008 when they gave it more modern tires. That thing could very well be under 7 minutes with modern tires. The advancements really have been enormous in tire technology. Perhaps it's at the expense of cold and wet performance or even longevity, but that's probably OK for cars that largely see low mileage and nice weather. Also, Lamborghini is making a multi-million dollar hybrid as we speak and that Porsche 919 definitely benefits from the electrical power. I think the hybrid stuff was maybe a little ahead of its time, but I think it's still the best at the moment. If batteries can get denser and cheaper, I can only imagine how much performance they stand to gain. Just look at that VW ID Pikes Peak race car. It shows just how potent electrical power can be. But whatever the case, today is a fantastic time to be a Lamborghini fan. They've never been better!

I guess I should clarify that when I say car, I mean modern car. I'm sure cars have gotten it wrong in the past, but not really anymore. I really only use HVAC and volume controls in cars these days. Everything else is done on my phone and done better on my phone, often with voice control. I believe all McLarens have buttons for quick access to the major features like navigation, music, HVAC, settings, etc, so no menus needed there. Driving modes also have all their own knobs and buttons. Naturally things like windows, doors, locks etc will probably always be physical buttons. Other than volume and HVAC, I don't really find much that needs changing on such a regular basis such that it would benefit from dedicated buttons.