S4 Contract available, #2 car in New Jersey...
09-10-1999, 10:49 AM
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Somehow I have a problem with this situation
Everyone needs to sit back and relax!! There is no huge demand for the S4 and subsequently no shortage. Every dealer in my area has plenty of available S4's. There is no need to pay for a F*#KING contract!!!!
09-10-1999, 12:25 PM
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flames/Debate encouraged . . . . (long-winded)
You guys are RIDICULOUS!
Let's see. Someone out there takes a risk, goes out and puts a deposit on a car that won't be available for 6 months or so (depending on when the deposit was placed). This person does not have the "use" of their money for 6 months. And then, if/when (which is already quite apparently NOT the case with the S4) demand is high and supply is low they SHOULDN'T "sell" their contract? That's about as "un-American" as you can get. It is simple capitalism. Selling something to people that they want to buy. There will always be a group of people out there who "gotta' have it first" (and not too coincidentally, these are usually the same people who neglect to walk into a dealer until the car has already been released and expect to get one of the first ones off the lot) who are willing to pay a premium for their own lack of foresight.
Do you REALLY think that "invoice" is anywhere NEAR what it costs Audi to build a car? No way. Yet, those of us who actually buy one ARE willing to pay the price. This price represents what Audi CAN GET AWAY WITH CHARGING given market conditions (there's that "supply and demand" thing again). Not at all different than the situation being debated here. Someone is attempting to "sell" their contract. Simple supply and demand economics. In this case, the person trying to sell his/her contract loses (as supply is greater than demand at the moment). Anytime a economic "transaction" occurs two things change hands: 1) money (or monetary equivalent), and 2) something of value (or perceived value). In this case the "value" part of the equation is the ability to buy something before others can.
Let's face it, it there weren't people who had to "have it first" or were poor planners, the opportunity to "sell" a contract wouldn't exist.
O.K. . . . . . now I'm bracing for "impact" (better put on the asbestos suit).
Let's see. Someone out there takes a risk, goes out and puts a deposit on a car that won't be available for 6 months or so (depending on when the deposit was placed). This person does not have the "use" of their money for 6 months. And then, if/when (which is already quite apparently NOT the case with the S4) demand is high and supply is low they SHOULDN'T "sell" their contract? That's about as "un-American" as you can get. It is simple capitalism. Selling something to people that they want to buy. There will always be a group of people out there who "gotta' have it first" (and not too coincidentally, these are usually the same people who neglect to walk into a dealer until the car has already been released and expect to get one of the first ones off the lot) who are willing to pay a premium for their own lack of foresight.
Do you REALLY think that "invoice" is anywhere NEAR what it costs Audi to build a car? No way. Yet, those of us who actually buy one ARE willing to pay the price. This price represents what Audi CAN GET AWAY WITH CHARGING given market conditions (there's that "supply and demand" thing again). Not at all different than the situation being debated here. Someone is attempting to "sell" their contract. Simple supply and demand economics. In this case, the person trying to sell his/her contract loses (as supply is greater than demand at the moment). Anytime a economic "transaction" occurs two things change hands: 1) money (or monetary equivalent), and 2) something of value (or perceived value). In this case the "value" part of the equation is the ability to buy something before others can.
Let's face it, it there weren't people who had to "have it first" or were poor planners, the opportunity to "sell" a contract wouldn't exist.
O.K. . . . . . now I'm bracing for "impact" (better put on the asbestos suit).
09-10-1999, 01:38 PM
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Common Mistake?
If you spend too much time here on A4.org, you'll end up with a warped view of just how popular the S4 is.
It's not that the S4 isn't a potentially great car, but rather that the general public isn't excited by the S4. Power alone doesn't do it, if that was the case a Mustang or Firebird would draw more attention than the TT.
The S4 is a fairly generic looking four door sedan, it may be fast, but it doesn't really look fast - at least not overtly. You can quibble over the phrase "fairly generic", but I've been told by one friend that it looks like a Cadillac* and by another that it looks like a lowered Honda Civic**. Granted, these aren't "car people", but I do think they're fairly indicative of the general car buying public.
In a post from a couple weeks ago, someone who had just driven a S4 cross country was asked did he get many looks, his reply, "From Califonia all the way to Chicago, not one look. Weird."
Think that would be the case with a TT?
* His opinion that it looked like a Cadillac was based on a picture taken from a very low angle, he grossly over estimated it's size.
** Stick an A4 near a Civic, you might be surprised how similar they look!
It's not that the S4 isn't a potentially great car, but rather that the general public isn't excited by the S4. Power alone doesn't do it, if that was the case a Mustang or Firebird would draw more attention than the TT.
The S4 is a fairly generic looking four door sedan, it may be fast, but it doesn't really look fast - at least not overtly. You can quibble over the phrase "fairly generic", but I've been told by one friend that it looks like a Cadillac* and by another that it looks like a lowered Honda Civic**. Granted, these aren't "car people", but I do think they're fairly indicative of the general car buying public.
In a post from a couple weeks ago, someone who had just driven a S4 cross country was asked did he get many looks, his reply, "From Califonia all the way to Chicago, not one look. Weird."
Think that would be the case with a TT?
* His opinion that it looked like a Cadillac was based on a picture taken from a very low angle, he grossly over estimated it's size.
** Stick an A4 near a Civic, you might be surprised how similar they look!
09-10-1999, 02:09 PM
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wow! Check this out!
Wonder what happens when you're #1 in New Jersey. But then again, how do you know you're #1 when there are about a half dozen NJ Audi dealers? Do you demand more money? Just kidding.
Jee
Holding out until next spring for S4 but still has #1 spot with one dealer in NJ (dealer expects delivery anytime now) and #4 with another (I'm just cookoo for S4s). Anyone interested? Don't want anything, just want to make sure S4 finds a good home.
Jee
Holding out until next spring for S4 but still has #1 spot with one dealer in NJ (dealer expects delivery anytime now) and #4 with another (I'm just cookoo for S4s). Anyone interested? Don't want anything, just want to make sure S4 finds a good home.
09-10-1999, 05:23 PM
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Which came first?
<i>To me, it's kind of saying a Rolex looks like a Seiko--isn't it the other way around?</i>
Semantics...let's just say they look like each other. The point is neither makes any type of "bold visual statement".
<a href="http://www.honda1999.com/cars/civic_sedan/">Honda Civic</a>
<a href="http://www.audiusa.com/family/a41/">Audi A4</a>
As for the M3 or 323/238, I think they are a bit more unique looking than the S4, although (obviously) much more plentiful. I personally like the exterior styling more, but can't deal with the price or with rear wheel drive.
btw...could Audi's S4 site suck more? How about 1 single decent picture of the car. I really don't need some arty shot of the tail light.
Semantics...let's just say they look like each other. The point is neither makes any type of "bold visual statement".
<a href="http://www.honda1999.com/cars/civic_sedan/">Honda Civic</a>
<a href="http://www.audiusa.com/family/a41/">Audi A4</a>
As for the M3 or 323/238, I think they are a bit more unique looking than the S4, although (obviously) much more plentiful. I personally like the exterior styling more, but can't deal with the price or with rear wheel drive.
btw...could Audi's S4 site suck more? How about 1 single decent picture of the car. I really don't need some arty shot of the tail light.
09-10-1999, 08:22 PM
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
My humble opinion...
Personally, if I took a deposit for an S4, and then the person who ordered the car told me that he was selling his "spot" to someone else I'd tell him that he ordered a <B><I>car</I></B>, and not an "option". I'd refund his deposit and he'd be S.O.L...
09-10-1999, 10:08 PM
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Which came first?
I believe the guys here are absolutely trying to go for a "bold visual statement" or they're M3 wannabee Civic, or they wouldn't slather logos all over them or buy fake-xenon emulating headlight kits.
Regarding the S4 website, I agree 100% What about the "vibrating engine"?! IF I WANTED THAT I'D BUY A HARLEY!!! I'm practically offended by that, knowing that our A4's motor runs like a sewing machine.
Regarding the S4 website, I agree 100% What about the "vibrating engine"?! IF I WANTED THAT I'D BUY A HARLEY!!! I'm practically offended by that, knowing that our A4's motor runs like a sewing machine.
09-10-1999, 10:12 PM
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Common Mistake?
You know, the 2000 Catera really is trying to be an A4. Even the 5-spoke wheels.
I see the point on the Cadillac.
Now if he thought it looked like a '59 Eldorado, I would have some concern over his dietary intake of certain controlled substances.
I see the point on the Cadillac.
Now if he thought it looked like a '59 Eldorado, I would have some concern over his dietary intake of certain controlled substances.