Car & Driver Mag: Supra vs 86 Center of Gravity

[funwheeldrive]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

I didn't mention turbos. There are two N/A Supras listed near me right now for $28K each. There's a '94 turbo with a manual transmission listed for $51K and a '97 turbo auto for $50K. $50K and $30K seem to be the magic numbers, meaning both of them would still be losers as investment vehicles.

No turbo, no care. ;-)

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by extrashaky

Hey, where did that post go?

In any case, here's the link he posted:

https://bringatrailer.com/toyota/supra/

What that scatterplot shows us is that the overwhelming majority of the sales are below $60K and are still losers as investments.

There seven above $60K that are also below the original price adjusted for inflation, so those also are losers.

There are two that are outliers. Both of them were sold during an auction frenzy, and one of them was bought by a dealership as a marketing gimmick.

So that just proves my point. It's a loser. The new Supra will also be a loser, so there's no point in buying one to store away as an "investment." Buy it to drive it.

The fun part is that anybody buying these ultra low mileage, top dollar, six figure price tag, Supras aren't going to drive the damn things anyway. Every mile they put on it knocks the value down and they know it. The "unmolested" low miles cars that everybody want's so bad will all spend the rest of their lives as showroom queens and never be used as intended in their entire existence. It is like the guys that spend $500,000 on a bottle of wine they will never drink.

[Tokay444]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

The fun part is that anybody buying these ultra low mileage, top dollar, six figure price tag, Supras aren't going to drive the damn things anyway. Every mile they put on it knocks the value down and they know it. The "unmolested" low miles cars that everybody want's so bad will all spend the rest of their lives as showroom queens and never be used as intended in their entire existence. It is like the guys that spend $500,000 on a bottle of wine they will never drink.

I'm going to buy one just to beat the living shit out of.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Tokay444

I'm going to buy one just to beat the living shit out of.

Pocket change.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

The fun part is that anybody buying these ultra low mileage, top dollar, six figure price tag, Supras aren't going to drive the damn things anyway....

Yea, that's the reason why, even if I had the money, I wouldn't be able to collect cars. I'd drive the value out of every one of them.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Yea, that's the reason why, even if I had the money, I wouldn't be able to collect cars. I'd drive the value out of every one of them.

Me too!
Jay leno is one of the few collectors that actually drives his cars. I saw an interview with him a while back and even though he does "drive" them in public he says he is trying to spread it out so that he only puts a few miles on each car every couple of years.

[xdavidx]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Me too!
Jay leno is one of the few collectors that actually drives his cars. I saw an interview with him a while back and even though he does "drive" them in public he says he trying to spread it out so that he only puts a few miles on each car every couple of years.

Ya, a little easier to avoid putting high mileage on your collector cars when you couldn't possibly drive any of them more than 1 day ever 2 years.
I tried collector cars for a bit. If they gave awards for road dirtiest at classic car shows, I'd have one first place every time.

[venturaII]

And mileage only hurts value to a point; a Ferrari GTO is still going to be an investment vehicle, no matter if it has 5000 miles or 500,000. Look at Nick Mason's car...he races the shit out of it, and it's still a $40M car. I seriously doubt mileage is an issue. He's already made his ham sandwich back from his initial £37,000 purchase price. In fact, I'd even say that the LESS collectible a car is, the greater the impact of mileage on the overall value. If your car loses 50% of it's value due to normal mileage accumulation, it's not collectible in the first place.

[Tcoat]

@venturaII I can't quote you.
Your example is poor since in that case the car actually gains value because of who used it and the more it is used the higher the value. This is simply not the case for the vast majority of cars. If that same car was just parked away it would not have increased as it did.
Mileage is a major determining factor in the value of any car that does not have some special historical or personality attached to it. This is collector car 101 and is an indisputable fact.


The whole definition of what is a "collectable" car is up in the air anyway. I could gather up every version of the Dodge minivan ever made and say I have a "collection" and they are "collector" cars or I could have a driveway full of Ferraris that I drive every day and they are just my DDs.

[mrspindlelegs]

Originally Posted by xdavidx

Ya, a little easier to avoid putting high mileage on your collector cars when you couldn't possibly drive any of them more than 1 day ever 2 years.
I tried collector cars for a bit. If they gave awards for road dirtiest at classic car shows, I'd have one first place every time.

Yes, it certainly is difficult for Jay to put a lot of mileage on any one car since he owns nearly 300 cars (286 according to a quick Google search).

[venturaII]

Mileage is far less of a factor with vehicles whose collectibility is based on the actual vehicle desirability, rather than simple still being low mileage through some freak circumstances. Low mileage increases the value of non-collectible vehicles far more than with true investment ones, simply as a curiosity.

Nick's GTO's value is primarily based on being a GTO. There are other GTOs worth considerably more, but whose owners are not famous. Mason owning it certainly adds panache, but not much to the vehicle itself. If it were owned by Ayrton Senna or some other famous person with direct ties to motorsports, PLUS being raced by them, then it'd definitely add to value. Either way, vehicle mileage would affect the value far less than provenance.

The other end of the scale might see a Dodge Omni with 5000 miles on it fetching close to $10 to the right person. The same car with 200K might only get $2500 on a good day, which is a factor of 4. Nick's GTO would not go from 40M to 160M if it had no miles on it.

[Adam_L]

There are still better / safer investments to get into (dropping $10k … 100k …. 250k) then cars. If you get into the car game/business , there are definitely some other costs / liabilities to consider (insurance /storage ,etc)

You're better off buying a used car for $14k ….. putting $4k into it for maintenance initially , driving it for about 2 years , and selling it for $25k or so ( if you know the right car to buy, at the time, desired/ demand vehicles). So if you're walking away making some kind of money, $500- $1-3k , then you're smelling like roses at the end of ownership

[Impureclient]

Originally Posted by Adam_L

There are still better / safer investments to get into (dropping $10k … 100k …. 250k) then cars.

Exactly, lottery tickets!

[ermax]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

If it wasn't for a movie and some video games the prices would probably be 30% to 50% less on the MKIVs!
It was a good car in it's day but would not have near the following it does now without the (fictional) exposure it received. The same applies to the 2JZ engine that so many think is the ultimate in technology even though it is an inefficient, 30 year old design.


OK fanboi's flame away and rationalize why I am wrong!

The MkIV was crazy worshiped long before those lame ass Fast in Furious movies hence the reason they placed the car in the movie. Those movies have always been a joke to most car guys. I really don’t think the movies have much influence on the value of the car.

Also, no one says the 2JZ is ultra high tech. It just takes boost without throwing rods.