[alexceres]

The 750 isn’t going to hold its dollar value. But if you can’t get a 765, I’m not sure what else will provide a competitive emotional value in the next 5 years. Everyone is struggling with weight, hybridization or both. And most of McLarens competitors don’t even think these are struggles to fight.

 

[MarkNC]

User-hostile to operate is an understatement…
We disagree on the future collectability of the 750s but it’s a silly discussion anyway, who knows if my crystal ball or yours is working. We can try to give Ms Cleo a ring.

Sorry, I reread what I wrote and edited it. I'm not keeping the 750S as a "collector car", and I don't really see it in that category, but simply as a McLaren that I think I will want to keep driving long into the future even after they come out with higher-tech faster hybrid models to replace it. If they hadn't made the 750S I would have kept our 720S Spider indefinitely. They're just such wonderful cars! I don't like to buy into the "last xxxx they'll make" theory because inevitably these car makers who will try to bring products to market that their customers desire. Just when you think this is the last non-hybrid car they might squeeze out another one and then after 20 years of hybrids or electric cars new cleaner synthetic sustainable fuels allows them to come back again. Having said all that, I bought a low-mileage mint-condition manual 430 Spider a few years ago and I think that car has probably earned collector status now. The "collector" version of that series was the 16M but, like the 720S/750S compared to the 765LT, I actually prefer a less harsh experience in a convertible supercar and, in the Ferrari case, I prefer a manual to the F1 gearbox - although the Scud/16M was probably the car that best suited Ferrari's F1 gearbox and the best implementation of it as well.

Aside from that, I appreciate all of your information on the cars, as that is what I was looking for. Some sort of insight or direction while the winter months pass me by and I can get behind the wheel of both of them. The thing is, you can only gather so much information on a test drive, so getting owner feedback is valuable to me also.

I enjoy providing it. Similar to what you said here, participating in the forums lets me get enjoyment out of my cars when I can't be driving them.

If a forum member has similar opinions in cars as myself, and also thousands of miles in each car, it’s advice to heed, because I won’t experience those things on a nice, sunny, test drive. Of course, that’s just my opinion.

No question. You can learn a lot from a test drive but even more from living with the car, driving it regularly, and constantly comparing it to other cars you've done the same with. That's the primary reason I bought the Artura. I didn't really need it, and normally I would have wanted the Spider instead of a coupe, but I wanted to get to know where McLaren was going with regular-series hybrid supercars. I'm glad I did it because I wouldn't have the perspective on the car (it's a great car!) that I do if I had just relied on a test drive and online impressions from others. Plus it kept my streak intact of owning at least one model of every regular-series of McLaren since the 12C.

 

[MarkNC]

Car "investment" is a big joke, IMO, and it's more like playing the lottery than true investing for most people.

Of course there are other ways of looking at it. Perhaps it's your business, buying/selling. Sure. Or it's just a passion. Fine. But investment, it is not, IMO. But as always, YMMV.

I tend to agree with that. It's a hobby for sure. As investments, 99% of cars are pretty crappy assets from an investment standpoint, even the best investment-grade cars would never have beaten Apple or Microsoft stock or even the S&P as you pointed out. Plus there are very few people into McLaren F1s that bought them for their original price. Most of the people who own them now paid a lot more than that. Not only do cars mostly depreciate but you have to spend money on them every year. Property tax, insurance, service, fuel, tires, etc. Plus you need a place to store them and all the expenses that go along with that as well.

But for the cars that don't depreciate too badly, and for the ones that appreciate over time, they're at least a place you can park your money while still getting enjoyment out of it and not losing 100% the money you spent on it provided you've maintained it properly. I told my wife when we were buying the P1 that if things went badly I could likely turn it into $900,000 in a pinch. That would have been a big loss on the car but there was still value that could be reclaimed from it. In the meantime I've put well over 10,000 miles on the car and it still wows me every time I get behind the wheel. So perhaps it was an investment in my well-being more than a financial investment. There are a lot of things people buy that just return momentary joy along with great lasting memories like taking a fancy vacation, buying seasons tickets to a sports team or drinking fancy wine. At least with the car you can have the expectation that it's going to worth something to someone when the time comes that you want or need to part with it.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

You need to subtract fees from owing the S&P 500 over that period which if you owned them via an ETF were higher back then.

If someone bought an F1 and put it on a trickle charger his cost of ownership wouldn't be that significant.

There are several that are low cost or free.

FNILX S&P500 fund free if you have fidelity account
FNILX - Fidelity ZERO ® Large Cap Index Fund | Fidelity Investments

Not to mention the fees on the low cost funds are negligible compared to the heinous money pit that is F1 service/maintenance, much less time/energy lost.

My point stands.

 

[Machiavelli]

There are several that are low cost or free.

FNILX S&P500 fund free if you have fidelity account
FNILX - Fidelity ZERO ® Large Cap Index Fund | Fidelity Investments

Not to mention the fees on the low cost funds are negligible compared to the heinous money pit that is F1 service/maintenance, much less time/energy lost.

My point stands.

Investing in an S&P 500 wasn't free back in the day, it was mostly done via mutual funds which had MER's north of 1 %, but lets assume zero cost.

F1 cost 815,000 new in 1995, let’s assume purchase price of 1.1MM to account for options/taxes/PDI etc



A McLaren F1 sold for 15.6MM in 2017, a gross rate of return (ROR) of 12.6%

Another F1 sold for 20.4MM in 2021, ROR 11.9 %



1.1 MM invested into the S&P 500 over the same span:



1995-2017 6.82MM ROR 8.88 %

1995-2021 12.8 MM ROR 10.1 %



F1 wins by over 8MM in both cases.



Ownership costs of an F1 won’t overcome that delta.

 

[MarkNC]

Investing in an S&P 500 wasn't free back in the day, it was mostly done via mutual funds which had MER's north of 1 %, but lets assume zero cost.
F1 cost 815,000 new in 1995, let’s assume purchase price of 1.1MM to account for options/taxes/PDI etc
A McLaren F1 sold for 15.6MM in 2017, a gross rate of return (ROR) of 12.6%
Another F1 sold for 20.4MM in 2021, ROR 11.9 %
1.1 MM invested into the S&P 500 over the same span:
1995-2017 6.82MM ROR 8.88 %
1995-2021 12.8 MM ROR 10.1 %
F1 wins by over 8MM in both cases.
Ownership costs of an F1 won’t overcome that delta.

This is a silly argument unless you own a time machine.

Go ahead and name a car you can buy today that will appreciate like the F1 did?

Yes some owners will make a big buck from selling their McLaren F1. But that ship sailed a long time ago. In my opinion these opportunities don't really exist today and if they do they're not available to regular folks. The people who can afford these cars aren't making life-changing money reselling them except perhaps for the dealers selling them on consignment.

The reason there were only 64 McLaren F1s is because they couldn't sell the 300 that McLaren intended to make. So they switched to making race versions and sold another 60 cars, and raced a few of the factory ones, then shut down the road car business for the next decade. This car wasn't a huge success. Nobody could have predicted the market for it today. Now everyone is falling all over themselves to buy "the next McLaren F1" but short of the GMA T.50 there isn't even anything close. No Pagani, Koeniggsegg, Bugatti, Aston, Mercedes, Lamborghini, Ferrari, McLaren, or Porsche, are going to appreciate like the F1 because none of the manufacturers are going to make them in such limited numbers ever again and most of them aren't really new models but rebodied and/or slightly restyled versions of cars that regular rich people can buy. Even GMA is making 100 T.50s and then 300 T.33s. They all need to make a living and have each vehicle be profitable.

Few, if any, of the low-volume and/or custom special vehicles are going to appreciate massively because they're not really one-off models anymore, they're custom bodies on top of already-homologated cars. The 112 Lamboghini Countach LPI 800-4 are body-kitted Aventadors. Eric Clapton's Ferrari SP12EC has a lovely body with fake air intakes over the engine (to mimic the 512 BB) but the exact same interior as a 458 even down to the cheap plastic surrounding the AC vents and dash because it's nothing more than a 458 with a body kit. But let's not talk about how many Ferraris you have to buy and lose money on before they'll let you buy one of their limited cars, or even consider making you a one-off, because that really spoils the argument for buying one as an investment car.

The track-only specials (Solus GT, Valkyrie AMR, Ferrari XX, Bugatti Bolide, etc.) appeal to a very small audience so they're not going to 10x their prices anytime soon.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

I tend to agree with that. It's a hobby for sure. As investments, 99% of cars are pretty crappy assets from an investment standpoint, even the best investment-grade cars would never have beaten Apple or Microsoft stock or even the S&P as you pointed out. Plus there are very few people into McLaren F1s that bought them for their original price. Most of the people who own them now paid a lot more than that. Not only do cars mostly depreciate but you have to spend money on them every year. Property tax, insurance, service, fuel, tires, etc. Plus you need a place to store them and all the expenses that go along with that as well.

But for the cars that don't depreciate too badly, and for the ones that appreciate over time, they're at least a place you can park your money while still getting enjoyment out of it and not losing 100% the money you spent on it provided you've maintained it properly. I told my wife when we were buying the P1 that if things went badly I could likely turn it into $900,000 in a pinch. That would have been a big loss on the car but there was still value that could be reclaimed from it. In the meantime I've put well over 10,000 miles on the car and it still wows me every time I get behind the wheel. So perhaps it was an investment in my well-being more than a financial investment. There are a lot of things people buy that just return momentary joy along with great lasting memories like taking a fancy vacation, buying seasons tickets to a sports team or drinking fancy wine. At least with the car you can have the expectation that it's going to worth something to someone when the time comes that you want or need to part with it.

Totally agree. In a sense, it's an investment in yourself and your enjoyment, which does count for a lot.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

Investing in an S&P 500 wasn't free back in the day, it was mostly done via mutual funds which had MER's north of 1 %, but lets assume zero cost.

F1 cost 815,000 new in 1995, let’s assume purchase price of 1.1MM to account for options/taxes/PDI etc



A McLaren F1 sold for 15.6MM in 2017, a gross rate of return (ROR) of 12.6%

Another F1 sold for 20.4MM in 2021, ROR 11.9 %



1.1 MM invested into the S&P 500 over the same span:



1995-2017 6.82MM ROR 8.88 %

1995-2021 12.8 MM ROR 10.1 %



F1 wins by over 8MM in both cases.



Ownership costs of an F1 won’t overcome that delta.

Now add in the cost of maintaining the F1. Now add in the time sink, loss of earning power it cost in distracting you from making money and needing to tend to its needs in maintain it.

Low cost S&P was around probably from early 2000's so your compounding math doesnt work out.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is a silly argument unless you own a time machine.

Go ahead and name a car you can buy today that will appreciate like the F1 did?

Yes some owners will make a big buck from selling their McLaren F1. But that ship sailed a long time ago. In my opinion these opportunities don't really exist today and if they do they're not available to regular folks. The people who can afford these cars aren't making life-changing money reselling them except perhaps for the dealers selling them on consignment.

The reason there were only 64 McLaren F1s is because they couldn't sell the 300 that McLaren intended to make. So they switched to making race versions and sold another 60 cars, and raced a few of the factory ones, then shut down the road car business for the next decade. This car wasn't a huge success. Nobody could have predicted the market for it today. Now everyone is falling all over themselves to buy "the next McLaren F1" but short of the GMA T.50 there isn't even anything close. No Pagani, Koeniggsegg, Bugatti, Aston, Mercedes, Lamborghini, Ferrari, McLaren, or Porsche, are going to appreciate like the F1 because none of the manufacturers are going to make them in such limited numbers ever again and most of them aren't really new models but rebodied and/or slightly restyled versions of cars that regular rich people can buy. Even GMA is making 100 T.50s and then 300 T.33s. They all need to make a living and have each vehicle be profitable.

Few, if any, of the low-volume and/or custom special vehicles are going to appreciate massively because they're not really one-off models anymore, they're custom bodies on top of already-homologated cars. The 112 Lamboghinis Countach LPI 800-4 is a body-kitted Aventador. Eric Clapton's Ferrari SP12EC has a lovely body with fake air intakes over the engine (to mimic the 512 BB) but the exact same interior as a 458 even down to the cheap plastic surrounding the AC vents and dash because it's nothing more than a 458 with a body kit. But let's not talk about how many Ferraris you have to buy and lose money on before they'll let you buy one of their limited cars, or even consider making you a one-off, because that really spoils the argument for buying one as an investment car.

The track-only specials (Solus GT, Valkyrie AMR, Ferrari XX, Bugatti Bolide, etc.) appeal to a very small audience so they're not going to 10x their prices anytime soon.

Again it's a hypothetical, if you bought a or b back in 1995 which one would have been the better investment.

 

[Machiavelli]

Now add in the cost of maintaining the F1. Now add in the time sink, loss of earning power it cost in distracting you from making money and needing to tend to its needs in maintain it.

Low cost S&P was around probably from early 2000's so your compounding math doesnt work out.

I don't know what all that means but try it for yourself, clearly you know how to use a historical return calculator.

https://ofdollarsanddata.com/sp500-calculator/

The First McLaren F1 To See The US Has Just Sold For Over $15 Million

World's First $20 Million McLaren F1 Is Back Up For Sale | Carscoops.

 

[invisiblewave]

I don't know what all that means but try it for yourself, clearly you know how to use a historical return calculator.

https://ofdollarsanddata.com/sp500-calculator/

The First McLaren F1 To See The US Has Just Sold For Over $15 Million

World's First $20 Million McLaren F1 Is Back Up For Sale | Carscoops.

It's not his only post-truth argument....🙄

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

It's not his only post-truth argument....🙄

Considering the number of hoaxes you believe, high praise.

 

[Matt's McLaren]

I’m gonna be honest brother, I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about half the time, but god bless.

In jest...
It is fortunate that evolution has blessed McLaren, aka "big fish" with gills...
Hope that clarifies things, at least symbolically...

Or if not, will they float, will they sink, or perhaps worse, will they be eaten by a shark?

Swim fast McLaren!

​

PS1: The McLaren P1 hybrid supercar used design tricks inspired by the sailfish.
PS2. The sailfish can swim faster than a shark

The car designer who turned a sailfish into a supercar

The sailfish can swim faster than a cheetah can run – and the secrets behind its speed inspired McLaren’s Frank Stephenson to create a new car.

www.bbc.com

 

[garett]

Now that folks with 296 experience have spoken, I’ll give you my 2 cents. McLaren should pay me royalty for saying this! 😀 I’d suggest a test drive and experience it for yourself. I’ve driven some fast cars and been a passenger in others. The 750S is the craziest car that I have ever driven! That’s about the extent of how I can describe this beast. I’m sure the hyper cars are on the next level but I’m more than completely content at this level. Be prepared to write a check if you go in for a test drive. My 750S was an impulse buy and I consider myself very disciplined financially. Fortunately my wife didn’t give me much grief after dropping well north of $400k in a single moment. She was actually very happy for me and told me that she hasn’t seen me so over joyed in a very long time!😀

I think your wife should talk to my wife. Thank you. Lol

 

[garett]

Earlier in this thread I explained my recent disdain for Porsche as the reason for such a big pivot to pick up two McLarens about a year apart - the Artura and the 750s spider. Both have a high MSO color and both are heavily optioned.

My issue with the 296 is three fold. First, I have never cared for the Ferrari pecking order to get their higher end cars, which is precisely one of the biggest reasons why I have moved on from Porsche to McLaren.

Secondly, I didn’t even consider the 296 when I bought the Artura because of the relative higher cost. Maybe I should have driven one but was so smitten with the balance, driveability and performance of the Artura that I couldn’t imagine paying a lot more for the 296. The 296 and the Artura are the real entry level competitors in that class, esp with their respective hybrid platforms. Not the 750 to the 296. To me, they in are completely different classes for comparisons sake.

Third, IMHO I just can’t get past the looks of the 296 especially from the rear. It’s too much of a corvette look from the rear to me. Once my brain saw a corvette look from the rear of the 296, I just couldn’t unsee it. To each his own…

That’s because Corvette steals Ferrari designs.

 

[Gary(SF)]

Plus it out handles the McLaren in the tight corners because it's 450 pounds lighter!

Well I know what you meant...

 

[MarkNC]

Well I know what you meant...

Thanks! Fixed it!

 

[Matt's McLaren]

Great photos. thanks for sharing

 

[Matt's McLaren]

Great photos. thanks for sharing

 

[supershaft]

I don’t think there is another overpriced, overrated brand than Porsche. And it’s all because of Porsche fan boys. Porsche can sell its fanboys a brick of shit with Porsche logo on it with ADM. Sadly the fanboys will line up to bid over the ADM just so they can hang the shit brick in their living room. 1/50 Porsche shit brick. Made of Genuine turd from Andreas Preuninger.

In all seriousness there is nothing about a Porsche that justifies its price tag. People say it’s the best daily driver. The new Aston vantage is a LOT better daily. More exotic. More exciting and way more beautiful. I really hope the fanboys will get off the bandwagon and will be open to trying a real exotic.

You should never say never but I can confidently say I will never ever have a Porsche in my garage.

I dont want to come across as rude but this sounds exactly like the bmw fanboys on bimmerpost. Granted it’s different here because we can actually afford what we want but as someone who has owned several Porsches they are certainly worth the hype but only at msrp