# EVO mag, trade in



## Gatling (Jun 16, 2010)

Enjoyed reading Davids write up over the last however many months about his GTR, but one thing that I find a bit odd is the trade in figure that is quoted at the end of the article.
Surely the desired private sale price (that it didnt sell at) is unrealistic to put down as a trade in figure???


----------



## AndyBrew (Feb 2, 2011)

probably, but achievable in my opinion with enough time.

I wonder whether a degree of David's problems was that everybody knows its been tracked, I know I personally wouldn't of gone for a car thats been tracked and I'm sure many others prefer to think their car has been treated tenderly since its birth even if in reality its had its nuts ragged off and poorly maintained, what you don't know can't hurt you!


----------



## Gatling (Jun 16, 2010)

I appreciate that, but I think putting down your desired private sale price as a trade in figure is a bit misleading. To say you only lost £9000 in depreciation just isnt the case. Trade in figures, in my mind, are what a dealer would offer you.


----------



## David.Yu (Jun 28, 2001)

Obviously that piece was written a while ago and all I had to go on was Andy Middlehurst's earlier advice that I advertise it for just under £45k.
However, he said that just before the flood of R35s onto the market and it was, _in hindsight_, highly optimistic.

However, why shouldn't a (guesstimated) depreciation figure be the difference between what you bought it for and what you (hoped to) sell it for? I don't think there is an official definition of depreciation and that it should be related to the trade-in price at a dealer.


----------



## Gatling (Jun 16, 2010)

David.Yu said:


> Obviously that piece was written a while ago and all I had to go on was Andy Middlehurst's earlier advice that I advertise it for just under £45k.
> However, he said that just before the flood of R35s onto the market and it was, _in hindsight_, highly optimistic.
> 
> However, why shouldn't a (guesstimated) depreciation figure be the difference between what you bought it for and what you (hoped to) sell it for? I don't think there is an official definition of depreciation and that it should be related to the trade-in price at a dealer.


Its hardly written like that though, is it.
'Trade in value' and what you hope to sell a car for are two very different things.


----------



## David.Yu (Jun 28, 2001)

I did not write "trade-in value". If that is how the sub-editor wrote it, then yes, that was misleading.


----------



## JohnE90M3 (May 31, 2010)

If you trade a one week old car it will loose £9K


----------



## Varsity (Oct 24, 2009)

JohnE90M3 said:


> If you trade a one week old car it will loose £9K


So don't do it!

Keep it, enjoy it and embarrass many, many Porsche owners.

:clap:


----------



## Arcam (Jun 30, 2009)

JohnE90M3 said:


> If you trade a one week old car it will loose £9K


I wanted to get my old 2010 car back after a few days of owning the 2011 car and was looking at a 10k loss to do so 

Not quite what I expected but understandable none the less.


----------



## David.Yu (Jun 28, 2001)

Arcam said:


> I wanted to get my old 2010 car back after a few days of owning the 2011 car and was looking at a 10k loss to do so
> 
> Not quite what I expected but understandable none the less.


WTF?! Really?
Do you like your 2011 a bit more now?


----------



## paul__k (Dec 8, 2007)

Hey Arcam.
Spill the beans on the new 2011!
I'm sure its not what the biased press would say...


----------



## Gatling (Jun 16, 2010)

David.Yu said:


> I did not write "trade-in value". If that is how the sub-editor wrote it, then yes, that was misleading.


Its the same for all end of term cars in that magazine, a Trade in value figure is given in the box.
I just think its a bit misleading thats all. Might be worth pointing out to the powers that be at Evo. :thumbsup:


----------



## vxrcymru (Sep 29, 2009)

David.Yu said:


> Obviously that piece was written a while ago and all I had to go on was Andy Middlehurst's earlier advice that I advertise it for just under £45k.
> However, he said that just before the flood of R35s onto the market and it was, _in hindsight_, highly optimistic.
> 
> However, why shouldn't a (guesstimated) depreciation figure be the difference between what you bought it for and what you (hoped to) sell it for? I don't think there is an official definition of depreciation and that it should be related to the trade-in price at a dealer.


What about all the talk of 09 and 10 car residuals being strong when the 2011 model came out. Looks like basic demand and supply has taken over


----------



## Jaw_F430 (Apr 14, 2009)

Arcam said:


> I wanted to get my old 2010 car back after a few days of owning the 2011 car and was looking at a 10k loss to do so
> 
> Not quite what I expected but understandable none the less.


Is that because the car feels the same?


----------



## David.Yu (Jun 28, 2001)

Gatling said:


> Its the same for all end of term cars in that magazine, a Trade in value figure is given in the box.
> I just think its a bit misleading thats all. Might be worth pointing out to the powers that be at Evo. :thumbsup:


Most of the cars in Fast Fleet are press cars, so obviously the only figure they have to go on are dealer trade-in values, so that's why the box exists.


----------



## Lindsay Mac (Apr 12, 2008)

David.Yu said:


> Most of the cars in Fast Fleet are press cars, so obviously the only figure they have to go on are dealer trade-in values, so that's why the box exists.



EVO losing a little bit of face here? Must remember and take this type of info with a pinch of salt in the future.


----------



## Guy (Jun 27, 2001)

Lindsay Mac said:


> EVO losing a little bit of face here? Must remember and take this type of info with a pinch of salt in the future.


Same applies to almost all car magazines.


----------



## David.Yu (Jun 28, 2001)

Lindsay Mac said:


> EVO losing a little bit of face here? Must remember and take this type of info with a pinch of salt in the future.


What are you talking about?


----------



## Arcam (Jun 30, 2009)

David.Yu said:


> WTF?! Really?


Yep really David, I tried to get a deal back on my old car and also against a new 2010 model.



David.Yu said:


> Do you like your 2011 a bit more now?


Not really, I have not used the car for the past 8 days, I can't drive at the moment as I had a couple of operations last week.

I was only up to 750 or so miles at that point so feel comments good or bad would be tainted at the moment.

I was/am going to do a "proper" review after Spa and the Ring next month, assuming I still have the 2011 car then.


----------



## Jaw_F430 (Apr 14, 2009)

Arcam said:


> Yep really David, I tried to get a deal back on my old car and also against a new 2010 model.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Can't wait for your review, very intrigued now


----------



## Wildrover (Dec 16, 2008)

I do like reading EVO. But it's only a journos opinion (their view) whether david or otherwise.

I like reading about cars I've owned, own or will own. But I don't necessarily think that EVO's views are just. I mean I would never behave like David does - tuning and playing with a great product and in the process ruining it - I mean that daft wrap he had on the last car.

People rave about Zondas, but I've seen the guy from EVO (is it Barker?) around Bourton on the Water in that stupid Zonda. How can I take whoever he is seriously driving a car far too wide for British roads seriously. It's an awful car - he may think he looks cool - it's a joke. 

My wife just bust out laughing


----------



## psg001 (Jun 4, 2010)

David, obiously you did a lot of track days in your R35. 

did you pay for the pre-post track inspections because in the EVO article it just says servicing £2000 (three services). 

Did this not have an effect on the warranty??


PG

PS. I love reading EVO, and thought the article by David were great to read!


----------



## AndyBrew (Feb 2, 2011)

Wildrover said:


> People rave about Zondas, but I've seen the guy from EVO (is it Barker?) around Bourton on the Water in that stupid Zonda. How can I take whoever he is seriously driving a car far too wide for British roads seriously. It's an awful car - he may think he looks cool - it's a joke.
> 
> My wife just bust out laughing


Zonda an awful car, now there's a statement I thought I would never hear :nervous:

And for crying out loud the guy wrote a figure in a magazine, I sometimes wonder about what people worry about


----------



## JohnE90M3 (May 31, 2010)

AndyBrew said:


> Zonda an awful car, now there's a statement I thought I would never hear :nervous:
> 
> And for crying out loud the guy wrote a figure in a magazine, I sometimes wonder about what people worry about


Yep :runaway: If I were David I would ignore this thread and move on, * All opinions* are personal at any level, and "Scribes" make mistakes, lets not make this a personal attack on a good bloke please, it's sliding that way.


----------



## ticketmaster123 (Mar 19, 2008)

EVO is my Bible.


----------



## Gatling (Jun 16, 2010)

I cant see it a personal attack on anyone, its just drama drama drama on here isnt it.
Cant we have a sensible discussion for once????


----------



## Bajie (Dec 13, 2001)

I'm a bit surprised people would refuse to buy Davids car because it was used for what it was built to do.
I sold my GTR and was totally and completely honest about its history and got the price I asked for it.
I am amazed people go out to by a performance car and think the previous owner has not explored the aforementioned performance.


----------



## GTRSTAR (Nov 26, 2009)

Im disappointed in you mook. like in any society there must be a balance, taking away my right to speak out against negativity just to keep the peace is precisely what causes social divide the very thing that is wrong with this country.


----------



## Mook (Mar 20, 2007)

I don't care. You don't call someone names because you have a different opinion


----------



## asiasi (Dec 22, 2007)

Boo ! wheres GTRSTARs posts gone,they were spot on :thumbsup:


----------



## Bajie (Dec 13, 2001)

Yet again a worthwhile thread degenerates ...


----------



## David.Yu (Jun 28, 2001)

Mook said:


> I don't care. You don't call someone names because you have a different opinion


Nobody deleted the posts calling me a p***k just because I happened to forward some GT-R related news about the earthquake...

Or the one where someone told me to f**k myself because I dared to complain about a GTROC track day being cancelled without notice.

Double standards much?


----------



## Mook (Mar 20, 2007)

YOU
NEED
TO
REPORT
POSTS
IF
YOU
FIND
THEM
OFFENSIVE

I cannot be expected to read every single post.

And I didn't act on the earthquake post because I personally felt it was bloody stupid and passions were running high


----------



## Gatling (Jun 16, 2010)

Bajie said:


> I'm a bit surprised people would refuse to buy Davids car because it was used for what it was built to do.
> I sold my GTR and was totally and completely honest about its history and got the price I asked for it.
> I am amazed people go out to by a performance car and think the previous owner has not explored the aforementioned performance.


I agree, but buyers do seem to want a car that has been wrapped in cotton wool. Even if a car has been driven hard/tuned, people would rather not know about it, ignorance is bliss!


----------



## Varsity (Oct 24, 2009)

Met a test driver at the Ring this past Friday and asked his opinion, he just laughed and said it is personal opinion. He liked the old one for many reasons but thought the new one was also a good car for many other reasons.

Didn't catch his name but he was a really cool chap and obviously wasn't going to ruin any debate.

As someone said here earlier, its going to be a divide as personal opinions will be just that, personal. Its good to remember that we are all lucky to be able to afford an opinion.

BTW, nothing wrong with a Saab!


----------



## David.Yu (Jun 28, 2001)

Mook said:


> YOU
> I didn't act on the earthquake post because I personally felt it was bloody stupid and passions were running high


So we have it on record that you do allow personal attacks provided you personally believe they're ok. Fine.


----------



## Mook (Mar 20, 2007)

Yeah. Go on then, interpret it as you please. I didn't get any complaints so didn't act. 

Remeber I am a forum user and owner as well as a moderator.


----------



## Gatling (Jun 16, 2010)

David.Yu said:


> So we have it on record that you do allow personal attacks provided you personally believe they're ok. Fine.


Come on David, get a grip, can we not talk about the original topic please?


----------



## David.Yu (Jun 28, 2001)

Gatling said:


> Come on David, get a grip, can we not talk about the original topic please?


What is there to talk about? I've already explained the situation in the clearest English I know.


----------



## GTRSTAR (Nov 26, 2009)

David.Yu said:


> What is there to talk about? I've already explained the situation in the clearest English I know.


Ye me too  lol


----------



## Gatling (Jun 16, 2010)

David.Yu said:


> What is there to talk about? I've already explained the situation in the clearest English I know.


What I mean is, can others not talk about something without it always descending into off topic nonsense, or ongoing feuds between certain members on here.


----------



## GTRSTAR (Nov 26, 2009)

Gatling said:


> What I mean is, can others not talk about something without it always descending into off topic nonsense, or ongoing feuds between certain members on here.


If you want to talk try calling eachother up rather than spouting your hateful babble over the internet! :banned:

Alternatively, Try to keep the threads either interesting or informative, this one is neither. :wavey:


----------



## Gatling (Jun 16, 2010)

GTRSTAR said:


> If you want to talk try calling eachother up rather than spouting your hateful babble over the internet! :banned:
> 
> Alternatively, Try to keep the threads either interesting or informative, this one is neither. :wavey:


Hateful babble??? how do you work that out? I started a thread, all good discussion, then you come along as per usual and ruin it.

Why are you such a ****?


----------



## David.Yu (Jun 28, 2001)

Can we just draw a line under this now? There really is no more to discuss on the original topic. I actually agree with Gatling that my hoped for sale price should not have been labelled "trade-in price" by the sub-eds and have said as much.

End of. _Please. _ :wavey:


----------



## psg001 (Jun 4, 2010)

David,

i was asking about the track days you went on and warranty. you had 3 services, 

(1) did you have any pre-post track day inspections??
(2) did you ever get any acknowledgement / comments from Nissan that it had been tracked??

cheers

PG


----------



## DWC (May 18, 2009)

David.Yu said:


> Can we just draw a line under this now? There really is no more to discuss on the original topic. I actually agree with Gatling that my hoped for sale price should not have been labelled "trade-in price" by the sub-eds and have said as much.
> 
> End of. _Please. _ :wavey:


Well said David. This is crazy stuff.


----------



## David.Yu (Jun 28, 2001)

psg001 said:


> David,
> 
> i was asking about the track days you went on and warranty. you had 3 services,
> 
> ...


1) No. They just checked the car over thoroughly at the normal services.
2) Not sure what you mean? Middlehurst knew (as did anyone who read evo) that it had been tracked.


----------



## psg001 (Jun 4, 2010)

David.Yu said:


> 1) No. They just checked the car over thoroughly at the normal services.
> 2) Not sure what you mean? Middlehurst knew (as did anyone who read evo) that it had been tracked.


thanks David,

w.r.t question (2) was just wondering if they had said anything to you re tracking the car, thats all, but you've said they knew so no problems then.

cheers :thumbsup:


----------



## David.Yu (Jun 28, 2001)

Still not sure what you were expecting them to say? You are allowed to use the car on track!

In fact Middlehurst themselves are organising track days, so it would be more than a bit strange if they should comment on track use...


----------



## psg001 (Jun 4, 2010)

cool, thats good to know.

am considering getting a GTR for next year.

went out for a ride along with a member on here in his MY2010 GTR this morning + stage 2. VERY impressive!!

would love to take it on track, had just heard it caused warranty to be invalidated. guess its a little bit of a grey area, but nobody has had any probs with warranty post trackdays which is good.


----------

